PROCEEDINGS
HOUSTON
JUNE 7,8,9,10,11,12, 1971
HOUSTON, TEXAS
VOLUME 1
CONFERENCE
THE MATTER OF POLLUTION OF THE
BAY AND ITS TRIBUTARIES-TEXAS.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF THE POLLUTION OF
THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF GALVESTON BAY
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES (TEXAS)
Houston, Texas
June 7-12, 1971
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
-------
i
CONTENTS^
PAGE
Opening Statement - By Murray Stein 1
STATEMENT OF:
The Honorable Bob Eckhardt,
U. S. House of Representatives 12
The Honorable Bill Archer, (Read by
U. S. House of Representatives Don Jansen.) 123
The Honorable Rex Braun,
Representative, State of Texas 125
Richard Vanderhoof 131
Malcolm Kallus 134
Thomas P. Gallagher 141
Dr. Clark Allen 372
Jerry Thornhill 37 4
Kenneth Kirkpatrick 380
Ancil Jones 383
George Putnicki 388
Dr. Clarence Tarzwell 402
Victor Casper 419
jack Rawson 433
-------
ii
CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
Opening Statement - By Murray Stein 43 6
STATEMENT OF:
Gordon Fulcher 441
Josiah Wheat 471
John Quarles, jr. 478
Hugh Yantis , Jr. 492
Dr. Dudley Johnson 50 8
Dr. Carl Oppenheimer 549
Terrance Leary 582
Dick Whittington 591
Bob Fleming 682
B/G Royal Hatch,USAF Rtd. 6 89
Sal Lamprose 711
Cecil Reid 721
Ed Falk 725
-------
iii
Conference in the Matter of Pollution of
the Navigable Waters of Galveston Bay and its Tributaries
(Texas) at the Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas, on June 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 1971.
PRESIDING:
Mr. Murray Stein
Chief Enforcement Officer
Office of Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES»
FEDERAL:
Mr. John R. Quarles, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and General Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D* C.
Mr. Richard Vanderhoof
Chief Enforcement Officer
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas
STATE OF TEXAS:
Mr. Hugh C. Yantis, Jr.
Executive Director
Texas Water Quality Board
Austin, Texas
Mr. Gordon Pulcher, Chairman
Texas Water Quality Board
Austin, Texas
-------
PARTICIPANTS:
The Honorable Bob Eckhardt
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
The Honorable Bill Archer
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
(Presented by Don Jansen)
The Honorable Rex Braun
Representative, State of Texas
Houston, Texas
Mr, Richard Vanderhoof
Chief Enforcement Officer, Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas
Mr. Malcolm Kallus
Chief, Galveston Bay Field station
Water Quality Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Houston, Texas
Mr. Thomas P. Gallagher
Director, Field Investigation
Denver Office of Enforcement
Region VIII
Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado
Dr. Clark Allen
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas
Mr. Jerry Thornhill
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas
Mr. Kenneth Kirkpatrick
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas
-------
V
PARTICIPANTS: (Continued)
Mr. Ancil Jones
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas
Mr. George Putnicki
Director, Office of Contracts and Grants for Research
Development and Demonstration
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas
Dr. Clarence M. Tarzwell, Director
National Marine Water Quality Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
W. Kingston, Rhode Island
Mr. Victor Casper
Regional Shellfish Consultant
U. S. Food and Drug Administration
Dallas, Texas
Mr. Jack Rawson
U. S. Geological Survey
Austin, Texas
Mr. Gordon Fulcher, Chairman
Texas Water Quality Board
Austin, Texas
Mr. Josiah Wheat
Attorney-at-Law
Woodville, Texas
Dr. Dudley Johnson
Director of the Marine Resources
Texas State Department of Health
Austin, Texas
Dr. Carl Oppenheimer
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of Texas
Port Aransas, Texas
-------
vi
PARTICIPANTS: (Continued)
Mr. Terrance Leary
Coordinator of Coastal Fisheries
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Austin, Texas
Mr, Dick Whittington
Texas Water Quality Board
Austin, Texas
Mr. Bob Fleming
Texas Water Quality Board
Austin, Texas
B/G Royal Hatch
Gulf Coast Water Disposal Authority
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sal B. Lamprose
Texas Water Quality Control District No. 50
Seabrook, Texas
Mr. Cecil Reid
Executive Director-
Sportman's Clubs of Texas
Austin, Texas
Mr. Ed Falk, President
Clear Creek Basin Authority
Pasadena, Texas
Dr. Walter Quebedeaux, Director
Harris County Pollution Control Department
Pasadena, Texas
Mr. James M. Quigley
Vice-President, Environmental Quality
U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc.
New York, New York
Mr. David R. Keck, Vice-President
Manufacturing Tenneco Chemicals, Inc., and
Chairman, Manufacturers Committee
Houston Chamber of Commerce
Houston, Texas
-------
vii
PARTICIPANTS: (Continued)
Mr. Joe Lagow, President
Texas Air and Water Resources Foundation
Anahuac, Texas
Mr. R. C. Sutter
Vice-President, Engineering and Construction
Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company
Cleveland, Ohio
Mr. William R. Brown
General Counsel
Houston Lighting and Power Company
2932 One Shell Plaza
Houston, Texas
Mr. Gene Simmons
Houston Lighting & Power Company
Houston, Texas
Mr. Edward T. DiCorcia, Manager
Humble Oil and Refining Company's Baytown Refinery
Baytown, Texas
Mr. C. W. Robinson, Jr.
Atlantic Richfield Company
P. 0. Box 2451
Houston, Texas
Mr. John E. Barker
Director, Environmental Engineering
Armco Steel Corporation
Houston, Texas
Mr. C. C. Hightower
Manager, Environmental Control
Southwest Region, Chemicals Group
Olin Corporation
Houston, Texas
Mr. Risdon 0. Gribble
Vice-President, Houston Mill Manager
Southland Paper Mills, Inc.
Houston, Texas
-------
viii
PARTICIPANTS: (Continued)
Mr. Robert Mattern
Technical Superintendent
Deer Park Plant, Shell Chemical Company, Deer Park, Texas
Mr. Jack Erdmann
Environmental Protection Coordinator
Union Carbide corporation
Chemicals and Plastics Plant
Texas City, Texas
Mr. Chester L. Strunk
Vice-President of Refining, Charter International
Oil Company
Houston, Texas
Mr. Ralph Spmers
Manager of Utilities
Petro-Tex Chemical Corporation
Houston, Texas
Mr. Albert T. Lee
Plant Technologist
Deer Park Plant
Lubrizol Corporation
Deer Park, Texas
Dr. A. Roy Price
Executive Assistant to the President
The Merichem Company
Houston, Texas
Mr. John B. Scott
Technical Correlation Manager
Adams Terminal Complex
Phillips Petroleum Company
Pasadena, Texas
Mr. Phil E, Brubaker
General Superintendent
Plant Services, Monsanto
Company, Texas City Plant
Texas City, Texas
-------
ix
PARTICIPANTS: (Continued)
Mr. F. M. Otto
Vice-President-Re fining
Crown Central Petroleum Corporation
Baltimore, Maryland
Dr. Kirk Strawn
Professor, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Sciences
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas
Mr. Frank Doerr, Chairman
Political Action Committee
Houston Sportsman's Club
Houston, Texas
Dr. Art Busch
Professor, Environmental Engineering
Rice University
Houston, Texas
Miss Linda Betancourt
Representative, Clear Creek
Basin Student Water Control Management Program
Clear Creek High School
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Bruce E. Bremberg
Environmental Quality Chairman
League of Women Voters-Texas
Dickinson, Texas
Mrs. James Grover
Chairman, Environmental Quality Committee
League of Women Voters-Houston
Houston, Texas
Mr. Robert Moore
Attorney-at-Law and Private Citizen
Houston, Texas
Mr. George Hagel, President
Sierra Club
Houston, Texas
-------
X
PARTICIPANTS: (Continued)
Mr. Jack Walker, President
Bayshore Rod, Reel, and Gun Club
Baytown, Texas
Mr. Robert D. Clark
Representing the Honorable A. R. Schwartz, Senator
Austin, Texas
Mr. Arthur Atkisson, President
Citizens Environmental Coalition of Southeast Texas
Houston, Texas
Mr. John Wildenthal
Vice-Chairman, Board of Directors
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
Houston, Texas
Mr. Henry Luyties, President
H < E¦P•y Inc.
La Porte, Texas
Dr. Walter A. Quebedeaux, Jr.
Director,
Harris County pollution Control Department
Pasadena, Texas
Mr. L. A. Greene, Jr.
Second Vice-President
H.E.P., Inc.
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Barbara Bunger
H .E.P . , Inc.
Channel Area Subsidiary
Seabrook, Texas
Mr. Edward Richards, Director
H.E.P., Inc.
Pasadena, Texas
Mr. Mark Hooper
University of Houston
Houston, Texas
Mr. Mark Wood
Seabrook, Texas
-------
PARTICIPANTS s
(Continued)
Mr. Victor Emmanuel, Consultant
Conservation Foundation
Washington, D. C,
Mr. James N. Smith
Director of Conservation Services
Conservation Foundation
Washington, D« C.
The Honorable Larry Sullivan
Mayor, City of Seabrook
Seabrook, Texas
Mr. Jim Regland
Regal Seafood
Seabrook, Texas
Mr. Shelby Bryan
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Hana Ginzbarg
Private Citizen
Bellaire, Texas
Mrs. Vaughn Stewart
Citizens Survival Committee
Lake Jackson, Texas
Dr. David Marrack
Bellaire, Texas
Miss Jody Duek
Secretary, The Clear Lake Sailing Club
Secretary, The Hobie Cat Hullraisers
Houston, Texas
Dr. Henry Hildebrand
Professor of Biology
University of Corpus Christi
(Representing) Texas Conservation Council
Corpus Christi, Texas
-------
PARTICIPANTS! (Continued)
Mr. Michael W. Noblet
U. H. Earthworks, Inc.
Houston, Texas
Mr. John Hall, Sr.
Weatherford, Texas
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Mr. Weldon Gamble
Chief of Construction
Operations Division
Galveston District
u. S. Corps of Engineers
Galveston, Texas
Dr. Nugent Myrick
University of Houston
Houston, Texas
-------
xiii
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
A. C. Abshier
Celanese Plastic Co.
P. 0. Box 1000
Deer Park, Texas
J. C. Acrea
Petro-Tex Chem. Corp.
8600 Park Place
Hous ton, Texas
Jack L. Adams
The Pace Co.
3700 Buffalo Spring
Houston, Texas
Robert F. Adams
Diamond Shamrock Co.
P. 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
Patrick Adell
State Health Dept.
Box 668
Rosenberg, Texas
B. M. Adkison
Bayshore Civil Group
132 Bayshore Drive
Baytown, Texas
Arthur A. Aikey
Celanes-e Plastics
P. 0. Box 1000
Deer Park, Texas
Dr. D. V. Aldrich
Texas A§M Marine Lab.
Galveston, Texas
Roland H. Allen
Texas Water Quality Board
P. 0. Box 12548
Austin, Texas
Dr. Richard Allison
Texas A§M Univ.
Box 567
LaPorte, Texas
G. W. Anderson
Widow of Zarapalt
Houston, Texas
E. DeWitt Anthony, Jr.
EPA
1402 Elm St, 3rd F1
Dallas, Texas
Calvin W. Applewhite
Project Specialists Inc.
1001 E. Southmore St, S 601
Pasadena, Texas 77502
Arthur A. Atkisson, DP A
Citizens Environment Coalition
2901 W. Dallas
Houston, Texas
David M. Bailey
Rice Univ.
6800 Main
Houston, Texas
W. Douglas Bailey
Box 3128
Houston, Texas
Robert L. Alexander
American Oil Co.
P. 0. Box 401
Texas City, Texas
Clark Allen
EPA
1402 Elm St, 3rd F1
Da 1 las, Texas
William V. Bailey, Jr.
6131 Meadowlake
Houston, Texas
Carl K. Barker
Chambers Co.
Box 670
Anahuac, Texas
-------
xiv
E. David Barker
Texas Water Quality Board
1108 Lavaca
Austin, Texas
Joseph Barolak
Rohm § Haas
Deer Park, Texas
Bruce R. Barrett
EPA
Box 1198
Ada, Oklahoma
Dx. Allen Bartel
Univ of Houston
Houston, Texas
Bill Batchelor
10130 Rassoon
Houston, Texas
Walter Bauerschlag
Brown § Root, Inc.
P. 0. Box 3
Houston, Texas
James C. Baxter
Self
5723 W. Bell fort
Houston, Texas
Dr. Geoffrey S. Bayliss
Beochem
11326 Old Katy Rd.
Houston, Texas
Charles Belaire
Texas Parks § Wildlife Dept.
Box 8
Seabrook, Texas
Frank P. Bender
Texas Water Quality Board
3801 Kirby Drive, Suite 702
Houston, Texas
Linda Betancourt
Clear Creek Student Wtr Qual Mgmt
1730 NASA 1, Suite 211
Houston, Texas
D. R. Betterton
H. L. § P.
P. 0. Box 1700
Houston, Texas
Fred W. Bishop
Southland Paper
P. 0. Drawer 149
Lufkin, Texas
Edward L. Bishop
Self
5031 Cheerd
Houston, Texas
Peter G. Blatchley
United States Steel
P. 0. Box 29
Baytown, Texas
Donald A. Blessing
Monsanto Company
P. 0. Box 711
Alvin, Texas
Dr. Randolph Blumberg
American Science § Eng. Co.
2910 Humble Bldg
Houston, Texas
H. R. Bowers
Petro-Tex Chem. Co.
P. 0. Box 2584
Houston, Texas
Rolland Bradley
Citizens Environmental Coalition
1731 Mashall
Houston, Texas
A. L. Brady
Gulf States Utilities Co.
P. 0. Box 2951
Beaumont, Texas
Sidney 0. Brady
Engineering Science/Texas
3109 Interregional
Austin, Texas
T. Blake Brantley
Program Gulf Oil Co - U. S.
P. 0. Box 701
Port Arthur, Texas
-------
XV
Representative Rex Braun
State Rep - Texas
303 Kings Court
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Bruce E. Bremberg
League of Women Voters - TX
2207 Elmgate Dr.
Houston, Texas
Joshua L. Brener
Bernard Johnson Engineers, Inc.
5050 Westheimer
Houston, Texas
R. J. Brenner
Mobil Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 3868
Beaumont, Texas
Vincent P. Bresan, III
Rohm § Hans Co
Box 672
Deer Park, Texas
Don M. Brown
Texas State Dept. of Health
Box 218
LaMarque, Texas
Edwin B. Brown
Hayes-Brown and Associates
Box 55645
Houston, Texas
Wm. R. Brown
Houston Lighting § Power
2932 One Shell Plaza
Houston, Texas
P . E. Brubaker
Monsanto
Box 1311
Texas City, Texas
J. Shelby Bryan
7 Briar Dale Court
Houston, Texas
Fred § Barbara Bunger
HEP
Box 57711
Webster, Texas
Seth C. Burnitt
Texas Water Dev. Board/TWQB
P. 0. Box 12386
Austin, Texas
John C. Burns, Jr.
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
P . 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
A. W. Bus ch
self
P. 0. Box 1892
Houston, Texas
John B. Butler
Sonics International
7101 Carpenter Freeway
Dal las , Texas
W . J . But 1er
Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co.
Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
Grady E. Campbell
EPA
P. 0. Box 1198
Ada, Oklahoma
H. Clark Carbaugh
Black Crow § Eidsness Inc.
P. 0. Box 40160
Houston, Texas
F. R. Carew, Jr.
Van Temp Distributing Co.
9219 Katy Freeway
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Virginia Carney
League of Women Voters - Baytown
Rt. 5, 19927 Rio Villa
Houston, Texas
H. H. Carro11
Houston Sportsmens Club
8315 Glenlea
Houston, Texas
J . E . Carrow
self
326 Forest Lake Drive
Seabrook, Texas
-------
xvi
Victor L. Casper
U. S. Food § Drug Admin.
3032 Bryan St .
Dallas, Texas
Mr. Caudill
Houston Post
Houston, Texas
M. L. Cezeaex
Armco Steel Corp.
P. 0. Box 1367
Houston, Texas
W. B. Chadick
Armco Steel Corp.
P. 0. Box 1367
Houston, Texas
Dr. Chia Ting Chen
Loren Scientific Co.
4327 Alconbury Lane
Houston, Texas
R. G. Chenoweth, Jr.
Union Carbide
P. 0. Box 471
Texas City, Texas
Edward A. Cheslock
Diamond Shamrock
P. 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
W. L, Bill Churchill
W. L. Churchill (oyster ind.)
3910 22nd St.
Texas City, Texas
Robert D. Clark
Senator A. R. Schwartz
Rm 129B, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas
W. G. Cooper
Monsanto Co.
1604 Oakridge Dr.
Dickinson, Texas
Jimmie C. Corona
Route 1, Box 97
Dickinson, Texas
Hendon M. Crane
EPA
1402 Elm St, 3rd F1
Dallas, Texas
James D. Crawley
self
Rt 2, Box 121
Baytown, Texas
Harold F. Cumiford
EPA
P. 0. Box 1198
Ada, Oklahoma
William Dafonte
self
Port Bolivar, Texas
Pete D'Alessandro
Rice Univ. Student
755 International Blvd, # T130
Houston, Texas
Bill Daniel
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Auth.
16915 El Camino Real
Houston , Texas
Joseph Daniel
EPA Genl Counsel's Ofc
Washington, D. C.
R. G. Daniels
Boatowner/commercial fisherman
Box 38
Dickinson, Texas
James D. Dannenbaum
Dannenbaum Engineering Corp
P. 0. Box 22292
Houston, Texas
S . R. Dauzat
self
Rt 2, Box 137A
Baytown, Texas
Gordon E. Davenport
Monsanto Co.
Box 711
Alvin, Texas
-------
XV1X
John Davenport Frank Doerr
KPRC Houston Sportsman's Club
Box 2222 Box 5063
Houston, Texas Houston, Texas
C. M. Davis, PE R. A. Duke
Self § Dale S. Cooper £ Associates Self
6114 Darby Way 839 Zoe Street
Spring, Texas Houston, Texas
E. M. Davis
Self
Univ of Texas, School of Public Health
P. 0. Box 20186
Astrodome Station, Houston
Greg Dumas
KTRK-TV
P. 0. Box 13
Houston, Texas
Herman L. Davis
Arco Chemical Co.
Box 777
Channelvievt, Texas
Hubert 0. Davis, Jr.
Houston Audubon Society
P. 0. Box 5 7 492
Webster, Texas
Jack Davis
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
16915 El Camino Real
Houston, Texas
Ed Dedeke
Texas State Health Dept.
1727 Main St, Apt 3
LaMarque, Texas
Tom L. Duoto
Houston Lighting $ Power Co.
1226*s Nicholson
Houston, Texas
Richard Duty
EPA
P. 0. Box 1198
Ada, Oklahoma
N . E. Dyer, Ph.D.
EPA
1402 Elm St, 3rd F1
Dallas, TX
Mike Eastland
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Auth.
16915 El Camino Real, #109
Houston, Texas
John S. Delm
Self
813 Bay St, N.
Houston, Texas
Mrs. L. N. Dexter
Texas Conservation Council
11909 Knipperood Lane
Houston, Texas
Edward T. DiCorcia
Humble Oil § Refining Co.
Baytown, Texas
L. A. Dirnberger
E. I. DuPont
Houston Plant
LaPorte, Texas
E. D. Eike
Upjohn Co.
Box 685
LaPorte, Texas
Paul P. Ello
Begelow Liptak
1230 Hahl
Houston, Texas
Doctor L. Emanuel
Friends of the Earth
5403 Ashby
Houston, Texas
Mrs. A. V. Emmett
Texas Conservation Council
730 E. Friar Tuck
Houston, Texas
-------
xviii
Roy Ennes
Fisherman
Route 1 , Box 103-E
Dickinson, Texas
J. F. Erdmann
Union Carbide Corp.
P. 0. Box 4 71
Texas City, Texas
W. H. Espey, Jr.
TRACOR
6500 Tracor L.
Austin, Texas
Edward Falk
Clear Creek Basin Auth.
209 W. Shaw
Pasadena, Texas
Philip J. Farre11
Black Crows' Eidsness, Inc.
P. 0. Box 40160
Houston, Texas
B. R. Farris
Diamond Shamrock
P. 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
Jene Farris
Texas Water Quality Board
1108 Lavaca
Austin, Texas
Larry B. Feldcamp
Baker § Botts
One She 11 Plaza
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Alan Ferguson
Bay Area League of Women Voters
1907 Silver Bank Court
Nassau Bay, Texas
Kenneth J. Fletcher
Hercules Inc.
P. 0. Box 40160
Houston, Texas
Warren Fletcher
KUHF (Newsman)
3801 Cullen Blvd
Houston, Texas
C. M. Floyd
Brownwood Civic Association
176 Bayshore Drive
Baytown, Texas
F. L. Folirrier
SIP Inc.
P. 0. Box 26266
Houston, Texas
R. F. Ford, Jr.
EG§G, Inc .
Box 36830
Houston, Texas
Tom C. Ford
Mons anto
800 N. Lindbergh
St. Louis , MO
Dwayne Forque
Commercial Fisherman
Rt 1, Box 114-H
Dickinson, Texas
John C. Foshee
General Land Office of Texas
P. 0. Box 12246
Austin, Texas
Alfred L. Fox
Process Plants Engineering, Inc.
P. 0. Box 2 5166
Houston, Texas
Larry J. Freeman
Shirco, Inc
204 Proctor Street
Dallas, Texas
Harry Friedman
Oyster Lease owner
1901 Todville Road
Seabrook, Texas
J. W. Friesell
Petro-Tex Chemical
P. 0. Bex 2584
Houston, Texas
James Friloux
EPA - LMRBO
2695 N. Sherwood Forest Dr
Baton Rouge, LA
-------
xix
Rabey J. Funk
Subsurface Disposal Corp.
1221 Bk of Southwest Bldg
Houston, Texas
W. A. Gabig
Shell Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 2633
Deer Park, Texas
Robert K. Gabrysch
U. S. Geological Survey
2320 LaBranch
Houston, Texas
Thomas P. Gallagher
EPA
Bldg 22, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado
Jack T. Garrett
Monsanto Co.
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd
St. Louis, MO
Charles A. Gazda
EPA
2695 N. Sherwood Forest Dr
Baton Rouge, LA
D. E . Gensheimer
GAF Corporation
Box 2141
Texas City, Texas
Frederick W. Gerdes
Petro-Tex Chemicals
8600 Park Place
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Arthur Ginzbarg
Bayou Preservation Association
4520 Eleondy
Bellaire, Texas
D. E. Glass
Shell Oil
50 W. 50th Street
New York City, NY
L. E. Glass
Star Rt, Box 183
Anahuac, Texas
William A. Goldsmith
EPA
1402 Elm St, 3rd F1
Dallas, TX
Allen H. Gollatt
Matagorda Fish Oyster, Inc
Matagorda, Texas
Mrs. Patsy Goss
San Jacinto River Citizens Ass'n
Rt 5, 19423 Rio Villa
Houston, Texas
John T. Graham
Humble Oil § Refining Co.
Baytown Refinery
Baytown, Texas
R. L. Grandy
Enjay Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 4004
Baytown, Texas
Joe Grasso, Jr.
Joe Grasso § Son, Inc.
Box 1018
Galveston, Texas
Bruce Greek
Chemical § Eng. News
514 Main Bldg
Houston, Texas
L. A. Greene, Jr.
HEP, Inc.
2421 Bank of the Southwest Bldg
Houston, Texas
R. 0. Gribble
Southland Paper Mills, Inc.
P. 0. Box 23011
Houston, Texas
T. Ed. Griffith
South Texas Section - AIChE.
P. 0. Box 1404
Houston, Texas
T. J. Grimsrud
Petro-Tex Chemical
Box 2584
Houston, Texas
-------
XX
Bill Gross
Texas Water Quality Board
123 S. 2nd
LaPorte, Texas
Mrs. James Grover
League of Women Voters of Houston
3746 Sunset Blvd.
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Thomas G. Haggenmaker, Jr.
City of Nassau Bay
2006 Port Royal Drive
Houston, Texas
Anthony W. Hall, Jr.
Ass't to Co. Commissioner, Prec. 2
1115 Congress Family Law Center
Houston, Texas
Charles E. Hal1
University of Texas
3807 Avenue R.
Galveston, Texas
J ohn A. Hall, Si*.
Self
Houston, Texas
Richard D. Hall
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
P. 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
Wi1li am E. Hall
Sinclair - Koppers Co.
P. 0. Box 12188
Houston, Texas
George Wi Hanks
Monsanto Chemical
Texas City, Texas
Roy W. Hann, Jr.
Texas A§M Univ
C.E. Dept
College Station, Texas
Thomas L. Harder
Atlantic-Richfield Co.
P. 0. Box 2451
Houston, Texas
Ed Harris
Texas A§M
Box 567
LaPorte, Texas
James P. Harvey
Olive
P. 0. Box 552
Pasadena, Texas
Ray Haws
Bernard Johnson, Inc.
5050 Westheimer
Houston, Texas
Dr. Charles H. Hayes
self
2400 West Loop, South, Suite 216
Houston, Texas
G. W. Head
Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
Jere R. Hebert
Texas State Dept. of Health
Box 218
LaMarque , Texas
David T. Hedges, Jr.
Vinson, Elkins, Searls, Smith
1st City Nat'l Bank Bldg
Houston, Texas
Martin C. Heisele
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
P.O. Box 9637
Houston, Texas
Joe M. He Is er, Jr.
self
1724 Kipling St.
Houston, Texas
J. L. Henderson
43 Plywood - Champion Papers
P. 0. Box 872
Pasadena, Texas
E. R. Hendrick
Monsanto Co.
Box 1311
Texas City, Texas
-------
xxi
Stuart N. Henry
Citizens Environmental Coalition
2901 W. Dallas
Houston, Texas
H. F. Herbert
Self
621 C§I Blvd
Houston, Texas
M. C. Herring
Jefferson Chemical Co., Inc.
P. 0. Box 53300
Houston, Texas
C. E. Herzfeld
Hughes Tool Co.
P. 0. Box 25 39
Houston, Texas
C. E. Hi ghtower
Olin Corp.
P. 0. Box 2896
Lake Charles , LA
Dr. Henry Hildebrant
Texas Conservation Council
Corpus Christi, Texas
L. G. Hi 1 lman , Sr.
Boat Operator
P. 0. Box 5515
San Leon, Texas
T. L. Hillman
Hillman's Seafood Cafe, Inc
Rt 1, Box 108
Dickinson, Texas
Fred C. Himes
Monsanto Co.
P. 0. Box 711
Alvin, Texas
Lee Holley
News Citizen
423 S. Highway
Houston, Texas
Mark W. Hooper
University of Houston
5800 Gulfton, #17
Houston, Texas
Gerald E. Hopkins
Univ of Houston, College of Law
Houston, Texas
Gerald E. Hord
City of Houston
1115 N. MacGregor
Houston, Texas
Larry D. Hornbeck
Milts Seafood
P. 0. Box 191, Port Bolivar
Galveston, Texas
Victor N. Howard
Houston Health Dept.
1115 N. MacGregor
Houston, Texas
Patrick A. Hudson
EPA
1402 Elm St, 3rd F1
Dallas, TX
Jana Hughey
Texas Water Quality Board
223 E . X
Deer Park, Texas
George Hugo
Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.
1803 Houston Club Bldg
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Donald Hul1
property owner
530 Baywood
Seabrook, Texas
J. V. Huntington
University of Houston
2716 Carrolton
Houston, Texas
W. S. Hutton
Monsanto Co.
Box 1311
Texas City, Texas
William C. Hutton
Black Crow § Eidsness, Inc.
P. 0. Box 40160
Houston, Texas
-------
xxii
Edward R. Ibert
City of Pasadena, Texas
20 8 W. Shaw
Pasadena, Texas
George Ives
Culberson, Heller S St. Gil, Inc.
2338 Bissonnet
Houston, Texas
Gaines B. Jackson
City of Houston Health Dept.
472Clay St, #2
Houston, Texas
Don Jansen
Congressman Bill Archer
2522 Pomeran
Houston, Texas
Clarence E. Johnson
Texas Water Quality Board
123 "S . 2nd
LaPorte, Texas
David R. Johnson
Eastex, Inc
5555 Oleander
Beaumont, Texas
Dudley J. Johnson
Texas State Dept. of Health
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin, Texas
H. 0. Johnson, Jr.
H. O's Seafood
Box 1052
Crystal Beach, Texas
Joe W. Johnson
City of Houston
101 City Hall
Houston, Texas
Joseph C. Johnson
Continental Oil Co.
P. 0. Box 2197
Houston, Texas
Don D. Jordan
Houston Lighting § Power
P. 0. Box 1700, 611 Walker St
Houston, Texas
Malcolm F. Kallus
EPA
3801 Kirby Dr, Suite 738
Houston, Texas
David R. Keck
Manufacturers Comm, Houston CoComn;
P. 0. Box 849
Pasadena, Texas
Mrs. Philip Keever
League of Women Voters of Houston
5534 Cheena
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Harris Kempmer, Jr.
Jr. League of Galveston
2653 Guol Dr.
Galveston, Texas
'Bill Kidd
Texas Pollution Report
Press Room #2 (205), State Capitol
Austin, Texas
Edwin L. Kirkpatrick
Att orney
1223 Commerce Bldg
Houston, Texas
Jeffrey S. Kirkpatrick
Texas Water Quality Board
123 S. 2nd
LaPorte, Texas
Kenton Kirkpatrick
EPA
1402 Elm St, 3rd F1
Dallas, Texas
Charles E. Koehler
Help Eliminate Pollution (HEP)
P. 0. Box 661
LaPorte, Texas'
M. F. Krib
Goodyear Tire § Rubber Co.
P. 0. Box 5397
Houston, Texas
Joe Lagow
Texas Air § Water Resources Found-
Anahuac, Texas
-------
xxiii
J . D. Laman
Dow Chemical
Freeport, Texas
S. L. Lamprose
Harris Co. WCID #50
1122 Cedar Lane
Seabrook, Texas
R. F. LaRovere
Shell Chemical Co.
One Shell Plaza, Rm 1825
Houston, Texas
David R. Latchford
Mobil Oil Corp.
223 Austin National Bank Bldg
Houston, Texas
John Latchford
Texas Water Quality Board
123 South 2nd St
LaPorte, Texas
Richard W. Law
General Delivery
Kemah, Texas
R. P. Leach
Port of Houston Auth.
P. 0. Box 2562
Houston, Texas
Terrance R. Leary
Texas Parks § Wildlife Dept.
Reagan State Office Bldg
Austin, Texas
Albert T. Lee
Lubrizol Corp.
Box 158
Deer Park, Texas
R. E. Lee
McGraw-Hill Publications
2270 Humble Bldg
Houston, Texas
J. V. Leeds
Rice University
Box 941
Houston, Texas
W. H. Leo
Armco Steel Corp.
P. 0. Box 723
Houston, Texas
William L. Lewis
Humble Oil § Refining Co.
P. 0. Box 2180
Houston, Texas
Vince Lipovsky
self
210 Sleepy Hollow
Seabrook, Texas
T . K. Logan
143 Whipple Drive
Bellaire, Texas
R. M. Love
Enjay Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 4004
Baytown, Texas
Ralph L. Lowe
Friendswood Councilman
Box 226
Friendswood, Texas
Harold L. Loyd
Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc.
P. 0. Box 13089
Houston, Texas
W. D. Luening
Arco Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 777
Channelview, Texas
C. T. Luke
Prairie View A§M College
Box 885
Hempstead, Texas
Henry E. G. Luyties
HEP, Inc.
P . 0. Box 661
LaPorte, Texas
Patricia L. Luyties
HEP, Inc.
P. 0. Box 661
LaPorte, Texas
-------
xxiv
Mrs. John 0. Maddox
Chairman, Air § Water Pol'n Abatement
Committee, South of Buffalo Bayou
P. 0. Box 5353
Houston, Texas
R, W. Maeser, Jr.
Ethyl Corp.
P. 0. Box 472
Pasadena, Texas
Robert B. Mahley
Attorney
2908 Colonial Drive
Dickinson, Texas
Russell C. Mallatt
Standard Oil Co. (Ind.)
910 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111.
D. Marrack
self
420 Mulberry Lane
Be 11aire, Texas
Willie Martens
Lubrizol Corp.
Box 15 8
Deer Park, Texas
Ralph Martz
Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co.
Deer Park, Texas
Austin J. Mary
Gulf States Utilities Co.
P. 0. Box 2955
Beaumont, Texas
Leonard M, Mason
Box 184
Newgulf, Texas
M. A. Massa
Gulf Fisheries, Inc.
Pier 21
Galveston, Texas
Carl E. Masterson
Texas Water Quality Board
123 S. 2nd
LaPorte, Texas
Charles Matlock
San Jacinto TBSRD Association
2701 West Dallas
Houston, Texas
M. A, Matovich
Shell Chemical Co.
P . 0. Box 2633
Deer Park, Texas
Jack V. Matson
S§B Engr.
Box 26245
Houston , Texas
Robert Mattern
Shell Chemical Co.
P . 0. Box 26333
Deer Park , Texas
R. H. Maurer
Celanese Chemical Company
Box 9077
Corpus Christi, Texas
Jack B. Mazow, M. D.
Self
1503 Medical Towers Bldg
Houston, Texas
W. R. McAlister
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Auth.
P. 0. Box 296
Anahuac, Texas
Rex G. McDommell, Jr.
Monsanto Co.
P. 0. Box 1311
Texas City, Texas
Bill V. McFarland
EPA
1114 Commerce
Dallas, Texas
E. D. McGehee
Corps of Engineers, Galveston Dis
Galveston, Texas
L. P. McGinnes
McGinnes Indus. Maint. Corp
5619 Griggs Rd
Houston, Texas
-------
XXV
Virgil C. McGinnes
McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corp.
5619 Griggs Rd.
Houston, Texas
J. H. Mclver
Dow Chemical Co.
Bldg B-1226
Freeport, Texas
John C. McKinley
Shrimping Business
309 Dale
Houston, Texas
Craig L. McNeese
Houston Lighting § Power
P. 0. Box 1700
Houston, Texas
G. N. McNeir
Texas Bay § Gulf Fishermen's Ass'n.
101 21st, P. 0. Box 281
Galveston, Texas
A. L. (Lee) Megarity
Crown Central Petro. Corp.
P. 0. Box 1759
Houston, Texas
J . D. Mengden
DuPont
P. 0. Box 347
LaPorte, Texas
H. H. Meredith
Humble Oil § Ref. Co.
P. 0. Box 2180
Houston, Texas
G. B. Meriwether
Friendswood Development Co.
1000 Bay Area Blvd
Houston, Texas
A. E. Metzler
EPA
Bldg 22, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado
Wm. R. Miles
Charter Inter. Oil Co.
Box 5008
Houston, Texas
Mrs. J. 0. Miller
self
Box 57711
Webster, Texas
James D. Miller
Diamond Shamrock
Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
R. Lee Miller
Diamond Shamrock
P. 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
M. D . Milner
EPA
3801 Kirby Dr, Suite 738
Houston, Texas
Robert E. Mireles
The Pace Company
3700 Buffalo Speedway
Houston, Texas
R. G. Montgomery
The Pace Company
3700 Buffalo Speedway
Houston, Texas
Donald Moore
National Marine Fisheries Service
4700 Avenue U
Galveston, Texas
Frank V. Moore, Jr.
American Oil Co.
P. 0. Box 401
Texas City, Texas
Ri chard E. Moore
Shrimpers Association
Rt 1, Box 77M
Dickinson, Texas
Robert M. Moore
Sierra Club
12th Floor, State National Bldg
Houston, Texas
Jay E. Morgan
Continental Oil Co.
Box 2197
Houston, Texas
-------
xxvi
Mike Morris
self
P. 0. Box 5477
San Leon, Texas
Willie H. Morrison, Jr.
E. I. duP ont
P. 0. Box 347
LaPorte, Texas
Antoin L. Muecke
Mueeke ' s
702 Todville Rd
Seabrook, Texas
Mr. & Mrs. L. A. Muecke
Muecke's Seafoods
203 N. Conrad
Houston, Texas
Marilyn Musglieuc
Bay Area League of Women Voters
18326 Carriage Lane
Houston, Texas
Dr. H. Nugent Myrick
Texas Water Quality Board
2123 Winrock Blvd.
Houston, Texas
M. A. Nations
Texas Water Quality Board
3801 Kirby Drive, Suite 702
Houston, Texas
Ross Nebolsine
Hydrotechnic Corp.
641 Lexington Ave.
New York City, NY
Harold L. Neely
Clear Lake City Water Authority
900 Bay Area Blvd
Houston, Texas
Ben H. Nelson
Jeri's Seafood, Inc.
Rt 2 , Box 85AA
Anahuac, Texas
Joe Nelson
Self
Rt 2, Box 84A
Anahuac, Texas
J. D. Nixon
Lower Neches Valley Auth.
Box 3007
Beaumont, Texas
Michael W. Noblet
U. H. Earthworks, Inc.
P. 0. Box 14478
Houston, Texas
Dean R. Norris
NASA/MSC Earth Observations Div*
Houston , Texas
Mrs. Warren J. North
Self
134 Imperial Drive, Box 558
Friendswood, Texas
Charles W. Northington
EPA
1114 Commerce Street
Dal 1 as, Texas
Vicent C. O'Brien
Attorney
738 Bankers Mtg Bldg
Houston, Texas
Daniel E. 0'Connell
Attorney
730 Bankers Mortgage Bldg
Houston, Texas
Andrew C* Olive < . n
Citizens' Environmental Coali*1
6518 Fairway, Apt 4
Houston, Texas
Carl H. Oppenheimer
Professor of Oceanography
University of Texas
Port Aransas, Texas
John M. Orr
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Auth.
800 Bank of Southwest Bldg
Houston, Texas
Wanda Orten
Baytown Sun
Box 90
Baytown, Texas
-------
xxvii
Alvin A. Otter
L. A. Otter & Son Seafood
Box 915
Anahuac, Texas
Frederick M. Otto
Crown Central Petroleum
Box 1759
Pasadena, Texas
Morris O'Tyson
Dixie Chemical Co.
10345 Chemical Rd
Houston, Texas
Robert Wayne Owen
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
P. 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
Mrs. Charles I. Pack
HEP
1406 Cedarwood
Pasadena, Texas
S . S . P ai s t
Rohm and Haas
Philadelphia, PA
Mrs. Patricia Sue Parker
Muecke's Seafood Co.
Ill McCarthy Lane
LaPorte, Texas
Molly M. Parkerson
City of Houston, Parks § Recreation
2020 Hermann Drive
Houston, Texas
Don L. Payne
Texas Water Quality Board
3801 Kirby Dr, Suite 702
Houston, Texas
Roy D. Payne
State Railroad Commission
Ernest 0. Thompson Bldg.
Austin, Texas
Samuel H. Peak
Commercial Fishers § Processors
905 Todvilie Rd., P. 0. Box 567
Seabrook, Texas
Alvin Pennington
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Auth.
800 Bank of SW Building
Houston, Texas
David N. Peters
EPA
1402 Elm St, 3rd F1
Dallas, TX 75202
Paul A. Philbin
Spring Meadows MUD
2000 West Loop South
Houston, Texas
Cecil Phillips
Enjay Chemical Co.
82 30 Stedman St.
Houston, Texas
Jim Pittman
Teledyne Analytical Inst.
6001 Gulf Freeway
Houston, Texas
C. J. Poirier
Galveston County Commissioner1 s Ct.
104 - 4th St, South
Texas City, Texas
J. D. Powers
Petro-Tex Chemical Corp
P. 0. Box 2584
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Leland Powers
• League of Women Voters - Gulf Cst.
14626 Kellywood Drive
Houston, Texas
Robert R. Powers
U. S. Coast Guard
General Delivery
Galveston, Texas
Jack B. Prentiss
Central Power § Light Co.
Box 2121
Corpus Christi, Texas
Dr. A. Roy Price
Merichem Co.
P. 0. Box 61529
Houston, Texas
-------
xxviii
B. H. Pringle
EPA
135 Juniper Drive
Wickford, R. I. 02852
Bob Pauessner
Petro-Tex Chemical
P. 0. Box 2584
Houston, Texas
Wilma Pryblek
Chemical Engineering
2270 Humble Bldg.
Houston, Texas
George J. Putnicki
EPA
1512 Commerce
Dal1 as, Texas
D. Robert Quartel, Jr.
NSF-SOS Project, Rice Univ.
Biology Dept, % Dr. B.R. Hammond
Rice University
Dr. W. A. Quebedeaux, Jr.
Harris Co. Pollution Control Dept.
107 N. Munger, Box 6031
Pasadena, Texas
Robert H. Raiford
Office of the Governor
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas
Robb Y. Rankin
Atlantic Richfield Co.
P. 0. Box 2451
Houston, Texas
Jack Rawson
U. S. Geological Survey
Federal Office Building
Austin, Texas
Sammy M. Ray
Marine Laboratory
Bldg 311, FoTt Crockett
Galveston, Texas
F. A. Rayner
H. P. Water Dist.
1628 15th Street
Lubbock, Texas
Paul Recer
Associated Press
1730 NASA Rd
Houston, Texas
Robert A. Reeves
EPA
Kerr Water Research Center
Ada, Oklahoma
Jim Reglen
Regal Seafood
Seabrook, Texas
Cecil Reid
Sportsmen's Clubs of Texas
311 Vaughn Bldg .
Austin, Texas
Ronnie Reid
Commercial Fisherman
Rt 1, Box 205
Dickinson, Texas
Rollin D. Reimer
Texas ASM University
Bacliff, Texas
Gordon J. Reno
Shell Oil Co.
Deer Park, Texas
Edward P. Richards
HEP
1608 Marlock
Pasadena, Texas
Joy Richards
Daily Sun
Texas City, Texas
C. H. Rivers
Shell Chemical
P. 0. Box 2633
Deer Park, Texas
George Roberts
George Mitchell § Associates
Suite 3900, Shell One Plaza
Houston, Texas
-------
xxix
C. W. Robinson, Jr.
Atlantic Richfield Co.
P. 0, Box 2451
Houston, Texas
James A. Robinson
Crown Central Petroleum Corp
P. 0. Box 1759
Houston, Texas
Daivd G. Rodriguiez
Self
12000 Lawndale
Houston, Texas
Jerry R. Rogers
University of Houston
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Houston, Texas 77004
James T. Russell
Attorney
3417 Milam St
Houston, Texas
S. A. Russell, Jr.
S. A. Russell and Associates
1018 Frost St.
Rosenberg, Texas
Richard Ryan
The Upjohn Company
P. 0. Box 685
LaPorte, Texas
David A. Sadler
Sinclair Koppers
9822 LaPorte Freeway
Houston, Texas
R. D. Sadow
Monsanto Company
P. 0. Box 1311
Texas City, Texas
W. C. Sanders
Liberty Chamber of Commerce
P. 0. Box 1270
Liberty, Texas 77575
Fred Santogross
233 E. 69th, 3-G
New York City, N. Y.
Douglas Sayre
U. S. Geological Survey
2320 LaBranch, Rm 174
Houston, Texas
Dacoby Scher
Turner, Collie § Braden, Inc.
Box 13089
Houston, Texas
C. R. Schmalhausen
Texaco Inc.
Box 430
Bellaire, Texas
H. L. Scott
Rolling Purle
P. 0. Box 609
Deer Park , Texas
J. B. Scott
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Box 792
Pasadena, Texas
John L. Seymour
High Plains Underground Wtr Consv Dist1
1628 15th Street
Lubbock, Texas
David Clarke Shannon
Galveston Bay Protective Ass'n.
3656 Over Brook
Houston, Texas
Joseph R. Shannon
Galveston Bay Protective Ass'n
3656 Over Brook
Houston, Texas
Charles C. Shaver, Jr.
Petro-Tex Chemical Corp
P. 0. Box 2584
Houston, Texas 77001
G. L. Shepard
147 Parker Rd
Houston, Texas
Dan Sherwood
EPA
1402 Elm St, 3rd F1
Dallas, Texas
-------
Hugh G. Shockey
Chemola Corporation
8502 Glen Vista
Houston, Texas
Bat Shunatona, Jr.
EPA
P. 0. Box 1198
Ada, Oklahoma
Frank J. S i1va
EPA
Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree St, NE
Atlanta, Georgia
D. E. S immons
HL$P Co.
P. 0. Box 1700
Houst on, Texas
J ohn P. S imps on
Houston Lighting § Power Co.
3219 Ripplebrook
Houston, Texas
E. F. S impt on
Texas Bay Fisherman's Ass'n,
3519 - Ave Oh
Galveston, Texas
M. L. Skelton
Atlantic Richfield Co.
P. 0. Box 1346
Hous ton, Texas
W. M. Skinner
Gulf Oil Corp
P. 0. Box 509
Baytown, Texas
Harry Sloat
All Coasts Marine Sales
8825 Burkhart
Houston, Texas
A. G. Smith
Shell Oil Co.
Box 100
Deer Park, Texas
Carl S. Smith
Shell Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 2633
Deer Park, Texas
XXX
Clifton W. Smith
County Judge Bill Elliott
1115 Congress St
Houston, Texas
Dee Smith
Houston Sportsmen Club
66 31 Myrtle
Houston, Texas
Harry Alvin Smith
Shrimp Fishermen
Box 118, Route 1
Dickinson, Texas
James N. Smith
Conservation Foundation
1717 Mass. Avenue
Washington, D. C.
Jerry R. Smith
Houston Audoubon Society
2225 Mimose Lane, #5
Houston, Texas
Nelson Smith
Texas Water Quality Board
Austin, Texas
Patricia Hillman Smith
Shrimp Fishermen
Rt 1, Box 118
Dickinson, Texas
Perry A. Smith
Humble Oil § Refining Co.
Baytown, Texas
Robert E. Smith
U. S. Geological Survey
2320 La Branch
Houston, Texas
W . M. Smith
Rohm § Haas Co.
Box 672
Deer Park, Texas 77536
James G. Snodgrass, Jr.
Texaco Inc.
1111 Rusk
Houston, Texas
-------
xxxi
Ralph W. Somers
Petro-Tex Chemical
P. 0. Box 2584
Houston, Texas
Corp
Coy U. Spawn, Jr.
733 Bankers Mortgage
Houston, Texas
Bldg
Glenn W. Spencer
Manned Spacecraft Center (NASA)
Manned Spacecraft Center/JN5
Houston, Texas
Glenn A. Stankis
Esso Research § Eng. Co.
717 Grantham
Baytown, Texas
Robert L. Stearns
DuPont
P. 0. Box 347
LaPorte, Texas
James G. Stephenson
Rollins-Purle , Inc
4101 San Jacinto, Rm 209
Houston, Texas
Mrs. Sharron L. Stewart
Citizens Survival Comm.
328 Redwood
Lake Jackson, Texas
Vaughan 0. Stewart
P. 0. Drawer W.
Angleton, Texas
Frank 0. Stivers
Humble Pipe Line Co.
P. 0. Box 2220
Houston, Texas
Eddie C. Stopple
Fisherman
5108 Li Hi an St.
Houston, Texas
R. H. Stork
Diamond Shamrock Chemical
Deer Park, Texas
Harold J. Stransky
DuPont
P.O. Box 347
LaPorte, Texas
John R. Strausser
Gulf Oil Chemicals
Box 509
Baytown, Texas
Co
Kirk Strawn
Department of Wildlife § Fisheries
Texas ASM University
College Station, Texas
C. L. Strunk
Charter Int'1
P. 0. Box 5008
Houston, Texas
M. C. Sullender
Diamond Shamrock Chemicals
P. 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
R. C. Sutter
Diamond Shamrock Corp
30Q Union Commerce Bldg.
Cleveland, Ohio
Tedrow R. Swaim, Jr.
self
1904 Ivie Lee
Baytown, Texas
J. S. Talbot
Brazos Oil § Gas Div. of Dow
3636 Richmond Avenue
Houston, Texas
Clarence M. Tarzwell
EPA
P. 0. 277
West Kingaten, R. I.
Glenn E. Taylor
Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
Robert A. Taylor
Texas Railroad Commission
985 MgM Bldg
Houston, Texas
-------
xxxii
W. R. Taylor
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
300 Union Commerce Bldg
Cleveland, Ohio
Joe P. Teller
Texas Water Quality Board
1108 Lavaca St.
Austin, Texas
H. A. Tenney
Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems Inc.
5603 South Rice Ave.
Houston , Texas
D. L. Teter
Rollins-Purle, Inc.
Box 609
Deer Park, Texas
Joe L. Thomas
Joe E. Matthews
1120 - 500 Jefferson Bldg.
Houston, Texas
Ronald J. Thompson
Armco Steel Corp.
509 Lylburn
Middletown, Ohio
Stanley W. Thompson
Texas State Dept. of Health
Box 668
Rosenberg, Texas
W. W. Thurmond
American Cyanamid Co.
Rm 307, Fannin Bank Bldg
Houston, Texas
George Tillson
Texas Water Quality Board
1108 Lavaca
Austin, Texas
John E. Tilton
Texas Electric Service Co.
P. 0. Box 970
Ft. Worth, Texas
Ray Torgerson
Shell Chemical Co.
(no address given)
Neil B. Travis
Texas State Dept. of Health
1100 West 49th
Austin, Texas
Pete Trevilion
Houston Sportsman
1805 McDaniel
Houston, Texas
L. D. Tschopp
Petro-Tex Chemical Corp.
P. 0. Box 2584
Houston, Texas
Nat D. Turner
Turner, Collie § Braden
Houston, Texas
Don Vacker
Gulf Coast. Waste Disposal Auth.
16919 El Camino Real
Houston, Texas
Ray Verducci
Sinclair-Koppers Chem.
9822 LaPorte Freeway
Houston, Texas
A. William Veselka
Federal Power Commission
819 Taylor
Fort Worth, Texas
W. A. Voelkle
Earth Awareness Foundation
1730 NASA 1
Houston, Texas
Jen Von Ert
Humble Oil § Refining Co.
Humble Bldg.
Houston, Texas
Bill J. Waddle
Texas Water Conservation Ass'n
202 San Jacinto Bldg
Austin, Texas
Emery J, Waite
Emery's Seafood
109 11th Street
Seabrook, Texas
-------
xxxiii
Jack E. Walker
Bayshore Rod, Reel § Gun Club
4223 Minnesota
Baytown , Texas
J immy E. Wa11e rs
Clear Creek H. S. Pollution Study
15419 Wondering Trail
Friendswood, Texas
G. R. Walton, Jr.
Rohm § Haas
P. 0. Box 672
Deer Park, Texas
C. H. Ward
Rice University
Houston, Texas
W. Washburn
Pernie Bailey Drilling Co.
2309 Sage Road
Houston, Texas
R. A. Webb
Houston Lighting § Power
3000 One Shell Plaza
Houston, Texas
John C. Weber
Texas Parks £ Wildlife
Box 8
Seabrook, Texas
R. V. Weil
Atlantic Richfield Co.
875 N. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111 60611
Emmett H. Weinberg
Texas Seafood Inst
2 704 Austin St.
Houston, Texas
Louis C. Weiss
Food § Drug Admin.
3032 Bryan
Dallas, Texas
Jack Westney
Houston Chamber of Commerce
914 Main St
Houston, Texas
Josiah Wheat
National Water Commission
P . 0. Box 156
Woodville, Texas
Dr. Victor S. Whitehead
NASA, Earth Observations Div
NASA/TF2
Houston, Texas
David M. Whitney
Shell Chemical
P. 0. Box 26 33
Deer Park, Texas
Dick Whittington
Texas Water Quality Board
1108 Lavaca
Austin, Texas
R. V. Whitty, Jr.
Calgon Corporation
3925 - D Dacoma
Houston, Texas
Richard J. Wieland
NASA
Houston, Texas
Richard C. Wigger
U. S. Plywood - Champion Papers Inc.
Hamilton, Ohio
Robert P. Williams
Monsanto Co.
P. 0. Box 1311
Texas City, Texas
Tom G. Winterton
Gulf Oil - Chemicals Co
P. 0. Box 509
Baytown, Texas
Richard Withers
Texas ASM University
Box 567
LaPorte, Texas
W. K. Witherspoon
Petro-Tex Chemical Corp
P. 0. Box 2584
Houston, Texas
-------
xxxiv
Edna D. Wood
E. Wood Laboratories
P. 0. Box 14171
Houston, Texas
Clint Woodside
Pollution Control Ass'n
Sterling Bldg, Texas § Hannin
Houston, Texas
Bill Word
University of Houston
Houston, Texas
Marvin Woskow
Petro-Tex Chemical
P. 0. Box 2584
Houston, Texas
W. W. Wright
Shell Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 26 33
Deer Park, Texas
Travis G. Wunderlich
Diamond Shamrock Chem.
Box 500
Deer Park, Texas
Alexander Steve Wukman
Coastal Environmental § Engr. Service
P. 0. Box 305
Bellaire, Texas
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr.
Texas Water Quality Board
1108 Lavaca St.
Austin, Texas
-------
1
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The conference is open.
This conference in the matter of pollution
of the navigable waters of Galveston Bay and its
tributaries, involving the State of Texas and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency is being
held under the provisions of Section 10 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
Under the provisions of the Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
is authorized to call a conference of this type when
he finds that substantial economic injury results
from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish
products in interstate commerce because of pollution
subject to abatement under the Federal Act, and action
of Federal, State, or local authorities.
The purpose of the conference is to bring
together the State water pollution control agency,
representatives of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and other interested parties to review the
existing situation and the progress which has been
made, to lay a basis for future action by all parties
-------
2
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
concerned, and to give the State, localities, and
industries an opportunity to take any indicated
remedial action under State and local law.
And I would like to emphasize what I
have just said and go over that because, since
arriving in Houston last night, there were some
indications that this may not be thoroughly understood.
It should be recognized that a lot of
people were working on this pollution problem, or
the quality of the water problem in Texas, and
particularly in the Houston Ship Channel long before
the Federal Government decided to hold the conference.
When we say we are going to review the
existing situation and the progress which has been
made, we mean just that.
We also are going to try to arrive -- by
the conference technique which has worked successfully
in the past — at a fairly clear statement of facts
because I don't think we can all move forward unless
we have a reasonable agreement on the facts by almost
all the parties concerned.
Therefore, I would ask anyone to withhold
-------
3
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
judgment. I certainly will. I am approaching this
with an open mind.
I ask you to withhold judgment on what the
factual situation isr what has or has not been done,
until we have an opportunity to have heard all the
interested parties who believe they have something to
contribute.
I think by this technique you will discover
that we will be able to get at an agreed-upon statement
of facts much more readily than if you take any
individual report or any statement just by itself.
We have to look at the whole picture and
the conference will give everyone an opportunity to take
up every point and discuss it fully.
Both the State and Federal Governments
have responsibilities in dealing with water pollution
control problems. The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act declares that the States have primary rights and
responsibilities for taking action to abate and
control pollution. Consistent with this, we are
charged by law to encourage the States in these
activities.
-------
4
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
At the same time, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency is charged by
law with specific responsibilities in the field of
water pollution control in connection with pollution
of interestate and navigable waters. The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act provides that pollution
of interstate or navigable waters, whether the matter
causing or contributing to the pollution is discharged
directly into such waters„ or reaches such waters
after discharge into a tributary, which endangers the
health or welfare of any persons, shall be subject
to abatement.
The October 1965 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act additionally empower the
Administrator to initiate enforcement procedures
whenever he finds that substantial economic injury
results from the inability to market shellfish or
shellfish products in interstate commerce because of
the pollution of interstate or navigable waters, and
the action of Federal, State, or local authorities.
This conference on pollution of the
-------
5
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
navigable waters of Galveston Bay and its tributaries
is the sixth to be held under these shellfish provisions
of the Act. Of course, as the representatives of the
shellfish industry and many others know, we have had
one large case in Washington's Puget Sound involving
discharges from paper mills and injury to the Pacific
oyster industry, but that conference was called on the
initiation of the Governor of Washington. The five
earlier shellfish-provision conferences involved New
York (Long Island), Maine, New Jersey, Massachusetts,
and Alabama. The experience we have gained from these
five enforcement conferences and from several other
interstate and intrastate conferences held through the
years has shown us that each area of concern presents
its unique features. Many pollutional causes and
problems are shared in common from city to city but the
particular local geographic and socio-economic factors
of the area always form a good part of our consideration.
Today's conference will cover the effects
on interstate commerce caused by pollution of the
shellfish beds in Galveston Bay. We expect the
-------
6
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
conference will be useful in providing a clear picture
of the problem, delineating the progress which has
already been accomplished, and in indicating what needs
to be done to correct the pollution problem in these
navigable waters.
As specified in Section 10 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, the Administrator has
notified the official State water pollution control
agency, which is the Texas Water Quality Board, of this
conference. The Texas Water Quality Board will be
represented by Mr. Hugh Yantis.
The Federal conferee is Mr. Richard
Vanderhoof.
I am very happy that my boss has come
down and is here at the head table with me, Mr. John
R. Quarles, Jr., the General Counsel and the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
My name is Murray Stein. I am from
headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency
in Washington, D. C., and the representative of
Administrator Ruckelshaus.
-------
7
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
The parties to the conference are the
official State water pollution control agency and the
Environmental Protection Agency. Participation in
this conference will be open to representatives and
invitees of these Agencies and such persons as inform
me that they wish to present statements. However,
only the representatives of the State water pollution
control agency and the Environmental Protection Agency
constitute the conferees.
We are going to follow our usual procedure
in allowing the State and the Federal Governments to
manage their own time. In other words, Mr. Vanderhoof
will call on representatives of Federal Agencies, and
Mr. Yantis will call on the constituents in the State
agencies in the order that he wishes.
I would suggest that all the people from
Texas who wish to make a statement get in touch with
Mr. Yantis and make your own arrangements with him for
your presentation at an appropriate recess or at
a break.
Now a word about the procedures governing
-------
8
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
the conduct of the conference. The conferees will be
called upon to make statements. The conferees, in
addition, may call upon participants whom they have
invited to the conference to make statements. In
addition, we shall call on other interested individuals
who wish to present statements. At the conclusion of
each statement, the conferees will be given an
opportunity to comment or ask questions, and I may ask
a question or two myself. This procedure has proven
effective in the past in reaching equitable solutions.
At the end of all the statements we shall
have a discussion among the conferees and try to arrive
at a basis of agreement on the facts of the situation.
Then we shall attempt to summarize the conference,
giving the conferees, of course, the right to amend
or modify the summary.
Under the Federal law, the Administrator
is required at the conclusion of the conference to
prepare a summary of it which will be sent to the
conferees. The summary, according to law, must
include the following points:
1. Occurrence of pollution of navigable
-------
9
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
waters subject to abatement under the Federal Act;
2. Adequacy of measures taken toward
abatement of pollution? and
3. Nature of delays, if any, being
encountered in abating the pollution.
Again, let me emphasize what we have to
do under the law because I think this is where a good
deal of the thrust of the comments I have heard are
directed, and I think the law indicates that this is
what we have to do. As to Item 1, I think if we
exercise due care, we have to carefully determine if
there is occurrence of pollution of navigable waters
subject to abatement under the Act.
The second item requires us to determine
the adequacy of measures being taken toward abatement
of pollution. Of course, this will include whatever
has been done by industries and municipalities in
the past to take corrective action.
And the third is to look into the nature
of delays, if any, being encountered in abating the
pollution.
The Administrator is also required to make
-------
10
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
recommendations for remedial action if such
recommendations are indicated.
A record and verbatim transcript of the
conference is being made by Mrs. Bobbie Ames. This
is being made for the purpose of aiding us in
preparing a summary and also for providing a complete
record of what is said here. It usually takes about
3 or 4 months for the transcript to come out in
printed form. If you wish a record beforehand, you
can check with the reporter, who is an independent
contractor, and make your own arrangements with her.
I would like to point out we do not
print the transcript in color. So take that into
account. With any charts or visual displays you
may have, try not to refer to color in describing
them, as the references may well be meaningless in
the transcript.
We shall make copies of the summary and
transcript available to the Texas Water Quality Board.
We have generally found that for the purpose of
maintaining relationships within the States, the people
who wish summaries and transcripts should request them
-------
11
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
through their State agency rather than come directly
to the Federal Government. The reason for this is that
when the conference has been concluded we would prefer
people who are interested in the problem to follow the
normal relations in dealing with the State rather than
the Federal Government. This has worked successfully
in the past, and we will be most happy to make this
material available for distribution.
I would suggest that all speakers and
participants other than the conferees making statements
come to the lectern and identify themselves for
purposes of the record, before making a statement.
I also would like to indicate that we are
going to be here until everyone is heard.
You will be given a chance to state your
views fully, and I suggest if we are all patient and
work with this situation, we will be able to have a
very fruitful conference and develop the facts so we
can proceed in whatever way seems appropriate at the
conclusion of the conference.
I believe we have Congressman Eckhardt
who indicated he wishes to make a statement.
-------
12
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
Congressman Eckhardt.
THE HONORABLE BOB ECKHARDT
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D. C.
MR. ECKHARDT: Thank you, Chairman Stein.
Mr. Quarles, glad to see you, sir. Mr. Vanderhoof and
Mr. Yantis.
This is a rather appropriate time to speak
with respect to the channel area for me, because the
Texas Legislature has just redistricted and placed
both sides of the channel in my district. (Laughter.)
I had originally had Baytown. Now the
district goes on down to LaPorte and includes both
sides of the channel.
I must say that I somewhat anticipated
this, for while I was in the legislature I had a
considerable concern about this body of water for a
good number of years, and I might say at the beginning
that, of course, the body of water is one that is
for the benefit of all persons in Houston, in the
Nation, and is one of the great harbor areas of the
-------
13
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
United States and of the world.
I have a great interest in clean water
and a great interest in the marine life that spawns
in it. But also I have concern about the development
of the industry along that channel, which is one of
the greatest chemical and petrochemical complexes,
as you all know, in the world.
First, I want to commend the Environmental
Protection Agency for the report on "Pollution Affecting
Shellfish Harvesting in Galveston Bay, Texas." It
appears to me that EPA has done its homework. I also
would like to commend the EPA for calling this
pollution enforcement conference under the Shellfish
Clause of the Water Quality Act of 1965, while pointing
out that it is exactly 4 years later than I had
requested it.
In June 1967, in a letter to James Quigley,
Commissioner of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, I pointed out that serious economic
injury to the shellfish industry was being caused by
pollution in that some 58 percent of the Galveston
Bay Estuary was off limits for oyster production and
-------
14
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
that our oysters are shipped all over the East, as far
as the Eastern Shore of Maryland. You will be interested
to know that I received a reply from Mr. Quigley to the
effect that the FWPCA had deferred action under this
clause in Galveston Bay for two reasons: One reason
was that the President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board was due to come to Texas within the
week to see firsthand our pollution problems. Secondly,
the State of Texas was scheduled to submit its water
quality standards to the FWPCA within a month for
approval, and that the Administration wanted Texas to
have the first opportunity to solve its own problems.
Gentlemen, those two reasons for deferment
on action have come and gone, and so have 4 long ye.ars.
And our water quality, I maintain, is no better than
it was at that time. The President's Board, in 1967,
sharply criticized the Houston Ship Channel, charging
that, at times, it was one of the worst polluted
bodies of water in America. Three and a half years
later, the Board returned to Texas and found the
conditions to be no better. I maintained that the proof
of the oyster is in the eating, and that the State of
-------
Hon, Bob Eckhardt
15
Texas has not moved adequately to restore the quality
of the waters in the most important estuary on the
Texas Gulf Coast and one of the most important on the
entire Gulf Coast of the United States. I intend to
document my charges.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Stares
have primary rights and responsibilities for taking
action to abate and control pollution and that a
Federal Agency is charged with encouraging States in
this activity. But my position is that the State of
Texas has failed miserably in this role, and I intend
to document this charge in both this paper and
another that I will submit as part of my presentation.*
And I believe that Federal action is not only required
but is absolutely necessary under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, due to the danger from pollution
not only to marine life but to humans as well, who are
entitled to use these interstate and navigable waters
for their livelihood, their recreation, and their
aesthetic enjoyment.
* See page 58
-------
16
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
First, I want to dispel once and for all
a myth that State officials have tried to foist upon
Federal officials* And that is the myth that waters
in the Galveston Bay System have improved and that
enlargement of oystering areas and an increase in
oyster production are due to water quality improvement.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
On Sunday, January 10, 1970, just one day
before the President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board met in Houston, the Texas Water Quality
Board met in the Rice Hotel, and a program was
presented that purported to show that the quality of
Galveston Bay waters had improved since 1959. And to
prove this, the board's staff presented testimony that
more areas in the bay had been opened up to commercial
oystering during the preceding decade. And evidently
this farce had the desired effect. For, in its report,
the President's Board commented: "Efforts to obtain
information on any recent closing of oyster beds due
to pollution evoked testimony that approved areas have
been expanded." While this was factually true, the
reasons that the State gave for opening these areas
were false.
-------
17
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
Let me fill you in on the history of this
situation. Actually, the State's shellfish pollution
study began in 1936, but it was rather haphazard due
to lack of personnel and adequate monitoring equipment.
And it was not until 1963 that a real monitoring
program and heavy surveillance was begun.
In 19 67, after a new area had been opened
to commercial oystering by the Texas Department of
Health, a member of my staff asked Mr. Dudley Johnson,
who is in charge of shellfish sanitation programs in
Texas, if opening of this area was due to water
improvement. Mr. Johnson emphatically stated that
this was not true, that it was simply a matter of
Health Department personnel having more time and
better equipment to remonitor some of these bay waters
and having found them compatible with commercial
oyster production.
In other words, when the shellfish
sanitation program was first put into effect, the
Health Department simply did not have the time,
personnel or equipment to personally check every acre
of water in Galveston Bay, and where there were areas
-------
18
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
where they thought there might be some danger from
hepatitis or other microorganisms, they arbitrarily
placed them off limits. Later, with more time and
staff, they remonitored these areas and found that
they were in fact clean enough for commercial
oyster harvesting.
In early 1970, after Mr. Hugh Yantis had
made his rosy report for the benefit of the President's
Board, I again had my staff talk to Mr. Johnson, and he
reiterated his earlier report to the effect that
virtually every acre opened to oystering since the
program began was due to better monitoring and increased
surveillance. He told Mr. Ozmore of my staff:
"Perhaps some of the bay has been opened to oystering
because of water quality improvement, but it has been
very little." As recently as mid-April of this year,
when Ralph Nader released his report on the Houston
Ship Channel, I again had Mr. Ozmore talk to Mr.
Johnson, and he gave essentially the same report.
Now, to illustrate my position, let us look
at a chart of the Galveston Bay Complex. First, let me
-------
19
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
locate for you the major oyster beds in the bays.
Figure 1 locates the reefs in the
Galveston Bay System. (Figure 1 follows.)
The two biggest reef structures are around
what is called Todd Dump and Hanna's Reef in this area
(indicating).
Dollar Reef has been called a dead reef.
It isn't precisely dead. As I know you all know with
respect to these reefs, various changes in the
salinity of water may make some reefs at times very
productive, and at other times rather unproductive.
So, it is always important to continue
to protect all of the reefs to the best extent that
can be accomplished.
I might add here too, of course there are
several things that hurt oyster reefs. Some of them
hurt them for eating purposes as, for instance, this
is particularly true of sewage, but they don't
necessarily hurt the growth of oysters.
Other chemical pollutants may be a
permanent danger to oysters, and also of course, the
destruction of the reefs, obviously, would put them
-------
potrJ-r
OPU.L.AA. HAN MA
HAUttfteN
SHOAL
-------
21
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
out of production.
So, the reefs as shown there are the
producing reefs in Texas, some of them large and some
small. And I am sure that some of those that we have
there have probably been removed by dredging in the
meantime. [See Figure 1.]
This map is not altogether up to date and
never can be with respect to this proposition. Though
that has been stabilized, as you know.
Now, in this figure you will see the open
areas shaded in black horizontal stripes for the years
1951-1953 . [See Figure 2.J
It is an area "denoted by the letter "A."
We have marked the areas that: are in
production, so the areas that are not marked at all
are banned for oyster production.
This would all be banned (indicating).
A great amount of flow comes out of the Trinity River
into this area and creates a considerable amount of
pollution from pasturage and from manure and various
pesticides, etc.
From the Houston Ship Channel, there is
-------
22
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
considerable pollution coming into this area, and, of
course# the channel goes out through Bolivar Roads
in that direction.
Incidentally, this is one of the most
productive areas of the entire Galveston Bay System,
the Todd Dump area, and formerly there was a strip
across here called Redfish Bar that was productive
all the way across.
As a matter of fact, the water is shallow
enough so that persons now living can remember when
cattle were driven from Eagle Point to Smith Point
across the bay (indicating).
This is a heavy producing area.
Besides that, there are a great number
of persons who use this area for sports fishing. Any
good Sunday you can see a veritable flotilla of boats
in that area (indicating) .
You will note that most of East Bay is
open including the large and productive Hanna's Reef
area, the big reef down there close to Bolivar
Peninsula and that a small part of the bay southwest of
the channel just off of Eagle Point is open.
-------
23
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
Eagle Point is the place that comes
closest to Smith Point over on the other side in
Chambers County (indicating).
(Figure 2 follows.)
This is for the years 1955-1957 (indicating) .
[See Figure 2,]
You notice the first was 1951 to 1953;
this is for 1955 to 1957 and indicates that a con-
siderable area has been opened up to oystering denoted
by the letter "B" going on up into Trinity Bay
including an area southwest of the Ship Channel,
(indicated by the wave-like shading.)
Now, here let me make a point to rebut the
State's position. Opening of this area came when the
State of Texas was doing absolutely nothing to control
water pollution. The so-called water pollution control
program was operating at that time under what I have
called a "possum quarding the chicken coop" theory
of water pollution control when 4 members of the board
were, by law, required to be representatives of
industry and the other 3 were governmental agencies.
-------
24
Figure 2
-------
25
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
No efforts whatsoever were made to make
industries or municipalities conform to adequate
standards or to upgrade their effluents.
But it was during this same period that
Harris County's pollution fighter, Dr. Walter
Quebedeaux, was having some success making
polluters toe the line.
Prom 195 5 to 1961, Dr. Quebedeaux was able
to haul industrial polluters into court, until a court
of civil appeals ruled a corporation could not be
prosecuted for violation of air and water pollution
laws, it was on February 22, 1955, that Dr. Quebedeaux
filed this rather glowing report.
He said, "We had been in operation a little
over a year and had been able to convince the plants
that the place to control pollution was at the point of
discharge and by getting some of these discharges
cleaned up, it had made a big difference in the channel.
We were able to see, at that time, schools of small
top-water minnows up and down the channel. The algae
were growing in the channel, and Nature was recovering
from the battle she had been having with unrestricted
-------
26
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
discharge in the past."
Dr. Quebedeaux further reported that, through
the whole length of the Ship Channel, there was only
about 1 mile where marine life could not exist and that
was about half a mile on each side of Hess Terminal
properties.
I also would call to your attention, Mr.
Chariman, that it was during this same period that the
United States Department of Justice had been moving
under the Refuse Act of 1899 to control pollution, and
it actually prosecuted several polluters, but this
progress was not to last.
Under the administration of President
Eisenhower, the Justice Department was ordered to stop
bringing pollution suits.
No, gentlemen, this improvement in the
Ship Channel waters and the increase in oystering area
were not because of the Texas Water Pollution Control
Board, but in spite of it.
Now, let's look at the next figure.
(Figure 3.)
[Figure 3 follows.]
This represents the bay system from
-------
Figure
-------
28
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
October 1958 through July, 1, 1965.
You will note that all of the bay south-
west of the Houston Ship Channel was closed to
oystering effective in October 1958.
This is denoted by the area surrounded by
dotted lines and indicated by the letter "C," with
the exception of the odd-shaped piece shaded with
cross-hatching and denoted by the letter "D."
Incidentally, that covers the very
productive Todd Dump area.
This is a conditionally approved area
subject to being closed on a moment's notice if the
State Health Department should find potential danger.
So we lost ground between 1955 and 1958
and not 1 additional acre was opened in the 7-year
period from 1958 through 1965.
I think you would find that pollution
control had virtually been brought to a complete halt
at the county level and had never gotten airborne at
the State level.
Now let us turn to Figure 4,
[Figure 4 follows,]
-------
29
TBI
Figure
-------
30
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
This one represents the bay for the years
1966, 1967 and 1968.
Here you will find the situation the same
on the southwest side of the channel, all closed to
oystering except for the area I mentioned previously
which is conditionally approved.
But a comparatively small area of Trinity
Bay has been opened to oystering denoted by the letter
"E" at the top there (indicating), though this chart
indicates there are no reefs of any consequence in this
newly opened area.
I would like to discuss this body of water
in detail for a moment. But first let me point out a
small area in the "fish hook" formed by Smith Point
which has now been declared off limits, denoted by the
letter "F," a harbinger of things to come for this
area.
At the meeting of the Texas Water Quality
Board on that Sunday in 197 0, it was brought out
forcefully that pollution of Trinity Bay is caused
principally by soil bacteria washed down the Trinity
River and from the pastures, swamps and marshlands
-------
31
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
surrounding that body of water.
Mr. Johnson confirms this as did the Presi-
dent's Board in its report. So, when the State Health
Department opened up the area in Trinity to oystering,
it was not because of any improvements in the water
quality brought about by the Texas Water Quality Board,
for that agency has no control whatsoever over what
enters that bay.
It was opened for one of 2 reasons: 1)
The Health Department had the time and personnel for
accurately monitoring the area, and 2) The water
quality had actually improved somewhat due to changing
conditions in the land areas surrounding it, possibly
because of improved human sewage treatment facilities,
such as indoor toilets replacing the outdoor privies.
Now, for a look at the last of this
series, Figure 5.
[Figure 5 follows.]
This presents the area open for oystering
from July 1, 1969, until September 1, 197 0. It is the
latest report available from the Department of Health.
-------
32
T.«
Figure 5
-------
33
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
You will note that the open area has been
extended further into Trinity Bay. That is denoted by
the letter "G," but I hope you will also note an
expanded area along the northwest shore of Smith
Point Peninsula has been closed down and is denoted
by the letter "H,"
If you will note, that is an area where
there is no oystering production in some reefs.
Here I want to take exception to some
figures in the EPA report provided by the Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department.
This report indicates that in 1969 , there
were some 9,100 acres of oyster beds open to oystering,
an increase of 200 acres over the previous year.
Yet, I would point out that the opened
area extending into Trinity Bay at this point contains
no oyster reefs whatsoever, yet the newly-closed area
along the northwestern shore of the Smith Point
Peninsula contains somewhat between 2 50 and 300 acres
of producing oyster reefs, according to Mr. Ben Nelson
of the Nelson oystering concern which has been oyster
fishing in this bay for half a century.
-------
34
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
Not only is this area along Smith Point
practically as large as the newly-opened area but it
contains producing oyster reefs. I do not believe
that removal of these 250 acres has been taken into
consideration in the EPA report, and this means the
area actually open to oyster proudction as of this
date amounts to only 8,850 acres, an increase of only
50 paltry acres over the total amount open in 1955.
Is this what the Texas Water Quality Board
refers to as being a dramatic increase in oyster
production areas due to water quality improvement?
If these figures by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department are accurate -- and I seriously
doubt their accuracy -- then it means there were only
300 more acres of reefs in approved areas in 1969 than
there were in 1955. And I believe that testimony by
Mr. Johnson will bear out my position that this is due
to better monitoring and stronger surveillance rather
than to water quality Improvement.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me briefly
summarize the information included in this display.
The areas left uncolored are those areas which are off
-------
35
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
limits to oyster production, and the shaded areas are
those areas open to oyster production.
Now, while I am at it, I would like to
shoot down another balloon lofted by the State which
is an argument that is even more fallacious than the
preceding one. That argument is that increases in
oyster production are evidence of water quality
improvement.
Let us look at the oyster production for
consecutive years on this chart. (See Figure 6.)
{Figure 6 follows.]
In 1955, oyster production in this
complex amounted to 543,000 pounds taken from 8,800
acres of oyster beds.
Remember, this was the year that Dr.
Quebedeaux reported the Ship Channel in fairly good
condition.
Would it not seem logical the water quality
in the bay was better than in earlier and subsequent
years when the water quality declined in the Ship
Channel?
Now in 1956, production climbed to
-------
R 36
Acres In
Production
Oyster
Horvest
InPounds
10,000
5 Million
9,00 0
8,000
4 Million-
7,000
6,000
3 Million
5,000
4,000
2 Million
3,000
1 Million
2,000
1,000
Figure 6
-------
37
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
986,000 pounds, and then dropped to 953,000 pounds in
1957. If water quality improvement affects oyster
production, then why this drop when this period
indicates that the water quality probably had improved,
due to forceful actions by the Harris County
Pollution Control officer?
Gentlemen, there are many factors that
affect oyster production. It fluctuates greatly for
reasons far different than questions of water quality.
One thing is changes in salinity; a difference in the
amount of rainfall; the nature of the predators on
oysters. Sometimes we don't know why these changes
occur.
In 1958, production slumped to a long-time
low for the years when records were kept, just 311,000
pounds. This was the year you recall that substantial
areas of oystering were closed down west of the Houston
Ship Channel and in the far East Bay. It might be
logical to assume closing down of these areas slashed
oyster production.
S*tme pursue that further. In the following
year, 1959, exactly the same areas were opened to
-------
38
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
oystering, yet production more than quadrupled to
1,411,000, and to a record all-time high in 1960 to
2,296,000 pounds.
Yet in 1960 exactly the same area was
open to oystering as in 1958, when only 311,000 pounds
were produced.
Does this bear out the argument that water
quality improvement has brought about an increase in
oyster proudction?
Let us look further.
In 1961, there were 1,096,000 pounds of
oyster meats produced. in 1962, 1,211,000 pounds.
In 1963, 2,618,000 pounds. In 1964, 3,357,000, and
in 1965, another record of 4,836,000 pounds. Yet,
Mr. Chairman, in that year there was not 1 acre more
open to oystering than there was in 1958 with its
puny 311,000 pounds.
Let us look further.
In 1966, a new area was opened to oystering
and this situation existed through 1968. Yet, oyster
meat production dropped to 4,083,000 pounds in 1966;
2,993,000 pounds in 1967 and 2,839,000 pounds in 1968.
-------
39
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
In 1969, oyster production began to climb
again rising to 3,447,000 pounds, but I do not believe
that anyone can logically claim this increase was due
to opening of more areas, particularly since the area
0
opened in Trinity Bay has few oyster reefs, while the
area closed down along the Smith Point shore does
contain considerable oyster reefs, at least 250 acres.
If the State's argument that the water
quality improvement has brought about opening of more
oyster reefs and thereby producing more oyster meats,
1 will argue with them. Why then does oyster production
go up and down like a yo-yo, while water quality in the
areas opened to oyster production have remained
relatively stable?
One might ask why has oyster production
fluctuated so radically? Basically the thing that
determines oyster harvesting is the number of oyster
boats participating in the harvest. Sometimes nature
does have a hand in it.
It was in September 1961 that Hurricane
Carla, one of the most vicious hurricanes ever to hit
the North American coast, swept ashore at Port
-------
40
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
O'Connor, dumping torrential rains upon the coast from
Corpus Christi to Beaumont and Port Arthur. Our oyster
beds were decimated, and the oyster fishermen quit
oystering or moved into Louisiana causing the
production to drop in 1961 and 1962.
By 1963 the beds had recuperated and
oyster production rose again.
In 1965, another hurricane brought about
a change in oyster production in Texas -- this time
a tremendous increase. It was in September of that
year that Hurricane Betsy went ashore in Louisiana,
devastating that State's oyster beds. As a result,
Louisiana fishermen swarmed to Texas waters, increasing
the number of oyster boats working the area, thus
sharply increasing the size of the harvest. Another
factor affecting the size of the harvest is that the
Texas Game and Fish Commission on August 1, 1963,
reduced the legal size of the oyster from 3-1/2 inches
to 3 inches, thus resulting in the keeping of more
oysters by the fishermen.
Now let us turn for a few moments to
another program which has been subject to controversy --
-------
41
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
the Galveston Bay Study. When Colonel Prank Bender,
Project Director for thiB study, explained it to me in
mid-1967, I told him that while I did not object to
studies, per se, I did not think that enforcement of
pollution abatement should be held back to await
results of the study. It has been our experience in
Texas that studies have been used for one major
purpose -- that of delaying action. While I realized
that Colonel Bender had no authority in the enforcement
field, i was given the impression that the State was
going to move forward with enforcement while the study
was going on. This has not been done, and I am
extremely disappointed.
It has seemed to us that study has been
layered upon study, and that each one takes so long
that State agencies, upon completion of a study, take
the position that so much time has passed it must make
another study to see if the facts of the first study
still hold up. You can see that this would delay
action infinitely.
From its inception, the Galveston Bay
Study has cost the State $1,401,000 and the Federal
-------
42
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
Government an additional $565,000, making a total of
$1,966,000. Now this is quite a large sum of money to
spend on a study, with not a cent being expended upon
monitoring outfalls from polluters or for enforcement
of effluent standards. I have been told that a
Federal official has consistently insisted that an
intensive waste source survey be included as a part of
the Galveston Bay Study, but that the Executive
Director of the Texas Water Quality Board has fought
just as hard against such a survey, maintaining that
it would be too costly -- about $550,000. It seems
to me that the value of such a survey to find out
what each industry along the Ship Channel is contri-
buting to the pollution would have been well worth
this amount of money.
