[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal Zone Information Center SEP 17 1974 I N V E N T 0 R Y 0 F W A S T E S 0 U R C E S I N T H E C 0 A S T A L Z 0 N Prepared by Professor Joseph F. Matina Center for Research in Water Resources and Environmental Health Engineering Laboratories The University of Texas at Austin October 1970 for COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTERAGENCY NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL DIVISION OF PLANNING COORDINATION OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR TD 181 T4 M34 1970 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 1. Introduction II. Inventory of Waste Sources III. Limitations of Inventory IV. Applications of Inventory LIST OF TABLES TabZe TitZe 1 Characteristics of Typical Municipal Wastewater 2 Industrial Wastewater Characteristics 3 Petro-Chemical Wastewater Characteristics 4 Wastewater Treatment Plants 5 Municipal Wastewater Discharges 6 Industrial Wastewater Discharges 7 Wastewater Discharges into Injection Wells 8 Salt Water Discharges (1961) 9 Classification of Solid Wastes 10 Composition of Ordinary Municipal Refuse 11 Solid Waste Production 12 Industrial Air Pollution Emissions 13 Classification of Industrial Emissions 14 Registered Vehicles (1970) 15 Population and Passenger Vehicle Densities (1970) 16 Characteristics of Automobile Exhausts 17 Characteristics of Motor Vehicle Exhausts 18 Characteristics of Aircraft 19 Cotton Ginning 20 Animal Production 21 Characteristics of Animal Wastes LisT oF TABLES (Con'd.) Table Title @2 Feedlots 23 Pesticides 24 Pesticides 25 Radioactive Sources LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title 1 Wastewater Treatment Plants 2 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Flows (1970) 3 Typical Injection Well 4 Waste Disposal Wells (1970) 5 Salt Water Discharge Wells (1961) 6 Refuse Production (1968) 7 Industrial Emissions to the Atmosphere 8 Number of Motor Vehicles Registered Per Person (1970) 9 Feedlots @(1970) 10 Areal Planning Councils PREFACE This report summarizes the available data which characterizes the quality of the environment of the Coastal Zone of Texas. The inventory of waste sources is based on existing data compiled by the various State agencies. The data were collected during the time period, August 15, 1970 through September 15, 1970 and there- fore represent the accessible information on record at that time. The time limitation also made it almost impossible to include data which were on file but not available in a readily usable form. No attempt was made to actually collect samples in the field in order to supplement the available data. The cooperation of the personnel of the various State agencies was essential to the completion of the inventory within the time frame work. The assistance of the personnel of the following agencies is acknowledged: Texas Water Quality Board Texas Water Development Board Division of Planning Coordination, Office of the Governor Texas Air Control Board Texas State Department of Health Texas Highway Department The compilation and collection of the data would not have been possible without the assistance of Mr. Dennis J. Crowley. The assist- ance of Mr. Camilo Guaqueta in reducing the data for use in this report is also acknowledged. Mr. Crowley and Mr. Guaqueta are Re- search Engineers in the Environmental Health Engineering Laboratories at The University of Texas at Austin. The preparation of the final manuscript was completed by the secretarial staff of the Environmental Health Engineering Laboratories at The University of Texas at Austin. Typing of the final copy for printing was done by Marilyn Purdy. I. INTRODUCTION The use of the resources along the Texas Gulf Coast has resulted in changes in the air, water, and land environments. The extent and the type of environmental change depends on the type of activity. The effect of industrial utilization of natural resources is considerably different than the environ- mental changes caused by agricultural development. Large scale industrialization results in urbanization and the associated high population densities. The effects of this urbanization on the environment is different than the effects caused by small rural communities. Man's activities have left their mark on the environment and this report is an attempt to evaluate the extent of environmental change caused by man's use and development of the natural resources in the Coastal Zone of Texas. objectives The primary objective of this report is to develop an in- ventory of the existing sources of waste materials discharged into the water and air and deposited onto the land in the Coastal Zone of Texas. These sources of potential pollution include municipal and industrial wastewaters, solid wastes, and gases and particulate material discharged into the atmosphere. A second objective is the evaluation of the inventory of waste discharges in an attempt to identify thos e areas where sufficient information is not available and to propose methods of obtaining the data. The final objective is recommendations of programs of action to improve the quality of the environment in the immediate future as well as for long-range planning purposes. Scope The inventory of waste sources and emissions includes the more obvious environmental insults caused by improper disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes or inadequate treatment of municipal and industrial wastewaters as well as some of the more subtle potential pollution sources such as pesticides in the bay and estuaries as well as the emissions from motor vehicles. .This inventory is developed based on existing information from the records of the Texas Water Quality Board, Texas Water Development Board, Texas Air Control Board, Texas State Department of Health, Texas Department of Public Safety, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, and other published do- cuments. In cases where similar data were available from more than one source, all attempts were made to reconcile any discre- pancies which may have existed among the data. 2 Coastal Zone The inventory of waste sources was limited to those counties which are considered to be in the Coastal Zone of Texas. The Coastal Zone includes 36 counties and covers an area ranging from Orange and Jefferson Counties along the Sabine River down to Hidalgo and Cameron Counties along the Rio Grande River. The study area includes 33,451 square miles of land plus approx- imately 6,300 square miles of submerged land in the bays. The dry land