In my discussion with Colonel Bender, I
maintained that the proof of the pudding was in the
eating, and that we would obtain cleaner water when,
and only when, polluters are required to install
pollution control equipment that will emit a better
quality effluent.
One of the criticisms that I have had of
-------
43
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
the study is that those in charge have failed to
develop a staff with the expertise needed, and have
had to rely upon contracts with engineering firms.
In fact, it seems to me that the study probably has
been more of a windfall to firms such as Bernard
Johnson, Turner, Collie and Braden and Tractor, Inc.,
than it has been of help in pollution abatement.
Now we are told that it will be a minimum
of 2 more years before this study is completed at a
cost of about $3 million. It would seem advisable to
roe to begin putting this money into a program to
monitor discharges by industrial polluters and to hire
an enforcement staff to see that effluent standards
are maintained. I would like to point out that no
one at the State level became concerned about the
danger of discharges of mercury and other heavy metals
until about a year ago. It seems to me that, had we
had this intensive waste source survey in effect
since 1967, the Texas Water Quality Board could have
had that information available many months ago, and
could have required the polluters to halt such
discharges.
-------
44
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
The Texas Water Quality Board and its
officials do deserve credit for their recent action
in moving to implement State funding under the Clean
Water Restoration Act of 1966, even though it comes
somewhat belatedly. But it's better late than never,
and I realize that it may not have been due to foot-
dragging by the Water Quality Board.
I have served in the Texas Legislature,
and I know who holds the purse strings. And I know
that the chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee has refused to approve funds for environ-
mental purposes, and possibly this is why the State
has not moved before now.
There have been two actions by the State
within the past few months that are most commendable.
First, the Water Quality Board has been most
cooperative in working with my office and the
Environmental Protection Agency in developing a
program whereby municipalities and WCD's in Texas
would not lose an estimated $50 million in Federal
funds under the Clean Water Restoration Act. I began
to work on this proposition about 18 months ago, and
-------
45
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
it was just within the last few weeks that we were able
to finally work out the details whereby the River Basin
Authorities would provide the State's share of funds for
sewage treatment facilities, thus insuring that 55
percent Federal funding would be available, as compared
with 30 to 33 percent if the State provided no funds.
I have been assured by Mr, Jack Davis, Executive
Director of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority,
that this $50 million will be utilized by the June 30
deadline.
The second action the State has taken
is that of providing $100 million in bonds to fund
this program for the next 2 fiscal years. Texans
went to the polls on May 18 and approved this consti-
tutional amendment by a scant 50,000 votes. This
assures municipalities of the State's share of funding
and means the cities, towns and water districts will
receive, during the next 2 years, a total of
$220,000,000 in Federal funds, as compared with an
amount ranging from $120,000,000 to $134,000,000.
Since the EPA report indictes that
-------
46
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
municipalities are responsible for only about 28 percent
of the waste flow into the Ship Channel, these two
actions are giant steps toward pollution abatement.
With these funds, ana an ever-growing move to require
consolidation of sewage treatment plants into more
efficient larger ones, it seems to me that we may be
able to make some real progress on municipal pollution
during the next 2 years.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk for
a few moments about the present damage to the oyster
fishery and the potential damage. The actual damage
to the fishery through pollution is rather inconsequential,
as the EPA report notes. If Mr. Robert Singleton's
estimate that some 500 acres of oyster reefs which
are potential producers are included in the off limit
area is correct, then the boatside economic loss is
only about $86,000 or quadruple that for its ultimate
value, and we have a loss of $344,000. But there are
much more serious consequences possible. Suppose, for
instance, all of the Galveston Bay Estuary should be
closed to commercial oystering. In 1970, these bays
produced 3,850,000 pounds of oyster meats, worth
-------
47
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
$1 ,700 ,5.47 at boatside, or more than $6 ,802 ,000 by the
time they reached dinner tables of Americans. You can
see that this in itself would be a disaster to the
commercial fisherman on the upper Texas Gulf Coast.
There is yet another aspect. Your report
indicates there may be a recommendation made that all
of the Galveston Bay Complex be closed to all
commercial fishing until it has been ascertained that
the marine species taken from the bays are suitable
for human consumption. Should such action be taken,
let us take a look at two other fisheries which last
year were worth at least $500,000 more at boatside
than the oyster fishery. I speak of the blue crab
fishery and the shrimp fishery.
In 1970, the National Marine Fisheries
Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
reports that 2,622,000 pounds of blue crab meat worth
$244,798 at boatside were caught in these bays. And
556,000 pounds of brown and pink shrimp and
^#069,500 pounds of white shrimp were taken in the
same bodies of water. These shrimp were worth
$1,974,357 at boatside.
-------
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
Assuming that these species are worth 4
times their landed value by the time they are processed,
retailed and served at restaurants, these two fisheries
would be worth $8,874/620. Add this total to that of
the ovster industry which is facing destruction, and
you have a total economic worth of $15,876,620 annually
which would be lost should this complex be closed
completely to all commercial fishing. Based on the
figures in the EPA report, which assume a 5 percent
rate of return on this renewable resource, commercial
fishing represents to the Galveston Bay area a
$317,532,400 capital investment, based on 1970 figures,
which has been endangered due to pollution from
municipal and industrial wastes. And you must
remember that I have not discussed other valuable
considerations, such as the aesthetic value of clean
water and the losses merchants would sustain because
of the curtailment of the use of these waters by
sportsmen and vacationers because of the danger they
might face from consuming fish taken from these waters.
At this point, before I get into my
-------
49
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
recommendations, I want to express my deep concern
about a report from the industry-sponsored closed
television program just 2 weeks ago. Newspaper
accounts indicate that Federal officials say they
have decided to take a "soft touch" approach toward
pollution control by industry. Mr. Chairman, the
"soft touch" approach is not going to get the job
done, as we have witnessed such a "soft touch
approach in Texas since 1952, and that is why we are
faced with this problem at this pollution enforcement
conference todav.
As I have shown, the "soft touch for
one industry may result in the "hard line" for another.
We environmentalists have been buoyed in recent months
by the militant position taken by Administrator William
D. Ruckelshaus. But now we are wondering, will the
same thing happen to Mr. Ruckelshaus that happened to
Interior Secretary Walter Hickel and his assistant
secretary, Dr. Leslie Glasgow? Is this National
Association of Manufacturers Conference to be the clue
to a program of appeasement for big business? If this
be true, then again we are up the polluted Houston Ship
-------
50
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
Channel without a paddle. (Laughter.)
It is absolutely necessary that the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of
Engineer'?, and the Department of Justice move quickly
and efficiently to bring about a reduction of the
pollutants flowing into the Ship Channel.
Now let me turn for a few moments to some
recommendations. The recommendations of the report
are good, as far as they go. But perhaps they do not
go far enough.
First, let me make it perfectly clear that
I would be the last person to insist that a bay be kept
open to fishing if there is anv possible chance
whatsoever that even one person might contact infectious
hepatitis or some other dreaded disease from eating
its products.
Let me remind you that when you start
talking about closing this bay to oystering and to
other commercial fishing, you are preparing to put a
lot of little men out of business. Most of these
industries are family-type small businesses. Few of
them gross more than $20,000 annually. There are none
-------
51
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
here to compare with the Goliaths along the Ship
Channel, such as Rohm & Haas, Diamond Shamrock, Armco
Steel or U. S. Plywood.
It is grossly unfair to say to the little
man, "You must close down your business," while at the
same time permitting giant corporations to continue
to dump their hydrocarbons, their mercury, lead, arsenic,
cyanide, zinc, and chromium into these waters that
belong to every citizen of Texas — not just the
corporations.
I say to you that if the little businessman
is prohibited from earning his livelihood because big
industry has destroyed the quality of these public
waters then big industry should in some way be made to
bear the brunt of it, either by not being permitted
to continue to wastefully use these waters to make
millions of dollars for its officers and stockholders
or by being made to pay reparations to the fishermen.
Is this a drastic and far-reaching recommendation?
Well, there has come a time for drastic action.
Further, if this bay is closed to oystering
-------
52
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
and/or harvesting of all marine species, there is very
likely grounds for private legal action in the nature
of a class action suit, which possibly would run in the
millions of dollars, since one segment of industry
has been responsible for the destruction of the livelihood
of another in violation of the 1899 Refuse Act.
No agency should play politics with the
environmental issue. We in government are sometimes
tempted to threaten drastic action on scanty evidence.
And I think to talk about closing down the whole
bay for taking seafood is not called for. There is
absolutely no evidence that the Texas Department of
Health has not done a careful and conscientious job.
It has placed portions of this bay off limits when this
is needed. It has monitored health conditions
throughout the State. No case of hepatitis has ever
been traced to seafood.
But your agency should be firm along lines
of paragraph 3 of the EPA recommendations. These
insist upon adequate treatment of municipal sewage.
With passage of the $100 million bond issue to provide
-------
53
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
the State's 25 percent of sewage treatment funding, I
am convinced that this program will move forward and
that cities and water districts will continuously move
toward reduction of the 28 percent waste load which
they are now dumping in the Houston Ship Channel.
In this connection, the so-called "zoning"
plan for the Houston Ship Channel adopted by the
industry-dominated Texas Water Pollution Control Board
in 1964, and still supported by the present Water
Quality Board is farcical. On June 10, 1964, the
Port Commission urged that the channel from Morgan's
Point to the Turning Basin be zoned as industrial
water -- not for recreation or for marine life
production. And the Houston Chamber of Commerce
joined the Port Commission in contending that the
primary best use for the Ship Channel and its tribu-
taries were for commerce and industry. On October 29,
1964, the Board announced its zoning concept. The
Upper Ship Channel area from the San Jacinto Monument
to Morgan's Point would be a buffer zone, and from
Morgan's Point out into the bay would be classified as
a recreational area. When Texas submitted its water
-------
54
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
quality standards in compliance with the Water Quality
Act of 1965, this zoning plan was adopted as part and
parcel of those standards.
There is just one thing wrong with this
concept. How do you keep industrial effluent from
flowing from Zone A, down through Zone B and into
Zone c? And how do you maintain Zone C for recreation
and marine life production when you cannot keep the
pollution from Zone A from contaminating it?
The Houston Ship Channel is not a babbling
brook which purifies itself as it flows down to the
bay. Permits to pollute have been continually issued
by the Texas Water Quality Board on the zoning basis,
as if the effluent from those industries were purified
in their course or were barricaded from the open bay.
I maintain that the waters of Galveston Bay can never
be brought up to an acceptable standard if this zoning
concept is retained.
Furthermore, let me emphasize another
point. The area between the San Jacinto River and
Morgan's Point, the so-called "buffer zone," at one
-------
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
time was one of the most important areas in the
estuarine zone of the Galveston Bay Complex. The San
Jacinto River, Old River, Burnett Bay, Crystal Bay,
Scott Bay, Peggy Lake, San Jacinto Bay, Black Duck
Bay and Tabb's Bay all were important nursery grounds
for two of Texas' most important fisheries the
shrimp and menhaden fisheries. Now these areas are
nothing more than a settling basin for the effluent
from the municipalities and the industries along
the Ship Channel.
If you do not believe it, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to invite you back to Texas about 2 days
after torrential rains have flushed the commode that
is the Houston Ship Channel and these pollutants have
depleted the oxygen in these areas and a fish kill of
millions of fish is the result. Not only has this
destroyed this extremely valuable estuarine area, but
it has destroved the value of hundreds of bay-front
homes because of the dangers of living on a polluted
body of water and the nauseous odors from the dead
marine life.
I would recommend that this zoning
-------
56
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
proposition be abolished and that water quality
standards be adopted that will bring the water quality
in the channel to a point that will bring all of
Galveston Bay some day to an acceptable level of
cleanliness. In this respect, I urge that new and
stricter water quality standards be required for all
interstate and navigable waters. And to achieve it,
it will be necessary that the Environmental Protection
Agency, with the acquiescence of the Texas Water
Quality Board or without it, set strict and meaningful
effluent standards for all polluters, municipal and
industrial.
Finally, I concur fully with Recommendation
No. 4 in the EPA report -- that an intensive waste
source survey be immediately put into effect at ever 7
Houston Ship Channel industry. And as soon as it is
known what pollutants each industry is contributing
to the channel, that industry be ordered to cease and
desist from further discharge until the effluent
is cleaned up.
Mr. Chairman, as documentation of the
historv of the polluters of the Galveston Bay area, I
-------
57
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
would like to submit, for the record, a. copy of a
paper which I have written and which will be published
in mid-summer by the Texas International Law Journal
at the University of Texas. It is entitled "How We
Got the Dirtiest Stream in America" and is a history
of pollution control — or the lack of pollution
control -- in Harris County dating from 1952 until
the present.
And, in closing, I want to comment on a
recent newspaper report in which the Executive
Secretary of the Texas Water Quality Board is quoted
as saying that the Environmental Protection Agency
is slowing down water pollution control in Texas. My
comment is "how do you bring a snail to a screeching
halt?" (Laughter.) (Applause.)
iThe above-mentioned article follows,]
-------
58
Journal Tex. Int'l L.J. Author Bob Eckhardt Page
HOW WE GOT THE DIRTIEST STREAM IN AMERICA
Regulation of Local Hazards — The Houston Ship Channel
Copyright 1971
Texas International Law Journal
Universitv of Texas
By Bob Eckhardt*
To evaluate the political and legal aspects
of the water pollution problem of the Houston Ship
Channel it is necessarv at the outset that the two
sources of pollution that cause the problem be identi-
fied: city sewage and industrial waste. The munici-
palities, primarily the City of Houston, and the
Channel industries contribute to pollution in almost
equal magnitude.
It must also be said here at the outset
that it is as impossible today to separate politics
and pollution control as it would have been to strain
the tea from Boston Harbor in 1773, in that first
recorded case of water pollution in America. What
immediately follows bears out this point:
Because the City of Houston is both
polluter and policeman we must expect from it at times
-------
5 9
the rhetoric of the big stick, the policeman's club,
and at other times -- or at the same time -- weak or
inconsistent action. Harris County has been more
consistent but the county is by its nature within our
system the most pecunious and the most impotent
level of government.
On the other hand, of the various non-
federal agencies of government the State has the
greatest reach and tax potential, but it has proved
indifferent to the problems of both air and water
pollution, as we shall see. The politics of the
situation is this:
Both the city and county governments and
their elective bodies are all subject to direct
political pressures of the local electorate, people
who daily feel the direct effects of air pollution.
The people in the area also have available to them a
dramatic example of the ill effects of water pollution:
the Houston Ship Channel. And the residents of Baytown
are affected in their daily lives by fish kills in the
bays and swamps that form appendages to the Houston
Ship Channel and lie adjacent to residential districts
in Baytown.
-------
60
Because of this direct political pressure
of people immediately affected by pollution, the county
and the city have been more responsive, more sensitive,
to the pollution problem than the State has been.
Thus, it is not only the reach of the various
political subdivisions that affects the problem but also
the pressures working within them upon their elected
policy makers. In "I" below we shall consider primarily
the City of Houston's contribution both to pollution
and to its control.
I. The City as Polluter and Policeman
Houston, The Reluctant Policeman
Within recent months, there has been much
discussion of a joint county-city air pollution control
program. It will surprise many to learn that such a
joint program not only was proposed 18 years ago, but
was actually put into effect to apply to both air
pollution and water pollution. On October 20, 1953,
there was a story in the Houston newspapers to the
effect that Harris County industries "will have to toe
the line if county officials get into action with the Ai£
and Water Pollution Control Unit it has in mind." The
story went on to say that the county hoped to get the
-------
municipalities throughout the county to join in the
program and support it financially* It was estimated
that an effective air and water pollution abatement
program could be carried out at the cost of about six
cents per capita annually based on the 1950 census.
The City of Houston, whose mayor was then the progressive
Roy Hofheinz, agreed to contribute 40 percent of the
budget, and 16 smaller municipalities agreed to join
the program.
But this program fell by the wayside. On
September 11, 1956, eleven of Harris County's munici-
palities were behind on their contributions, with
Houston being the biggest delinquent, owing a two-year
bill of $58,283. On April 19, 1957, West University
Place and Baytown withdrew. Pasadena had never
contributed a dime, and the Houston delinquency had
grown to $82,603 (for the past three years). So, the
joint program collapsed, and Harris County took over
the entire program. Thus ended what could have been
a meaningful step toward pollution control in
Harris County.
Would not eitizens, had they been able to
envision what has happened today, have been willing to
-------
62
pay the cost of a 6$ stamp annually to preserve, and to
gradually improve, that quality of water which existed
then? How much further Harris County would have been
in its pollution control program today if this program
had been carried to fruition J
Dr. Walter A. Quebedeaux, who headed Harris
County's first pollution control unit, in commenting
on what might have been had the program survived as a
joint program said:
Undoubtedly, we would have had more funds available.
We could have had more personnel, and, in my
opinion, we would have been a long way further
down the road than we are now.
Why did the joint program fold? Why did the
City of Houston fail to live up to its obligations?
Quebedeaux blames the change in
administrations.
"Mayor Holcombe did nothing," Dr. Quebedeaux
says. "It was useless to go over there and talk to City
Council, even though I did continue to send them copies
of the annual reports I prepared during that time.
"Assistants to the former mayor (Hofheinz)
told the new mayor that the city was morally obligated
to live up to its commitments, but the new mayor ignored
their recommendations."
-------
63
When this effort toward a coordinated
pollution abatement program collapsed, it was the City
of Houston's last participation in water pollution
control until January 1, 1971, when a water pollution
control department was set up. This shall be
discussed in more detail later.
Houston as Polluter
Let us look at the role of the City of
Houston as a polluter. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 50 percent of the pollution entering the Houston
Ship Channel is from the city's multitudinous sewage
treatment plants, many of which are inadequate. In
this discussion, consideration will be given to the
city's role as polluter and the county's role as
policeman.
On November 16, 1953, Dr. Quebedeaux was
hired as Director of Air and Water Pollution Control
Section of the Harris County Health Department. He
took over on December 1, 1953. Dr. Quebedeaux faced two
major problems: (1) Pollution by Ship Channel
industries, some of the biggest names in America's
industrial directory; and (2) Pollution by municipalities,
one of which was the City of Houston.
-------
64
Dr. Quebedeaux had been director only eight
months when he fired off a letter to Houston's Mayor
Hofheinz, pointing out that the city's raw sewage was
flowing into Sims Bayou and Country Club Bayou. He
charged that the city sewage plant on LaPorte Road
was the offender and that dumping was deliberate. Dr.
Quebedeaux said the first stage of sewage treatment
was bypassed in order that the large particles would
not be broken down, thus benefiting the city-operated
fertilizer plant. (Incidentally, that sewage treatment
plant is still ineffectively treating its effluent.)
Never known as a man of tact, Dr.
Quebedeaux drew the wrath of Mayor Hofheinz with this
letter. His forthright vigor -- which he was to show
many times during the next two decades -- only brought
him censure from his employers. The County
Commissioners Court sharply criticized him for his
condemnation of the city for its inaction on pollution
control. This conflict was to continue throughout
the years.
On May 8, 19 55, the county pollution control
officer reported that overloaded city sewage treatment
plants were dumping three million gallons of raw
sewage into Houston ditches and bayous daily. For
-------
65
instance, the two million gallons per day flow through
the Magnolia plant was about three times that plant's
capacity. Most of the overloaded sewage treatment
plants were taken over by the city by purchase from
small water control improvement districts.
The city, in an effort to cope with thi3
problem, diverted the flow from these small plants
to larger ones. But this simply meant that, instead
of overloading the small plants,' it was throwing too
much of a load on the large plants; And pooirly treated
sewage again was being dumped into Harris County
waterways. Again, on May 20, 19 58, Dr. Quebedeaux
reported that more than one-half of the city's sewage
treatment plants were "wholly inadequate for safe
disposal of waste." Of the 16 plants which wer6 in the
old part of the city before the 1950 annexation, he
characterized four as good plants, four as mediocre
and eight as inadequate. Of the 61 plants in the
annexed areas, he said the situation was even worse.
"If you go back through our annual reports
on tests that we run in the county, you will find that
the City of Houston fluctuates between approximately
68 percent bad ones up to 75 percent bad ones," he says.
-------
66
"It pretty well stays in the same ball park."
The rapid growth of the city has been its
major problem. Throughout the years, it has kept
expanding its aeration facilities at its plants, but
no sooner does it expand these facilities than it takes
in a new area, including smaller sewage treatment
plants, and it immediately ties those small plants
into the aeration facility and is again overloaded.
"Another problem is the failure of the
city to properly chlorinate its sewage," says Dr.
Quebedeaux. "Four of its largest plants have no
chlorination facilities at all. The reason given is
that it would be too costly for the city to chlorinate
all of the effluent that comes through those plants."
However, a specific condition of the city's
permits from the Texas Water Quality Board requires
that it chlorinate. It is required that one part per
million of chlorine be residual in the discharge after
20 minutes contact time.
From what has been pointed out, it can be
seen how hard it is to make "the horse rake out the
stall." It thus becomes necessary to find some other
agency or agencies to accomplish pollution abatement.
Such may be the county and the courts.
-------
67
Now let us consider the other half of the
Ship Channel pollution problem. In MII" below, we shall
consider primarily industry as polluter and the county
and the courts as policemen.
II. Industry as Polluter; The County as Policeman
A large part of the problem is, of course,
to control the industrial Goliaths along the Ship
Channel: steel, paper, petro-chemical and other
industries which dump millions of gallons of effluent
into the Channel daily. The faded, yellow pages from
Dr. Quebedeaux' scrapbook of newspaper clippings tell
the story of a few successes, but mostly failures
brought about by a lack of support from the Commissioners
Court and the State of Texas.
It was on February 25, 1955, that one of the
first pollution charges Dr. Quebedeaux brought was
decided by Justice of the Peace Walter Queen in Baytown,
in which he acquitted Humble Oil Corporation in charges
of polluting Scott's Bay.
"This was a case in which Humble was charged
with dumping material from its synthetic rubber plant in
Baytown," Dr. Quebedeaux recalls. "It was one of the
first ones we tried, and we just did not have the right
-------
68
kind of evidence to convince the judge. We lost the
first six cases we filed, but we had to learn how."
Dr. Quebedeaux was luckier, or more
proficient, in another case decided about six months
later (July 12, 1955). He had filed charges of dumping
waste materials that were harmful to fish and aquatic
life. The companies names as polluters were Humble*s
Baytown refinery and its synthetic rubber plant and
General Tire and Rubber Company. Evidence was
presented that discharges were being made by the rubber
plant into a main also used by General Tire and Rubber
Company. The case, which was tried before a jury,
ended with the Tire and Rubber Company being released
and Humble being fined the maximum penalty of $100.
This was the first recorded conviction obtained by Dr.
Quebedeaux in a water pollution case.
The next court cases involved two Ship
Channel industries. On September 2, 1955, the county
brought charges against Nyotex Chemical Company,
Diamond Alkali Company (now known as Diamond Shamrock
Chemical Company) and the Merichem Company. The
records of two of these companies, Diamond Alkali and
Merichem Company, exemplify the poorest effort at
pollution control.
-------
69
"Diamond Alkali wan filed on several times,
and Herichem Company had numerous charges lodgsd
against them," says Dr. Quebedeaux. "In the first case
against Diamond Alkali, it pleaded guilty, paid its
$100 fine and fired its superintendent. In another
case, it was convicted in Justice of the Peace Court
and appealed to the County Court of Law, where the
decision was reversed."
Just one week later, on September 9, Dr.
Quebedeaux again brought charges against these two
recalcitrant firms.
The county, as we have seen, had been
working with inadequate legal machinery all along.
But it was for the courts to decide how inadequate
that machinery really was.
On May 24, 1957, the Court of Criminal
Appeals upheld fines imposed upon top officials of
individual concerns who had been responsible for
violation by their firms of water pollution laws.
The decision was hailed as giving the county some real
clout in prosecuting polluters.
But on July 1, 1957, just a little over a
month later, the same Court of Criminal Appeals in
McCollum v. State*- changed its mind on a motion for
-------
rehearing. Though it had found that the plant involved
had clearly polluted in violation of Vernon's Penal
Code, Article 698b, and that the defendant plant
manager had control over the plant generally, the court
held that it could not be said positively that the
pollution was caused by him as an individual because
those under him may not have followed his orders.
This was a critical blow to Dr. Quebedeaux
and his program. First Assistant District Attorney
Eugene Brady said that pollution laws are useless,
for as a practical matter it is impossible to trace
pollution to a single employee.
"It had the effect of preventing us from
using the criminal courts as a forum to prosecute
pollution suits," Dr. Quebedeaux said. "We still had
the area of civil courts, but this was a much slower
process. Under the court's latest decision it was
impossible to find a chain of command unless you found
a laborer who actually turned the valve permitting the
pollutant to flow into public water. And he was simply
following orders. It would not pay to file charges
against the lowest man on the totem pole."
After the adverse decision by the Court of
-------
Criminal Appeals regarding individuals, the county
began to file charges against corporations for
pollution of the waterways. One of the first cases
came up before Justice of the Peace Dave Thompson,
but he held, tentatively, that a corporation cannot
be tried in Justice Court and reset the case in order
to give the District Attorney and Dr. Quebedeaux time
to prepare a brief. Just a week later, however. Justice
of the Peace Queen, in Baytown, took an opposite view.
He fined Jefferson Lake Sulphur Company $200 and
costs for polluting Green's Bayou by permitting waste
to flow from the Merichem Company plant. This is
believed to be the first conviction of a corporation
in Harris County on a criminal charge of pollution.
The Corporation Can Do Ho Wrong
But the sweet taste of victory was not to
last long. In mid-1961 came a decision that knocked
into a cocked hat all hopes of the county pollution
officer to abate pollution. This was a decision by the
Court of Civil Appeals in Waco to the effect that a
corporation could not be prosecuted in Justice of the
Peace courts for violation of air and water pollution
laws. Actually, the case concerned an air pollution
-------
72
violation, but the decision constituted a precedent for
water pollution cases too. Dr. Quebedeaux had filed a
suit against Consolidated Chemical Industries, 3
division of Stauffer Chemical Company, and Justice of
the Peace Dave Thompson had fined the company $100.
When the company refused to pay the fine, Judge Thompson
attempted to attach $100 in property, and the firm filed
suit in District Court for an injunction to prevent
him from collecting. It was on an appeal from this
case that the Court of Civil Appeals handed down the
adverse decision of Thompson v. Stauffer Chemical
Company.2
Not only was Dr. Quebeaux plagued with
adverse court decisions during this period, but he was
having a running battle with the county attorney over
prosecution of civil cases. On June 22, 1955, the
Houston Ship Channel Air Pollution Abatement Committee
charged that the county attorney (Burke Ilolman) was
reluctant to perform his duties in handling water and
air pollution cases.
Then, on August 28, 19 55, County Commis-
sioners Kyle Chapman and V. V. Ramsey asked District
Attorney Dan Walton to handle pollution cases and
charged that the county attorney had done nothing. A
-------
73
check of the record showed that 19 suits had been filed
against polluters in nearly two years of operation of
the county pollution control unit and that the district
attorney's office had handled 17 of them. The county
attorney had handled only two, one of which he had lost
and the other had been pending on the docket for several
months. The County Attorney blamed Dr. Quebedeaux for
his inaction, charging that the county pollution control
officer would not furnish him with the information
he needed»
Dr. Quebedeaux denied the charge, saying he
had, indeed, provided the information necessary. He
was supported in his contention by his superior, County
Health Officer Dr. L. D. Farragut. Dr. Quebedeaux also
said he had provided the county attorney information
on three other cases, but the County Attorney had been
sitting on them for several months.
"The county attorney was highly reluctant
to actually prosecute," Dr. Quebedeaux recalls. I
remember one instance with a firm that was finally
prosecuted. I had to make about six different trips
out there to see the plant facilities each time, and
it just gave the plant management time to try to
-------
74
convince me that they were 'white hat' boys. The case
was finally filed by the County Attorney after I had
made the sixth trip out there. I told him nothing
was changed, and I could see no reason for him to hold
back. He was really upset that I had come back with
the same opinion after all the pressure had been
applied."
A Limited Success
On the other hand, Dr. Quebedeaux found
complete cooperation from the District Attorney.
"Prom District Attorney Dan Walton forward,
we had no complaints with that office," he said. nlf
they had the facts, they would prosecute. There was
never any attempt to hold back. Of course, with
criminal prosecution, you are required to have a
tighter set of facts than in civil cases. For instance,
violations have to be recorded on a certain day. But
I have no quarrel with that. I don't think I should
be in court if Z do not have a tight set of facts."
With the adverse decisions by the courts
and, in mid-1961, the passage of a so-called water
pollution control law by the Legislature,3 there came
a turning point in the battle to control water
-------
pollution in the Houston Ship Channel. I will deal witlj
the legislative situation in more detail later, but now
let us take a look at the value of the work that the
county pollution control unit had accomplished*
On February 22, 1955, Dr. Quebedeaux filed-
his annual report, in which he painted a rather glowing
picture of the Ship Channel:
"We had been in operation a little over a
year and had been able to convince the plants that the
place to control pollution was at the point of discharge
and by getting some of these discharges cleaned up, it
had made a big difference in the Channel. We were able
to see, at that time, schools of small top-water minnows
up and down the Channel. The algae were growing in
the Channel, and Nature was recovering from the battle
she had been having with unrestricted discharges in
the past."
Dr. Quebedeaux reported that, in the
entire length of the Ship Channel, there was only
about one mile where marine life could not exist, and
that was about one-half mile on each side of the Hess
Terminal properties. The Hess Terminal case* was one
of the first cases where the Court of Appeals had
-------
ruled against prosecution of a plant official for
permitting pollution by his industry.
So, in the face of adverse court decisions,
opposition by the county attorney, and failure by the
City of Houston to solve its pollution problems, there
had been some progress made in cleaning up the Houston
Ship Channel. But the worst was yet to come.
The law of nuisance was not adequate as a
legal base for pollution control, particularly when
criminal law and procedure could not reach a corpora-
tion as such. Furthermore, a one-man army, supported
by the District Attorney, is hardly enough to
successfully attack and conquer embattled industrial
polluters in their barbed wire baronies along the
Channel. Under these conditions and with a continued
brisk growth of industry and attendant increase of
industrial effluent into Buffalo Bayou, the quality
of the water in that stream was bound to deteriorate.
"The Law is a Ass — a Idiot"
In the Houston Chronicle on July 10, 1961,
there appeared a column which began this way:
Mr. Bumble's celebrated observation in
Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist: "The law is a
-------
ass -- a idiot" will find plenty of agreement
in Houston, especially among people who live
near the Houston Ship Channel industrial area.
Houstonians are left helpless to control,
effectively and legally, the pollution of our
air and water. The Waco court leaves it up to
the Legislature. But the Legislature failed.
Two pollution bills were offered and were
lobbied to death. When an individual commits
an offense, such as polluting his neighbor's
air or water, he can be charged, tried, and
convicted. Under Texas laws, a corporation
cannot.
The year 1961 was truly a black one for
those who yearned for clean air and pure water.
Ill. Enter? The Texas Legislature
Let us take a look at the situation from
the state level. The first attempts made in the
Legislature were efforts to rectify inequities in the
laws as expressed by the adverse decisions which Harris
County pollution control agencies had received.
After the decision of the District Court in
Stauffer case,^ I introduced three bills to rectify
-------
78
the situation:
H.B. 1007 to amend Article 19 of the Texas Penal
Code to include corporations as a suable entity;
H.B. 1010 to provide for criminal process on a
corporation;^ and
H.B. 1026 to provide fines as penalties where
corporations were involved, rather than
incarceration.8
The bills got out of committee, but to get
them through at such a stage in the legislative process
it was necessary to try to get them considered as
uncontested bills. H.B. 1026 was so treated and passed
on the local and uncontested calendar on May 25, just
four days before adjournment of the 1961 regular session
But the three bills were all a part of a necessary
package, and the other two were objected to and struck
from the uncontested calendar. An attempt to bring
them up out of order was frustrated by a point of
order.
The three bills were again introduced,
this time early in the session in 1963. Though there
was no open opposition to them, the lobby worked quietly
behind the scenes to keep them from getting out of the
committee. One of my colleagues from Harris County
who was thick with the polluters was on the subcommittee
Though he professed to me that he was in favor of the
-------
79
bills, he kept them bottled up. The bills comparable
to H.B. 1007, 1010, and 1026 were numbered, respectively,
H.B. 186,9 185,10 and 184.11
When I could not get the committee to report
the bills out, I moved to instruct the Committee on
Criminal Jurisprudence to reoort them on April 18,
1963, but the motion was tabled by a vote of 92 to
1 0
table to 42 against tabling. * The session adjourned
on Mav 24, 1963, without acting on the subject.
The fact that these simple and necessary
perfecting amendments to cure the gap in Texas law
that made it impossible to hold a corporation guilty
of a crime were so effectively fought behind the
scenes was a reflection of the cynical attitude of
Channel industry toward legal reform in the area of
pollution control. The language of the bills had
been prepared by District Attorney Frank Briscoe who
strongly supported the legislation. But they could not
get past one of his former assistants who was on the
subcommittee. It is hard to believe that there was
not strong pressure from certain Houston polluters to
keep the bills bottled up.
It should be remembered, of course, what
a happy situation Channel polluters were in under the
-------
decision of the Waco Court of Civil Appeals, Stauffer
had contended in that case that it could ignore a civil
citation of its vice president, absent itself from the
trial, and then enjoin the justice court from enforcing
its fine because the justice court did not have authority
to compel the attendance of the corporation.13 The Waco
court agreed and went further to say:
Appellant has further urged that the Trial
Court held that a corporation may not be charged
and convicted of a violation of a criminal statute.
The Trial Court did not so hold. Nevertheless,
Judge Lynch International Book & Pub. Co. v.
State, 84 Tax. Cr. R. 459, 208 S.W. 526, and
Overt v. State, 97 Tex. Cy. R. 202, 260 S.W.
856, by our Court of Criminal Appeals, both
hold that there is no provision whereby a
corporation may be indicted or tried for
14
violation of a criminal statute.
It is perfectly proper for a defendant to
use existing procedural law to its advantage, but it
is reprehensible for polluters to try to perpetuate the
loophole by lobbying against a bill to close it. And it
is particularly so when such lobbying is done under cover.
-------
81
The court had pointed out the failure of the law to
furnish necessary procedure, saying:
. . . There is no procedure in the Code of
Criminal Procedure whereby a corporation as such,
can be prosecuted for misdemeanor in Texas, and
we cannot give our approval to the method
employed.
And the court had pointed to the remedy:
It. is our view that tjie matters of which
appellant complains are matters which the
Legislature will have to afford relief for, if
any relief be afforded.
One is also reminded of how, in 1965, an
amendment was placed in the so-called Texas Clean Air
16
Act which nullified all sanctions in the Act. The
bill had made it illegal only to violate commission-
made rules. But then at the court enforcement stage
trial was to be de novo and all commission action was
to be considered a nullity.17 What cynical chuckles
must have quivered the jowls of polluters' lobbyists
that devised this amendment that nullified the active
language of the bill!
-------
82
Failure of Other Corrective Legislation
Other corrective legislation fared no better.
On January 26, 1961, Rep. Roy Harrington, of
Port Arthur, had introduced H.B. 3 4,^ which would have
given a county health officer the right of entry and
inspection of premises where he believed a health
hazard might exist. At the same time, Rep. Joe Cannon,
19
of Mexia, introduced H.B. 39, which would have raised
the maximum penalty for maintaining a public nuisance
from $100 to $250. It also would have allowed
prosecutors to take such cases to county court where an
injunction could be obtained against air pollution and
other health hazards.
On February 10, the House Labor Committee
sent these bills to a subcommittee after a hearing.
The Harrington bill finally passed in the House on
April 21, 1961, but died in the Senate.
When Representative Cannon's bill reached
the floor on March 7, 1961, Representative Leon Thurman
was able to tack on an amendment to strike section 3,
thereby emasculating the bill. The amendment would
have the result of keeping jurisdiction in the justice
court which has no injunctive power. Cannon tried to
-------
83
beat a retreat to the Labor Committee, of which he was
a member, so that he could repair the damage, but
Representative Jack Woods, no friend of the bill, was
able to recommit it to the Committee on Criminal
Jurisprudence.
Texas Pollution Control Act
Up until 1961, the state had had no role
whatsoever in pollution control. But, on May 23, 1961,
the House of Representatives approved a bill to
establish the Texas Water Pollution Control Board by
a vote of 141-1.20 However, the bill .died in a Senate
committee upon adjournment. As this bill was originally
drawn, it was somewhat better than the final version
which passed subsequently in a special session. The
bill passed in May would have established a nine-member
Water Pollution Control Board, with four members being
the commissioner of the Texas Health Department; the
executive director of the Game and Fish Department; the
director of the State Board of Water Engineers; and the
chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission. The other
five members would have represented the following
interests: Municipalities, manufacturers, oil and gas
industry, agriculture and soil conservation interests,
-------
84
Md fish and wildlife. Two of these interest groups
rfe left off the final version of the bill as will
appear later.
On August 3, 1961, the State Senate, in a
S£tecial Session, passed a substitute bill (22-7) to
sett up the State Water Pollution Control Board, and it
w&s sent to a Senate-House Conference Committee to iron
out differences. It was later passed and sent to
Governor Price Daniel for his signature.
There were two bad sections of this bill.
One would repeal Article 698b of the Criminal Statutes,
which made it a misdemeanor offense to dump waste of
any kind into a public stream or watercourse. This
was the statute under which Dr. Quebedeaux had had some
•ise&ess in bringing about water pollution abatement.
Ifh% other section directed the governor to appoint
t&iree members to the Board to represent special
interests.21 This is what I call appointing "possums
td guard the chicken coop." Those interests were named
Ust (1) the manufacturing industry; (2) the oil and
<$0* industry; (3) the agricultural and soil conserva-
titfn interests.22
On August 5, 1961, Dr* Quebedeaux wired
&#ir» Daniel to the effect that if he signed the water
-------
85
pollution control law, it would have the effect of
turning Texas streams into industrial sewers. Gov.
Daniel answered his telegram to the effect that he also
considered it a bad bill, but he did feel that it was
a step in the right direction. He also suggested that
changes might be made in the legislation during a
subsequent special session. Needless to say, lobbyists
saw to it that no such changes were made. In the final
analysis, I agreed with Gov. Daniel, that, while the
bill had two bad sections, it was a step toward state
pollution control.
On August 29, 1961, Gov. Daniel signed
the bill and appointed members of the State's first
water pollution control agency. Named were J. E. Peavy,
state commissioner of health; Howard Dodgen, executive
director of the State Game and Fish Department; Joe
Carter, chairman of the State Board of Water Engineers;
J. S. Hudnall of Tyler, representing the oil and gas
industry; C. M. Shigley, assistant general manager of
Dow Chemical Company, representing the manufacturing
industry; and Sam Wohlford, representing the agricultural
and soil conservation interests.
-------
The Polluters' Briar Patch
The polluters, like "Br'r Rabbit" had been
thrown into the briar patch. Such was a politico-
administrative thicket with which they were familiar
and in which they felt at home. They were amongst
friends in the administrative agency. Yet all this
was done in the name of getting clean water and was
done with a great show of piety.
Pollution abatement in the Houston Ship
Channel came to a standstill. High-powered lobbyists,
being threatened at the local level, had thwarted
attempts to amend the laws so that local officials might
haul their clients into court. Then, to make it a
leadpipe cinch, they had been instrumental in passing
a law setting up a paper tiger Water Pollution Control
Board made up mostly of persons from the industries
to be controlled. From late 1961 until the Legislature
in 1967 approved the Texas Water Quality Act,2^ the
hands of environmentalists were tied.
The newly-created State Water Pollution
Control Board was a show-case agency, as so many
agencies are. On February 7, 1964, Chairman Joe Carter
was quoted as saying that he opposed federal water
quality standards. However, he piously said, "All
-------
87
applications and permits are dedicated to the proposi-
tion of preserving the purity of the streams."
Yet, during that same year, the Texas Water
Pollution Control Board adopted a so-called "zoning"
plan for the Houston Ship Channel, a proposition
supported only by the big industrial interests of
Harris County. On June 10, 1964, the Port Commission
urged that the Ship Channel from Morgan's Point to
the Turning Basin be zoned as industrial water -- not
for recreation. The Board was in the process of setting
a public hearing to establish water quality criteria
for a 25-mile stretch of the Channel. And the Houston
Chamber of Commerce joined the Port Commission in
contending that the primary best use of the Ship
Channel and its tributaries was for commerce and
industry.
On February 25, 1964, the Texas Water
Pollution Control Board said it was considering an
order that the Houston Ship Channel waters be of such
quality as to protect the Galveston Bay system for
recreation, oyster production and fishing. Its
proposed order would apply in the stretch of the
Channel from the San Jacinto Monument to the point of
-------
88
influence from tidal waters. This was window dressing.
On October 29, 1964, the Board announced its "zoning"
concept. The upper Ship Channel area would be
classified as an "industrial" zone, the area from the
San Jacinto Monument to Morgan's Point would be a
buffer zone, and from Morgan's Point out into the bay
would be classed as a recreational area.
The trouble with this concept, as I pointed
out at a hearing on the proposed new rule, was that the
Water Quality Board had mistaken the Houston Ship
Channel for a babbling brook making its way to the sea.
But the Ship Channel does not aerate itself over
pebbles and stones, and its waters do not move regularly
and progressively down its course. With about a 40-
foot decline throughout its course to Galveston Bay,
its waters lie stagnant in deep places, sometimes dammed
in by high water in the bay held there by southeasterly
winds. Then, when the rains flush the great commode
of the Turning Basin, all the wcrud" of the Channel
flows down toward the sea, sometimes being diverted
into Scott's Bay or Burnett Bay where multi-thousands
of mullet are suffocated and poisoned by the oxygen-
depleted and poisoned waters.
On November 11, 1964, one of the biggest
-------
39
fish kills in years was recorded. Hundreds of acres of
dead mullet, crabs and drum washed onto the shores of
Baytown subdivisions. Dr. Quebedeaux blamed this kill
on an outpouring of industrial waste into the Ship
Channel and said that Channel industries, encouraged
by the zoning plan, had opened their flood gates and
discharged substances that should not have been
released.
"The Ship Channel waters are of poorer
quality now than they have been for a long time," said
Dr. Quebedeaux. He said that the decision to zone the
Channel gave industries "a license to extend polluted
waters far south of the main Channel area and that the
Texas Water Pollution Coritrol Board had met secretly
with the Chamber of Commerce officials %o map its
zoning proposal. He also charged that the new board
had not filed a single suit since it was formed in
late 1961.
So the period between 1961 and 1969, when
a few meaningful amendments to the Texas Water Quality
Act were passed, actually pontributed little to pollu-
tion abatement in the Houston Ship Channel. The Texas
Water Pollution Control Board issued permits to
-------
90
industries and municipalities and did little or nothing
to ensure that the effluent was being upgraded to
improve the receiving waters. As James Quigley, Com-
missioner of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, said in Houston in 1967: "I consider
these waste discharge permits and Texas' grandfather
clause nothing more than a permit to pollute."
Creation of Texas Water Quality Board
In 1967, the legislation to establish the
O VI
Texas Water Quality Board was enacted. This was some-
what of an improvement over the Water Pollution Control
Board. At least, the new act did not specifically
direct the governor to appoint members to represent
special interests, though to look at some appointees,
it would seem at times that governors have generally
followed that practice.
For instance, Howard Rose, a former assistant
to Governor John Connally, was appointed by Connally to
the Texas Water Quality Board. Rose, a member of an
Austin law firm, has long been a lobbyist, and it was
not unusual, when Rose was Chairman of the Board, to see
him leave a meeting of the Board and go directly to a
legislative meeting to lobby for or against legislation
-------
affecting his clients.
Also, Governor Preston Smith's latest
appointment to the Texas Water Quality Board represents
what I consider to be a major conflict of interest.
How can Lester Clark, president of an oil company,
holding interests in two banks and serving as a member
of the board of directors of the Mid-Continent Oil and
Gas Association, represent the welfare of the general
public when he votes on water pollution control? As
long as appointments like these are approved, then
the public will continue to breathe dirty air and
use dirty water.
Though involving another agency, the appoint-
ment by Governor Connally of John T. Files of Merichem
Chemical Company as chairman of the Texas Air Control
Board in 1964 is appropriate for mention. On the
basis of the number of individual protests against his
company about air pollution from the company's stacks,
he was on several occasions designated by Dr. Quebedeaux
as "polluter of the month."
Since Howard Rose's retirement to go back
to his law firm, Gordon Fulcher has taken over as
Chairman of the Texas Water Quality Board. At first,
-------
I was encouraged by Fulcher's attitude toward polluters,
but have been disappointed by some recent actions. In
the last few months, Fulcher has been jousting neatedly
with the City of Houston over its lack of success in
coping with its pollution problems. The Board has
filed few legal actions against polluters since its
inception in 1967; and, since the state has failed so
badly, for it to be so sharply critical of the City of
Houston seems more of a distraction of attention from
state inaction than fair criticism.
IV. Federal Pollution Abatement
I have heretofore pointed out the political
pressures that tend to make local government responsive
to local demand for cleaner air and water. Let us look
now to the Federal Government and compare its responsive-
ness to that of the state.
Most of the population of the United States
lies in cities where air and water pollution problems
are acute. These are the places that dump the largest
amounts of sewage in the rivers, the areas that use
and reuse water. It is these same heavily populated
areas which exercise the clout in Congress, in the
nominating conventions for the President and the Vice
-------
President, and in the presidential elections. Therefore,
the Federal level is, like the local level in a place
like Houston, sensitive in matters relating to the
quality of air and water.
On the other hand, most of the Texas
legislators are from areas so little affected immediately
by air and water pollution that the law makers are not
as likely to respond to local, constituent pressures
as they are to lobby pressures. The sweet scent of
bourbon that blows over an old-fashioned is more likely
to activate them than the foul scent that blows over the
black and fetid waters of the Turning Basin, which is
far away from them and their constituents. That is
perhaps the reason why it has been the Congress that
has moved positively and effectively in the areas of
air and water pollution and not the legislatures.
Some of the same considerations affect the
Governor and his state bureaucrats. Let me cite an
example:
Under the Federal Clean Water Restoration
Act of 1966 (PL 89-753) provisions were made for a sharing
plan to provide funds for sewage treatment facilities
whereby if states provided 25 percent of the matching
-------
94
funds, municipalities could finance such facilities by
providing 20 percent of the capital, the Federal Govern-
ment providing the remaining 25 percent.25 If the state
provided no funding, the local municipality in most
instances would pay 70 percent and the Federal Government
30 percent, and the Federal share could never exceed 33
per cent.26 The State of Texas has never provided its
share, and Texas municipalities have lost millions of
dollars in Federal grants for sewage treatment
facilities as the result.
In 1969, when United States Representative
John Dingell wrote the states asking if they could use
more funds in this effort, Mr. Hugh Yantis, the Execu-
tive Director of the Texas Water Quality Board, answered
in the negative. Not only did he write Congressman
Dingell, but sent a similar letter to Representative
George Mahon, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
When an amendment came up on the floor of the House to
increase appropriations for this program from $600
million to $1 billion annually, it failed by two votes.
Ultimately, Congress compromised at $800 million. But
those two votes cost the states $100 million apiece in
sewage treatment facility funds. I think there is little
-------
question but that two more votes would have been
garnered from Texas alone had the Governor and his
agent acted in concert. (Governor Smith wired the
delegation urging support of the Dingell amendment.)
I would like to turn now to the role of
the Federal Government in cleaning up the Houston
Ship Channel.
For a brief time back in 1958, the United
States Attorney's office in Houston was moving to
enforce two anti-pollution statutes -- the Oil Pollu-
27
tion Control Act of 1924 and the Refuse Act of
1899.28
Dr. Quebedeaux reports that the Oil
Pollution Control Act was used primarily in trying to
control dumping and leakage of pollutants from tankers
and barges. He says:
"The common practice was, when a barge or
tanker became so battered in the heavy seas of the
Gulf and started leaking, the company would place them
in Channel service. And, as a result, they soon had a
leakage problem."
Refuse Act of 1899
-------
96
So the Refuse Act of 1899 was put into play
by the then Assistant United States Attorney Janes n03s.
On August 26, 1958, the Federal Government filed charges
against four firms for polluting the Ship Channel and
Green's Bayou. Charged were Eastern States Petroleum
Chemical Corporation; Diamond Alkali Company; Consoli-
dated Chemical Industries, a Division of Stauffer
Chemical; and Ircdex Chemical Company. Just two days
later, Ross filed additional charges against Consolidated
Chemical Industries, Eastern States Petroleum and
Chemical Corporation, and the Hard Lowe Company.
What became of these cases? The cases
against Consolidated Chemical Industries were thrown
out by the judge because the firm had been discharging
through a sewer, one of the exemptions. The Hard Lowe
Company was fined $500 for polluting Clear Creek with
liquid copper chloride after pleading nolo contendere.
Index Chemical Company was found not guilty of charges
of polluting Greens Bayou by United States District
Judge Joe Ingraham. The judge said he had reasonable
doubt that the carbon disulfide came from the Index
plant. There is no record in the newspaper files of
what happened to the other companies charged.
-------
97
Assistant United States Attorney Ross was
highly complimentary of the efforts of the county to
clean up the Houston Ship Channel. "The Harris County
Air and Water Pollution Control Unit has done much in
the past two years to clean up pollution in the Houston
Ship Channelr" he said. "With the exception of a two-
mile strip, the channel is in good condition."
Uncle Sam Winks at Illegal Pollution
But the Federal role was doomed to die. on
February 2, 1959, the United States Attorney was ordered
to hold up further prosecution under both the Oil
Pollution Control Act and the Refuse Act of 1899. The
Justice Department and the Army Corps of Engineers were
reportedly reviewing the basic policy involved, and
United States Attorney William Butler said he had been
instructed by Washington not to prosecute any more cases
without specific authority. Then on February 6, 19 59,
it became official. The United States would not prose-
cute any more cases of polluting the Houston Ship
Channel unless they involved obstruction of navigation.
The Justice Department said it would be swamped if it
had to prosecute every case of pollution of a
navigable waterway.
-------
98
"That's an age-old excuse," says Dr.
Quebedeaux. "I've seen it in other areas. When the
Legislature did not want to put teeth in a pollution
statute, it would charge that such a move would cause
the courts to be overcrowded. My experience has been
that if you prosecute a mere handful of people, the
rest of them will not need it."
Dr. Quebedeaux feels that the withdrawal
of the Federal Government from Ship Channel pollution
control was a severe impediment to Channel water
quality protection.
"If the Federal Government had maintained
its position, I do not think the Ship Channel would
have gotten into the sad state it was in in 1961,"
he said. "When Jim Ross left the department, there
were 12 cases pending which were immediately dismissed
by the new Assistant United States Attorney."
Uncle Sam Quits Winking
The Justice Department has now reversed its
policy of winking at big lawbreakers in the pollution,
game. The United States Attorney's office in Houston
has assured me that it will now again prosecute under
the Refuse Act of 1899 just as in other cases of
-------
lawbreaking. At the present time, Assistant United
States Attorney Andrew J. Shepherd, who is in charge of
the Admiralty Docket, is investigating no less than
25 ''continuous" polluters with a view toward bringing
charges against them. And I have been assured by both
Mr. Shepherd and the Environmental Protection Agency
office in Houston that the Environmental Protection
Agency is cooperating and will continue to cooperate
with the United States Attorney in this endeavor.
This is in accord with the policy enunciated
by the new Environmental Protection Agency headed by
William Ruckelshaus, a former Assistant United States
Attorney General. Senator Birch Bayh, who knows him --
he was Bayh's opponent in the last campaign -- thinks
the new EPA Administrator will do a good job if he
is permitted to do so by the Administration.
Senator Bayh says: "It all depends to which
drum beat he is permitted to march." And we cannot
fail to recall what happened to Secretary of the
Interior Hickel after he cracked down on the large
firms which were devastating our coastal waters
with oil spills.
With enactment of the Water Quality
-------
100
Improvement Act of 1S70,29 which sets stiff penalties on
companies that permit oil spills to damage the
environment, and with active prosecution of other
polluters under the Refuse Act of 1899 , I believe there
can be a marked change in water quality in the Ship
Channel and Galveston Bay.
V. The Prospects and Some Recommendations
What does the future hold for the Houston
Ship Channel?
Those of us who are earnestly concerned
about the environment find some reason for cautious
optimism. There is basis for a ray of hope that
actions are in the offing which will begin to reverse
the degradation of this body of water.
The City's Encouraging New Programs
In addition to the Federal Government's
rejuvenated program, for the first time since the
joint city-county pollution control program was
aborted in 1953, the City of Houston has a water pollu-
tion control director. Headed by Victor Howard, the
department has a chief of field operations and six
technicians. It is only two months old and is adopting
-------
10 1
a rather cautious approach. It is presently seeking
out unregulated discharges -- that is, discharges from
sources which do not hold a waste discharge perrait from
the Texas Water Quality Board. Howard has set up
operations on six of the main bayous feeding into the
Ship Channel and has ten stations on each bayou. His
technicians are taking samples and analyzing them in
an effort to determine where particular pollutants
are originating.
It is too early at this time to determine
if the city's water pollution control program will take
the tough attitude that its air pollution control
program is now taking. I think that local pollution
control can be more effective than state control
because those charged with enforcement are closer to
their constituency.
County's Role Vitalized
As far as the county is concerned, it is
just now bouncing back into an effective role which had
been curbed by the adverse court decisions, the toothless
legislation setting up the State Water Pollution Control
Board in 1961, and the emasculating provisions of the
act creating the State Water Quality Board in 1967,
-------
102
limiting local authority. Environmentalists, buoyed
by a more responsible State Senate, were able to beat
back the lobbyists in 19G9 and get some amendments to
the Water Quality Act passed. For instance, the
county is now able to bring criminal charges against
corporations -- what I had sought in 1961 and 1963.
Just as this paper is being prepared Harris
3 0
County has won an important court victory. Judge A.
C. Lesher, Jr., of the 157th District Court, has just
issued a temporary injunction against Rhodia, Inc.,
Chipman Division, ordering the pesticide manufacturer
to halt the discharge of arsenical material into
31
vince Bayou. Also, the court issued a mandatory
injunction requiring the company within sixty days to
abate the possibility of arsenic leaving its property
and requiring it to clean up its neighbors' property.
During the course of the suit, Dr. Quebedeaux testified
that samples taken from the outfall and surrounding
soil had indicated there was enough arsenic in the
soil to kill 2.8 million persons — more than the
population of Harris County.
Foot-Dragging at the State Level
State action is, as in the past, the most
discouraging. Between 1961, when the State Water
-------
103
Pollution Control Board was appointed, and 1967, when
the Texas Water Quality Act was passed, the State filed
not one charge of violating water pollution statutes.
There wore two cases heard on appeal when the Board had
granted waste discharge permits and citizens had
appealed the decision to grant them. But the State
won both cases and the polluters were allowed to
continue polluting. Since a few snaggled teeth were
put into the Act in 1969 , however, the State has moved
sovarv/'hab faster, but still not fast enough. Roger Tyler,
assistant attorney general and chief of the Water Divi-
sion of the Texas Attorney General's Office, tells me
that the State has filed only five charges of water
pollution violations in Harris County since September 1,
19G9, when the amended Texas Water Quality Act went
into effect. The State, however, has joined in six
other cases brought by the Harris County Pollution
Control Section. It is interesting to note that most
of the companies filed on by the State are rather small
ones, while four of those tackled by the county are the
giants of industry on the Ship Channel -- names like
Olin Corporation, Rhodia, Inc., Goodyear Tire and
Rubber, and Rohm & Haas Company.
One of the key amendments to -the Texas Water
-------
104
Quality Act approved in I9 60 was a change in the wording
of the Act. Previously, waste discharges, or threats
of waste discharges, affecting water courses in Texas
had to cause "pollution" to be a violation. The new act
reads: "(a) Whenever it appears that a person has
violated or is violating, or is threatening to violate
... any ... permit ... then the board, or the executive
director when authorized ... may cause a civil suit to
¦1 O
be instituted." Another amendment sets a fine
ranging from $50 to $1,000 for violations, with each
and every day and each and every act a separate
offense.^^
In one of the cases in which the State has
intervened (the Rhodia Case mentioned earlier) , it
has taken the most active role it has taken in any
case, and we have seen the results. Other dases,
however, have shown a safe attitude toward the
polluter on the part of some officials. Furthermore,
there has been in the past a lamentable practice of
the Texas Water Quality Board staff of quickly amending
a waste discharge permit when it discovers that a
county enforcement agency is planning to file a charge.
These conclusions have been confirmed by the Attorney
-------
105
General's office.
My conclusion is found in the testimony
presented as recently as March 17 of this year by Mr.
Tyler to the Senate Finance Committee of the Texas
Legislature. In it, he documents point by point the
failure of the Texas Water Quality Board to move to
adequately enforce present water pollution control
laws. Among the points he makes are these:
1. The Board is not using local health
authorities in preparing enforcement cases.
2. The Board needs to re-evaluate all
existing waste discharge permits. Some old permits
need to be rewritten.
3. The Board gives too much publicity
to cases before filing.
4. There are unnecessary delays in pro-
cessing waste discharge permit applications.
5. There is a need for more coordination
between Board staff people and the staff attorneys of
the Board with the Attorney General's office.
6. Often too much credence is given to an
alleged polluter's claim that he cannot clean up,
rather than toward gathering facts for an effective
enforcement program.
-------
106
These are only half of the charges that Mr.
Tyler made in his presentation, and I think the last
one mentioned is perhaps the most important one. It
is spotlighted by a recent case against French Ltd.,
which had been given three years to solve its pollution
problems in northeast Harris County. Hugh Yantis, the
Board's executive director, came back in March with a
proposal to give the company another year in which to
correct the problem. The Board, however, in a rather
unusual display of militancy, ordered the company to
immediately halt operations and to clean up its pit
which had been used for disposal of industrial waste.
Furthermore, in an executive session, it ordered Mr.
Yantis to get tough "or else." And Chairman Fulcher
explained that the "else" means to get tough or get
fired. This is, indeed, encouraging, and it buoys
our hopes that the State, at last, is moving in the
right direction in enforcement.
Regional Authorities
There is another area of services and control
that is becoming of importance. If pollution is to be
attacked from a broad base, there must be a governmental
device that can cross traditional political boundaries
-------
107
to pursue the source of such problems where they
originate or where the effects are felt. For instance,
the people of Galveston are vitally affected, and should
be considered, by what occurs in the Houston Ship
Channel. Whatever is discharged in Galveston Bay must
eventually pass by Galveston on its way to the sea.
One such agency was created by the Texas
Legislature. Created in September 1969, the Gulf
Coast Waste Disposal Authority was organized in
February 1970 and started its staff in June of that
year. Not yet a year old, we cannot judge its effec-
tiveness, but it does have sufficiently broad powers
to accomplish a great deal. The Authority has power
to plan, recommend standards, do research, enforce
standards and to build and operate waste treatment
facilities. The measure of its success will depend on
the ability to fund its activities in the enforcement
and regulatory phase of its work.
The Authority has already undertaken
several projects that will provide waste treatment for
industries and cities in the Houston area. Under these
arrangements the participants pay all costs of the
treatment facilities and the operation and maintenance
-------
108
costs. No tax money is required for this phase of the
Authority work. The primary benefit to the public is
found in the fact that a governmental authority, and
not a private industry or other discharger, will have
37
control of the final effluent.
This regional concept is the first of its
kind in the nation, where both enforcement and
implementation are placed under one authority. Only
time will tell whether the Gulf Coast Authority will be
able to coordinate the efforts of local governments in
one area to afford a broad approach to the pollution
problem. The public will decide this role since it
must make the decision on whether to tax itself to
provide regional control measures.
Some Conclusions and Recommendations
1. The Water Quality Act still needs
perfecting and State Representative Rex Braun is
pressing for several amendments in this session of the
legislature. One of his bills"*® provides that any
waste discharge permit issued by the State Water
Quality Board requires concurrence by the city or
county in which it is granted. Should such a permit
be issued by the State without such concurrence, it
would be invalid and the company involved would be
-------
109
3 9
subject to prosecution. A second Braun bill would
allow city or county governments to set stricter water
quality standards than the State sets. A third bill
offered by him*0 would let a municipality file charges
against a polluter even though the polluting company
is located outside the city's jurisdiction. Another
extremely important Braun bill*-1- would give private
citizens standing to. sue corporations or state regula-
tory agencies for degradation of the State's natural
resources, including air and water. At this time, it
is evident that lobbyists are fighting Representative
Braun*s proposals, for passage of them would give
pollution ficrhters such as Dr. Quebedeaux a clear field
to haul polluters into court.
2. All facilities of all agencies at all
levels of government should be put at the disposal of
each other agency. If Harris County needs help from
the City of Houston in taking samples from streams or
discharges, then the City of Houston should oblige.
If the City of Houston needs help from the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency, then that agency
should do whatever it can.
3. I would like to see the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency adopt new water quality
standards. The so-called "zoning" of the Houston Ship
-------
110
Channel in 1964 was a farce concocted by an engineer on
the industry-controlled Water Pollution Control Board,
and the farce is still being foisted upon Harris County
citizens. The present Water Quality Board has used
this concept as part of its water quality standards
submitted to the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration in compliance with the Federal Water Quality
Act of 1965.^ This statute required states to adopt
water quality standards to be approved by the FWCPA,
and standards were to be adopted for each body of water
according to its particular use -- i.e., for industry,
marine life reproduction, or recreation, et cetera.
But I do not recall that the Federal Water Quality Act
of 1965 permitted the State to divide a body of water
into three different zones, each to be of a different
quality. And whether there is authority to do this or
not, it should not be done, for reasons I have pointed
out above. So I would urge the EPA to require new,
more stringent water quality standards for all waters,
navigable, interstate or intrastate.
4. Then, generally, I think that all the
agencies must adopt the attitude that those who pollute
in violation of clearly established standards are law
-------
Ill
breakers and should be treated as such. Their permits
should not be revised to make the act fit the legal
permission, and they should not be able to profit by
their offenses because it is deemed of greater social
value to lighten the burden of the courts' dockets
than to lighten' the burden upon people and upon the
environment — a burden which is occasioned by dumping
industrial garbage in that great street on which our
industry resides, the Houston Ship Channel.
5. Perhaps it goes without saying that the
good ongoing or uncompleted programs should proceed,
but I shall say so if only to emphasize (1) the im-
portance of the completion of the consortium of river
authorities as an agent acting for the state to raise
25 percent of the cost of waste treatment plants so
that municipalities and other public agencies may get
55 percent matching funds under the Clean Water Restora-
tion Act and (2) the importance of passing the bond
issue for the same purpose respecting future Federal
funds. As has been said, this important and desirable
constitutional amendment comes up on May 18 for approval
or rejection by the people.
While there are those among us who lament
-------
112
Federal intervention, it is evident from the history of
two decades of state inaction and refusal to get tough
with polluters that whether we get a decent quality of
environment rests with local entities or the Federal
Government -- at least in the enforcement area. Like-
wise, it is for all intents and purposes certain that
it will be the Federal Government that puts up tho
money for water improvement. However, the State is
showing signs of cooperation in making money available
to its municipalities and jsubdivisions for this purpose.
To clean up, or at least improve, the inky
black Bayou we must press as hard as we can at those
levels of government and in those areas of control as
give promise of most results. Perhaps this paper will
serve as something of a guide as to what agencies are
most likely to produce in what particular ways.
~U.S. Representative, Texas; Member, Texas
House of Representatives, 1958 to 1966.
^McCollum versus State, 305 S.W,2d 612,165
Crim. 241 (1957).
'Thompson versus Stauffer Chemical Company,
348S.W.2d 274 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Waco 1961, writ
ref'd n.r.e.).
-------
113
3.
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art.
7 6 21d (1969).
4
(1961).
(1961).
(1961).
(1963) .
(1963) .
(1963) .
See note 1 supra.
5See note 2 supra.
6H.B. 1007, 57th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess
7
H.B. 1010, 57th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess
8
H.B. 1026, 57th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess.
9H.B. 186, 58th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess
10H.B. 185, 58th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess
11H.B. 184, 58th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess
12Vote on H.B. 185, Tex. II.R.J. 1189-90,
58th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess. (1963).
13
Thompson versus Stauffer Chemical Company,
note 2, at 27 5.
14Id. at 276.
15ia. at 275.
-------
114
1 6
Amendment to Committee Amendment 1 to
H.B. 362, adding £ 14 of the final bill. 59th Tex.
Leg., Reg. Sess. (1965).
1 8
H.B. 34, 57th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess.
(1961).
1 9
H.B. 39, 57th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess.
(1961).
20Vote on H.B. 13 0, Tex. H.R.J. 2 426,
57th Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess. (1961).
21
Note 3 supra, £ 3(a).
2 2 _ j
Id .
23Hote 3 supra.
24id.
2533 U.S.C.A. £ 1153 (1966).
26Id.
270il Pollution Act of 1924, 33 U.S.C.A.
§ 431 (1964).
28Refuse Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C.A. § 407
(1964).
29Pub. L. No. 91-224 (1970)
30
Harris County versus Rhodia, Inc., Civ. No.
853,872, Dist. Ct. of Harris County, 55th Judicial Dist.
of Texas (1971).
-------
115
3lia.
3 2
City of San Antonio versus C.D.J. Enter-
prises, Inc., 402 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Austin
1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Corder versus State Water
Pollution Control Bd., 391 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. Civ. App.
-- Austin 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
33
Note 3 supra, J 4.02.
34ia.
3 5 Jd-
3 6 Id.
3*7 J
Id.
38
(1971)
(1971)
(1971)
H.B. 69, 6 2nd Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess.
360, 62nd Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess.
^®H.B. 276, 62nd Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess.
^11.B. 56 , 62nd Tex. Leg., Reg. Sess. (1971).
^Federal Water Quality Control Act of 1965,
33 U.S.C.A. 4 466 (1965); Water Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C.A. $$ 466g, et. seq., $§ 1151, et. seq.
-------
11G
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Congressman
Eckhardt.
Since you said that the EPA people had
done their homework, let me say that after listening
to your presentation, I am sure you know what
"homework" is. That was an exceedingly comprehensive
statement.
I wonder if we could ask our staff members
to get in touch with your office so we can get these
charts in a form that we can insert in our record.
Would that be appropriate?
MR. ECKHARDT: I assume that you ordinarily
work up the transcript and make it available for some
editing. If you do that, I will make my changes with
respect to the references to the charts and work up
some black and white charts if that will be all right?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That will be made
available to you.
MR. ECKHARDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are there any comments
or questions?
MR. JOHN QUARLES: I would like to comment
-------
117
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
briefly, if I might.
At the beginning, I might explain that my
role at these proceedings is largely a matter of
sitting in and observing in order to obtain some first-
hand feeling for the factual situation that exists here.
I will be here today and tomorrow and will
not be able to be here for the conclusion of these
proceedings, assuming that they do proceed beyond
Tuesday.
With regard to many of the points which
you made, Congressman Eckhardt, in your presentation,
I don't think it is appropriate for me to make any
response because our purpose is to sit as a fact
finding panel and hear the story as it unfolds from
all of those who would wish to make a presentation.
I would like to respond before any period
of time is allowed to give any credence to the suggestion
that you made, however, that there may be some tendency
within the Environmental Protection Agency of doing a
job that is a "soft touch" in dealing with pollution
problems.
That is not our intention and I assure you
-------
118
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
that is not what we shall do. By our actions, you may
judge us, and I think the record which we have begun
to establish and which I have every confidence we will
continue to establish will be a record of comprehensive,
concrete efforts to reduce the pollution problems
around the country taking action in a positive way
where it is called for.
The conference sponsored by the National
Association of Manufacturers that you referred to was
one in which I was one of the principal part icipants^
and I appreciate the fact in referring to that, you
referred to the newspaper accounts of the conference
rather than the conference itself.
I do not believe there were any statements
made in that conference by myself or by the Administrator,
Mr. Ruckelshaus, or by others that would have justified
the conclusion that we were inclined to adopt a "soft
touch."
Our position has been and will be that we
do not want to take action in individual cases until
we have had an opportunity to explore fully the facts
that are involved, and, wherever possible, to obtain a
-------
119
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
solution to the problem through voluntary undertaking
of pollution control efforts by the municipalities
or the industries that may be involved.
We have expressed on that occasion and on
many others our concern to provide an opportunity to
all of those who are now contributing to the pollution
problems who recognize the need for a stepped-up level
of control of those problems and to undertake such
actions as are called for without suffering the unfair
publicity that may occur from the litigation or other
forceful actions that we may be required to take.
And, indeed, this entire enforcement
conference is undertaken with that spirit on our part;
that we have come here not to accuse or to condemn,
but rather to explore the subject and to work in a
cooperative fashion with all of those who are concerned
and to take a positive, constructive approach to
improving water quality to see what we can do.
So, I would simply close by repeating the
comments that the Chairman made in appreciation of the
obvious attention that you have given to these problems.
I was aware from a previous meeting we had in Washington
-------
120
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
of your own personal commitment to improving environ-
mental protection and improving water quality in Texas,
but I am even more impressed by that personal
commitment and personal familiarity which you have
demonstrated to us now.
Other than that, as I said, I won't comment
on the substantive report you made , but I would like
the record to be made clear on our own position in
approaching the problems.
MR. ECKHARDT: May I comment briefly?
MR. RICHARD VANDERHOOF: Yes.
MR. ECKHARDT: We very much appreciate
the attention the EPA gave to our very difficult
problem of trying to take care of monies that were
available to Texas that would have run out on May 15
and on June 3 0 if action had not been taken immediately
through the compact of water authorities, and we very
much appreciate your immediate attention to that
matter because, as you now see, we were serious in
reserving the monies permanently in passing the bond
issue, but without your excellent cooperation and that
of the Water Quality Board and of the river authorities,
-------
121
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
we would have lost, I think $50 million.
Now we may save all of that. I say hopefully
that we "may," and I have some indication that we may,
but certainly it will be a very substantial aid to
meeting this problem, and certainly you are entitled
to the greatest commendation for your cooperation on
this matter.
We deeply appreciate^ it.
And I would like to say briefly to the
comment about the meeting that you referred to: I am
in politics myself, you know. (Laughter.)
I know that at times there are comments
that might have other context.
I never criticize newspapers because they
have the last word and usually they are reasonably
accurate. (Laughter.)
But it can be said that you can talk about
a soft approach in a sense which is not necessarily bad.
I think in the area of water quality,
there is such a tremendous stake in industry to reuse
its water, to recycle, to make the absolute maximum
use of water that is available that in the long run, we
have a built-in tendency toward enforcing the Act.
-------
122
Hon. Bob Eckhardt
I think industry, in general, wants to
enforce the Act because it is greatly to its advantage.
I think there is a difference in water
pollution and air pollution in this respect because
water is exhaustible, and from industry's standpoint
air is not.
So, I am firmly of the opinion that you
have built into the Act pressures which call on
industry to govern itself to a large extent, and I
don't mean by anything that I have said here to make
a blanket attack at industry, but the only thing is
that when industries are competitive with each other,
and when the program is at this stage, it seems to
me it becomes necessary to apply uniform enforcement
to all so that those who would make the maximum use of
recycled water will not be at a disadvantage for
doing so.
So, I can understand how even the quote
that was used in the paper could be a part of a total
expression at a meeting and still not be bad.
The thing is: None of us wants to be harsh,
but I think we must be positive.
-------
123
Hon. Bill Archer
Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: If not, may we recognize
Don Jansen representing Congressman Bill Archer?
Mr. Jansen.
THE HONORABLE BILL ARCHER
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(Presented by Don Jansen)
MR. JANSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, I am Don Jansen. I am here
on behalf of Congressman Bill Archer.
Congressman Archer has expressed his regrets
he personally could not attend this series of hearings
because business in Congress has kept him up in Washing-
ton. But he will have representatives throughout the
full 3 days or longer, as you indicated, because you are
going to listen to everyone, as you say, and they will
-------
124
Hon. Bill Archer
be reporting back to him periodically on these
proceedings.
Even though the Ship Channel and Galveston
Bay are not in his District, he too has a great concern,
because they do affect the people of Houston and the
citizens of the State of Texas. And he like every
other citizen is concerned about pollution problems in
these great areas.
The Congressman will be reading over these
proceedings and reports to see if there is any way in
which he or Congress can further assist in solving
the problems.
I thank you very much for your time, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Jansen.
We are off to a flying start. We will
listen to everyone. I hope the rest will be as germane
and relevant as what we have had up until now.
Representative Rex Braun of the State of
Texas.
-------
125
Hon. Rex Braun
THE HONORABLE REX BRAUN
REPRESENTATIVE, STATE OF TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
MR. BRAUN: Chairman Stein, gentlemen,
ladies and gentlemen. Unlike Congressman Eckhardt,
who operates under the filibuster rules, we, on the
State level, have a 10-minute time limit, and I will
try to stay within that. (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The House has a 5-minute
debate level.
MR. BRAUN: We have a 3-minute amendment
limit, and I will try to stay within that.
I have represented the Houston Ship Channel
for some 6 years on a State level.
This is, of course, the industrial complex
and the greatest petrochemical complex in the United
States.
Again, like Congressman Eckhardt, I don't
know what my district will be. I think the courts will
settle that. I may be representing Memorial Drive.
(Laughter.)
-------
126
Hon Rex. Braun
My remarks, gentlemen, will be in a general
nature because I am not a "technocrat" but a victim.
As you can see, I have spent some 5 months
in Austin in the good clean air up there and came home
for a long weekend and you see the results (indicating
throat condition).
That is the kind of area in which I live
and represent.
My remarks will be directed to you people
on a Federal level -- the EPA. First, I want to
welcome you on behalf of myself and the people I
represent, because, as I said in 1967 to Commissioner
Quigley and his Commission for Water Quality and the
Presidential Commission, the people in this area do not
care who cleans up that mess, whether it is the Federal
Government, State government, local government, or
International Monetary Fund. And I repeat that to
you today.
Now, as far as the State agency, I think
Congressman Eckhardt did a fine job of reporting to
you on what has gone on in the past almost 10 years.
I concur with those remarks
I think our Board's rhetoric has improved,
-------
127
Hon. Rex Braun
but I am waiting to see. I have to say, as I have said
before, their staff, their philosophy has been soft on
polluters and has coddled the polluters of this State.
Until we get the kind of action we need
from this centralized authority in Austin, the State
Water Quality Board, we will still have the degradation
of the environment in this area.
As to the local government, I think our
problem lies in that they are hamstrung by our weak and
inadequate laws, which the Texas Legislature has seen
fit to pass, and our hope lies with you.
We have just finished another 5-months'
session, which I consider is another waste as far as
the environmental field is concerned. We passed nothing
meaningful, only laws that would comply with your
already Federal regulations.
There were many good, fine bills, antipollu-
tion bills, introduced -- both air and water. But they
died in committee as they have always in the past. I
am afraid sometimes that some of our State agencies are
lobbying against these strong bills.
I would like to see the enforcement put in
-------
128
Hon. Rex Braun
the hands of the people and in the local control area.
I think we know our problem better, and I think we can
attack it better.
I still feel there is a need for a State
control to oversee and the Federal control to oversee
our State.
Mow, you will probably hear later on from
our State agency some of the rhetoric which I addressed
myself to earlier about how things are getting better
and progress is being made. And, gentlemen, I plead
with you to listen with a deaf ear. This is hogwash.
I live in this area. I see it. V7e live in pollution
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. We
can tell.
All you need is an eye to see and nose
to smell. One of my colleagues said sometimes it is
so thick you can step in it.
You really are as far as I am concerned
our last hope. It is my hope and the people that' I
represent that you will not take this soft touch, that
you will come in and not waste too much time studying.
Enough of those studies have been made. We know we
-------
129
Hon. Rex Braun
have pollution. You know we have pollution. It is
time for enforcement, and I guess the word today is
"sock it to 'em."
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
MR. BRAUN: If there is a question I
will try to answer.
CHAIRMAN STEIJI: Are there any comments
or questions? (No response.) I would say, Representa-
tive Braun, that we have been in many similar situations
in the country and I indicated some other shellfish
cases that we have had. For example, on Long Island
the oysters are beginning to come back there, and
Penobscot Bay in Maine the clams are beginning to
come back.
I think I recognize a lot of the industry
friends in the audience whom we have met in other
parts of the country, and they know I think when we
get into a case like this that we recognize and fully
support the primary rights and responsibilities of
the States in these matters.
-------
130
Hon. Rex Braun
We are here, and our operation is inexorable,
and we are going to be firm. We may have a soft touch,
but the way I look at it is that we are firm but fair.
But if there is pollution here, as far as
I know, Mr. Quarles and all of us are dedicated to
cleaning it up.
Thank you.
MR. BRAUN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you very much.
MR. BRAUN: I would like to answer that.
I feel that many responsible industries and munici-
palities have made progress, but the problem lies
with this same reckless, callous, renegade minority
group whom I hope you will take in hand.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
Because of other engagements, Mr. Yantis
has I believe someone he wants to put on now.
MR. YANTIS: I have just had a note from
the gentleman that I was going to introduce which says
he would like to wait a few moments before he speaks.
So you will have to go on.
-------
131
R. Vanderhoof
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Yantis, we are going
to have to have I think the presentation by Mr.
Gallagher, which may take an hour and a half. I wonder
then, to schedule the rest of the morning, if he will
be prepared to speak in about ten minutes?
MR. YANTIS: N.o.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: In that case, we will call
on the Federal representative, Mr. Vanderhoof. Will
you go ahead?
MR. RICHARD VANDERHOOF
CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER - REGION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
MR. VANDERHOOF: Than.' you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be a participant at this conference.
The Galveston Bay is a very important
segment of the State of Texas as well as the United
States, and it is increasing rapidly in growth in both
population and in industrial might, and the amount of
growth is staggering to the imagination.
-------
132
R. Vanderhoof
It is a dynamic area. Now many people
in this area have played a great part in its dynamic
growth and are just as determined to clean up the
pollution as they were in helping meet one of our
Nation's goals du :ng the past decade of placing a
man on the moon
Ntat another important goal has been set,
and that is the movement to attain a pollution-free
environment. We have the technology to meet that
goal.
Por example, in the arid region of
Southwest Africa, the city of Windhoek is deliberately
using its treated waste as a source of municipal
water supply. This is deliberate reuse for
municipal purposes.
As I have pointed out, the people of this
area are making important contributions to our city,
and I know that the leadership that is here and that
has helped place this man on the moon — men on the
moon now — will also want to assume the same degree
of leadership in cleaning up this area.
-------
133
R. Vanderhoof
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would
like to take a moment and introduce some Regional
Environmental Protection Agency personnel.
Mr. Bill McFarland, the Interim Regional
Coordinator at Dallas.
Mr. Tom Harrison, the Regional Enforcement
Officer; Mr. Malcolm Kallus in charge of our Houston
office. Mr. Richard Duty in charge of our technical
programs; Mr. Kenton Kirkpatrick in charge of the
planning in the past and now the Acting Deputy
Director; Mr. George Putnicki, our Research and
Development Officer; and Mr. Jerry Thornhill who will
talk later on Federal Activities.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I believe Mr. Vanderhoff
is going to call on the people for the Federal pre-
sentation, and we anticipate that this will take the
rest of the morning.
I guess you have exposed us to your
handsome and energetic staff. Since you have done
that we are going to have to move forward. But we
will take a recess now for ten minutes. Please be
back promptly.
-------
134
M, Kallus
(Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let's reconvene. Please
take your seats. We have a very long program.
Mr. Vanderhoof.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our first witness will describe the
existing situation. He will orient you as to
facilities in this area.
Mai Kallus.
Mr. Kallus?
MR. MALCOLM KALLUS
CHIEF, GALVESTON BAY FIELD STATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
HOUSTON, TEXAS
MR. KALLUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderhoof.
For the record, my name is Malcolm F.
Kallus. I am chief of the Galveston Bay Field Station,
EPA Water Quality Program.
I would like to take a few brief moments to
orient the conferees to the area under consideration
and also to describe briefly some of the major pollution
-------
135
M. Kallus
sources around the bay. These will be discussed in
great detail by Mr. Gallagher in the next presentation.
The Galveston Bay system contains about
533 square miles of surface area and is the largest of
the shallow bay systems behind the barrier islands
along the Texas coast. It consists of Galveston Bay,
Trinity Bay, East Bay, Itfest Bay and numerous smaller
arms called bays and lakes. The drainage area of the
entire system is some 24,300 square miles. i-lajor
sources of freshwater inflow are the Trinity River,
draining 17,800 square miles; the San Jacinto River,
draining 3,900 square miles, and several smaller
coastal streams draining some 2,500 square miles
in aggregate.
Because of main stem impoundments on the
Trinity and San Jacinto Rivers, the ecology of the bay
is influcenced primarily by inflows from the immediate
3,600-square-mile drainage area. This area includes
600 square miles of the lower Trinity River Basin,
1,500 square miles of the lower San Jacinto River Basin
and 1,500 square miles of directly draining creeks
and bayous.
-------
136
M. Kallus
The waters of the Galveston Bay system are
used extensively for recreation, propagation of fish
and wildlife, industrial cooling water supply, navi-
gation, aesthetics and waste disposal. Galveston Bay
is the final receiving water prior to the Gulf of
Mexico of drainage from the most highly developed
complex metropolitan area of Texas. This drainage
comprises municipal, industrial and agricultural
wastes from Harris, Galveston and Chambers Counties
and portions of Brazoria, Fort Bend, Liberty, and
Montgomery Counties. These wastewaters include
the effluents of about 270 municipal sources with
secondary treatment and 460 industrial sources which
vary from highly treated to raw.
The largest single source of wastes
entering Galveston Bay is the Houston Ship Channel,
which has been described by some as one of the most
polluted streams in the United States. This channel
which has made the Port of Houston the third largest
in the Nation has also resulted in a 25—mile waterway,
which, along the upper 15 miles of its length, is
-------
137
M. Kallus
usually devoid of oxygen, and associated offensive
odors and appearances persist. Upstream rainfall on
Buffalo Bayou, the source stream of the upper Houston
Ship Channel, causes flushing of channel wastes into
Galveston Bay. Fish kills in side bays near the
mouth of the inland portion of the channel at Morgan's
Point are one result of this flushing. Another result
is a myriad of refractory organic pollutants swept
into Galveston Bay.
The city of Houston operates some 37 sewage
treatment plants. The two largest, Northside and Sims
Bayou discharge excess solids and inadequately-treated
wastes into the Houston Ship Channel. Sludge banks,
noxious bottom gases and totally anaerobic conditions
are in evidence in the vicinity of both of these plants.
At the mouth of the present inland channel
the Port of Houston is planning a major "second" port
facility and industrial park. The location of this
port is on a channel known as Barbours Cut which is
planned to be enlarged. Such a development unless
carefully planned will result in further degradation
of Galveston Bay.
-------
138
M. Kallus
The Houston Lighting & Power Company has
under construction on Cedar Bayou a thermal electric
generating plant which when completed will have a
capacity of 5,000 megawatts. The first unit with a
750 megawatt capacity is currently in operation and a
second 750 megawatt unit is nearing completion. This
plant as now designed utilizes once-through cooling
water taken in from Galveston Bay in the vicinity of
the mouth of the Houston Ship Channel via a flow
reversal in Cedar Bayou, and after heating is
discharged into Trinity Bay through a 6-mile discharge
canal. When fully developed, the discharge of 5,000
c.f.s. of heated water by this plant will completely
dominate the circulation patterns in Trinity Bay.
The freshwater inflows to the Galveston Bay System
during the low-flow summer conditions are less than
3 ,000 c.f.s.*
One of the prime customers for this electric
*TRACOR, Water Quality Analyses pf the Cedar Bayou
Generating Stations, prepared for Houston Lighting &
Power Company, July 1, 1970.
-------
139
M. Kallus
power is U. S. Steel, which has under construction a
fully integrated steel mill expected to ultimately
discharge over 250 MGD of blowdown water from a re-
circulated freshwater system. The Freshwater for this
plant is to be supplied by the Coastal Industrial Water
Authority through a canal which siphons under the
Houston Lighting & Power Company's discharge canal.
The major source of freshwater to the
system, the Trinity River, is being damned at its
mouth by the Corps of Engineers. In the process more
than 12,000 acres of productive marshland are being
inundated, and consumptive water use of impounded
water will reduce freshwater inflows, jeopardizing
the nursery areas for the most productive and
commercially valuable bay on the Texas coast.
The Bayport Industrial Complex complete
with a planned deepwater port facility has begun
operation south of La Porte. This complex of
petrochemical and chemical plants utilizes a single
waste treatment plant operated by Friendswood
Development Company.
-------
140
M. Kallus
Clear Lake, a hydrologically insignifi-
cant but economically important tributary to Galveston
Bay, is experiencing advanced eutrophication caused by
rapid growth during the past decade associated with the
NASA Manned Spacecraft Center and poor treatment of
municipal wastes complicated by an unfavorable hydrology.
Approved water quality standards require
diversion of all sewage effluents from the watershed.
However, the Texas Water Quality Board has approved
an alternative of advanced waste treatment.
The Texas City industrial complex is
another area of industrial waste discharge to Galveston
Bay. There are 17 waste sources in this area, 11 of
which are petroleum related and account for 99 percent
of the wastes.
The city of Galveston, which depends
largely on tourism for its existence, is operating a
grossly overloaded waste treatment plant alongside
a garbage dump which is encroaching on bay Waters.
This completes my presentation of a brief
tour around the bay and the major pollution sources.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Thank you, Mr. Kallus.
-------
141
T. P. Gallagher
This is all one presentation. The second part
of it will be by Mr. Tom Gallagher.
MR. TI-IOMAS P. GALLAGHER
DIRECTOR, FIELD INVESTIGATION
DENVER OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
REGION VIII
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DENVER, COLORADO
MR. GALLAGHER: Mr. Chairman, conferees,
my name is Thomas P. Gallagher. I am Director of
Field Investigation for the Denver Office of Enforce-
ment of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I will present a report entitled "Pollution
Affecting Shellfish Harvesting in Galveston Bay, Texas."
I would like the entire report to be entered into the
record as if read.*
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Without objection, this
will be done.
MR. GALLAGHER: Thank you, Mr. Stein.
*See page 145v
-------
T. P. Gallagher
142
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 1965.
Pollution of these waters is subject to the provisions
of Section 10, Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended. 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 presentation summarizes presently
available information pertaining to the quality of
-------
143
T. P. Gallagher
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 .
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 A & M 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.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Gallagher, while you
are switching to another section of the report, I would
like to indicate we do have a call board for messages
at the registration desk.
I guess I am lucky I brought my boss along
-------
144
T. P. Gallagher
and he knows where I am. But I understand that
a lot of the company officials are getting calls, and
you may wish to check on your way out if you feel you
are going to get a call.
Mr. Gallagher, would you continue?
(Whereupon Mr. Gallagher read the remainder
of the Federal report in its entirety as follows.)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATFK V( \I I I > OFFICE
REPORT ON
POLLUTION AFFECTING
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS
PREPARED BY
DIVISION OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - DENVER CENTER
AND
SOUTH CENTRAL REGION
DENVER,COLORADO
DALLAS .TEXAS
MARCH 1971
-------
146
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
-------
147
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES v
I INTRODUCTION .... I
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 FES TIC IDES 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
i
-------
148
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Section
Title
Page
VIII WATER QUALITY IMPACT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS . .
87
A. HOUSTON WATER SUPPLY DIVERSION
B. CEDAR BAYOU POWER PLANT . . .
C. MORGAN POINT DEEPWATER PORT .
87
90
95
BIBLIOGRAPHY
97
APPENDICES
A APPLICABLE TEXAS 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
149
Figure No.
Title
Page
IV-1
V-l
V-2
V-3
V-4
V-5
V-6
V-7
V-8
V-9
V-10
V-ll
Galveston Bay Area
Water Quality Standards Zones
in the Galveston Bay Area
Galveston Bay Study Sampling
Stations and Classifications
of Shellfish Harvesting Areas
Isolines of Median Coliform
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.
VI-1
VI-2
VI-3
VI-4
VII-1
Title
Permitted Wastewater Discharges
in the Galveston Bay Area
Permitted Suspended Solids Dis-
charges in Galveston Bay Area
Permitted BOD Waste Discharges *
in the Galveston Bay Area
Permitted COD Waste Discharges
in the Galveston Bay Area
Classifications of Shellfish
Harvesting Areas
VIII-1
Future Development
150
Page
Follows Page 64
Follows Page 64
Follows Page 64
Follows Page 64
Follows Page 80
Follows Page 90
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
151
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 Colifortn Concen-
trations and Percentage of Samples
Greater Than 230 Coliform/100 ml at
Selected Stations in Galveston Bay
for Periods Dec.1968-April 1969 and
Dec„1969-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.1968-April 1969 and
Dec.1969-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
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D.)
152
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
Galveston Bay or Its Tributaries 62
VI-2-0 Other Industrial Discharges to Galveston
Bay or Its Tributaries 63
VI-3 Pollutants Associated with Various Petro-
chemical Processes 72
Vl-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 1965. 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.
-------
154
(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.
(4) 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.
-------
155
3
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
.The area considered in this report includes all of Galveston
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
coliform 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. In 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
-------
156
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 colifora 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
-------
157
5
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 Bay, 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 MGD 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
-------
6
158
permitted discharge. The major industries permitted to discharge
oil and grease are: 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
-------
159
7
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.
9
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 non-compliance 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
-------
8
160
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 Channel 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. Uhere 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
-------
161
9
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 the 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 Houston 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.
-------
162
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.).
-------
163
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 ofkthe date of the
first session of the Galveston Bay Enforcement Conference.
-------
164
4) 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 Galveston 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
-------
165
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 the 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 uncontamlnated area waters.
-------
14
166
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.
-------
167
15
IV. DESCRIPTION OF AREA
A. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Galveston Bay is located In southeastern Texas on the Gulf of
Mexico about 25 miles southeast of Houston, the largest city In
the State. The Galveston Bay estuarine system, consisting of four
large bays, Galveston, Trinity, East, and West Bays, and numerous
smaller bays, creeks and bayous, has a total surface area of
about 533 square miles and is the largest estuary on the Texas
coast. The combined shoreline totals 245 miles.
The 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 miles 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
-------
168
creeks. The total drainage area of Galveston 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
-------
LIBERT
HARRIS
LAKE
HOUSTON ' ^
LIBERTY
CHAMBERS
AuDICKS
HIGHLANDS
I*£¦$¦
LAKE
NAHUAC
R/A//TY
BAY
BRAZORIA V£*-,
7\
GALVESTON
-------
170
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 humid summers. Average
daily temperatures range from about 53°F in the 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
-------
171
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 Channel 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 Galveston
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 two to three weeks per month, and semi-diurnal tides,
-------
172
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 weather 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 Galveston-
Texas City SMSA, with combined 1970 population of 178,000, are the
most important urban areas.
1/ Bobb, W. H., and R. A. Boland, Jr., Galveston Bay Hurricane Suyp^
Study, Technical Report H-69-12, July 1970, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
-------
173
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 Galveston 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
-------
17 4
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 estua'rine 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-MGD) 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
-------
N3
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)
1960 Projected 1990 Projected 2020
Basin Zone
Ground Surface Total Ground Surface Total Ground Surface Total
Neches-Trinity Coastal
2
0.1
5.6
5.7
-
23.6
23.6
-
53.0
53.0
Trinity
3
24.3
-
24.3
48.8
18.6
67.4
49.1
92.3
141.4
Trinity-San Jacinto Coastal
1
21.8
26.2
48.0
17.7
70.0
87.7
25.0
127.2
152.2
San Jacinto
2
356.1
33.6
389.7
231.0
944.2
1,175.2
161.9
2,154.1
2,316.0
San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal
1
80.9
60.0
140.9
42.8
305.0
347.8
42.8
636.4
679.2
Total
483.2
125.4
608.6
340.3
1,361.4
1,701.7
278.8
3,063.0
3,341.8
Source: Texas Water Development Board, The Texas Water Plan, Austin, Texas, November 1968.
¦J
U1
-------
176
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 greater 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 are'24,000 MGD and 288 MGD.
Navigation
The Houston-Galveston-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 Intracoastal and other inland
waterways. Vessel traffic during 1966 amounted to about 19,500
ocean-going ships and 77,900 shallow-draft barges.
-------
177
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-county study area which included
the Galveston Bay area, there were 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.
27Texas Water Quality Board, Socio-Economic Stady, Galveston Bay
Area. A report to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration in fulfillment of a contract, Austin, Texas,
May 1969.
-------
178
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
-------
Year
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
Total
Avera;
1963-1
179
TABLE IV-2
OYSTER HARVEST AND VALUE
GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS
Total Oyster Harvest
¦ Average Bed Oyster
Oyster Meat Market Value Price Area Yield
(1,000 lbs.) ($1,000) ($/lb.) (Acres) (lbs./Ac.)
543
160
0.30
8,800
62
986
285
0.29
8,800
112
953
262
0.28
8,800
108
311
118
0.38
8,800
35
1,411
396
0.28
8,800
160
2,296
655
0.29
8,600
268
1,096
329
0.30
8,600
128
1,211
473
0.39
8,600
141
2,618
914
0.35
8,600
305
3,357
1,093
0.33
8,600
391
4,836
1,538
0.32
8,600
562
4,083
1,604
0.39
8,900
458
2,993
1,320
0.44
8,900
336
2,839
1,250
0.44
8,900
319
3,447
N.A.
N.A.
9,100
378
32,980
10,397
-
-
-
2,199
743
0.34
8,760
251
3,453 1,270 0.38 8,800 392
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department.
-------
180
27
aarvest year. During this period, the approved area for shellfish
harvesting remained constant. Otuer tactors, 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 ttiree years, the harvest has been relatively constant,
indicating a stable production may be occurring.
-------
181
29
V. WATER QUALITY
A. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
The Texas Water Quality Requirements provide specific numerical
criteria for fourteen zones in the Galveston Bay area. The locations
of these zones are 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.
Tne 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.
-------
18 2
30
TABLE V~1
SUMMARY OF TEXAS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GALVESTON BAY AND HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
NUMERICAL CRITERIA
IT
Zone
Chloride
Average
mp,/l
Sulphate
"g/1
Filterable
Residue
Average
___2HSZi
BOD Dissolved Oxygen
Average not less than
mg/1 mg/1
MPN
Log.
Average
per 100 ml
PH
JSS£«_
Temperature
UATZR USES-
Suitable Known
0901 - Gulf of Mexico at Galveston
0902 - Trinity River Tidal
0903 - San Jacinto River Tidal
0904 - Houston Ship Channel
(Turning Basin area)
0905 - Houston Ship Channel
(San Jacinto Monument to
Turning Basin)
0906 - Houston Ship Channel
(Morgan Point to San Jacinto
Monument)
0907 - Clear Lake
0908 - Texas City Ship Channel
1101 - East Eay
1102 - Galveston Bay (East of Houston
Ship Channel, Boutided by
Channel Marker 68, Fisher
Shoala Day Beacon #1, Lone
Oak Bayou, Smith Point, Hanna
Reef and Bolivar Peninsula)
1103 - Trinity Bay and Galveston Bay
(East of Houston Ship Channel
and North of Channel Marker
63 and Fisher Shoala Day
Beacon #1)
1104 - Galveston Bay (West of Houston
Ship Channel)
1105 - West Bay (Bast of Caraneahua
Reef)
1106 - West Bay (West of Caraneahua
Reef)
20,000
3,000
45,000
1.0
7.0
5.0
7.0-9.0
A,I
A
6,000
500
10,000
4.0
6.0
1,000
7.0-9.0
A,I
A
10,000
1,000
20,000
2.0
4.0
50
6.2-8.5
(d
W
A,I
A,I
4,000
600
9,500
7.0
1.5
100,000
6.0-8.5
t-i
e<
o
E,I,N
I.N
7,000
1,000
16,000
5.0
2.0
10,000
6.0-8.5
P5
s
s
B,I
B,I
10,000
1,000
20,000
2.0
4.0
50
6.2-8.5
, FALL
A,I
A,1
5,000
700
12,000
3.0
6.0
70
7.0-9.0
SPRING
A,I
A
17,000
2,000
35,000
8.0
3.0
1,000
7.0-9.0
t
w
A,I
A
12,000
1,200
25,000
3.0
6.0
70
7.0-9.0
M
fit!
A,I
A
12,000
1,200
25,000
4.0
6.0
70
7.0-9.0
o
l/l
H
A, I
A
10,000
12,000
16,000
16,000
1,500
2,000
2,000
32,000
3.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
70
70
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
A,I
A,I
A»1
NARRATIVE CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL ZONES
1. 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. * '
2. Free or Floating Oil - Substantially free from oil.
3. Foaming or Frothing Material - None of a persistent nature.
4. Other - The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health Service manual "Sanitation of
Shellfish Growing Area," 1965 revision. Where waters are not shellfish growing areas, it Is required only that waters'entering or continuous
to a shellfish growing area not interfere with the shellfish growing area. *
5. Radioactive Materials - Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dissolved and suspended natter shall be
regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (f). Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Ke.ulatlnna for Cnni-™i „f
Radiation Issued thereunder. — ~ —
TJ Key to Water Uses.
Group A - Contact Recreation, Non-Contact Recreation, Fish and Wildlife, Fishing, Aesthetics, Navigation.
Group B - Non-Contact Recreation, Aesthetics, Navigation.
Group E - Aesthetics.
Group I - Industrial Cooling Water.
Group N - Navigation.
-------
183
«/,. W» '•
y////////////A
GALVESTON
09O4
Figure V- I Water Quality Standards Zones in the Galveston Ray Area
-------
184
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
-------
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
TABLE V-2
MEDIAN VALUES OF TOTAL COLIFOKM CONCENTRATIONS AMD PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES GREATER THAN
230 OOLITORH/lOO ML AT SELECTED STATIONS IN GALVESTON BAT FOR THE PERIODS
DECEMBER 1968-AFRIL 1969 AND DECEMBER 1969-APRIL 1970
Area
Classifi-
cation
Surface
1/3 Depth
1/2 Depth
2/3 Depth
Bottoa
Median
Percent
> 230
Median
Percent
> 230
Median
Percent
> 230
Median
Percent
> 230
Median
Percent
> 230
Closed
79
18
27
9
14 18
Closed
79
30
130
36
domed
49
9
33
18
49 9
Edge of open
area
33
45
49
55
33 45
Closed
130
36
310
64
330 57
Closed
13
36
14
18
Open
2
9
< 2
18
Open
2
0
5
0
Closed
11
9
17
9
Closed
490
73
940
64
Closed
11
0
17
9
Closed
8
9
7
9
Conditional
Closed
330
45
330
55
Closed
230
45
330
55
Closed
700
74
700
74
Closed
49
18
49
18
Open
33
27
26
18
Closed
240
55
221
45
Closed
1,600
73
790
73
Closed
23
18
14
18
Closed
130
36
33
36
Open
5
9
7
9
Open
2
0
5
0
Open
2
0
2
0
Closed
790
91
490
73
Closed
13,000
100
33,000
100
Closed
2,400
100
3,300
91
1,720 82
Closed
460
67
175
33 -
—Samples December 1969-April 1970 only.
79
33
49
18
55
27
630
73
-------
186
iLVESIOH
Figure V - 2 Galveston Bay Sludv Sampling Slations and Classifiealions of Shellfish Harvesting Areas
-------
187
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 concentration^ 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
-------
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
TABLE V-3
4N
MEDIAN FECAL COLIFOKM CONCENTRATIONS AND PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES WITH FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN 33/100 ML AI SELECTED STATIONS IN GALVESTON BAY FOR THE PERIODS
DECEMBER 1968-APRIL 1969 AND DECEMBER 1969-APRIL 1970
Area
Surface
1/3 Depth
1/2 Depth
2/3 Depth
Bottom
Classifi-
cation
Median
Percent
> 33
Median
Percent
> 33
Median
Percent
> 33
„ Percent
Median > 33
„ Percent
Median > ^
20
36
7
9
5 9
4 9
22
36
33
45
17
18
13
36
17 27
21 36
Edge of open
area
2
0
8
18
8 9
5 18
23
36
23
45
23 45
23 27
5
36
2
18
Open
< 2
18
< 2
18
Open
< 2
5
221
5
0
45
73
0
< 2
2
330
7
0
27
73
9
Conditional
< 2
46
33
49
5
9
55
45
64
9
2
31
49
130
5
9
45
45
74
0
Open
5
17
79
2
13
27
27
73
0
36
2
17
33
4
2
18
18
55
0
27
Open
< 2
0
< 2
0
Open
< 2
0
< 2
0
Open
< 2
490
7,000
0
100
100
< 2
330
7,900
0
82
100
1,090
100
490
100
330 100
130 91
40
50
14
33
-------
189
TEXAS CITY
SCALE IN MILES
NOTE
Figure V - 3 Isolincs of Median Coliform (onccnl ralioiis. Calvi>Hlon Rat.
-------
iyu
l»klaiM
lay**
NOTE
Figure V - I Percent of Samples with Tolal Coliform Concentrations Greater Than 230/100 ml, Calvestnn Ba>
-------
191
TEXAS CITY
SCALE IN MILES
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
Figure V - 5 Isolines of Total (loliform Concenlra tions-
-------
192
HOUSTON
BAYTOWN
DEER PARK
IW fltli l.r ,
.(•(la f\y
.•¦liar
TEXAS CITY
'»o
SCALE IN MILES
METEROLOGlCAL DATA
FEBRUDRT It WIND j)SI* HI 9.1 MP*
FEBRUARY 1) WINS
Flt«U««Y II WIND .Ml' II 1.4 KPN
Figure V -6 Isolines of Total Coliform Conce ntralions-(,nlve»ion Bay - February 18, 1969
-------
193
TEXAS CITY
METEROLOGIC AL DATA
Figure V - 7 Isolines of Tolal Coliform Concentrations-Galveslon Bay - March 18. 1969
-------
19 4-—,
HOUSTON
BAYTOWN
DEER PARK
loai Oil B if «¦
¦ •rib Pt.
TEXAS CITY
SCALE IN MILES
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
JiHIIIIV II HID 210
IINIIARY li WIND II II 4 S MPM
IINUin IJ WIND id' IT 5.1 MPH
Figure V - }( Isolines of Total Coliforra Concentrations - Galveston Bay - January 13, 1970
-------
195
o.ooo
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
Flltllllt I fill II' IT M
Figure V -«) Isolint-s of Tolal Coliform Concenlralions-Calveslon Bay - February 10, 1970
-------
19b
¦ •rg
TEXAS CITY
METEOROLOGICAL] DATA
inn ti mi 3)1* ii i i an
lllll II (III III' IT I I DM
Figure V- 10 holine.s of Total Coliform (lonrenlralions-Calveston Bay - Mar«'h 10 |97o
-------
iy7
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
-------
198
harvesting will be exceeded in the 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.
-------
199
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 primarily 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 WQO-EPA indicate widespread and
relatively uniform contamination throughout the system.
Sediment samples were collected from the Houston Ship Channel,
West Bay near Galveston, and Trinity Bay during the summer of 1969^.
1/ 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
200
TABLE V-4
CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS
GALVESTON BAY - HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
Background Sea Water Maximum Observed Order of Magnitude
Concentration* Concentration Above Background
Ug/1** yg/1
Metal
1/
2/
1/
2/
Lead
0.03
1,900
20
63,300
-
Zinc
10.0
14,000
1,550
1,400
155
Cadmium
80.0
1,200
-
15
-
Copper
3.0
10,800
360
3,600
120
Strontium
-
4,700
240
-
-
Mercury
0.03
130
-
4,340
-
Nickel
5.4
-
46
-
8.5
Chromium
0.005
-
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.
1/ Texas Water Quality Board Data - February 1969.
2/ Federal Water Quality Administration Data - November 1970.
-------
201
39
Significant quantities of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds ranging
to over 70 micrograms per kilogram (yg/kg) were observed in the
Houston Ship Channel and Galveston 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). (See correction on page 203 .)
Bioassays conducted on Houston Ship Channel water indicate
that concentrations of toxic compounds are three times greater than
2/
levels which could be tolerated for normal algal growth— . The
natural biota of Galveston 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
2/ 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.
-------
40
202
condition. A great many were missing caudal fins and some were
also missing filamentous portions of pectoral and pelvic fins.1'
Some were blinded with hard white crusts covering their eyes.
Oyster samples were obtained from both approved and pro-
hibited shellfisliing 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 Texas Water Quality Requirements stipulate that all
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.
-------
203
T. P. Gallagher
MR. GALLAGHER: I would like to correct that
oversight. That was in individual leases. .62 milligrams
of tin and .93 per milligram of lead. Collections of
most of the material was given in the final report to
the Texas Water Quality Board in 1969. The quote is
from 100 oyster samples.
I would like to amend it in that it has
reduced its mercury discharge to 0.4 pounds per day
which is less than 1/2 pound a day.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Pardon me.
Isn't that less than 1/4 pound?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I think this is
significant. This is what we have asked the other
mercury dischargers to do.
MR. GALLAGHER: It's less than 1/2 pound.
It is less than 1/4 pound a day. And
Diamond Shamrock is to be commended.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
-------
TABLE V-5
METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN OYSTERS FROM GALVESTON BAY-
NOVEMBER 12, 1970
(MICROGRAMS PER GRAM - WET WEIGHT)
Parameter
Station
No. 1
Station
No. 2
Station
No. 3
Station
No. 4a
Station
No. 5
Station
No. 6
Station
No. 7
Zinc
> 35.30
> 39.70
20.46
26
.12
21.58
20.26
22.87
Copper
8.24
9.52
5.06
4
.79
4.13
7.80
5.23
Cadmium
.41
< .15
< .15
<
.15
< .15
< .15
< .15
Lead
< .30
< .30
< .30
<
.30
< .30
< .30
< .30
Chromium
< .07
< .07
< .26
<
.07
.27
.42
.16
Mercury
.008
.062
.028
.040
.030
.045
.007
Arsenic
< .30
< .30
< .30
<
.30
.47
< .30
< .30
Boron
.87
1.65
.66
.58
.78
.38
.76
Phosphorus
270
258
102
225
185
102
196
Iron
14.71
12.30
4.63
7
.34
5.55
5.93
13.10
Molybdenum
.47
1.32
1.51
1
.57
1.01
.99
.29
Manganese
1.18
.67
.36
.70
.47
.50
.83
Aluminum
21.77
17.84
8.51
13
.50
12.33
16.51
25.10
Beryllium
< .0015
< .0015
< .0015
<
.0015
< .0015
< .0015
< .0015
Silver
.25
< .015
< .015
<
.015
< .015
< .015
.11
Nickel
.24
.75
< .15
.37
< .15
< .15
.25
Cobalt
< .15
< .15
< .15
<
.15
< .15
< .15
< .15
Vanadium
< .30
< .30
< .30
<
.30
< .30
< .30
< .30
Barium
.20
.03
.04
.15
.07
.06
.15
Strontium
1.53
1.65
1.72
1
.80
5.92
3.45
2.40
1/ See Figure V-ll for sampling locations.
-------
205
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 of 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
3/ McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf, Water Quality Criteria, Second Edition,
State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento, California,
Publication No. 3-A, 1963.
-------
206
43
was extended during 1970 due to the persistence of residues in
4/
shellfish, ranging from 4.0 ppm 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, M., et al, The West Falmouth Oil Spill. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Reference No. 70-44, September 1970.
-------
207
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
-------
208
45
TABLE V-6
EVALUATION OF GALVESTON BAY OYSTER MEATS FOR ODOR
Sample
Judge
Ref.
1
2
3
4a
5
6
7
Raw Oysters
1
4.0
5.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
2
4.5
4.5
3.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.5
4.0
3
5.0
6.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
4.5
6.0
6.0
4
6.0
6.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
7.0
4.0
5
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
5.0
6
5.0
4.0
2.0
6.0
2.5
5.0
2.5
3.0
Total
28.5
29.5
18.5
23.0
17.5
24.0
24.0
27.0
Average
4.8
4.9
3.1
3.8
2.9
4.0
4.0
4.5
Roasted Oysters
1
6.0
-
-
5.0
-
5.0
—
6.0
2
5.0
-
-
4.0
-
4.0
-
5.0
3
5.0
-
-
5.0
-
3.0
-
5.0
4
4.0
-
-
4.0
-
6.0
-
6.0
5
7.0
-
-
4.0
-
5.0
-
4.0
6
6.0
-
-
1.0
-
4.0
-
6.0
Total
33.0
-
-
23.0
-
27.0
-
32.0
Average
5.5
-
-
3.8
-
4.5
-
5.3
-------
209
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 Mexico 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.
-------
21C
U*l AMAHUAi
C-2
HOUSTON
ANAHUAC
-N
Its* Oak Iay«i
4 A
'¦•d llatf
NOTE
STATIONS NIT SHOWN
C3 HOUSTON SNIf CHANNEL MILE 41
C 4 HOUSTON SNIf CHANNEL MILE 4! (TURNING RASIN1
GALVESTON
LEGEND
OYSTER AND WATER SAttfLING STATION
WATER SAMPLING STATION
SCALE IN MILES
Figure V - II Water anil Ovsler Sampling Locations - FWQA Reconnaissance Survey, November !M70
-------
211
47
F. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a measure of the biologi-
cally oxidizable organic material in a wastewater. 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
rag/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.
-------
212
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
Zones
Criteria
(Annual
Average BOD)
mg/1
Number
Stations
in Zone
Percent
of Values
Exceeding
Criterion
Range of BOD
Yearly Averages
High Low
Range of Single
BOD Observation
High Low
East Bay
3.0
1
36.8
4.1
2.6
11
1
Galveston Bay
East of Houston Ship Channel
4.0
3
23.2
5.3
2.3
12
1
Trinity Bay
5.0
4
32.4
7.2
2.9
19
1
Galveston Bay
West of Houston Ship Channel
6.0
15
12.8
9.0
2.1
20
1
West Bay
East of Carancahua Reef
3.0
1
18.8
4.5
1.9
14
0
West Bay
West of Carancahua Reef
2.5
2
17.6
2.9
1.5
7
1
-------
215
51
VI. WASTE SOURCES
The Texas Water Quality Board, in accordance with provisions
of the Texas Water 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 (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). 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.
-------
2 TABLE vi-i-a 216
MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
ABOVE MORGAN POINT, INCLUDING BAYTOWN AREA-
PERMITTED
DISCHARGE^'
Source
Type of2/
Treatment—
Flow
MGD
Susp.
Solids
#/Dav
BOD
#/Day
COD*
#/Dav
4/
Waste Treatment Needs— and Status
Baytown
(Bayway Drive)
0.700
*117
*117
351
Unknown
Baytown, City of
(Cralgmont)
0.140
23
23
69
Unknown
Baytown, City of
(East District)
Primary
Chlorination
1.000
167
167
501
Unknown
Baytown, City of
(Humble Docks)
Secondary
Chlorination
0.560
93
93
279
Complies with permit.
Baytown, City of
(West Main)
Secondary
Chlorination
2.700
450
450
1,350
Complies with permit.
Beeler, R. F.
(Sequoia Estates)
0.400
67
67
201
Unknown
Bellaire
None
1.950
325
325
1,075
Unknown
Chambers County
(WCID #1)
Secondary
Chlorination
0.030
5
6
18
Unknown
Crest Sanitary Corp.
Unknown
0.075
13
13
39
Unknown
Florence, R. G.
(Port Haven)
Unknown
0.002
1
1
3
Unknown
Galco Utilities Co.
Unknown
0.108
18
18
54
Unknown
Galena Park
(Plant #1)
Secondary
No Chlor.
0.700
117
117
351
Unknown
Galena Park
(Plant #2)
Secondary
No Chlor.
0.100
17
17
**51
Enlarge existing plant.
Harris County
(Estex Oaks District)
Secondary
Chlorination
1.000
167
*167
501
Meets permit requirements. Houston
has requested this plant be trans-
ferred to them.
Harris County
(WCID-Fondren Road)
Unknown
0.650
108
108
324
Unknown
Harris County
(FWSD #8)
Secondary
Chlorination
0.700
117
117
351
Unknown
Harris County
(FWSD #47)
Secondary
Chlorination
0.600
100
100
300
Unknown
Harris County
(FWSD #48-1)
0.220
37
37
111
Unknown
Harris County
(FWSD #48-2)
0.210
35
35
105
Unknown
Harris County
(FWSD #78)
0.100
17
17
51
Unknown
Harris County
(WCID #1)
Secondary
Chlorination
0.500
83
83
249
Unknown
Harris County
(WCID #21)
Secondary
Chlorination
0.850
142
142
426
In compliance. No needs.
Harris County
(WCID #36)
Secondary
Chlorination
0.350
58
58
174
No needs.
Harris County
(WCID #69)
Secondary
Chlorination
0.565
94
94
282
Plant remodeling required. Does
not comply with permit.
Harris County
(WCID #70-1)
0.050
7
7
21
Unknown
Harris County
(WCID #70-2)
0.300
40
40
120
Unknown
-------
TABLE VI-l-A (Continued)
MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
ABOVE MORGAN POINT, INCLUDING BAYTOWN AREA—^
217
53
PERMITTED DISCHARGE^'
3/
Source
Type of2 .
Treatment-
Flow
MGD
Susp.
Solids
BOD
COD*
4/
///Day irlDay #/Day Waste Treatment Needs— and Status
Harris County
(WCID #73)
Harris County
(WCID #74)
Harris County
(WCID #78)
Harris County
(WCID #84)
Harris County
(WCID #90)
Harris County
(WCID #93)
Harris County
(WCID #94)
Harris County
(WCID #95)
Houston, City of
(Water Treatment Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Almeda Plaza)
Houston, City of
(Chadwick Manor)
Houston, City of
(Chatwood Plant)
Houston, City of
(Chocolate Bayou Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Clinton Park)
Houston, City of
(Cole Creek Manor)
Houston, City of
(Easthaven)
Houston, City of
(Fontaine Place
Subdivision)
Houston, City of
(Forest West)
Houston, City of
(Gulf Palms Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Gulfway Terrace)
Houston, City of
(Harris Co. #34)
Houston, City of
(Internet'1. Arpt.)
Houston, City of
(Lake Forest Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Longwood Subdivision)
Houston, City of
(New Homestead)
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
No Chlor.
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
No. Chlor.
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
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
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
40
42
20
67
58
117
167
54
*1
147
9
101
259
125
50
36
135
50
48
48
50
33
38
147
120 Unknown
126 Unknown
60 Unknown
201 Unknown
174 Unknown
351 Will connect to Houston treatment
facilities.
501 In compliance with permit 1970.
162 Unknown
3 Unknown
541 Enlarge existing plant.
2 7 Unknown
303 Construct or improve outfall.
777 Meeting permit requirements.
375 In compliance with permit.
150 Unknown
108 Unknown
405 Construction or improvement of
outfall.
150 Unknown
144 Unknown
144 Unknown
150 Unknown
**99 Unknown
114 Unknown
12 Construction or improvement of
outfall.
441 Currently meeting permit require-
ments .
-------
54
TABLE VI-l-A (Continued)
MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
ABOVE MORGAN POINT, INCLUDING BAYTOWN AREAi/
218
37"
PERMITTED DISCHARGE—
Source
Type of,.
Treatment—
Susp.
Flow Solids BOD COD*
MGD #/Day I?/Day #/Dav
4/
Waate Treatment Needs— and Status
Houston, City of
(Northeast Dlst.)
Houston, City of
(Northside Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Northwest Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Red Gully Plant)
Houston, City of
(Sims Bayou)
Houston, City of
(Southwest Plant)
Houston, City of
(West Dist. Pit.)
Houston, City of
(FWSD #23)
Houston, City of
(WCID #17)
Houston, City of
(WCID #20)
Houston, City of
(WCID #32)
Houston, City of
(WCID #34)
Houston, City of
(WCID #39)
Houston, City of
(WCID #42)
Houston, City of
(WCID #44-1)
Houston, City of
(WCID #44-2)
Houston, City of
(WCID #44-3)
Houston, City of
(WCID #47-1)
Houston, City of
(WCID #47-2)
Houston, City of
(WCID #51)
Jacinto City
Jersey Village
Jetro Lumber and
Building Co.
Katy, City of
Mayflower Investnent
Company
None
Secondary
No Chlor.
Unknown
Secondary
No Chlor.
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
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
2.000
55.000
4.000
0.300
48.000
15.000
6.000
1.250
0.750
0.125
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
9,174 9,174
334 334 1,002 Construct secondary treatment plant.
27,522 Not in compliance with permit.
673 673 2,019 Unknown
50 50 150 Unknown
8,006 8,006 24,018 Unknown
2,502 2,502 7,506 Enlarge existing plant.
1,002 1,002 3,006 Plant enlargement underway. Current
quality in compliance.
209 209 627 Enlarge plant. Construct or Improve
interceptors and outfalls.
49^ 125 375 Plant is to be enlarged to serve as
a Regional Treatment System.
21 21 63 Construction or improvement of
outfall.
125 125 375 Unknown
50 31 124 Unknown
305 135 405 Plant to be abandoned and flow
diverted to another plant.
469 262 786 Unknown
261 200 600 Unknown
17 15 45 Unknown
490 403 1,209 Unknown
^"2 90 270 Construct or improve outfall.
160 86 258 Unknown
209 209 627 Unknown
*320 320 960 Plant presently overloaded but
meeting permit requirements.
11 11 33 Unknown
2 2 6 Unknown
*48 *48 144 Unknown
83 83 249 Unknown
-------
219
55
TABLE VI-l-A (Continued)
MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC HASTE DISCHARGES TO THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
ABOVE MORGAN POINT, INCLUDING BAYTOWN AREA-
IT
PERMITTED DISCHARGE^-
Source
Type of,.
Treatment-
Flow
MGD
Susp.
SolIda
fl/Dav
BOD
#/Dav
COD*
ff/Day
4/
Waste Treatment Needs— and Statua
Memorial Villages
Water Authority
tforgan Point, City of
Nitsch, A. J.
(Durkee Manor)
Oak Glen Building
Corp. (North Terrace)
Oakwlde Water Co.
Pace Setter, Inc.
(Imp. Val.)
Pasadena, City of
(Deepwater Plant)
Pasadena, City of
(Northalde Plant)
Piney Point Village
Powell, C. L.
(Nursing Home #2)
Royalwood Municipal
Utility District
Southern San. Corp.
South Houston, City
of
Southside Place,
City of
Texas Highway Dept.
(Interstate 10 Reat
Stop)
Turkey Creek Imp.
District
Western Trails Prop.,
Inc.
West Road Imp. District
West University Place,
City of
White Oaks Develop.
Co.
Voung, Mrs. Mabel G.
Estimated Value.
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
No Chlor.
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Unknown
1.500 250 250 750 Plant currently meeting permit
requirements.
0.100 17 17 51 Unknown
0.250 42 42 126 Unknown
0.300 40 40 120 Unknown
0.245 41 41 123 Unknown
0.300 50 50 150 Unknown
1.000 167 167 501 Unknown
5.000 834 834 2,502 Not in compliance. Plant overloaded.
Present volume 6.400 MGD.
1.000 2,002 1,668 4,904 Unknown
0.004 11 3 Unknown
0.100 17 17 51 Unknown
0.350 58 58 174 Unknown
0.640 283 283 849 Enlarge existing plant.
0.216 36 36 108 Unknown
0.010 2 2 6 Unknown
0.750 125 125 375 Unknown
0.250 42 42 126 Unknown
0.550 92 92 **276 In compliance with permit.
1.000 167 167 501 In compliance with permit.
0.050 7 7 21 Unknown
0.098 16 16 48 Unknown
** True Value.
y Water Quality Standards for Zones 0904, 0905, and 0906 Apply - See Table V-l.
1/ Information from the FWQA STORET Inventory - Printout Date November 1970.
1/ Data from "Permitted Discharge Quantities - Buffalo Bayou and the Houston Ship Channel" compiled by FWQA, South Central Region.
sj Information from FWQA STORET Inventory - Printout Date November 1970 and/or "Summary of Waste Discharges into the Houston Ship
Channel In excess of 500,000 GPD." The latter document supplied by FWQA, South Central Region.
-------
56
TABLE VI-l-B
MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO GALVESTON BAY
220
PERMITTED DISCHARGi
Source
Type ot2/
Treatment-
Flow
MGD
Susp.
Solids BOD
#/ Day <7 Day
COD*
#/Day
Waste Treatment
Need
and Status
Discharges to Galveston
Bay or Tributaries.
Morgan Point to Eagle
Point (Includes Clear
Lake Area) Zone 1104^/
Baycllff MUD
Bayvlew MUD
Clear Lake Utilities,
Inc.
Clear Lake Water
Authority
Deer Park, City of —
South
Ellington Air Force
Base
Frlendswood, City of
Galveston County
(WCID #12)
Harris County
(Clear Woods Dlst.)
Harris County
(WCID #50)
Harris County
(WCID #56)
Harris County
(WCID #75)
Harris County
(WCID #81)
Harris County
(WCID #83)
Houston, City of
(Gulf Meadows)
Houston, City of
(Sagemoftt MUD)
Houston, City of
(WCID #53)
Houston, City of
(WCID #62)
Lagoon Utility Co.
La Porte, City of
League City
Pasadena, City of
(Golden Ac.)
San Jacinto Jr. College
Saabrook, City of
Shoreacres, City of
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
None
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Secondary
Chlorlna.tlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnatlon
Unknown
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
0.235
167
42
42
375
117
58
87
71
83
83
97
25
42
225
26
334
61
47
12
121
250
67
21
417
39
167
42
42
375
117
58
87
71
83
83
97
25
42
225
26
334
61
47
12
121
250
67
21
417
39
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
117
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Ho needs.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Enlarge Existing plant.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
No needs
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
No needs
Unknown
-------
221
TABLE VI-l-B (Continued)
57
MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO GALVESTON BAY
PERMITTED DISCHARGE^'
W
Source
Type of2 i
Treatment-
Flow
MGD
Susp.
Solids
ff/Day
BOD
ff/Day
COD*
it/day
Waste Treatment
Need®^
and Status
Webster, City of
Discharges to Galveston
Bay and Tributaries,
Eagle Point to Galveston
(includes Dickinson
Bayou and Texas City)
Zone 1104—/
Galveston, City of
(Airport)
Galveston, City of
(Main Plant)
Galveston, City of
(Telchman Point)
Galveston, County
(WCID #1)
Sunmeadov MUD
Texas City, City of
Other Areas of
Galveston Bay, Trinity
Bay and Tributaries
Zone noai/
Secondary
Chlorlnation
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
No Chlor.
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnation
0.400
0.360
6.400
0.050
1.700
0.014
5.000
67
60
1,068
8
284
2
834
67
60
1,068
8
284
2
834
201
No needs.
180 Unknown
3,204 Construct or Improve interceptors,
outfalls, and pumping station.,
24 Construct or improve Interceptor.
852 Unknown
6 Unknown
2,402 No needs.
Anahuac, City of
Dayton, City of
Liberty, City of
Trinity Bay Cons.
District
West Bay and Tributaries
Zones 1105 & llOfri/
Alvln, City of
Brazoria County
(WCID #4)
Fabulous Flamingo Isles
Galveston County
(WCID #8)
Hitchcock, City of
LaMarque, City of
Oak Manor MUD
Robert E. Pine Utility
Co.
None
Secondary
Chlorlnation
Secondary
Chlorlnation
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnation
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorlnation
Secondary
Chlorlnation
Unknown
Unknown
0.404
0.553
0.692
0.400
3.750
0.160
0.200
0.040
0.300
1.900
0.050
0.049
67
92
145
53
626
27
33
7
50
555
8
8
67
92
258
53
626
27
33
7
50
317
201 Construction secondary plant, outfall,
and pumping station.
276 Additional facilities required.
774 Unknown
159 Unknown
1,878
81
99
21
150
1,551
24
24
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Construction or improvement of
outfall.
Unknown
Unknown
* Estimated values
1/ Water Quality Standards for this zone - See Table V-l.
2/ Information from the FWQA STORET Inventory - Printout Date November 1970.
2/ Data from "Permitted Discharge Quantities - Calveston Bay Area" compiled by FWQA South Central Region.
i/ Information from FWQA STORET Inventory - Printout Date November 1970 and/or "Summary of Wast* Discharges into the Houston
Ship Channel in excess of 500,000 GPD." The latter document supplied by FWQA, South Central Region.
-------
TABLE VI-2-A 2 2 2
50 WASTE DISCHARGES FROM PETROLEUM, CHEMICAL, PLASTICS, AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES TO
THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL OR ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE
MORGAN POINT INCLUDING THE BAYTOWN AREA^'
—j
PERMITTED DISCHARGE^'
Name
Flow
MGD
Oil &
Crease
mn/1
Susp.
Solids
#/day
BOD
#/day
COD
#/day
Haste Treatment Needs and Status^
Amerada Petroleum Corp.
0.028
—
*1
*1
*3
Unknown
Armour Agriculture
Chemical Co.
0.664
—
2,011
*111
30
Unknown
Ashland Chemical Co.
(Highland Chemical Co,)
1.380
20
806
575
2,302
Preaeration-sedimentatlon-temperature.
Atlantic Richfield Co.
(11 outfalls)
8.950
4 to
135
5,355
9,347
*27,041
Biological treatment-domestic aewer
hook-up to city to be completed 12/70,
Beat Fertilizer Co.
0.007
10
4
1
9
Unknown
Celanese Plastic Co.
0.425
5
213
53
195
In compliance with permit requirements.
Cook Paint and Varnish Co.
0.080
Trace
4
*13
*39
Unknown
Crown Central Petrol.
Corp.
(4 outfalls)
1.600
10 to
90
2,834
3,686
11,058
Oil separation and biological treatment
to be completed 1972.
Diamond Shamrock Corp,
(7 outfalls)
0.500
—
*83
*83
*249
Biological treatment required.
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
at Deer Park
(6 outfalls)
149.250
10
124,474
35,458
211,044
Heavy Metal (Hg) removal, pH control,
solids containment. Engineering
underway•
Distillate Production
Corp.
0.050
—
*8
*8
*24
Unknown
Dixie Chemical Co.
0.058
0.5
8
10
73
Unknown
Eddy Refining Co.**
0.001
0.3
1
1
1
Unknown
E. I. DuPont deNemours
(2 outfalls)
4.312
20
15
1,257
1,795
7,192
Oil skimmer and aerated lagoon.
Engineering in progress.
Enjay Chemical Co.
0.200
20
150
150
584
Unknown
Ethyl Corp.
(2 outfalls)
26.000
3
4,337
4,337
6,505
Treatment facilities were modified
to improve quality of effluent.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Co. (Houston plant)
2.535
25
1,570
1,257
3,145
Settling and biological treatment.
Lawsuit pending.
Gulf Oil Corp.
0.900
5
150
150
1,501
Unknown
Gulf States Asphalt
Co., Inc.
0.150
5
25
13
50
Industry in compliance.
Hesa Terminals
0.108
25
90
90
360
Unknown
Hooker Chemical Corp.
(3 outfalls)
0.018
5
4
2
17
Unknown
Houaton Natural Gas Corp.
1.340^
—
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
J. M. Huber Corp.
0.220
10
128
92
367
Unknown
Humble Oil and Refining
Co.
25.000
20
14,595
10,425
41,700
Meeting permit requirements
Jefferson Lake Sulfur Co.
0.225
—
0
*1
*3
Unknown
Koppera Co., Inc.
0.008
20
3
3
13
Unknown
The Lubrizol Corp.**
(2 outfalls)
1.000
25
834
834
3,336
Oil removal and biological treatment,
solids disposal. Construction under*
Marbon Chemical
0.090
4
2
1
15
No implementation schedule.
Merichem Company
(Greena Bayou)
0.225
20
141
141
563
Not In compliance.
Hurray Rubber Company
0.010
2
2
6
Unknown.
-------
223
TABLE VI-2-A (Continued)
59
WASTE DISCHARGES FROM PETROLEUM, CHEMICAL, PLASTICS, AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES TO
THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL OR ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE
MORGAN POINT INCLUDING THE BAYTOWN AREA-
PERMITTED DISCHARGE-'
2/
Name
Flow
MGD
Oil &
Grease
ms/l
Susp.
Solids
HI day
BOD
H day
COD
tf day
3/
Waste Treatment Needs and Status-
Olin Mathieson Chemical
Corp.**
10.145
4,492
950
9,692
Additional oxidation ponds required.
To be completed 19 71.
Pennsalt Chemical Corp.
0.200
15
58
83
250
Unknown.
Petrolite Corp.-Petreco Corp.
0.002
20
1
1
1
Unknown
Petro Tex Chemical Corp.**
(3 outfalls)
A.800
10 to
25
4,003
3,919
15,680
Aeration and solids removal equipment
Installed.
Phillips Petroleum Co.
(Coast Res.)
0.090
—
*15
*15
*45
Unknown
Phillips Petroleum Co»
at Pasadena
(3 outfalls)
6.920
10
1,630
837
1,365
Sludge dewatering and biological
oxidation.
Work in progress.
Phosphate Chemicals, Inc.
(2 outfalls)
0.455
20
5
218
190
1,897
Unknown
Plastic Applicators, Inc.
0.030
2.7
12
2
10
pH control, holding facilities and
chemical treatment. In progress.
Premier Petrochemical Co.**
0.150
—
25
25
*75
pH control and NH, removal, addition of
aeration required.
Reichhold Chemicals**
0.020
25
17
17
67
Solids and COD removal. No action.
Rohm and Haas Co.**
(2 outfalls)
1.800
25
5,789
1,489
10,929
Operational problems with treatment
facilities.
S and R Oil Co.
0.036
—
6
6
*18
Unknown
Shell Chemical Co.
(2 outfalls)
6.100
25
15,262
5,087
50,874
Present plant overloaded. Expansion to
be completed by 3/71.
Shell Oil Co.**
(13 outfalls)
5.974
10 to
25
2,616
1,953
9,286
Effluent meets permit requirements.
Signal Oil and Gas Co.
(2 outfalls)
2.880
25
1,801
1,201
9,608
Secondary treatment facilities near
completion.
Sinclair-Koppers Chemical
Co.
0.550
20
413
459
1,376
Company In compliance except for high
COD.
Sinclair-Petrochemical,
Inc.**
2.660
20
1,553
1,109
4,437
Unknown
Southwest Chemical & Plastic
0.004
14
1
1
2
Unknown
Stauffer Chemical Co.**
(Greens Bayou) (2 outfalls)
1.165
10
486
194
194
Unknown
Stauffer Chemical Co,**
(South of HSC)
1.000
25
417
167
667
Facilities for pH control near
completion.
Superior Oil Co.
0.003
—
1
1
*3
Unknown
Tenneco Manufacturing Co.**
1.000
20
500
834
2,335
Effluent meets permit requirements.
Union Carbide, Linde Div.
0.144
20
60
24
120
Unknown
The Upjchn Co.**
0.580
15
339
242
967
Effluent in compliance with permit
Velsicol Chemical Corp.**
0.144
25
120
120
480
requirements.
Unknown
* Effluent toxic to bacteria - Information from the Houston Ship Channel Survey of Haste Effluents conducted In February 1969.
FUQA South Central Region supplied data.
** Estimated values.
1/ Water Quality Standards for zones 0904, 0905, and 0906 apply - see Table V-l.
2_/ Data from "Permitted Discharge Quantities - Buffalo Bayou and Houston Ship Channsl" compiled by the FWQA, South Central Region.
3/ Data from (a) Summary of Waste Discharges Into the Houston Ship Channel in excess of 500,000 GPD and/or (b) Summary of
Industrial Waste Needs and/or (c) Summary of Industrial Facilities constructed and/or rehabilitated. The foregoing documents
supplied by the FWQA, South Central Region.
-------
60 OTHER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES TO , ,
THE HOOSTON SHIP CHANNEL OR ITS TRIBUTARIES^'
TABLE VI-2-B
224
PERMITTED DISCHARGES—
W
Name
Flow
MGD
Oil &
Grease
mR/1
Susp.
Solids
#/day
BOD
#/dav
COD
#/day
Waste
Airport Service Co.
0.004
15
1
1
*3
Unknown
Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.
0.028
15
5
5
50
Unknown
Armco Steel Corp.**
32.464
25
14,346
6,680
52,038
Unknown
Baker Oil Tools, Inc.
0.025
25
13
4
8
Unknown
Barold Division-Nat.
Lead Co.
0.503
10
84
63
627
Unknown
Big Three Held. Equipment
Co.
0.007
—
*1
*1
*3
Unknown
Cameron Iron Works
0.036
50
44
*121
363
Unknown
Dresser Magcobar
0.006
5
1
1
10
Unknown
Dresser Systems, Inc.
0.105
~
18
18
*54
Unknown
Equity Export Corp.
0.002
5
1
1
1
Unknown
General Portland Cement
Co.
0.500
—
209
4
24
Unknown
Grief Bros. Cooperage
Co.
0.004
2
1
1
7
Unknown
Groendyke Transport
0.001
—
1
1
1
Unknown
Gulf Coast Portland
Cement Co.
0.250
25
209
31
104
Unknown
Horton and Horton, Inc.
(N. Live Oak)
0.003
—
80
1
*1
Unknown
Horton and Horton, Inc.
(Pasadena)
0.001
--
27
*1
*3
Unknown
Houston Light and Power
Co.**
0.004
0
1
1
3
Unknown
Houston Light and Power Co.
(H. 0. Clarice)
0.24B
0
33
31
124
Unknown
Houston Light and Power Co.
(Deepwater)(5 outfalls)
0.072
0
4,271
4,255
17,016
Unknown
Houston Light and Power Co.
(Greens Bayou)
1.120
0
9
93
374
Unknown
Houston Light and Power Co.
(T. H. Wharton)
4.800
0
200
240
1,001
Unknown
Hughes Tool Co.
(5 outfalls)
0.990
15
143
122
591
Unknown
Ideal Cement Co.**
0.605
15
484
149
734
Effluent
requlra
John Mscom and Proler
Steel Corp.
0.007
—
1
1
*3
Unknown
Lead Products, Inc.
0.035
5
6
3
29
Unknown
Lone Star Cement Corp.
0.151
10
126
14
64
Unknown
Mission Manufacturing Co.
0.150
10
25
25
75
Unknown
National Blsqult Co.
0.002
5
1
1
2
Unknown
National Molasses Co.**
0.001
10
*1
*1
*3
Unknown
Nation Supply Div. Armco
0.112
15
14
19
140
Unknown
Parker Bros, and Co.
0.002
—
*17
*1
*3
Unknown
Waate Treatment Needs and Status—
3/
(Clay Rd.)
-------
225
61
TABLE VI-2-B (Continued)
OTHER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES TO .
THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL OR ITS TRIBUTARIES^'
PERMITTED DISCHARGE—
Name
Flow
MGD
Oil &
Grease
mg/1
Susp.
Solids
t/day
BOD
#/day
COD
'/day
Waste Treatment Needs and Status-
Parker Bros. and Co., Inc.
(Main)
0.003
*1
*1
*3
Unknown
Parker Bros., Inc.
(W. Park Plant)
0.001
—
*1
*1
*4
Unknown
Parker Bros, and Co.
(Winfield)
0.001
—
*1
*1
*3
Unknown
Philip Carey Corp.
0.040
15
5
7
68
Unknown
Pittsburg Plate Glass Co.
0.160
15
13
13
53
Unknown
Rapid Transit Lines, Inc.
0.025
5
8
5
14
Unknown
Reddy Ice Division
Southland Co.
0.014
1
1
1
Unknown
Reed Drilling Tools
0.722
25
482
361
2,108
Unknown
Reliance Universal, Inc.
0.007
1
1
—
2
Unknown
Shaw Tank Cleaning Co.
0.001
13
1
1
*3
Unknown
A. 0. Smith Corp.**
0.850
25
425
354
1,418
Effluent meets permit requirements.
Smith-Douglas Co., Inc.
0.043
--
0
*7
*21
Unknown
Smith Industries, Inc.
0.007
*1
*1
*3
Unknown
SMS Industries
0.115
20
67
48
192
Aeration and solids removal.
In progress.
Southern Pacific Co.
(Englewood)
0.011
1
2
2
18
Unknown
Southern Pacific Railroad
(Hardy St.)
0.016
15
5
3
27
Unknown
Southland Paper Mills #1
50.000
10
41,700
41,700
166,800
Solide and color removal.
Engineering In progress.
Texas Instrument
0.645^
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Effluent complies with permit.
Todd Shipyards
0.008
~
*13
*13
*39
Unknown
Uncle Ben's Inc.
0.167
15
28
28
*84
Unknown
United States Gypsum**
(2 outfalls)
0.500
25
417
417
1,668
Aerated lagoon and screening. To
be in compliance 12/70.
U.S. Plywood - Champion
Papers, Inc.
(3 outfalls)
44.000
25
36,696
18,348
146,784
Required biological treatment
being constructed.
* Estimated values.
** Effluent toxic to bacteria - Information from the Houston Ship Channel Survey of Waste Effluents conducted in February 1969.
FWQA, South Central Region supplied data.
U Water Quality Standards for Zones 0904, 0905, and 0906 apply - sea Table V-l.
2/ Data from "Permitted Discharge Quantities - Buffalo Bayou and Houston Ship Channel" compiled by the FWQA, South Central
Region.
V Data from (a) Summary of Waste Discharges into the Houston Ship Channel in excess of 500,000 CPD and/or (b) Summary of
Industrial Waste Needs and/or (c) Summary of Industrial Facilities constructed end/or rehabilitated. The foregoing
documents supplied by the FWQA, South Central Region.
-------
TABLE VI-2-C
226
WASTE DISCHARGES FROM PETROLEUM, CHEMICAL, PLASTICS, AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES
62 T0 GALVESTON BAY OR ITS TRIBUTARIES
PERMITTED DISCHARGE—
2/
Flow
MGD
Oil &
Grease
m/1
Suep.
Solids
#/day
BOD
ff/day
COD
tf/day
Waste Treatment Needs and Statui
3/
Discharges to Galveston Bay
or Tributaries - Morgan Point
to Eagle Point (includes"
1/
Clear Lake Area) Zone HQ4-
Chemetron Chems.
Humble Oil and Refinery Co.
(Bayport)
Humble Oil and Refinery Co.
(Bayport)
Humble Oil and Refinery Co.
(Clear Lake)
Lowe Chemical Co.
Pan American Petroleum Corp.
Retzloff Chemical Co.
Southeast Chemical and
Plastic Co.
Discharges to Galveston Bay
or Tributaries {Eagle Point
to Galveston) (includes
Dickinson Bayou and Texas
City) Zone 11041/
American Oil Co. at
Texas City
Amoco Chemical Corp.
(Plant A)
The Borden Chemical Corp.
near Texas City
Chem. Industries Corp.
Geueral Analine and Film
Corp. T«xas City plant
Humble Oil and Refinery Co.
(Dickinson)
Marathon Oil Co* at Texas
City
Mineral Oil Refinery Co.
Monsanto Chemical Co. at
Texas City
Pan American Pet. Corp.
Texas City Refining Co.
Union Carbide Chemical Co.
at Texas City
Discharges to Other Areas
of Galveston Bay. Trinity
Bay or Tributaries
Zone 11.03
Texas Gulf Sulfur
(Moss Bluff)
West Bay or Tributaries
Zones 1105 and 1106)1/
Monsanto Chen, Co.
(Chocolate Bayou)
Philllpa Petroleum Co.
(Bayou)
0.144
0.010
9.000
0.008
0.726
0.012
0,010
0.043
13.000
0.370
0.030
0.002
1.00
0.003
1.156
0.082
106.000
0.035
1.440
10.196
4.541
2.900
0.437
25
4
20
24
2
5,292
3,686
B
1
Unknown
*1,186
34
*224,004
6
0
24
2
1,501
*121
1
2
6
9,649
*4
1
Unknown
1
405
34
*8,397
1
973
4,936 46,291
*751
726
*73
*751
726
73
96
*6
15,012
*363
*3
*6
*18
*28,947
617
*29
*3
Unknown
*3
Meets permit requirements.
Unknown
Activated sludge, stabilization
basins and aerobic digestion.
Construction plans in progress.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Need extended aeration. Discharge
over permit.
Unknown
Unknown
Aeration and ln-plant controla.
Present discharge over permit.
Unknown
1,591 HgS Stripper and biological treatment.
*102 Unknown
*569,589 Oil skimming, clarification,
biologically inert plastic pallets
speeratlon*
3 Unknown
1,441 Discharge over permit. Biological
phenols and flouride removel - In
progress,
84,181 Discharge over permit. Construction of
treatment facility in progress.
*2,251 Unknown
*2,178 Increased Biological Capacity required.
*219 Unknown
* Estimated values.
1/ See Table V-l for applicable vater quality standards In this cone.
y Data from "Permitted Discharge Quantities - Galveston Bay Area." compiled bv the pun* ....
3/ Data fron (a) Summary of Industrial Haste Na.d. and/or (b) Susmary of Industrial Facilln _ t ^Slon.
The foregoing documents supplied by the PVQA, South Central Region. Constructed and/or Rehabilitated.
-------
TABLE VI-2-D
OTHER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES TO GALVESTON BAY OR ITS TRIBUTARIES
2/
Permitted Discharge-
Name
Flow
MGD
Oil &
Grease
mg/1
Susp.
Solids
if/ day
BOD
#/day
COD
it/ day
Waste Treatment Needs
and Status^/
Discharges to Texas City,
Galveston and Dickinson- ,
Bayou Areas - Zone 1104—
Atchison, Topeka, & 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
Vah Chang Corporation 0.110
Discharges to West Bay
Area Zone 1105.±/
McGinnes Industries Main 1.000
Co.
20
0.0
*7 *7 *21 Unknown
*3 *3 *9 Unknown
*42 *0 *6 Completely retained.
1 1 *3 Unknown
*53 *53 *159 Unknown
43 2 11 Chemical treatment
and pH control.
No compliance date
set.
584 417 1,668 Unknown
* Estimated values
1/ See Table V-l for applicable water quality standards in this zone.
2/ Data from "Permitted Discharge Quantities-Galveston Bay Tributaries", compiled by the
FWQA, South Central Region.
3J Data from (a) Summary of Industrial Waste Needs and/or (b) Summary of Industrial
Facilities Constructed and/or Rehabilitated. The foregoing documents supplied by the
FWQA, South Central Region.
-------
2
A. MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES
Municipal and domestic waste sources are permitted to discharge
over 215 MGD 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.
-------
229
200 MGD
baytown Area
200 MGD
PETROLEUM. CHEMICAL. PLASTICS.
I RUBBER INDUSTRIES
MUNICIPAL I DOMESTIC
| 1 OTHER INDUSTRIAL
NOTE
'• PERMITTED WASTE WATER DISCHARGES FROM
OTHER SOURCES IH THE 6AL VESTOH BAY AREA
ARE APPROXIMATELY 17.5 MGD
2 NOT INCLUDE0 IN THE WASTE DISCHARGES
TO THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL OR 6ALVEST0I
BAT IS TljE COOLING WATER (ONCE THROUGH
COOLING| OF 737 MGO PERMITTED TO TNI
HOUSTOH 116 H T t POWER CO. |S R BERTROH
PLANT). WATER SUPPLY IS TAKEN (ROM THE
CHAHNEL
Oik
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
ABOVE MORGANS POINT EXCLUDING BAYTOWN
HOUSTON
Deibl* Bapi
TEXAS CITY AREA
INCUDES DICKINSON SUH & 6W»iS
Figure >1-1 Permitted Wastewater Diseharges in llie Galveston Bat Area
-------
230
YTOWN AREA
200.000 lbs/day
TEXAS CITY AREA
NOTES —
I FEU ITEI SIJPEMEI SllltS IISCIIIIES
riO« 01 It SOURCES III IHI tUIESm Ml
»«!» HE APPROXIMATELY 3.210 IIS/IK.
Figure \ 1-2 Permitted Suspended Solids Discharge! in Galveston Hay Area
-------
231
AYTOWN AREA
100.OOO LBS/DAY
Figure V1-3 Permitted BOI) Waste Discharges in ihe Galveston Kay Area
-------
232
BAYTOWN ARjEA
500.000 lb^dav
NOT
I Ptlllllll til IISCIIIIES nil 111(1
tlllCGI II III SllltStll III Mil hi
IPPIII IMIttll 12,011 LIS/111.
: mii ileum ii hi visit iistiiiiii
II Hi IllStll SUP Cllllll II lllllll
in is tit cimai inti tint mini
CIILIN|| It )]> III Ptlllltll II III
iiiiiii tint i piiu ci it i mill
man. wihi sunt is inn iih ti
cuaiit.
PEiinim. ciimcu. HMtits
i nun iiiisiiies
MmiCIPIL 1 IIMtSIIC
iiiii inistiiii
HOUSTON SHIP CHAN
HUE aliens Pint IICllllll
HOUSTON
O-
facialis iiciiisii iiiii in llllisui
TEXAS CITY ARFA
Figure V1-4 Permitted CO!) Waste Discharges in the Calveslon Bay Area
-------
233
65
Effluent data collected by the Texas Water Quality Board February
1969 showed total coliform concentrations at both plants to be
34,800,000/100 ml. Fecal coliform concentrations were 13,000,000/100
ml and 3,300,000/100 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
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
-------
234
66
to 75 sources, account for 81 percent of the suspended solids
permitted, 68 percent of the BOD, and 74.5 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 48 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 MGD. 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
-------
235
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 rag/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
1/ Kramer, G. R., 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.
-------
236
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 Galveston 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
2/
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
27 Hutton, 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.
-------
237
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 for 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
Galveston 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
-------
238
waste in the 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 MGD 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 Galveston
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, A,200
pounds per day; and Southland Paper Mills, 4,170 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.
-------
239
71
Excessive concentrations of oil and petrochemical residues have
been found in oysters taken from Galveston Bay. The Texas permits
should be amended 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.
-------
240
72
TABLE VI-3
POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Process
Source
Pollutants
Alkylation: Ethylbenzene
Ammonia Production
Aromatlcs Recovery
Catalytic Cracking
Catalytic Reforming
Crude Processing
Cyanide Production
Dehydrogenatlon
Butadiene Prod, from
n- Butane and Butylene
Ketone Production
Styrene from Ethyl-
benzene
Desulfurization
Extraction and Purification
Isobutylene
Butylene
Styrene
Butadiene Absorption
Extractive Distillation
Halogenatlon (Principally
Chlorination)
Addition to Olefins
Substitution
Hypochlorinatlon
Deminerallzation
Regeneration, Process
Condensates
Furnace Effluents
Extract Water
Solvent Purification
Catalyst Regeneration
Reactor Effluents and
Condensates
Condensates
Crude Washing
Primary Distillation
Water Slops
Quench Waters
Distillation Slops
Catalyst
Condensates from Spray
Tower
Acid and Caustic Wastes
Solvent and Caustic Wash
Still Bottoms
Solvent
Solvent
Separator
HC1 Absorber, Scrubber
Dehydrohalogenation
Hydrolysis
Tar, Hydrochloric Acid, Caustic Soda, Fuel Oil
Acid, Bases
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Solvents - Sulfur Dioxide, Diethylene Glycol
Spent Catalyst, Catalyst Fines (Silica, Alumina
Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides)
Acids, Phenolic Compounds, Hydrogen Sulfide
Soluble Hydrocarbons, Sulfur Oxides, Cyanides
Catalyst (particularly Pt, Mo), Aromatic Hydrocarbons,
Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia
Inorganic Salts, Oils, Water Soluble Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons, Tars, Amnonia, Acids, Hydrogen
Sulfide
Hydrogen Cyanide, Unreacted Soluble Hydrocarbons
Residue Gas, Tars, Oils, Soluble Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon Polymers, Chlorinated Hydrocarbons,
Glycerol, Sodium Chloride
Spent Catalyst (Fe, Mg, K, Cu, Cr, Zn)
Aromatic Hydrocarbons, including Styrene, Ethyl-
benzene, and Toluene, Tars
Hydrogen Sulfide, Mercaptana
Sulfuric Acid, C^ Hydrocarbon, Caustic Soda
Acetone, Oils, C, Hydrocarbon, Caustic Soda,
Sulfuric Acid
Heavy Tars
Cuprous Ammonium Acetate, Hydrocarbons, Oils
Furfural, Hydrocarbons
Spent Caustic
Chlorine, Hydrogen Chloride, Spent Caustic, Hydro-
carbon Isomers and Chlorinated Products, Oils
Dilute Salt Solution
Calcium Chloride, Soluble Organlcs, Tars
-------
241
73
TABLE VI-3 (Continued)
POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Process
Source
Pollutants
Hydrochlorination
Hy decarboxylation
(0X0 Process)
Hydrocyanation (for
Acrylonitrile, Adipic
Acid, etc.)
Isomerization In General
Nitration
Paraffins
Aromatics
Oxidation
Ethylene Oxide and
Glycol Manufacture
Aldehydes, Alcohols,
and Acids from
Hydrocarbons
Acids and Anhydrides
from Aromatic
Oxidation
Phenol and Acetone from
Aromatic Oxidation
Carbon Black Manufacture
Polymerization, Alkylation
Polymerization
(Polyethylene)
Butyl Rubber
Copolymer Rubber
Nylon 66
Sulfation of Olefins
Sulfonation of Aromatics
Thermal Cracking for Olefin
Production (including
Fractionation and
Purification)
Utilities
Surge Tank
Still Slops
Process Effluents
Process Wastes
Process Slops
Process Slops
Condensates
Still Slops
Decanter
Cooling, Quenching
Catalysts
Catalysts
Process Wastes
Process Wastes
Process Wastea
Caustic Wash
Furnace Effluent and
Caustic Treating
Boiler Blow-down
Cooling System Blow-down
Water Treatment
Tars, Spent Catalyst, Alkyl Hal ides
Soluble Hydrocarbons, Aldehydes
Cyanides, Organic and Inorganic
Hydrocarbons; Aliphatic, Aromatic, and Derivative Tars
By-Product Aldehydes, Ketones, Acids, Alcohols,
Olefins, Carbon Dioxide
Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Aromatics
Calcium Chloride, Spent Lime, Hydrocarbon Polymers,
Ethylene Oxide, Glycols, Dichloride
Acetone, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Methanol, Higher
Alcohols, Organic Acids
Anhydrides, Aromatics, Acids
Pitch
Formic Acid, Hydrocarbons
Carbon Black, Particulates, Dissolved Solids
Spent Acid Catalysts (phosphoric Acid), Aluminum Chloride
Chromium, Nickel, Cobalt, Molybdenum
Scrap Butyl, Oil, Light Hydrocarbons
Butadiene, Styrene Serum, Softener Sludge
Cyclohexane Oxidation Products, Succinic Acid, Adipic
Acid, Glutaric Acid, Hexaraethylene, Diamine,
AdiponiCrile, Acetone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Alcohols, Polymerized Hydrocarbons, Sodium Sulfate, Ethers
Spent Caustic
Acids, Hydrogen Sulfide, Mercaptans, Soluble Hydrocarbons,
Polymerization Products, Spent Caustic, Phenolic
Compounds, Residue Gases, Tars and Heavy Oils
Phosphates, Lignlns, Heat, Total Dissolved Solids,
Tannins
Chromates, Phosphates, Algicldes, Heat
Calcium and Magnesium Chlorides, Sulfates, Carbonates
-------
242
TABLE VI-4
DISCHARGES OF HEAVY METALS TO THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL^
Industry or
Municipality
Outfall
Code
Number
Flow
MSD
Heavy Metals -
lb/day
Zinc
Lead
Chromium
Cadmium
Copper
Olin Mathieson
(Pasadena)
27-1
27-3
8.64
1.44
930
57
43
6
22
22
303
Diamond Shamrock
47-1
47-2
47-5
5.00
90.00
2.88
320
975
72
25
1,420
29
150
1,050
1,875
Armco Steel Corp.*
(Sheffield)
28-56
3.50
146
-
-
-
-
Dupont (LaPorte)
60
2.00
168
-
8
-
-
Houston Lighting & Power
Co.
(Bertron)
58-0
0.51
16
Ideal Cement
8-1
1.44
210
13
5
6
-
Goodyear Tire (Houston)
10-2
0.36
-
-
6
-
-
Lubrlzol Corp.
45-1
0.75
100
-
-
-
-
Humble Oil (Houston)
61-1
9.00
540
-
30
15
-
Northaide Sewage Treatment
Plant
(Houston)
65-1
65-2
28.00
20.00
1,030
300
-
47
-
:
Petro-Tex Chemical
9-2
3.10
196
-
10
-
-
Rohm & Haas
(Deer Park)
51-2
(API)
51-1
51-2
0.50
1.00
1.00
21
16
40
-
16
9
8
-
-
Shell Chemical Co.
(Deer Park)
44-1
8.20
550
-
-
-
-
Southland Paper
(Pasadena)
41
13.60
215
68
-
-
-
Stauffer Chemical
(Mancheater)
3
0.65
65
2
2
2
102
Upjohn (Carwln)
55
0.61
117
8
5
3
-
Tenneco Chemical (Pasadena)
42-1
2.40
38
-
18
-
20
U.S. Plywood (Pasadena)
21
38.00
1,780
-
-
-
32
Totals
-
242.58
7,886
1,630
336
1,098
2,332
* Twenty-four-hour composite lamplas collected by the FVK}A, South Central Region, showed
that this Industry waa discharging approximately 1,000 lbs. of cyanide and 400 lbs.
par day of phenols to the Houston Ship Channel. The Justice Departaent recently
filed suit against this Industry undar the 1899 Refuse Act.
1/ Based on effluent data (grab samples only) collected by the Texas Hater Quality Board
in February 1969. Additional field data are neceasary to determine if the samples
collected are representative.
-------
243
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
-------
—J
TABLE VI-5
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED WASTE DISCHARGES - GALVESTON BAY AREA
MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC
PETROLEUM, CHEMICAL, PLASTIC, AND
ROBBER INDUSTRIES
OTHER INDUSTRIAL
Area
Number
of
Sources
Flow
MGD
S.S.
1,000
#/day
BOD
1,000
#/day
COD*
1,000
#/day
Number
of
Sources
Flow
MGD
S.S.
1,000
#/day
BOD
1,000
#/day
COD
1,000
tf/day
Number
of
Sources
Flow
MGD
S.S.
1,000
#/day
BOD
1,000
#/day
COD
1,000
t/day
Houston Ship Channel and
Tributaries excluding Baytown
90
172.2
31.5
31.3
95.2
48
245.2
183.0
76.3
391.1
53
139.6
100.2
73.2
392.8
Bay town Area
7
5.3
1.0
1.0
2.9
5
27.6
15.7
11.2
45.9
-
-
-
-
-
Clear Creek Area (Morgan Point
to Eagle Point)
26
15.9
3.0
3.0
8.9
8
10.0
5.3
1.7
15.5
1
— N
E G L I
GIB
L E —
Texas City, Galveston, and
Dickinson Bayou Areas
6
13.5
2.2
2,2
6.7
11
132.3
234.0
65.9
686.5
6
— N
E G L I
GIB
L E —
Trinity Bay and Tributaries
4
2.0
0.4
0.5
1.4
1
4.5
0.8
0.8
2.3
-
-
-
-
-
West Bay and Tributaries
8
6.5
1.3
1.3
3.8
2
3.2
0.8
0.8
2.4
1
1.0
0.6
0.4
1.7
TOTALS
141
215.4
39.4
39.3
118.9
75
422.8
439.6
156.7
1143.7
61
140.6
100.8
73.6
394.5
TOTAL OF ALL SOURCES-
1/
Number of Sources - 277; Flow-ISGD - 778.8; S.S. (1,000 #/day)= 583.2; BOD (1,000 #/day)- 269.6; COD (1,000 i?/day)= 1,657.1
* COD Values for all but three municipal and domestic sources - all estimated.
1/ Not Included in the total waste discharges to the Houston Ship Channel and the Bay is the cooling water discharge (once through flow) of 737.2
MGD permitted to Houston Light and Power Company (S. R. Bertron Plant). Water supply is taken from the Channel.
to
J*
-------
245
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 year. The suspended solids load from urban runoff
4/
averaged 550,000 pounds per year from 1963-68-1 .
Rural runoff from areas in the Trinity and San Jacinto River
basins may contribute silt and nutrients to the estuary. Construe^
tion and operation of Livingston and Wallisville Reservoirs on the
Trinity River will substantially reduce the silt load to Galveston
Bay.
4/Hutton, W. S., R. W. Hann, and R. H. Smith, "A Quantitative and
Qualitative Survey of Benthal Deposits Contained in the Houston
Ship Channel", Estuarlne Systems Projects, Technical Report No.
8, Texas A&M University, May 1970.
-------
247
79
VII. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF POLLUTION
Harvesting of shellfish, primarily oysters, has a significant
economic value to the Galveston 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 estuarlne area. The classifications of various areas of
V Hutton, 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.
-------
24
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 were
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.
-------
249
Figure VII - 1 Classifications of Shellfish Harvesting Areas
-------
250
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.
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-
_ j 2/
tion Study^- .
Tj 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.
-------
2 b 1
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
3/
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.
3/ 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.
-------
252
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
2/ 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 assistant, to National
Estuarine Pollution Study Hearing, Galveston, Texas, October 8,
1968.
3/ 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.
4/ Colbert, J. R., and D. M. Windham, The Oyster Based Economy of
Franklin County, Florida, U.S. Public Health Service, DHEW.
-------
84
253
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
-------
254
85
the Bay are suitable for human consumption. The value of the
* 5/
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. I might add that in 1969 in the commercial fishery,
it was $13.1 million using the same simple rate of interest
of 5 percent and this would amount to $262 million capital
investment.
* Mr. Gallagher corrected that by saying: "That is also
incorrect. The correct reference is the impact on the Texas
Bay Systems in 1966."
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.
-------
255
87
VIII. WATER QUALITY IMPACT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
A. HOUSTON WATER SUPPLY DIVERSION
Development of the Trinity River as an additional 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
256
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
1/ 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.
-------
257
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.
Watet 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 increased 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.
-------
258
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 Galveston 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
-------
259
WALUSVILLE IESERVOII
CEDII BAYOU POWER PLANT
HOUSTON
ANAHUAC
>CHir Bijfii
Talks
C e a 1111 Water
litiki Chiiail
PAOPOSEO lEIPVATEl/PORT
'ltd Half
lad Hi? la,
.fill* Ft.
-d —
a
Figiirr VIII ¦ I Inline Development
-------
260
91
water will be drawn directly from Tabbs Bay. Both Tabbs Bay and
upper Galveston 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 Galveston Bay
estuary was less than 1,000 cfs.
Operation of the Cedar Bayou Power Plant will impact water quality
of the estuary in 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
^ b JL
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, npr more
-------
262
93
a 2/
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 A°F during fall, winter 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-
2/ Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Quality
Criteria. Report of National Technical Advisory Committee,
April 1968, pp. 68-70.
-------
263
94
3/
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.
-------
264
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 portion 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 Port 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
-------
2 65
96
vessel pollution caused by the incraaed 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.
-------
266
97
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blumer, M,, et al, The West Falmouth Oil Spill, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, Reference No. 70-44, September 1970.
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 Ex-
periment Station, 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, DHEW.
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. Hutton, Source, Nature ana Effects of Organic
Sludges in the Houston Ship Channel, Technical Paper for Texas Section
ASCE, October 1970 (2 copies) .
Hutton, W. S., R. W. Hann, and R. H. Smith, "A Quantitative and Qualitative
Survey of Benthai Deposits Contained in the Houston Ship Channel", Estuar-
ine Systems Projects, Technical Report No. 8, Texas A & M University,
May 1970.
-------
98
267
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Hydroscience, Inc., Texas Water Quality Board, Mathematical Model of
Galveston Bay, 1969.
Kramer, G. R., R. W. Hann, and S. B. Carpenter, "Completely Mixed Model
of the Houston Ship Channel", Estuarine Systems 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.s 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.
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.
-------
269
APPENDIX A
Applicable Texas Water Quality Requirements
For The Galveston Bay Area-i-' And
The Public Health Service Manual
"Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas"
A/ See Figure V-l for Water Quality Zones established in the Galveston Bay
-------
GENERAL STATEMENT TEXAS WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
The Texas Water 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
-------
271
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 1967 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 any 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.
A-2
-------
272
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 water needs 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) hydroelectrtc
power, (6) navigation, and (7) recreation. Cities are empowered
to acquire the use of surface waters for domestic and municipal
purposes from an appropriator 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 those 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.
A-3
-------
273
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 fully 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 by the 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
A-4
-------
274
treatment methods, or impart unpalatable flavors to food fish,
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 been 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
A-5
-------
275
requirements apply to off-stream or privately owned reservoi rs.
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 milliliters 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 orgainisms 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
A-6
-------
276
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 State 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
benthie 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.
A-7
-------
277
GULF OF MEXICO AT GALVESTON
0901
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
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 Gil -Substantially free from oil.
K Foaming or Frothing Material - None of a persistent nature.
L. Does not apply to Gulf Waters.
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.
A. Chloride, average not to exceed
B. Sulphate average not to exceed
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
20,000 rag/1
3,000 ing/1
(Total Dissolved Solids)
D. B.G.I)., average not to exceed
E. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than
F. pH Range
G. MPN, logarithmic average not more than
4.j,000 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
7.0 mg/1
7.0-9.0
5.0/10" ml
A-9
-------
27 8
GULF OF MEXICO AT GALVESTON
0901
Water Quality it deemed suitable for the following 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-10
-------
279
TRINITY RIVER TIDAL
0902
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING 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 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 1,000/100 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. 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.
A-ll
-------
TRINITY RIVER TIDAL
0902
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following 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-12
-------
281
SAN JACINTO RIVER TIDAL
(ALSO SEE TWQB ORDER 65-9)
0903
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING 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 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 /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. 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.
A-13
-------
SAN JACINTO RIVER TIDAL
(ALSO SEE TWQB ORDER 65 9)
282
0903
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following 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
Industrial Cooling Water
A-14
-------
283
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
(TURNING BASIN AREA)
0904
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING 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 4,000 mg/1
B. 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 6.0-8.5
G. MPN, logarithmic average not more than 100,000 /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. 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 (f), Re-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
A-15
-------
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
(TURNING BASIN AREA)
0904
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following uses among others:
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
A-16
-------
285
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL-SAN JACINTO MONUMENT
TO TURNING BASIN
(MEASURED AT SAN JACINTO MONUMENT TO CONFORM WITH TWQB
ORDER 6S-9)
0905
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING 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 Oxygen, not less than 2.0 mg/1
F. p H Range 6.0-8.5
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. rise 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 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.
A-17
-------
286
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL-SAN JACINTO MONUMENT
TO TURNING BASIN
(MEASURED AT SAN JACINTO MONUMENT TO CONFORM WITH TWQB
ORDER 65-9)
0905
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following uses among others:
Non-Contact Recreation
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Nori-Contact Recreation
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
A-18
-------
287
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL-MORGANS POINT TO
SAN JACINTO MONUMENT
(MEASURED AT MORGANS POINT IN CONFORMANCE WITH
TWQB ORDER 65-9)
0906
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING 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 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 /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. 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", 1965 revision.
M. Radioactive Materials — Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended natter, 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.
A-19
-------
288
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL-MORGANS POINT TO
SAN JACINTO MONUMENT
(MEASURED AT MORGANS POINT IN CONFROMANCE WITH
TWQB ORDER BS-9)
0906
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following 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
Industrial Cooling Water
A-20
-------
289
CLEAR LAKE
(SEWAGE EFFLUENTS DIVERTED)
0907
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
A. Chloride, average not to exceed 5,000 mg/1
B. Sulphate, average not to exceed 700 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 12,000 mg/1
D. B.O.D., 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
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. 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. 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.
A-21
-------
CLEAR LAKE
(SEWAGE EFFLUENTS DIVERTED)
0907
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following 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-22
-------
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL
(MONITORED AT GALVESTON BAY SURVEY STATION A-92,
NORTHWEST OF SNAKE ISLAND)
0908
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING 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 17,000 mg/1
B. Sulphate, average not to exceed 2,000 mg/1
C. Fi lterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 35,000 mg/1
D. B.O.D., average not to exceed 8.0 mg/1
E. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 3.0 mg/1
F. pH Range 7.0-9.0
G. MPN, logarithmic average not more than 1,000 /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. 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 (0, Re-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
A-23
-------
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL
(MONITORED AT GALVESTON BAY SURVEY STATION A-
NORTHWEST OF SNAKE ISLAND)
0908
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following 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-24
-------
EAST BAY
293
1101
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
A. Chloride, average not to exceed 12,000 mg/1
B. 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 3.0 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 70/100 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 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 "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.
A-25
-------
EAST BAY
294
1101
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following 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-2fe
-------
295
GALVESTON BAY
(EAST OF HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL BOUNDED BY CHANNEL MARKER
68, FISHER SHOALS DAY BEACON *1. LONE OAK BAYOU, SMITH POINT,
HANNA REEF AND BOLIVAR PENINSULA)
1102
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
A. Chloride, average not to exceed 12,000 mg/1
B. 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/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. 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. 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
(f), Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
A-27
-------
2*6
GALVESTON BAY
(EAST OF HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL. BOUNDED BY CHANNEL MARKER
68. FISHER SHOALS DAY BEACON #1, LONE OAK BAYOU. SMITH POINT.
HANNA REEF AND BOLIVAR PENINSULA
1102
Water Quality it deemed suitable for the following 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-28
-------
297
TRINITY BAY AND GALVESTON BAY
(EAST OF HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL AND NORTH OF CHANNEL MARKER
68 AND FISHER SHOALS DAY BEACON # 1)
1103
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
A. Chloride, average not to exceed 10,000 mg/1
B. Sulphate, average not to exceed 700 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 20,000 mg/1
D. B.O.D., average not to exceed 5.0 mg/1
E. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 5.0 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. 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.
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. 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.
A-29
-------
298
TRINITY BAY AND GALVESTON BAY
(EAST OF HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL AND NORTH OF CHANNEL MARKER
68 AND FISHER SHOALS DAY BEACON # J;
1103
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following 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
Industrial Cooling Water
A-30
-------
299
GALVESTON BAY
(WEST OF THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL)
1104
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
A. Chloride, average not to exceed
12,000 mg/1
B. Sulphate, average not to exceed
1,500 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids)
25,000 mg/1
D. B.O.D., average not to exceed
6.0 mg/1
E. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than
5.0 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.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.
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. 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.
A-31
-------
300
GALVESTON BAY
(WEST OF THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL)
1104
Water Qual>ty is deemed suitable for the following 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
Industrial Cooling Water
-------
301
WEST BAY
(EAST OF KARANKAWA REEF)
1105
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
A. Chloride, average not to exceed 16,000 rng/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. B.O.D., average not to exceed 3.0 mg/1
E. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 5.0 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. 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.
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. PYee 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. 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 (f),
Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
A-33
-------
302
WEST BAY
(EAST OF KARANKAWA REEF)
1105
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following 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-34
-------
"?f)3
WEST BAY
(WEST OF KARANKAWA REEF)
1106
(THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
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. B.O.D., 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. 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.
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. 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.
A-35
-------
WEST BAY
(WEST OF KARANKAWA REEF)
1106
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following 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-36
-------
305
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Manual of Operations
Part I
Sanitation of
Shellfish
Growing Areas
7965 Revision
Edited by
Leroy S. Houser, Sanitarian Director
• IT9*'
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection
Shellfish Sanitation Branch
Washington, D.C. S0S01
-------
306
This is part- I of two companion volumes published by the Public Health
Service with titles and publication numbers as follows:
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Public Health Service Publication No. •'!:>
(Revised 1965) Part I—Sanitation of
Shellfish Growing Areas
Publ ic Health Service Publication No. 83
(Revised 1965) Part II—Sanitation of the
Ha rvesting and Processing of Shellfish
This is a revised edition published previously under the title: Cooperative
Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers, Part. 1, Sanita-
tion of Shellfish Growing Areas, 1962 Revision.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLICATION NO. 33
Part I — Revised 1965
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 45 cents
-------
307
LIST OF PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF MANUAL OF OPERATIONS FOR
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM—NOW SU-
PERSELED
1925. Supplement No. 53 to Public Health Reports November 6, 1925 "Report
of Committee on Sanitary Control of the Shellfish Industry in the
United States".
1937. U.S. Public Health Service Minimum Requirements for Approval of
State Shellfish Control Measures and Certification for Shippers in
Interstate Commerce (Revised October 1937).
1946. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control Qf the Shellfish
Industry Recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service (Public
Health Bulletin No. 295).
1957. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of the Shellfish
Industry (Part II: 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 Sanitary Control of the Shellfish
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.)
iii
-------
308
Contents
Page
Foreword vii
Introduction 1
Definitions 3
Section A- General Administrative Procedures 5
1. State Laws and Regulations />
2. Administrative Procedures To Be Used by States. _ _ _ 6
3. Intrastate Sale of Shellfish 8
Section B—Laboratory Procedures 9
1. Bacteriological 9
2. Toxicological 9
3. Chemical and Physical 9
Section 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
Section D—Preparation of Shellfish for Marketing 21
1. Relaying 21
2. Controlled Purification 22
Section 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
v
-------
309
FOREWORD
A Declaration of Principles
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program
is an unusual teaming of Slate and Federal re-
sources to preserve, and manage a natural re-
source, for a beneficial use. Although the
current, program is of comparatively recent
origin, its development can he traced hack
through several centuries of American history.
When the European colonists arrived they
found almost unimagined natural wealth. For-
ests, rich agricultural land, minerals, and space
itself, were present in quantities and a variety
previously unknown. To these settlers one of
the most, valuable, and readily useable of these
natural resources was the food resources of the
sea, particularly the estuaries. It is not surpris-
ing that, shellfish were foremost among their
staple food items.
The value, of tlu'.se renewable natural re-
sources to the early settlers was reflected in
colonial legislation designed to encourage their
wise use. In 1(158—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, harvest ing, 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 li>'25 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 a valuable
natural food resource; ('2) the cult ivation, har-
vesting, and marketing of this food resource
were valuable, components in the financial bases
of many coastal communities; (3) a State and
Federal program was necessary to 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 significant
that the founders of this program did not take
the parochial stand that the only completely
safe way to present disease transmission by
shellfish was to prohibit its use. Instead, they
held that this beneficial use of the estuaries
was in the best public interest, and that sanitary
controls should be, developed and maintained
which would allow safe use. These concepts
were recognized in the program which evolved
following the report of the "Committee on San-
itary Control of the Shellfish Industry in the
United States" in lih25.
In 1!)54 the Surgeon General of the I'.S.
Public Health Service, called a second national
conference to discuss shellfish sanitation prob-
lems. Specifically, the, 1!)54 conference ad-
dressed itself to the questions of the pract icality
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 has 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
-------
310
ment which would encourage corrective action
by State or Federal agencies. Similarly, the
program has not taken a position on the use
of conservation law even when it was known
that this would increase the program's consumer
protection confidence factor.
In recognition of past history of the shellfish
industry in the United States and of the rela-
tionship of the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program to the effective use of this natural re-
source, the 1964 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop
endorses the following principles:
1. Shellfish are a renewable, manageable
natural resource of significant econom-
ical value to many coastal communi-
ties, and which should be managed as
carefully as are other natural resources
such as forests, water, and agricultural
lands.
2. Shellfish culture and harvesting repre-
sents a beneficial use of water in the
estuaries. This use should be recog-
nized by State and Federal agencies
in planning and carrying out pollution
prevention and abatement programs
and in comprehensive planning for the
use of these areas.
3. The goals of the National Shellfish San-
itation Program are: (1) the con-
tinued safe use of this natural resource
and (2) active encouragement of
water quality programs which will
preserve all possible coastal areas for
this beneficial use.
It is the conviction of the 1964 National Shell-
fish Sanitation Workshop that survival of the
shellfish industry is in the best public interest;
that by application of the above principles on
a State-by-State basis shellfish can continue to
be used safely as food and to make a valuable
contribution to the economic structure of tlie
Nation both in the immediate present and in tho
foreseeable future.
-------
311
Introduction
In 1025 State and local health authorities
and representatives of the shellfish industry
requested the Public Health Service to exer-
cise supervision over the sanitary quality of
shellfish shipped in inter-state commerce. In
accordance with this request, a cooperative
control procedure was developed. In carrying
out this cooperative, control, (lie States, the shell-
fish industry, and the Public, Health Service,
each accept, responsibility for cert ain procedures
as follows.
1. Procedures To Be Followed by the
State.—Each shellfish-shipping State adopts
adequate laws and regulations 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 measures as may be necessary to insure that
the 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 the respec-
tive State control programs. For the informa-
tion of health authorities and others concerned,
the 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. The shellfish industry cooperates by
obtaining shellfish from safe sources, by pro-
viding plants which meet the agreed-upon
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 to 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 Rupplrmcnt to Public Health Re-
port,s, "Report of Committee on Sanitary Con-
trol of the Shellfish Industry in the United
States'' (1925). This guide for sanitary control
of the shellfish indust ry was revised and reissued
in 19;57 and again in 1940. It, was separated into
two parts by publication of Part, II, Sanitation
of the Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish
in 1957 and by publication in 1959, of Part I,
Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas. The
need for a specialized program of this 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 11)5(5 (.9), 1958 (,?), 19(51
(67) and 1964 (68).
This edit ion of the shellfish sanit ation manual
has been prepared in cooperation with the State
shellfish control authorit ies 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 operation 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 guide for the prepara-
tion of State shellfish sanitation laws and regu-
lations, and for sanitary control of the growing,
relaying, and purification of shellfish. It is in-
1
-------
312
tended that States participating in the National
Shellfish Sanitation program for the certifica-
tion of interstate shellfish shippers will be
guided by this manual in exercising sanitary
supervision over shellfish growing, relaying, and
purification, and in the issuing of certificates to
shellfish shippers.
The manual will also be used by the Public
Health Service in evaluating State shellfish
sanitation programs to determine if the pro-
grams qualify for endorsement. Part III of
the manual, "Public Health Service Appraisal
of State Shellfish Sanitation Programs", sets
forth appraisal procedures in evaluating State
shellfish sanitation programs and is based on
the requirements contained in parts 1 and II.
The provisions of this manual were accepted
at the Shellfish Sanitation Workshop held in
Washington, November 17-19, 1964, and unless
otherwise stated become effective 60 days after
publication (68).
Eugene T. Jensen,
Chief, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Division
of Environmental Engineering and Food
Protection, Public, Health Service.
2
-------
313
Definitions
And/or.—Where this term is used, and shall
apply where possible; otherwise, or shall apply.
Area, growing.—An area in which market
shellfish are grown.
Coliform group.—The coliform group in-
cludes all of the aerobic and facultative an-
aerobic, Gram-negtative, non-spore-forming
bacilli which ferment lactose with gas forma-
t ion within 48 hours at 35° £!. Bacteria of this
group which will produce gas from E. C. medi-
um within 24 hours at 44.5° C. in a water bath
will be referred to as fecal coliforms.
Controlled purification.—The process of re-
moving contamination from whole live shellfish
acquired while growing in polluted areas.
National shellfish sanitation program.—
The cooperative State-PHS-Industry program
for the certification of interstate shellfish ship-
pers as described in Public Health Service
Publication Number .'53, National Shell fix h
Cavitation Program Manual of Operations.
Parts I and IT.
Depletion.—The, removal of all market-size
shellfish from an area.
Most probable number (abbreviated
MPN). —The MPN is a statistical estimate of
the number of bacteria 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 and
computations, including MPN tables, can be
found in the American Public Health Associa-
tion publication "Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Waste Water" (j)
{5).
Population equivalent (coliform).—A
quantity of sewage containing approximately
160X10'J coliform group bacteria. This is
approximately equal to the per capita per day
contribution of coliforms as detemiined in a
metropolitan sewerage system (0) (7) (#).
Sanitary survey.—The sanitary survey is
the evaluation of all factors having a bearing
on the sanitary quality of a shellfish growing
area including sources of pollution, the effects
of wind, tides, and currents in the distribu-
tion and dilution of the polluting materials,
and the bacteriological quality of the water.
Shellfish.—All edible species of oysters,
clams, or mussels, either shucked or in the shell,
fresh or frozen.
Shellfish, market.—Shellfish which are, may
be, or have l>een harvested and/or prepared for
sale for human consumption as a fresh or frozen
product.
State shellfish control agency.—The State
agency or agencies having legal authority to
classify shellfish growing areas and/or to issue
permits for the interstate shipment 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.—The moving of shellfish
from one area to another area.
3
-------
314
Section A
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
1. State Laws and Regulations.—State
laws or regulations shall provide an adequate
legal basis for sanitary control of all interstate
phases of the shellfish industry. This legal
authority shall enable one or more departments
or agencies of the State to classify all coastal
waters for shellfish harvesting on the basis of
sanitary quality; effectively regulate the har-
vesting of shellfish; effectively prosecute per-
sons apprehended harvesting shellfish from
restricted, prohibited, or nonapproved areas;
regulate and supervise the shipment and stor-
age of shell stock, and the shucking, packing,
and 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 avithority to—
a. Classify all 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 the 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) Effectively prosecute persons appre-
hended harvesting shellfish from restricted or
prohibited areas. (Penalties for such viola-
tions should be sufficient to discourage illegal
harvesting.)
c. Regulate and supervise relaying, deple-
tion, wet storage, and controlled purification
as described in this manual if these techniques
are used.
d. Require that shell stock in storage or in
transit from the growing area to the certified
shipper be protected against contamination; i.e.,
every person, firm, or corporation that handles
shellfish up to the certified shipper will be sub-
ject to sanitary control by an official agency
but will not necessarily be required to have si
State shellfish permit.
e. Prohibit national program shippers
from possessing or selling shellfish from out-of-
State sources unless such shellfish have been pro-
duced in accord with cooperative program
requirements.
f. Regulate the operations of slnicker-pack-
ers, repackers, shell stock shippers and xeship-
pers in accord with the applicable provisions of
part II of this manual.
g. Restrict the harvesting of shellfish from
specific areas, and suspend interstate shipper
certificates in a public-health emergency. Ad-
ministrative procedures required 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 as having
been produced in accord with national pro-
gram requirements or which are 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-health explanation.—The National
Program was developed by the 1925 Conference
on Shellfish Pollut ion to meet the specific public-
health need resulting from the 1924-25 typhoid
epidemic (9).
However, the National Program has gone
beyond the original objective of insuring that
shellfish shipped interstate would not be the
cause of communicable disease. Thus, in the
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 radionuclides and that a
JUNE J965
5
-------
315
radiation surveillance activity might become a
necessary adjunct to the established procedures.
To accomplish these public-health objectives
the State must supervise all phases of the grow-
ing, harvesting, transportation, shucking-pack-
ing, and repacking of shellfish to be shipped
interstate. It is also important that shellfish be
properly refrigerated and protected against
contamination during interstate shipment. This
is not easily accomplished by the State of origin
although certified shippers are required to pack
shellfish in containers which will protect them
against contamination.
If State supervision is to be effective all
phases of the activity must be supported by
legal 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 that the State 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 the 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 radionuclides.
Experience has demonstrated that all actual
and potential shellfish growing waters of the
State must be classified as to their 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 areas which do not meet the cri-
teria, or which have not been surveyed.
2. -General Administrative Procedures To
Be Used by States.—States shall keep records
which will facilitate Public Health Service re-
view of their shellfish sanitation programs and
shall assist the Service in making such reviews.
States shall not certify shippers for interstate
shipment unless the shipper complies substan-
tially with the construction requirements of
part II of this manual and maintains a sani-
tation rating of at least 80 percent during
periods of operation. Shippers not 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 are 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 are 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. (The State 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 basis 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,
6
JUNE 1968
-------
316
D, and E, Part I, of this manual and when
monthly summaries of State patrol activities are
forwarded to the Public Health Service reg-
ional office:
(1) Individual growing area files. (Areas
may be defined by either geographic or po-
litical boundaries.)
(2) Patrol activities, including arrests,
prosecutions, and the results of prosecutions.
(3) Plant inspections. Shucker-packers
and repackers shall ordinarily be inspected at.
least monthly. Shell stock shippers and re-
shippers, shall be inspected at a frequency
which will afford adequate public-health su-
pervision of their operations. A central in-
spection-report file should be maintained by
the State.
f. The following guidelines are observed by
the State in issuing interstate shellfish certifi-
cates.
(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.")
Address. (A business and/or mailing ad-
dress in the State issuing the certificate. This
address indicates where records are kept and
where inspection may be arranged.)
Certificate Number. (A number shall be
assigned for each business unit. Suffix or
prefix letters may not be used to differentiate
between two or more plants of a given ship-
per.)
Classification. (The shipper classification
should be indicated by a symbol: i.e., shucker-
packer, SP; repacker, RP; shell stock, SS; or
reshipper, RS. Only one classification should
'be 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 the last day of a month. This date will
be shown on the "list". All certificates will
be automatically withdrawn from the "list"
on the date of expiration unless new certifi-
cates have been received by Public Health
Service headquarters office. If the date of
expiration coincides with the date of issue for
the "list" the certificates expiring on the date
of issue will be deleted.)
Certifying 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 certificate.
(3) Interstate shipment before listing,
The shipper should be informed of the prob-
able date his name will appear on the "list"
and should be advised against making inter-
state shipment prior to that date. (If ship-
ments must be made before the appearance
of the shipper's name on the "list", the Public
Health Service will notify the applicable re-
ceiving States if the names and addresses of
the expected receivers are indicated in ad-
vance by the State when the certificate is for-
warded to the Public Health Service.)
(4) State cancellation,- revocation, or sus-
pension of interstate shipper certificates. If
a State revokes, cancels, or suspends an inter-
state shellfish shipper certificate, the Public
Health Service regional 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. The 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
be readily located on Coast and Geodetic Sur-
vey charts.
h. State shellfish plant inspectors are pro-
vided with the following inspection equipment:
standardized inspection forms, thermometer,
chlorine test kit, and light meter.
i. Interdepartmental memoranda of under-
standing have been developed which will define
the responsibilities of each State agency in
maintaining adequate sanitary control of the
shellfish industry in the State.
JUNE 1985
7
-------
317
Public-health explanation.—The annual re-
view of each participating State's shellfish sani-
tation activities is a fundamental Public Health
Service responsibility in the National Program.
The purpose of this review is to evaluate the
adequacy and reliability of each individual
State program in accord with the agreed-upon
standards. The Service will endorse those State
programs meeting the National Program stand-
ards and will publish and distribute a list of
the names of the State certified shippers. How-
ever, if a State program does not meet the stand-
ards the program will oot be endorsed. Names
of nonparticipating States will be omitted from
the Public Health Service list of State certified
shellfish shippers.
Minimum plant sanitation standards for
interstate shellfish shippers are 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 sanitaiy requirements
should be applied to all actual and potential
growing areas and all shellfish harvesters to
insure that all shellfish available to certified
dealers have been produced and harvested under
acceptable sanitary conditions. It is also im-
portant, that the shell stock be protected against
contamination during the period between har-
vesting and delivery to the certified shipper.
3. Intrastate Sale of Market Shellfish.—
Sanitary standards for intrastate shellfish ship-
pers should be substantially equivalent to those
of the national program.
Public-health, explanation.—States may ac-
cept lower sanitary standards for shellfish sold
intrastate than are required by the National
Program. However, it has been found that
small intrastate shippers may at times sell their
product to interstate shippers if demand exceeds
the supply qf shellfish available to the latter.
Because of the possibility that such substandard
shellfish might 'be shipped interstate, the 15)54
Nat ional Conference on Shellfish Sanitation rec-
ommended that National Program standards
be applied to all shellfish production and
processing (/). The 1958 Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop also strongly recommended the use
of substantially equivalent standards for intra-
and inter-state shellfish shippers (3).
8
JUNE 1885
-------
318
Section B
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
1. Bacteriological. — American Public
Health Association Recommended Procedures
for the Examination of Sea Water and Shell-
fish shall be followed in the collect ion and trans-
portation of samples of shellfish and shellfish
waters for bacteriological examination and in
the laboratory examination of such samples.1
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when current American Public Health
Association Recommended Procedures for the
Examination of Sea Water and Shellfish are
followed in the bacteriological examination of
shellfish and shellfish waters.
Public-health explanation.—Experience with
the bacteriological examination of shellfish and
shellfish growing waters has indicated that mi-
nor differences in laboratory procedures or
techniques will cause wide variations in the re-
sults. 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 (tf#). (National Program required
use of a standard 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
1 Material which may be useful in interpretation of results
of bacteriological examination of shellfish 1? contained in ap-
pendix A.
Agricultural Chemists official methods are fol-
lowed in the bioassay for paralytic shellfish
poison.
Public-health explanation.—It has been dem-
onstrated that significant variations in bioassay
results will be caused by minor changes in pro-
cedures. If reliable results are to be obtained
it is essential that the test procedures be stand-
ardized and that variations due to use of strains
of mice be minimized (//). The official pro-
cedure for the bioassay for paralytic shellfish
poison adopted by the Association of Official
Agricultural Chemists minimizes these varia-
tions (66). A method of analysis for ciguatera
poison in shellfish has been developed (7£).
3. Chemical and Physical.—Standard lab-
oratory methods shall be used for all salinity,
radionuclide, and other chemical and physical
determinations made on shellfish or shellfish
waters in conjunction with National Program
activities. Results shall be reported 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, salinity should be expressed in parts
per thousand rather than hydrometer readings.)
Public-health explanation.—Standardized
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 use
of nonstandard methods.
.TUNE 1965
9
-------
319
Section C
GROWING AREA SURVEY AND CLASSIFICATION
1. Sanitary Surveys of Growing Areas.—
A sanitary survey shall be made of each
growing area prior to its approval by the
State as a source of market shellfish or of shell-
fish to be used in a controlled purification or
relaying operation. The sanitary quality of
each area shall be reappraised at least biennially
and, if necessary, a resurvey made. Ordinarily,
resurveys will be much less 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 be maintained by
the State shellfish control agency, and shall be
made available to Public Health Service review
officers upon request.
Satisfactory compliance.—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 by the specific conditions
in each growing area.
b. The 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
- In making the sanitary survey consideration should be
given to the hydrographic and geographic characteristics of
the estuary, the bacteriological quality of the growing area
water and bottom sediments, and the presence and location
of small sources of pollution, including boats, which might
contribute fresh sewage to the area.
8 The purpose of this reappraisal Is to determine if there
have been changes in stream flow, sewage treatment, popula-
tions, or other similar factors which might result 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 clear that such information
is still valid.
c. A file which contains all pertinent sani-
tary survey information, including the dates
and results of preceding sanitary surveys is
maintained by the State shellfish control agency
for each classified shellfish area.
d. The State agency having primary respon-
sibility for this element, of the national pro-
gram develops a system for identification of
growing areas.
Public-health explanation.—The positive re-
lationship between sewage pollution of shellfish
growing areas and enteric disease has been
demonstrated many times (13) (14) (15) (16)
(17) (18) (63) (64) (6-5). However, epidemi-
ological investigations 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 1914 to
1925 by the States and the Public Health Serv-
ice—a period when disease outbreaks attribut-
able to shellfish were more prevalent—indicated
that typhoid fever or other enteric disease
would not ordinarily be 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 sewage 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 (19) 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 be 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 area under consideration and the magnitude of the
changes which have taken place.
4 An MPN of approximately 70 per 100 ml.
10
JUNE 19(15
-------
320
b. The area is free from pollution by even
small quantities of fresh sewage. The report
emphasized that bacteriological examination
does not, in itself, offer conclusive proof of the
sanitary quality of an area.
c. Bacteriological examination does not or-
dinarily show the presence of the coli-aerogenes
group of bacteria in 1 cc. dilutions of growing
area water.
The reliability of this three-part standard for
evaluating the safety of shellfish-producing
areas is evidenced by the 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 comparatively long period of time (18)
(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.5 6
8 Bacteria in an unfavorable environment die out in such a
way that following an initial lag period there is a large per-
centage decline during the first few days. Descriptions of
studies on bacteria dieout have been published by Greenberg
(£2) and Pearson (21). Dleoff has also been investigated
Ideally, a large number of water samples for
bacteriological examination should be collected
at each station. However, in most instances
this is not practical because of time and budget
limitations, and accordingly only a limited num-
ber of samples can be collected. Therefore,
sampling stations should be chosen which will
provide a maximum of data, and which will be
respresentative 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 years can be used
as a block of data provided at least 15 samples
have been collected from each of a representative
number of stations along the line separating ap-
proved from restricted growing areas and there
have been no adverse changes in hydrographic
or sanitary conditions. Only occasional bac-
teriological , samples are necessary from areas
which are shown to be free from pollution.
Experience with the shellfish certification 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 Publie Health Service Shellfish Sanitation Laboratory
at Woods Hole, Mass., and Pensacola, Fla. Application of
this principle may be helpful in predicting the quantity of
pollution which will rea&h an area, and in establishing objec-
tive effluent quality criteria (2JK
* In connection with the evaluation of sampling results, it
should be noted that the MPN determination is not a precise
measure of the concentration of bacteria (4). Thus, in re-
peated sampling from waters having a uniform density of
bacteria varying MPN estimates will be obtained. The use
of the tolerance factor 3.3 (applicable only to 5 tube decimal
dilution MPN's) Is one method of recognising this variation.
For example, in a body of water in which the median con-
centration of coliform bacteria is 70 per 100 ml., 95% of
observed MPN's will be between 20 and 230 per 100 ml. ; I.e.,
70/3.3 = ai and 70X3.3 = 230.
JUNE 1965
u
-------
321
loss of old data which may be useful in evaluat-
ing the sanitary quality of an area.
Periodic reappraisals of the sanitary quality
of shellfish producing areas are necessary to
determine that environmental conditions are
such that the original conclusions are still valid.
A resurvey should be made within 1 year if the
reappraisal shows a significant detrimental
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-3, C-4,
C-5, C-6, and C-7 of this manual. Except in
emergency any upward revision of an area clas-
sification shall be preceded by a sanitary survey,
resurvey, or reappraisal. A written analysis
of the data justifying the reclassification shall
be made a part of the area 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.'' *
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-
hibited.
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.
7 Closures may also be tinned on presence of Marine Toxlnx
or other toxic materials.
'States may use other terminology In describing area
classifications; provided, that the classification terms used
are consistent with the Intent and meaning of the word*
"approved", "conditionally approved", "restricted", or
"prohibited".
Areas should be reclassified whenever warranted
by existing data. A written justification for the
reclassification simplifies Public Health Service
appraisal of State programs.
A hypothetical use of the four recognized
area classifications is shown in figure 1. This
idealized situation depicts an estuary receiving
sewage from two cities, "A" and "B." City "A"
has complete sewage treatment including chlori-
nation of effluent. City "B" has no sewage
treatment. The estuary 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."
Conditionally Approved
Area II. This area is of the same sanitary
quality as area I; however, the quality varies
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 water or amount of dilution water.
12
JUNE 1965
-------
322
3. Approved Areas.—Growing areas may
be designated as approved when: (a) the sani-
tary survey indicates that pathogenic micro-
organisms, radionuclides, and/or harmful in-
dustrial wastes do not reach the area in dan-
gerous concentration, and (b) this is verified by
laboratory findings whenever the sanitary sur-
vey indicates the need. Shellfish may be taken
from such areas for direct marketing.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when the three following criteria are
met:
a. The area is not so contaminated with fecal
material that consumption of the shellfish might
be hazardous, and
b. The area is not so contaminated with
radionuclides or industrial wastes that con-
sumption of the shellfish might be hazardous
(see section C, item 7, regarding toxins in shell-
fish growing areas), and
c. The coliform median MPN of the water
does not exceed 70 per 100 ml., and not more
than 10 percent of the samples ordinarily ex-
ceed an MPN of 230 per 100 ml. for a 5-tube
decimal dilution test (or 330 per 100 ml., where
the 3-tube 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 coliform-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 coliforms (ire not of direct fecal origin and
do not indicate a public health hazard (19)
(SO)*
Public-health explanation.—A review of epi-
demiological investigations of disease outbreaks
attributable to the co lsumption of raw shellfish
reveals that two general situations prevail0 in-
sofar as pollution of growing or storage areas
are concerned.
'This MPN value is based on a typical ratio of conforms
to pathogens and would not be applicable to any situation In
which an abnormally large number of pathogens might be
present. Consideration must also be given to the possible
presence of Industrial or agricultural wastes In which there
Is an atypical coliform to pathogen ratio (SO).
•There Is a third general consideration In which shellfish
may be contaminated through mishandling. This Is not re-
lated to growing area sanitation and Is considered In part II
of this manual.
(1) Gross sewage contamination of a grow-
ing or wet storage area. (A report of a 1910
outbreak of typhoid fever involving 41 per-
sons notes that raw sewage from a city with
a population of 30,000 was discharged only
a few hundred feet away from clam beds and
floats (27) (28). In 1947 a case of typhoid
fever was attributed to clams harvested 200
yards from the outlet of a municipal sewage
treatment plant (29). In the latter case, the
coliform MPN of the harbor water exceeded
12,000 per 100 ml. and the area had been
posted as closed to shellfish harvesting.)
(2) Chance contamination of a growing or
wet storage area by fresh fecal material which
may not be diffused throughout the entire area
(H) (16) (17) (19) and therefore not readily
detectable by ordinary bacteriological pro-
cedures. The possibility of chance contami-
nation was noted by Dr. Gurion in his report
on a 1902 typhoid outbreak, and who is quoted
in Public Health Bulletin No. 86, as "there
is a zone of pollution established by the mere
fact of the existence of a populated city upon
the banks of a stream or tidal estuary which
makes the laying down of oysters 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". The 1956 outbreak of infectious
hepatitis in Sweden (691 cases) attributed to
oysters which were contaminated in a wet
storage area is an example of such contami-
nation (16). Similarly in 1939, 87 cases of
typhoid were attributed to fecal contamina-
tion of a storage area by a typhoid carrier
(U).
It is well established that shellfish from
water having a median coliform MPN not ex-
ceeding 70 per 100 ml.8 and which is also 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 1965
13
-------
Sewer outfall
RESTRICTED AREA
Figure 1
PROHIBITED AREA
Sewage
treatment
plant
PROHIBITED
AREA
CONDITIONALLY
APPROVED ^
AREA
I
APPROVED AREA
-------
324
tidal action which is constantly bringing un-
polluted water into the area.8
Areas which are approved for direct market
harvesting of shellfish which will be eaten raw
must necessarily meet one general test; i.e,
sewage reaching the growing area must be so
treated, diluted, or aged that it will be of neg-
ligible public-health significance. This implies
an element of time and distance to permit the
mixing of the sewage or fecal material with the
very large volume of diluting water and for a
major portion of the microorganisms to die out.
Studies of the natural die-off of microorganisms
in an unfavorable marine environment have
been summarized by Greenberg (22).
The effectiveness of sewage treatment proc-
esses must be considered in evaluating the san-
itary quality of a growing area since the bacte-
rial and viral content of the effluent will be
determined by the degree of treatment which is
obtained (8) (7.3) (7If) (75). The results of
bacteriological sampling must also be correlated
with sewage treatment plant operation, and
evaluated in terms of the minimum treatment
which can be expected with a realization of the
possibility of malfunctioning, overloading, or
poor operation.
The presence of radionuclides in growing
area waters may also have public-health sig-
nificance since shellfish, along with other marine
organisms, have the ability to concentrate such
materials (31) (32) (33) (34). The degree to
which radioisotopes will be concentrated de-
pends upon the species of shellfish and the
specific radioisotope. For example, it has been
reported that the Eastern oyster has a concen-
tration factor of 17,000 for ZnB5 whereas the
concentration factor in soft tissues for Sr89 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
radioisotopes and unidentified mixtures in
water and food have been established (35) (36).
The current standard should be consulted in
evaluating the public-health significance of de-
tected radioactivity in market shellfish.
See footnote 8 on page 13.
The bacterial quality of active shellfish will
ordinarily be directly proportional to the bac-
terial quality of the water in which they grew;
however, considerable variation in individual
determinations may be expected. The coliform
MPN's of the shellfish usually exceed those of
the overlying water because shellfish filter large
quantities of water to obtain food, thereby con-
centrating the suspended bacteria. This rela-
tionship will depend upon the shellfish species,
water temperature, presence of certain chemi-
cals, and varying capabilities of the individual
animals.
4. Conditionally Approved Areas.—The
suitability of some areas for harvesting shellfish
for direct marketing is dependent upon the at-
tainment of an established performance stan-
dard by sewage treatment works discharging
effluent, directly or indirectly, to the area. In
other cases the sanitary quality of an area may
be 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 approved areas only when satisfied
that (a) all 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 before the shell-
fish can purify themselves of polluting micro-
organisms.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
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 each condi-
tionally approved area is developed jointly by
the State shellfish control agency, local agencies,
including those responsible for operation of
sewerage systems, and the local shellfish indus-
try. The operating procedure should be based
on an evaluation of each of the potential sources
of pollution which may affect the area. The
procedure should establish performance stand-
ards, specify neeessary safety devices and meas-
ures, and define inspection and check proce-
dures. (These procedures are described in
JUNE 1966
15
-------
325
more detail m flie following public-health
explanation.)
c. A closed safety zone is established between
the conditionally approved area and the source
of pollution to give the State agency time to
stop shellfish harvesting if performance stand-
ards are not met.
d. Boundaries of conditionally approved
areas are so marked as to be readily identified
by harvesters.
e. Critical sewerage system units are so de-
signed, constructed, and maintained that the
chances of failure to meet the established per-
formance standards due to mechanical failure
or overloading are minimized.
f. There is a complete understanding of the
purpose of the conditionally approved classifi-
cation by all parties concerned, including the
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 aj>proved 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 I>—1, "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 not been reported by
the operating agency, or if the performance
standards are not met, the area will imme-
diately revert to a restricted or prohibited
classification.
k. All data relating to the operation of a
conditionally approved area, including oper-
ation of sewerage systems, are maintained in a
file by the State shellfish control agency.
Public-health explanation.—The condition-
ally approved classification is designed pri-
marily to protect shellfish. growing areas in
which the water quality might undergo a sign ifi-
cant adverse change within a short period of
time.1" The change might result from over-
loading or mechanical failure of a sewage treat-
ment plant, or bypassing of sewage at a lift
station.
Water quality in many growing areas in the
more densely populated sections of the country
is, to some degree, dependent upon the operation
of sewage treatment plants. For example, the
boundaries of an approved shellfish area might
be determined during a period when a tributary
sewage treatment plant is operating at a satis-
factory level. If there is some interruption in
treatment it follows that there will '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 source and the growing area, hydrog-
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
10 A natural disaster may also cause many sewage treat-
ment plants to be out of service (or an extended period of
time. The conditionally approved nrea concept is not ordi-
narily concerned with such emergency situations.
16
JANUARY 1959
-------
326
several months a year. When the fishing fleet is
in, the harbor water would be of poor sanitary
quality; however, during the remainder of the
year the quality of the harbor water might be
satisfactory. The area would be approved for
shellfish harvesting only when the fishing fleet
is not using the harbor.
c. The water quality in an area fluctuates with
the discharge of a major river. During periods
of high runoff the area is polluted because of
decreased flow time in the river. However, dur-
ing periods of low runoff the area might be of
satisfactory quality and thus be approved for
shellfish harvesting.
The establishment of conditionally approved
areas might be considered whenever the poten-
tial for sewage contamination is such that the
limiting water quality criteria for an approved
area might be exceeded in less than one week
due to a failure of sewage treatment, or other
situations as described above.
The first step in determining whether an area
should be placed in the conditionally approved
classification is the evaluation of the potential
sources of pollution in terms of their effect on
water quality in the area. Potential sources of
pollution include the following:
(1) Sewage treatment plants.
(~) Bypassing of all or part, of sewage
because of mechanical or power failure,
hydraulic overloading, or treatment over-
loading.
(~) 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.
(b) Bypassing because of mechanical or
power failure.
(3) Interceptor sewers or underwater out-
falls.
(a) Exfiltration due to faulty construc-
tion.
(b) Leakage due to damage.
(4) Other sources of pollution.
(~) Sewage from merchant or naval
vessels.
(~) 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
standards to be maintained, and the formulation
of performance standards for each installation
having a significant effect on the sanitary qual-
ity of the area. Examples of performance
standards might include:
(1) Bacteriological quality of effluent from
sewage treatment plants. This might be
stated in terms of chlorine residual if the
bacteriological quality of the effluent can be
positively related to chlorine residual. The
following is an example of a performance
standard (37): "The median coliform MPN,
in any one month, shall not exceed 500 per'
100 ml., based on not less than 16 composite
samples per month, and not more than 10 per-
cent of the samples shall have an MPN in ex-
cess of 10,000 per 100 ml. Determinations of
the chlorine residual of the effluent should be
made hourly and recorded in the permanent
plant records."
(2) Total quantity of sewage which can be
discharged from any given unit, or from a
combination of units, without causing the
basic water quality standards to be exceeded.
(3) Amount, of shipping in the area and
the amount of sewage which can be expected.
Design criteria which may be useful in formu-
lating an opinion on the quantity of sewage
which can be discharged into an area without
exceeding the desired water quality standards
include: Population equivalent (coliform) of
sewage; predicted survival of coliform in sea
water, effectiveness of chlorination, and the total
quantity of clean dilution water in an area. Re-
sults of many studies on the survival of bacteria
in sea water have been summarized in An In-
vestigation of the Efficacy of Submarine Outfall
Disposal of Sewage and Sludge: Publication
No. 14, California State Water Pollution Con-
trol Board, 1956.
The mechanical equipment at critical sewage
treatment or pumping units should be such that
interruptions will be minimized. Wherever
possible operations should be automatically re-
corded on charts. Examples of the require-
ments which might be imposed, depending upon
the importance of the utiit in terms of water
quality, include: \
(1) Ample capacity \ for storm flows.
(Storm water should ordinarily be excluded
from the sanitary system.)
JANUARY 1969
17
-------
3 27
(2) Standby equipment to insure that
treatment or pumping will not be interrupted
because of damage to a single unit or to power
failure.
(3) Instrumentation of pumps and equip-
ment to allow the regulatory agency to de-
termine that performance standards have
been met. Examples include:
(a) Recording scales to indicate rate of
chlorine use. Chlorine flow can be inte-
grated with hydraulic flow to establish a
ratio.
(b) Liquid level recording gages in over-
flow channels of sewage treatment plants
and wet wells of lift stations to indicate
when overflow takes place. Charts should
be dated and initialed by the operator.
Gages should be calibrated so that dis-
charge can be estimated.
(c) Automatic devices to warn of fail-
ure or malfunctioning at self-operated
pumping stations or treatment plants.
(4) The effect of storm sewage can be cal-
culated by multiplying the total estimated
flow by the observed coliform content. The
result can be expressed in terms of popula-
tion equivalents {coliform).
Design and operation of equipment should be
such that closure provisions should not have to
be invoked more than once per year under
ordinary circumstances.
A closed safety area should be interposed
between the conditionally approved area and the
source of pollution. The size of such area should
be based on the total time it would take for the
operating agency to detect a failure, notify the
State shellfish control agency, and for the latter
agency to stop shellfish harvesting. It is recom-
mended that the area be of such size that the
flow time through the safety area be at least
twice that required for the notification process
to become effective. Due consideration should
be given to the possibility that closure actions
might be necessary on holidays or at night.
The type of marking which will be required
for conditionally approved areas 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
closure will depend upon several factors includ-
ing the species of shellfish, water temperature,
purification rates, presence of silt or other
chemicals that might interfere with the physio-
logical activity of the shellfish, and the degree
of pollution of the area. (See section D-l of
this manual for additional information on the
natural purification of shellfish.)
5. Restricted Areas.—An area may be clas-
sified as restricted when a sanitary survey in-
dicates a limited degree of pollution which
would make it unsafe to harvest the shellfish
for direct marketing. Alternatively the States
may classify such areas as prohibited. (See
section C-6, this manual.) Shellfish from such
areas may be marketed after purifying or re-
laying as provided for in section D.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when the following water quality cri-
teria are met in areas designated by States as
restricted.u 12
a. The area is so contaminated with fecal
materials that direct consumption of the shell-
fish might be hazardous, and/or
b. The area is not so contaminated with radio-
nuclides or industrial wastes that consumption
of the shellfish might be hazardous, and/or
c. The coliform median MPN of the water
does not exceed 700 per 100 ml. and not more
than 10 percent of the samples axceed an MPN
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 restricted 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 nonpolluted
areas. In such instances the State may, at its
"It it not mandatory that State* use tliln classification.
Arena hot meeting the approved olHSKlfloiitlon nmy b» cloned
to all hnrveHtlng for direct marketing.
"Routine sanitary survey* and renpi>rnl*uln of rentrleted
atom shall be mntle on the same fmiueney n* for approved
area*. (See »etlon C-l.)
18
JAN VARY 1051)
-------
328
option, classify areas of intermediate sanitary
quality as restricted and authorize the use of the
shellfish for relaying, or controlled purification.
6. Prohibited Areas.—An area shall be clas-
sified prohibited if the sanitary survey indicates
that dangerous numbers of pathogenic micro-
organisms might reach an area. The taking of
shellfish from such areas for direct marketing
shall be prohibited. Relaying or other salvage
operations shall be carefully 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 be
satisfied when:
a. An area is classified as prohibited if a sani-
tary survey indicates either of the following
degrees of pollution:
(1) The area is contaminated with radio-
nuclides or industrial wastes that consump-
tion of the shellfish might be hazardous
and/or
(2) The median coliform MPN of the wa-
ter exceeds 700 per 100 ml. or more than 10
percent of the samples have a coliform MPN
in excess of 2,300 per 100 ml. (Note: This
concentration might be reached 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.)
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
the 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 not be approved as a source of
shellfish for direct marketing.
7. Closure of Areas Due to Shellfish
Toxins.—The State shellfish control agency
shall regularly collect and assay representative
samples of shellfish from growing areas where
shellfish toxins are likely to occur. If the
paralytic shellfish poison content reaches 80
micrograms per 100 grams of the edible portions
of raw shellfish meat, the area shall be closed
to the taking of the species of shellfish in which
the poison lias been found.13 The harvesting of
shellfish from such areas shall be controlled in
accord with the recommendations of sections
E-l and E-2 of this manual.
The quarantine shall remain in effect until
such time as the State shellfish control agency is
convinced the poison content of the shellfish in-
volved is below the quarantine level.14
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. The State shellfish control agency collects
and assays representative samples of shellfish
for the presence of toxins from each suspected
growing area during the harvesting season.
(See 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 80 micrograms
per 100 grams of the edible portion of raw
shellfish.
Public-health explanation.—In some areas
paralytic poison is collected temporarily by bi-
valve 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 luvve indicated 200 to 600 micrograms
of poison will produce symptoms in susceptible
value is based on the results of epidemiological in-
vestigations of outbreaks of paralytic shellfish poison in
Canada in 1054 and 19H7 (58) (39).
14 The provisions of tills item apply only to shellfish which
will be marketed as a fresh or frozen product as properly
controlled heat processing will reduce the poison content of
the shellfish.
JUNE 1965
19
-------
329
persons and a death has been attributed to the
ingestion of a probable 480 micrograms of poi-
son. Investigations indicate that lesser amounts
of the poison have no deleterious effects on hu-
mans. Growing areas should be closed at a
lower toxicity level to provide an adequate mar-
gin of safety since in many instances toxicity
levels will change rapidly (38) (39). It has
also been shown that the heat treatment af-
forded in ordinary canning processes reduces
the poison content of raw shellfish considerably.
A review of literature and research dealing
with the source of the poison, the occurrerice
and distribution of poisonous shellfish, physi-
ology and toxicology, characteristics of the poi-
son, and prevention and control of poisoning
has been prepared (IfO).
In Gulf coast areas, toxicity in shellfish has
been associated (18) (76) with Red Tide out-
breaks caused by mass bloomings of the toxic
dinoflagellate, Gymnod'mmm breve. Toxic
symptOns in mice suggest a type of ciguatera
fish poisoning rather than symptoms of para-
lytic shellfish poisoning.
20
JUNE 1965
-------
330
Section D
PREPARATION OF SHELLFISH FOR MARKETING
1. Relaying1.—State shellfish control agen-
cies may approve the intra- or interstate trans-
planting of market shellfish from restricted or
prohibited areas to approved areas subject to
certain limitations. All phases of the operation
shall be under the immediate supervision of re-
sponsible State(s) shellfish control or patrol
agency(s). A memorandum of understanding
shall be developed between the agencies respon-
sible for the control of interstate relaying oper-
ations. (Shellfish may be transplanted from an
approved area to another like area at any time
without restriction due to sanitary reasons.)
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. Shellfish are not relaid from restricted or
prohibited area* to approved areas 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-
fore 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 are undergoing the cleansing process.
However, continuous supervision will not be
necessary if relaying operations are carried out
during a period when shellfish may not be mar-
keted. A continuous record of water temper-
ature, salinity, and any other critical variables
must be maintained when it is known that the
limiting values may be 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 are held in the approved
area for a period of time sufficient to allow them
tcf 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. Relaid shellfish are not harvested without
written permission from the State shellfish con-
trol agency.
f. Areas designated for relaid shellfish are so
located and marked that they may be readily
identified by the harvesters and sq that shellfish
in any adjacent approved area will not be con-
taminated. (This requirement applies only to
relaying during the harvesting season.)
g. Shellfish are not relayed intra or interstate
from restricted or prohibited areas to approved
areas without written permission of the State (s)
shellfish control agency(s). (If shellfish are
relayed interstate, a memorandum of agreement
shall be devloped outlining the control measures
to be used.)
Public-health explanation.—Shellfish trans-
planted from a polluted to a clean environment
will cleanse themselves of the polluting bacteria
or viruses. This is a natural phenomenon re-
sulting from the shellfish feeding processes.
Bacteria or viruses in the body and shell cavity
of the shellfish at the time of transplanting are
either used as food or are ejected in feces or
pseudofeces.
The length of time l-equired 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 psysiological activities of the
Kastern oyster {Craxxoxtrea virgimca) 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 below 50° F„ and that most ani-
mals stop pumping at a water temperature of
about 41° F. However, a few oysters show
slight activity at temperatures approaching 32°
This phenomenon was first noted
by shellfish bacteriologists who found that East-
JUNEl 1965
21
-------
331
ern oysters harvested from polluted areas dur-
ing cold weather had coliform contents com-
parable with those of oysters harvested from
clean areas during warmer weather (43) (44)
(4S).
Gibbard et al. (46) investigating tempera-
ture-induced hibernation was unable to demon-
strate coliforms in Eastern oysters within a few
days after the water temperatures dropped to
32° F. The rapidity with which hibernating
oysters become active when the water tempera-
ture rises above the threshold value was dis-
cussed by Wachter (47) in 1925 and was demon-
strated by Gibbard et al. (46). The latter
investigator found that contamination accom-
panying a sudden two degree increase in water
temperature from 41° to 43° F. was reflected in
the oysters in one day.
Relaying operations must be carefully super-
vised by an official State agency since the shell-
fish may contain pathogenic microorganisms.
Control must apply to all phases of the opera-
tion including initial harvesting, transportation,
replanting, purification period, and final har-
vesting for marketing if the relaying area is
adjacent to a restricted area or to an area con-
taining relaid shellfish which have not been
released for harvesting.
2. Controlled Purification.—Shellfish from
restricted or prohibited areas may be marketed
after effective controlled purification. Purifica-
tion shall be permitted only under the immedi-
ate supervision of the State shellfish control
agency. Water used for purification shall be of
high bacteriological quality and its physical and
chemical properties shall be favorable to maxi-
mum physiological activity of the shellfish.
Stringent precautions shall be taken by the
State shellfish control agency to insure that
shellfish harvested from restricted or prohibited
areas are actually submitted to an effective pur-
ification process before marketing.
Purification of shellfish from prohibited areas
shall not be approved by the State unless relay-
ing is not practical for biological reasons, and
no public-health hazard will result from the use
of such shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when:
a. The controlled purification system, includ-
ing water treatment, has been demonstrated to
be consistently effective for the species of shell-
fish being purified. Purification may be ac-
complished in either a natural body of water or
in tanks. (In determinii • the effectiveness of
the process at least the following factors shall be
investigated: Water temperature, silt or turbid-
ity, dissolved oxygen, presence of chemicals, and
time required for purification.) The bacteri-
ological quality of the purified shellfish shall be
at least equal to shellfish of the same species
harvested from local approved areas.
b. A purification plant operating procedure
is developed and copies are supplied to the
Public Health Service.
c. Water used for purification is obtained
from an area meeting the physical and 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) are 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 1959
-------
332
i. The plant operator possesses a satisfactory
knowledge of the principles of water treatment
and bacteriology.
j. Animals, rodents, and unauthorized per-
sons are excluded from the plant.
k. Plant employees fulfill the qualifications
for a shucker as described in section B-28, part
II of this manual.
1. The State has an effective system for as-
suring that shellfish harvested 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.
m. Shellfish from prohibited areas are not
subjected to purification unless the 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 explanation.—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 by Arcisz and Kelly (2fi) as
follows:
"Purification is a mechanical process effected
by the physiological functioning of the shellfish
in clean water. When shellfish 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 the mucus on the body of the
shellfish and transferred to the alimentary tract.
Some of these are perhaps utilized as food (49)
and the others discharged from the body in the
form of feces and pseudofeces. 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."
The purification process has been investigated
extensively in England and to a lesser extent in
the United States and Canada (50) (51) (62).
The technique is reliable if proper methods are
used, and insofar as is known, is applicable to
all commercial species of shellfish.
Many of the earlier investigators suggested
that purification be accomplished in tanks using
water which had been subjected to a treatment
process (52). The analogy with water treat-
ment was carried to the point of recommend-
ing a chlorine residual in the purification tanks.
However, fishery biologists have shown that
shellfish pumping is decreased or inhibited by
even small quantities of chlorine (53) (54)-
The inhibitory effect of chlorinated-dechlori-
nated 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 be free of chemicals or physical char-
acteristics which might, interfere with this ac-
tivity. For example, silt or dissolved organic
substances may influence the pumping rates of
shellfish (55) (56). The relationship of water
temperature to pumping rates lias been men-
tioned previously.
Shellfish purification facilities have gener-
ally been considered to include holding tanks
and water treatment facilities (57) (58); 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 (59)
(50) (6'0) (61). 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 1959
23
-------
Section E
333
CONTROL OF HARVESTING FROM CLOSED AREAS
1. Identification of Closed Areas.—Shell-
fish harvesters shall be notified by direct no-
tice and warning signs of areas closed to har-
vesting. Closed areas shall be so marked or
described that they may be easily recognized
by the harvesters. The measures necessary to
accomplish delineation and notification will
vary with the structure of the local shellfish
industry and with the legal requirements of
each State.
Satisfactory compliance,.—This item will be
satisfied when:
a. The boundaries of the closed areas are
marked by fixed objects or landmarks 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 areas by publication or direct
notification (such as registered mail) and/or
warning signs posted at points of access to each
closed area. The method of notification and
identification should permit the 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 posting 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 and classification of such areas.
However, classification is not effective unless the
State can prevent illegi 1 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 K-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 reasons. However, if the local
shellfish industry is highly organized, with
shellfish being harvested by only a few opera-
tors, identification may be accomplished by of-
ficially informing the harvesters that certain
areas are closed to the taking of shellfish. It is
recommended that the advice of the State's legal
counsel be obtained to insure that, the mark-
ing of closed areas and notifications to shellfish
harvesters are such that illegal harvesting can
be prosecuted successfully.
2. Prevention of Illegal Harvesting of
Shellfish From Closed Areas.—Closed grow-
ing areas shall be patrolled by a State agency
to prevent illegal harvesting. The patrol force
shall be so equipped that its officers will be able
to apprehend persons taking shellfish from
closed areas.
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 areas are pa-
trolled by representatives of an official agency,
due consideration being given to night, week-
end and holiday patrols. (States may delegate
patrol activities to local organizations; how-
ever, responsibility for effective control will re-
main with the Stftte 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 the 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) regarding monthly summaries of
patrol activities.)
Public-health explanation.—The primary ob-
jective of the National Program is to insure that
shellfish will be harvested only from areas
which are free of dangerous concentrations of
24
JUNE 1965
-------
334
pathogenic microorganisms, industrial or
radioactive wastes, pesticides or shellfish toxins.
Growing areas may be classified as to their
public-health suitability for shellfish harvesting
on the basis of information obtained by sanitary
and toxicological surveys. However, if local
shellfish harvesters are not convinced of the need
for restrictions, shellfish may be harvested sur-
reptitiously from the closed areas. Thus, patrol
failure may nullify the public-health safeguards
resulting from sanitary survey activities.
The fact that law prohibits the removal of
shellfish from certain areas will deter most per-
sons from attempting to harvest such shellfish
provided they are aware of the law and of the
areas which are closed. However, local public
opinion may not support the need for such
closures. In such cases favorable opinion can
probably be developed only through an educa-
tional program or a locally demonstrated need
such as an epidemic or outbreak of paralytic
shellfish poisoning. There is also a minority
element not concerned with the welfare of their
customers and who, through ignorance or pur-
pose, will attempt to circumvent the harvesting
restrictions.
Patrols must, therefore, be directed against
three classes of individuals; i.e., those who are
ignorant of the law, those who believe the law
is unjust or unreasonable, and those who have
no regard for the law.
Several mechanisms for improving the effec-
tiveness of patrols include educational programs
to acquaint shellfish harvesters with the public-
health reasons for the closures, elimination of
the "temptation element" by depletion, and
relaying or purification. Apprehension, prose-
cution, and punishment of violators is a final
resort.
The type of patrol organization needed for
any particular situation cannot be specified and
is determined by the nature of areas to be pa-
trolled, means of access, methods of harvesting,
and species. Patrol equipment should be such
that the officers can apprehend persons harvest-
ing shellfish in a closed area. Necessary equip-
ment might include patrol boats capable of op-
erating in open waters; small, high-speed,
readily transportable boats, or patrol auto-
mobiles. In many instances, two-way radio will
be helpful in coordinating patrol activities.
Kadar surveillance systems might also be of
assistance, particularly during foggy weather
or at night.
Organization of the patrol activity must take
into consideration the need for night, weekend,
holiday, and surprise patrols. Either nuisance
or continual patrol may be used depending on
the nature of the area to be patrolled and the
type of industry.
The adequacy of State laws as a basis for
prosecution is an important component of this
activity. Shellfish patrol will probably be in-
effective if State laws are so written or inter-
preted that violators cannot be successfully
prosecuted, or if penalties are so small that they
are economically unimportant. The latter point
may be important in an area where local public
opinion does not support the need for the
restriction.
3. Depletion of Closed Areas.—The State
shellfish control or patrol agency shall super-
vise all depletion operations. All market-size
shellfish and as many of the smaller size as can
be gathered by reasonable methods shall be re-
moved in the initial depletion operation. De-
pletion of each area shall be carried out at inter-
vals to prevent the development of market-sized
shellfish.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. The State shellfish control or patrol agency
exercises direct, supervision over each depletion
project including patrol of the area in which the
shellfish are relaid. (See section D-l.)
b. All market shellfish and as many of the
smaller size shellfish as can be gathered by
reasonable methods are removed in the depletion
operation.
c. Similar supervised depletion operations
are carried out at intervals to prevent develop-
ment of market-sized shellfish in quantities
which would make commercial harvesting
economically practicable in the depleted areas.
Public-health explanation.—Complete re-
moval of shellfish from polluted to clean areas
under appropriate precautions is the best safe-
guard against contaminated shellfish reaching
the market. In some cases depletion may be
more economical and effective than patrol of
closed areas.
JUNE 1965
25
-------
335
Appendix A
BACTERIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR SHUCKED OYSTERS
AT THE WHOLESALE MARKET LEVEL
The development of satisfactory bacteriolog-
ical criteria for interstate shipments of oysters
as received at the wholesale market lqvel has
been under consideration since 1950. 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 (0). The Canadian experience
with market standards for oysters 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:
"Clem /, Acceptable: Shucked oysters with
a Most Probable Number (MPN) 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 £, 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.)
"Clam
-------
336
for fresh and frozen shucked oysters at the
wholesale market level to the following:
Satisfactory.™ E. coli density of not more
than 78 MPN per 100 ml. of samples as indi-
cated by production of gas in E. C. liquid
broth media nor more than 100,000 total
bacteria per ml. on agar at 35° C. will be ac-
ceptable without question. An E. coli content
of 79 to 230 MPN per 100 ml. of sample or a
total bacteria count of 100,000 to 500,000 per
ml. will be acceptable in occasional samples.
If these concentrations are found in two suc-
cessive samples from the same packer or re-
packer, the State regulatory authority at the
source will be requested to supply informa-
tion to the receiving State concerning the
status of operation of this packer or repacker.
Unsatisfactory.15 E. coli content of more
than 230 MPN per 100 ml. of sample or
a total bacteria count of more than 500,000
per ml. will constitute an unsatisfactory
sample and may be subject to rejection by the
State shellfish regulatory authority. Future
shipments to receiving markets by the shipper
concerned will depend upon satisfactory
operational reports by the shellfish regulatory
authorities at the 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 the colla)borating 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.
17-19), including data relative to Crassostrea
gigas, and adopted the following standards on
a permanent basis, versus the previous interim
™E. coli was defined as conforms which will produce gas
from E. C. medium within 48 hours at 44.5* C. In a water
bath will be referred to as fecal coliforms.
basis, as being applicable to all species of fresh
and frozen oysters at the wholesale market
level, provided they can be identified as homing
been "produced imder the general sanitary con-
trols of the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program,.1*
Satisfactory. Fecal coliform density17 of
not more than 230 MPN per 100 grams and 35°
C. plate count18 of not more than 500,000 per
gram will be acceptable without question.
Conditional. Fecal coliform density of more
than 230 MPN per 100 grams and/or 35° C.
plate count of more than 500,000 per gram will
constitute a conditional sample and may be
subject to rejection by the State shellfish regu-
latory authority. If these concentrations are
found in two successive samples from the same
shipper, the State regulatory authority at the
source will be requested to supply information
to the receiving State concerning the status of
operation of this shipper. Future shipments to
receiving markets by the shipper concerned will
depend upon satisfactory operational reports
by the 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 the 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.
16 The standards are not considered meaningful In the
absence of such information.
17 Fecal coliform organisms are those which, on transfer
to E.C. medium from gas positive presumptive broth tubes
show production of gas after Incubation in a water bath at
44.5® C. ±0.2° C, for 24 hours. Where air incubation Is
at 45.5* C. ±0.2* C. comparative tests must be made to
determine comparable time of incubation.
18 Plate count is the number of bacteria determined by the
"Standard Plate Count: procedure for shellfish described in
the APHA Recommended Procedures for the Bacteriological
Examination of Sea Water and Shellfish."
JUNE 1965
27
-------
References
1. Jensen, E. T.: The 1954 National Conference on
Shellfish Sanitation, Public Health Reports, vol.
70, No. 9, Sept. 1955.
2. Proceedings—1956 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop, mimeographed, Public Health Service, 1956.
3. Proceedings—1958 Shellfish Sanitation Work-
shop, lithographed, Public Health Service, 1958.
4. Woodward, Richard L.: How Probable Is the
Most Probable Numbert Journal, American
Water Works Association, vol. 49, No. 8; 1060-
1068; August 1957.
5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Waste Water, American Public Health As-
socation.
6. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification
of the Ohio River, Public Health Bulletin, No. 143,
July 1924.
7. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification
of the Ohio River, Public Health Bulletin, No.
204, May 1933.
8. Phelps, Earl B.; Stream Sanitation, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, 1944.
9. Report on Committee on Sanitary Control of the
Shellfish Industry in the United States, Supple-
ment No. 53, Public Health Reports, Nov. 6, 1925.
10. Orlob, Gerald T.: Evaluating Bacterial Con-
tamination in Sea Water Samples, Public Health
Reports, Vol. 71, No. 12, December 1956.
11. Sehantz, E. J.: Purified Shellfish Poison for
Bioassay Standardization, Journal of the Associa-
tion of Official Agricultural Chemists, Feb. 1958.
12. McFarren, E. F.: Mimeograph 1-14-63. Available
from P.H.S. Shellfish Sanitation Branch.
13. Fisher, L. M., Chairman: Report of the Commit-
tee of the Public Health Engineering Section of
the American Public Health Association, Ameri-
can Journal of Public Health, 27, 180-196, Sup-
plement, March 1937.
14. Old, H. N. and Gill, S. I;.: A Typhoid Fever
Epidemic Caused by Carrier Bootlegging Oysters,
American Journal of Public Health, 30 : 633—640,
June 1940.
15. Hart, J. C.: Typhoid Fever from Clams, Con-
necticut Health Bulletin, December 1945.
16. Roos, Bertil: Hepatitis Epidemic Conveyed by
Oysters, Svenska Iitkartidningen, vol. 53, No. 16,
989-1003, 1956. (Translation available from the
Public Health Service.)
17. Llndberg-Broman, Ann Mari: Clinical Observa-
tions in the Bo-Called Oyster Hepatitis, Svenkn
I-fikartidningen, vol. 53, No. 16, 1003-9, 1956
(Translation available from the Public Health
Service.)
18. Meyers, K. F.: Medical Progress—Food Poisoning,
New England Journal of Medicine, 249: 765-773,
804-812 and 843-852 (Nov. 5, 12, and 19) 1953.
19. Lumsden, L. L., Hasseltine, H. E., Leak, J. P. and
Veldee, M. V.: A Typhoid Fever Epidemic Caused
by Oyster-Borne Infection, Public Health Reports,
supp. No. 50,1925.
20. A Report on the Public Health Aspects of Clam-
ming in Raritan Bay, Public Health Service, re-
issued June 1954.
21. Dack, G. M.: Food Poisoning, third edition; the
University of Chicago Press, 1956, fourth impression
1964.
22. Greenberg, Arnold E.: Survival of Enteric Organ-
isms in Sea Water, Public Health Reports, vol. 71,
No. 1, January 1956.
23. An Investigation of the Efficacy of Submarine Out-
fall Disposal of Sewage and Sludge, Publication
No. 14, California State Water Pollution Control
Board, 1956.
24. Harris, Eugene K,; Oti the Probability of Survival
of Bacteria in Sea Water, Biometrics, June 1958.
25. Wood, P. C.: Factors Affecting the Pollution and
Self-Purification of Molluscan Shellfish, Extrait du
Journal du Conseil International Pour l'Explora-
tion de la Mer, vol. XXII, No. 2, 1957.
26. Arcisz, William and Kelly, C. B.: Self-Purification
of the Soft Clam, Mya arenaria, Public Health
Reports, vol. 70, No. 0; 605-614, 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 New Jersey, New York and Delaware,
Public Health Bulletin No. 86, 1917.
29. Mood, Eric W.: First Typhoid Case in Seven Years,
Monthly Report of the New Haven, Conn., Depart-
ment of Health, December 1948.
30. Bidwell, Milton H., and Kelly, C. B.: Ducks and
Shellfish Sanitation, American Journal of Public
Health, vol. 40, No. 8, August 1950.
31. Effects 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
Neutron-Induced Radionuclides by the Clam, Pro-
ceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology
and Medicine, vol. 95, 451-454, 1957.
33. Studies of the Fate of Certain Radionuclides in
Estaurine and Other Aquatic Environments. Public
Health Service Publication No. 999-R-3.
34. Weiss, H. V., and Shipman, W. H.: Biological Con-
centration by Killer Clams of Cobalt-60 from Radio-
28
JUNE 1965
-------
338
active Fallout, Science, vol. 125, No. 3250, April
1957.
35. Title 10, Part 20, Code of Federal regulations.
36. Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maxi-
mum Permissible Concentrations of Radionuclides
in Air and in Water for Occupational Exposure,
National Bureau of Standards Handbook 69, June
5, 1959.
37. Water Quality Survey of Hampton Roads Shellfish
Areas, Virginia State Department of Health and
U.S. Public Health Service, 1950.
38. Tennant, A. I)., Neubert, J., and Cortieil, H. E.:
An Outbreak of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, the
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 72 : 436-
439, 1955.
39. Proceedings—1957 Conference on Paralytic Shell-
fish Poison, mimeographed: Public Health Service,
1958.
40. McFarren, E. F., et al.: Public Health Significance
of Paralytic, Shellfish Poison—Advances In Food
Research, vol. 10, 1960.
41. Galtsoff, P. S.: Biology of the Oyster in Relation
to Sanitation, American Journal of Public Health,
vol. 26, 245-247, 1936.
42. Loosanoff, V. L.: Some Aspects of Behavior of
Oysters at Different Temperatures, Biological Bul-
letin, vol. 114, No. 1, 57-70, 1958.
43. Gage, S. DeM., and Gorham, P.: Self-Purification
of Oysters During Hibernation, American Journal
of Public Health, December 1925.
44. Cumming, Hugh S.: Investigation of the Pollution
and Sanitary Conditions of the Potomac Water-
shed with Special Reference to Self-Purification
and the Sanitary Condition of Shellfish in the Lower
Potomac River, U.S. Public Health Service, Hy-
gienic Laboratory Bulletin No. 104, February 1916.
45. Fisher, L. U., and Acker, J. E.: Bacteriological
Examinations of Oysters and Water from Narra-
gansett Bay During the Winter and Spring in
1927-28, Public Health Reports, vol. 50, No. 42,
October 18, 1935.
46. Gibbard, James, et al.: Effect of Hibernation on
Content of Coliform Bacteria in Oysters, Ameri-
can Journal of Public Health, vol. 32, 979-986,
September 1942.
47. Wachter, L. M.: The Laboratory Aspects of Oyster
Pollution, American Journal of Public Health, 15,
1066-68, 1925.
48. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards,
PHS pub. 956.
49. ZoBell, C. E., and IJandon, W. A.: Bacterial Nu-
trition of the California Mussel, Proc. Soc. Exper.
Biol, and Med., 36, 607-609 (1937).
50. Wood, P. C.: The Cleansing of Oysters, Public
Health, February, 1957.
51. Erdman, X. E., Kelly, J. M., and Tennant, A. D.:
1954 Clam Cleansing Studies (Mya.), Manuscript
Report, Fish Inspection Laboratories, No. 55-1,
Canada Department of Fisheries.
52. Measer, R., and Reece, G. M.: Progress in Oyster
Conditioning With Report of Experiments at the
Demonstration Plant, Norfolk, Va., Public Health
Reports, Reprint No. 1870, 1451-1460,1937.
53. Galtsoff, Paul S.: Reaction of Oysters to Chlorin-
ation, Research Report 11, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, 1946.
54. Sandholzer, L. A., and Buckner, C. R.: Bacterio-
logical Studies of Oyster Conditioning, Commercial
Fisheries Review, 9, 7-11, 1947.
55. Loosanoff, V. L., and Tommers, F. S.: The Effect
of Suspended Silt and Other Substances on the
Rate of Feeding of Oysters, Science, 107, 69, 1948.
56. Collier, Albert, et al.: Effect of Dissolved Organic
Substances on Oysters, Fishery Bulletin 84, Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1953.
57. Vilela, H.: Oysters in Consumption and in the Na-
tional Economy, publication 18, Council of Studies
of Fisheries, Separate from Bulletin of Fisheries
No. 43, Lisbon, Portugal, 1954. (Translation avail-
able from the Public Health Service).
58. Report of the Special Commission Established To
Make an Investigation and Study Relative to Edible
Shellfish and Shellfish Chlorinating Plants, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, December 1947.
59. Swansburg, K. B., and Mullan, M. W.: Studies in
the Self-Cleansing of Quahougs (Venus merce-
naria, L.), manuscript report 57-2. Canada De-
partment of Fisheries, 1957.
60. Cole, H. A.: Purification of Oysters in Simple Pits,
Fishery Investigations, series II, vol. XVIII, No. 5,
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, London,
1954.
61. Reynolds, Nial: A Simplified System of Mussel
Purification, Fishery Investigations, series II, vol.
XX, No. 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,
London, 1956.
62. Recommended Procedures for the Bacteriological
Examination of Sea Water and Shellfish, American
Public Health Association.
63. Ringe, Mlla E., Clem, David J., Linkner, Robert E.,
and Sherman, Leslie K.: A Case Study on the
Transmission of Infectious Hepatitis by Raw
Clams, published by U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Public Health Service.
64. Mason, James O., and McLean, W. R.: Infectious
Hepatitis Traced to the Consumption of Raw
Oysters, American Journal of Hygiene, vol. 75,
-No. 1, Jan. 1962.
65. Communicable Disease Center Hepatitis Surveil-
lance, Report No. 18, March 31, 1964, and Report
No. 19, June 30, 1964. U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Public Health Service.
66. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists, published by the
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.
67. Proceedings—1961 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop,
Lithographed, Public Health Service, 1962.
68. Proceedings—1964 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop,
Lithographed, Public Health Service, 1965.
69. Communicable Disease Center Hepatitis Surveil-
lance, Report No. 5, May 3,1961, and Report No. 6,
September 28, 1961. U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service.
JUNE 1965
29
-------
339
70. Metealf, T. G.; and Stiles, W. C.: The Accumula-
tion of the Enteric Viruses by the Oysters, Cras-
sostrea virginica. Journal of Infectious Diseases,
vol. 115, 68-86, 1965.
71. Hedstrom, C. E„ and Lycke, E.: An Experimental
Study on Oysters, American Journal Hygiene, vol.
79, 143-153.
72. Crovarl, Piero Dr.: Some Observations on the Dep-
uration of Mussels Infected with Poliomelitis
Virus, Iqiene Moderna, vol. 51, 22-32, 1958. Trans-
lation available from PHS Shellfish Sanitation
Branch.
73. Kabler, Paul: Removal of Pathogenic Micro-
organisms by Sewage Treatment Processes, Sew-
age and Industrial Wastes, vol. 31, 1373-82 (Dec.
1959).
74. Kelly, Salley, and Sanderson, W. W.: The Effect of
Sewage Treatment on Viruses, Sewage and Indus-
trial Wastes, vol. 31, 683-89 (June 1959).
75. Clarke, Norman A., and Kabler, Paul W.: Human
Enteric Viruses in Sewage, Health Laboratory
Science, vol. 1, 44-50 (Jan. 1964).
70. Eldred, B., Steidinger, K., and Williams, J.: Pre-
liminary Studies of the Relation of Qymnodinum
Breve Counts to Shellfish Toxicity. A Collection
of Data in Reference to Red Tide Outbreaks Dur-
ing 1963, Reproduced by the Marine Laboratory of
the Florida Tioard of Conservation, St. Petersburg,
Florida, May 1964.
77. Hajna, A. A., and Perry, C. A., 1954, Comparative
Study of Presumptive and Confirmatory Media for
Bacteria of the Coliform Group and for Fecal
Streptococci, American Journal of Public Health,
33, 550-556.
78. Mitchell, J. R„ Presnell, M. W„ Akin, E. W., Cum-
mins, J. M., and Liu, O. C.: Accumulation and
Elimination of Poliovirus by the Eastern Oyster,
manuscript in preparation.
30
JUNE 1965
-------
340
INDEX
Approved areas: Page
bacteriological quality 13
classification 12
definition 13
industrial wastes 13
radioactive materials 15
relationship to sewage treatment 15
sanitary survey 11
Bacteriological:
content of hibernating shellfish 21
control of purification 22
die out 11,17
examination of growing water 11
frequency of water sampling 11
most probable numbers 3, 11
procedures 9
quality of shucked market oysters 26, 27
relationship of sewage treatment to water
quality - 16,17
shellfish-water relationship 15
Certificates, shipper 7
Ciguatera poison 9, 20
Classification of growing areas 12
Coliform group, definitions 3
Conditionally approved areas:
boundary marketing 16, 17
definition 15
discussion 15, 16, 17, 18
establishment of performance standards— 17
in harbors 16
near resort areas 15, 16
performance standards 16
records 16, 17
relationship to river discharge 17
safety zones 16, 18
water quality requirements 15
Controlled purification:
administrative control. - 22, 23
definition 3
discussion 22, 23
laboratory control — 22
use of shellfish from restricted or prohibited
areas 22
water quality required 22
Cooperative program:
application to growing areas 6
application to handlers 6
application to harvesters 6
definition 3
history 1
Closed areas:
depletion of 25
marking of boundaries 24
notification to harvesters 24
use of shellfish 24
Definitions 3
Depletion of closed areas 25
Die-out of bacteria 11, 17
Disease from shellfish- 10, 13, 19
Growing areas, definitions 3
Hibernation of shellfish 21
Industrial wastes:
in approved areas 13
in prohibited areas 10
in restricted areas 18
Page
Identification of growing areas 10
Infectious hepatitis from shellfish 13
Intrar ate sale of shellfish 8
Laboratory:
bacteriological procedures 0
chemical and physical procedures (1
control of purification 22
toxicological procedures 0
Laws and regulations:
classification of growing areas 5
control of illegal harvesting 5
general requirements 5
harvesting permits 5
relationship to patrol - 24
Most probable number—see bacteriological.
Paralytic shellfish poison:
closure of areas _ 1!)
collection and assay of samples 10
discussion 1!)
in approved areas 13
laboratory examination for 0
quarantine level 10
Patrol:
equipment required 24, 25
frequency 25
Need:
shellfish for purification 22, 23
records 22
relationship to State laws . .. 22
relaying 21
Prohibited areas:
bacteriological quality 10
depletion of 25
establishment of 19
identification and marking. 24
patrol of 1 24, 25
radioactive materials in _ . _ 1ft
use of shellfish from 19, 20, 24
Radioactive materials:
in growing areas 13, 15
in shellfish 15
maximum permissible concentrations 15
Records:
court actions 5, 24
operation of conditionally approved areas __ 15
patrol activities 5, 24
plant inspection 6
purification plant operation 22, 23
relaying 21,22
sanitary surveys 6, 10
Relaying:
from rdhtricted or prohibited areas 21
marking and identification of relaying
areas 21
permission for 21
supervision of 21
Repackers:
inspection 7
records of inspection 7
requirements for certification 6
sanitary rating 6
31
-------
341
Restricted areas: Pa«e
bacteriological quality of 18
depletion of— 25
establishment of 18
fecal contamination of 18
patrol of 24
radioactive materials in 18
use of shellfish from — 18, 21, 25
Sanitary surveys:
content of - 10
definition . _ _ _. '6
frequency required. _____ 10, 12
purpose - - 11
records 6, 10
sewage treatment evaluation -. _ 15, 1(5, 17, 18
Self-purification of shellfish . ........ '21
Sewage treatment:
instrumentation and records _. 17, 18
performance standards for 16, 17
records of 16
relationship to approved areas 15
Sewage treatment -Continued Page
relationship to bacteriologies I s.-impliiiK 15
special equipment requirements 18
storm sewers ... 18
Shellfish shipper certificates:
control. (>
expiration date 7
requirements for. 7
Shellfish shipper list, ... . . 7
Shell stock shipper.-;:
inspection 7
records of inspection. 7
requirements for certification. t>
Shuck er-packers:
inspection 7
records of inspection . 7
requirements for certification 7
sanitary rating U. K
Transplanting H
Typhoid fever see Disease.
Wet storage i:i
32
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFHCL : 196t> O 784 9h
-------
342
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
REGIONAL OFFICES
Region I—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
120 Boylston Street
Boston, Mass., 02116
Region II—Delaware, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania
Room 1200, 42 Broadway
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
Charlottesville, 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 Office Building
433 West Van Buren Street
Chicago, 111., 60607
Region VI—Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mis-
souri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota
560 Westport Road
Kansas City, Mo., 64111
Region 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
Odpr Evaluation Test Procedures and Results
-------
wnoMiMMM.w FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION 344
5555 Ridge Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45213
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum,
DATE: November 20, 1970
ODOR EVALUATION REPORT
Product
Submitted by
Dates Tested
Panel
Samples
Procedure
Results
Oysters and Water from Galveston 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 Galvestof
Bay water samples and the odor of the oysters.
* Score sheet appended.
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds "Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
-------
3 45
2
In the raw oyster test, the 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 sample? 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 Galveston Bay. The validity of the 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 4a would lower their palatability,
thus reducing the marketability of these shellfish.
-------
ODOR EVALUATION DATA
3 4fi
S amp 1e
Judge
Ref.
1
2
3
4a
5
6
7
RAW OYSTERS
1
4.0
5.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
2
4.5
4.5
3.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.5
4.0
3
5.0
6.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
4.5
6.0
6.0
4
6.0
6.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
7 .0
4.0
5
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
5.0
6
5.0
4.0
2.0
6.0
2.5
5.0
2.5
3.0
Total
28.5
29.5
18.5
23 .0
17.5
24.0
24.0
27 .0
Average
4.8
4.9
3.1
3.8
2.9
4.0
4.0
4.5
Chi-square
0.65
5.7
3.4
6.3
2.2
3.5
2.2
Probability of the
0.014
0.67
0.36
0.72
0.18
0.37
0.18
distribution being
less than x statis-
Petro
-
Sewage
tical
leum
ROASTED
OYSTERS
1
6.0
-
-
5.0
-
5.0
-
6.0
2
5.0
-
-
4.0
-
4.0
-
5 .0
3
5.0
-
-
5.0
-
3.0
-
5.0
4
4.0
-
-
4.0
-
6.0
-
6.0
5
7.0
-
-
4.0
-
5.0
-
4.0
6
6.0
-
-
1.0
-
4.0
-
6.0
Total
33.0
23.0
27.0
32.0
Average
5.5
3 .8
4.5
5.3
Chi-square
5.8
3.4
2.2
Probability of the
0.67
0.36
0.19
distribution being
less than statis-
tical
WATER
SAMPLES
Geometric mean of
5
6
32
32
18
23
11
threshold odor
values
B-3
-------
DIVISION OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
CINCINNATI
Name_
Date
Sample_
Odor
None
Slight
Moderate
Strong
Very Strong
Extremely Strong
Very Extreme
Type of Odor_
B-4
-------
348
T. P. Gallagher
MR. GALLAGHER: Mr. Chairman, that concludes
my part of the Federal presentation.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Gallagher,
for a very comprehensive report.
I didn't think you would get finished so
soon though. I think you presented a real complicated
report in record time, and we appreciate that.
Are there any comments or questions at
this time?
MR. YANTIS: Mr. Chairman, no real
comments, but some of you may have wondered why there
have not been some.
The State of Texas will make a presenta-
tion tomorrow in which all of our thoughts and data
have been put in one presentation, and we think
piecemeal comments today would not be in order.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
A question?
MR. VANDERI-IOOF: Mr. Chairman, I do have
some questions for Mr. Gallagher and further presenta-
tion, but I would suggest a little later.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Right.
-------
349
T. P. Gallagher
If it is agreeable, we can have these
questions from Mr. Vanderhoof after our luncheon break.
But before we go to lunch, I would like
to indicate one thing. I have alluded to this before.
The report that you have just heard is a report of
our Division of Field Investigation and our field
group here. That is just what this report implies,
and I for one am making no judgment until the comments
from the other parties are in.
This is not to say that the report does
not stand on its feet. I think it is an excellent
report in that it names names; it names places and
it gives numbers. Anyone who feels that the informa-
tion in the report does not reflect the existing
siatuation or that it should be modified will be given
an opportunity to comment and make his views known.
With that, we will stand recessed for lunch
until 2:00 o'clock.
(Whereupon the conference recessed until
2:00 p.m.)
-------
AFTERNOON SESSION
350
T. P. Gallagher
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let's reconvene. Mr.
Vanderhoof.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask Mr. Tom Gallagher a few questions. Tom, I
recognize you are without your podium.
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, sir.
MR. VANDERHOOP: Mr. Gallagher, are there
any estimates of the assimilative capacity of the
Houston Ship Channel? And can you relate such estimates,
if any, to the permitted discharges to water quality
standards and to the quality of water in Galveston Bay?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That is a good question.
MR. GALLAGHER: As I was about to say that
is a very comprehensive question,
CHAIRMAN STEIN: One at a time.
Why don't you give him the first question
first?
MR. VANDERHOOF: Would you respond to the
first part of the question? Are there any estimates
of the assimilative capacity of the Houston Ship
Channel?
MR» GALLAGHER: Yes, Mr. Vanderhoof, there
are some estimates of the assimilative capacity of the
-------
351
T. P. Gallagher
Houston Ship Channel, They are mostly related to
dissolved oxygen.
There is an estimate by Dr. Hahn, who is
at Texas A & M. Depending on the reaction coefficient
used in the Ship Channel, the amount of waste that can
be discharged and still meet a 2 ppm dissolved oxygen
is somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 pounds per day.
Dr. Busch of Rice University, in a paper
in July of last year, estimated the lower limit of
the assimilative capacity at around 35,000 pounds per
day. These are 5-day BOD values.
In a paper delivered in Miami, Dr. Hayes
and Dr. Gloyan of the University of Texas — Dr. Hayes,
I believe, is now at TRACOR -- estimated that in certain
zones about 96 percent reductions of waste were
necessary to meet water quality standards.
Those are the major references offhand that
I can recall. They all imply a reduction in and above
90 percent of BOD as stated in the Federal report.
MR. VANDERHOOFS Now we have heard you
describe that the industrial waste is not of the
conventional BOD. Can you relate the other effects
to that number?
-------
352
T. P. Gallagher
MR. GALLAGHER: Well, the other parameters
don't necessarily affect dissolved oxygen, but they do
have acute or chronic effects on marine life.
They may interfere with the ecology of
both the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay and
may have more long-term, subtle effects than say a
straight BOD, which is a measure of a 5-day oxygen
demand.
If we assume that we need 90 percent or
greater waste abatement from that which is presently
being introduced in the Houston Ship Channel -- and
this only includes the Houston Ship Channel right now
— then the kinds of treatment that are employed to
get that kind of reduction are going to have to be
quite extraordinary, because the normal mode of
treatment does not remove many complex organic
compounds, or toxic material -- heavy metals. And I
would say that we are going to have to go to some kind
of physical-chemical treatment, such as carbon ad-
sorption or other equally advanced waste treatment
measures, in the Houston Ship Channel that will show
up to be greater than 90 or 95 percent reduction of
-------
353
T. P. Gallagher
BOD if we are going to get these other compounds
as well.
MR. VANDERHOOF: All right.
Now, the second part of my question is:
Will you relate the estimate of the permitted
discharges?
MR. GALLAGHER: Well, that is a
difficult question.
The discharges quoted in the Federal
report were based on permits issued in 1968 or earlier.
The reason for using this was to get an estimate of
the permitted discharge, the aggregate permitted
discharge, which we understand has not changed sub-
stantially, and also demonstrates the relative
magnitude of one waste discharge to say other
discharges.
Taking BOD as parameter, I believe it
is stated in the report that approximately 180,000
pounds of BOD was permitted to be discharged as a
result of those 1968 permits.
Now the various academic and regulatory
programs investigations estimate need of a 90 percent
-------
354
T. P. Gallagher
or greater reduction, as I reiterated a few minutes
ago.
Dr. Hahn in his report estimates around
363,000 pounds .per day of BOD. That is cited in the
Federal report. That reduction is technical Recom-
mendation No. 11 of the Galveston Bay —
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Gallagher, let me
try it this way.
I think Mr. Vanderhoof raises a question
-- I think as I follow your report we have to decide
what kind of water quality we are going to have in
the stream, and let's take the Houston Ship Channel
for one. All right? Now, if you do that, what kind
of dissolved oxygen do you think we are going to have?
MR. GALLAGHER: The Texas State Standards
specify 1.5 ppra to 2 from the Turning Basin to the
San Jacinto Monument.
These are the lower dissolved oxygens in
the Ship Channel. To meet that level, and using BOD
as your parameter, Dr. Hahn in his report has estimated
that about 9 5 percent reduction of presently introduced
waste loads will be necessary.
-------
355
T. P. Gallagher
Dr. Hayes and Dr. Gloyan have estimated
96 percent in certain zone areas. Professor Busch
at Rice University implies a 90 to 93 percent reduction,
although it is not exactly stated that way, over
presently introduced waste discharge. Is this the
gist of your question, Mr. Stein?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes, this is the gist.
I don't know that they are very far apart.
Presumably it is to go over 90 percent
reduction.
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The question that I have
— and I don't know if we can answer it here# maybe
we can — is whether that 1.5 ppm of dissolved oxygen
and 2 ppm dissolved oxygen is what we can live with in
the Houston Ship Channel.
As far as I can see, that raises something
just barely above Houston's condition, and if you have
1 drop more you have a fettered—up septic mess.
MR. GALLAGHER: Mr. Stein, that is an
accurate statement. I would say you have no choice
though in this matter right now.
-------
356
T. P. Gallagher
We could shut off 100 percent of the waste
discharged to the Houston Ship Channel presently and
the organic sludge demand, the inflow from urban
runoff, etc.,, would be enough to keep it down to 1.5
or 2 parts.
It is an accumulated mess of using years
and years of discharge that would dictate that.
*
CHAIRMAN STEIN: The Corps is dredging
it out every year. Suppose they dredged it out a
few more times and nothing else is put in?
MR. GALLAGHER: There have been estimates
there are 2 feet of organic waste on the bottom.
That means the Corps would have to dredge
the channel from 22 to 44 feet and at least 2 feet
of the sludge to get it out.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Gallagher, it has
always been my experience when we stop putting
materials in that created sludge, rivers recovered,
or channels recovered faster than the estimates of the
scientists. I recognize that you are being
conservative.
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, sir.
-------
357
T. P. Gallagher
CHAIRMAN STEIN: But the first question I
am asking is that if we are going to get a reasonable
amount of water use in the Houston and Galveston
Bay area, how are we going to peg our requirements
in the Ship Channel?
Are we going to put it at 1.5 and 2 ppm
of oxygen or are you going to peg it higher?
MR. GALLAGHER: If you peg it higher, Mr.
Stein, you will have to have removal of 97, 98 or 99
percent, assuming there is no bottom sludge deposits.
If you wish 1.5 to 2 ppm of dissolved
oxygen in the Houston Ship Channel, the reduction in
level will be 90 to 95 percent based on BOD alone.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: In the Potomac, we asked
for a 98 percent reduction in BOD, in order to keep
the Potomac in reasonably good shape. You are sug-
gesting that we set some kind of a, lower requirement
here?
I recognize those are municipal wastes.
To attempt to get that kind of reduction in industrial
wastes may be a little more difficult*
MR. GALLAGHER: Exactly.
-------
358
T* P. Gallagher
My response is, Mr. Stein, if you wish to
live with a 4 ppm DO or higher, which is usually
acceptable for water use, recreation, fishing, etc,,
you are going to have to talk about between 9 8 and
possibly 100 percent reduction of waste in the
Houston Ship Channel, plus flow augmentation and
instream aeration. The situation is that bad.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Mr. Gallagher, you have
described in terms of reduction — percent reduction,
Is there not some absolute numbers that you can
describe to compare it with the permitted loads?
MR. GALLAGHERt That is how I came to
those percent reductions. Again, in Dr. Hahn's
report I believe it ranges from 10,000 to 40,000
pounds per day.
Dr. Busch represents 35,000 pounds per day.
Dr. O'Connell at the National College has
estimated the Ship Channel can maintain a 2 mg/1 minimum
dissolved oxygen if the waste discharge does not
exceed 15 ppm BOD.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I understand what you are
saying. Let me try to understand this.
-------
359
T. P. Gallagher
Again, I just say this for the purpose of
the record. You have had considerable experience in
the New York Metropolitan Area, haven't you?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: And working on Arthur
Kill (the body of water between Staten Island and New
Jersey) which has some kind of remote resemblance to
the problems we have here, we finally agreed hopefully
on a 3 ppm dissolved oxygen level in the Arthur Kill.
Now, as I understand it, you are suggesting
that we have an objective about 1/3 lower than that
here?
MR. GALLAGHER: No, Mr. Stein, I am not
suggesting that.
I am stating that to meet the standards
which have been set by the Texas Water Quality Board
in compliance with the 1965 Water Quality Act, i.e.,
a DO of 1.5 and 2 ppm, we need 95 percent reduction;
I think it is desirable to have higher than that.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Such as what?
MR. GALLAGHER: As high as we can get. I
think we should get the moat*
-------
360
T. P. Gallagher
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let me pursue that.
The reason I raise this is because if you
go to 1.5 or 2, we know we are not going to maintain
that 365 days a year.
MR, GALLAGHER; That is right,
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Seven days a week, 2 4
hours a day. And we are at such a critical point if
we drop below that, we have some very, very, very
bad conditions.
If you go up even to 3 you have some
margin of safety.
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, let's make the
assumption that we are asking for 3.
What kind of reductions will we have to
have in the waste in the industry?
MR. GALLAGHER: In excess of 95 percent
of BOD.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Of what? Will it be
between 95 and 98?
MR. GALLAGHERt I would guess so, yes, sir
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Not above 98?
-------
361
T. P. Gallagher
MR. GALLAGHER: I am not sure of that. It
might very well be.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, we have required 9 8
percent BOD reduction in other places, and I think we
have to take this into account. But I think we have
to keep both of these things in mind.
What I am suggesting is that if you go
down to 2 ppm dissolved oxygen, 1.5 parts in the
Turning Basin, we have practically pegged the Houston
Ship Channel for the lowest quality of water for any
similar body of water we have anywhere in the United
States. I am just questioning whether that is the
thing we want to aim for.
MR. GALLAGHER: I agree, Mr. Stein.
I think if you are aiming for 3 ppm or
higher, a requirement of 98 percent reduction in BOD,
is a conservative estimate. It will have to be.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you think it is
achievable?
MR. GALLAGHER: It can be achieved, but
it will not be achieved with the biological treatment
methods and ordinary treatment methods.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I recognize that.
-------
362
T. P. Gallagher
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, it is achievable.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: All right.
Mr. Vanderhoof?
MR. VANDERHOOF: One more question, Mr.
9
Gallagher.
Can you relate the Houston Ship Channel
water to the Galveston Bay water quality?
MR. GALLAGHER: I think we substantially
did that in the Federal presentation this morning.
Indications from data, again collected by
the Texas Water Quality Board in February 1969 grab
samples, showed there was a large quantity of heavy
metals.
Data collected in 1970 and data collected
from receiving waters in 1969 indicated that concentra-
tions of heavy metals in these receiving waters, both
in the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay, were
many, many times greater than backgrounds. In some
cases, thousands of times greater than backgrounds.
This demonstrates the cause and effect
relationship. We have shown hydrocarbon residues are
present in oysters taken from Galveston Bay, and, in
-------
363
T. P. Gallagher
fact, a persistent condition of water-oil pollution
exists in the Houston Ship Channel and many areas of
Galveston Bay.
These residues are not the product of the
oysters themselves, the biological function of the
oysters themselves. They are artificially introduced.
I think this again is a cause and effect
mechanism.
We do know that many of the characteristic
petrochemical wastes are complex organic compounds,
refractory organics, the kind of materials that do
not break down very quickly.
Because of physical flushing of the Houston
Ship Channel toward Galveston Bay it is inevitable
these kinds of compounds are going to eventually be
discharged into Galveston Bay and affect the marine
life in Galveston Bay. The ecological studies that
were presented by Copeland and Floyd demonstrate
there is a very substantial effect on the marine life
of Galveston Bay.
MR. VANDERHOOF: All right.
MR. GALLAGHERt Is this sufficient?
-------
364
T. P. Gallagher
MR. VANDERHOOF: This, of course, does
raise one more question. Can you expand on your
previous comments on oil and hydrocarbons in the
flesh of the oysters? For instance, how new is this
technique? What further studies have you done? What
is your general opinion on this subject?
MR. GALLAGHER: The technique is relatively
new. It was developed at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute and modified by our chemists in Cincinnati
and Denver and has been used extensively in further
surveying the Galveston Bay area.
At the time this report was prepared, we
had only the initial surveying done in November 1970.
Since then, we collected samples in
January 1971 and April 1971.
This analysis requires about 6 weeks to
2 months for evaluation and verification.
The data collected in January 1971 at a
great number of stations — I believe 5 or 6 in the
approved areas -- demonstrated the same discharge of
oil and hydrocarbon concentrations, in fact, one
value is 40 ppm which is higher than in the Federal
report.
-------
365
T. P. Gallagher
This is from the approved area. The
concentrations data for April 1971, which we only
received 3 days ago from Woods Hole, indicate again the
same waste contamination of the oysters in the bay with
oil and hydrocarbons. Furthermore, the Woods Hole
Institute did a gas chromatograph spectometer analysis
to determine just what specific compounds are contained
in the oil and hydrocarbon residues, and they came
up with compounds which are directly attributable to
refinery or petroleum discharges. I can get the
reference and name those compounds if you wish.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: It is not necessary.
MR. GALLAGHER: We will make them available
for the record if so desired.
MR. VANDERHOOF: I don't believe so.
MR. GALLAGHER: Does this answer your
question, Mr. Vanderhoof?
MR. VANDERHOOF: Yes, Mr. Gallagher.
With respect to the Houston Lighting &
Power Company you have made recommendations as to
acceptable temperature increases and recycling of the
cooling water. Now is this, in fact, a viable
technical alternative?
-------
366
T. P. Gallagher
Are there other alternatives?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, sir, I believe it is.
Recycling and recirculation of cooling
water, effluents of cooling water, is not an unusual
request to make, particularly in the western part of
the United States where water is scarce.
In this particular case, I don't believe
it is a question of salt versus freshwater, because
there is a source of freshwater available. This would
solve the problem with respect to temperature increase
in Trinity Bay. Also with the polluted water for
cooling purposes.
It would really make academic the point of
requiring certain maximum temperature increases in the
Trinity Bay, because there would be a very minimal
amount of blowdown to Trinity Bay which probably would
not have very much of an effect at all.
If you wish to discuss these things in
more detail, Dr. Clark Allen of the EPA is here. He
has made an evaluation of some of these alternatives
if more detail is required.
VOICE: Dr. Allen has an emergency phone
call.
-------
367
T. P. Gallagher
MR. GALLAGHER: Dr. Allen isn't available
at the present time.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Well, until Dr. Allen
comes here would you care to make any comments upon
Federal installations?
MR. GALLAGHER: I personally would not.
There is a Regional Federal Facilities officer here,
Mr. Jerry Thornhill, if he would care to.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Why don't we wait until
he makes his presentation?
One of the things I noted in your report
was high coliform counts.
I assume to the best of your knowledge
and belief, there is not year-round chlorination in
all these sources?
MR. GALLAGHER: That is right, Mr. Stein.
There is not year-round chlorination at the Sims
Plant or the Northside Sewer Treatment Plant. As of
April of this year, neither of these plants, which
were discharging a total of about 105 MGD to Galveston
Bay was chlorinating.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Your recommendation is
-------
368
T. P. Gallagher
you have year-rourtd chlorination for all these sources?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN; I would like to make one
more point, because I think this is one of the essential
points we are talking about in this high degree of
treatment. I would like for you to listen to this
additional point rather closely.
What we are talking about in terms of getting
these high-degree reductions is going to be something
other than a biological process.
Now there are several factors in the
biological processes that we always recognize. All of
the people in the field have worked on it. That is in
the biological process it is very difficult to produce
the same results day in aiid day out throughout the year.
It is just like any of the women in the audience
making a recipe -- depending on what the ingredients
are and the products, it varies all the time.
If you are dealing with a living organism
your dish may vary.
In the same way# if you try a biological
reduction of waste, because of t&ttpterature, materials
coming in, or unknown factors, the process fluctuates.
-------
369
T. P. Gallagher
Now if we are dealing with critical oxygen
levels like 1.5 or 2, which are on the brink of either
keeping something above a nuisance condition or getting
below, if it doesn't work, you are going to drop below.
What Mr. Gallagher is suggesting is that
we go beyond the biological process to perhaps an
additional mechanical or chemical process, and these
can be controlled more accurately than a biological
process. There is this difference in them.
In the biological process, generally in
waste treatment, the bugs are free and that gives you
one leg up. That brings you up to a point where you
can have that reliability.
If you go to a chemical or mechanical
process, the materials that you use are expensive and
you always have to apply them, and the price of
treatment goes way, way, way up in what we are going
to achieve. I think this may be the crux of what we
are getting at here, because there are several ways
of looking at this.
One way of looking at this is that if we
are going to get a 90 percent BOD reduction, we are
going to pay a certain amount. To get another 8 percent
-------
T. P. Gallagher
370
may double or triple the cost. That is one way of
looking at it.
Another way of looking at it is thus. If
you had a 90 perqent BOD reduction and you go up to 98
percent, the 10 percent of the total pollutant going
into the stream is being reduced by 80 percent.
Now I think these are the hard issues that
we have been trying to deal with. Everyone here is
going to have to put his mind on them in order to
make a judgment on how to proceed.
Again, before Dr. Allen comes in, I still
would like your last judgment on this point. What
kind of situation do you think we are going to be in
if we set a goal of getting the Houston Ship Channel
to take dissolved oxygen to 1.5 or 2 ppm of dissolved
oxygen? What kind of water are we going to have and
what will happen if we have a slip?
MR. GALLAGHER: We will have water that
will be less than that standard a significant percentage
of the time due to urban runoff inflows, due to sludge
deposits, etc.
^ you raise the standards higher, you are*
-------
T. P. Gallagher
talking about the waste treatment measures which we
have just expounded on. I vrould like to expand upon
that even further, Mr. Stein.
CHAIRMAN STEIN? All right.
MR. GALLAGHER: Normal biological treatment
-- we can only get at best 98 percent reduction of BOD,
and not even that all year round do not remove some
of the other compounds that we are concerned about.
They don't remove refractory organics, which are
sematic of petrochemical wastes, or heavy metals
which are being discharged into the Houston Ship
Channel.
These can be removed by means of a
physical-chemical process, carbon adsorption or lime
filtration or a combination of both.
Not only can we get the oxygen we want
from a 98 percent or greater reduction in BOD, but
reduction of some of the toxins and compounds which
are having deleterious effects in Galveston Bay as
well as the Ship Channel. I think it is an absolute
necessity that we go to the other kinds of processes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I have two questions.
-------
372
Dr. C. Allen
1) Suppose we drop below that 1.5 and 2 ppm for dissolved
oxygen as you indicate we might. If we go to biological
processes for runoff, will we have lessened prevalence
of the condition?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN; If as you say we have to
take out other materials and in doing this we have to go
to a physical-chemical method of reduction, what kind
of dissolved oxygen do you think we can shoot for in
the Houston Ship Channel?
MR. GALLAGHER: I think, Mr. Stein, as a first
cut, we should aim at 3 ppm of dissolved oxygen or greater
from the Turning Basin to the San Jacinto Monument.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
MR. GALLAGHER: IJould you still like to
hear from Dr. Allen?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes. Dr. Allen?
DR. CLARK ALLEN
REGION VI
ENVIORNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
DR. ALLEN: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for the
-------
373
Dr. C. Allen
delay, but I did have an emergency call.
For the record, I am Dr. Clark Allen with
the EPA Regional Office in Dallas.
May I have a redress of the question,
please?
MR. VANDERHOOF: Yes.
In the report we have stated that Houston
Lighting & Power Company, to provide an acceptable
temperature, should recycle or do something else with
the heated waters. Would you describe some of the
alternatives available?
DR. ALLEN: Yes.
With Units 3, 4, 5 and 6, which are not
yet under construction and are still in the planning
stages, there appear to be two feasible alternatives
to the cooling ponds.
One alternative would be use of forced-
draft, freshwater cooling towers. In initial talks
with the Industrial Water Authority they indicated the
freshwater is available. This is still being pursued.
The second alternative, in place of fresh-
water cooling towers at this site, would be an alternate
site location for the future units.
-------
374
J, Thornhill
Discussions with the Brazos River Authority
and the Corps of Engineers confirm there is an abundant
supply of water on the Brazos River for thermal
electric units.
Either of these methods appear to be quite
feasible at this time.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Thank you.
DR. ALLEN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Vanderhoof, do you
have any others?
MR. VANDERHOOF: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thornhill will be able to discuss the
Federal installations in this area.
MR. JERRY THORNHILL
REGION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
MR. THORNHILL: I am Jerry Thornhill from
the Region VI EPA office in Dallas.
I will give you a brief statement on the
status of the treatment in Federal installations in
the conference area.
-------
J. Thornhill
375
We have three major Federal installations
— two in the Clear Creek Basin and one in Galveston«
NASA, the Manned Spacecraft Center, is in ¦
the Clear Creek Basin and presently has secondary
treatment. It has both domestic and industrial wastes
and the industrial wastes are segregated.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Before you go on,
secondary treatment covers a multitude of sins. What
BOD reduction is that?
MR. THORNHILL: Well, for example, let
me give you some information on the test average for
April on the BOD loading that they had.
11.5 mg/1 was the quality of their effluents
for the month of April. The DO was 10.5, pH 5.6,
chlorine residual, 1.1.
I don't know what the percent reduction is
in their plant. I don't have that information with me,
but this is the average for the month of April.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Can you estimate a
reduction?
MR. THORNHILL: Well, it has to be greater
than 85 percent, I'd say. I do not know. They have a
very good operating plant.
-------
376
J. Thornhill
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Having year-round
chlorination?
MR. THORNHILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, if we dovetail what
you say to what Mr. Gallagher said just preceding you
and we are going for a 98 percent reduction, you would
say thay are not quite getting 98, wouldn't you?
MR. THORNHILL: I wouldn't think so, no.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: You wouldn't?
They might be closer to 85 than 95?
MR. THORNHILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: All right.
MR. THORNHILL: Well, the important point
for NASA, however, is not what they are doing now but
what they plan to do. Being in the Clear Creek Basin
they have agreed by letter to go to tertiary treatment.
Well, they have given two plans — two
alternative plans.
Plan A would provide tertiary treatment
that would meet the requirements of the Texas Water
Quality 69-9A Law.
Also this would meet the additional
-------
J. Thornhill
377
requirement of the EPA for BOD and suspended solids
of 5-5.
Their plan B would be to connect to a
regional treatment facility, which is being discussed
by the Clear Lake City Water Authority. This would
also meet with the requirements of the Texas Water
Quality Board orders and would probably be our
recommended method for treatment for this particular
facility. Both of these plans have been discussed
with the Texas Water Quality Board and they have
reviewed them or are in the process of reviewing them
at this time.
The other facility in Clear Creek Basin
is Ellington Air Force Base.
They also haVe an existing secondary
treatment plant, and I do not know their percent
removal either. But their average for May, for example,
BOD was 5 mg/1. Total suspended solids was 5 mg/1.
CHAIRMAN STEINj We don't know what
quantities they are putting out. It would be helpful
if you could speak in the same terms that Mr. Gallagher
spoke.
MR. THORNHILL: Well, unfortunately, the
-------
378
J. Thornhill
information that was taken from our files did riot
include the flow, and this was discovered after I was
in Houston, and I haven't gotten that information.
It can be provided to the reporter, however.
9
MR. VANDERlIOOF: Did I understand you
just described the effluents of Ellington as 5-5?
MR. THORNHILL: Five to 5 for the month.
This is an average for the month of May.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Is that not a very high
degree of treatment?
MR. THORNHILL: Yes.
They have a very efficiently operating
secondary treatment plant. But again in this particular
instance Ellington is going to tertiary treatment.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are they providing year-
round chlorination now?
MR. THORNHILL: Yes. Their chlorine
residual was 2.0 mg/1 average. Both facilities have
chlorination.
The third facility, major facility, is
in Galveston — the Coast Guard Station. They have a
new secondary treatment plant that has just been put
-------
379
J. Thornhill
on stream not too many months ago. It is an activated
sludge process. It also has disinfection. The other
facilities in the area are minor, and most of them
connect to the existing municipal treatment facilities.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Would it be possible for
you to give us the load reduction in pounds per day for
BOD for all the Federal installations?
MR. THORNKILL: Yes.
I will have that information this after-
noon to enter into the record.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Mr. Thornhill, have all
the Federal facilities agreed to the 1965 effluent
standards?
MR. THORNHILL: Yes. We notified them
and they have indicated their agreement to go to
this treatment.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That is all.
MR. THORNHILL: All right.
MR. VANDERHOOF: The next gentleman will
describe the area of the other treatments.
Mr. Kirkpatrick?
-------
380
K. Kirkpatrick
MR. KENNETH KIRKPATRICK
REG IOII VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Mr. Chairman, conferees,
my name is Ken Kirkpatrick. I am from the Dallas EPA
Regional Office. I will make a'few comments with regard
to planning in the Galveston Bay area. I think one of
the major problems to effective water quality management
planning in the area is the overlapping jurisdictional
responsibility of State and local government agencies,
local planning agencies, and river basin authorities.
There are at least seven principal planning
and regulatory agencies, and I would like to briefly
name them. The Texas Water Quality Board, Houston-
Galveston Area Council of Government, San Jacinto River
Authority, Brazos River Authority, Trinity River
Authority, city of Houston, and the Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority.
There are those seven major agencies and
in addition numerous other sports and smaller groups.
Let me just spell these out: universities, the Corps
-------
381
K. Kirkpatrick
of Engineers -- not necessarily small — EPA, cities,
water districts, U. S. Geological Survey, State
agencies and consultants for industry, etc. They are
actively engaged in some type of water quality management
planning for this area. There is a need to consolidate
and interrelate this area while planning efforts to
the fullest extent possible.
I think another major problem defective to
planning, as well as water quality management itself,
is the lack of State laws and regulations to prohibit
a widely extensive proliferation of small water
districts and the construction of separate waste
treatment facilities.
Tighter controls related to land use
management:
Issuance of waste discharge permits and
adherence to regional concepts must be exercised if
an effective plan for treatment and implementation
of a water quality management program is to become
a reality.
It is fully recognized there is a need
to facilitate construction of waste facilities in
the Galveston Bay area.
-------
K. Kirkpatrick
382
To facilitate this construction, there is
an urgent need for State-certified interim planning
for the Region, directed toward obtaining full
compliance with established water quality standards.
The rules and regulations, 18-C of 601,
governing the development of this plan were published
in the Federal Register in July 2, 1970, as guidelines
to implement the regulations and has subsequently
been developed and distributed to virtually all States
and local planning agencies.
To date we in Dallas have not received the
interim plan for this area or a portion of the area.
As a result, all construction grant
applications for projects in this area received after
December 31, 1970, cannot be processed until a
certified plan has been submitted.
This effort should be given high priority,
in our opinion.
I think Mr. Jones is getting information
on construction grants, or has it available.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Right. Thank you.
MR. VANDERHOOF: The next speaker will
-------
383
A. Jones
describe the status of construction in this particular
area.
Mr. Ancil Jones.
MR. ANCIL JONES
REGION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies
and gentlemen. Briefly, let me give you a historical
background concerning this area in the way of grants
and projects.
Since 1956, we have been involved under
various agency names in 58 projects. These projects
have generated grants in the amount of some $13,490,000
odd dollars. Of this $42,786,000 is the total eligible
construction cost since 1960. Those are the figures
as of this date, according to our records.
I want to emphasize the need for planning.
Right now we have 9 applications in our office. Seven
of these were begun or have been completed prior to
receipt of the application in our office, and these 7
-------
384
A. Jones
have to comply with the interim basin plans Mr.
Kirkpatrick just spoke of.
It might be difficult to make a facility
that has been built or already in place to conform to
interim basin planning, especially when the interim
basin planning has not been approved.
I would like to mention that we have 9
other applications in our office. The total estimated
construction cost for these are some $6,564,000 of which
a possible $3,610,000 grant could be given, based upon
a 55 percent participation from the Federal Government
if all other program requirements are met.
Now the 7 applications that we have in our
office where construction has begun or has been completed,
putting that with the 9 I just mentioned that we have in
our office now that we have yet to go under construction,
those add up to some $8 million with some $4,700,000
for grant assistance.
Let me say one thing especially in the area
of industrial waste treatment. There is a Regulation,
601.34, that governs industrial waste treatment as far
as municipalities are concerned. On the industrial
-------
385
A. Jones
waste side when the municipality has an industrial
waste, we have to have assurance that the cost of that
industrial waste treatment is recovered, plus a cost
for operation and maintenance. In some cases, we
require pretreatment to protect the domestic facility
which we are designing it for, and this pretreatment
cost is not to be considered or not eligible under
the PR 664.
Thank you.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Just one moment.
If I understand you, do you mean to say
that we have grant applications in the office for
which applicants have applied and these have run, into
how many millions of dollars?
MR. JONES: From this area here, sir?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes, the conference
area.
MR. JONES: Of the 18 applications I am
referring to there are some $8 million.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That is in Federal funds?
MR. JONES: That is the total eligible costs.
-------
386
A. Jones
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That is the total
eligible costs. In other words, there are $8 million
worth of treatment works which have been applied for,
which you haven't been able to process because we don't
have the reports that we think we must have?
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That is the only reason
we are not processing them?
MR. JONES: We are processing them right
now.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: But we can't approve
them?
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, where does that
report have to come from? In dealing with a situation
like that, if we have $8 million worth of projects
ready to go and the applicants have applied for the
money, it seems to me that people are going to think
there is an awful bureaucratic snarl if the reason they
can't go is because we don't have a report or someone
hasn't filed a report. Can we get to the bottom of
this?
-------
387
A. Jones
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let's hear what it is
all about.
MR. JONES: No, 1 is we. must do some
thinking about the project in the planning stage
must have adequate engineering reports to adequately
cover it that set forth the waste to be treated and
the design criteria that are being applied to
accomplishing the desired effect. Then other program
requirements -~
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Just one moment. Do you
feel you don't have these reports now?
MR. JONES: Some of these do have interim
basin planning. That is one thing, that 7 of these 9
applications that have begun construction or have been
completed, the 7 we don't have it on and can't make it
until they are approved.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Whom do you get it from?
MR. JONES: The Texas Water Quality Board.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: They have not submitted
them to you?
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Have you asked them?
-------
388
G. Putnicki
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: What did they tell you?
MR. JONES: They are working on them.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I guess we will hear from
the Texas Water Quality Board tomorrow. (Laughter.)
MR. VANDERHOOF: I would like to hear from
our Director, Office of Contracts and Grants for Research,
Development and Demonstration* Mr. George Putnicki, on
the availability of technology.
MR. GEORGE PUTNICKI, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF CONTRACTS AND GRANTS FOR
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
REGION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
MR. PUTNICKI: Mr. Stein, conferees, ladies
and gentlemen. For the record my name is George J.
Putnicki. I am the Director of the Office of Contracts
and Grants for Research, Development and Demonstration,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, Texas.
In my statement to the conference today, I
-------
389
G. Putnicki
would like to report on a municipality in the State of
Texas that is producing an extremely high quality of
effluent without creating a financial burden for the
city. This municipality is the city of Richardson,
Texas a progressive city of 50,000 people just
north of Dallas, Texas.
The city of Richardson's wastewater
treatment plant is a conventional, biological trick-
ling filter type of plant with a capacity of treating
1.6 MGD of wastewater. A mechanical bar screen
precedes a wet well serving 4 raw sewage pumps which
lift the water into a flow splitter box. Proportional
weirs there divide flow between 3 clarifier-digesters.
Primary effluent is combined in a splitter box, then
divided and sent to 2 standard rate rock filters.
Filter effluent is combined and carried to the final
clarifier. Chlorination and settling are simultaneous
in that clarifier. A mixture of final sludge and re-
circulation are returned to the head of the plant? the
amount of recirculation is regulated by a level control
system in the raw sewage wet well.
Sludge is digested in the lower compartment
-------
3
G, Putnicki
of each primary clarifier-digester. No heat is
provided (gas is wasted through a waste gas burner)
and mixing consists of gentle stirring by a 3 rph
mechanism revolving on the same shaft as the clarifier
rakes above.
Sludge is dried on sand beds. Filtrate
collected in the underdrains goes back to the head
of the plant. Digester supernatant is drawn and batch
treated before return to the head of the plant. Three
500 gallon fill-and-draw tanks receive raw supernatant
250 mg/1 of alum is added, then 20 minutes of air
agitation yield a finished liquor which separates
into sludge (which goes onto drying beds) and treated
supernatant with strength comparable to conventional
primary effluent (50 mg/1).
In June 1969 a Federal grant in the amount
of $200,000 was made to the city of Richardson for the
purpose of demonstrating how a conventional biological
trickling filter plant can be modified to permit
chemical precipitation of phosphorus and other
substances. In this project chemical treatment was
intended as an adjunct to a typical conventional
-------
391
G. Putnicki
treatment facility. Furthermore, it was intended
that required modifications be as simple as possible
and that the existing facilities be fully utilized.
The two chemicals selected were aluminum
in the form of liquid alum and iron in the form of
liquid ferric chloride. These chemicals are similar
enough in character to permit use of common storage
and feeding facilities.
The plant modification consists of fiber
glass chemical storage facilities, chemical feed
pumps and controls and flash mixing apparatus. The
capital improvement cost for modifying this facility
was $53,000. This cost included some modifications
and analytic equipment required for the research
aspects of this project and would not necessarily be
needed for the proper operation and maintenance of
the facility.
The modifications made it possible to
feed chemicals eithejr at the head of the plant in
advance of the pump station or at a splitter box
located between the trickling filters and the final
glarifier. Good results were obtained when 20
-------
392
G. Putnicki
percent of the chemical was fed at the head of the
plant and 80 percent fed in advance of the final
clarifier and when 5 different feed rates were used
to accommodate the diurnal fluctuations in both
quality and quantity of waste.
Submitted for the record are the
operating results obtained at the Richardson Waste-
water Treatment Plant during the month of May 1971.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Without objection, these
will be entered in the record.
Let me
see how long those are.
INFLUENT
Ave/Max/MIn
EFFLUENT
Ave/Max/M1n
MONTHLY
AVERAGE %
REDUCTION
FLOW (mgd)
1.4/1.9/1.3
BOD5 (mg/1)
183/240/142
11/16/7
94.5
DO (mg/1)
.5/.7/.2
6.7/7.0/6.2
92.5 Increase
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
196/374/110
8/15/3
95.9
TOTAL NITROGEN (mg/1)
26.6/31.9/19.5
12.7/17.0/9,2
52.3
PHOSPHORUS (mg/1)
12.2/16.1/8.2
.7/1.5/.3
94.3
COD (mg/1)
397/528/269
37/67/20
90.7
IRON & ALUMINUM (mg/1)
.7/1.8/.3
1.0/2.0/.4
98.6
TURBIDITY (JTU)
162/196/98
9/14/5
94.4
FECAL C0LIF0RMS (No./ml ) 99000/19C|000/1^500
770/2650/1
99.2
-------
393
G. Putnicki
Upon completion of this research project,
the city of Richardson proposed to continue chemical
treatment at this facility.
Incidentally, the wastewater stays in the
city of Richardson no more than 20 hours before it is
discharged into the city of Dallas where it is used by
the city of Dallas -- excuse me — by Reliance
Cemetery and by a country club and goes into a
recreational lake where many of us like to boat.
The original wastewater treatment facility
was built in 1953 at a total cost of $75,000, exclusive
of land. In 1961 treatment facilities were enlarged
to the present arrangements? the total cost of those
improvements was $250,000, excepting land.
A new laboratory building was added in
1969. This facility is considered an integral part
of the treatment system, but perhaps 1/3 of its cost
went to extra space for the demonstration project.
The building was built at a total cost of $33,000.
A breakdown of the cost of modification
to the treatment plant follows:
-------
394
G. Putnicki
Materi als
$35,000
Labor
Supervi si on
Design & Misc.
7,000
3,500
7,500
$53,000
Operating costs for chemical coagulation
consist almost entirely of chemical costs alone.
Additional power might cost $200 or $300 per year.
The existing operating staff can run the equipment.
Control testing might require an additional analyst
in the laboratory, but insufficient experience is
available to verify this. Liquid alum costs 33 cents
per pound of aluminum, delivered to Richardson.
Making some broad assumptions regarding demand, alum
costs might run 4 to 6 cents per 1,000 gallons of water.
project that we have in the specific area of discussion
today.
Control and Improvement District No. 50, El Lago, Texas,
which will demonstrate a modification of an existing
I would like to briefly mention another
A grant was made to Harris County Water
-------
395
G. Putnicki
plant for the removal of not only phosphorus but also
nitrogen.
This grant was just very recently made,
and I have nothing to report on the results. So I
would like to mention that in my engineering opinion,
we can get the BOD down to the 95 percent range quite
readily with methodology that is known to us at this
time. As a matter of fact, we have, had the methodology
for a long time. But. I would like to submit cr.e thing
for the record.
This is a copy of a reprint of an article
that appeared in the American City Magazine in June
of 1967 entitled "How To Clean Wastewater for Reuse."
The author was Mr. Gordon Culp and Mr.
sigurd Hanson, and this contains a table on cost of
tertiary treatment processes to produce various
qualities of reclaimed water from secondary sources.
And I might mention that the first process listed
here is plain mixed media filtration.
The cost for a 10,000,000 gallon plant is
$10,000 per million.
-------
396
G. Putnicki
The effluents that this will obtain is,
first of all, suspended solids, 1-5; BOD's, 1-5; cod's,
40-70.
I would like to also submit this for the
re cord .
(The above-mentioned article, marked
Exhibit No. 1, is on file at HQ, EPA, Washington, D.C.
and Pegion VI.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: This and the sewage
treatment plant figures will be accepted as exhibits,
Mr. Putnicki, since you summarized these so well.
MR. PUTNICKI: Summarize these for you?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: No. You have summarized
them.
In other words, they will be noted in the
record and available for inspection at our Regional
Office and at Headquarters during normal business
hours. But the reprint will be available in almost
any library and will not appear in the record.
MR. PUTNICKI: I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. Just wait a
minute. I think this is largely for clarification.
-------
397
G. Putnicki
Would you say with these modifications you
can get this high BOD reduction of 95 and above in
trickling filter plants in this area?
MR. PUTNICKI: I think this is achievable
at any conventional treatment plant that is not
overloaded at the present time.
You may be interested in another Texas
project that is proposing to expand to a 30 MGD
plant 30,000,000 gallons per day. It is a regional
plant at Duck Creek at Garland, Texas. They are
proposing to go to physical-chemical processes. The
engineers reported at a conference last Friday that
they expect to achieve an effluent of less than 10 ppm
BOD and 10 ppm suspended solids, and, to do this at
an operating cost of some 13 to 15 cents per 1,000.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Again, check me on this,
George. This is largely to make the report clear
and for the audience. What we are dealing with here
is adding a physical-chemical device onto a biological
plant. The plants Mr. Putnicki has been speaking about
are these trickling filter plants which have more
variability -- let me say it as a nonengineer, as a
lawyer -- have biological processes because they are
-------
398
G. Putnicki
exposed to the open.
The activated sludge plants are usually
exposed and you can control the heat. You see what
is happening in the plant where you see a round
structure — where an arm is going around and around
— is that the waste, after it receives its primary
treatment and a good portion of the solids are
settled out, it just floats over crushed rock. In
between the rock and the interstices of the rock you
have a film of bacteria that keep eating away at the
material as it goes through this filter.
Obviously, this biological process is
exposed to the weather and subject to the vagaries
of temperature and various other things in a greater
measure than any other secondary treatment process we
might have.
I think we have had results just in terms
of BOD reductions between 40 percent and 85 percent,
in that wide range. But Mr. Putnicki, by putting it
at a reasonable cost, is talking about physical-
chemical treatment. At the end you can get pretty
assured results and have high reductions in BOD and
-------
3 99
G. Putnicki
high reductions in other elements that go through the
plant.
Again this is a variation on the theme you
have heard before. But if this is true I think it is
fairly significant.
I think it might also be fair to say that
in this climate we do not have the problems that we
might have with an activated, or rather trickling
filter plant, such as in a place like the Dakotas,
where we get these variances between the winter and
summer with tremendous temperature variance.
So I think we possibly may have an easier
job to control them. But I am very happy to hear that
the people down here have come up with some kind of
economical means. They may have effluent slime.
But, from Mr. Putnicki's figures, it is economical and
is a conversion to get a relatively high degree of
removal, which is not too expensive. I think this is
very encouraging.
MR. YANTIS: May I ask a question at this
point?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes.
-------
G. Putnicki
400
MR. YANTIS: George, you have done quite a
bit of traveling all over Texas. How many enclosed
heat-controlled, activated-sludge plants have you ever
seen in Texas that you have been talking about?
MR. PUTNICKI: None. I think what nr.
Stein has in mind is that in some installations —
MR. YANTIS: We are talking about Galveston
Bay and Texas. Let's don't talk about up north.
(Laughter.)
George, you said some of these were added
physical-chemical treatment methods, which we also wish
to use down at Clear Lake and can have an efficiency
of 95 percent BOD reduction.
If you get the average run of sewage at
about 250 ppm of BOD you would still have 12.5 ppm
in the effluent.
Our Clear Lake order, I believe it was,
called for 12. The Federal Government is calling for
5-5, although it knew for at least a year what figure
we proposed to use.
How would you meet the 5 BOD that you have
suggested using the methods that you have just outlined,
-------
401
G. Putnicki
which I understand are considered quite praiseworthy?
MR. PUTNICKI: All right. On the 94 to 95
percent 330D reduction, I believe I stated that this is
-what we were accomplishing in Richardson and could
accomplish by adding chemical precipitation at a
conventional biological plant to bring this down to 5.
During ray discussion, when I made reference
to this report in 1967, I indicated that by adding
multimedia filtration to the tailend of that plant, it
v/ould give you a result that would meet the 5-5
requirement and the cost, as stated in this is $10.00
per million gallons at a 10 MGD plant. And if you
want to bring that down to price per 100,000 gallons,
we are talking about a dime.
So, I maintain that we can economically
get down to a 5-5 level.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Any other questions?
MR. YANTIS: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
MR. PUTNICKI: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you very much.
You know, I want to say to Mr, Yantis or
anyone else that if I mention the north here, it is
-------
402
0. Putnicki
just for .illustrativs purposes and nothing else.
(Laughter.)
MR. YANTI5: We are not exactly mad at
the north. I imagine at least a third of the people
in this room have moved to Texas from up north.
(Laughter.) (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That just proves the
point about comparative purposes.
Mr. Vanderhoof?
MR. VANDERHOOF: I have one more
Environmental Protection Agency witness. Dr.
Clarence Tarzwell has had extensive experience on
the effects of heat on aquatic life. He is especially
involved in the Florida Power & Light situation, and I
hope that he can relate the Houston Lighting & Power
situation effects of heat on aquatic life. Dr.
Tarzwell?
DR. CLARENCE M. TARZWELL, DIRECTOR
NATIONAL MARINE WATER QUALITY LABORATORY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
W. KINGSTON, RHODE ISLAND
-------
403
Dr. C. Tarzwe11
DR. TARZWELL: Mr. Chairman, conferees,
ladies and gentlemen. I am Clarence M. Tarzwell,
Director of the National Marine Water Quality
Laboratory. I am also a member of the National
temperature committee.
I have had 41 years experience in aquatic
biology, including both the freshwater and marine
environments. For over a year, we have been carrying
on studies of the effects of a thermal electric plant
on the entrained organisms.
My purpose here today is to tell you
something of the effects of such a plant and to make
some comments on the recommendations and conclusions
of the National temperature committee and maybe a very
few brief comments regarding the powerplant under
consideration.
In general, a thermoelectric plant has 5
main effects. One of these is due to chlorination,
which is used to keep the intake and water passage
structures clear of growth. In this country,
chlorination is intermittent. In England, they
chlorinate continuously at a much lower rate.
-------
404
Dr. C. Tarzwell
In our studies we have found that when
chlorination is carried at the higher concentrations
used, everything which passes through the plant is
killed. This includes plankton and some of the higher
organisms. In studies with zooplankton, we found that
under a variety of conditions the kill was 95 to 100
percent. But generally it was^ almost a complete kill.
There is also an important effect which
takes place in the winter and early spring. During
these periods warm water is attractive to fishes, with
the result that many fish come into the effluent plume
and the discharge canal.
We have found that fish which congregate
in the vicinity of the heated outfall are killed upon
chlorination. In fact, this kill has been quite
extensive at times and has included large fishes.
Thus we have found a continuous kill of
those organisms going through the condensers and also
a kill from the effluents containing the chlorine that
is used for controlling the growth at intake structures.
A second effect of thermal electric plants
is thermal shock. The organisms are in the condenser
only a short period and experience an almost instantaneous
-------
405
Dr. C. Tarzwell
increase in temperature. Some are invariably killed at
all seasons of the year if they cannot take a rapid
increase in temperature. Others do not appear to be
af f ected.
However, in the summer months, when the
water that is taken into the plant is warm, the
effluent water temperature approaches or exceeds the
upper lethal limit for many organisms.
When the heat which is added to the water
as it passes through the condensers raises the water
temperature above the lethal temperature, extensive
kills result.
In dealing with temperature, there are 2
basic principles one must realize and take into
consideration. One is the actual temperature and the
other is the period of exposure — how long the
organisms are exposed to the thermal stress.
With short exposure, animals can generally
withstand, with apparent little harm, temperatures
which would be lethal with longer exposure.
As the temperature of exposure increases,
the length of time to which an organism can be exposed
-------
Dr. C. Tarzwell
406
to that temperature without harm decreases.
Therefore, you must consider both time and
temperature.
The third effect of thermal electric plants
is exposure to higher temperatures of the effluent
plume after passage through the condensers.
Passing through the condenser is a shock
that creates a stress. We have found in our studies
at the National Marine Quality Laboratory that if these
organisms are put back into water with, the original
temperature or a cooler water that many of them
will survive.
However, we have found that if they are
kept in heated water, such as in an effluent plume
or in a long canal a much larger percent of the
organisms are killed.
This is especially true in the summer period
in the South where the water is naturally warm and
where, when heat is added from the condensers,
temperature of the water may reach levels which are
rapidly lethal to the more sensitive forms and even
some of the more intermediate forms.
-------
407
Dr. C. Tarzwell
Of course, there are organisms that can
withstand very high temperature for long periods of
time.
This afterkill on exposure to elevated
temperatures is the reason for many false conclusions
and assumptions. Also when resistant organisms are
found alive in the heated water, people jump to the
conclusion that this is safe for the whole biota.
This is not true.
The resistant forms that can withstand high
temperatures for considerable periods are not good
indicators for temperature requirements or suitable
temperatures they provide no indication that the
more sensitive and important species can survive.
Because an organism survives higher temperatures for
short periods is no indication that that temperature
is suitable for the survival of the species or for the
production of a crop of aquatic organisms.
The same mistake is generally made with
oxygen. The low levels of oxygen at which certain adult
organisms can resist death almost indefinitely are
certainly no measure of oxygen requirements for the
survival of the species.
-------
408
Dr. C. Tarzwell
Temperature and oxygen requirements are
tied together and are interdependent. These 2
environmental factors must always be considered
together, because as the temperature goes up, more
oxygen is required by the organisms for their
survival, and much more is required for normal
activity.
At the higher temperatures, organisms
just cannot carry on their normal activities, and
although they may not be killed directly, such high
but nonlethal temperatures can have very serious
results. It is not necessary to kill an animal
directly by temperature in order to eliminate it or
to wipe out a species or a group of species. Many of
our most important marine organisms are sensitive to
elevated temperatures.
While these temperatures are not lethal,
they place a stress on them, and -- while this stress
may not kill them -- it will render them unable to
compete with their competitors and predators or to
resist diseases and parasites with the result they
decrease in number and, in time, are replaced with the
-------
409
Dr. C. Tarzwell
more resistant and often less desirable forms.
A fourth effect of these plants occurs in
areas where large volumes of water are moved from
one tvpe of habitat to another. Our estauries are
nursery areas, and as such they are the most valuable
marine areas, acre for acre. For the production of
marine life, they are much more valuable than the
water in the open ocean.
When we transfer water from an estuary
to the ocean, we can change the character of the nursery
in a very detrimental manner. And the movement of sea
water into the estuary sometimes can render it unfavor-
able as a nursery, as the sea water which flows in to
replace that removed is not suitable for the organisms
that have been using that area as a nursery.
Another effect of a thermal electric plant
is the stresses from the strong currents, and the
hydrostatic effects of passing through the pump, and
the vacuum breakers, etc., as they go through a plant.
In early summer, we have observed large
numbers of larval menhaden and alewives in the intake
canal of a thermal electric plant. These varied in
-------
4io
Dr. C. Tarzwell
length, according to season, from a fraction of an inch
to an inch and a half. At this stage, their bodies are
quite clear and they can best be seen by their dark
eyeballs. Many were taken into the plant.
9
Belov; the plant that we were studying, all
that was left were the eyes. They were torn to pieces.
The alewives and menhaden larvae are
invariably killed.
The fish plankton, or larvae, do drift
with the currents and are generally killed as they go
through such a plant.
We alno have to think about the other
organisms that are important as food organisms and
have planktonic stages, such as the oyster, the clam,
the scallps, and the arthropods such as shrimp, crabs,
lobster, spiny lobster, and others that occur in
southern areas or in other areas.
If the planktonic stage of these organisms
are picked up and transferred from one area to another
area that is not favorable for them, the reproduction
for the year can be severely harmed or practically
eliminated.
-------
411
Dr. C. Tarzwell
If water which is not favorable, i.e., of
poor quality, or polluted, or has a high salinity or
low dissolved oxygen, or contains certain toxic
chemicals is nut intoanursery area, it can also
very greatly harm that nursery area.
Another effect of such plants which I
cannot say much about, because it has not been studied
in the way it should be, is the effect of radioactivity.
We know it has been stated that the
radioactivity contained in the discharge from atomic
thermal electric plants is so low it is harmless.
However, these materials can be concentrated in the
food chain, and adequate studies have not yet been
made to determine what the effect of long-term exposure
at these low levels and passages through the food
chain may be. This is something that needs a great
deal of study.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: This is afossil-fue1
plant we are talking about?
DR. TARZWELL: It is.
With fossil fuel plants a possible harmful
effect is the toxicity of materials in the fly ash.
This is usually stored --
-------
412
Dr. C. Tarzwell
MR. YANTIS: These are natural gas plants;
there is no fly ash.
DR. TARZWELL: Then that source of toxicity
will not be there.
Now I would like to make a few comments in
regard to the recommendations and suggestions which the
National temperature committee has made to date.
We have been participating in conferences
dealing with temperature requirements for a number of
States -- those bordering Mississippi River and Lake
Michigan, also California, Alabama, and New York.
Our feelings are that -- at least my
feelings are that these large thermoelectric plants
should be located on the open ocean, i.e., the shore
where they can take their water from and discharge it
into the open ocean, rather than in estuaries. This
is because, acre for acre, as I have said, the
estuaries are the nursery areas and are much more
valuable than the open ocean water.
In the estuaries our recommendations as
to temperature are that the allowable increase in
temperature shall not be exceeded outside the zone of
-------
Dr. C. Tarzwell
413
nixing at any time or any place. The zone of mixing
which has been suggested for some areas -- which has
not, I am sure, been accepted all over -- is that the
zone of mixing should be the area enclosed within
1,000 feet as a radius from the end of the discharge
pipe. In an estuary where there are tidal effects,
this is not a very great area.
My acquaintance with the Cedar Bayou plant
is limited. I had a man down here studying this
problem. But, due to a very serious illness in his
family, he cannot be here, and I have been unable to
get his report. However, I have discussed it with
him very briefly by telephone, and it is apparent
that in this instance water is being taken from a
bayou that does have salinities at times up to 10.4
- 10.5 parts per thousand in the lower water areas;
that polluted water is also coming into the area with
the reversal of flow and from certain industries; and
that water from the Houston Ship Channel, which is
often very deficient in oxygen, violates the minimum
of 4 ppm which is recommended for estuaries, at least
10 percent of the time. It is ray understanding that
-------
Dr. C. Tarzwell
414
dissolved oxygen goes down as low as 2 ppm.
This water which is taken in large volume
from an intake canal and put through the condenser is
discharged to a 6-mile canal where the organisms
are subjected to high temperatures. If they do survive
going through the plant, they are subjected to high
temperatures in the canal, and then discharged into a
nursery area where the environmental conditions may
be more favorable with the great flow — much greater
than the natural flow coming into Trinity Bay at low
stream flow.
As I understand it, the ditch is being
constructed to handle 5,000 cfs, which is a tremendous
flow into Trinity Bay.
1 believe that in this instance, my
recommendations -- and I think those of the National
temperature committee would be that such an installa
tion should be located on the open ocean where the
valuable nursery area would not be harmed and more
water would be available for dilution.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let's suppose they were
going to be located here, Dr. Tarzwell.
-------
415
Dr. C. Tarzwell
I recognize that you had one of your
Assistants, Dr. Prager, down here who, unfortunately,
couldn't be with us, but supposing they were located
here in this inland water. The recommendation we
had this morning was they put in cooling towers or
recirculation devices which would permit temperatures
O
of no more than a 4 rise in the winter months and
1.5° rise in the summer months. With your work on
the National Technical Advisory Committee and the
temperature committee, what do you think of that?
DR. TARZWELL: Well, as I see it, from
the short time I have been here, there would I
believe be a violation of the salinity allowable in
our Water Quality Criteria commonly known as the
green book.
CHAIRMAN STEIN; Yes.
DR. TARZWELL: Evaporation in the cooling
towers is going to make that worse and not better.
The oxygen in the water that is taken in would appear
to be low. Whether this could be restored or not, I
do not know. If there is a cooling pond photosynthesis
will increase DO levels at least part of the day.
-------
416
Dr. C. Tarzwell
Because the water is warm in this part of the country,
there will be growths of bluegreen algae, which are
heat resistant. In other words, I believe these algae
will increase and dominate the population.
When the temperature is high, there would
be reduction of oxygen at night in a cooling pond
even if it were a large one and shallow. This would
be due to the nutrients and the high temperature.
If the temperature, as you say, was lowered to an
increase of 4* in the winter and 1.5* in the summer,
this would meet the requirements if it could be
accomplished.
The cooling ponds, I am quite sure, would
probably have such tremendous growth of the bluegreen
algae that there would be depletion of oxygen at night,
and I think it would be touch and go to meet those
requirements. I don't believe it has been proven. To
be frank with you I would be skeptical of this being
able to reach it.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Your suggestion is
reappraisal of the location of the site then?
OR. TARZWELL: Yes, sir.
-------
417
Dr. C. Tarzwell
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Are there any other
comments or questions?
MR. QUARLES: I have none.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Mr. Yantis?
MR. YANTIS: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, very much.
Let's recess for 10 minutes.
(Whereupon the conference recessed.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let's reconvene. Mr.
Vanderhoof?
MR. VANDERHOOF: Mr. Gallagher, would
you inform the group on the type of alternatives,
whether freshwater or salt water, that we are
discussing?
MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, sir. Mr. Vanderhoof,
I think the alternatives that we were suggesting for
the Houston Lighting & Power plant at Cedar Bayou is
a freshwater system.
Dr. Allen discussed the merits of the
freshwater system and the availability of freshwater,
and we had decided it was a viable alternative, at
least on first examination.
-------
418
Dr. C. Tarzwell
I wonder if Dr. Tarzwell would like to
enlarge his comments given that variable?
DR. TARZWELL: Mr. Vanderhoof, I'm sorry,
I did not know that freshwater recirculation in cooling
9
towers was under consideration.
The things I said would apply with marine
cooling ponds and also marine waters used once-through
for cooling.
With the freshwater recirculating system,
of course, the only thing that would be wasted would be
blowdown and evaporation. This would take a certain
amount of freshwater. But in this instance you
wouldn't have the adverse effect of passage of the
organisms through the plant in large numbers with
large volumes of once-through cooling water. You would
not have the poor water coming in and being used
originally for cooling, and you would not have some of
the other adverse effects that occur with once-through
cooling.
I was only speaking with regard to salt
water cooling and in regard to the cooling tower for
lowering the temperature to meet the stated requirement
-------
419
V. Casper
making the situation work.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Dr. Tar zwe11, ycu were
partly -- wall the situation is that Houston Lighting
& Power Company does propose salt water cooling and a
cooling pond. Many of the statements you made do
apply to that situation.
DR. TARZWELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: If they had a freshwater
source, you would feel that they could have a cooling
tower and recirculation?
DR. TARZWELL: I believe so, with a
minimum of damage, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Vanderhoof?
MR. VANDERHOOF: We have two Federal
Agencies that would like to present a statement.
The first one is from the Food and Drug
Administration, Mr. Victor Casper.
MR. VICTOR CASPER
REGIONAL SHELLFISH CONSULTANT
U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DALLAS, TEXAS
-------
420
V. Casper
MR. CASPER: My name is Victor Casper. I
am Regional Shellfish Consultant, representing the U. S.
Food and Drug Administration. My statement of interest
regarding the pollution affecting shellfish in Galveston
Bay is made within the framework of the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program which is administered
jointly by the States and FDA. In my opening remarks,
I would like to briefly review the development and
structure of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
and FDA's responsibility in administering that program.
Epidemiological investigations of disease
outbreaks attributed to the consumption of raw shellfish'
reveal two basic avenues of contamination. One is the
water from which they are harvested or stored after
harvest, and the other is contamination by unsanitary
practices during processing. Of the two sources,
polluted shellfish growing waters is the factor most
often implicated in shellfish-caused illness.
Shellfish obtain food by pumping large
quantities of water through their bodies and filtering
out particulate material which may give them nourishment.
This process is not very selective and many different
-------
V. Casper
421
materials including bacteria, toxic heavy metals, and
hydrocarbons may be concentrated to a high degree,
either directly or through the food chain.
As early as the 17th century, shellfish
were suspected of causing illness and by the end of
the 19th Century repeated outbreaks of typhoid fever
associated with shellfish were causing concern to
public health officials in the United States.
Then in 1924 a massive typhoid fever
epidemic traced to oysters prompted State and local
health authorities and representatives of the
shellfish industry to request the U.S. Public Health
Service to exercise supervision over the sanitary
quality of shellfish shipped in interstate commerce.
In accordance with that request, a cooperative control
program was established in which the Public Health
Service, the States, and the shellfish industry each
accepted responsibility for certain phases of the
program. Each State program is annually evaluated by
the FDA for compliance with the N.S.S.P. recommended
practices.
The fundamental concepts of the National
-------
42 2
V, Casper
Shellfish Sanitation Program are contained in the
Manual of Recommended Practices for the Sanitary Control
of the Shellfish Industry, Parts I, II and III.
Copies of the Manual are submitted for the
record if requested.
The Manual contains the administrative and
technical criteria which have been developed and
periodically updated through cooperative efforts of
State and Federal experts in public health and shellfish
sanitation.
The molluscan shellfish industry, State
Shellfish Control authorities and the Public Health
Service have participated in the national program since
1925. The program guidelines and procedures have been
time tested and are used throughout the Nation's
shellfish producing areas. The major objectives of the
national program are to assure that shellfish shipped
in interstate commerce are safe for human consumption
and to encourage water quality programs which will
preserve potential shellfish-producing areas for this
beneficial use.
-------
423
V. Casper
Evidence of this program's success is the
fact that no confirmed incidence of illness due to
microbiological or chemical contamination has been
traced to shellfish harvested from approved growing
areas which had been properly classified in accordance
with the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual
of operations and which had been properly processed
after harvest. On the other hand, harvesting from
nonapproved and improperly classified areas or improper
storage have resulted in outbreak of shellfish-borne
disease.
The Pood and Drug Administration recognizes
the importance of water quality as related to the
wholesomeness of all fisheries' products. Recent
detection of hazardous amounts of mercury in fish and
shellfish has initiated an increased concern over the
numerous environmental contaminants that may enter
the food chains and be concentrated in a wide variety
of foods.
Approximately 2,000,000 acres of shellfish
waters in the United States are closed because of
pollution and other factors. Most of these closures
-------
424
V. Casper
arc due to microbiological contamination, but closures
due to trace metal and petroleum contamination are
beginning to be identified. Recently two States have
closed areas due to mercury contamination and three
States took precautionary action by closing areas as
a result of oil spills.
Louisiana oyster reefs were threatened
by the now infamous Breton Sound ruptured oil wells,
but were fortunate to have prevailing seaward winds.
No oil damage occurred to the oysters in this instance.
Water quality in shellfish growing areas
of Galveston Bay has been of concern to State and
Federal control agencies for many years due to the
proximity of shellfish beds to a heavily populated
and industrialized metropolitan area. Consequently,
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program's guidelines
of a survey every 10 years and reappraisal every 2
years has been replaced by a continuous surveillance
program to ensure that Galveston Bay shellfish
harvesting areas are properly classified.
The classifications of areas for shellfish
use such as Galveston Bay requires extensive knowledge
-------
425
V. Casper
and understanding of the many factors which may affect
the growing waters and shellfish quality. Among the
requirements for proper classification are: 1) Detailed
shoreline and reconnaissance surveys; 2) Water quality
studies; 3) Analysis of shellfish meats; 4) Analysis
of all available information in light of current public
health criteria and standards.
In Galveston Bay, major emphasis has been
placed on bacteriological evaluation of the growing
waters (including the effects of meteorological and
hydrographic conditions), and analysis of oyster
meats for trace metals, pesticides and bacteriological
quality.
Past history has shown that periods of
closures will be required as a result of heavy rainfall
or high tides. The last such incident occurred in
February 1969, following an intense storm which
produced extreme high tides, flooding of low-lying areas,
and flushing of the Houston Ship Channel. The bay was
closed to harvesting the day after the storm and
remained closed until water and oyster bacteriological
data indicated the area to be suitable for reopening.
-------
426
V. Casper
The closure extended from February 15 to March. 3, 1969.
Extent of economic loss due to this closure has not
been estimated. Temporary closures of shellfish
growing areas due to bacteriological pollution during
m
periods of high runoff is not unique to Galveston Bay.
For example, in calendar year 1969, portions of
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, were opened and closed
13 times because of bacterial contamination from urban
runoff waters. Mobile Bay, Alabama, is closed for
extended periods almost yearly.
Detailed evaluation of over 3,000
bacteriological samples from 84 water sampling stations
and related hydrographic and meteorological data in
addition to over 750 oyster samples collected by the
Texas State Department of Health since 1963, indicate
that the shellfish industry has a quality product
available. There has been no consumer complaint or
confirmed cases of illness traced to the consumption
of Galveston Bay oysters.
The coliform criterion used alone in
evaluating sanitary quality of a growing area is wholly
inadequate. When employed by control officials,
-------
All
V. Casper
bactex-5.ological information is used to interpret
sanitary survey data. In all classifications of
shellfish waters throughout the Nation, bacteriological
criteria are used as an adjunct to the sanitary survey.
Any bacteriological indicator system must meet rigid
public health scrutiny. Studies conducted by the FDA
Gulf Coast Technical Services Unit at Dauphin Island,
Alabama, have shown the coliform group of organisms
to be ubiquitous in estuarine waters and upland coils,
and most especially, in southern soils. The fecal
coliform test has been proposed as a more specific
indicator of warm-blooded animal pollution. At the
present time there is no universal agreement among
public health experts as to the advisability of
accepting a fecal coliform criterion.
Past concern over pesticide and trace
metal contamination has resulted in several cooperative
State-Federal and State studies. More recent concern
over hydrocarbon contamination has resulted in
initiation of studies by PDA to evaluate these
substances.
Cooperative studies by the Texas State
Health Department and the Gulf Coast Shellfish
-------
428
V. Casper
Sanitation Laboratory in 1964 and the Texas Paries and
VJildlife and U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries since
1966 showed that chlorinated hydrocarbon levels in
oysters were of no known public health significance.
Oysters collected from Galveston Bay and analyzed for
chlorinated hydrocarbons by the FDA in May 1971 were
also well below present guidelines.
Trace metal analyses of oyster meats
collected by the Texas State Department of Health and
Texas Parks and Wildlife from Galveston Bay between
August 1968 and December 1970 and analyzed by the Gulf
Coast Water Hygiene Laboratory showed concentrations
similar to those of other approved Gulf Coast areas.
The trace metal results do not reflect any significant
effect from industrial waste sources upon presently
approved oyster growing areas.
Results of studies of hydrocarbon content
of oysters from approved growing areas in Galveston
Bay conducted by FDA in cooperation with Texas State
officials have not demonstrated levels of toxic fractions
considered to be of health significance based upon
present knowledge of hydrocarbon toxicology and
-------
429
V. Casper
analytical methodology.
The oyster samples were also examined
for visible signs of oil and odor of petroleum
distillates. Neither FDA nor Texas State officials who
were experienced in such examinations detected any
visible signs of oil or odors of petroleum in oysters
examined from approved areas in Galveston Bay.
The Pood and Drug Administration has
studied thoroughly the Environmental Protection
Agency's report on Pollution Affecting Shellfish
Harvesting in Galveston Bay, Texas and reviewed in
detail the Texas State Department of Health's
sanitary survey files and Food and Drug Administration
data. Our conclusions are that 1) Approximately
150,000 acres in Galveston, Trinity, East and West Bays
are polluted to the extent that the areas cannot meet
the requirements for the approved classification; 2)
FDA supports an effective pollution abatement program
to give added protection to approved and conditionally
approved areas and, if possible, tp enable portions
of potential and actual producing areas which are now
closed to be reopened; 3) With continuing thorough
-------
430
V. Casper
surveillance of the Galveston Bay complex and frequent
reevaluation of sanitary survey data, the shellfish
industry can be assured of a safe source of shellfish
from approved growing areas.
The Texas Shellfish Sanitation Program is
given a comprehensive evaluation annually in accordance
with the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual
of Operations. The Texas State program has always been
in compliance and continues to receive the endorsement
of the Food and Drug Administration.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Casper.
Any comments or questions?
MR. VANDERHOOF: I have a question.
Did you mention National requirements for
quality? Is this tied in with some -- did you mention
some documents that you had for the national requirements?
MR. CASPER: Right.
The National Shellfish Sanitation program
Manual of Operations, Part I.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Does this include something
other than bacterial coliforra?
-------
431
V. Casper
MR. CASPER: This includes requirements
that there not being toxic levels of any trace metals,
any other toxic substandards such as pesticides and
biotoxics as a result of toxic marine organisms.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Have any shellfish areas
anywhere been closed because of hydrocarbons?
MR. CASPER: The West Falmouth area in
Massachusetts was closed as a result of an oil spill.
I don't know the exact date. It is in your EPA report
quite well detailed. The initial closure was due to
taste and odor problems.
Then the additional analytical procedures,
analytical analyses, were made and you have these
results in your report.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Now, with the hydrocarbons
as reported, could this be called a potential health
hazard?
MR. CASPER: This would be called a
potential health hazard.
This has been thoroughly discussed and
reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration
toxicologists and the Bureau of Food in Washington.
-------
432
V. Casper
They have, in reviewing the data that we have collected
thus far, as stated, seen no indication of any toxic
hydrocarbons. This information or data or analyses
are still being conducted. We will have additional
information as it is available and it will be made
available to the Environmental Protection Agency as
soon as it is completed.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Did I understand you to
say this then is a potential health hazard?
MR. CASPER: It depends on how you define
"potential." Not based on what we know at the present
time of the toxicity of these hydrocarbons.
MR. VANDERHOOF: I have no further
questions.
MR. YANTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have no
questions either. I think the man covered the subject
so thoroughly, professionally and competently I don't
see how I could have a question.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I knew before the day was
out we would get a response like that from the man.
(Laughter.)
Thank you very much, Mr. Casper.
-------
433
J, Rawson
MR. VAIIDERHOOF: I have one more Federal
Agency that would lil'.o to make a statement.
Mr. Jack Rawson of the U. S. Geological
Survey .
MR, JACK RAWSON
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
AUSTIN, TEXAS
MR. RAWSON: Mr. Chairman, conferees and
ladies and gentlemen. I am Jack Rawson of the Texas
District of the Geological Survey.
I would like to make a very brief
statement on behalf of A. G. Winslow, Acting
District Chief.
[The above-mentioned statement follows.]
-------
434
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER - QUALITY PROGRAMS IN THE
HOUSTON - GALVESTON BAY AREA, 1971 FISCAL YEAR
By
A. G. Winslow
Acting District Chief
The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with various State,
Federal, and local agencies, operates a network of daily and periodic
water-quality and streamflow stations on streams in Texas. In addition
to providing water-quality information for locations where water-
development projects are likely to be built, this network provides data
that aid in determining the effects of urbanization on water quality,
in the delineation of areas having water-quality problems, and in the
identification of sources of pollution.
Currently, 42 water-quality stations in the network are located
in Houston-Galveston Bay area. Agnecies that cooperate in the
collection of data from these stations include the Texas Water Develop-
ment Board, City of Houston, and Texas Water Quality Board (Galveston
Bay Project). The attached table identifies the stations by downstream
order number and shows the cooperating agency and the type and frequency
of sampling. As indicated on the attached table, water discharge or
stage is measured at each site where water-quality data are collected.
Water-quality records for stations operated in cooperation with the
Texas Water Development Board date from September 1968, those in
cooperation with the City of Houston date from July 1970, and those in
cooperation with the Galveston Bay Project date from Hay 1971. The
records are transmitted to cooperating agencies and the Environmental
Protection Agency on a current basis, are published annually, and are
made available to interested agencies or individuals upon request.
The Geological Survey recognizes the magnitude of the water-quality
problems in the Houston-Galveston Bay area and offers its assistance in
inventorying and monitoring the quality of the water resources in the area.
Prepared by: Jack Rawson
June 3, 1971
-------
43 5
J. Raw son
MR. RANSOM: Thank, you.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
Any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you very much.
MR. VAHDERHOOF: Are there any other Federal
Agencies present that would care to make a statement?
(No response.)
MR. VANDERHOOF: If not, Mr. Stein, that
concludes the Federal program.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: In accordance with the
agr^enent we have made beforehand, beginning tomorrow
we will call upon the State of Texas and its invitees.
At this point we will recess until 9:30
tomorrow morning when we will convene right in this
room.
(Whereupon the conference recessed until
9:30 a.m., June 8, 1971.)
-------
436
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 8, 1971
A.M. SESSION
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let's reconvene.
I would recommend to the conferees that
we speak directly into the microphone, as we had
reports yesterday that some of the people in the back
had difficulty hearing, particularly when we turned
our heads.
Today we are going to start with the State
-------
437
undesirable for human consumption, as documented in the
EPA report.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Prom the looks of things,
unless the witnesses who said they want to appear do
not come, we may be here for another 2 days.
Where is that letter?
MR. VANDERHOOF: It is in Denver.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Why can't we get a copy
of that letter either dictated over the phone or sent
by teletype? We can put it in the record before we
adjourn the conference.
Why isn't it possible to get the guidelines
from the Food and Drug Administration on the same basis?
MR. VANDERHOOP: We will make the request
to them.
[The National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Manual of Operations, Part I is contained in the Federal
report of this transcript. Parts II and III are marked
as Exhibits and are on file at Headquarters, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., and Region VI,
Dallas, Texas.]
[The above-mentioned letter follows.]
-------
438
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Department of Public Health
600 Washington Street, Boston, Mass. 02111
Division of
Environmental Health
Room 320
June 16, 1970
Mr. Frank Grice, Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
Department of Natural Resources
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Re; Falmouth - Bourne
Buzzards Bay
Continuation and Expansion
of Emergency Closure of
Shellfish Area
Dear Sir:
The Department of Public Health has caused a re-examination
to be made of the shellfish area in Buzzards Bay in the Town of
Falmouth, which was closed to the taking of shellfish for food
purposes on September 18, 1969, because of pollution by oil
accidentally discharged to tidal waters when the oil barge "Florida"
went aground off Chappaquoit Point in Falmouth on September 16, 1969.
The results of the examination show that the area in Buzzards
Bay closed since September 18, 1969 continues to be polluted by oil
deposits and that shellfish harvested from this area are unfit for
food purposes and may be dangerous to the public health.
The Department has also caused an examination to be made of
Megansett Harbor in the Towns of Falmouth and Bourne. The samples
of shellfish collected from this area during the survey were delivered
to Dr. Max Blumer, Senior Scientist, at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution Laboratory in Falmouth for analysis. The results of the
analyses show the presence of oil in all samples. As a result of
thfe above, the Deportment is of the opinion that the shellfish
harvested from these areas are unfit for food purposes and may be
dangerous to the public health.
Therefore, the Department of Public Health acting under the
provisions of Section 74A of Chapter 130 of the General Laws as
amended by Chapter 280 of the Acts of 1966 hereby determines that
the Buzzards Bay shellfish area as defined below be closed to the
taking of shellfish for food purposes:
The waters and flats of Buzzards Bay, its estuaries and
tributaries located inside or east of a line drawn from
Chappaquoit Point at the entrance to West Falmouth Harbor
in a northerly direction to the easternmost point of
Amrita Island in the Town of Bourne.
In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 288, of the
Acts of 1966, such designation is herein reported to the Director
-------
439
of the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Director of the
Division of Law Enforcement, who shall take the necessary
action to prevent the taking of shellfish from the above
designated area for human consumption, and so notify local
authorities. Such determination shall be in effect until sub-
sequent examinations initiated within 30 days show that the
above mentioned shellfish area is free from oil pollution.
Very truly yours,
John C. Collins
Director
Division of Environmental Health
C - Kenneth Crossman, Director
Division of Law Enforcement
100 Cambridge Street, Boston
C - Mr. Thomas McMahon
Water Pollution Control
Department of Natural Resources
100 Cambridge Street, Boston
C - Mr. Charles D, Larson
Regional Shellfish Consultant
585 Commercial Street, Boston
C - Board of Health, Falmouth
C - Board of Selectmen, Falmouth
C - Board of Health, Bourne
C - Board of Selectmen, Bourne
C - Walter S. Reynolds
Shellfish Warden
12 Holt Road
Buzzards Bay, Mass.
C - George Souza *
Shellfish Warden
114 Acapesket Road
Falmouth, Mass.
C - Barnstable County Health Department
Barnstable County Court House
Barnstable, Massachusetts
C - Arnold Carr, Biologist
Division of Marine Fisheries
Shawnee Crowell State Forest
Sandwich, Massachusetts
#821-1969
C/Emuca
-------
440
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Department of Public Health
600 Washington, Street, Room 320
Boston 02111
Division of
Environmental Health
June 18, 1970
Mr. Frank Grice, Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
Department of Natural Resources
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Re: Falmouth - Bourne
Buzzards Bay
Correction of Definition
of Closed Area
Dear Sir:
In a letter to you from this Division dated June 16, 1970,
(Re: Falmouth - Bourne, Buzzards Bay, Continuation and Expansion
of Emergency Closure of Shellfish Area,) an error was made in the
wording of the definition of the area to be closed to the taking
of shellfish. The word "easternmost" in the fourth line of the
definition should be changed to "westernmost" and the definition
would then properly read:
The waters and flats of Buzzards Bay, its estuaries and
tributaries located inside or east of a line drawn from
Chappaquoit Point at the entrance of West Falmouth Harbor
in a northerly direction to the westernmost point of
Amrita Island in the Town of Bourne.
C - Kenneth Crossman, Director
Division of Law Enforcement
100 Cambridge Street, Boston
C - Thomas McMahon
Water Pollution Control, Boston
C - Charles Larson
585 Commercial Street, Boston
C - Board of Health, Falmouth
C - Board of Selectmen, Falmouth
C - Board of Health, Bourne
C - Board of Selectmen, Bourne
C - Walter S. Reynolds, Shellfish Warden
12 Holt Road, Buzzards Bay
C - George Sou^ Shellfish Warden
114 Acapeoket Road, Falmouth
C - Arnold Carr, Biologist
Division of Marine Fisheries, Sandwich
C - Barnstable County Health Department
Barnstable County Court House, Barnstable
Very truly yours,
#821- 1969
John C. Collins
Director
Division of Environmental Health
C/Emcca
-------
G. Fulcher
441
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you.
Mr. Yantis?
MR. YANTIS: Mr. Chairman, I am Hugh Yantis,
Executive Director of the Texas Water Quality Board. I
was designated by the members of the Texas Water Quality
Board to be the conferee for this meeting.
The spokesman for the State of Texas who
will open will be the Chairman of our Board. I will,
however, introduce him this way: Some years ago, when
he was a newspaper editor in Austin, Texas, he became
acquainted with young John Connally. John Connally
grew up to be Governor of Texas and is now the Secretary
of the Treasury. John Connally, after a lifelong
friendship, appointed Gordon Fulcher to the Texas
Water Quality Board.
The members of the Board elected him and
have reelected him as Chairman of the Water Quality
Board.
So, at this time, the opening comments for
Texas will be made by Chairman Gordon Fulcher.
MR. GORDON FULCHER, CHAIRMAN
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AUSTIN, TEXAS
-------
442
G. Fulcher
MR. FULCHER: Mr. Chairman, members of the
conference committee, ladies and gentlemen. Ordinarily
under circumstances like this, I would be extending to
you Texas'most hospitable and warm welcome. But being
that my mother always took a dim view of my telling
stories, I think I just better skip it both ways.
(Laugher.)
Now, it disheartened me very much, Mr.
Stein, yesterday morning to hear your opening remarks
-- that unlike some of the cases that our famous and
late Judge Roy Bean once held out at Pecos, you were
going to let us put on our case and say whatever we
wanted to in our defense. And unlike Judge Bean, it
was not, again, to be one of those situations where
you were going to give us a fair trial before you
hanged us. (Laughter.) Now, if we look with a bit
of trepidation and askance and a little — as we
would say down here in Texas — skitterish about that,
you will have to understand that in similar circum-
stances with your organization and its predecessors,
we have been snakebitten so many times that we are
somewhat like the catfish who began to rise mightily
-------
443
G. Fulcher
when he looked up and saw the colored man with the
buthcer knife standing over him. And he heard the
colored man say, "Just lay still catfish; we ain't
goin' to do nothin• to you except gut you."
(Laugher.)
Now, the other night when I got here,
I was kind of late arriving, and I had a note from
Mr. Yantis and Mr. Teller to join them across the
street over at Kelley's Restaurant -- that they were
eating supper. When I walked in they had gone way to
the back and sat down. But right there at the entrance
I passed some of your people, and, to my great
amazement and alarm, they were eating the shellfish
and other products from the Texas Coast. (Applause
and Laughter.)
Then I thought to myself, Oh, my goodness!
These people haven't read this black paper here and
somebody might drop dead before morning, and I was so
scared. It kind of shook me up pretty badly.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Those people might have
been "Achilles heels." (Laughter.)
MR. FULCHER: But then after hearing Mr.
-------
G. Pulcher
444
Casper, from the Food and Drug people, whom I would
have to assume, since he isn't one of your bunch or
one of ours, he might have been an unprejudiced
witness — (Laughter) — say that it was all right
to eat something that came out of the Galveston Bay
and the approved areas as far as he knew. And he said,
since 1925 nobody had been made sick, or no one was
known to have died over it, and it was all right to go
ahead and eat something out there -- oysters or shrimp
or fish or something like that. So I felt an awful
lot better about your folks I saw over there Sunday
night.
Now also after hearing Mr. Casper, I don't
know exactly what this conference is about, because I
thought we had come down here to save the shellfish
industry and to protect people from eating contaminated
foods.
You are here in the heart of the largest
industrial complex in the Nation — if not in the world.
Let me say that personally, not officially,
I am glad to see you all come, and welcome to Texas.
I want the record to clearly show, however, that that
-------
44 5
G. Fulcher
is unofficially personally. (Laughter.) The materials
produced here have played a key role in the remarkable
progress of these United States, and there can be no
doubt but what that progress has been of immeasurable
benefit to all of us in this Nation,
We must acknowledge also that with this
progress have come problems, not only those associated
with the environment but with labor and with a broad
range of situations.
As might be expected we have problems
here too, and I am most concerned with the problems
of water quality.
This massive industrial complex, with its
attendant labor force and accompanying population
boom does of itself create problems of water quality.
The State of Texas has recognized this and has set into
motion the machinery to achieve correction.
The Executive Director of the Texas Water
Quality Board will trace the history of this corrective
action for you in a few moments. I wish now to point
out that an effective program to correct these problems
has been in force and that significant, measurable
improvements have resulted.
-------
446
G. Fulcher
I would have to pause here a moment from
my prepared text and say that, you know, I used to think
that there weren't very many people that were so
sufficiently awfully bad that there wasn't something
good about them now and again. But when I heard Mr.
Gallagher read the report, and I had previously read
it myself, one who just picked it up cold would assume,
I think, the Texas Water Quality Board had never done
anything worthwhile — that we just willfully,
maliciously and with malice aforethought were set up
to create these situations, to aggravate them and to
perpetuate them. X don't think that quite is the case.
Allowed to continue our program that we
have instigated in a sound, sensible and practical
manner, I think I can assure you that there will be
continuing improvements in the water quality in the
Houston-Galveston area and including, believe it or not,
the Houston Ship Channel.
Past improvements and expected future ones
will be documented for you in the State presentation
which follows my comments.
-------
447
G. Fulcher
Water quality problems have not arisen in
one big bang ,and there is no instant solution. While
the State program has made great strides toward
accomplishing the necessary improvements, much remains
to be done* Quite likely there will never be a
complete solution in Texas or at any other place in
our Nation. We must look forward to a continuing
program to keep pace with future growth and progress.
In Texas we have had 10 years of experience
with a statewide effluent control system -- a longer
period of time, I might add, than in any other State
and certainly longer than that of the Federal
Government, whose claims to all encompassing expertise,
despite very recent entry into the field fill me with
considerable concern.
In Texas, our extensive experience in these
matters has led us to the firm position that litigation
as an enforcement tool must be preceded by extensive
efforts if we are to achieve compliance. I was therefore
most encouraged when Mr. Ruckelshaus and Mr, McFarland,
in a recent meeting at EPA Regional Headquarters in
Dallas, assured me in clear and concise language that
-------
448
G. Fulcher
no Federal actions, and espeeailly litigation, would
be initiated without first consulting with the State
to determine what action was being taken by the State
agencies.
I was most heartened by this attitude,
especially since it was so strongly enunciated by the
official in top authority with the Environmental
Protection Agency. I think then that perhaps you can
understand my utter dismay and frustration when later
I learned — from a newspaper article -- that the
Federal Government had initiated legal action against
a Texas industry without any consultation with us. And
then magnifying that feeling of frustration when two days
later your Mr. David Dominicdccalled me on the phone and
said, "We are going to have this conference down there."
I said, "Well, David, what are we accused of?" And he
said, "We are going to announce the conference; I will
let you know later what you are accused of•"
Now it had always been my thought that we
operated in this country with at least filing a Bill of
Particulars before you indict somebody.
-------
449
G. Fulcher
Further it is my feeling in this regard
that further litigation, further actions, with utterly
no consultation with the State has been taken, despite
Mr. Ruckelshaus' representation. And they continue
and are on the increase.
I suppose I should be able to find polite
words to express my reaction, but it would still boil
down to the fact that I feel I have been -- me and the
State of Texas — have been dealt with most unfairly
and in a manner certainly not in the best interest
of achieving the goal we both seek — cleaning up
present pollution and achieving the best possible
water standards.
It would seem that cooperation on the EPA
level occurs only when it suits that Agency's own
purposes.
As chairman of the Texas Water Quality
Board, I have served under the assumption that the
Environmental Protection Agency had essentially the
same interest as does our Agency — i. e., the proper
management of water quality.
-------
450
G. Fulcher
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that
EPA's actions are based more solidly on political
expedience than on sound water quality considerations.
If the Environmental Protection Agency is
so dissatisfied with the efforts of the Texas Water
Quality Board, why has it not expressed its reservations
to us? It might just be that we from time to time
might wish to join in litigation.
The EPA, among others, is notified of each
application the Texas Water Quality Board will consider,
and on only one occasion in the past 4 years has the
Federal Agency seen fit to express its views to us.
We do not operate in a vacuum, and any person who has
attended a meeting of the Texas Water Quality Board can
tell you of the detailed consideration which both the
staff and the board give to each application.
Now we think that if you people think we
are wrong you ought to get up and say so when we have
examiners' hearings on these cases. I think you ought
to bring them up to us and discuss them with us. And
I am not saying that, even every now and then, you
might not be right. But we would like to hear you
-------
451
G, Fulcher
before the horse gets out of the barn, instead of being
asked to close the gate after the decision has been made
We would welcome any input which would help
us in those deliberations, and when we receive no
comment from the Federal Government we can only assume
that its representatives are satisfied with the
requirements we impose.
Now, after 4 years of almost unbroken
silence, we find a document filled with implications
of dissatisfaction. I simply do not understand how
this can conceivably be called a cooperative effort to
help with the monumental job of water quality
management.
No one is more concerned about the
protection of our environment in Texas than the Texas
Water Quality Board, or than am I personally. However,
we feel compelled to point out that using a sledge
hammer to kill flies causes more damage than do the
flies themselves.
For example, you know the tremendous
furor that was raised nationwide about mercury
poisoning last year. However, I know very little has
-------
452
G. Fulcher
been said about this, since some scientist discovered
that there was mercury in fish which had been caught
and preserved in the scientific laboratories for about
50 years. What this means I really do not know, but it
could well mean that there is quite a lot of mercury
loose in the environment from natural sources and that
it is not altogether due to man's activities.
In passing, I might add that a friend of
mine, who is an exceptionally competent engineer,
recently analyzed a sample of bottled water — supposed
to be the purest drinking water available -- and found
traces of mercury in it.
Now comes a report from the University of
Wisconsin by Professor G. B. Lee who has found that
60-year-old soil samples show apparent traces of DDT-
type insecticides, although they have been tightly
sealed in glass jars for 30 years. This is quite some
time before such insecticides were developed.
Professor Lee says that there are apparently
compounds in soil which will give a reading for
chlorinated hydrocarbons when none are present and that
it is sometimes necessary to do two or three readings
on the same sample, using different kinds of testing.
-------
G. Fulcher
453
He said that when he tested the 60-year-old
soil two and three times, nearly all reverted to zero,
thus underscoring the importance of doing more than
one analysis, or arrive at an overall sweeping
decision on once-over—lightly application.
Professor Lee raises an interesting question,
and I don't know but that he is right. But it seems to
me that some of these things are being suddenly
approached with a great deal of hysteria instead of a
lot of common application. And to me I think it would
be rather a tragedy to ban all insecticides per se and
create a famine when we wake up one day and find that
they weren't the cause of it at all.
Now I certainly, as Chairman of our board,
have advocated that we do not do all studying and no
action, and this was long before you folks got on
that kick yourselves. But I don't think that it would
be very wise to abandon all study and immediately make
decisions on a shooting from the hip basis.
Last winter in the Armco cyanide situation
the district Regional Office of the Federal Agency was
very insistent that we solve the problem by requiring
-------
454
G. Fulcher
that this waste be chlorinated as a simple and
relatively inexpensive solution to the problem.
I thought, this is just great, when I got
Mr. Vanderhoof's letter and his phone call, and I went
rushing in to take the matter up with Joe Teller. He
advised me that because of resulting chlorinated
phenolic discharges into the channel, such a treatment
as proposed by the Federal Agency would cause marine
products taken from the Gulf to taste so bad as to
be both inedible and unsalable.
Now, it just occurs to me that should we
follow that course, accepting unequivocally the
recommendation that was made to us, we might have
caused more economic loss to the shellfish industry,
and the fishing in Galveston Bay than you are fearful
is occurring now.
Finally, the Regional office dropped its
proposal and then went to a proposal for burning this
waste by using some 8,000,000 cubic feet of natural
gas every day. Hot only would this substitute an air
pollution problem for the water pollution problem but
it would constitute a wasteful use of another acutely
-------
455
G. Fulcher
needed and increasingly precious natural resource.
All of this was proposed in lieu of the
Water Quality Board's approval of disposal by a deep
discharge well. This is not a method of which we are
enamoured. As a matter of fact, we think that there
is going to come a day when underground sources of
brackish water are going to be desperately needed and
will have to be brought to the surface and used for
everyday domestic use. So only in the greatest
extremity and in the case where we think it is the
only possible, feasible solution to recommend a
discharge well at all, do we do it? We just don't go
off willy-nilly with it being a panacea for all ills.
In this case we do so. It was the most
feasible, most practical, and up to now the only one
that we consider has been brought up that is an
adequate substitute. Certainly we prefer it over
burning or over chlorinating it so that we can't get
anything out of the Gulf, whether the PDA approves
it or not, because it smells so bad and tastes so
bad nobody wants it. Now the proposals received from
your Agency cause me to think. Oh! Its technical people
-------
456
G. Fulcher
are no more capable than ours, and it certainly doesn't
give me reason to believe that we will abdicate the
field in their favor.
To be utterly blunt about it, I believe the
State of Texas has more able, better informed, and by
far more practical people on its staff at the Water
Quality Board than has the Federal Agency.
The Texas program is not perfect, but
neither is it ineffective, as implied by your black
paper. Our efforts have, in part at least, been
responsible for some of the improvements which have
been made.
And here I would like you to remember that
we operate over a State that is as large as at least
5 or 6 average States in this country, and that to
find the diversities with which we must contend, you
would have to go from the coast of Carolina to the
coast of California to find an equal diversity. Just
going from Lake Michigan to the Gulf wouldn't do it.
Now we have all manner of problems with
which we deal. I would remind you also that we have
operated, up until the coming biennium, on something
-------
G. Fulcher
457
like 20 cents per capita per year for water quality
control. That is less money, I am unhappy to say, than
the State Highway Department spends each year picking
up beer cans off the highways. And I am not talking
about the rest of the trash; I am just talking about the
beer cans.
So we haven't exactly been broken out with
money. I want to say to the credit of my staff I think
that they have made the most out of the money. I think
they have done a heck of a good job with what they
have had to do it with. I am proud of them. They have
never watched the clock, and they have worked far and
beyond what the normal call of duty of a public
employee is, and I think they deserve a hand of credit
and a rose every now and then among the brickbats. I
hope this will be considered one.
The Texas program, as 1 said, is not
perfect. But at this point of reference, we know that
the industrial community in this area has made significant
investment in waste treatment facilities. While no
effort has been made to tabulate all industries, we
can document a capital investment in excess of $90
-------
458
G. Fulcher
million in waste treatment facilities. This not
insignificant expenditure for waste treatment is
reflected in the sharp decrease in organic materials
being discharged to the Houston Ship Channel.
Now, we have had a few unpleasantnesses
down here, and X suppose up in Washington you don't
always get the Texas papers, particularly Mr. Scarlett
and the Houston Post and his counterpart in the Houston
Chronicle. We have had a few harsh words exchanged
between the city officials and the Texas Water Quality
Board, and I do think that we have got a rather improved
situation here in Houston as regards corrections and
improvements of the municipal discharges, which, after
all, is something like -- X don't know exactly the
correct number; perhaps Mr. Yantis or Joe Teller will
tell you -- but I would say at least 50 percent of the
discharge comes from the city of Houston.
Now we have felt that if we could get these
people to tuck in their collar and go to work, it was a
whole lot better than taking them to the courthouse.
It costs a lot of money to go to the courthouse and
we don't have any extra money, as I think you can know
-------
459
G. Fulcher
from my remarks awhile ago. If we can persuade them to
correct it by peaceful means, I think we will accomplish
it more economically, more surely and more rapidly.
And overall, that has been our policy.
Now we will, if somebody just insits on
making the heartache, try to accommodate them and we
will ask the attorney general to take them on. In
some cases we have.
One point I think we must consider most
significant is the use of old data throughout the
Federal report. I have earlier mentioned the hazard
of using data which is not carefully developed. It
seems to me that the use of 2, 3, and 4-year-old quality
information in the report upon which this conference is
based leaves much to be desired. I also do not think
that saying the solution to this problem is to summarily
diminish the load 90 or 95 percent will work.
Of course, I think that your actions will
probably bring you on many cheers from Chambers of
Commerce in other areas of Texas, who through the years
have been losing population and industry money to the
Houston area, I think that a great many of them would
-------
460
G, Fulcher
welcome the exodus of a great many people from Houston
into their areas and a great many industries. But I
don't know that I think that that is the best way to
solve it, and it might cause a few chills to go down
the spines of the people building all these new
buildings around here that you see, because if your
recommendations prevail and that is a solution to
this problem, they are not go£ng to be needing a whole
lot of them. I would say that probably a great many
people who have bought homes and have equity money in
them, in the event of such an exodus, are going to have
a great surge of folks coming in who want people to
take up their notes, much less to give them the equity
that they have got.
So, I just think your idea of solution to
this thing is damn poor. We have got to find a
better way. (Applause.) Now I think we had better
address ourselves practically to how we can get onto
it cooperatively and effectively in working together,
rather than hiding behind bushes and jumping out and
throwing a rock or taking a potshot every now and then.
(Laughter.) I think that is also a damn poor way. We
-------
G. Fulcher
461
on this board aren't for it.
Now you have had a good many sampling teams
that worked in this area for the past year, and surely
they must have on hand at least some current information.
Upon consultation, we would be glad to assist every way
we can to update it and bring it up to date.
Now here awhile back, at the request of Mr.
Vanderhoof -- and we welcomed it and were glad to have
it -- our board assigned one of the most able men
that we have and I think one of the best in Texas, or
any other state of the United States, to spend a large
part of his already-stretched time, working with your
Agency on the Houston-Galveston problems — Mr. Joe
Teller — so that we could have better cooperation,
better understanding, and we could get rid of red
tape and delays. Mr. Teller was working directly
under the advice and authorization of this board.
Now I don't know what else better we
could do. Now I do hear from Mr. Teller that he has
some difficulty with the cooperation, because in
reaching a mutual decision, most generally it entails
accepting your folks' recommendation per se, without
-------
G. Fulcher
462
at lea3t a compromise, or every now and then picking up
something we say as might be worthwhile.
Dick Vanderhoof is a fine man. We are glad
to have him in your organization down in Texas. He and
I talk frequently on the phone, and I told Dick the
other day: "Now dammit, I don't see much use in your
people and our people getting up there arguing over
whether it's 000.5 or 000,55 or 4 when it doesn't
make all that difference. Now, for goodness sakes,
you quit acting like kids and our people quit acting
like kids on the schoolground and get together and
work this thing out with some common sense."
I still adhere to the thought and so does
my board that the best interests of the public in this
State and in this Nation, whom we both serve, can be
served and can be attended to better that way, rather
than the procedures which have been filed. I'm sure
that we have not always been perfect ourselves, and
certainly we stand to accept in good faith and in good
consideration suggestions you have. I had hoped, as
I have so often hoped when I talked to Mr. Ruckelshaus,
that we had arrived at that platueau. He would like to
-------
463
G. Fulcher
think that the new data that you people have apparently
found down here would be made available to us for our
use, as we have always made ours available to you.
As a matter of fact, I think I recall a time
or two when Dick called me and said, "Now we don't have
any way without getting a court order to get in these
plants to look at them. I wonder if you would send some
of your folks with us, because you do have that authority
\\
under law, so we can go in and take a look. '
I don't recall any time I have ever refused.
I hope Mr. Yantis and Mr. Teller have never refused to
help in that regard. I would hope that we would be
extended a like courtesy from y'all in exchange of
data and information. I think the best interest of the
people we work for would better be served.
Once again, the spirit of cooperation seems
to be a 1-way street. It ought not to be either yours
or ours.
To secure a total water quality management
program in such an atmosphere is -- at the best -- very
difficult if we are going to work the 1-way street
procedure.
-------
464
G. Fulcher
In brief summary, X feel that while the
Environmental Protection Agency on the one hand is
mouthing cooperation, on the other hand it seeks to
embarrass and distract the very real and very earnest
and very adequate efforts of the State agency to
protect and improve water quality in the Houston-
Galveston area.
From the State's viewpoint there yet might
be a worthwhile result from this conference, if the
Federal Agency wishes to approach the problems here
on the basis of current facts — on the basis of
honesty — on the basis of cooperation in the true
sense between the State and Federal Governments —
and last, but by no means least, on the basis of leaving
political axes to be ground in a more appropriate and
less dangerous environment.
For yet one more time — and on such bases
— the State of Texas is willing to try.
I thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher, for
a very constructive statement.
-------
G. Fulcher
465
Are there any comments or questions before
we go on?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I think we need some
clarification here. However, I want to make one point
first, because I don't want to wait to bring this out
until after the State's full presentation.
Now, concerning the first point you made,
I know that I have certainly in the past been to Texas
on many, many occasions and I have always felt that the
people you have had working in Texas were of the
highest caliber. I have always felt that they had
personal and professional integrity. I certainly don't
think there is any question at all about that. As far
as I am concerned, I don't think there is any question
about the ability of your technical people.
The other point I believe you raised —
and I can understand the State's point of view on this
— is that you are asking, in a sense, what is Texas
accused of? As I read the report, I don't think that
Texas is accused of anything.
What we are here to deal with is the
-------
466
G. Fulcher
discharges of municipalities and industries into the
water which may or may not have caused problems. Texas
isn't discharging these materials; the municipalities
and industries within Texas are. That is what we are
hearing and that is what we must deal with. That is
the question.
Now there are several other points that
I think are pertinent. Since you said, "Look at your
record," I agree we should look at ours.
You raised a question about the economic
impact on Houston. We have had many enforcement actions
and we always take into account economic impact. I
think our records will show that, as a result of these
conferences and our programs, we have not had a
deleterious effect upon the economy in any area of the
country we have been in.
I believe that the whole purpose of the
conference is to work out a compromise between the State
and Federal Government, and I would say this advisedly:
I have never run into a case yet where we were
completely right, nor the State completely right nor
industries and municipalities completely right. Z think
-------
467
G. Fulcher
the most successful programs have been accomplished
only after an amalgamation or fuzing of ideas and then
working together.
One other point: I want to assure you that
our data is available to the State now. We do have a
, problem which you alluded to before referring to that
professor from Wisconsin who writes us a lot of letters
too.
(Laughter.)
The point is that sometimes you get data
you are not sure of and you have to check and recheck
and check again. Data like that is not shared, not
because we don't want to share the data but because
we may not be sure of the data.
In the mercury cases which you mentioned,
we have split samples with industries in the States,
and we never had a problem concerning how much mercury
was coming down. We were all in agreement on the
physical facts.
Now, the last point I want to make before
you complete your statements concerns the shellfish
area closing.
-------
G. Fulcher
468
As I understand the Federal report and
Federal presentation, there were two aspects. One
aspect is that significant areas of the Galveston Bay
area are closed to shellfish harvesting now. If these
closures are caused by source pollution, it could be
subject to abatement under the Federal Act just
because you have closures.
The other point is that the people who
prepared the report may have thought these closures
should be extended or be reevaluated. Now this may
or may not be the case. But the essential thing, it
seems to me, is the statement in the report that some
areas are, in fact, closed and are deemed to be closed
by the action of State officials and the approval of
the Federal authorities.
MR. FULCHER: Well, Mr. Stein, I thank you
for your kind remarks in regard to our staff and for
your explanations. I just hope that this time your
thought and your expressed aspirations carry on up
the line in your organization.
Let me say to you that I don't believe your
people need a buggy whip or a conference with all of the
-------
469
G. Fulcher
questionable data one way or another to get us to move
in this State.
I do sometimes hit a blow now and then in
my own personal business. I can ill afford to work
full-time at $25.00 a day for the State, which I get.
But, generally speaking, I will give you
my card, and if you call my office, either at the
Water Quality Board or at the Texas Star, they will
lay hands on me in 2 or 3 hours, and you don't need
to send out a full scale battalion. Just call me
and I will get them on the line.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher.
Just let me say that I may throw a rock
or two occasionally myself but the way I am built
I scarcely can hide behind a bush. (Laughter.)
MR. FULCHER: Well, I would have to join
you on that. We will just have to get out in the
open. There are not any bushes that big.
MR. QUARLES: I would like to respond,
Mr. Fulcher, to your comments only very briefly at
this time.
I think a little later in the day I would
-------
470
G. Fulcher
like to make a few comments of a more general nature
on the objectives of the Environmental Protection
Agency toward the general subject of enforcement of
pollution laws around the country, and with specific
reference to the situation in the Galveston Bay and
the Houston Ship Channel.
At this time, X would like to repeat the
expression of feeling that Mr. Stein has just made in
welcoming the constructive nature of your comments/
and assuring you that our concern with this problem
is a concern with the pollution problem that exists
here, and it is not a concern with trying to point out
faults with the efforts of those who have been striving
on an overtime basis to find improvements and make
them in the existing condition.
We are here to bring an improvement in those
efforts and to add our forces to those who are already
working on the problems, and I hope that there will be
a very bare minimum of focus on "who hit John" and why
the problem is here, and the maximum focus on how we
can go from where we are to where we want to be in
improving the existing conditions.
-------
471
J. Wheat
So, we welcome your putting the focus on
that part of the picture, and we hope to work together
with you in a manner that you just stated,
MR. PULCHER: Thank you, sir.
Anything else?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Any more comments? (No
response.) Thank you very much.
MR. PULCHERs Thank you, sir.
MR. YANTIS: Mr. Stein, we will continue
with the State presentation.
I am going to take the next speaker out
of order if Mr. Josiah Wheat is ready. I think it
will be all right if Mr. Josiah Wheat addresses the
group at this time.
Is Mr. Wheat here?
MR. WHEAT: Right.
MR. YANTIS: Mr. Josiah Wheat is an
attorney here and is especially interested in this
forum.
He was appointed by the United States, Mr.
Nixon, as a member of the National Water Commission.
He is a Presidential appointee within the State. He
-------
472
J. Wheat
is the immediate Past President of the State Bar of
Texas. He is the Chairman of the Board of the Texas
Water Conservation Association, which is one of the
most effective conservation groups especially on water
conservation within the State. He is a member of the
American Bar Association Special Committee on Environ-
mental Law. He is the President of the Deep East
Texas Development Council. He does have many other
honors, and he has worked in the field of water
resources and water conservation and good government
for many, many years.
So, I introduce to you now, Mr. Josiah
Wheat, speaking I presume not as a member of the
National Water Commission appointed by the President
but in his private capacity.
MR. JOSIAH WHEAT
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
WOODVILLE, TEXAS
MR. WHEAT: Thank you.
After an introduction like that, I feel
indecent remaining in an upright position rather than
laying prone with a lily across my chest. But, thank
-------
J. Wheat
473
you just the same.
Before I comment, I would like to here
publicly, if you please, express the appreciation of
the Texas Water Conservation Association to Congressman
Bob Eckhardt for his assistance in preparing this, and
Mr, Quarles for your very kind consideration accorded
our plan for matching funds known as the Texas Compact,
which was prepared and submitted by the River Authority
Panel of the Texas Water Conservation Association.
Both of these gentlemen we are certainly
indebted to.
After the Chairman's remarks just now, my
purpose for being here is probably redundant, but, I
did ask for time to come here today simply as one
private citizen who has been concerned for more than a
decade with our State's continuing water quality
enhancement efforts.
Unfortunately, I don't have any clients
on the Houston Ship Channel, and 1 don't represent the
Texas Water Quality Board. However, I am one of those
who supported the creation of that board some years ago
and I am familiar with what the board has been doing
-------
474
J. Wheat
and been trying to do in these intervening years.
In recent years I have had the opportunity
in one capacity or another to travel around this
country and see what other States are doing in this
area. t have come to the firm conclusion that the
Texas water quality program is far ahead of any other
State in this Nation and that the experience and
expertise of its staff is second to no State or
Federal Agency in this country.
Certainly, its experience exceeds that of
any such agency, for, in spite of what may have been
said here and elsewhere, the Texas water quality
program has been moving forward and moving effectively.
And I think it is time someone pointed that out.
Unfortunately, there are some persons
with closed minds who enjoy going about the country
and persisting in the statement that the Water Quality
Board is not doing anything.
It becomes sort of the thing to go around
and make that statement, and if it is accompanied by a
mournful rolling of the eyes when the statement is
made, it puts you higher up in that particular group.
-------
475
J. Wheat
These folks will simply not stand still long enough
to learn what is being done through the efforts of the
Texas Water Quality Board. And, also unfortunately,
there are people who should know better who accept
these untrue, unsubstantiated statements without
question and repeat them as gospel. I simply want to
say to you today what I believe everyone who has been
in position to study these matters knows -- that while
our program here in Texas may not be good enough, it
is far superior to any other program anywhere else;
and if you know of any State which is doing more or
doing it better, I hope you will please point it out
to us, and we will see that it is duplicated here in
the State of Texas.
In the meantime, we need your help and your
cooperation in doing the job we started here in Texas
at a time when water quality programs were still just
an idea in most of the rest of the United States.
When we consider such facts as that --
here in texas -- we have required secondary municipal
treatment since the 1920's or 1930 *s .... that we have
had a formal water quality enhancement program in effect
-------
476
J. Wheat
since 1961, and less formal for many more years ....
when we consider all that has been achieved here in
contrast to some of the things that are still going to
be permitted in other parts of the country
when we consider that this hearing and all the attendant
publicity results from our mutual concern over the
discharge of 291-1/2 tons of suspended solids at a time
when 67,000 tons of mine tailings are still being
discharged every day into Lake Superior -- a practice
which never would have been allowed here -- then I
thin;: chat we must conclude that, while the Texas Water
Quality Board may not as yet have been able to do every-
thing we would all desire, it must be doing something
right.
With your help it could do a whole lot more.
Certainly, it seems to me we have no time,
at this late date, for an adversary proceeding between
your Agency and the Texas Water Quality Board. I hope
that, as a result of your visit here, we will see help
forthcoming, together with the joint cooperative effort
which is so essential to the attainment of the common
goal of clean water for all America and that in abundance.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
-------
477
H. Yantis
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Wheat.
MR. YANTIS: According to the agenda today
I will read ray remarks, and then we will have a rather
lengthy series of presentations. I would like to tell
you approximately how the day will go and I do believe
it will take all day.
There will be a statement following mine by
the Texas State Department of Health. Then one by the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and two statements
by engineers from the Texas Water Quality Board. Then
a presentation by the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority,
and a presentation or statement by the Houston-Galveston
Area Council, and a brief statement by Cecil Reid of the
Sportsmen's Club of Texas. There will be fairly lengthy
presentations by something like 20 different industries.
At the conclusion of the day, depending upon what has
been said up to that point, I will make a concluding
statement for the State, and summarize.
I do have one question. How many of you
-- and I would like a show of hands -- before we start
off -- would like to take a 15 minute-or-so coffee
break? Well, since the answer is yes, we will start
-------
478
J. Quarles, jr.
back at 10 minutes to 11:00. That is 20 minutes.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
MR. YANTIS: May we have your attention,
please. I am going to return the Chairmanship back
to Mr. Murray Stein for a moment.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Mr. John Quarles, the General Counsel of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency and
its Assistant Administrator for Enforcement would like
to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Quarles?
MR. JOHN R. QUARLES, JR.
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT
AND GENERAL COUNSEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C.
MR. QUARLES: Thank you, Mr. Stein.
If I may, I would like to talk to this
group of people here in the room today on perhaps a
more general level, to express some of the concerns
of the Environmental Protection Agency, as we look at
-------
479
J. Quarles, Jr.
this problem involving the Houston Ship Channel, and
as we from Washington look at the environmental problems
-- in particular, the water pollution problems that lie
in front of us around the country.
In his comments this morning, Mr. Gordon
Fulcher struck, we felt, a most encouraging attitude
as to the prospect of moving forward to clean up the
pollution that exists here. He also expressed his
concern over the connotations or implications of
criticism which were contained, or may have been
interpreted as being contained, in the report delivered
to this assembly yesterday on behalf of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
I would like to repeat the comments that I
briefly expressed following his statement -- that we are
not here in any sense of finding criticism or finding
fault. We do not -- and I would like to emphasize --
we do not feel that there has been any blanket failure
to function on behalf of the Texas Water Quality Board.
We do not have that feeling toward any
other State's water control agency.
I think to step back from the immediate
-------
480
J. Quarles, Jr.
problem can provide a healthy perspective to us as we
look at this situation. To the extent to which it
concerns us, it is essential for us to keep actively in
the forefront of our findings.
Environmental protection has been in a
state of extreme upsurge during the last year or 18
months. I recall personally just a little less than 2
years ago, when I began working as a representative from
the Department of the Interior on the Task Force trying
to develop the environmental message which President
Nixon sent to Congress in February of 1970, we were
concerned at that time that there might not be a
particularly active reception of that message by the
Congress and by the general public.
The reason for our concern at that time was
that we knew that the President intended to propose
some rather far-reaching programs and other proposals
for environmental protection, and we were not sure that
the country stood ready to receive those proposals.
By the time those proposals in fact were
delivered, there had been such a dramatic shift in the
attitude of the general public and of the Congress that
-------
481
J. Quarles, jr.
we felt at something of a loss to account for our
earlier apprehensions on that subject.
During the past year, it has been
practically impossible to pick up any newspaper, or
any magazine, or to watch the evening television news
without seeing some reference to a subject of
environmental protection.
This has become the hottest issue in
America in domestic concerns in the last year, and
everyone has been fully alerted to the problem, and
a vastly increased number of citizens are actively
trying to do something about it.
Our country is making, or has made, a
decision regarding the subject of environment
protection. The decision is that we must do more.
The details of that decision, the implementation of
that general policy, are something that is now in the
process of being developed and applied. But the
sense of concern, the willingness to make a
commitment, has arisen all of a sudden.
In the course of this rapid arousal of
public concern, the general public, conservationists,
the League of Women Voters, Isaac Walton League; you
-------
J. Quarles, Jr.
name it — all manner of citizen organizations and
individual citizens -- have looked with great alarm
at the conditions which they find to exist in America
today, and they have said, "We must do something
about it. "
The concern which I have, as an individual
out of my own personal background and out of my own
governmental experience, is that there may well be a
loss of effectiveness in trying to achieve the goals
which we are concerned with achieving. This might well
result from an overemphasis on the negative posture of
those who have been in charge.
It is all too easy for citizens who are
themselves newcomers to the problem -- and I too am a
newcomer to the problem -- to point to industry and
say, "You have done nothing, or to point to State
agencies and say, "You have done nothing." The fact
is that many, many industries have recognized the
problems created by the discharges long ago and have
adopted programs which at the time of their adoption
may have represented an extremely high degree of
commitment to protect society against pollution. We
-------
483
J. Quarles , Jr.
lose sight of this foresight and this achievement in
the light of today's increased standards.
Similarly, there is a tendency to look at
the officials of government who have been in charge to
say, "You have defaulted on your responsibility." The
fact is that we live in a democracy, and in a democracy
it is the people's will which sets the general level
of intensity for whatever efforts you are talking
about -- whether they are efforts to cut crime in the
streets, or improve health, the war on cancer, or
environmental protection.
What the general public wants to have
happen will within a general range come to pass, and
I don't believe that anyone fairly can lay the fault
for the neglect of our environmental values anywhere,
other than with society as a whole.
And last of all, should that fault be
directed at those few people who have been in the
State or the Federal programs working for years to
educate other people to the need to take these
problems more seriously which, as a general society,
we have just recently come to fully appreciate?
-------
484
J. Quarles , Jr.
What I am attempting to say is that I personally, and
Bill Ruckelshaus, and all of us at the Environmental
Protection Agency, are not looking at either the State
government or others involved in an accusatory way.
What we are saying is that we want to look now at
where we are, and where we should move from where we
are. And to the many members of the Environmental
Protection Agency who are also in the room, whom I
may not have had a chance to speak with personally, I
would also say that I don't have any fault with your
efforts. But our Agency must also improve and
strengthen its efforts as we move down the road.
I would like to talk briefly about the
Federal goal of the Environmental Protection Agency
in dealing with these problems.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
establishes a pattern of partnership with the Federal
Government and the States in dealing with these
problems. It is not our privilege under that law to
displace State action on these problems. The majority
of manpower presently working on these problems
around the country is in the State government if you
-------
485
J. Quarles , Jr.
compare the State and Federal Governments.
We have a role to play and the State has
a role to play, and we have no thought of trying to
take over the role of the state.
In meeting our own responsibilities for
research, for technical work, or funding, or enforcement,
we have a very big job to do. It is plenty big for
us to do our job without trying to take on the jobs
that other people have to do.
With regard to the Federal-State water
quality standards and other standards that exist,
under Federal law we have a responsibility to take
action to make sure that those standards are enforced.
We intend to discharge our responsibility in a manner
which provides adequate opportunities for others --
State officials, industries, conservationists, the
press, and general public -- to give us the benefit of
their opinion as to how we should discharge our
responsibilities.
In the end, the rule that I think always
applies to any public official is that he must
-------
486
J. Quarles , Jr-
ultimately let his own conscience be his guide and do
what he feels is proper to discharge the responsibilities
which he assumed in taking an oath of office, or other-
wise taking the position that he holds.
The enforcement conference in which we are
now engaged is a mechanism which has been tried and
tested and which has demonstrated, in a wide number of
locations around the country, a very considerable
potential for improving efforts to control water
pollution.
This is the 53d Water Pollution Control
Enforcement Conference held under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
In the other 52 conferences we have a
record of substantial achievement. Wherever the
best progress has been achieved it has resulted from
a very close working relationship between the Federal
officials, State officials, conservationists, industries,
and municipalities.
The problem is too big, too complex, too
filled with technical uncertainties for us to really
achieve the best results if we are devoting a substantial
-------
487
J. Quarles , Jr.
part of our effort to quarreling among ourselves.
All who are concerned must join together, perhaps,
with varying slants on the problem but nonetheless
united, in the ultimate-shared objectives of
cleaning up the water.
In the presentation which was made on
behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency
yesterday, a very large number of statements were
made as to the degraded condition of water in
Galveston Bay and related bays and the Houston Ship
Channel. Some of the details of the data which we
have and the facts which we presented may not be
entirely accurate.
I was asked by Gordon Fulcher and Hugh
Yantis when I came down here -- and we met Sunday
evening to discuss the general situation -- if I would
be kind enough to listen to their presentation, as well
as the Federal presentation, and to keep an open mind.
I gave them ray assurance that I would do that. I hope
that all of you are also approaching the subject with
an open mind in the manner requested initially by the
Chairman, Murray Stein, in his very first opening remarks.
-------
488
J. Quarlesv jr.
We are not clear on all the details.
But I think there is a salient fact that emerges and
which I expect will remain clear when all the dust
settles on this conference. That is, there is a high
degree of pollution in Galveston Bay and the Houston
Ship Channel, and the pollution which exists requires
an increased level of effort to control that pollution
-- more treatment facilities by the municipalities,
more attention to the pollution problems by the
industries, more establishment of requirements of
treatments, and deadlines within which those
requirements are to be met.
Our objective in entering this enforcement
conference is to not engage in a prolonged series of
studies but to develop a plan of action to meet the
problem. I was asked yesterday whether this report
would be just simply another report. I responded that I
doubted very much if this report would be just another
report; that we regarded this report as something which
would trigger a new and increased level of efforts to
curb the pollution that now exists.
-------
439
J. Quarles ( jr.
In approaching the problem today, tomorrow,
over the next weeks, over the next months, perhaps over
the next years, I have asked representatives of the
Environmental Protection Agency to be reasonable, to
be cooperative, to try to see both sides of the
picture if they are committed to one side. I have
confidence that they will proceed in that manner to
a very considerable extent.
In looking at the problems that we have,
I think I have made it clear that when we talk about
establishing a plan of action -- I am not saying that
there has never been a plan of action -- what I am
saying is that in this situation, as in many other
comparable situations around the country, the level
of attention given to these problems, as we look at
the problem now, must be judged as not adequate. We
all must join together to intensify our efforts to
solve these problems and to establish more stringent,
higher levels of treatments.
The concern is often expressed that people
must make a choice between payroll and clean water.
It doesn't come to that sort of a choice. Both can
be obtained. We need electrical power. We need the
-------
490
J. Quarles , Jr.
other products of a strong and vigorous economy, and
this Administration is fully aware of these needs, as
I have pointed out to many industrial representatives.
We are aware of these needs not only in the White
House and the Commerce Department but we are aware of
them in the Environmental Protection Agency.
However, we are also concerned to cut
down on pollution, and both objectives can be achieved
by adequate planning and adequate efforts to achieve
both. There is no reason at all that a much more
vigorous attack on the pollution problems at Galveston
Bay cannot be carried out together with a continued
healthy growth of the businesses located in the
Houston area. And we would certainly bend all of our
efforts toward achieving precisely that result.
The Environmental Protection Agency is an
enforcement agency. The President has so charged it
and the Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, has on
recommendations, enunciated this as our primary mission.
We are in business to achieve results. We
are not going to look at a problem and go away and
leave it. We are interested in each of the efforts
-------
491
J. Qu a r1e s , Jr.
that we undertake and committed to stay with that
problem until visible, acceptable results are achieved
-- whether that takes 1 year, 5 years or a decade.
So, I would assure all in this audience
that we will be in this arena until the conditions
that caused us to come here have been abated. But we
will be in this arena to work in a constructive,
cooperative way not only with the Texas Water Quality
Board but with all of you who are here concerned with
improving our environmental protection, as a means to
approaching a higher quality of life for all of us,
both here locally and also in the country at large.
I hope that that spirit which was so well
expressed by Gordon Fulcher a little earlier and which
I have tried essentially to simply repeat in my
comments, will govern everyone as we continue to work
together on these problems.
Now that ends my comments, but I look
forward, Mr. Yantis, to hearing all that you and your
representatives will present. I am sure that you can
present a great deal that will throw helpful, additional
light on the subject and that through the combined
-------
492
H. C. Yantis
presentations here today. We will get a better picture
of where we stand and be able then to come to some
conclusions as to where we should proceed.
I thank you. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Quarles.
Before turning this back to Mr. Yantis, I
would like to indicate that today we are thinking in
terms of recessing for lunch at 12:00 and reconvening
at 2:00. We are not usually that indulgent. But I
think the pattern and the spirit of the conference is
beginning to emerge, and I hope that all the participants
and other people can get together and possibly use that
time to caucus and rethink their presentations if they
think that is appropriate.
Mr. Yantis, will you go on?
MR. HUGH C. YANTIS, JR.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AUSTIN, TEXAS
MR. YANTIS: Mr. Quarles, I certainly
appreciate your comments.
-------
493
H. C. Yantis
I find myself wishing that with the proper
technical education, you could fill all of the positions
in the EPA. I think we would then have no problems.
(Laughter.)
As much as I appreciate your comments, I
will read my own as they were originally drafted. They
were written with the recognition that there were
problems in the past, and I think they are still
appropriate, though I hope that some comments in it
are now wrong.
Gentlemen: The Chairman of the Texas Water
Quality Board has already -- may I digress? I rarely
read a paper. I prefer to speak as Mr. Quarles, but
we were asked to write them down and I did so. I
think it is duller this way, but that is the rule of
the game. So, if you will bear with me, I will read
it as I wrote it.
The Chairman of the Texas Water Quality
Board -- I would digress at this point and talk about
the Galveston Bay Study, though. You will hear about
it later.
Why on earth would we have spent $1-1/2
-------
494
H. C. Yantis
million if it were not to make a plan of action? If it
is going to cost this much and take this long to make it,
it ought to be worth waiting for and be worth using.
Yet the implication is that we should stop thinking and
start working. That is like building a building without
a foundation.
The Chairman of the Texas Water Quality
Board has already addressed you and has drawn your
attention to certain deficiencies in the cooperation
offered by the Environmental Protection Agency in this
matter to the State of Texas, its agencies, and its
people. There is no need for me to restate the
Chairman's views which are my own. I do, however, feel
most strongly that in introducing the presentation on
behalf of the State of Texas, and especially as I
introduce testimony and evidence on the many accomplish-
ments under the Texas program that I am not addressing
the Chairman of this conference, but rather I am
addressing the people of the Galveston Bay-Houston
Ship Channel area. The Environmental Protection
Agency has had access to knowledge about the
accomplishments under the Texas program. it appears
-------
495
H. C. Yantis
that you have simply chosen to ignore it. The people
of the area, on the other hand, may be hearing for the
first time of these accomplishments and I, therefore,
believe that it is they, not the EPA, who need this
information.
As I read through the black paper, which
you have used as the basis for this hearing* I have
been struck by the fact that the cost of producing
the report is undoubtedly far in excess of the value
of the shellfish which are supposed to be the subject
of this conference. (Laughter.) I note that having
touched lightly upon shellfish that you have then
ranged far afield from matters relating to shellfish,
but this was undoubtedly your intention when the
conference was called.
I again note in reviewing the black paper
that there are many errors of one kind or another in
it, and I do not criticize the report for these
errors. I do, however, strongly call to your attention
that many of these errors, because some of them relate
to information from ray own agency, could have been
noted and corrected had there been a partnership in the
-------
496
H. C. Yantis
preparation of the report.
You are aware, I know, and the public
should be aware, that we have had the report for only
a short time and it has not been possible to scrutinize
every entry or every comment. Necessarily, our
presentation and those of the State agencies, industries
and others who will participate in our presentation do
not make a point-by-point analysis of the report, but
rather we will present to you what the facts and the
values in the matter appear to us to be.
If I could at this time and before the
conference has been concluded make a recommendation,
as you have made recommendations in the report prior
to the conclusion of the conference, it would be that
the conference be adjourned and that your technical
personnel and ours spend the time requisite to a true
evaluation of the facts and all of the values and all
of the accomplishments that are involved in the
matter under discussion.
Nevertheless, we are today holding a
conference, or in other words a public hearing. There
is the implication in the call of this conference by
-------
497
H. C. Yantis
the Federal Government that the facts would otherwise
never be known -- that EPA and the Texas Water Quality
Board would otherwise never communicate and that the
people of Texas would otherwise have no forum in which
to address their governments, be they Federal, State
or local. This, of course, is not the case. Most
strongly, it is not the case. Every action of the
Texas Water Quality Board is taken in public, after
public deliberation, and the records of the Texas Water
Quality Board are public.
Monthly, the members of the Texas Water
Quality Board gather for 2 days in public to take care
of the business of the agency as it concerns them
directly. Any member of the public can address the
Board in person on any subject relating to the work
of the agency, and many persons have taken advantage
of the opportunity. In addition, the attorneys of the
agency, with technical assistance, hold hundreds of
public hearings every year and the people of Texas are
welcome to attend these hearings and to participate
in them.
Even the water quality standards for the
-------
498
n. C. Yantis
Houston Ship Channel, which were attacked yesterday,
were developed after a series of public hearings,
beginning I believe in 1964, before the Federal
Government adopted a similar standards-setting
procedure. We do not claim now, and would not then,
that the standards were above correction and improvement.
But I would not negate these countless hours spent by
many dedicated men and women from many agencies who
devised them.
It is a tragedy to relate that the public
hearing held in Houston in late 1966 or early 1967 to
present the standards finally to the public was
attended by no member of government at the local level.
No elected official nor any employed representative of
any town, district, county or other local government
attended .
I believe only three ladies represented
the general public and none of them would speak until
I went into the audience and took one of them by the
arm and led her to the front of the room. I believe
she is here today and will remember that occasion.
But I digress.
-------
499
H. C. Yantis
How much better would it have been had
the information in the black paper and the evaluations
of it been developed step by step with full participation
by all concerned?
But no. it sprang full grown like Venus
from the brow of Jupiter.
Sunday night as I approached this city by
car I heard a newscast about this meeting. It was on
a tape recorder. Your spokesman reported that the
conference was called as a result of complaints
reaching EPA. I do not recall having discussed
complaints worthy of a conference of this kind with
EPA. I trust they will be made a part of the record.
The actions which this conference will take were also
set forth. This is disturbing as the conference had
not even been held.
In examining the black paper your attention
is drawn to the fact that in January of 1970, the
Department of the Interior, with most of the same facts
or alleged facts at its disposal, determined after an
abortive attempt to attack the State of Texas and its
programs, that there was then no basis for a shellfish
-------
500
H. C. Yantis
enforcement conference relating to the Galveston Bay
system. That report undoubtedly still exists, although
it has never been made available to the State of Texas,
but it is difficult to understand how events could have
changed so markedly as to now require an enforcement
conference. I might also take note of both the good
and the bad in the March 12, 1970, report of the Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board to the Secretary of
the Interior, who represented then the President of
the United States as the Environmental Protection
Agency does now, and it is the same President. In
that report the State was commended at the activiation
of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority and that
Authority will speak to you in a few moments. I mean
the Presidential Advisory Board.
I am glad to report that that paragraph
is obsolete on the basis of the intervention yesterday
of Mr. Quarles.
We have signed some contracts for the
Galveston Bay Study, and I believe we will have a
breakthrough and begin to have that Study proceed more
vigorously.
-------
501
H. C. Yantis
The Board expressed pleasure in its report
on the "aggressive approach to attainment of the goals
of clean water for Texas, and for Galveston Bay, an
incomparable national asset which must be restored
and preserved."
The Federal Board stated that it was
"impressed with the sincerity of the concern about
absolute necessity for water improvements, expressed
by State and local officials and by individual citizens
and industrial leaders."
As this hearing is intended to concern
itself with shellfish, I quote here an entire paragraph:
"The (Federal) Board is concerned with possible
extension of pollution of the oyster beds in Galveston
Bay with the consequent danger to health and loss of
income to the shellfish industry. Efforts to obtain
information on any recent closing of oyster beds due
to pollution evoked testimony that approved areas have
been expanded. Fifty percent of 250 square miles in
Galveston Bay is now closed to shellfish harvesting.
Upper Trinity Bay was reported as having always been
closed to oystering due to pollution from land runoff.
-------
502
H. C. Yantis
There are no oyster beds in this areaf which has
traditionally been heavily silted."
The report continues with the comment:
"Of the 5,681 acres of oyster reef contained in the
bay, 842 acres are permanently closed to the harvest
of shellfish because of pollution, 313 acres are
classified as conditionally approved. In addition,
there are over 2,000 acres of private oyster leases
on state land for oyster beds, and many oysters have
been moved from the polluted areas to these, under
State supervision.
"It is important that Trinity Bay be
cleaned up to insure future oyster and fisheries
development."
It is humorous to note that out of this
report Resolution No. 3 relating to the Federal
Government's delay in funding its share of the
Galveston Bay Study finds us still seeking to obtain
these funds, even though there is now a contract
between the State and the Federal Government by which
the funds should be released.
I will not quote further from the report of
-------
503
H. C. Yantis
the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board. I have
already asked Mr. Joe Wheat to make his remarks, so
I will skip this portion. There will then be a
representative of the Texas State Department of
Health. I do not believe they wish to speak, but
they are here and X think you should know the Governor
of Texas is as interested in this hearing as
anyone else.
The Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
will address you after the State agencies from
Austin have reported.
Mr. Jim Quigley is in the audience and
is now a person in private enterprise. He was then
the Commissioner of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration who helped bring about, jointly between
the Legislature and Governor John Connally, the creation
of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority.
There will then be a presentation by the
Chamber of Commerce, and under Mr. Quarles* leadership,
as I say, I believe we have it made now*
Following the Chamber of Commerce, those
industries that have been specifically named in the
-------
504
H. C. Yantis
report as major contributors to pollution to the
system have been invited by the Texas Water Quality
Board to present their views and their information.
As I introduce the Texas presentation,
please keep in mind that the Texas Water Pollution
Control Board was organized in 1961, almost exactly
10 years ago. There had, however, been for a number
of years within the various agencies of the State,
and in many cases within local governments, as here
in Harris County, effective programs in the field
of waste treatment and water pollution control. For
10 years, the State of Texas has used waste control
orders or permits as an effective tool for the control
of pollution.
Up until the past several months, the
Federal Government decried the use of a permit system
for the control of waste discharges, but now at long
last has learned what the State of Texas has known for
10 years -- that an individually issued permit system is
an effective tool in water pollution control
administration.
In 1965 — actually, we began in 1964 —
-------
505
H. C. Yantis
the State of Texas began setting water quality standards
for the streams of the State before the Federal
Government began its activity in this field. We began,
I might add, with the Houston Ship Channel.
We began nearly 4 years ago a Galveston Bay
Study because we recognized the deficiencies in our
knowledge of the system. The Federal Government has
not yet significantly funded this study, although we
continue to hope that it will.
Yet you now, through the black paper,
comment on the need for more knowledge about the
system. Also in almost every session of the Legislature
since 1961, there has been an improvement in the various
statutes under which the Water Quality Board, to use
its new name, carries out its functions. The black
paper hardly takes note of this fact.
Now, please listen carefully to the
following figures. The first appropriation to the Water
Quality Board for the year ending August 31, 1968, was
a little over $1 million to which was added $2 million
for regional planning studies. Remember, we became a
separate agency September 1, 1967, with no employees
-------
506
H. C. Yantis
and no budget, and, only about $200,000 of this
appropriation came from Federal funds. Yet there was
comment about the Texas deficiency about which we will
speak later.
For the year ending August 31, 1969, the
appropriation was a little over $1,750,000 with only
$400,000 coming from Federal sources. For the year
ending August 31, 1970, the appropriation was a little
over $2.1 million and the amount for the year ending
August 31, 1971, was slightly larger, with only $400,000
each year coming from Federal sources. We are right now
at about a $2 million a year level.
We are just beginning a new bienniura, or
we will on September 1, 1971. The appropriation for
these years with the Federal funds estimated to continue
at about $400,000 each year is about $4.5 million each
year. That is for program only and has nothing to do
with the building of new sewage treatment plants. Our
appropriations will be $4.5 million each year. That is
more than double. You cannot, in the face of these
appropriations by the Legislature of the State of Texas,
fail to acknowledge that this State is working very hard
-------
507
H. C. Yantis
to meet its responsibility in the field of water
quality not only in the Galveston Bay area but through-
out all of the State.
Now, the first presentation -- and I had
planned that Mr. Teller would make these introductions,
but he prefers that we do so.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
MR. YANTIS: We will have to break at
12:00, as was announced, even if this presentation is
not finished. But there are so many to be heard I don't
believe we can afford to break early.
From the Texas State Department of Health,
which provides one member of the Texas Water Quality
Board -- and I might say here that there was a comment
yesterday about the membership of the Texas Water
Quality Board and the comment was totally in error --
the board is not organized as you were told. It never
has been.
The Texas Water Quality Board has 4 members
who are representatives of State agencies. One State
agency is the Commissioner of Health. That is the State
-------
508
Dr. D. Johnson
Health Department. Then there are the Parks and
Wildlife Department, the Texas Water Conservation Board
and the Railroad Commission. There are 3 members
appointed by the Governor to represent the general public.
The State Health Department has a member
of the Texas Water Quality Board in the person of Dr.
Dudley Johnson, who will make a statement in the
general field of shellfish sanitation.
Following Dr. Johnson, Dr. Carl
Oppenheimer of the Texas Institute of Marine Sciences
will make a presentation related rather closely to
the Texas Department of Public Health.
Dr. Dudley Johnson.
DR. DUDLEY JOHNSON
DIRECTOR OF THE MARINE RESOURCES
TEXAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AUSTIN, TEXAS
DR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, conferees,
ladies and gentlemen. I am Dudley Johnson, Director
of the Marine Resources, Texas State Department of Health.
[Bar. Johnson's statement in its entirety
follows.]
-------
509
ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
ON POLLUTION AFFECTING SHELLFISH HARVESTING
GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS
COMMENTS BY
DUDLEY J. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR MARINE RESOURCES
TEXAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
In Texas, the State Department of Health
is the agency responsible for the classification of
oyster producing waters. This classification is
done in accordance with the requirements of the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program and should not
be considered a water quality control program, as was
pointed out yesterday. We were sonewhat surprised
to note that the Environmental Protection Agency's
Report devotes a great deal of space to criticizing
the oyster water classifications assigned to Galveston
Bay by the Texas State Department of Health. In fact
it states that if sampling were regularly conducted
under the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution
conditions, nearly all of Galveston Bay would be closed
to shellfish harvesting due to excessive bacterial
pollution. We cannot agree with this conclusion. The
Texas State Department of Health data indicates that
the present classification of Galveston Bay is, in
fact, correct.
-------
510
As we studied the report it became apparent
that the sampling data used by the Environmental
Protection Agency to develop their criticism was not
the same data that is used by the agencies responsible
for the classification. The lack of understanding of
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program and the Texas
program in particular is perhaps responsible for what
appears to be an unjustified criticism of a program
that is not engaged in water pollution abatement
control activities.
The Texas State Department of Health has
participated in the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program for many years. In 1965, the Texas Legislature
passed the Texas Shellfish Sanitation Law which
strengthened the Texas program and specifically gives
the Texas Commissioner of Health the responsibility of
classifying Texas waters as to their suitability to
produce safe, edible shellfish. Due to the terminology
of this law those waters that are found unsuitable for
the harvesting of safe shellfish must be classified as
polluted. The use of this term for classification
purposes means, an area which is continuously or
intermittently subject to the discharge of sewage
-------
511
or other wastes, or to the presence of coliform
organisms in quantities likely to indicate that
shellfish taken therefrom are unfit for human
consumption. Let's be more specific, the use of this
term by the Texas State Department of Health does not
necessarily mean that waters so classified are not
satisfactory for other purposes. It is not the
Department's function to classify for other purposes,
only to apply the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
standards to the shellfish producing waters of the
State and to indicate whether or not they comply with
the standards.
In order to establish a better picture as
to the status of the Texas Shellfish Program, we point
out the following facts:
Texas has participated in the National
Program for many years and we have never had a case of
disease traceable to the consumption of Texas oysters
taken from the approved harvesting areas.
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program
is a rather unique program in that it involves three
groups:
The State's program consists of the
-------
512
necessity to provide laws and regulations for sanitary
control of shellfish industry; the making of sanitary
and bacteriological surveys of growing areas;
responsibility for inspecting processing plants; and
issuing numbered certificates to shellfish dealers
who comply with sanitary standards.
The Federal program deals with the
responsibility to make annual review of State's control
program; responsibility to endorse or withhold
endorsement of the State's programs; and the
endorsement allows the sale of shellfish into interstate
commerce.
The third portion of the responsibility is
that of the shellfish industry. It cooperates in
obtaining shellfish from approved harvesting areas; it
provides plants that meet standards and it provides
proper labeling of each package of shellfish with the
certification number and other necessary data.
One of the very important points is that
all State Shellfish Programs are annually evaluated by
an Agency of the Federal Government — The Department
of Health, Education and Welfare -- is the responsible
Agency, and conducts regular evaluations through its
-------
513
Pood and Drug Administration. The classification of
shellfish growing waters seems to us to be clearly a
public health matter, not one of water quality control.
In order for a state to qualify to sell
its oysters in interstate commerce it must receive
an evaluation of at least 80. The Texas program has
received overall grades in excess of this figure and
an examination of the grades for the past 6 or 7 years
indicates a very good program. As far as we can
determine Texas has never experienced any difficulty
in marketing shellfish in interstate commerce. Our
program complies with the National Standards and this
is reflected by the fact that our product is readily
accepted throughout the United States.
The Texas State Department of Health feels
that in order to properly evaluate our shellfish
producing areas, it is necessary to have specific
knowledge of the area and considerable data covering
a period of time sufficient to represent all kinds of
conditions. It is obvious that data selected for
short periods of time for limited areas can hardly show
a complete picture. The sampling data collected by the
Texas State Department of Health covers a period of time
-------
514
from 1963 to date and is from some 83 sampling stations,
the location of the stations were established for the
sole purpose of furnishing the best possible public
health information as it relates to shellfish. In order
to obtain this information, it has been necessary to
maintain a full-time sampling crew in the area and to
make more or less continuous surveys.
I will not bore you at this time with an
in-depth discussion of the technical aspects of the
classification of Galveston Bay. I would like to point
out that this is a complex subject and would perhaps
best be pursued in an atmosphere more conducive to the
study of technical data. Our information is available
at any time to qualified persons and, of course, has
been examined regularly by representatives of the
Pood and Drug Administration. As far as we can
determine the Environmental Protection Agency
apparently has not availed themselves of this
opportunity. We welcome the input of all qualified
agencies and individuals that can contribute useful
information bearing on the classification of Texas
waters. In fact, in addition to the data collected
by our staff, we review data collected by many other
-------
515
agencies such as the Parks and Wildlife Department,
Texas Water Quality Board, The Marine Institute of the
University of Texas, the Water Hygiene Laboratory of
Dauphin Island, Alabama and many others.
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program's
Bacteriological Standards for growing waters are: For
approved growing areas: Coliform median MPN of the
water does not exceed 70 per 100 milliliters, and not
more than 10 percent of the samples ordinarily exceed
an MPN of 230 per 100 milliliters for a 5-tube decimal
dilution test. (These limits need not be applied if
it can be shown by detailed study that the coliforms
are not of direct fecal origin and do not indicate a
public health hazard.)
[Slide presented.]
Conditionally approved growing areas:
Same as approved (quality of area may be affected
sporadically.)
Thirdly, market shellfish at wholesale
level: "Fecal coliform density of not more than 230
MPN per 100 grams and a plate count of not more than
500,000 per gram will be accepted without question."
Apparently EPA has applied these standards
-------
516
to bacteriological data gathered by the Galveston Bay
Study and only then for a short selected period of time
(December 1968 to April 1969 and December 1969 to April
1970) .
The Galveston Bay Study is a well-designed
program which will, I feel, furnish information that
will be useful in the pollution abatement program now
being conducted by the Texas Hater Quality Board.
However, this study was not designed to gather informa-
tion for shellfish growing area classification. For
instance, sampling stations used by this study which
are in or adjacent to the present approved shellfish
harvesting area are only 11 in number. While the
Texas State Department of Health classification
sampling stations are 40 in number for the same area.
Collection, handling and storage techniques
are vitally important when sampling for classification
purposes. You must take extreme care not to contaminate
the sample during collection or prior to delivery to
the laboratory. Obviously, all samples must be
properly refrigerated and analysis procedures started
as soon after collection as possible* The Health
Department sampling crew follows a rigid set of
-------
517
instructions in this regard. The utmost care is taken
during collection. All samples are immediately
refrigerated and there is very little lapsed time
between collection and preparation for analysis,
approximately six hours being the maximum. It is
important to have as much information as possible
about the quality of water lying over the producing
reefs. As an indication of trends, flood conditions,
pollution transportation time, and bacteriological
die off, sampling stations in the unapproved or
polluted areas are also important. But the important
factor is how good is the wttter from which we take
our oysters. This can be indicated by bacteriological
water samples but perhaps the best indicator would be
the quality of the oysters themselves.
If the Texas State Department of Health is
to make oyster water classifications, we feel we must
rely on our data. As I have said before we are not
in the pollution abatement business. Our major
responsibility is in the public health aspects of the
oyster growing areas and of the oysters consumed
by the public.
[Slide presented.]
-------
518
In Exhibit 7, you will note that the
approved area is separated from the points of dense
population by a closed area or buffer zone. It is
also interesting to note that from the Houston Ship
Channel Turning Basin to the nearest point of approved
oyster harvesting area is 30-plus miles.
[Slide presented.]
To illustrate our point we have prepared
an exhibit which we feel will show that the classifi-
cations based on Texas State Department of Health data
is correct.
Exhibit 8A illustrates by the means of
dots bacteriological sampling stations which meet all
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program standards.
As you can see, these stations which represent
satisfactory oyster harvesting water are numerous
and are located in both the approved and the
unapproved areas.
[Slide presented.)
Exhibit 8B indicates, in addition to
satisfactory stations, those that exceed the 10 percent
rule of standards. This means that the stations
represented by the green dots had coliform medians
-------
519
of less than 70 per 100 milliliters (which is acceptable)
but that 10 percent of the samples from these stations
exceeded a bacteriological density of 230 coliform per
100 milliliters. As you can see, these are pretty much
scattered throughout the area you would expect to
find them in.
[Slide presented.]
Exhibit 8C shows in red dots the location
of sampling stations that exceed both the median
coliform criteria and the 10 percent rule exceeding
230/100 milliliters rule. These stations are located
about where you would expect them to be, we feel.
We feel that these exhibits prove our
point that the bay has indeed been classified correctly.
There can be no better evidence as to the proper
classification than the fact that the oysters harvested
from the reefs and analyzed for bacteriological content
have all been well within the standards set by the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program for market
oysters. As you can see from Exhibits 9 and 10 all
samples are well within the prescribed limits.
The red J.ine represents the maximum limits available.
It is nlso interesting to
-------
520
note that during a period in February and March of 1969
when the bay was closed to the harvesting of oysters
due to a short but violent storm, the oyster meat
samples analyzed during this period were well within
the accepted standards.
Much comment has been made by the
Environmental Protection Agency concerning the weather
and hydrographic conditions at the time samples were
collected. Again I would like to point out that
apparently these conclusions were arrived at when they
examined data other than that used by the Texas
Department of Health. Our data has been collected
under all kinds of conditions and on a 12—month basis.
The Environmental Protection Agency's
report makes the comment that the most unfavorable
hydrographic conditions exist with northerly and
northwesterly winds during or following periods of
precipitation. This is a general conclusion that is
not confirmed by the data available to our program.
There is no general rule as to the most unfavorable
hydrographic conditions that will apply to all areas
of Galveston Bay all of the time. The most unfavorable
hydrographic conditions will vary from area to area.
-------
521
Our analysis of the bacteriological data gathered by
the Galveston Bay Study, and that is not our data, it
is their data, reveals that only 50 percent of the
stations in the approved oyster harvesting areas attain
their highest median coliform content during northerly
or northwesterly wind conditions. The remaining 50
percent attain their highest coliform medians when wind
conditions vary from westerly, southerly to easterly
directions. If we were to follow the EPA sampling only
during northerly and northwesterly winds, we would not #
receive a true picture of the conditions as they really
exist over the oyster beds. There can be little argument
with the fact that precipitation and runoff in an area,
whether populated or not, will cause an increase in the
bacterial count in the receiving estuary. The analysis
of such data and the evaluation of its sanitary
significance is a rather difficult task which would best
be discussed at a meeting of individuals who are
knowledgeable in the field of shellfish sanitation.
of course, the bacteriological quality of
oyster harvesting waters is important but there are
other important considerations, such as heavy metals,
pesticides, radionuclides and toxins. When discussing
-------
522
heavy metals the one that comes to mind first these
days is, of course, mercury. You will note the mercury
densities found in Galveston Bay oysters are all very
low. The red line represents the Federal Food and Drug
Administration tolerance level. Anything below that
line is acceptable. You will note the examples from
Todd's Dump are very low. The same holds true for
Redfish Reef which I would like to point out is a
reference that is located in the unapproved area and
considerably closer to Morgan Point than Todd's Dump.
This is a gas pipe reference located in the approved
area. You will notice the density for mercury in
oyster meats taken from this reef and they were well
within the accepted limits.
This Chocolate Bay is an unapproved area
which may be affected by industrial problems. You will
notice that mercury content here is exceedingly low.
[Slide presented.]
The same holds true for Halls Lake, so,
we are very proud of the fact that the mercury density
we have found in the oyster meats in Galveston Bay are
very low and well within the tolerance levels established
by the Federal Food and Drug Administration. There are
-------
523
many other heavy metals that are of interest Perhaps
the best way to show the relationship of these meta"
to Galveston Bay oysters is to show the data reported by
the EPA as we have done in this exhibit. When looking
at this data we feel it is important to compare it to
other regional averages, so we added a couple of columns.
tSlide presented.]
The gold colored dots represent the highest
found in these particular stations as compared to the
southern and eastern average contents.
The 39.70 as to 330 in the southern and
1428.0 in the eastern.
They pretty much speak for themselves. It
is a little hard for me to read them from here (indicating)
but, you will notice that when compared to both the
southern and eastern averages, we seem to be in very
good shape.
As you know, there have been no tolerance
limits set for heavy metals with the exception of
mercury as far as I know, therefore, we have tried to
keep a close surveillance on their presence in Texas
oysters as compared to the southern and eastern
averages as reported to us by the Food and Drug
Administration.
-------
524
The Texas State Department of Health has
also examined the data available to us on pesticides.
Here the data which is shown in Exhibit 17 was taken
from analysis reports issued by the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries Laboratory at Gulf Breeze, Florida. As you
can see, this exhibit shows the minimum amounts of DDT,
DDE, DDD and cfleldrin to have been nondetectable. As
you realize, analytical techniques and procedures are
continually being improved and very few people, therefore,
are willing to report a eero level. However, when you
examine the levels shown here, you immediately see
that we are speaking of very low residuals. In DDT,
the maximum was .013; DDE, the maximum was .024; DDD,
.074 parts per million and dieldrin, .030 parts per
million. The median part per million was extremely
low, and then, the minimum was reported as None
Detectable.
The Texas State Department of Health will
not address itself directly to the question of economic
loss due to oysters that may be outside the approved
area. It would seem from the tone and approach of
the Environmental Protection Agency's Report that its
objective is to prove economic loss by forcing the
-------
525
closure of the entire bay even if the present approved
areas have been accepted by the responsible public
health agency, the Federal Pood and Drug Administration,
as being satisfactory to produce safe, edible shellfish.
Our responsibility does not include the economics of
the shellfish industry but only the necessity to classify
the waters as to their ability to produce safe and
edible shellfish. This we have done.
We will not engage in a discussion here as
to taste and odor tests and their meaning. It is
sufficient to say that taste and odor is largely an
individual opinion. We think it is significant that
with the sale of Texas oysters running from 3 to 5
million pounds per year, 90 percent or more of which
are taken from Galveston Bay, that we have not received
any consumer complaints concerning Galveston Bay oysters,
or, for that matter, any oysters produced in Texas. In
this regard it is probably significant that with the
exception of the relatively small number of oysters used
by the half-shell trade, all oysters are shucked then
washed with potable water prior to packaging. This is
the accepted procedure used in all oyster producing
States. If there was noticeable taste and odor either
-------
526
before or after packaging, I feel that our office would
at least have received a few inquiries concerning them.
We have had none in the past several years.
Great emphasis has been placed upon the
presence of oils and hydrocarbons in oysters. This is
a subject that we have investigated in an effort to
find supporting data for the Environmental Protection
Agency's position that oil and hydrocarbon densities
in Galveston Bay shellfish constitute a health hazard.
We have found no cases of illness that can be traced to
this source. Nor have we found any conclusive evidence
in the literature that would support this position.
This is a matter of grave importance. Therefore, we
were delighted to hear that the Food and Drug
Administration had recently investigated this matter.
It is our understanding that the Food and Drug
Administration analyzed samples collected from the
points shown in Exhibit 18. You will notice it pretty
well blankets the oyster harvesting areas and also
covers several areas in the unapproved areas. Many of
these stations duplicate locations from which
Environmental Protection Agency also collected oyster
meat samples for analysis. We will not attempt to
-------
527
engage in a technical discussion on this subject. We
would point out, however, that according to the testimony
offered by the Food and Drug Administration report
earlier in these proceedings that the presence of oil
and hydrocarbon densities in Galveston Bay oysters
does not constitute a health hazard at this time. This
is a conclusion from the Federal Agency responsible for
the protection of the food we eat and, of course, one
in which the Texas State Department of Health concurs.
In conclusion, let the record show that the
Texas State Department of Health is very interested
in the improvement of our natural environment. The
department's interest is not a new one but one that
goes back many years as can be shown by its efforts
over several decades to encourage the installation of
adequate wastewater treatment facilities throughout
the State.
While the department is extremely interested
in the improvement of water quality throughout Texas,
its major responsibility is not pollution abatement
but the protection of public health. In this regard our
responsibility includes the classification of the
shellfish growing waters as to their ability to produce
-------
528
safe, edible shellfish. The Texas State Department of
Health has discharged this responsibility in accordance
with the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Standards
and we feel have proven that:
1. The classification of the Galveston Bay
shellfish growing waters is correct, as conclusively
shown by the fact that no illness has ever been traced
to the consumption of shellfish taken from the approved
harvesting areas of Texas.
2. That Recommendation No. 1 of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Report has, in fact,
already been complied with. It has been proven that
the Texas Shellfish Sanitation Program is in compliance
with the National Standards and that there is no
conclusive evidence that a health hazard exists as far
as the consumption of shellfish from the approved
harvesting areas of Galveston Bay is concerned.
3. Recommendation No. 2 of the EPA report
has in fact already been complied with. Evidence of
this is found in the Food and Drug Administration's
Evaluation regularly assigned to the Texas Shellfish
Program. At this point, I would like to point out that
as we have mentioned before, our classification data is
-------
529
available not only to the PDA representatives, but
to all responsible individuals and agencies who may
be interested.
4. The Environmental Protection Agency's
recommendation No. 8 is being regularly carried out
through the National Shellfish Sanitation Workshop
organized by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
under the direction of the Federal Food and Drug
Administration. Under this procedure standards are
reevaluated at regular intervals and the necessary
changes incorporated into the National Shellfish Program.
Texas has followed the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program guidelines for many years and as a
result has had no epidemic outbreaks, or for that
matter no reported illnesses that could be traced
directly to the consumption of shellfish taken from
approved harvesting areas.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STEINs Thank you, Dr. Johnson.
(Applause.)
With that, we will stand recessed for lunch
until 2:00 o'clock.
[The above-mentioned documents follow.!
(Whereupon, the conference recessed.)
-------
EXHIBIT 1
NATIONAL SHELLFISH PROGRAM
1. State Procedures and Responsibilities
a. Provide laws and regulations for sanitary
control of shellfish industry.
b. Make sanitary and bacteriological surveys
of growing areas.
c. Inspect plants.
d. Issue numbered certificates to shellfish
dealers who comply with sanitary standards.
-------
EXHIBIT 2
2. Federal Food and Drug Administration Procedures
and Responsibilities
1. Make annual review of State's control program.
2. Endorse or withhold endorsement of State program.
3. Endorsement allows sale of shellfish into interstate
commerce.
ui
LO
M
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Shellfish Industry Procedures and Responsibilities
1. Cooperates in obtaining shellfish from approved
harvesting areas.
2. Provides plants that meet standards.
3. Properly labeling each package of shellfish with
certificate number and other necessary data.
u>
NJ
-------
EXHIBIT 4
ANNUAL EVALUATION OF TEXAS SHELLFISH PROGRAM
By F.D.A.- P.H.S.
SHELLFISH OVERALL RATING OF
YEAR TEXAS PROGRAM
1969-1970 95.7%
1968-1969 96.0%
1967-1968 93.6%
1966-1967 94.1%
1965-1966 94.2%
1964-1965 91.0%
1963-1964 89.8%
U1
u>
u>
-------
EXHIBIT 5
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM
BACTERIOLOGICAL STANDARDS
1. Approved Growing Areas
a. Coliform median MPN of the water does not exceed
70 per 100 ml., and not more than 10 percent of
the samples ordinarily exceed an MPN of 230 per
100 ml. for a 5-tube decimal dilution test. (These
limits need not be applied if it can be shown by
detailed study that the coliforms are not of direct
fecal origin and do not indicate a public health
hazard).
-------
EXHIBIT 6
2. Conditionally Approved Growing Areas
a. Same as approved (Quality of area may be affected
sporadically).
3. Market Shellfish at Wholesale Level
a. "Fecal coliform density of not more than
230 MPN per 100 grams and a plate count
of not more than 500,000 per gram will be
acceptable without question.11
ui
u>
U":
-------
EXHIBIT 7
OYSTER REEF LOCATIONS
GALVESTON BAY
LA PORTE
BAYTOWN
ANAHUAC
EAGLE POINT
DICKINSON
SMITH POINT
V
TEXAS
CITY
BOLIVAR
enTKs
GALVESTON ISLAN
GALVESTON
Ui
LO
a\
-------
MEETS REQUIREMENTS
EXCEEDS 10% RULE
EXCEEDS MEDIAN & 10% RIJLE
KEMAH
LA PORTE
BAYTOWN
EXHIBIT 8A
EAGLE POINT
DICKINS
B
SMITH POINT
ROBINSON
BAYOU
BOLIVAR
GALVESTON ISLAN
GALVESTON
LT
U>
-------
EXHIBIT 8B
MEETS REQUIREMENTS
EXCEEDS 10% RULE
EXCEEDS MEDIAN & 10% R
KEMAH
BAYTOWN
LA PORTE
ANAHUAC
EAGLE POINT
DICKINSON
SMITH POINT
TEXAS
CITY
PENINSU
ESTON ISLAN
GALVESTON
Ui
lj
CO
-------
EXHIBIT 8C
MEETS REQUIREMENTS
EXCEEDS 10% RULE
LA PORTE
BAYTOWN
EXCEEDS MEDIAN & 10* RULE
KEMAH
EAGLE POINT
DICKINS
B
SMITH POINT
TEXAS
CITY
BOLIVAR
inSu
GALVESTON ISLAND
GALVESTON
U\
GJ
-------
540
Fecal Coliform /100 gms.
o s § i S
9-23-68
11-4-68
^ -H
11-13-68
5? o
11-13-68
^ s
O}
oo e
2-9-70
HI
¦1
—
A
(/>
2-9-70
12-8-70
-------
E
1DJ0
180
120
CO
u
O)
60
0
REDFISH REEF
Oyster Reef Samples
-------
542
Mg/Kg
8-68
7-69
5-12
5-26
6-23
7-21
8-24
2.-
o
3
CD
VJ1
CO
00
CD
I
x
CO
-------
EXHIBIT 13
Mercury in Oysters-1970
GAS PIPE REEF
c\i vo m i—i
r-l CVJ CsJ CVI CVJ
I I I I I
ltv lpv o oo
-------
EXHIBIT m
LO
Mercury in Oysters-1970
1
.5
CHOCOLATE BAY
0
NontFound
I I
I I
«-h rri
I
-------
EXHIBIT 15
. Mercury in Oysters-1970
.5
0
HALLS LAKE
-------
METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN OYSTERS FROM GALVESTON BAY1
NOVEMBER 12, I970 EXHIBIT 16
(MICROGRAMS PER GRAM - WET WEIGHT)
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Av. Content
Parameter
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
NOo 4a
No. 5
No. 6
No. 7
Southern2
Eastern3
Zinc
35.30
39.70
20.46
26.12
21.58
20.26
22.87
330
1428.0
Copper
8.24
9.52
5.06
4.79
4.13
7.80
5.23
17.0
91.5
Cadmium
.41
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.95
3.1
Lead
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
1.2
.47
Chromium
.07
.07
.26
.07
.27
.42
.16
.35
.40
Mercury
.008
.062
.028
.040
.030
.045
.007
Arsenic
.30
.30
.30
.30
.47
.30
.30
Boron
.87
1.65
.66
.58
.78
.38
.76
Phosphorus
270
258
102
225
185
102
196
67.0
Iron
14.71
12.30
4.63
7.34
5.55
5.93
13.10
Molybdenum
.47
1.32
1.51
1.57
1.01
.99
.29
4.3
Manganese
1.18
.67
.36
.70
.47
.50
.83
Aluminum
21.77
17.84
8.51
13.50
12.33
16.51
25.10
Beryllium
.0015
.0015
.0015
.0015
.0015
.0015
.0015
Silver
.25
.015
015
.015
.015
.015
.11
Nickel
.24
.75
.15
.37
.15
.15
.25
.19
Cobalt
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.10
Vanadium
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
Barium
.20
.03
.04
.15
.07
.06
.15
Strontium
1.53
1.65
1.72
1.80
5.92
3.45
2.40
1 Taken from EPA report on pollution affecting shellfish harvesting in Galveston Bay, Texas.
2 Data from FDA
3Data from Pringle & Shuster "Guide to Trace Metal Levels In Shellfish"
-------
PESTICIDE RESIDUE IN OYSTER MEATS
TODDS DUMP 1965-1971
(51 Samples)
DDT
DDE
DDD
DIELDRIN
Maximum (ppm)
.013
o 024
.064
.030
Median (ppm)
ND*
trace
.029
trace
Minimum (ppm)
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND* - None Detectable
-------
$fSTFR REEF LOCATIONS
¦ALVESTON BAY
EXHIBIT 18
LA PORTE
BAYTOWN
ANAHUAC
EAGLE POINT
DICKINSON
SMITH POINT
ROBINSON
BAYOU
BOLIVAR
GALVESTON
SAMPLE COLLECTION POINT a WESTON
lh
4*
CO
-------
549
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
CHAIRMAN STEIN: May we reconvene?
MR. YANTIS: Dr. Carl Oppenheimer is the
Director of the University of Texas, Institute of
Marine Sciences, at Port Aransas, Texas. He has just
returned to Texas after having been in other states
-- I believe Florida, for a number of years. Dr.
Oppenheimer?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Do you have a prepared
statement, sir? Do you want to give a copy to the
reporter?
DR. CARL OPPENHEIMER
INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
PORT ARANSAS, TEXAS
DR. OPPENHEIMER: Thank you for the
opportunity to speak before you this afternoon.
I must apologize to those who have a copy
of the prepared statement. I did it in such a rush
yesterday that I didn't have time to proofread until
I came up this morning and noticed a few mistakes. This
will be corrected for the record.
-------
550
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
However, I know that I am not the only
one responsible for a couple of mistakes. Because in
reading the little black book, which I had a copy of
this morning, I also found that a somewhat similar
mistake was made in editing, especially on Page 43
where it indicates that the West Falmouth Harbor in
Massachusetts, because it had shellfish hydrocarbon
contents from 4 to 12 ppm -- it should have been parts
per 100,000 or 40 to 120 ppm, based on Max Blumer's
paper. This, of course, brings up rather interesting
aspects regarding hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons have been bandied about
lately for some popular pressure reason I guess,
without the people taking serious consideration on
how hydrocarbons evolve.
Hydrocarbons were made by living organisms,
and if you go through the tremendous amount of
literature that is amassed since 1930, when the
techniques became available for hydrocarbon analyses
and more specific molecules, you will find all living
systems have hydrocarbons about the same range that
were found in the oysters that resulted in the closure
-------
551
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
of West Falmouth. That is, from 100 to 150 to 200
ppm. And, in fact, some organisms have up to 1 percent
their dry weight as hydrocarbon material.
If you look at the structure of the
hydrocarbon, you will find another rather fascinating
thing that has occurred during the past. That is, there
are two major groups of hydrocarbons. We will call
these the straight chain hydrocarbons, or the normal
paraffinic hydrocarbons.
They are just a string of carbon atoms
fairly lengthy. They range from, methane-wise, 1
carbon up to 32 and 34 carbon numbers per molecule.
Then there is another group of ring
structures called aromatics like benzene and toluene
and so on. These materials also range in about the
same number of carbon atoms except they are much more
complex.
Those people who are doing analytical
procedures find the straight chain hydrocarbons are
very easy to analyze whereas the ring ones are
extremely difficult.
So, the literature has very little
-------
552
Dr. C. 0£>£>enheimer
information about the ring-type hydrocarbons. But,
one can make certain analyses if you look at the total
concept of the crude oil.
It wasn't until about 1930 that we became
interested in recent sediments, or the evaluation of
hydrocarbons in a chemical sense. At this time, there
was a fairly extensive survey made to determine whether
there were recent hydrocarbons and sediments. At that
time it was stated there were none.
Then in about 1952, Dr. Paul Smith, using
one of the first prototypes of gas chromatography or
liquid chromatography, found recent marine sediments
and in 1954 indicated they were present from 120 to
1400 ppm of the organic fraction.
This was attributed to living organisms.
If we consider the total production in organic carbon
per year, which is about (4 x lO^kg) -- this is based
on available data that we have on primary fixation and
that is the amount of conversion of carbon through
13
sunlight energy. Through protoplasm, we have 4 x 10 kg
of carbon which is produced in the world's oceans.
If we use a rather reasonable figure of 10
-------
553
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
ppm hydrocarbons, we come out with a value of 4 x 10®kg
of hydrocarbons produced as a part of biological activity.
This is quite a large amount of hydrocarbon. It amounts
to something like 800 billion pounds of hydrocarbons
per year. Of all types.
Gas chromatography of living systems, as
shown in the literature -- and I place representative
bits of information in the material that I submitted --
there are hydrocarbons of all types in the olefins and
aromatics in living systems.
Now, this amount of annual production is
equivalent to about 15 days worth of mass transport of
oil around our globe, which is estimated today to be
about 3 billion gallons per day. That is how much
hydrocarbons you and I use in our energy, running our
automobiles, and all of these other things that we would
just as soon not give up to decrease pollution. This is
worth 15 days of the total world's movement of oil at
3 billion gallons a day. So, it is a sizeable amount.
It is going to be very difficult to determine where
toxicity of these normal occurring hydrocarbons occur
and where it is absent, when it is spread so uniformly
-------
554
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
amongst our living systems.
It is going to take a considerable amount
of research to work with the aromatic hydrocarbons to
find out if there are any that are responsible for
health hazards.
At the same time you can look around your
environment -- the total environment, not specific
places that are terminals for very large amounts of
oil transports which are going to have spills normally
-- but, if you look at our world as a total, you will
find that outside of the deposits of the commercial
oilfield there is no larger concentration of hydro-
carbons today. And this is despite the fact that we
sanctioned the use of 2-cycle outboard motors, which
places oil directly in the aqueous environment. This
happens to be legal or sanctioned or has some other
aspect. And all of the aerosols that we use as
propellants; all of the cans that you have that say
they have an inherent high base are propelling
hydrocarbons into our atmosphere at an increasing
rate. This is allowed by law.
And still we do not have large concentrations
-------
555
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
of any specific molecules that are recognized in the
environment over a few ppm composition.
You would expect over the millions of years
that hydrocarbons of a specific nature would
accumulate, but they haven't.
Out at the Santa Barbara oil spill -- which
I happen to be a member of the President's Panel to
look at that -- the group who has made a study published
their first report just a couple of weeks ago, and this
indicated that outside of damage to birds, they could
not determine scientifically any disadvantage of
the oil.
Well again, this is only natural because
the Santa Barbara oilfield has a natural seepage and
these natural seepages are found all over the world.
But this one is a very good one, because I happened
to grow up in that area and went swimming at the beach
of Carpinteria as a young man when we had to take
coaloil with us to clean the tar off our feet. Because
oil geographically described as being on the Ventura
oilfield has been seeping out about 500 gallons per
day for the last 1,000,000 years and yet this oil is
-------
556
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
taken up by the environment.
I guess the point that I should like to
emphasize is that it is very easy to be misled by too
few data bits. It is very easy to extrapolate. I am
not saying that we shouldn't be aware of the problems
of oil contamination, but I am saying that we should be
judicious in our control and have enough basic informa-
tion so that we can make logical conclusions. Otherwise
we are going to force our economy to a place where
perhaps we will no longer have automobiles to drive;
powerplants will be restricted; and this concerns me
not only as a scientist but also as a human.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you, Dr. Oppenheimer.
Do I understand you to say as far as the
Houston Ship Channel is concerned, that we don't have
enough information about controlling hydrocarbons now,
and you think we probably need further study?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: No. I am saying you do
not know where the hydrocarbons in the living systems
that you measured come from.
-------
557
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
CHAIRMAN STEIN: What do you think we
should do about it?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: Well, I think that there
are ways to learn and understand —
CHAIRMAN STEIN: How do we do that other
than through study, sir?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: That is the only way.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: In other words, you are
suggesting that we study it?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: I am suggesting that you
have a few more facts before statements are made.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: How are we going to
get the facts?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: Let's see. Your group
is spending something like $1-1/2 million to fingerprint
crude oils. This is a good start. But it is going to
be very difficult.
It will require control growth experiments.
It seems to me the prior evidence indicates oil is
really not going to be harmful, so perhaps we should be
using the money for something else like mercury or
barium. (Laughter.)
-------
558
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let me see what you are
suggesting now. I don't know. I thought I understood
you to say we don't know enough about hydrocarbons, so
we should study it some more. You figure since it is
ubiquitous it is not going to do any harm; therefore,
we shouldn't even study it. Is that what you
are saying?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: No.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I would like to understand
what we are supposed to do with the hydrocarbons.
DR. OPPENHEIMER: There are two things
you can do. One is you can make an exhaustive
literature survey because there is a tremendous amount
of literature available. Get a panel of people together
to synthesize this and come out with some statements
indicating the way you should move. It is quite
obvious in the open sea that there is no hydrocarbon
problem -- that there is no known evidence that it is
damaging. There is no evidence that hydrocarbons are
there, but it has to be demonstrated scientifically
that it is damaging.
How you can move into the extreme
-------
559
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
environments and do the same thing. You can go from
an extreme to a very polluted environment like Boston
Harbor, for example.
We are working on a project for you now
using techniques of seed oil to bacteria to allow it
to clean up and it is being supported by EPA.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Why do that if they are
not going to cause harm? If hydrocarbons are not a
problem, why do you want to do that?
MR. YANTIS: Murray, he has not said that.
If I may intervene -- and I am going to
take advantage of my position -- all he said was that
when there are small traces of hydrocarbons found in
nature, it is not a cause for panic. He said nothing
beyond that.
I also recall in his testimony -- and it is
going to come out later -- you have recommended that
the oil increase allowance to be discharged from -- I
say you; I mean the EPA -- to be discharged from the
industries along the Houston Ship Channel be reduced
to zero.
Now that is not possible, and no one in
-------
560
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
his right mind thinks it is possible.
We can get it to a very low number, and
that low number will certainly be tolerable.
I might further say that we use the tests
shown in the book called Standard lyiftthndr which
simply defines anything that is reported on the test
as oil and grease. It doesn't mean it is oil and
grease.
I am told if an industry uses an oxidation
pond and therefore has algae in its effluents, that the
test will even report the oils that are chlorophyll in
the algae as oils.
So, I just don't think you ought to pursue
that type of question. All we are trying to say is a
small amount of oil may be natural for the environment
and is no cause for panic, and that is all the Doctor
said.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I am glad you saved me
all that time, Hugh, and glad you told me what Dr.
Oppenheimer said. I appreciate it.
MR. QUARLES: I would like to ask a
question about this though.
-------
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
I think whenever an oil spill occurs around
the country, the public is concerned and the
Environmental Protection Agency has been concerned. Are
you suggesting we should not be concerned?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: I suggest you pass a law
requiring all oil-handling machinery to be licensed;
that all loading areas between land and water and even
over land have proper dofferdams to withhold the oil
in case it does spill; and pass a few other laws of
an equivalent nature that will allow you to protect the
environment, because this is where most of the
spillage comes.
It is going to be very difficult to contain
tanker spillages from accidents at sea, even though
this is being looked at now by selecting specific
lanes. And until the world's maritime authorities get
together and enforce certain requirements on ship
handling, you will always have the occasional accident
with an oil vessel. But, there also you can do very
constructive, or set up very constructive procedures
for handling some of the oil spillage.
MR. QUARLES: I think there are two
-------
562
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
related but distinguishable issues involved. One is
the feasibility of various control measures and the
other is the question of whether there is something
there that ought to be controlled. I gather, in your
last comment there, that you are addressing yourself
to the feasibility of the control measures.
I understood you to be suggesting that
there wasn't really something there that calls
for controls.
DR. OPPENHEIMER: No evidence to my
knowledge indicates any toxicity of oils in the
natural environment.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I think that is good.
By the way, I don't want to repeat this,
but I hope we will be able to check your tables.
They won't reproduce and we are going to have to get
other copies. I won't repeat that with everyone
who comes up.
DR. OPPENHEIMER: I cannot give you any
more than you have there. See, those are reproductions.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: But, in order to make them
come out in our transcript, we are going to have to
-------
563
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
have on original or something we can reproduce. This
will be redone. By the way, do you want the statement
that you admitted to be in the record?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: Yes. I would like to
have the opportunity to correct a few places.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: But I am intrigued by two
of your sentences here, and I would like to know if
you want them in the record. You didn't read them.
It says, and let me quote, "Pollution
seems to be a rather burgeoisie term in that it can be
made to fit any situation. It is quite obvious that
our planet has been polluted with oil and coal and
lignites far earlier than man's habitation."
DR. OPPENHEIMER: I think that is a
true statement.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Right. Thank you.
[The above-mentioned statement follows.]
-------
HYDROCARBONS TN LTVINO ORGANISMS
564
Hydrocarbons are a rather intriguing natural entity. It seems
almost diabolical that these essential molecules that have been a part of
living systems during biological evolution (Calvin 1970) are now considered
pollution. "Pollutionnseems to be a rather bourgeoisie term in that it can
be made to fit any situation. It. is quite obvious that our planet has been
polluted with oil and coai and lignites far earlier than man's habitation.
The occurrence of hydrocarbons in living systems is a relatively
recent finding, namMy because the techniques needed for the analysis of
'the complex nature and diversity of the molecules of hydrocarbon have only
recently been developed. Parker Trask (1942) in his monumental work of
the 1930's stated that hydrocarbons were not present in any significant
amounts in recent marine sediments. It was a common theory at that same
time that hydrocarbons were produced primarily by sedimentary marine
conditions and that biological activities were primarily responsible. Dur-
ing the evolution of new chemical techniques, Smith in 1952 demonstrated
that hydrocarbons were present in recent marine sediments and in 1954
indicated that they were present from 120-1400ppm of the organic fraction.
Orr and Emery (1956) found significant paraffinic hydrocarbons at the sur-
face sediments off the California Coast and indicated by hydrocarbons in
the depths of the sediment that recent oil activities were not responsible
for the accumulations of the hydrocarbons.
Figure 1 taken from Davis (196 7) points out, as an example of
extent, the many natural hydrocarbon seeps in the southwestern part of
-------
565
the United States. Smith (1952) calculated that one cubic mile of recent
a
sediment may have 13 x 10 barrels of petroleum and pointed out that this
is undoubtedly due to the natural production of hydrocarbons in living sys-
tems that may have an average of lOOppm hydrocarbons per dry weight.
It has been suggested that the total annual oceanic carbon fixation as proto-
plasm is about 4 x 10*? kilograms, which at only lOppm hydrocarbon
(below average) would produce about 4 x 10® Kg of hydrocarbons a year.
This is 800 billion pounds a year, and approximately equivalent to 15 days
transportation at our present estimated daily use of 3 billion gallons per
person. This amount is significant and yet we know very little about the
biological aspects other than some preliminary work 6n content.
The book, "Petroleum Microbiology" by Davis (1967) provides
a good review of the degradation and production of hydrocarbons in nature.
With the large amount of natural seepage and production of oil, plus the
movement of oil for energy, our environment has been subject to oils for
geological time. For example, Pitch Lake in Trinidad, first referenced
by Columbus for tarring his ships, is nstimatod alone to produce 25 million
tons of asphalt through the years. To this can be added the hydrocarbons
from coal (Gould 1966), etc. If natural oxidation, both physical and biolog-
ical, did not take place there would be a great accumulation of hydrocarbons
in the environment. A review of the literature suggests that such hydro-
carbons have not accumulated and that oxidation through living systems
must be a common fact.
-------
-3" 566
Here it might be pertinent to point out that in any discussion of
oil pollution today one must seriously consider the tremendous surface of
asphaltic roads in the world. These may be producing significant amounts
of hydrocarbons to the environment as they weather, break down, and are
otherwise disseminated. These road surfaces are hydrocarbons. To this
may be added the tons of protective asphaltic coatings used for pipes, etc.,
the oils used in two cycle engines, especially the outboard powerboat motors,
unburned hydrocarbons in exhaust, and finally the hydrocarbons used as
inert carriers in aerosol dispensers for a multitude of products used every
'day. Such sources of hydrocarbon pollution must be discussed in terms of
biological aspects because for most cases, although the amounts are dis-
seminated, they add up to significant amounts per year. Thus living sys-
tems are constantly subjected to such hydrocarbons. They may not be
seen as major oil spills, but may be much more significant when one
attempts to set criteria for hydrocarbon content in living systems.
Orr and Emery (1956) provide information relating to the pres-
ence of various hydrocarbons in the California offshore basins (Table 1).
Figures 2 and 3 taken from Brogden (1969) indicate that normal hydro-
carbons are present at 160ppm in plankton and increase in hydrocarbon
content when sediment-plankton mixtures are anaerobically degraded by
microorganisms. Hann, et al (1967) show in Table 2, and Patterson
(1967) in Figure 4, hydrocarbons and gas chromatographic spectra for
cultured algae and bacteria. To show the complexity of hydrocarbon
-------
-4-
567
distribution in living systems, Tables 3 and 4 from Stransky and Streibl
(1968) provide an example of detailed information relating hydrocarbon
by carbon atoms to the structure of certain plants.
Clark (1966) in his Thesis showed the abundance of normal
hydrocarbons in marine plants and animals to range between CI4 to 32
at an amount of 34-120ppm dry weight and compared it with the produc-
tion of Australian cane grass that had an alkane content of almost one
percent of the dry weight. Clark also gives a very good summary of
alkane hydrocarbons in living organisms. It is quite significant to note
that hydrocarbons have been a significant part of the organic matter of
protoplasm of most terrestrial plants as well as marine plants.
Unfortunately, most of the literature refers to the saturated
straight chain hydrocarbons and only a part of the total hydrocarbons.
The aromatic or cyclic hydrocarbons are much more difficult to quanti-
tate or identify. If one looks at the analytical procedures of the various
authors listed in this paper, it becomes quite obvious that they have not
considered^the aromatic or the most abundant of the hydrocarbons. How-
ever, the data of Orr and Emery (1956) indicate that they are more abundant
than the aliphatic compounds.
The exhaustive stuay of Hopkins of Texas A&M University of the
1940's, who indicated in API Project 9 that oysters were little influenced
by hydrocarbon in the Louisiana Delta and bv the Allan Hancock Foundation
(1971) report of the Santa Barbara incident, suggest that it is difficult to
-------
-5-
568
determine the effect of hydrocarbons on living systems as all their findings,
except for birds, were that oil did not offset the local population. Perhaps
the reason was that Coal Oil Point off the Santa Barbara Coast, has been
seeping oil into the area for a million years or more.
The literature thus abounds in information relating to the pres-
ence of hydrocarbons in living systems and the biological oxidation of hydro-
carbons. It is unfortunate that there is so little information relating to the
significance of the presence of the hydrocarbons in protoplasm and especially
the aromatic and asphaltic hydrocarbons.
Submitted by:
Carl H. Oppenheimer
Director, University of Texas
Marine Science Institute at Port Aransas
June 7, 1971
-------
-Composition or Extracts
1
1
o
O W
* 9
a s
u
2a
H
3 M
M
* *
68
T3
C
«
c
tfl
B
0
'g
n
I
u
o
>3 a
K
B
a
'C
3 *-
•5 =-2
'sSL
F_7a
S3
2.S
«•
JS
Cfc
r>
«
A
Si
H
a
i-
£
¦s
1
^ W
yja
o.Sf
&~
o
** *J -60
3.63
2.28
0. HI
0.7f
1.6f
52.8
44.9
2.3
23.0
6
30-74
60-148
3.66
2.22
0.138
5.6
5.0t
48.4
41.0
0.9
4.6
7
103-125
206-250
3.50*
i .55
0.092
:.2t
2.0
52.7
44.1
1.8
16.5
8
147-170
294-340
1.63
1.73
0.O4R
1.8
4.6
40.8
52.8
2.6
6.4
Santa Crui Bajin—Core 1941 (Smith, 1954)
9
12-18
24-36
3.76
2.94
0.188
1.9
3.4
14.7**
80.0
1.8
2.8
10
137-152
274-304
2.91
2.97
0.152
1.9
16.7
17.9
63.5
8.8
1.0
11
198-221
396-442
3.36
2.61
0.149
2.6
8.4
27.4
61.6
3.2
2.5
Crude Oil, Lot Angelts Basin—Domingucj Field (4775 feet) Lower Repetto Pliocene Age ft
12
i
... 1
41.8
18.9
17.5
21.8
0.45
0.3
»
* Two organic carbons from earlier cores
t Values uncorrected for sulfur
** Per cent asphaltic fractions are larger, and per cent remaining on alumina smaller in present work
than in Smith's owing to difference in procedure.
ft Crude oii was topped at 56*C at 2 mm, as were the sediment extracts.
Table 1
-------
570
Table 2
Ta ii 1. Hydrocarbon• Jrom algae.
n-C,»
n-Ou
1'ri.sluite
A-C„
ii-Cn
Branched C>«
l'liylnne
n-C„
i.-C„
n-C*.
I Uglier mol wt hydrocarbons
Major component
. Uluo-Green Ali<"o——'
'— OrtM AIrho
/Vo«(»c
Annci/iti*
Spirngyra
C'hlnrclta
0.42
2H
—
0.7
0.42
3.4
f» 7
0.4
—
—
22
4
—.
4.0
—
450;
ioo
100
100
100
10.4
0.44
—
—
0.6
0.4
0.4
No
n-Cu
No
n-Cii
I'eak ta »(f rolaliva to fv-Cn pettk Ink no M 100.
Uwh liHiieatM I«m Uiui #i («-Cm * l(W)i
15.5
58
62
22
Lcs-1 than
30% of total
hydrocarbon*
n-C„
0.3
0.1
4-Cn
Tmii.h 2. Hydrocarbon* from bacteria and ycatl.
i'hnliiHynthttio Bmirriu
ll-Cn
li-( *n
i'risliuie
A-('n
n-Cu
Driiiictiol Oil
i'liyirwir
n-Cu
Higher mol wt
hydrocarlwnii
Jthado-
ptfuHomnniU
tphtroid**
2
7
22
im
3
44
4.»
8.8
IyC-s« Uinn
5% "f
total
hydrocar-
bons
n-Cu
R. rnli
(aerobic)
10
37
Nnni>l\i>u>«ynthat»o Buctoria
Hhmto- Micrococcus
ipirillum lytmlriklieui
rubrum (anntiobic)
0.3 112
1.7 vr,
:» ¦"> ~
100 <00 1,10
_ 21 —
11) r>H 7oo
13 147 210
6«i 200
t Imn Mnrr limn Morn than
15% of 60Vo o( 60% of
to! ul total toUl
hydrocar- hydrocar* hydrocar-
bon* bons bona
n-Cu «*
500
450
1000
Morn thun
60% of
total
hydrocar*
bona
n-Cu
iV » mvikmU »ro retnliva to n-Cit p«ak Inkan aa 100.
DmIi indicate* tea* than 04 (n-Cn " 100).
-------
Table 3 571
Compojition of Paraffins (%) in the Circular Waxes of Morphologically Distinct Part? of Several Plant* of the Family Popovrracrae
Number Homo-
of logous
C atoms (cries
Papaver rhoeai L.
stem leaves leaves sepals petals pistils filaments anthers capsules seech
rapuvcr ChrL !<>• Dicrntrn
snin/il- nir-n ipeaabi-
fcrum L. mn/iii L. f/s(l )0C.
leaves ' i'S leaver
12
n
+
+
4-
13
n
+
+
4-
4-
4-
4-
14
1
+
—
—
—
—
—
15
n
II
—
1 +
+
+
+
+
4-
.4-
. 1
01
-t-
+
I
—
—
+
+
+
4-
4-
0 1
1-
4-
D
+
+
+
+
+
4-
4-
01
4-
01
f
4-
f-
16
n
—
—
—
—
—
4-
+
—
4-
—
—
4-
—
i
—
—
—
+
+
4-
+
—
—
-
4-
4-
4-
n
+
4-
+
+
+
0-1
0-1
01
4-
0-6
4-
01
01
17
II
—
4-
+
—
+
4-
4-
—
4-
01
4-
4-
4-
I
—
+
4-
—
+
4-
4-
—
—
—
4-
4-
4-
n
+
01
+
0-1
0-7
0-1
0-2
0 5
01
4-2
4-
01
0-2
IS
n
+
4-
—
4-
—
—
4-
—
—
—
4-
4-
4-
I
—
+
—
+
+
—
4-
—
—
—
4-
4-
4-
n
+
0-2
4-
0-1
0-1
01
0-2
0-4
0-1
3-3
0-1
0-1
0-2
19
n
—
+
—
—
—
—
4-
4-
—
—
4-
4-
4-
I
—
01
—
+
+
—
4-
—
—
—
4-
-f
4-
n
0-1
+
01
1-2
12-8
1-0
3-6
9-4
0-9
62 8
+
4-
0-2
20
n
4-
4-
—
—
—
—
4-
—
—
—
4-
4-
4-
I
4-
4-
4-
—
—
—
4-
—
—
—
4-
4-
4-
n
+
02
+
0-1
0-6
+
02
0-9
0-1
19
4-
4-
0-2
21
I(
—
—
—
—
—
—
4-
—
—
—
—
4-
4-
I
—
—
—
—
—
—
4-
—
—
—
4-
4-
0-2
n
+
0-7
04
2-3
19-6
05
2-3
4-5
1-0
11-5
0 1
01
0-3
22
I
+
—
4-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4-
—
n
+
0-7
0 1
0 2
0-4
0 1
0-2
0-2
0 1
10
4-
0-2
0 5
23
n
—
—
+
—
—
—
—
i
4-
+
—
—
—
0 2
0-7
2-0
0-1
4-
n
0 1
2-5
10
8-1
21-6
1-8
3-3
4-8
2 5
41
11-7
0-2
0-8
24
n
—
—
+
—
+
—
—
—
4-
1
+
01
+
—
—
0-4
11
3-6
_
0-2
4-
4-
n
+
20
0-7
5-5
04
0 3
04
06
0-4
0-4
1-2
01
OS
2S
I
4-
4-
+
—
0 3
1-9
4 4
17-3
0-3
0-3
+
a
0-2
5-3
7-8
240
8-8
8-1
40
4-3
9 4
1-5
56 6
0-2
1-9
26
n
—
+
+
—
—
—
—
—
+
0-3
i
4-
01
+
—
+
0-4
0-8
2-3
+
4-
27
n
01
2-5
0-8
09
0-3
1-3
1-0
10
1-2
0-2
0-7
0-2
0 6
I
—
0 6
+
—
04
4-7
7-5
24-4
0-4
0-5
-
21
n
40
25-7
25-5
43-2
18 3
33-5
20-7
13 4
436
2-8
16-2
10
29 6
II
—
01
+
-
—
—
—
—
+
4-
—
I
—
0-4
+
—
—
—
—
0-4
4-
—
__
n
IS
2-5
1-0
0-8
05
2-5
19-5
0-9
2-1
0-5
0 3
1-8
29
I
—
0-5
—
—
—
0-5
0-6
1-3
_
0 1
•
n
92-2
41-7
49-1
13-8
11-3
40-1
24-9
6-8
36-9
39
11-4
22-7
61-6
30
n
—
0 8
—
_
_
I
+
0-6
—
—
—
_
n
0 4
0-9
0-3
03
06
1-0
0-3
0-3
1-2
—
31
I
0-7
0 6
—
—
—
—
_
n
08
10-3
11-1
36
1-7
3-4
0-6
0-7
14
73-5
1-5
32
a
0 2
—
4-
33
I
:4-
—
a
0 5
2 1
+
ry weight of
19
15
no
90
236
111
21
52
165
220
20
111
6-6
plant, g
% Alkan.-s per
dry weight
Collection
month/year
01J 0 027 0034 0082 049 0 022 0 072 0 13 0 013 0 0019 0 035
VII VII VII VII VII VII VII VII
196S 1965 1967 196) 1963 1965 1965 1965
IX IX
1965 1965
VII
1967
011
vin
1967
0 046
VII
1967
-------
Table 4
572
Composition of Olefins (%) in the Cuticular Waxes of Morphologically Distinct Parti of Several Plants of (he Family Papavtrocroe
Number of Homologous
C atoms scries
Papaver rhoeai L.
Papover
somni- Chrtldonium majui L.
ferum L.
leaves
stem*
leaves*
sepals
petals
pistils
filaments anthers capsules
seeds
leaves
Irani-
rii-'
13
B
+
14
A
—
+
B
+
+
+
—
IS
B
+
+
+
+
—
—
C
+.
—
—
—
—
+
+
16
B
-
+
+
+
+
• -
I-
C
+
—
—
—
—
0-2
+
17
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
+
+
B
—
0-9
05
0 1
0-3
0-3
0-2
1-8
+
+
C
+
-
-
-
-
—
0-1
—
0 5
+
18
A
—
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
0-2
+
B
—
0-6
0-3
+
0-2
0-1
0-4
1-0
o-t
0-1
C
01
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
0 5
19
A
2-3
3-8
-
+
—
—
0-2
—
—
B
+
2 6
56 1
42-6
3-7
17-8
22-3
35-8
85 5
—
+
C
0-5
—
—
—
—
—
—
0 2
20
A
—
—
0-1
—
—
—
—
—
0 3
B
+
0 1
0-7
0-8
+
0-2
0-2
0-6
0-8
0 2
0 1
C
0-2
0 1
-
—
—
—
+
+
0-3
21
A
+
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
0 1
B
+
0 6
15-8
23-6
0-8
08
5-4
12 6
10 4
0 2
+
C
1-3
0 3
—
—
—
—
2-2
—
O'l
0-2
22
B
+
—
01
0 4
+
f
01
+
+
—
0 1
0 1
C"
0 5
-
-
—
-
—
b
_
0-2
0 2
0 2
23
A
—
—
—
—
__
I-
B
Ill
3 6
4 6
0-3
0 9
0 8
2-5
0-4
0 3
0 1
0-1
C
+
—
—
—
—
—
0-7
0 6
0 1
+
24
A
-
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
0-2
+
B
—
0-1
-
¦f-
+
0-1
—
—
0 1
+
C
+
18
0-2
—
—
—
02
+
3-8
0 2
0 8
23
A
—
—
-
—
—
—
_
0 1
B
+
3 8
0-5
0-7
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 3
-h
1-6
0 3
0 3
26
C
1-9
01
-
-
—
—
0 2
—
2-3
¦f*
01
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
0 5
—
B
—
—
+
-
+
+
—
—
—
+
27
C
+
52
2-5
—
-
—
—
4-2
+
25-3
0 3
1-4
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
09
—
+
B
+
80
0-5
0-6
0 7
1-0
0-9
06
01
3-7
4-7
4 5
C
+
50
0 3
—
-
—
—
11
—
3-8
0-4
0-2
28
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0-5
B
-
-
0-1
+
0 1
0 1
—
—
—
0-2
0 1
C
+
11*4
02
—
-
—
—
5-9
—
5-6
0 1
3 6
29
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
0-4,
B
+
270
3-8
5-3
35-0
24-9
25-3
15-7
01
42-3
87-0
81-6
C
+
1-8
10
—
—
—
—
0-9
1-3
•f
1-9
30
B
0-8
—
0-3
0-5
06
0-5
0-1
—
—
—
C
+
0-9
_
—
—
—
—
—
0-6
+
1-7
31
B
r*
+
10-7
8 0
16 6
56 7
48-9
41-2
15-7
6-5
21
1 . 1
2-3
32
1/
B
_
_
0-4
0-3
0-6
0-5
rj
c
+:
-
-
—
-
-
—
0 4
33
B
2-7
09
3-1
1-9
3 4
2-2
f
+
C
-H
% Alkenes per plant dry
traces
00017
0 011
0-27
0016
0063
0 10
0 0012
0-0023
traces-
0-0009
0 0006
weight
% Alkenes in the hydro-
traces
5
12
36
42
47
54
9
55
traces
11
8
carbon fraction
* For lack of material, no quantitative analysis has been carried out. * Collection in July 1967. * Alkenes of the C series are probably terminal.
-------
573
98 sons
»*
A OIL SEEP
~ OAS SEEP
Fig;30A. Distribution of oil and ga* accp* in southern United States.
Figure 1
-------
Parts per
Million
574
8.0 -
7-0 -
6.0 -
5.0 ~
4.0 -
3.0 9
2.0 J
©
©
G
©
©
©
1.0 ~
600 1200
Decomposition Time In Hours
6400
FIGURE 2.---The change in hydrocarbon content
of the artificial sediment mixtures with time, ex-
pressed as parts per million of the dry sediment.
Each point represents the analysis of a separate
mixture. Note the break In the time axis between
1200 hours and 6400 hours.
-------
Percent of
Main Peak
5
100-
80- -
60 -
40 -
20-
-j—— —l—u—1
16 20 24 28 32
Carbon Number
FIGURE 3. a typical normal hydrocarbon
distribution pattern. The height of each line
represents the abundance by weight of the hydro-
carbon relative to C-l?. This data is for a 6400
hour sample; all of the other hydrocarbon fractions
with the exception of those mixtures containing
added C-22 hydrocarbon, were essentially identical
to this one.
-------
576
HYORncAKitoNS or uttanF.tt A
time (minutes)
Kir.. I.t GaMlironialnRraphir nrparalinn of atiioirophirally pro-
Chlmrlln viilgniii tiyilrorarlioiiit, prontaromcil al 4"/min
<111 a .1* $F...K» column.
c?0 r
**r Mm
uu
I)
TIME
18 ?'
(MtNU TE S >
»0 11
9%
Fic;. 2. Gas diromalngtapliic M-paralinn of iMicinlrnpliically
prntlurrtl Clilnrelln vulfiarii hytltoi atln'»v 4*/
mln on a .W SF. JI1 rnlmnii.
Figure 4
-------
577
REFERENCES
Brogden, William B. 1968. Modification of hydrocarbons and fatty acids
in sediments by marine bnrtcria. M. S. Thesis. Fla. State
Univ., Tallahassee.
Calvin, Melvin (ed.) 1970. Chemical Evaluation.
Clark, Robert C. Jr. 1966. Saturated hydrocarbons in marine plants
and sediments. M.S. Thesis. Mass. Institute of Tech.,
Cambridge.
Colombo, Umberto and G. D. Hobson (ed. ) 1964. Advances in Organic
Geochemistry. Macmillan, N. Y. 488p.
Davis, J. B. 1967. Petroleum Microbiology. Elsevier Pub. Co., N. Y.
604 p.
Gould, Robert F. (ed. ) 1966. Coal Science. Amer. Chem. Soc. ,
Washington, D. C. 743 p.
Han, Jerry, E. D. McCarthy, W. Van Ho even, M. Calvin and W. H. Bradley.
1968. Organic geochemical studies II--A preliminary report on
the distribution of aliphatic hydrocarbons in algae, in bacteria,
and in a recent lake sediment. In; Chemistry, Proc. N. A. S.
59: 29-33.
Han, Jerry, E. D. McCarthy, M. Calvin and M. H. Benn. The hydrocarbon
constituents of the blue-green algae, Nostoc muscorum, Anacystis
nidulans, Phormidium loridum, and Chlorogloea fritschiu
Analytical Chem.
Horn, Michael H., J. M. Teal and R. H. Backus. 1970. Petroleum lumps
on the surface of the sea. Science. 168: 245-246.
Kolpack, Ronald L. (ed. ) 1971. Biological and oceanographical survey
of the Santa Barbara Channel oil spill 1969-1970. Physical,
Chemical and Geological Studies, Vol. 2, 477p. 'Allan Hancock
Foundation, Univ. of Southern Calif.
Orr, Wilson L. and K. O. Emery. 1956. Composition of organic matter
in marine sediments: Preliminary data on hydrocarbon distri-
bution in basins off Southern California. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer.
67: 1247-1258.
Patterson, Glenn W. 1967. The effect of culture conditions on the hydro-
carbon content of Chlorella vulgaris. J. Physol. 3: 22-23.
Smith, P. V. Jr. 1952. Preliminary note on the origin of petroleum.
Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Tulsa, Oklahoma.
-------
578
Stransky, K. and M. Streibl. 1969. On natural waxes. XII--Composition
of hydrocarbons in morphologically different plant parts.
Collection C'/erhoslov. ('hem. Comniun, 34: 103 117.
Straughan, Dale (compiled by) 1971. Biological and oceanographieal survey
of the Santa Barbara Channel oil spill 1969-1970, Biology and
Bacteriology. Vol.1, 426 p. Allan Hancock Foundation, Univ.
of Southern Calif.
Tornabene, T. G. and S. P. Markey. 1971. Characterization of branched
monounsaturated hydrocarbons of Sarcina lutea and Sarcina flava.
Lipids. 6: 190-195.
Trask, P.D. and Patnode, H. W. 1942. Source Beds of Petroleum.
Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Tulsa, Oklahoma?
Wilkinson, J. F. 1971. Hydrocarbons as a source of single cell protein.
In: Microbes and Biological Production Sympsium 21. Soc. Gen.
Micro, p. 15 .
Winters, Kenneth, P. L. Parker and C. Van Baalen. 1969. Hydrocarbons
of blue-green algae: geochemical significance. Science. 158:
467-468.
-------
579
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
MR. VANDERHOOF: Dr. Oppenheimer, are you
describing crude oil spills or are you describing
hydrocarbons from industrial waste?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: They are synonymous.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Tell me, then, is a
pesticide a hydrocarbon?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: A pesticide is a
hydrocarbon base, yes. On a strictly chemical
description though it is not a hydrocarbon per se
because it is not only hydrocarbon and carbon; it
has had another metal added.
But most pesticides are hydrocarbon
bases and so are detergents. Most detergents with
long molecules that have the oil affinity consist of
a hydrocarbon and many other materials.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Are you saying any
industrial waste that has hydrocarbons is not
offensive? It can be degraded?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: No, I didn't say that.
No. All I said was that there are hydrocarbons
produced in natural living organisms that are
synonymous with the wide range of molecules that we
-------
580
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
find in crudes. I am also saying most crude oils are
produced originally by biological systems. Therefore,
we have to be very careful in determining where
toxicity exists in that it might overshadow some other
points that we are overlooking.
There is none to my knowledge, but I have
not made an exhaustive survey of the literature. As
I have already indicated to you, I have not found a
reference in which it has been definitely proven to
my satisfaction with experimental results that
hydrocarbons are toxic. There may be a case, but
there may be many other things too that are also part
of the same system that could be just as toxic --
such as oxygen concentrations.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Have you looked into
secondary effects, for instance? For instance, you
apparently don't believe there is great damage due to
oil on the surface. Have you looked into the variation
capabilities of streams in loss of variation from the
coating of oils?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: No.
That is not a part of my discussion here
-------
581
Dr. C. Oppenheimer
at all. That is purely physical. We are working on
that too, but it is another aspect using living
organisms to clean up surface oil spills.
We are interested in the toxicity of
byproducts of course, but so far we have found none.
MR. VANDERHOOF: Don't you suppose we
ought to err on the side of safety?
DR. OPPENHEIMER: Well, it depends on
concentrations. If your concentrations are to the
point where they are going to be mechanically disabling,
yes, then we should go to mechanical contrivances such
as I mentioned, passing suitable laws to restrain or
restrict the major oil spill. But here again, you have
got 2-cycle engines going all over the place.
A small lake after a weekend of skiers
will have a scum of oil from the combustion engines
clear around the lake, especially on the Rayburn Lake.
I happen to live on one, so I can say for sure.
Perhaps we should abolish the 2-cycle
engine tomorrow. This would cut down on a tremendous
amount of oil pollution.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: All right.
-------
582
T. Leary
MR. YANTIS: For the Texas Wildlife and
Parks Department, Mr. Terrance Leary.
Mr. Leary is the Coordinator of Coastal
Fisheries. He is a marine biologist and he will
speak to the "Occurrence and Value of Oysters in the
Galveston Bay System."
MR. TERRANCE LEARY
COORDINATOR OF COASTAL FISHERIES
texas parks and wildlife department
AUSTIN, TEXAS
MR. LEARY: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies
and gentlemen. I have some slides. Perhaps we could
dim the lights.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
is the agency charged with the responsibility for
managing the fish, wildlife, and public outdoor
recreation resources of this State. Included, of
course, are the fishery resources of Galveston Bay,
the most productive of our bay systems.
[Slide. ]
Last calendar year, some 147,000,000
pounds of marine products were landed in Texas, of
-------
583
T. Leary
which approximately 34.5 million pounds were landed in
the Galveston Bay area. Discounting the 43,000,000
pounds of menhaden, an industrial fish sought only in
our easternmost county, 1/3 of the fishery landings
were made in our Galveston District, comprising the
greater Galveston Bay system and associated offshore
waters. Galveston Bay also produces about 90 percent
of our Texas oysters, and most of this production is
centered in a relatively small area in the central
portion of the bay.
Our department has some 23 marine
biologists serving in our Coastal Fisheries function,
of whom 6 are headquartered and work in the Galveston
Bay System. The chemists are assigned to pollution
surveillance and bioassay studies. Additionally, some
12 game management officers are stationed in the
counties bordering Galveston Bay.
Our biologists, and as far as I know we
are the only agency aside from the State Health
Department surveying oyster reefs in the bay, inform
us at the present time we have approximately 8,000
acres of oyster reefs in the Trinity, Galveston, West
-------
584
T. Leary
and East Bay system. Not all of these reefs, however,
have sufficient oyster production to provide a fishery.
Some have very few, if any, live oysters. Some are
located in portions of the upper bay subject to periodic
flooding by freshwater, which kills the oysters before
they reach commercial size.
It is the responsibility of the State
Health Department to classify shellfish producing
waters in a cooperative program with the Food and Drug
Administration and our department.
Some 47 percent of the total water area of
the Galveston Bay system is closed to oyster production.
However, only 1,500 acres, or 19 percent, of the total
oyster bottoms are located in the closed area. Of
these, approximately 500 acres, at most, could be
considered as productive and less than 1/2 of these
would be fished by commercial fishermen should they
be opened today. Thus, we are talking about 250
acres of potentially productive reefs now located in
waters of the Galveston Bay System in the closed areas.
They are not, however, entirely lost to the fishery.
Under a closely supervised program, our
-------
585
T. Leary
department, with the approval of the State Health
Department, issues permits for the relaying of oysters
from these areas to private leases in approved areas.
This process of relaying consists of transplanting
oysters from closed areas to the approved areas where
they are held for a sufficient period of time to
render them safe for consumption. Thus, any oysters
relayed from the 250 acres of productive but closed
reefs are utilized by private lessors and are restored
to true productivity.
The procedure of relaying must be
carefully differentiated from depuration, a costly
process not used in this State. In depuration, oysters
from polluted areas are held in man-made tanks while
artificially purified sea water is circulated over them
for a period of cleansing. Depuration is expensive
while relaying is very inexpensive. In fact, almost
all of the oysters produced commercially in the State
of Louisiana have been transplanted from seed beds to
private leases, a process exactly like relaying.
I would estimate the annual production
value of those now potentially productive reefs located
-------
586
T. Leary
in closed areas, if we valued them at $60.00 per acre,
would be about $15,000 per year -- that's the dark
side. From this figure must be subtracted the value
of the relayed oysters salvaged by the private
resources.
It should be obvious that our oyster
industry has not yet been devastated by pollution.
The Food and Drug Administration apparently agrees,
since its annual appraisal of the Texas State Shellfish
Sanitation Program rated the program at 95 percent
for the year ending June 1970. This is not to say,
however, that we consider pollution lightly nor that
we concur or approve of the conditions as they now
stand. We do believe there is a need for improvement
and we are assisting the Water Quality Board in
upgrading standards for the waste discharge permits
throughout the State. We are confident that the
shellfish sanitation program in Galveston Bay as
administered by the State Health Department and our
department in cooperation with the Food and Drug
Administration provides the consumer with a thoroughly
wholesome product. The establishment of any new or
-------
587
T. Leary
unusual Federal action should not be based on the
shellfish industry or program in Galveston Bay.
I thank you. (Applause.)
[Above-mentioned maps follow.]
-------
OYSTER PRODUCING AND CLOSED AREAS
OF THE GALVESTON BAY SYSTEM
588
San Jacinto
River
Trinity River
Clear Creek
Cedar
Bayou
Anahuac
ouble Bayou
EAST BAY
Peninsula
Dickinson Bayou
Texas City
Hall
Bayou
a Ives ton
WEST
BAY
San Luis
Pass
GULF of MEXICO
Closed to Shellfish Harves
by State Health Department
Area of Major Oyster
Production
-------
REEFS and flooding in closed zone
589
San Jacint'o .
River
Trinity River
Clear Creek
Bayou
Anahuac
ouble Bayou
EAST BAi
ar
Peninsula
Dickinson Bayou
Texas City
Bayou
WEST
San Luis
Pass
GULF of MEXICO
Areas in Closed Zone
Subjected to Periodic
Killing Floods
Subjected to Infrequent
Killing Floods
4
-------
590
T. Leary
MR. VANDERHOOF: I would like to hold my
questions of this gentleman until later, after Texas
completes its statement.
MR. YANTIS: That will be about 10 o'clock
tonight the way things are going. (Laughter.)
MR. VANDERHOOF: We will see you tomorrow
morning then.
MR. YANTIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I should like to make an
announcement. We are not holding this conference
after 5:00 p.m.
MR. YANTIS: There are a good many
industries here, and it is essential that they finish
for other commitments tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Again, I would like to
make the announcement. We can't go until 10 o'clock.
I think 5:00 or 6:00 o'clock is the latest because
of the extent of human resources.
MR. YANTIS: For the Texas Water Quality
Board, Mr. Whittington will give you an analysis.
-------
591
D. Whittington
MR. DICK V7HITTINGTON
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AUSTIN, TEXAS
MR. WHITTINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Yantis.
Mr. Chairman, members of the conference
panel, ladies and gentlemen. My presentation this
afternoon is dependent upon slides, and with your
permission I would like to get the lights dimmed.
First of all, I would like to talk about
the problem. The Galveston Bay complex includes
14 water quality zones for which water quality
requirements, commonly called stream standards, have
been adopted by the State and accepted by the Federal
Government. Some of these zones were out of compliance
when the Texas Water Quality Board was established,
and they have not yet been brought into compliance.
These zones are: 1) The Houston Ship
Channel zones and the San Jacinto River Tidal Zone
which are out of compliance with the oxygen resources
parameters, 2) the Clear Lake Zone which is also out
of compliance with oxygen resources parameters, although
-------
592
D. Whittington
less severely and frequently than the Houston Ship
Channel, 3) Upper Galveston Bay West of the Ship
Channel is over a portion of its area noncompliant
with respect to dissolved oxygen and bacteriological
quality, and finally, 4) portions of Trinity Bay are
noncompliant relative to bacteriological quality.
The fact that these zones are noncompliant
with the water quality requirements does not necessarily
mean that a real water quality problem exists. Those
of you who have read the EPA report will recall that
the incongruity of having a lower BOD criterion for
Zone 0906 of the Houston Ship Channel than for
Galveston Bay, Zone 1104, was pointed out.
Further problems of this nature can easily
be noted. Zone 0906 of the Houston Ship Channel has
a lower MPN than Galveston Bay, Zone 1104.
[Slide.]
The dissolved oxygen concentration
established for the Gulf of Mexico at Galveston is
115 percent of saturation at the salinity and
temperature which sometimes exists -- a standard
physically impossible to meet. The BOD criterion for
-------
593
D. Whittington
the Gulf at Galveston is 1 mg/1, well below normal
gulf water. The average from samples which we have
tested from all along the coast is 2.1 mg/1, as
shown on this slide.
These problems point out the basic lack of
scientific validity in all instances of the water
quality requirements. In pointing out this lack,
I do not intend to criticize either the State who
prepared the requirements nor the Federal Government
who accepted them. It must be remembered that the
requirements were prepared by the State at the
insistence of the Federal Government in a very short
time by a very few persons. The requirements were
undoubtedly accepted by the Federal Government
under the same handicap.
The point here is that the requirements
should be viewed as what they are, i. e., a generally
sound guideline for water quality management. They
should not be viewed as sacred, rigid, unchangeable
requirements possessing great scientific validity and
social worth. (Laughter.)
Now, I would like to talk to you a little
-------
594
D. Whittington
bit about the attitude of our board.
Nevertheless, it is the view of the Texas
Water Quality Board that the zones pointed out previously
in this paper as being out of compliance with the
requirements are real problems and not idiosyncrasies
of the requirements. These problems were existent
when the Texas Water Quality Board was created in 1967.
They are not new.
Regardless of this, the board has not and
is not satisfied with the status quo. We feel and have
felt since the agency was formed that the situation is
intolerable and that these problems must be corrected.
Toward this end a corrective program was formulated
and placed into motion. I would like to briefly
discuss with you this corrective program.
First I would like to talk to you about
the corrective program on the Houston Ship Channel and
the San Jacinto River Tidal Zone. The problem in the
Houston Ship Channel is caused by large volumes of
both municipal and industrial waste being discharged
into a deep, relatively narrow, artificial, altered
channel which receives very little freshwater inflow
-------
595
D. Whittington
and very limited tidal flushing -- both the hydrology
and the geometry of the channel mitigating against its
ability to assimilate wastewater.
The problem in the tidal reach of the San
Jacinto River is related inasmuch as this problem is
primarily due to the diffusion of pollutants up the
river because of the very limited, practically
nonexistent freshwater inflow. it was and is obvious
that the first step toward a solution to the water
quality problem in these zones is to lower the waste
load — although additional and/or different approaches
may be and quite likely will be required before a truly
satisfactory solution has been found.
With respect to lowering the load, this
graph shows the decrease in the measured BOD load
being discharged into the Houston Ship Channel since
1968. The data shown for 1968, 1969, and the first
portion of 1970 are the BOD loads as determined by our
district office from single measurements at each source.
The data for the latter portion of 1970 and 1971 were
calculated by months, using a digital computer and the
self-reporting data supplied by each waste discharger
-------
596
D. Whittington
pursuant to board order No. 69-1219-1.
The board order adopted by the board on
April 14, 1970, requires each waste discharger holding
a waste control order from the board to report monthly
on the volume and quality of wastewater discharged
during the month. In the case of larger discharges,
continuous flow measurements and analyses on composite
samples are required. As a consequence, these data
are considerably more accurate than the earlier single
measurement data as secured by us in our district
office. The last calculation shown on this graph is
the load existent as of April 1971.
Also shown on this graph is a 1970 estimate
of the total raw waste load. It should be remembered
in viewing this graph that the raw waste load prior
to treatment has and will continue to increase with
time, due to the population and industrial growth of
Houston. The decrease has been effectuated in spite
of the growth in the raw waste load.
Additionally, the treated BOD load,
authorized by waste control orders issued by the Texas
Water Quality Board as of April 1971, is shown, and it
-------
597
D. Whittington
happens to coincide exactly with the actual load. You
will note from this graph that a considerable decrease
has been effectuated, the aggregate BOD load discharged
to the channel is less than that authorized, and that
an overall BOD removal of about 76 percent is being
realized. This progress was not achieved miraculously;
it was achieved by both municipalities and industries
spending large sums for treatment works.
I would like to show you some pictures of
these waste treatment works. These pictures are of
plants which were constructed prior to 1968 when our
first measurements of the waste load into the channel
were made.
This is a picture of the city of Houston's
Sims Bayou plant. It discharges into Sims Bayou, thus
into the Houston Ship Channel. This is an activated
sludge plant which has a capacity of 48,000,000 gallons
per day. Presently there are no chlorination facilities
at this plant. I was informed today that the Public
Works Department of the city of Houston has gotten
their plans approved for the installation of auch
facilities at this plant. They have gotten their grant
-------
598
D. Whittincrton
approved, and they have gotten their funding ready, and
they are proposing momentarily to request permission
from the city commissioners to take bids on the
installations.
This is a picture of the waste treatment
facilities belonging to the Southland Paper Company.
This facility uses the activated sludge process and
discharges into the Houston Ship Channel. This is
the case even though you can see the San Jacinto
River in the upper righthand corner of the picture.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the Stauffer Chemical
Company Manchester Plant. This plant manufactures
sulphuric acid, alum and bone char.
The wastewater generated by this facility
is of an inorganic nature. Ponds noted in the lower
center of the photograph are for the company's
neutralization and clarification facilities.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the waste treatment
plants serving Petro-Tex Chemical Corporation. This
company manufactures butadiene, among other things.
-------
599
D. Whittinqton
Most of the products are utilized by other industries
in the area for the manufacture of synthetic rubber.
In the center foreground of the picture
you will note the area of the lagoon and clarification
facilities. Please note the size of these facilities
relative to the chemical plant and the automobiles
located in the parking lot at the top of the picture.
The effluents from this plant discharge
into Sims Bayou and then into the Houston Ship Channel.
In 1960, additional waste treatment
facilities were constructed on the Houston Ship Channel.
These facilities have an aggregate capacity to remove
BOD from raw waste, as is shown on this photograph
by the arrow on the right and the red line.
I would like to show you a picture of
some of these waste facilities.
[Slide . ]
This is a picture of the waste treatment
plant serving Rohm & Haas at Deer Park. This is one
of the largest secondary waste facilities on the
Houston Ship Channel. Note the size of the aerated
lagoon and the number of surface areas. Also please
-------
600
D. Whittington
note that the facility incorporates into its design a
trickling filter.
t Slide . ]
Here are the waste treatment facilities
serving the E. I.du Pont plant located adjacent to La
Porte. The facilities are pretreatment facilities and
the effluents from these facilities are conveyed by
conduit to a basin consisting of an aerated lagoon
with a quiescent area.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the additional
facilities provided by du Pont An idea of the size
of this unit can be secured by comparing it with the
size of the automobiles parked on the left adjacent
to the outfall in there.
In 1969 additional waste treatment
facilities were constructed on the Houston Ship
Channel. These facilities have an aggregate capacity
to remove BOD from raw waste, as shown on this
photograph by the arrow on the right and the red line.
I, again, would like to show you a picture
of these waste treatment facilities.
-------
601
D. Whittington
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the facilities serving
the Humble Oil Company complex at Baytown.
Ill the center of the picture is an aerated
lagoon which discharges to a stabilization pond, pictured
on the lower righthand corner of the photograph. Note
the biological standpoint. Also, please note the size
of both the aerated lagoon and stabilization pond
relative to the tank farm in the background and the
ship.
[Slide.]
This is another shot of the Humble
facilities showing the aerated lagoon and an additional
stabilization pond in the upper righthand.corner up
in here (indicating). The effluents from this plant
are discharged right there (indicating^. Note also
you have heard lots of comments on Morgan Point. This
is Morgan Point right there (indicating).
[Slide.I
This is a picture of the treatment
facilities at the Upjohn Company. This waste treatment
plant consists of neutralization facilities and an
-------
602
D. Whittington
aerated lagoon followed by a pond area. Note additional
waste treatment facilities on the lefthand edge of
the picture which are being constructed for plant
expansion. It will be noted waste treatment had 1/5
of the land area of the total plant.
In 1970 additional waste treatment
facilities were constructed on the Houston Ship Channel.
These facilities have an aggregate capacity to remove
BOD from raw waste, as is shown on this photograph by
the arrow on the right and again the red line.
I want to show you some more pictures.
[Slide.]
These are pictures of the waste treatment
plant showing Shell Oil Company's Deer Park Refinery.
Please note the size of the trickling filter relative
to the large storage tanks in the foreground. I was
informed out here in the hall a minute ago by Mr. Gene
Smith of the Shell Oil Company that the average BOD
for the last 3 months from this facility has been 11.
The average total suspended solids, 16.
[Slide.]
Here are the waste treatment facilities
-------
603
D. Whittington
serving the Shell Chemical Company's Deer Park Works.
In the upper righthand corner of the
photograph are located the pretreatment works. Right
here (indicating). The sludge handling facilities are
right here (indicating). In the center of the picture
are aeration tanks. On the. lefthand side of the
picture are the final clarifiers.
[Slide.]
This is another shot of the same facility.
[Slide. ]
This is a picture of the waste treatment
facilities for Atlantic Richfield. In the lower center
of the picture are located the API separators. In the
center of the picture the aeration basin is located.
This waste treatment facility consists of oil separators
plus biological treatment.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of Charter International,
formerly Signal Oil and Gas.
The waste treatment plant consists of oil
separation right there (indicating) and equalization
basin right here (indicating) and chemical precipitation
-------
604
D. Whittington
right here (indicating) followed by biological
treatment.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the waste treatment
facilities belonging to the Lubrizol Corporation.
Note the aeration basin in the center of the picture.
This facility provides biological treatment for wastes
generated from the manufacturing of adhesives for oil
and gas lines.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of u. S. Steel showing
its waste treatment and manufacturing plant. The
waste treatment plant is located in the upper righthand
corner of the picture and consists of a neutralization
treatment siltation basin. Note the aerated lagoon
and settling pond. This plant is so constructed that
all waste generated, including spillage from loading
and unloading operations, is relayed through the
treatment plant prior to its release to the environment.
In 1971 to date, additional waste treatment
facilities have been constructed on the Houston Ship
Channel. These facilities, again, have an aggregate
-------
605
D. Whittington
capacity to remove BOD from raw waste as is shown on
the graph.
Again, I want to show you some more
pictures.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the brand new waste
treatment plant serving U. S. Plywood-Champion Paper
Company. This facility provides biological treatment
to waste generated in the manufacture of kraft paper.
[Slide.]
This is a photograph of the Arco Chemical
Company's Channelview plant. In the center you will
see the aeration basin. This facility provides a high
level of biological oxidation and discharges into the
San Jacinto River, then into the Houston Ship Channel.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the Rico Chemical
Company. This plant discharges into Greens Bayou, then
into the Houston Ship Channel.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the sewage treatment
plant serving the city of South Houston.
-------
606
D. Whittington
This is a 1 MGD facility and utilizes a
contact stabilization process plus chlorination.
I would point out that the white building
in the center of the picture here houses incineration
facilities for the disposal of sludge generated at the
waste treatment plant, as well as household refuse
generated within the city. This plant discharges into
Berry Bayou and then into the Houston Ship Channel.
In addition to the facilities which I have
just shown you, I would like to show you a few more
pictures of facilities which will be completed this
year and which will further reduce the BOD load to the
Houston Ship Channel.
[Slide.]
This is a photograph of the 20 MGD
expansion to the city of Houston Northside sewage
treatment plant.
The expansion is located on the righthand
side of the picture and you will note that facility
was in partial operation at the time this picture
was taken several weeks ago. This expansion will
provide chlorination facilities for the entire design
-------
607
D. Whittington
capacity.of the total plant, some 60 MGD.
I v/as just informed by my colleague, Mr.
John Lusler, District Superintendent for this District,
that 23 MGD of waste treated by this plant was supposed
to receive chlorination by noon today, and it is
anticipated — (Laughter) — that the entire flow will
be treated by the end of the week, which we never did
get back in touch with these fellers to be sure they
made it.
[Slide . ]
Pictured here is the city of Houston's
Southwest plant. Note that the facility was being
expanded at the time the picture was taken. The
aeration tanks in the foreground are in operation.
Those in the background have just been constructed.
Note that room has been allowed for
further expansion of this facility. This facility,
which is presently under construction, is a new waste
treatment plant for Diamond Shamrock's Greens
Bayou plant.
[Slide.]
This picture is of a new waste treatment,
-------
608
D. Whittington
facility constructed by the Rollins Corporation.
This company is not in the manfacturing
business; it is rather a company which retains
materials from waste generated by other industries in
the area, as well as providing a treatment service
for difficult-to-treat wastes generated by others.
These are all of the pictures of waste
treatment facilities located on the Houston Ship
Channel watershed which we will show you today.
We would, however, like to show you a
picture of U. S. Steel Corporation's new plant
located in Chambers County adjacent to Galveston Bay.
[Slide.]
The area in the center of the picture had
been dedicated for the provision of waste treatment
facilities and other necessary utilities. This will
greatly facilitate proper waste management as the
steel plant is expanded.
[Slide.]
This is a picture of the waste treatment
facility serving the Bayport Industrial complex.
This facility for waste treatment was
-------
609
D. Whittington
generated by 14 industries located in the complex. It
is a regional industrial waste treatment plant.
Along these lines the Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority will be discussing further today
additional plans for regional industrial waste
treatment facilities.
I think you must, from the data which I
have shown you, agree that the Texas program is
effectuating a rapid -- I would say spectacular --
decrease in the BOD load being discharged. This has
been accomplished with a minimum of cost to the
citizens of the State of Texas, and very little
unnecessary interference with our local governments
and industries. Such a program is possible only where
reason prevails.
Similarly, other pollutants such as COD
and total suspended solids have been lowered, although
we have not documented their decrease as we have in the
instance of BOD. The situation which existed as of
April 1971 is as shown in this table. You will note in
each case that the actual discharge is less than that
authorized by waste control order.
-------
610
D. Whittington
I would like to briefly leave the Houston
Ship Channel and talk about some of our other problems,
specifically the problem which exists in Upper Galveston
Bay west of the Ship Channel.
There are low dissolved oxygen values and
high BOD values in spots, primarily near Morgan Point.
Also, as you obviously know by discussions here today,
higher than acceptable bacteriological densities
exist at times.
The BOD and dissolved oxygen problems
will be corrected when the Houston Ship Channel
problem is solved.
The bacteriological quality problem in
Upper Galveston Bay west of the Ship Channel is due
to bacteria derived from three sources: 1) treated
but not properly disinfected domestic sewage, 2) land
wash, i. e., rainfall runoff from contaminated areas,
and 3) waste discharges from ships and other vessels.
The percentage of the problem attributable to each of
these sources is not known, but it is quite likely that
the first two sources, i. e., treated sewage and land
wash are the more important.
-------
611
D. Whittington
Progress is being made in bringing about
proper disinfection of the treated domestic sewage
discharges in the Galveston Bay area. During February
1971, the chlorination practices at the sewage
treatment plant located on the Houston Ship Channel
were as shown in the table. Incidentially, this table
was, in the first column, referring to the number of
plants, and the percentage of plants, and then the
volume, and the percent of the volume was over on the
righthand side.
You will note at that time, of the 190
MGD of treated sewage being discharged, 24 percent
of the volume was properly chlorinated; 21 percent
of the volume was chlorinated but not totally
satisfactorily. By this I mean that at least once
during the month the chlorine residual was not adequate;
54 percent of the volume was not chlorinated; and we
have no data for 1 percent of the volume.
I am happy to report, as I said previously,
that the city of Houston chlorination facilities at
their Northside sewage treatment plant will be on
stream and will chlorinate some 60 MGD of the presently
-------
612
D. Whittington
unchlorinated flow by the end of the week. With the
advent of chlorination at this plant, the plants where
chlorination is practiced will increase to 74 percent
with 72 percent of the effluent discharged being
chlorinated. Something is wrong with my figures here,
but, anyway, 72 percent of the effluent discharged
is connected up.
Further improvements are forthcoming.
Again I told you that the city of Houston is going to
let bids in the immediate future for chlorination
facilities at the Sims Bayou plant. It is anticipated
these facilities will be "on stream" by early 1972.
When this is accomplished/ all of the sewage treatment
plants located on the Houston Ship Channel of which the
Texas Water Quality Board has knowledge will have the
required facilities for proper disinfection. The
securement of proper chlorination then resolves itself
to one of providing adequate surveillance and
enforcement to insure that the facilities provided are
used. This, the board intends to do.
In the Clear Lake watershed approximately
85 percent of the plants are properly chlorinating,
-------
613
D. Whittington
as revealed by duplicate inspections conducted during
February, March, and April 1971. All of the plants
are equipped with the required facilities. The
additional inspection frequency, which we plan on
inaugurating when our staff is expanded at the beginning
of our upcoming fiscal year, should increase the 85
percent proper operations.
In the past, problems have been noted in
the bay adjacent to the city of Galveston main sewage
treatment plant. This problem is illustrated in Figure
V-3 of the EPA report. Figure V-3 is based on data
secured during the periods December 1968 -- April
1969, and December 1969 — April 1970. Since these
data were collected, a considerable improvement in the
situation at Galveston has been effectuated. We would
hasten to add at this point that the problem has been
improved — not yet totally corrected. The city,
however, during recent months, has been able to provide
proper chlorination for its waste discharge.
Insofar as the water quality problems in
Upper Galveston Bay west of the Ship Channel are
concerned, I would repeat that the dissolved-oxygen-
-------
614
D. Whittington
related problems will be solved when the load on the
Houston Ship Channel is adequately lower. Further, with
the advent of the city of Houston placing the
chlorination facilities at the Sims Bayou treatment
plant into operation, an event scheduled for early 1972,
it is our view that a major -- and I would repeat this
-- improvement in the average bacteriological quality
situation in the bay will materialize. We do not know
if this improvement will be sufficient to avoid high
coliform densities in portions of this zone of the
bay during periods of significant rainfall runoff
where land wash is a major influence.
I would now like to leave the Galveston
Bay and go to Trinity Bay. Trinity Bay, prior to the
advent of the Houston Lighting & Power Company's Cedar
Bayou generating station, received no large wastewater
discharge of any kind. Nevertheless, portions of
Trinity Bay have for many years been noncompliant with
the bacteriological requirements. This is difficult to
understand inasmuch as the bay receives no direct point
waste discharges of any magnitude. In fact, the
periphery of the bay is almost totally undeveloped,
-------
615
D. Whittington
having only 4 small communities on its banks --
Anahuac with a population of 1,986, Beach City with
a population of 200, and Smith Point here, and Oak
Islands with population too small to be included in
9
the Texas Almanac. (Laughter.) All of these
communities utilize septic tanks at the moment for
sewage disposal.
It is our judgment that the problem here
is related to land wash and wastes from diffuse
sources -- certainly not point waste discharges. An
examination of the percentage of fecal coliform
organisms at various MPN values is indicative of this
fact. You will note that the higher the MPN the lower
the percent fecal organisms. Normally for a fresh
sewage discharge you should have a fecal percentage
something in the order of 35 to 40 percent. This
indicates that these organisms are largely derived from
land wash. The solution to the bacteriological quality
problem in the portions of Trinity Bay affected is
unclear. The experience in Trinity Bay, however, would
tend to question the view that the problem in Upper
Galveston Bay west of the Ship Channel is totally related
-------
616
D. Whittington
to point discharges of treated sewage.
Now I would like to go to Clear Lake. The
problem in Clear Lake is one, as you already know from
being here yesterday, of eutrophication. In order to
cope with this problem, the board adopted on August
28, 1970, board order No. 69-9A requiring tertiary
treatment for all waste in the watershed by August
28, 1972.
It is our belief that the increased
treatment level required by this board order, plus
the heightened surveillance and enforcement of the
law as it relates to waste spills on the watershed,
will bring the zone into compliance. Increased
surveillance and enforcement will be possible during
our next budget year since we will more than double
the size of our district office.
Now, I would like to leave specific
problem areas and talk in general terms. The EPA
report concerns itself with oil and grease and heavy
metals in Galveston Bay as these pollutants relate
to seafood, particularly shellfish.
According to the EPA report, outstanding
waste control orders issued by the Texas Water Quality
-------
617
D. Whittington
Board authorize the release of 55,000 pounds per day of
oil and grease into Galveston Bay, of which 98 percent
is authorized for release to the Houston Ship Channel.
Further, the EPA report recommends that the "permits
should be amended to allow no discharge of oil and
grease from any waste source," and states that the
permitted discharge of oil constitutes a violation of
Section 11(b) of the Federal Water Quality Act, as
amended.
The recommendation is ridiculous in that
"all" is a meaningless term as applied to water quality
control. If you are able to make a test for a particular
pollutant sensitive enough, you will almost invariably
find the pollutant in any sample of wastewater. Water
is, after all, the universal solvent.
We will note in examining Section 11(b)
that it is not ridiculous. Section 11(b) states, "The
discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of
the United States ... in harmful quantities ... is
prohibited ..."
What then is the case relative to waste
discharges into Galveston Bay? In May 1971, the Texas
-------
618
D. Whittington
Water Quality Board District Office examined for oil
and grease the effluents from 18 petroleum industry
plants who discharge an aggregate of 103 MGD of
wastewater into the Houston Ship Channel. This
examination revealed that of the 103 MGD, 51 MGD or
50 percent of the volume had oil and grease concen-
trations of 3.6 mg/1 or less; 85 MGD or 83 percent
of the volume had oil and grease concentrations of 30
mg/1 or less; and 17 MGD or 17 percent of the volume
had oil and grease concentrations in excess of 30
mg/1.
The significance of oil and grease
concentrations of 3.6 mg/1 and 30 mg/1 is that they
correspond according to my calculations, to the "best
available treatment" and "base level treatment,"
respectively, in the proposed EPA petroleum refinery
effluent standards.
The calculations were made using the 75
percent and 97 percent oil removal efficiencies shown
for "base level treatment" and "best available treatment,"
respectively, and the amount of oil present in the
effluent from the hypothetical typical oil refinery
-------
619
D. Whittington
shown in the proposed EPA refinery effluent standards.
Assuming that EPA adopts the standards as proposed,
83 percent of the effluents discharged to the Houston
Ship Channel, according to our sample data, would
meet the "base level treatment" requirements and 50
percent, the "best available treatment" requirements.
This is not to say that additional
improvements should not be or will not be made. I
have really only two points here. One is "any," the
meaningless word -- it has to be tied down to a
concentrating value.
The other point is a great deal more
has been done relative to the removal of oil and
grease from effluent discharge into the Houston
Ship Channel than has been heretofore acknowledged.
Now, I would like to talk briefly about
heavy metals. The Environmental Protection Agency
report itself is the best source document to
illustrate the effects of the alleged excessive
quantities of heavy metals discharged into
Galveston Bay.
By examining Table V-5, Page 41, of the
-------
620
D. Whittington
EPA report, it will be noted that there are no
substantial differences between the concentrations of
various heavy metals in the meats of oysters secured
from Morgan Point, near the mouth of the Houston Ship
Channel, and East Bay, an area which receives no
industrial waste discharges of any kind. These things
are side by side right there. I don't know that you
can read it, but there are no differences. You can
look at your black book. These two sample stations
are as shown in here. That is Morgan Point and
this is the Houston Ship Channel up here (indicating).
This is certainly not what you would
expect since it would be supposed that a gradient
would exist -- being high near the alleged source and
progressively lower as one retreats from the source.
This is what we found in the case of a mercury
discharge in another estuary in the State.
Further, with respect to heavy metals,
it would be in order to examine the metal concentrations
in Galveston Bay oysters relative to the concentrations
found in other estuaries in the United States. This
is such an examination.
-------
621
D. Whittington
You will note that Galveston Bay oysters
in general have lower concentrations of heavy metals
than oysters from either the east or west coasts.
This examination I think would certainly tend to
calm any fears which might exist relative to the
heavy metal situation which exists in Galveston
Bay at this time.
By this I do not mean -- and I repeat --
I do not mean -- that the Texas Water Quality Board
considers everything to be satisfactory. This is far
from the case. In August 1970, the board passed
boa£d order No. 70-0828-5 which regulates the discharge
of most hazardous metals. As fast as waste dischargers
are found who are discharging wastewater contrary to
this or other applicable board orders, corrections
will be secured.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I would
point out that we presently have 9 men stationed in our
La Port® office. This is approximately 1/3 of our
entire field staff for the whole State.
These men stationed at La Porte all — I
think without exception -- work more than a 40-hour
-------
622
D. Whittington
week, even though they are on a straight salary. This
extra time is freely given because of a sense of
mission and because of believing in the work we are
doing. It is a privilege for me to work with these
men. The point I am trying to make here is that 9
men in our office can only do so much.
Now, I would like to talk about the
results that we have effectuated. The Texas Water
Quality Board, when it was established in 1967, had
a very long way to go in attempting to correct long
outstanding environmental abuses which had been
accumulating for years due to municipal, industrial,
and public indifference, and the ineffectiveness of
local, State and Federal pollutien abatement programs.
And in saying this I do not mean that the folks who
were involved in the program were not working hard.
I am simply saying there were not enough resources
to be brought to bear upon the problem. The story
in Texas is no different from that in the Nation as
a whdle, except that we were and are somewhat better
off because of a few farsighted individuals in State
government. For example, Texas has had a policy for
-------
623
D. Whittington
many years that all sewage should receive secondary
treatment and chlorination. This policy was not
always enforced, but its simple existence helped, and,
as a consequence., Texas does not have raw sewage
discharges as a matter of course.
Because we have had so far to go, and as
the problem was of such magnitude, progress has been
slow to manifest itself. It exists, nonetheless, and
can easily be seen in these figures. These graphs
represent the average conditions based on data
tabulated by calendar year except for 1971. These
are plots of the BOD versus time at three points on
the Houston Ship Channel. This particular plot is
at Morgan Point and you will note the decrease
(indicating). The 1971 point is the average of the
data collected through April 1971.
The dissolved oxygen concentration at
Morgan Point appears to be responding to these decreased
loads. There has been no significant response yet in
the upper reaches of the channel and additional
lowering of the BOD load will be required.
-------
624
D. Whittington
We do anticipate that continued improvements
will occur, and that the bacteriological quality
problem in Upper Galveston Bay west of the channel
should dramatically improve in early 1972 when we get
all of the sewage effluents properly chlorinated.
In summary it is our belief that: 1) we
have demonstrated that water quality problems exist
in the Galveston Bay estuary, 2) we have demonstrated
that the Texas water quality requirements have
idiosyncrasies and are not standards of such worth
and scientific validity that they should be met
regardless of the consequences, 3) we have demonstrated
that Texas has an effective water quality program
which is resulting in satisfactory -- although
certainly not as rapid as we would like -- progress
toward solutions to our problems, 4) we have
demonstrated that the oil and grease situation, insofar
as waste discharges go to Galveston Bay, are not as
bad as pictured, 5) we have demonstrated that
excessive heavy metals do not exist in Galveston Bay,
and finally, 6) we have demonstrated that improvements,
admittedly slow in becoming manifest to this point are,
in fact, occuring.
-------
625
D. Whittington
These points which I have brought to your
attention would appear to me to negate any necessity
the conferees might feel to take, in the name of water
quality, rash, unwise, or precipitous action which
would severely harm the citizens of this area and the
State of Texas. I would consequently urge the
conferees to carefully review each proposed
recommendation in this light.
Could we have the lights?
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my
presentation.
(Applause.)
MR. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Chairman, the papers
which I had handed out to you -- the text I have read
and the paper handed you are not identical inasmuch
as I did not have the method to reproduce the
pictures and the conversation would have been
meaningless without this.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: We discussed this while
you were making your presentation and I talked to
Mr. Yantis about that.
If you would give us prints of those
-------
626
D. Whittington
pictures, which I understand you can, we will make
them exhibits and part of the record.
[The above-mentioned prints are marked
exhibits and are on file at HQ, EPA, Washington, D. C.
and Region VI, Dallas, Texas.]
[The formal report follows.]
-------
WATER QUALITY REPORT
GALVESTON DAY COMPLEX
STATE OF TEXAS
prepared for
EPA - WQO ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Houston, Texas
June 1, 8, & 9, 1971
by
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION
-------
628
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
List of Figures ii
List of Tables iii
Problem 1
Zones out of Compliance 1
Idiosyncrasies of Water Quality Requirements .... 1
Attitude of Texas Water Quality Board 6
Corrective Program
Houston Ship Channel and San Jacinto
River Tidal 7
Upper Galveston Bay West of the Ship Channel .... 10
Trinity Bay, Zone 1103 14
Clear Lake, Zone 0903 16
General 16
Oil and Grease 16
Heavy Metals 18
Results 24
Summary 28
i
-------
629
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
1 Map of Water Quality Zones in
Galveston Bay Complex 2
2 Idiosyncrasies of Water Quality
Requirement 4
3 Decrease in B.O.D. Load Discharged to
the Houston Ship Channel 8
4 Percent Fecal vs. Total MPN,
Trinity Bay Data 15
5 Portion of Section (11) (b) (2) of
the Federal Water Quality Act
as Amended 17
6 Portion of Proposed EPA Oil
Refinery Effluent Standards ...... 19
7 EPA Sample Stations 21
8 B.O.D. vs. Time, Turning Basin,
Houston Ship Channel 25
9 B.O.D. vs. Time, San Jacinto Monument,
Houston Ship Channel 26
10 B.O.D. vs. Time, Morgan Point,
Houston Ship Channel 27
ii
-------
630
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
1 Water Quality Zone out of Compliance
with Water Quality Requirements ... 3
2 Idiosyncrasies of Water Quality
Requirements, Gulf at Galveston,
Zone 0901 5
3 Houston Ship Channel Pollutant
Loading 9
4 Chlorination Practices, Houston Ship
Channel including Baytown 11
5 Chlorination Practices, Clear Lake
Watershed 13
6 EPA Report Table V-5, Metal Concentration
in Oysters from Galveston Bay .... 20
7 Range of Trace Metal Values
in Shellfish 22
iii
-------
PROBLEM
631
Zones out of Compliance:
The Galveston Bay complex includes fourteen water*-quality zones
(as shown in Figure 1) for which WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS,
commonly called stream standards, have been adopted by the State
and accepted by the Federal government. Some of these zones
were out of compliance when the Texas Water Quality Board was
established, and they have not yet been brought into compliance.
These zones (ks shown in Table 1) are: (1) the Houston Ship
Channel zones (0904, 0905, 0906) and the San Jacinto River
Tidal zone (0903) which are out of compliance with the oxygen
resources parameters, (2) the Clear Lake zone (0907) which is
also out of compliance with oxygen resources parameters, although
less severely and frequently than the Houston Ship Channel,
(3) Upper Galveston Bay West of the Ship Channel (1104) is
over a portion of its area noncompliant with respect to dissolved
oxygen and bacteriological quality, and (4) portions of Trinity
Bay (1103) are noncompliant relative to bacteriological quality.
Idiosyncrasies of Water Quality Requirements:
The fact that these zones are noncompliant with the WATER QUALITY
REQUIREMENTS does not necessarily mean that a real problem exists.
Those of you who have read the EPA report will recall that the
incongruity of having a lower B.O.D. criterion for Zone 0906 of
the Houston Ship Channel than for Galveston Bay, Zone 1104, was
pointed out. Further problems of this nature can easily be noted.
Zone 0906 of the Houston Ship Channel has a lower MPN than
Galveston Bay, Zone 1104. These problems are illustrated in
Figure 2. The dissolved oxygen concentration established for
the Gulf of Mexico at Galveston is 115% of saturation at the
salinity and temperature which sometimes exists - a standard
physically impossible to meet. The B.O.D. criterion for the Gulf
at Galveston is 1 mg/1, well below normal gulf water. These
problems, shown in Table 2, point out the basic lack of scientific
validity in all instances of the WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.
In pointing out this lack, I do not intend to criticize either
the State who prepared the REQUIREMENTS, nor the Federal govern-
ment who accepted them. It must be remembered that the REQUIRE-
MENTS were prepared by the State at the insistence of the Federal
government in a very short time by a very few persons. The
REQUIREMENTS were undoubtedly accepted by the Federal government
under the same handicap. The point here is that the REQUIREMENTS
should be viewed as what they are, i.e., a generally sound guide-
line for water quality management. They should not be viewed as
sacred, rigid, unchangeable REQUIREMENTS possessing great
scientific validity and social worth.
1
-------
FIGURE 1
632
0904
'€ mw;
1
>»JUYti.
O908
V?/)y.
OOOl
-------
633
TABLE 1
THE PROBLEM
Zone Parameter Out of Compliance
0904
- Houston Ship Channel
Dissolved
Oxygen,
BOD
0905
- Houston Ship Channel
Dissolved
Oxygen,
BOD
0906
- Houston Ship Channel
Dissolved
Oxygen,
BOD
0903
- San Jacinto Tidal
Dissolved
Osygen,
BOD
0907
- Clear Lake
BOD
1104
- Galveston Bay West
of Channel
Dissolved Oxygen*,
and MPN*
BOD*,
1103
- Trinity Bay
MPN*
*in Limited Areas only
3
-------
634
FIGURE 2
IDIOSYNCRASIES OF WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
IN GALVESTON BAY AREA
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
0904
0905
0906
1104
GALVESTON BAY
B.O.D.
MPN
100,000
10,000
40
70
4
-------
635
TABLE 2
IDIOSYNCRASIES OF WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
GULF OF MEXICO AT GALVESTON
ZONE 0901
CHLORIDES TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN
mg/1 mg/1
Standard 20,000 SCC*1) 7.0
Possible Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at
Temperature and Chlorides Shown-6.1
Percent Saturation 115%
^Temperature Routinely Measured in Gulf Water at Texas
Water Quality Board Sample Stations
Average of all Gulf of Mexico Samples examined for B.O.D.
including those from Sabine Pass, Bolivar Roads, Port
Aransas, and Port Manisfield 2.1 mg/1
Standard for Zone 0901 1 mg/1-
5
-------
636
Attitude of Texas Water Quality Board:
Nevertheless, it is the view of the Texas Water Quality Board
that the zones pointed out previously in this paper as being
out of compliance with the requirements are real problems and
not idiosyncrasies of the requirements. These problems were
existent when the Texas Water Quality Board was created in
1967—they are not new. Regardless, the Board has not and
is not satisfied with the status quo. We feel and have felt
since the agency was formed that the situation is intolerable
and that the real problems must be corrected. Toward this
end, a corrective program was formulated and placed into motion.
I would like to briefly discuss this corrective program.
6
-------
637
CORRECTIVE PROGRAM
Houston Ship Channel and San Jacinto River Tidal:
The problem in the Houston Ship Channel (Zones 0904, 0905, and
0906) is caused by large volumes of both municipal and
industrial waste being discharged into a deep, relatively
narrow, artificial channel which receives very little fresh
water inflow and very limited tidal flushing—both the hydrology
and geometry of the channel mitigating against its ability to
assimilate wastewater. The problem in the tidal reach of the
San Jacinto (Zone 0903) is related inasmuch as this problem is
primarily due to the diffusion of pollutants up the river be-
cause of the very limited, practically nonexistent, fresh water
inflow- It was, and is, obvious that the first step toward a
solution to the water quality problem in these zones is to
lower the waste load—although additional and/or different
approaches may be required before a truly satisfactory solution
has been found.
With respect to lowering the load, Figure 3 shows the decrease*
in the measured B.O.D. load being discharged into the Houston
Ship Channel since 1968. The data shown for 1968, 1969, and
the first portion of 1970, are the B.O.D. loads as determined
by our district office from single measurements at each source.
The data for the latter portion of 1970 and 1971 were calculated
by months, using a digital computer and the self-report data
supplied by each waste discharger pursuant to Board Order
#69-1219-1. This Board Order adopted by the Board on April 24,
1970, requires each waste discharger holding a waste control order
from the Board to report monthly on the volume and quality of
wastewater discharged during the months In the case of larger
discharges, continuous flow measurements and analyses on com-
posite samples are required. As a consequence, these data are
considerably more accurate than the earlier single measurement
data as secured by our district office. The last calculation
shown on Figure 3 is the load existent as of April, 1971.
Also shown is a 1970 estimate of the total raw B.O.D. load prior
to treatment. It should be remembered in viewing this graph
that the raw waste load prior to treatment has and will continue
to increase with time due to the population and industrial growth
of Houston. The decrease has been effectuated in spite of the
growth in the raw waste load.
Additionally, the treated B.O.D. load, authorized by waste control
orders issued by the Texas Water Quality Board as of April, 1971,
is shown.
7
-------
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
B.O.D. LOADING
600f
Raw Waste Load-'*
500
^Measured Load
£ 400
-------
TABLE 3
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL POLLUTANT LOADING
(Includes Baytown Area)
POLLUTANT
C.O.D.
T.S.S.
Oil & Grease
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
Authorized
781,000
328,000
43,700
May, 1971
513,000
284,000
28,800*
Percent of
Authorized
66%
86%
66%
~Extrapolated from Measured Data
-------
640
You will note from Figure 3 that: (1) a considerable decrease
has been effectuated, (2) the aggregate B.O.D. load discharged
to the Channel is less than that authorized, and (3) an overall
B.O.D. removal of about 76% is being realized.
This progress was not achieved miraculously—it was achieved by
both municipalities' and industries' spending large sums for
treatment works.
Additional progress will be made. The City of Houston at the
moment, as well as several industries, have additional treatment
facilities under construction which will further lower the load.
The 20 mgd expansion of the City of Houston's Northside sewage
treatment plant should be placed on stream very shortly. This
facility will result in a sizeable reduction in the load being
discharged.
I think you must agree from these data that the Texas program is
effectuating a rapid—I would say spectacular—decrease in the
B.O.D. load being discharged. This has been accomplished with a
minimum of cost to the citizens of the State of Texas,and very
little unnecessary interference with our local governments and
industries. Such a program is possible only where reason prevails.
Similarly, other pollutants such as C.O.D. and Total Suspended
Solids have been lowered although we have not documented their
decrease as we have in the instance of B.O.D. The situation
which existed as of April, 1971, is as shown on Table 3. You
will note in each case that the aqtual discharge is less than
that authorized by waste control order.
Upper Galveston Bay West of the Ship Channel:
The problems in Upper Galveston Bay west of the Ship Channel are
low dissolved oxygen values and high B.O.D. values in spots,
primarily near Morgan Point. Also, higher than acceptable
bacteriological densities exist at times.
The B.O.D. and dissolved oxygen problems will be corrected when
the Houston Ship Channel problem is solved.
The bacteriological problem in Upper Galveston Bay west of the
Ship Channel is due to bacteria derived from three sources:
(1) treated but not properly disinfected domestic sewage, (2) land
wash, i.e., rainfall runoff from contaminated areas, and (3) waste
discharges from ships and other vessels. The percentage of the
problem attributable to each of these sources is not known but it
is quite likely that the first two sources, treated sewage discharge
and land wash; are'the more important.
10
-------
641
TABLE 4
CHLORINATION PRACTICES
Houston Ship Channel Including Baytown
STATUS
NO. ^
%
VOLUME,
mgd( '
%
Properly Chlorinating
74
59
45
24
Chlorinating, Not Totally
Satisfactory
32
26
40
21
Not Chlorinating
2
2
103
54
No Data for Month
16
13
2
1
Total
124
100
190
100
^Based on February, 1971, Self Report
11
-------
642
Progress is being made in bringing about proper disinfection
of the treated domestic sewage discharges in the Galveston Bay
area. During February, 1971, the chlorination practices at the
sewage treatment plant located on the Houston Ship Channel were
as shown in Table 4. You will note at that time, of the 190 mgd
of treated sewage being discharged, 24%'of the volume was
properly chlorinated; 21% of the volume was chlorinated but not
totally satisfactorily—by this, I mean that at least once during
the month the chlorine residual was not adequate; 54% of the
volume was not chlorinated; and we have no data for 1% of the
volume. I am happy to report that the City of Houston's
chlorination facilities at their Northside sewage treatment
plant will go "on stream" very shortly. With the advent of
chlorination at this plant, the plants where chlorination is
practiced increased to 74%, witii 72% of the effluent discharged
chlorinated.
Further improvements are forthcoming. The City of Houston is
proposing to let bids in the immediate future for chlorination
facilities at its Sims Bayou Plant, /ft is anticipated these
facilities will be "on stream" by early 1972. When this is ac-
complished, all of the sewage treatment facilities located on
the Houston Ship Channel of which the Texas Water Quality Board
has knowledge will have the required facilities for proper dis-
infection. The securement.of proper chlorination then resolves
itself to one of providing adequate surveillance and enforcement
to insure that the facilities provided are used. This, the
Board intends to do.
In the Clear Lake watershed, approximately 85% of the plants are
properly chlorinating as revealed by duplicate inspections con-
ducted during February, March, and April, 1971. All plants are
equipped with the required facilities. The additional inspection
frequency which we plan on inaugurating when our staff is expanded
at the beginning of our upcoming fiscal year should increase the
85% proper operations.
In the past, problems have been noted in the bay adjacent to the
City of Galveston's main sewage treatment plant. This problem is
illustrated in Figure V-3 of the EPA report. Figure V-3 is based
on data secured during the periods December,1968, through April,
1969, and December, 1969, through April, 1970. Since these data
were collected, a considerable improvement in the situation at
Galveston has been effectuated. We would hasten to add at this
point that the problem has been improved—not yet totally corrected.
The City, during recent months, has, however, been able to provide
proper chlorination for its waste discharge.
12
-------
643
TABLE 5
CHLORINATION PRACTICES
Clear Lake Watershed
STATUS
Feb.-Mar.,
1971
April,
1971
No.
%
No. %
Properly Chlorinating
26
90
23
80
Chlorinating, Not Totally
Satisfactory
2
7
5
17
Not Chlorinating
0
0
0
0
No Data Secured
_1
3
_1
3
Total
29
100
29
100
13
-------
644
Insofar as the water quality problems in Upper Galveston Bay-
west of the Ship Channel are concerned, I would repeat that the
dissolved oxygen related problems will be solved when the load
on the Houston Ship Channel is adequately lower. Further, with
the advent of the City of Houston placing the chlorination
facilities at the Sims Bayou treatment plant into'operation,
an event scheduled for early 1972, it is our view that a major
improvement in the average bacteriological quality situation
in the Bay will materialize. We do not know if this improvement
will be sufficient to avoid high coliform densities in portions
of this zone of the Bay during periods of significant rainfall
runoff where land wash is a major influence.
Trinity Bay, Zone 1103:
Trinity Bay, prior to the advent of the Houston Light and Power
Company's Cedar Bayou generation station, received no large
wastewater discharges of any kind. Nevertheless portions of
Trinity Bay have for many years been noncompliant with the
bacteriological requirements. This is difficult to understand
inasmuch as the Bay receives no direct point waste discharges *of
any magnitude. In fact, the periphery of the Bay is almost
totally undeveloped, having only four small communities on its
banks—Anahuac with a population of 1986, Beach City with a
population of 200, and Smith Point and Oak Islands with popula-
tions too small to be included in the Texas Almanac. All of
these communities utilize septic tanks at the moment for sewage
disposal.
It is our judgment that the problem here is related to land wash
and wastes from diffuse sources—certainly not point waste
discharges. An examination of the percentage of fecal coliform
organisms at various MPN values is indicative of this fact. You
will note that the higher the MPN, the lower the percent fecal
organisms. This indicates that these organisms are largely derived
from land wash. The solution to the bacteriological quality problem
in the portions of Trinity Bay affected is unclear.
The experience in Trinity Bay would tend to question the view
that the problem in Upper Galveston Bay west of the Channel is
totally related to point discharges of treated sewage.
14
-------
645
PERCENT FECAL vs TOTAL M.P.N.
Data collected at Stations 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, & 28 in
Trinity Bay from July, 68 through October, 69
30%
J
y
i
I aa
C
(0
¦o
0)
20%
< .3
10
o
o
li.
0
o
ft.
£
Median % Fecal of M.P.N,
values below the City of
Houston Northside plant
is 35%
10%
Bcr
10,000
Total M.P.N
(IS)
-------
646
Clear Lake, Zone 0907:
The problem in Clear Lake is one of eutrophication. In order to
cope with this problem, the Board adopted on August 28, 1970
Board Order #69-9A requiring tertiary treatment by August 28,
1972.
It is our belief that the increased treatment level required by
this Board Order, plus heightened surveillance and enforcement of
the law as it relates to waste spills on the watershed, will bring
the zone into compliance. Increased surveillance and enforcement
will be possible during our next budget year since we will more than
double the size of our district office staff.
General:
The Environmental Protection Agency report concerns itself with
oil and grease and heavy metals in Galveston Bay as these
pollutants relate to seafood - particularly shellfish.
Oil and Grease
According to the EPA report, outstanding waste control orders
issued by the Texas Water Quality Board authorizes the release
of 55,000 lbs/day of oil and grease into Galveston Bay, of which
98% is authorized for release to the Houston ShJ.p Channel.
Further, the EPA report recommends that the "permits should be
amended to allow no discharge of oil and grease from any waste
source," and states that the permitted discharge of oil con-
stitutes a violation of Section 11 (b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended.
The recommendation is ridiculous in that "all" is a meaningless
term as applied to water quality control. If you are able to
make a test for a particular pollutant sensitive enough, you
will almost invariably find the pollutant in any sample of waste-
water. Water is, after all, the universal solvent.
We note in examining Section 11 (b) that it is not ridiculous
since Section 11 (b) (2) states, "The discharge of oil into or
upon the navigable waters of the United States . . . in harmful
quantities ... is prohibited. . . "
What then is the case relative to waste discharges into Galveston
Bay? in May, 1971, the Texas Water Quality Board district office
examined for oil .and grease the effluents from eighteen petroleum
16
-------
28
(k)"(l) At the request of a majority of the conferees in any con-
ference called under this section the Secretary is authorized to request
anv person whose alleged activities result in discharges causing or con-
tributing to water pollution, to file with him a report (in such form as
may be prescribed in regulations promulgated by him) based on exist-
ing data, furnishing such information as may reasonably be requested
as to the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges and the use
of facilities or other means to prevent or reduce such discharges by the
person filing such a report. No person shall be required in such report
to divulge trade secrets or secret processes, and all information re-
ported shall be considered confidential for the purposes of section 1905
of title 18 of the United States Code.
(2) If any person required to file any report under this subsection
shall fail to*do so within the time fixed by regulations for filing the
same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days after notice of
such default, such person may, by order of a majority of the conferees,
be subject to a forfeiture of $100 for each and every day of the contin-
uance of such failure which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treas-
ury of the United States and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the
name of the United States brought in the district where such person
has his principal office or in any district in which he does business. The
Secretary may upon application therefor remit or mitigate any for-
feiture provided for under this subsection and he shall have authority
to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(3) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the "Attorney General of the United States, to
prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
CONTROL OF FOLL/DTION BY OIL"
Sec. 11. (a) Forthepurposeofthissection,theterm—
(1) "oil" means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but
not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed
with wastes other than dredged spoil;
(2) "discharge" includes, but is not limited to, any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping;
(3) "vessel" means every description of watercraft or other
artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation on water other than a public vessel;
(4) "public vessel" means a vessel owned or bare-boat chartered
and operated by the United States, or by a State or political sub-
division thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when such vessel is
engaged in commerce;
(5) "United States" means the States, the District of Columbia,
tho Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, Amer-
ican Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands;
(6) "owner or operator" means (A) in the case of a vessel, anv
person owning, operating, or chartering by demise, such vessel,
and (B) in the case of an onshore facility, and an offshore facility,
° This subsection added by fcc. 208(a). Public Lair 89-753.
u Added by sec. 102, Public Lftir 91-224.
any person owning or operating such onshore facility or offshore
facility, and (C) m the case of any abandoned offshore faci'i'y,
the person who owned or operated such facility immediately prior
to such abandonment;
(7) "person" includes an individual, firm, corporation, associa-
tion, and a partnership;
(S) "remove" or "removal" refers to removal of the oil from
the water and shorelines or the taking of such other actions as
may bo necessary to minimize or mitigate damage, to tho public
health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, and public and private property,shorelines, and beaches;
(9) "contiguous zone" means the entire zone established or to
be established by the United States under article 24 of the Con-
vention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone:
(10) "onshore facility'' means any facility (including, but not
limited to, motor vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind located
in, on, or under, any land within the United States other than
submerged land;
(11) "offshore, facility" means any facility of any kind located
in, on. or under, any of the navigable waters of the United States
other than a vessel or a public vessel:
(12) "act of God" mestns an act occasioned by an unanticipated
grave natural disaster;
(13) "barrel" means 42 United States gallons at (50 degrees
Fahrenheit.
(b)(1) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policv of the
Unit ed States that there should be no discharges of oil into or upon
tho navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into
or upon the waters of the contiguous zone.
(2) The discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the
United. States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of th?
contiguous zone in harmful quantities as determined by the President
under paragraph (3) of this subsection, is prohibited, except (A) in
the ease of such discharges into the. waters of the contiguous zone,
where permit-tod under article TV of the International Cor, vent ion for
tho Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954. as amended, and
(B) 'where permitted in quantities and at times and locations or under
such circumstances or conditions as the President may, by regulation,
determine not to be harmful. Any regulations issued untler this sub-
section shall be consistent with maritime safety and with marine
and navigation laws and regulations and applicable water quality
standards.
(3) Tho President shall by regulation, to Iks issued as soon as possi-
ble after the date of enactment of this paragraph, determine for the
purposes of this section, those quantities of oil the discharge, of which,
at such times, locations, circumstances, and conditions, will be harmful
to the public health or welfare of the United States, including, but not
limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property,
shorelines, and bwu'.hes except that in the case of the discharge of oil
into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, oulv those discharges
which threaten the fishery resources of the contiguoiis zone or threaten
-------
648
industry plants who discharge an aggregate of 103 mgd of waste-
water into the Houston Ship Channel. This examination revealed
that of the 103 mgd, 51 mgd or 50% of the volume had oil and
grease concentrations of 3.6 mg/1 or less; 85 mgd or 83% of
the volume had oil and grease concentrations of 3Q mg/1 or less;
and 17 mgd or 17% of the volume had oil and grease concentrations
in excess of 30 mg/1. The significance of oil and grease con-
centrations of 3.6 mg/1 and 30 mg/1 is that they correspond
according to my calculations to the "best available treatment"
and "base level treatment," respectively, in the proposed EPA
petroleum refinery effluent standards. The calculations were made
using the 75% and 97% oil removal efficiencies shown for "base
level treatment" and "best available treatment, " respectively,
and the amount of oil present in the hypothetical typical oil
refinery shown in the proposed EPA refinery effluent standards.
Assuming that EPA adopts the standards as proposed, 83% of the
effluent discharged to the Houston Ship Channel, according to
our sample data, would meet the "base level treatment" require-
ments and 50%, the "best available treatment" requirements.
This is not to say that additional improvements should not be or
will not be made. The point I am making is that a great deal has
been done relative to the removal of oil from petroleum industry
waste discharges into Galveston Bay.
Heavy Metals
The Environmental Protection Agency report itself is the best
source document to illustrate the effects of the alleged ex-
cessive quantities of heavy metals discharged into Galveston Bay.
By examining Table V-5, page 41, of the EPA report (Table 6),
it will be noted that there are no substantial differences between
the concentrations of various heavy metals in the meats of oysters
secured from Morgan Point, near the mouth of the Houston Ship
Channel, and East Bay,an area which receives no industrial waste
discharges of any kind. These two sample stations are as shown
in Figure 7. This is certainly not what you would expect since
it would be supposed that a gradient would exist—being high near
the alleged source and progressively lower as one retreats from
the source. This is what was found in the case of a mercury dis-
charge in another estuary on the Texas Coast.
Further, it would be in order to examine the metal concentrations
in Galveston Bay oysters relative to the concentrations found in
other estuaries in the United States. Table 7 is such an examina-
tion .
18
-------
TABLE 6
NJ
O
MORGAN POINT, TABLE V~5
METALS C CONCENTRATIONS IN OYSTERS FROM GALVESTON BAY—^
EAST BAY NOVEMBER 12, 1970
| (MICROGRAMS PER GRAM - WET WEIGHT)
Parameter
Station
No. 1
Station
No. 2
Station
No. 3
Station
No. 4a
Station
No. 5
Station
No. 6
Station
No. 7
Zinc
>35.30
> 39.70
20,
.46
26.12
21.58
20.26
22.87
Copper
8.2A
9.52
5,
.06
4.79
4.13
7.80
5.23
Cadmium
.41
< .15
< ,
.15
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
Lead
o
•
V
< .30
<
.30
< .30
< .30
< .30
A
»
o
Chromium
r**.
o
«
V
< .07
<
.26
A
•
O
-¦4
.27
.42
.16
Mercury
.008
.062
.028
.040
.030
.045
.007
Arsenic
< .30
A
•
O
<
.30
< .30
.47
A
•
U>
o
A
LO
O
Boron
.87
1.65
.66
.58
.78
.38
.76
Phosphorus
270
258
102
225
185
102
196
Iron
14.71
12.30
4
.63
7.34
5.55
5.93
13.10
Molybdenum
.47
1.32
1
.51
1.57
1.01
.99
.29
Manganese
1.18
.67
.36
.70
.47
.50
.83
Aluminum
21.77
17.84.
8
.51
13.50
12.33
16.51
25.10
Beryllium
< .0015
< .0015
<
.0015
< .0015
< .0015
< .0015
< .0015
Silver
.25
< .015
<
.015
< .015
< .015
< .015
.11
Nickel
.24
.75
<
.15
.37
< .15
< .15
.25
Cobalt
< .15
< .15
<
.15
< .15
< .15
< .15
< .15
Vanadium
A
•
o
A
•
O
<
.30
< .30
< .30
< .30
< .30
Barium
.20
.03
.04
.15
.07
.06
.15
Strontium
1.53
1.65
1
.72
1.80
5.92
3.45
2.40
1_/ See Figure V-ll for sampling locations.
J*
vo
-------
650
FIGURE 6
Table C-2
Selected BLT and BAT for Petroleum Refining Industry
Removal Efficiencies,
. Percent
Contaminants BLT BAT
BOD Bk Sb
con 65 84
Oil 75 97
Suspended Solids 60 88
Phenol 97 99.9
Sulfide 99 100
Ammonia -— 95
The Base Level of Treatment (BLT) is intended to be applied
to all refineries regardless of location, point of discharge,
or receiving watercourse conditions. Any level of treatment
higher than BLT but up to the level of best available treat-
ment (BAT) may also be applied to a specific refinery when the
local water quality standards of a receiving stream call for
higher treatment.
-------
FIGURE 7
C-2
HOUSTON
O 4
4A
—k.
NOTE
summ «»i sum
C J lOISiei SKIP CNANMEL DUE 41
«•< ijitun tut mum mi 4i (TimiNt iijki
>•¦1.1
LEGEND
• iiiiei in iiiei smriiii mini
O itui surimt mini
SCALE IN MtL.CS
Figure V - II Water and Ovsler Sampling Lucalutn* - FWQA Reconnaissance Survey. November I«>70
21
-------
TABLE 7
RANGE OF TRACE METAL VALUES IN SHELLFISH
652
Values given in PPM Wet Weight
Element
Oysters Harvested
From
East Coast (1)
West Coast (1)
(Salveston Bay (2)
Zinc
180-4120
86-344
>35-21
Copper
7.0-517
•
00
0
1
u>
•
U1
o
4-10
Manganese
0.14-15.0
0.90-16
0.36-1.2
Iron
31-238
15.30-91.40
4.6-15
Lead
0.10-2.30
.10-4.50
<0. 3
Chromium
.04-3.40
0.10-.30
<0.07-0.26
Nickel
.08-1.80
o
•
0
1
•
to
o
<0.15-0.75
Cobalt
.06-.20
0.10-.20
<0.15
Cadmium
0.10-7.80
0.20-2.10
<0.15-0.41
(1) Pringle, B. H., Trace Metal Accumulation by Estuarine Mollusks,
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, National Symposium on Estuarine Pollution, Stanford
University, August, 1967.
(2) Division of Field Investigations - Denver Center and South Central
Region, Report on Pollution Affecting Shellfish Harvesting in
Galveston Bay, Texas, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality
Office, March, 1971.
22
-------
653
You will note that Galveston. Bay oysters, in general, have lower
concentrations of heavy metals than oysters from either the East
or West Coasts. This examination would certainly tend to calm
any fears which might exist relative to the heavy metal situa-
tion which exists in Galveston Bay at this time. '
By this, I do not mean that the Texas Water Quality Board considers
everything to be satisfactory. This is far from the case, in
August, 1970, the Board passed Board Order No. 70-0828-5 which
regulates the discharge of most hazardous metals. As fast as
waste dischargers are found who are discharging wastewater con-
trary to this or other applicable Board order, corrections will
be secured.
23
-------
654
RESULTS
The Texas. Water Quality Board, when it was established in 1967,
had a very long way to go in attempting to correct long out-
standing environmental abuses which had' been accumulating for
years due to municipal, industrial, and public indifference,
and the ineffectiveness of local, state and federal pollution
abatement programs. The story in Texas is no different from
that in the nation as a whole, except that we were and are
somewhat better off because of a few farsighted individuals
in state government. For example, Texas has had. a policy for
many years that all sewage should receive secondary treatment
and chlorination. This policy was not always enforced, but
its simple existence helped and, as a consequence, Texas does
not have raw sewage discharges as a matter of course.
Because we have had so far to go and as the problem was of such
magnitude, progress has been slow to manifest itself. It
exists, nonetheless, and can easily be seen in Figures 8, 9j and
30. These graphs represent the average condition based on data
tabulated by calendar year except for 1971. The 1971 point is
the average of the data collected through April, 1971.
The dissolved oxygen concentration at Morgan Point appears to
be responding to these decreased loads. There has been no
significant response yet in the upper reaches of the channel
and additional lowering of the B.O.D. load will be required.
We anticipate that continued improvements will occur, and that
the improvement in the bacteriological quality problem in
Upper Galveston Bay west of the channel should be dramatic
during 1972.
24
-------
TURNING BASIN
35
30
71 Data through April
25
B.O. Dp
mg/l
15
10
STANDARD
STREAM
na
66 (67
TIME, years
64
63
69
70
72
68
65
o>
U1
Ul
-------
MONUMENT
14
12
71 Data through April
10
STREAM
STANDARD
67
64
63
66
TIME, years
69
70
65
-------
MORGAN'S POINT
71 Data through April
STREAM
STANDARD
67
64
66
69
70
71
68
65
7
TIME, years
-------
658
SUMMARY
In summary, it is our belief that: (1) we have demonstrated
that water quality problems exist in the Galveston Bay estuary,
(2) we have demonstrated that the Texas 'Water Quality Require-
ments have idiosyncrasies and are not standards of such worth
and scientific validity that they should be met regardless of
the consequences, (3) we have demonstrated that Texas has an
effective water quality program which is resulting in satisfactory-
although certainly not as rapid as we would like—progress toward
solutions to our problems, (4) we have demonstrated that the oil
and grease situation,.insofar as waste discharges go, are not
as.bad,as pictured, (5) we have demonstrated that excessive
heavy metals do not exist in Galveston Bay, and finally, (6) we
have demonstrated that improvements, admittedly slow in becoming
manifest to this date, are in fact occurring.
These points which I have brought to your attention would appear
to me to negate any necessity the conferees might feel to take,
in the name of water quality, rash, unwise, or precipitous action
which would severely harm the citizens of this area and the
State of Texas. I would consequently urge the conferees to
carefully review each proposed recommendation in this light.
28
-------
D. Whittington
659
CHAIRMAN STEIN: You know, in listening to
Mr. Gallagher yesterday and you today, it is hard for
me to believe that you are talking about the same river.
(Laughter.) Maybe that is the purpose of the conference.
I hope your optimism is shared. Maybe we are going to
have fish back in that Houston body of water. Dick
Whittington, you went along as if you swallowed a
channel cat. (Laughter.) Are there any comments or
questions?
MR. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Gallagher and I do
agree upon one thing. There is plenty of need for
improvement in the Houston Ship Channel.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: All right.
MR. WHITTINGTON: Our difference I think
would be on the progress being made.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I think I heard you at
the end — I think you are not far apart.
What you generally have talked about is
the condition of a river. I don't think you and Mr.
Gallagher are far apart in your description. But you
said much has been done and, within the next few years,
we are going to see a substantial improvement.
-------
660
D. Whittington
MR. WHITTINGTON: I think you have already
seen, I wouldn't say a substantial improvement, but you
have seen an improvement which is substantial in the
interest of BOD.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Right.
MR. WHITTINGTON: The channel has not
responded to this load as of yet.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes, sir.
MR. YANTIS: Mr. Chairman, two comments.
First, I think Mr. Gallagher will agree
that skiing is more dangerous than heavy metals.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I want you to define your
terms. Are you talking about water skiing in the
Houston Ship Channel?
MR. YANTIS: I am talking about snow
skiing up in Denver.
MR. GALLAGHER: I don't eat my skis, Mr.
Yantis. (Laughter.)
MR. YANTIS: Mr. Chairman, there is a
serious comment.
It is the type of problem we have that we
-------
661
D. Whittington
should not have and the type that I hope that Mr. Quarles
can overcome.
There was a Clear Lake which was mentioned,
and certainly it was shown on several of the maps. It
is ringed by approximately 36 discharges. We do, of
course, hope some day to have a regional sewer system
around it.
There is a story in it, but particularly,
we began probably as much as 3 years ago trying to
work out the various alternates that were reasonable
or feasible.
After a great many public hearings, all
of which were fully publicly announced, notice was
given practically to everyone, with any number of
conferences and testimony and advice from all the
competent people that we could find. We issued an
order calling for advanced waste treatment at a certain
level — 12 ppm BOD and suspended solids and 1 ppm
chlorination, I believe.
Now we picked these numbers not out of
any great scientific knowledge, because there was none,
but there is not any Clear Lake study as comprehensive
-------
6 62
D. Whittington
as the Galveston Bay study. No one has the -- it is
a little, tiny body of water. It doesn't justify a
$1 million study. Let's put it that way. And
certainly we don't have the $1 million to do it.
So, we knew that we could take an add-on
type treatment unit that wojild do a pretty good job
and get a form of tertiary treatment that would bring
the BOD down to about 12, get the phosphorus down to
about 1, and do what we thought was a first-class job
for Clear Lake. And if this is not enough, we can add
on another unit. If it is enough, this is fine until
we go the next step, which is still a hope — that
there will be a regional system.
But we picked a set of numbers after all
of these hearings and we announced them publicly and
worked toward them. And then, your people jerked the
rug out from under us and tried to say, "No, it has
to be 5." As far as we can find out, the only reason
is because they can do it at Lake Tahoe. Sure, when
they can do it at Lake Tahoe, we can get it to that
if that is what we want. We can distill it if that
is what we want.
-------
663
D. Whittington
We picked 12, after a long period of
negotiations, consultations and evaluations, with your
people knowing everything we did every step of the way.
Now we are in an argument as to whether the number
should be 12 or 5, and I don't think that any such
argument should ever exist. I hope that you will
instruct your people to go back to the 12 that we think
is valid, because we think it is the only number that
has had any public scrutiny at any public hearing and
has any validity unqer the circumstances.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Let me make a suggestion
here. I think if all we are talking about is the
details, we have never failed to work this out with
a State.
MR. YANTIS: It is a detail, but you people
are holding up the money.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I understand. Again,
let me suggest that I am not saying it isn't a vital
detail or an important one.
Let me say that you people are talking in
terms of 5 and 12. It has always been my experience
that the best way to get an agreement that everyone
-------
664
D. Whittington
can live with is by reducing this, if we can, to pounds
per day. I say this on the basis of years of past
experience in dealing with municipalities and cities
and industries. If we don't reduce it to pounds per
day, we very often get into misunderstandings in the
numbers game -- 12 or 5 or reductions.
If you are right, Hugh, I think all this
will require is a mathematical computation. I am not
arguing with your figures at all.
Once we zero in on a pounds per day
approach, we can go to a city and industry -- and
this has been successful; I am not disputing the other
techniques in percentage removal of that 5 or 12; I
am not disputing that at all — and use pounds per
day in a similar possible area or as an analytic
technique. What I am saying is that our experience has
shown that used as a regulatory technique, all officials
around know exactly where they stand. We can go the
other way.
MR. YANTIS: I do not concur.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: All right.
MR. YANTIS: Let's go on to our next speaker.
-------
D. Whittington
665
MR. QUARLES: I would like, if I may, to
ask Mr. Whittington a question or two. Mr. Whittington,
I wanted to respond to your presentation and ask a
question or two.
First, I would commend you on a thorough
presentation, which presented through the pictures
and your testimony gave some concrete evidence of the
type of progress that I had in mind in my comments
earlier this morning.
MR. WHITTINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Quarles.
MR. QUARLES: I also have a few points
on which we may not be in thorough agreement. But I
certainly was in agreement with your conclusion that
the record which exists is sufficient to deter us
from adopting any rash or unwise or precipitous action.
MR. WHITTINGTON: We appreciate it.
MR. QUARLES: My own feeling is it
doesn't take very much of a record to deter me from
rash, unwise or precipitous action. (Laughter.)
The comment you made on the water quality
standards disturbs me a little. In terms of pointing
out the idiosyncrasies that may exist, I don't know
-------
666
D. Whittington
whether you or others have taken steps to amend the
water quality standards so that those idiosyncrasies
could be eliminated.
MR. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Quarles, that is a
thing which needs to be done. But we have so many
things we need to do, we are trying to fight pollution,
and we felt that a bookkeeping task of this nature
can wait.
MR. QUARLES: I think that you indicated
that the idiosyncrasies were relatively small, and
perhaps not related to the main channel and main
problem.
MR. WHITTINGTON: No, sir, that is not
true. There is in the lower part of the channel,
between Morgan Point and the bay, a BOD value set at
2. This is unrealistic and I don't actually think
it is possible in the sense that the measurements which
we had made on the Gulf water exceed this. So I
don't think it is practical to attempt to meet a BOD
criterion of 2 in the lower part of the Houston Ship
Channel.
Further, the MPN values which are set for
-------
667
D. Whittington
this zone are a median of 40. This is higher than for
shellfish water. So I do not think that we are apt to
make this.
MR. QUARLES: I would like to simply say
that if there are features of the existing State pro-
posed federally-approved water quality standards which
have major significance and which are unrealistic or
otherwise improper, it would warrant some efforts to
consider a revision of those standards.
MR. WHITTINGTON: We would concur with
that.
MR. QUARLES: Because in terms of the
concerns and objectives and attitudes of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, we place very substantial
weight on the existing water quality standards. We
are determined to enforce them and to move from
perhaps the past attitude of these being regarded
as something simply in the nature of a target. We
are determined to have wide acceptance of the fact
that these are regulations adopted pursuant to law,
and have the force of law, and require satisfaction
in the same manner as other legal requirements which
-------
668
D. Whittington
apply to businesses and individuals in this country.
I also am concerned over some of the im-
plications in your presentation, and some of the other
statements we have heard today, which point not only
at the achievements made in which very real pride
can be taken -- and that pride of achievement should
not become blurred by considerations of where we go
from here -- but we are concerned to distinguish
from that pride of the past and present achievement
and the question of what more needs to be done.
I think, for example, your reference to
83 percent of the companies meeting something
equivalent to the base level treatment -- when you
are thinking of the Houston Ship Channel and 50
percent only meeting a higher standard -- this is
something on which we must set a higher standard of
achievement.
MR. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Quarles, I would
certainly concur on that, and I thought I very carefully
pointed this out. I am simply saying -- or, what I
attempted to say and maybe possibly I didn't do it very
well -- but the implication in the black book is we
-------
669
D. Whittington
don't do anything down here except let people
discharge oil. I was attempting to point out that
this is not the case.
MR. QUARLES: Well, given in that spirit,
I think the point is well taken and I simply want to
keep that in perspective and also keep clearly in
mind the concern that considerably higher standards
may be called for.
In the pictures of the waste treatment
facilities that have been installed, you spoke
repeatedly of the biological treatment that is being
provided there. Do the existing permits and require-
ments typically call for higher levels of treatment
by those industries?
MR. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Quarles, we do not
normally address ourselves in what we call the waste
control order, formerly a permit, to the manner or
method which one utilizes to achieve a certain
effluent goal.
We simply direct our attention to the
kind of water which can be discharged; not necessarily
the means of getting there. Although certainly there
is a factor there, because you have to get there some
-------
670
D. Whittington
way or other.
MR. QUARLES: That is right. You and we
alike are concerned with establishing performance
standards.
MR. WHITTINGTON: That is correct.
MR. QUARLES: And leave it to the
responsible companies to determine the means of
satisfying those standards.
But, all of us are conscious of the types
of treatment that will be required, depending on the
performance standards which have been established and
have to be met. The biological processes of treatment
will be sufficient to bring treatment to a certain
level, and then reach a ceiling which —
MR. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Quarles, could I say
one thing at this point? I don't think that the only
viable alternative left is to continually increase the
level of treatments.
One has to take into account, I think, the
distribution of the waste loads within the estuary.
There are also other places which one could conceivably
discharge wastewater which would be more amenable to
-------
671
D. Whittington
assimilating the waste without oil. This would include
the Gulf of Mexico.
I am not suggesting that these are, in fact,
solutions, because X am not proposing this and I don't
know whether they are or not. But I simply don't think
we ought to lock ourselves in to viewing only continually
increasing levels of treatment as being the only possible
solution.
MR. QUARLES: I think that it is well to
keep an open mind as to what will solve the problem
most effectively. But the question I have in mind is
whether, in your judgment, the installation of the
biological treatment facilities, of which you showed
us a number of pictures, is a sufficient answer to the
problem we have in front of us.
MR. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Quarles, I frankly
don't know.
You and I and everybody here who has fooled
with mathematical models on predicting what is going to
happen in a natural environment — we know when you
lower the waste load to this or that, I think in general,
the history of these models has been rather dismal in
-------
672
D. Whittington
their accuracy. So I do not know, in fact, how the
channel is totally going to respond.
The Galveston Bay Study is directed at
attempting to try to find this out. So I would not be
prepared at this point in time to say that we cannot
bring about at least in the foreseeable future -- and,
again, depending on what one considers to be an acceptable
situation — in the channel.
I would not say that it could not be obtained
with biological treatment facilities. I simply don't
know.
MR. QUARLES: Well, we may be pushing this
as far as it can productively be pushed right now. But
in reference to your own uncertainty as to what can be
achieved and your hopes, as you expressed them a few
minutes ago, that we will soon begin to see some results
in the improvement of water quality
MR. WHITTINGTON: I think that is true. I
think it has already happened to some extent.
MR. QUARLES: I simply want to leave in the
record an indication that our best technical people do
not share the same degree of confidence in the improvement
of the water quality which will result from the treatment
-------
673
D. Whittington
facilities now scheduled. I will hope that there will
be this very intensive working together to go over the
subject by your people and ours to see if a common
judgment can be reached on what more may be required.
I have a fairly strong personal conviction that a good
deal more will be required.
MR. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Quarles, so far as
I can speak for the board, we will be delighted to work
with your folks.
MR. QUARLES: Thank you again. I commend
you on your presentation.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Sir, I think there is one
point I would like to drive home here, not only because
it refers to Mr. Quarles' question, but because it may
be a good portion of the problem we have here.
This relates to one of the questions he
asked you. The point is, we have Federal water-
quality standards which were sent in to us by the State
and approved by either the Secretary of the Interior or
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Let's suppose we take one standard such as
this that Mr. Quarles and you have alluded to, 2 ppm of
the BOD in the lower reaches of the Ship Channel.
-------
674
D. Whittington
MR. WHITTINGTON: That is all right.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, if you say this can't
be achieved, and you have put out your permit in that
sense, and you say the changing of this is just a
bookkeeping operation -- which is one kind of approach
-- but the Federal Government is using this dead
seriously as base for its entire program, I am not sure
you can count this as a bookkeeping operation.
But I think that if these are our attitudes,
we are going to face precisely the same difficulty that
we have here merely because of the kind of thing you are
sure of and you don't think is important. You are
issuing permits for ostensible violations -- something
which can't be met — and the Federal Government thinks
that this is the chart of what we have for these waters:
it is inevitably going to bring something like this
about.
I think this is something we both have to
think about very carefully if we want to avoid confronta-
tions such as this, and this may be a good portion of the
ostensible misunderstanding that we have here.
MR. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Stein, I do not mean
-------
675
D. Whittington
to imply that we do not consider the water quality
requirements as important. We certainly do, particularly
in view of the emphasis which is placed upon them by
the EPA.
I simply said that in the instance of the
Houston Ship Channel the problem is so great that I do
not think we should take time from trying to fight this
problem at this time to go through the public hearings,
etc., necessary to amend these water quality requirements.
I am hopeful that we will be able to in our
upcoming budget, since we will have many more people.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes, sir, I understand your
point well and don't want to belabor it. I just ask
you to think of the consequences of your situation.
This is what brings us here today. This is part of what
we are going to try to think through with the State in
order to get closer, because I think this is a very vital
point in the program. Thank you.
MR. QUARLES: I have one comment.
MR. WHITTINGTON: All right.
MR. QUARLES: The requirements of water
quality standards are exactly the issue on Clear Lake.
-------
676
D. Whittington
The State clearly says diversion of effluents from Clear
Lake. Then they come in with a permit to discharge
treated waste with an effluent of 12.
My only alternative to recommending denial
of this permit is that it is receiving the best
available treatment.
MR. YANTIS: Just a minute.
First of all, there is nobody in the United
States -- in Federal service, the university systems,
or anywhere else -- who has sufficient wisdom and
technical knowledge to write an ideal water quality
standard for any place at anytime, except maybe a
bathtub, where the quality never changes.
We have the statistical problem of
reflecting the varying quality that occurs from minute
to minute, day to day, year to year. You have different
flow patterns. There are literally thousands of tests
from which you can select, and all of this has got to
be wrapped up in something for which you basically had
no data in the first place. And so, every water quality
standard in the United States is about 1/3 science, 1/3
guess and 1/3 negotiation.
-------
677
H. Yantis
They are, as Dick said, not sacred, and
anyone who thinks that they are sacred simply doesn't
understand the problem.
Now, when you look at a set of water quality
standards -- I will digress and put it this way -- I
saw a television show one time where the man that took
Senator McCarthy apart was the host, a Mr. Welch, and
someone had asked him about the United States Constitu-
tion. And he showed him a picture of it hanging on the
wall and he said, "Now the average layman thinks that is
the United States Constitution," and he turned to the
other wall and it was just full of Supreme Court
decisions. He said, "There is the United States
Constitution."
Now when you look at water quality standards,
anybody's water quality standards, you ace looking at a
shorthand guide at the very best. And unless you have
a university full of technical books for disciplines
of every kind, you can never possibly interpret them
intelligently, and anybody who thinks they are simple
as arithmetic is absolutely wrong.
Now when we wrote the Texas Water Quality
-------
678
H. Yantis
Standards back -- it began in 1965 and had them finally
adopted in 1967 -- there was very little known about
tertiary treatment, and that which existed was experi-
mental and probably controversial. There was certainly
none of it in Texas, and none of it was expected to be
in use on a routine basis for a long, long time.
But we knew then that Clear Lake would
never be as clean as the people wanted it with all of
those conventionally treated sewage effluents going
into it, because everything we did was geared around
conventional treatment. So we simply suggested that the
numbers we are saying here be the numbers that would
some day be met if the sewage effluents are not in the
Lake. This was not a plan; it was not a regional plan;
it was not a commitment to the Federal Government or
anything else. It was just a little sidebar comment
that said, "Now don't expect these numbers to be met
until we can get the sewage effluents out."
Now we have found since that the tertiary
treatment might do it, at least on an interim basis,
and I did raise the question by telephone with one of
the Assistant Commissioners in Washington.
He said this problem would have to come to
-------
H. Yantis
679
his desk and had never come to him, and he didn't know
what the argument was all about. As far as I know,
he still doesn't.
But I don't think there is any violation of
anybody's standards for the Clear Lake watershed upon
which you can hanjg any comment that says you have to
deny something. You are simply standing in the way of
Texas progress. (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Any comments?
MR. VANDERHOOF: Plenty, but not here.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I didn't know of anyone
trying to do that since Santa Anna. (Laughter.)
MR. YANTIS: I think this is an appropriate
point since interim planning and planning in general
was one of the subjects talked about yesterday.
Since this is an oyster conference, we
didn't quite see a lot of the regional engineering
planning was necessary. So, we didn't bring many down.
Since some of the comment got involved in regional
planning, we asked someone to come down and he is here
today. Mr. Bob Fleming, who is in charge of all of our
planning and the grant programs and things like that,
-------
680
H. Yantis
will address us now on his part of the program.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: First we will take a
short break.
(Whereupon a recess was taken.)
MR. YANTIS: Will each of you please take
his seat, if we want to put this in good grammar.
Whoever runs the telescope up here on my
desk, I think the red light went out, so I don't know
whether it is working or not.
While you are finding your places, because
of human limitations, both as to mind and body — the
brain can absorb only as much as the seat can endure,
you know, that sort of thing — and the secretary down
here gets tired too, we will quit at about 5:00. And
we will have, unless we run a little bit long — we
will hear from Bob Fleming; thien from Gene Rorack on
behalf of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority; then
from someone on behalf of WCID No. 50; then Jerry Coleman
on behalf of the Houston-Galveston Area Council; and
then Mr. Ed Falk of the Clear Creek Basin Authority;
and then Cecil Reid of the Sportman's Clubs of Texas.
Now we might not make that by 5:00. I may
-------
H. Yantis
681
have to quit with some of this undone, but we will
reconvene in the morning and begin in the morning with
the statements which were a part of the Texas presenta-
tion, or we will begin with any portion of what 1 just
read that we do not finish. But I just bring this out
so that you can kind of schedule your own mind as to
what is coming.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What time tomorrow
morning?
MR. YANTIS: Well, the Chairman here likes
9:30, unless he changes his mind.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I think we will start at
9:30. I think you just kid yourself when you say you
are going to start at 9:00. You don't. We will start
at 9:30 and we will do it on time.
MR.YANTIS: All right. I used to have a
friend who was a Director of a Little Theater project
and he said, "The curtain goes up at 8:00 whether there
is anybody on stage or not."
Well, Mr. Bob Fleming, for the Texas Water
Quality Board, will talk on the engineering aspects of
his work which is the Federal grant program, administration
-------
682
B. Fleming
planning, and other technical matters within the central
office primarily.
Mr. Bob Fleming.
MR. BOB FLEMING
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AUSTIN, TEXAS
MR. FLEMING: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies
and gentlemen. I would like to cover the construction
grant projects in the area first. These remarks will be
brief. They will pertain only to the construction grant
projects in this immediate area.
Construction of sewerage facilities in the
area has been accelerated significantly in the past 2
years. This acceleration is shown by the 1-year and
the 5-year project needs lists furnished to EPA in the
program plan from the Texas Water Quality Board. Most
projects shown on the 5-year list submitted in July
1969 for construction within 3 years period of time have
been accelerated and were on the 1-year needs list for
last year or, are on the 1-year needs list for this year.
Wherever possible, maximum use has been made
-------
683
B. Fleming
of the reimbursable provisions of the PL660 construction
grant program. In fact, at present, there are 8 projects
totaling over $1.5 million in construction in the
immediate area which have proceeded on a reimbursable
basis and have not as of yet received their Federal grant.
The city of Houston has also utilized the
reimbursable provisions to construct waste treatment
facilities as early as possible. Last year Houston added
42 MGD of treatment capacity at a cost of $7 million.
They presently have underway improvements to add 16.5
MGD additional treatment capacity at a cost of $11 million.
This current expansion is being accomplished with the aid
of some 6 construction grant projects, 5 of which were
delayed for some 7 months after the State issued
priority certifications before EPA funded these programs.
One of these projects was delayed for 15
months after State certification.
All Houston sewage treatment plants
presently provide chlorination with the exception of
Sims Bayou plant. This was alluded to earlier.
Chlorination facilities are presently under construction
as a part of the construction grant for enlargements to
-------
684
B. Fleming
this plant. This particular project is one of those
that waited for 7 months for EPA funding.
With the present construction, Houston can
abandon 7 more small treatment plants by diverting the
sewage into subregional plants. By 1972, 30 MGD
additional capacity will be available in the Houston
sewerage system, making the total capacity in excess of
200 MGD.
In the immediate area, there are currently
18 projects with construction grants, which are in
varying stages of completion. There are 8 projects
under construction with grants pending under the
reimbursable provision of the PL660 program.
Applications for grants have been received
by the State agency for approximately 18 additional
projects in this immediate area which are currently
under review. It is anticipated that priority certifica-
tion will be issued for these projects as the review
is completed.
Most of these projects will be ready for
funding out of the Federal Fiscal 1971 funds. These
projects are also subject to newly enacted State financial
-------
685
B. Fleming
assistance.
Now, I will speak for a moment about the
status of interim basin plans of the area.
A contract was signed with the Houston-
Galveston Area Council in December 1968 to develop a
comprehensive plan for area-wide sewerage facilities in
the immediate 8-county area. The objectives of the
plan are to develop information on the feasibility of
area-wide sewerage systems and to formulate a definite
program to correct current and future deficiencies.
TO accomplish the objectives of the study,
the work was divided into several phases, including:
1. A survey of and analysis of exising
facilities.
2. A survey and analysis of existing water
quality.
3. Preparation of population projections
for the years 1970, 1975, 1980, 1990 and 2020.
4. Analysis of waste treatment needs by
sub-areas for years corresponding with the population
proj ections.
5. Conceptional design of area-wide sewage
and waste collection and treatment systems.
-------
686
B. Fleming
6. Develop proposals for system implementa-
tion .
7. Prepare a general financial program for
implementation.
All of the basic data in this planning effort
had been gathered and the writing on the conceptional
plan had begun when the Federal requirement for interim
plans was established. A copy of the Federal requirements
was furnished to the planning contractor with the request
by us for him to incorporate these requirements into the
plan where possible without delaying completion of
the effort.
In January 1971, advance review copies of
the planning reports were furnished to the Texas Water
Quality Board. These advanced copies have been reviewed.
Preparation is now under way to subject these planning
reports to a public hearing in the area to receive maximum
input from the citizens and political subdivisions of
this area who will be governed or regulated by these
plans. It is anticipated that the formal public hearings,
plan adoption and certification will be accomplished
either in July and/or August 1971.
This schedule will allow the State to comply
-------
687
B. Fleming
with the interim plan requirements and commit Federal
construction money to projects of the area in sufficient
time to prevent lapse of these funds and meet construction
schedules. At the present time, no construction is being
delayed because of the lack of interim planning.
In a Seminar on Federal and State planning
requirements last week, June 4, 1971, sponsored by the
Houston-Galveston Area Council government, a representa-
tive of the Environmental Protection Agency's South
Central Regional Office stated that Texas is ahead of
most of the States in the Nation on area-wide sewage
planning. This is borne out by means of 16 other
planning contracts similar to the one in this area of
the State. Texas has covered 82 percent of the population
and 51 percent of the area of the State with these area-
wide sewerage facility plannings.
Thank you, sir.
MR. YANTIS: Bob, yesterday we discussed
quite briefly the number of regional interim plans
approved in other parts of the United States. I believe
you said the number vas 2 or something like that. Will
you repeat that comment?
MR. FLEMING: I am not for sure how many have
-------
688
B. Fleming
been approved throughout the Nation.
In the State of Texas, we have gone through a
formal public hearing on 3 area-wide sewage plants, which
have been submitted to the Governor's Office with a
request for his certification and formal submittal to
the Regional Office of the EPA.
There will be another plant hearing before
the Texas Water Quality Board with similar recommenda-
tions and forwarding to the Governor's Office at the
board meeting next week for a total of 4.
MR. YANTIS: I am talking about planning
in other parts of the United States. We had a comment
last night.
MR. FLEMING. I could not answer how many
have been approved in other parts of the United States.
I am personally not aware of any that have been approved
in any other part of the country.
MR. YANTIS: If there are no questions, I
asked Mr. Fleming to come down solely because the
presentation yesterday sought to make quite a point of
the fact that Texas was seen to be somehow deficient
in its planning and its interim planning. I do not
believe that it is.
-------
689
B/G Hatch
The next speaker, and I am very proud to
introduce him, is General Royal Hatch on behalf of the
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority.
Please remember my earlier comments. This
Authority was organized by the Legislature at the time
when John Connally was Governor of Texas. He is now the
Secretary of the Treasury.
It grew out of some suggestions by the Federal
Government when Mr. Jim Quigley was commissioner of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
So it is not only a State idea and a local
idea, but it is a Federal idea as much as anything else.
It was intended to give the local people,
on a much larger basis, and the city and county a voice
in the conduct of their waste disposal affairs.
General Hatch is either the Chairman or the
President of the 9-member board and he can speak to you
about the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority in more
detail on the reasons for its existence, its plans and
and anything else that he thinks is pertinent. And I
do think that it is an important creation of the State.
B/G ROYAL HATCH, Rtd.
GULF COAST WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY
HOUSTON, TEXAS
-------
690
B/G R. Hatch
B/G HATCH: Thank you, Mr. Yantis.
Mr. Stein, members of the joint conference,
ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate very much this
opportunity to report to you gentlemen and to my
neighbors here the results of what I like to think of as,
perhaps, Texas latest exhibits of innovative thinking in
the field that we are all involved with.
In the few months of our existence, we of
the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority have visited
throughout the State in an attempt to discover other
regional agencies who may represent a prototype for the
solution for some of the problems we face. And we
find our agency to be rather unique; there is nothing
just like it in the country. I must compliment the
Legislature and the Federal Government, as it now
appears you have armed us with tools to do the job on a
regional basis locally.
We, the 9 men who constitute the board —
my colleagues, of course, are nonsalaried -- and we have
much at stake. We think very deeply about what we are
involved with. We live here. We want to leave it better
than we found it. We know that we face what the general
public now, I think, very recently perceives to be the
-------
691
B/G R. Hatch
number one domestic problem in these United States and
it was mentioned earlier today, and, as such, we understand
it to be a very, very tough problem.
But we would like to adduce today, Mr. Stein,
that it is not all bad and that some work is being done,
and being done well, and that at the very least, if we
end these most interesting days today and tomorrow with
a resolution to coordinate our actions, you gentlemen
on the Federal side, Mr. Yantis and his colleagues on
the State side, and, we on the regional side, that this
is a must. Because already in our short life, we
discover far too much lost motion, far too much confusion
and rock throwing and we, with others, are faced with a
crucial local problem.
What is the Gulf Coast Authority? It was
formed in late 1969 by the Texas Legislature with the
advice of counsel that you have heard.
Our staff, our permanent staff, is less than
a year old. The Texas Legislature gave very sweeping
regional powers to this entity for the 3 counties of
Harris, Galveston and Chambers. These 3 counties embrace
95 percent of the area of Galveston Bay. It is embraced
by those 3 counties.
-------
692
B/G R. Hatch
We are charged with the development of a
master plan. I think we are going to have a great deal
help in this regard. We are required to set standards,
but subject to the approval of the Texas Water Quality
Board.
We have sweeping enforcement and policing
powers. We can also condemn land, and we can own and
operate facilities financable with our own bonds.
We can be a taxing authority subject of
the vote of those to be taxed.
There are, as I mentioned, 3 directors
from each county, nonsalaried, a small but expert
professional staff, and we discover ourselves to be a
prototype of the entity that Mr. Yantis mentioned.
Just in passing, we also can assume
responsibility for solid waste management in the 3-
county area whenever the board feels we are man enough
to do it.
As you may imagine, Mr. Stein, it has been
a frantic year. We think we have made a solid beginning
and I must not leave the impression that the improve-
ments of which we speak began with us because they did
begin earlier, and I think 1967 would be a good year for
-------
693
B/G R. Hatch
the road back to have started.
But, early on, we decided on priorities
and we established a cleanup of Galveston Bay and of
industrial wastewater management in and around the
Houston Ship Channel as our number one problem.
The addressing of this problem that we
have done in the last year has been 100 percent industry
financed including overhead charges to the Gulf Coast
Authority. In brief, here is our area.
[Slide.]
And these 3 counties embrace, as you see,
the bulk of the bay, the matter of concern of the last
2 days.
insofar as pollution going into Galveston
Bay, 60 percent of it is probably from industrial
sources in and around Houston and the Ship Channel,
perhaps 10 to 20 percent is from the Texas City area.
[Slide.]
We have two regional combined industrial
treatment plants now in process. The treatment plants
represent $30 to $40 million worth of capital assets.
They will be completed and on stream in a matter of 18
to 24 months and will substantially reduce the BOD load
-------
B/G R. Hatch ,
694
as well as oil and grease into the Houston Ship Channel.
We believe that project number one, which
you see there, will remove roughly 30 percent of the BOD
channel loadings that are known at the present time.
The first project includes these 5 industries,
seen depicted here in a regional system, and this system
has completed Phase One which is an analysis of the
compatibility of the waste to be treated in a combined
or regional fashion.
Incidentally, Phase Two is engineering and
costs and Phase Three is the contracting phase.
[Slide.]
Here are the industries which are contribut-
ing their money to this combined treatment plant, Gulf
Coast Authority No. 1.
[Slide.]
Champion Paper plant.
[Slide.]
Crown Central.
[Slide.]
Atlantic Richfield.
[Slide.]
Goodyear.
[Slide. ]
-------
695
B/G R. Hatch
Petro-Tex.
And now, gentlemen, in addition to these 5,
Armco will be able to use the facilities of this combined
regional system subject to the solution of certain of
the other problems which you read about in the paper.
But the treatability of those wastes has been determined
to be completely compatible to this system.
From a technical point of view, there is
no need to discuss further injection wells or any other
system because we and these industries can accomplish
the treatment perfectly well and get good results.
[Slide.]
We have BOD loadings of 120,000 pounds at
the present time, 16,000 pounds after treatment and
8 8 percent reduction on 60 MGD .
Combined Treatment Plant No. 2, at present,
has only one customer, but has the capacity for the
addition of others.
The Ethyl Corporation plant will be Gulf
Coast No. 2 and it is in Phase Two which is the detail
engineering and cost phase.
The results will be 2,000 pounds of BOD,
2,100 pounds to be exact, 160 pounds after this system
-------
696
B/G R. Hatch
is on stream and a 92 percent reduction in BOD
loadings on 4 MGD.
Gulf Coast Authority Project No. 3 is Union
Carbide in Texas City.
[Slide.]
This is in Phase Three, the detail contract-
ing phase. We have secured a permit from the Texas
Water Quality Board.
The result is 135,000 pounds of BOD loading
-- not into the Ship Channel, mind you -- that was
before. 18,000 after and a BOD reduction of 87 percent
on 13 MGD, and when the inplant improvements, whi6h are
a companion piece to this treatment plant, are added,
the BOD reductions amount to over 9 0 percent.
Here, again are shown all 3 systems and the
area in which our major activity has been concentrated.
[Slide.]
A total load reduction on Galveston Bay is
shown here by virtue of these 3 systems which was one of
the major reasons for the existence of our agency.
[Slide.]
The BOD loadings will be reduced 30 percent
roughly to Galveston Bay. You will say and we will agree
-------
697
B/G R. Hatch
with you that this is not enough and "What about the
balance of the 70 percent?"
Gentlemen, we envision a 10 percent program,
and I am sure you do too, with the expenditure of $400
million to $600 million woyth of industry's money which
we will coordinate, guide and govern, and we say that
is a pretty damn good start.
I must say, although there are some industries
here which may still need the work, that, by and large,
Texas industry in this area appears ready to spend
its money.
The industries I mentioned, 9 of them, came
to us willingly, 2 gf them before we were even formed
and in existence.
I thinjc it i® f$ir to say, and, I would
hazard a guess th^t this can be said nationwide, that
industry generally knows that time has run out. They
do, however, require and have a right to several clear,
crisp guidelines^ and we feel it our responsibility with
you gentlemen to give them to them.
I think, in turn, they will perform, but
they do require from government the guidelines and
criteria on which they must perform.
-------
698
B/G. R. Hatch
Gentlemen/ our activities here are not just
in the industrial field? Texas has not negotiated the
domestic problems as you have heard before.
[Slide.] (See pp. 698a, 698b, 698c, 698d, 698e.)
This is from the EPA's own data from a
presentation made by the EPA a month ago. These are the
watersheds in this county which, in effect, are doing
more than just taking the lumps out of the domestic
sewage. (Laughter.)
And Texas would certainly appear to be the
best equipped State in the Nation in this regard.
I think it was mentioned earlier today that
this program has been in effect for some 10 years and
this is the result.
Can I have the lights, please?
The Clear Lake problem was mentioned awhile
ago, and we, while adding our limited resources to the
problem I just mentioned, have been working hard in this
regard as well. And it is a fascinating, technical
question: Is the tradeoff between regional systems one
of diversion or one of advance waste treatment?
This, on a technology basis — which I do
not think is completely adequate yet — it boils down- to
-------
698a
Houston
JMMCitw <
BAYTOWI
HOUSTON
MAJOR SOURCES
OF WASTEWATER
DISCHARGE
IN THE
GALVESTON BAY texas
SYSTEM
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
ALONG THE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
~r
a
*•••
•n
• *
^ - «•
r -A.
*
Plant No. 2
Plant No.1
-------
* AtlanticRichfieldCompany
-------
698c
-------
698d
Baytown
Houston
G.C.W. D.A,
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PROJECTS
Galveston
G.C.W.D.A. INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
GALVESTON BAY BOD LOAD
-------
RIVER BASINS
HAVING 90% SECONDARY TREATMENT
OF DOMESTIC WASTE
698e
-------
699
B/G. R. Hatch
a matter of time. When is the right time to abandon
individual plants and go to combined situations,
particularly when you have advanced technology
available? I speak of the NASA area where we have some
brilliant scientist availability to these systems and
some of the gentlemen involved are sitting here today.
If advance treatment will work anywhere,
it is going to work there. But economically it doesn't
make sense over a long pull. The question is when to
make the tradeoff, and we have been involved in helping
these entities, and helping you, if you will, and the
State, with some detailed local knowledge.
In the meantime, several of the permit
holders, the cities involved, have asked the Gulf Coast
Authority to operate these treatment plants for these
cities, feeling that by combining the training of these
operators we can furnish both an improved quantity
and quality of personnel.
We are adding this at this moment and we
think it shows promise and we may be involved with
other entities a great deal in the next few months.
There is a very heartwarming aspect of the
work in the Clear Lake area and that is why for 2 days
-------
700
B/G R. Hatch
a half a dozen high school students have been sitting
in your audience. They left a moment ago, but they
voluntarily, for some years, have been sampling the
effluents in the Clear Lake area after school and on
the weekends and working for us and with us in that
regard. There is now a more elaborate project for
summer employment for them, but their technical
outputs are entirely reliable and we are using them
as a basis for ? data base.
Considering now other activities in the
nonindustrial field, the Chambers County problem --
the area which contributes the pollution to Trinity
Bay -- is simply one of there being no sewage
facilities at all in Chambers County. They have
asked for our assistance, ddvice and counsel on both
financial and technical questions.
Finally, the cities of Galveston and
LaMarque have asked us for technical advice on the
solid waste problem, a problem I said we probably
would not be addressing for awhile, but the requirements
are there.
-------
701
B/G R. Hatch
We are asked these questions. We are the
local agency and we are attempting to step up to
the problem.
Looking to the future, Mr. Stein, what
are the best ways? The cries are from these agencies
here, from this area here. What is the best way to
do it? How soon? It has been mentioned that we
really don't know what is happening in Galveston
Bay or what will be the results of the improvement
efforts that are being done now.
It lies nearly in the State of New
York to have real time monitorahip in the bay, as
you know.
We do not find such a system anywhere in
the United States. The system on the Ruhr Valley is
not the system that would be necessary to get the
answers that we need.
If you know of a real time monitorship
system anywhere, we would be delighted to hear of it,
but this is what is needed to really check progress
here locally.
-------
702
B/G R. Hatch
I am confident we will see it in the next
5 or 6 years, but this is the kind of thing we feel
we are sent here to do and we wish to do it.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I can go off the record
on that.
(An off the record discussion was held.)
GENERAL HATCH: We also, as I said, have
enforcement powers. I am not sure that they are
necessary. It looks like other entities are deeply
involved here. (Laughter.)
Vie would not want to add unnecessary efforts.
We can and will if needed.
I mentioned that we visited elsewhere. We
have looked at Seattle Metro, Los Angeles Sanitary
Commission -- and were disappointed there, by the way,
with that 110 inch pipe going into the Pacific and it
is not what we consider waste disposal.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I can go off the record
again.
(Off the record discussion.)
GENERAL HATCH: While recognizing the
-------
703
B/G R. Hatch
fantastic road ahead of us, v;e are encouraged at our
start. We feel a weight of responsibility for more
than just the problem at hand. We think it is likely
that regional entities like ours will be the ones, the
apparatus, to address other large area questions such
as law and order, mass transit transportation, not to
mention environmental problems. We want to show this
can be done in this way most logically.
As I say, I am distressed at what we have
perceived to be much too much lost motion among the
governmental entities of which we are one. We think
that guidelines are a must and that the taxpayers and
consumers will not long be patient with confusion about
pace and timing, how often and how much to do.
We know it is not enough to file lawsuits
because industry can do it without such a fray provided
they know what to do.
I will close with some words by Henry Cabot
Lodge, the author and statesman, who said that, "There
can be no doubt that increasingly during the 1970's,
industry will be subjected to mounting pressures to
abandon 'the single-minded pursuit of profit and take on
purposes linked with broad public responsibility.'"
-------
704
B/G R. Hatch
These pressures will come from youth,
ethnic groups and the public in general, and you, ladies
and gentlemen, feel and hear those pressures in Houston
today.
Industry can only do so, however, in partner-
ship with effective government in conformity with a new
ideology which will better define and order the task at
hand and set forth the criteria for the partnership
itself.
Gentlemen, we welcome the partnership with
you. We have much to do. The problem will be long,
but I think at least we have made a start.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Would you wait? I have a
question. May I just ask a question or two?
GENERAL HATCH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I take it that you have both
operating and enforcement authority?
GENERAL HATCH: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Presumably you can construct
the plant too?
GENERAL HATCH: Yes, sir, we can.
-------
705
B/G R. Hatch
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Now, who is the constructor,
owner, and operator of the Plant 1 and 2 you indicated?
GENERAL HATCH: We are.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: You are, of these two plants?
GENERAL HATCH: Right. In this connection,
we would seek and get a permit just like any other
operator.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Yes, but you have not used
your tax base for this plant?
GENERAL HATCH: As I say, 100 percent
industry financed, 100 and some odd percent.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Well, that is part of
a 100 percent.
GENERAL HATCH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: If you have been with the
Government, if you have ever convinced an industry that
you plan them 100 and some odd percent, they would
never do it.
GENERAL HATCH: That would be very helpful.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: You know, one time a week
or so ago, I was out with an industry representative
for lunch and they all grabbed for the check and I did
-------
706
B/G R. Hatch
too, just to make a show -- (Laughter.) — and one guy
said, "Let me pick it up; I ant in the 50 percent
bracket." The other guy said, "Heck, no! I am in
the 90 percent bracket," arid the third one grabbed it
and said, "No. Give it to me. I have a contract with
the government. I am going to make 6 percent on it."
(Laughter.)
Let me say that I have one question and
one brief comment. I think in looking at what we are
faced with in the country, your plea for criterial
guidelines or standards, or what have you, is very
important.
Now we have a device here in this conference
tonight and to paraphrase W. C. Fields, "Anyone who
calls an enforcement action involving Texas can't be
all bad." I know what your reaction is to this, but
this is a device where we can all get together, and I
mean all -- industry, municipalities, regional agencies
like yours, and State aiid Federal Governments ~' and
come up with an agreed~upon figure that we can all live
with. Without that, and with this proliferation of
enforcement powers that we all seem to be getting, we
are just going to meet ourselves coming and going. We
-------
707
B/G R. Hatch
have to try to work this out.
I don't want to pursue this. But I
specifically raise it and hope someone else will bring
it up. You mentioned that your Plant No. 1 could receive
the waste from Armco and deep well disposal was no longer
necessary. That is a pretty significant statement.
Somewhere along in this, if anyone else has any comments
on this, we would like to hear them.
MR. YANTIS: I will make the comment that
they are on opposite sides of the Houston Ship Channel,
and we have not decided whether or not they can cross
the channel, or whether or not there will be a contract,
There was a lengthy interview with a newspaper about a
week ago, and the matter is in Federal Court right now.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: That is right.
MR. YANTIS: All we have done is to express
to everyone our willingness to try for the best possible
solution. Whether we have already found a solution or
not, we do not know.
Deep well injection is a solution, but there
may be others and we are still looking. The deep well
injection would be much quicker, much quicker, and this
is a key point.
-------
708
B/G R. Hatch
If we are going to go some other route, we
may be adding a year to the time. But, unless there
have been some decisions made in the last day or 2, all
that we have so far is a good faith effort to see whether
this course can be followed. There has been no decision
that it can be followed or that it should be followed.
GENERAL HATCH: Mr. Yantis, all I intended
to say was that we have examined the wastes, and they are
compatible with Gulf Coast's Plant No. 1 process. They
can be treated that way, and insofar as the timing and
delay is concerned, well, I will leave it at that.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: All right.
Again, I want to say procedurally that the
reason I asked the question so generally is that I am
acutely aware the case is in the Federal courts. That
is why I can't go into details on this. But I invite
comments.
MR. VANDERHOOF: General Hatch, I have one
question. Did I hear you question the availability of
technology for municipal waste treatments?
GENERAL HATCH: No. I said that technology
is not conclusive on the tradeoff between diversion and
advance treatment. The answers as to when and where
-------
709
B/G R. Hatch
it is advisable to use one versus the other is something
on which there are some unknowns.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: By the way, you handled
that very well, because that is one of the most vexing
problems we have, and you are exactly right.
One of the problems with diversion of which
you are probably aware, but haven't brought up, was
this vexing legal problem of getting water from one
river basin to another. Everytime you don't treat
waste at the source, you are faced with that problem.
When you showed that slide for the place
with the secondary treatment -- well, I think Texas
should be commended on the slide, as you indicated.
You will see most of the places are those
which have relatively large groups of population and
very little water, and are not able to shift this from
one basin to another. That is why, in order to live,
you just have to provide secondary treatment if you
are going to drop that at your doorstep.
But we do have a tremendously difficult
legal problem in trying to get any kind of water, even
treated water, one way or the other.
I know people bridle sometimes when you
-------
710
B/G R. Hatch
talk about Lake Tahoe. I don't want to bring this up
for any other analogy except to say at Lake Tahoe we
discovered you couldn't put any waste in that water,
treated or untreated, because the waters were so pure.
We had to pipe it out of the basin. We were pioneering
tertiary treatment or advanced waste treatment. That
was hard, but that wasn't nearly as hard as getting the
water out of the basin and putting it into the Truckee
River drainage area. That was the most difficult
problem we had, and it took years until we could get
that to rest.
And again, I just bring this up as a
factor, when you are talking about diverting waste
from one river basin to another, sometimes some of you
iftdy want to look at that Great Chicago diversion case.
I spent 20 years of my career on that alone.
MR. YANTIS: To get back on the subject,
Lake Tahoe has very few oysters in it. (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I knew I shouldn't have
fftfentioned this. (Applause.) I have had some of the
best mountain oysters around Lake Tahoe. (Laughter.)
MR. YANTIS: Now that you have brought up
thfe subject, I wonder if the Denver Mafia was writing
-------
711
S. Lamprose
about bay oysters or mountain oysters in its black book
in its figures.
The next speaker for the Texas Water Quality
Control District No. 50, which is a small semi-municipal
type government that we use in Texas, is Mr. Sal B.
Lamprose and he has asked for time to make a brief
statement. I do not know on exactly what subject, but
he has been sc interested in the waste problem and Clear
Lake problem, I think it is appropriate to hear from
him at this time.
MR. SAL B. LAMPROSE
TEXAS WATER QUALITY CONTROL DISTRICT NO. 50
SEABROOK, TEXAS
MR. LAMPROSE: Thank you, Hugh.
Chairman Stein and conferees of the board
and ladies and gentlemen, My subject is going to be
research and the role a small community is playing in
water quality.
Much of what I am going to say here has been
touched upon, some by General Hatch and some by you,
Chairman Stein.
A few years ago, the Texas Water Quality
-------
712
S. Lamprose
Board, through community hearings brought our attention
to the degradation of the water quality at Clear Lake.
The Clear Lake area, a few years ago,
amounted to cattle-grazing ground with the exception
of a few resort areas around the lake.
It is now, I would think -- the population
is up around 50,000 or 60,000. So this growth took
place during the growth of the Manned Spacecraft Center
by whom I am employed. I am also President of the Water
District of El Lago, which is a community of about 2,500
people and the residence of most of our Apollo astro-
nauts and the former home of Neil Armstrong, the first
moonwalker.
I work at the Manned Spacecraft Center, and
I am involved in environmental control systems on
spacecraft. So working in the Water District on water
quality was sort of my meat. I was primarily involved
in research.
When the Texas Water Quality Board told us
that we might have to divert all of our effluents out
of the Clear Lake area and also indicated there was a
possibility of going to tertiary treatment -- that term
-------
713
S. Lamprose
was new to us -- we didn't know what it meant.
We had heard there was some work going on
at Lake Tahoe. So, in addition to other activities,
I decided it was worth the trip to go up and see what
it was all about. (Laughter.)
Well, I won't talk about what I did up
there. But when I came back, I reported to my board
they had a pretty fine facility up there, and they were
making beautiful effluents, but siphoning it out, as
you indicated, across the mountains and watering alfalfa
and putting little fingerlings in and telling us how
nice the trout were.
I didn't eat any. But they showed us some.
I made inquiries to Hugh Yantis of the Texas Water
Quality Board, and Mr. Fleming. I said, "What can you
tell us about advanced waste treatment?" And he said,
"Nothing. We don't know any technology on it." That
has been 2 or 3 years ago.
I journeyed to Cincinnati to the advanced
waste treatment plant and met fine people. It is quiet
and telephones weren't ringing. I happen to be the
first municipality inquiring about tertiary treatment
in the whole country.
-------
714
S. Lamprose
They gave me a lot of time and conversation
and said they couldn't really tell us much about our
particular design, and that maybe we would like to
propose an application for a Federal cost share grant
to develop something there they had worked out in the
laboratory.
We did this and were successful in obtaining
the Nation's first research development and demonstration
grant for advanced waste treatment of our design in
the whole country. That has taken place in Clear Lake.
We currently have a schedule to complete
this facility by late next summer. Milestones are to
have our phosphorus removing equipment completed by
August of this year, nitrification by December and
denitrification by August of next year in time to meet
the Order 69-9A time deadline."
So we hope by this particular design to
remove 90 percent of all the BOD and 90 percent of
the nitrogen, and 5 mg/1 BOD would be the maximum
amount that we would discharge.
Suspended solids might reach zero, if our
filtration works as we think it will. Now, at the
present time, we are in the design phase for the
-------
715
S. Lamprose
phosphorus removal. In addition, while we were thinking
of all this advanced waste treatment, we listened to Dr.
Stephens up in Dallas in January, afid he sort of inspired
us and said that water recycling is the coming thing or
you run out of water.
So, when I called to find out if there was
any Government cost or money to do this, I was told no
they didn't have any money. The research budget has
been cut and we can't really speiid money for this
type of thing.
Well, this has been reversed fortunately,
and we are working with the Baylbr College of Medicine
here in Houston, the Department ot virology and
Epidemiology, on a process that they have developed
that will be able to remove bacteria and viruses out
of sewage water. That is untreated sewage.
So we are talking about putting this at
the end of an advanced waste treatment plant and
possibly closing the cycle, closing the loop.
We are real excited about this, and we
feel that we have received excellent cooperation from
our State and Federal Agencies on this. It is a small
town and actually doing big business and important
-------
716
S. Lamprose
business. We are fortunate to have four members of our
board being engineers in aerospace and civil and
chemical and what have you.
It is a rather unique situation, but we
are going to take advantage of that unique situation
and do what we can to promote water quality.
Also I would like to mention the whole
general community has funded a project which General
Hatch mentioned, and that is the High School Student
Program.
That has excited us because it puts a
little flavor to some of the work we are doing. We
see these young minds who are interested in doing
something and becoming involved, and we are going to
give them a job and pay them and direct these people.
The Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
and the Earth Awareness Foundation — you probably
haven't heard that term before, but this is a group
also concerned about ecology, a non-profit organization
that is coordinating this effort — service clubs,
private citizens, industries, water districts and
municipalities are all taking part in this.
I have had a little bit of experience in
-------
717
S. Lamprose
collecting contributions to this thing. It is not
easy, but I think that after this is over with and
they see the results that the students can provide,
that it is going to be looked at with a
considerably better viewpoint.
The Ehvironmental Engineering Department
at the University of Houston is directing this effort
so that the data we do gather will have quite a bit
of credibility.
Finally, I would like to inform you ladies
and gentlemen, and you, Chairman Stein, about the
attempt by the water district to inform others of the
advanced waste and water recycling program we have.
When you do these things, nobody really knows too much
about them unless you tell them.
One of the problems in the space program
was we didn't tell everybody what we were doing and
got a budget cut I think. (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: that just came about after
you got oh TV.
MR. LAMPROSE: I was referring to the type
o£ advantages and benefits that were derived --
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I am just teasing.
-------
718
S. Lamprose
MR. LAMPROSE: -- that are derived from
the scientific advancements.
We are going to try to make use of the
Environmental Education Act that was passed last year,
which provides cost care funds to disseminate
environmental education information.
We have applied for this grant, and we
feel that we have a good chance in getting this grant.
It doesn't amount to a lot of money, but it will make
possible the dissemination of this type of information.
I mentioned before — and I want to
reiterate again -- that our cooperation from every
level of government, including our own local citizens,
has been excellent.
I think that if we can work cooperatively
together on these problems on water quality, we can and
will achieve the satisfactory goal here.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Thank you. May I ask
just one question?
MR. LAMPROSE: Yes, sir.
-------
719
S. Lamprose
CHAIRMAN STEIN: You talked about
disseminating information. I would really like to
know the reaction of your community. Did you tell
them about the closed-loop system?
MR. LAMPROSE: Which system?
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Closed-loop system
that we are talking about.
MR. LAMPROSE: Yes, indeed. One of our
board members is quite active in one of the church
communities there, and he took it upon himself to
query housewives, and he was very much surprised. At
first, he was very much against moving into this. We
don't plan too rapidly. Wei- are talking in the range
of a 5-year program.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I understand.
MR. LAMPROSE: He was surprised. He said
that most of them felt that in controlled conditions,
this is what we must do. They were just completely
surprised.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I would be interested in
the results of that because that is of really vital
concern to us.
-------
720
S. Lamprose
MR. LAMPROSE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Our technical people can
talk to you-—I don't want to take the time up here --
and possibly get the results of the reaction of the
people. But one of the big problems we have is the
aesthetic reaction of the people.
MR. LAMPROSE: We recognize that.
In the Space Center we had a 5-gallon
refined purified urine sample and nobody would touch
it, even though the characteristics appeared to be
very pure. We plan to follow a very carefully
regulated program.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Right. Thank you.
MR. YANTIS: Well, according to my watch,
it is 5:00 o'clock and I know the reporter is tired.
But I did have 3 other people. I don't see how I can
possibly take them all. I might take 2 of them.
Jerry Coleman, how long did you plan to
take and where are you? Jerry Coleman, are you back
there anywhere? (No response.)
Since he does not seem to be, we will
plan on him for in the morning. But Cecil Reid of the
Sportsman's Club of Texas wanted 1 minute. He might
-------
721
C. Reid
take about 90 seconds.
And then Ed Falk, who is a very newcomer to
this field, wanted a couple of minutes. So let's try
to finish up with those 2.
Cecil Reid, are you here?
While Cecil is walking up, I will say he is
a trained biologist and worked for a number of years
with the Fishing Commission of the State Game and
Fishing Commission and has, ever since I have known
him, been an Executive Director of the Sportsman's
Clubs of Texas.
Cecil Reid.
MR. CECIL REID
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SPORTSMAN'S CLUBS OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I am Cecil Reid,
Executive Director of the Sportsman's Clubs of Texas.
We headquarter at 311 Vaughn Building, Austin. The
organization is made up of more than 90,000 members
who are concerned with natural resource conservation.
It is understood that this conference is
-------
722
C. Reid
to direct its interests principally towards pollution
in Galveston Bay.
Other than industrial and municipal waste,
bottom disturbances can and do cause pollution. The
term "pollution," according to Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, means "to defile or desecrate." Therefore,
to be reasonably accurate, anything which would tend
to destroy the environment could be described as
pollution.
In the process of dredging shell, silt is
washed out of shell and shell particles are allowed
to drift with the currents and the tide. In this
manner, live oysters have been covered and, of course,
suffocated. Increased turbidity reduces basic
organisms' production, which, in turn, reduces the
fish and shellfish production.
It is not necessary we destroy the bay and
estuarine environment in order to mine shell as a
source of shell carbonate. There are thousands of
limestones that can be obtained and used as well as
oyster shell. Shell is a nonreplenishable resource and
shell mining has a drastic and destructive effect
on nature.
-------
723
C. Reid
Nursery grounds are covered by mud and
silt, and nanoplankton and phytoplanktor^ which are the
most basic lives in the water, are destroyed, which
means breaking down the food chain for the food, fishes.
Oyster shells have been dredged in the bays
for about 70 years. During all of those years, we
have been destroying the bays and estuarine environ-
ments. The least we can do now is preserve those few
remnants of reefs that now exist.
The food and game fishes must have clean
waters for feeding and for nursery areas. The
production of these species are of economic and
recreational importance to the citizens of this
country. We should utilize our natural resources
for the benefit of the greatest number of people and
for the longest period of time. Productive bay
bottoms cannot exist where destruction occurs.
Mr. Chairman, it is hoped this conference
can find some means of stopping the dredging of the shell
in this State and reduce the shoreline changes that are
brought about through bulkheading and filling.
On behalf of the Sportsman's Clubs of Texas
I want to thank you for this opportunity.
-------
72 4
C. Reid
CHAIRMAN STEIN: You have raised an issue
I haven't heard before here, in this case.
By the way, I think that bulkhead dredging
and fill of the shell is very common. I raise the
question as to why it wasn't in the Federal or State
presentation so far? We will certainly take that up.
Thank you for raising the question.
MR. YANTIS: There is a whole body of law
about the subject Mr. Reid spoke about/ and it is not
directly related to pollution and to the harvesting
of shellfish. But it is a valid subject and a
specialized subject.
Now, I may have changed my signals again»
Ed Palk just sit quiet a minute.
I am reminded I promised earlier Jim
Quigley 5 minutes, which knowing him — do you want
to change your mind again?
MR. QUIGLEY: was trying to indicate if
we were going to start at ^.00 o'clock tomorrow instead
of 9:30?
MR. YANTIS: 9:30. Is there a reason*
MR. QUIGLEY: It is a matter of an airplane.
-------
725
E. Falk
That is all right.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: Tell your private pilot to
sleep in. (Laughter.)
MR. QUIGLEY: If he has to sleep in, he
will get another'job.
MR. YANTIS: Ed Falk, we will close with
you, and while you are coming up, I want to tell the
people what the Clear Creek Basin Authority is and
explain it just a little bit. I feel that this
explanation is needed.
The Clear Creek Basin Authority was the
first authority of its kind organized in Texas. But
it was not organized the way it was originally thought
it needed to be. It was restricted to 1 county instead
of 2 and didn't have any taxing powers, etc. It had
no income, no nothing. It did have a Board of
Directors who tried very diligently and very unsuccess-
fully to do a great many things in cooperation with us.
Some things it did do. It did help us in holding some
community meetings. It helped us in bringing about some
reasonable planning. But on the average, it never quite
was able to do the things that had to be done, however
valiantly it tried.
-------
726
E. Falk
Then the Gulf Coast Waste Authority was
organized. Many people felt that the Clear Creek Basin
Authority was then no longer needed. It was my view
that there was a place for both of them.
The Gulf Coast Waste Authority has now been
amended, and it does have more authority than it used
to have, especially to designate small areas for
regional system construction, I think taxing power
and so on. Again the question was raised, "Do we need
the Clear Creek Basin Authority?" Immediately we
thought we could do without it, but, as long as the
people of the area want it, there is the thought it
ought to have a a chance.
So, Mr. Ed Falk is now President of the
Clear Creek Basin Authority and has, I believe, a
group of new directors. He has a new attorney. He
has a new engineer. To the best of my knowledge,
none of them have been involved in water quality work
before. They are, however, interested in their area,
and they are interested in government and interested
in problem-solving.
Now, I had never met Mr. Falk until a few
moments ago. I do not know what he will say. But he
-------
727
E. Falk
did ask time to make some comments on behalf of the Clear
Creek Basin Authority.
MR. ED FALK, PRESIDENT
CLEAR CREEK BASIN AUTHORITY
PASADENA, TEXAS
MR. FALK: Thank you.
You cut my time from 5 minutes to about a
minute and a half now. I want to preface my remarks
that in El Lago nobody told me about a "closed loop."
(Laughter.) I better go to church a little more often.
My name is Ed Falk, and my degrees are in
economics, business and political science.
I do not work for any of the petrochemical
companies, and, as you pointed out, none of the present
members of the board are members of the petrochemical
complex.
When this board was first started in 1965,
14 of the 15 members were directly employed by the
petrochemical complex in Texas. This board had no
chance of success. In fact, the present board members,
including myself, feel that the board was created not
to succeed. It was a veneer to show the taxpayers and
-------
728
E. Falk
these citizens that they were going to do something
about pollution. Now we are talking about 1965, not
1969 or 1968 or 1970.
We were given no enforcement powers. We
were given no taxing powers, and as you pointed out we
were given 1 county -- which means if you look at these
charts enough, Clear Lake is divided between Galveston
County and Harris County. In other words, we were told
to clean up half a lake. (Laughter.)
Similar to the zoning in the Houston Ship
Channel, the water will stop at Zone A and not proceed
on to Zone B. (Laughter.) Which was an impossibility.
We have one distinction which no water
authority has, including the Gulf Coast, and that is
we are elected by the people. We are not appointed.
We are one of the few State agencies that are elected.
When the word "ecology" became a favorite pastime of
many, many people and they became interested in
pollution and in the cleaning up of Clear Lake, they
took a look to see what the Clear Creek Basin was doing
and found out they were holding meetings and not doing
anything.
They also found out that you can be elected
-------
729
E. Falk
to the board; you don't have to go through the political
bureaucracy to get appointed. So we turned around and
got elected to the board a year ago, and I was elected
as a director with 4 or 5 other directors, mostly from
NASA — engineers and administrators. At that time, we
started talking about filing lawsuits. We are not afraid
to file lawsuits. We want to file them today.
The board at that time was comprised of
Fred Dorhnheim, who was President of the board and who
was the number two man at Atlantic Richfield, and other
people who were mayors of the various municipalities or
with the petrochemical industry. When it became
apparent that they did not have the power to abolish
this board -- I'm sorry, when they found they did not
have the power to control the thinking of the board
anymore — they attempted a resolution to abolish the
board. This failed. It was tabled and effectively
killed, at which time Mr. Dorhnheim pulled out a
resignation and resigned from the board, taking with
him his engineering firm -- Brady, Turner, "ad nauseum"
-- with him, including his counsel, who has represented
polluters far more than he has represented antipolluters
and members of this board.
-------
730
E. Falk
We appointed new members. We h^d a new
election. In fact, we had contests for the election.
We had 15 members on the board. Most of them are NASA
engineers. The counsel serve? free. The engineering
firm serves as a civil endeavor for free. We have the
advice of NASA engineers to gijide us in our
deliberations.
We have questioned the need of a regional
sewage service. We don't think one is necessary. We
don't believe in diversifying the treatment to another
area. We believe in tertiary treatment, as many of the
districts are doing.
We question also how one agency can have
both the power to operate this system, and the same
agency is going to monitor the system and be the same
agency that is going to do the enforcing of the system.
Who is going to enforce the enforcers? Who is going to
police the police?
This is why Hugh says there are some people
in the area who say the Clear Creek Basin Authority
serves a very useful function and should remain.
I am one of those who enforce the enforcers,
and you will find tomorrow, when you hear the citizens
-------
731
E. Falk
groups, a great many others along these same lines.
You will find Professor Art Busch who will talk about
building holding tanks. They (holding tanks) are a
very economical way to clean up the pollution without
having to go to large, expensive systems, and without
having to take the windfall and give it to engineering
firms, or take hard-earned taxpayers' money for this
purpose.
We find that our counsel has told us you
cannot file suit -- a State agency cannot file suit
unless you get permission from the Water Control Board
or Water Commission or Attorney General. In fact, this
will not hold up, because our powers are vested in the
State, and not being an attorney, I won't delve too
deeply into it. We don't have the monies to go into
this type of court action.
I will state one example to illustrate the
point. There is a water district, WCID 60, which was
the El Cary Water District, which was asked if it
could have a permit from the Water Quality Control
Board. It was turned down because the system wasn't
adequate. It proceeded to operate without a permit and,
indeed, in fact, it added onto its system.
-------
732
E. Falk
The Water Quality Control Board went to the
Attorney General of Texas to prosecute. That paper is
still sitting on the Attorney General's desk 2-1/2
years later. Nothing is being done. They are still
dumping. They are still working without a permit, let
alone a variance on the permit.
They have now been absorbed by the city
of Pasadena, so that the problem is now compounded and
is probably even worse than it was before.
Let me conclude by saying the Basin Authority
wants to cooperate with the Gulf Coast Waste Authority,
the Texas Water Quality Board and anyone upon layers
upon layers upon layers of agencies that have been
created by the State.
Last, of course, we want to cooperate
completely and fully with the EPA, because we feel
this is the only avenue where something will be
accomplished. And as an unconstituted Republican, I
hate to see Federalism come in here, but I really don't
see any other way. And I thank you for the time.
Hugh, I hope you are not disappointed.
(Laughter.) (Applause.)
MR. YANTIS: Ed, I don't know why I should
-------
733
E. Falk
be disappointed. I think there is nothing I enjoy more
than an opportunity for a good argument.
However, being that it is 5:15, unless the
Federal people have a question, this is beyond the time
9
where the secretary had agreed to work.
CHAIRMAN STEIN: I don't have a question.
I was wondering how long we have to wait here until we
heard a statement of that kind. (Laughter.)
MR. YANTIS: No. We always encourage the
people of Texas to speak out. (Laughter.) We know
they are going to do it anyhow. Quite often, they have
something worth listening to. I think there is a lot
of merit to what Mr. Falk said. There are some things
I think I disagree with, but there are a lot of things
that he said that I think are worth listening to. But
we could philosophize on that all night. So unless the
Chairman of our board here has a closing statement, I
guess we will end on the thought for the day that a bass
drum only makes noise when it is empty.
We will, see you in the morning at 9:30.
(Whereupon, the conference recessed until
9:30 a.m., June 9, 1971.)
* U. 8. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1674 722-923/456
------- |