area represents approximately 12 percent of the area of the State. The bays and estuaries along the Texas Gulf Coast provide the spawning and nursery areas on which much of the commercial fisheries industry is dependent. The population for the counties included in this study is 3,538,763 people according to the initial 1970 Census data. This population represents 32.2 percent of the total estimated population of Texas for 1970. The Coastal Zone provides a contrast. The highly industrialized and populated area between Beaumont and Houston is considerably dif- ferent than the relatively undeveloped area between Freeport and Brownsville, with the exception of the Corpus Christi area. The extent and type of industrial activity as well as concentration of population can be related to the sources of waste as well as to the efforts and funds expended in attempts to satisfactorily treat and dispose of waste materials. The extent of agricultural develop- ment can be related in part to the quantity of herbicides and pesti- cides that may be found in the bay and estuary system. The inventory of waste sources includes: municipal and industrial wastewaters salt water discharges municipal refuse refuse disposal practices industrial emissions to the atmosphere emissions from motor vehicles animal wastes and pollution potential pesticides in bays and estuaries Other actual or potential waste sources which were not included in the inventory because of the limited time available for the com- pletion of the study include releases of wastes associated with the transportation of materials by pipelines and ships; dredging for channel improvement or for utilization of mineral resources; and litter and debris from recreational activities associated with the beaches and waters of the Coastal Zone. Also, thermal discharges were not enumerated here since they are dwelt upon at length in a separate report on energy and power in the Coastal Zone. 3 11. INVENTORY OF WASTE SOURCES The waste products of man's municipal and industrial activity which are discharged into surface water, onto the land, into the atmosphere or below ground have been identified where data was available. These data are summarized in this section of the re- port. This information includes: (a) quantity and quality characteristics of municipal and industrial wastewater discharged into surface waters; (b) quantity of industrial wastewaters disposed of by in- jection wells; (c) salt water discharges and methods of salt water disposal; (d) production of municipal solid wastes and current refuse disposal practices; (e) particulate and gaseous emissions into the atmosphere from industrial sources; (f) the number of registered motor vehicles and character- istics of automobile exhausts; (g) animal production, feed lots and potential solid waste and water pollution problems; (h) pesticides in the water and sediment of bays and estuaries; (i) radioactive wastes Wastewater Li6charges The wastewater generated from the use of water for municipal and industrial purposes contains suspended and dissolved, organic and inorganic materials which can effect the quality of the re- ceiving waters. Many of the components of wastewaters are reactive and undergo biological decomposition or enter into chemical reactions in the aquatic system. The setteable solids will accumulate on the bottom of streams and the organic material in the sediments will de- compose. The concentration of these materials will decrease with time and these substances are nonconservative. Some of.these mat- erials, however, are nonreactive and persist in the aquatic environ- ment for long periods of time. These conservative or refractory materials are generally not affected by conventional water and wastewater treatment processes and tend to accumulate in the water, in sediments, or in aquatic organisms. Other components of wastewaters are classified as nutrients since relatively low concentrations of these chemical elements are 4 required by algae and have been associated with the occurrence of undesirable algal blooms in streams, lakes, estuaries and bays. These nutrients are also associated with accelerating eutrophica- tion which is a natural process of aging occurring in bodies of water. Some inorganic ions and some organic compounds are toxic to fish, other aquatic animals and algae. At high concentrations these materials can exert acute toxic effects resulting in dramatic results such as fish kills. Chronic exposure to sublethal concentritions of these materials can have more aubtZe effects on the biota. Algae tend to accumulate and concentrate some toxic substances. Predator fish feeding on these algae could inpst lethal doses of toxicants. Inorganic ions which have toxic effects include syanides, mercury, copper, cadmium, chromium, zinc, and nickel to name a few. Some other compounds and petrochemicals usually involved in reports of acute toxicity are acids, caustics, ammonia, chlorine, phenolic compounds, organic solvents, synthetic organic compounds, oil field brines, pesticides and detergents to list only a few. Most pollutants are characterized by the oxygen demand on the receiving streams exerted by the wastewater discharges. Dissolved oxygen is required by fish and aquatic organisms. When there is no free dissolved oxygen in the water anaerobic conditions result in fish kills and are characterized by odors. The lack of dissolved oxygen generally upsets the "biodynamic" equilibrium which relates the interdependence of various aquatic species on each other and the effects of oxygen, nutrients and organic material on the organ- isms. Biodynamic equilibrium is characterized by numerous species of bacteria, algae, protozoa, crustacea and fish. Each species is present in limited numbers. The equilibrium is upset when the aquatic environment is changed resulting in the elimination of one type of organism and the predominance of another. Depletion of the dissolved oxygen resources changes the environment from aerobic to anaerobic and the biodynamic equilibrium which was established is upset. The dissolved oxygen balance in the receiving stream is im- portant; therefore, wastewaters must be classified in terms of their effects on the oxygen resources of the stream. Wastes are classified in terms of a Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), a Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) or a Total Oxygen Demand (TOD)..,Wastewaters are also characterized in terms of the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) content, which can be related to one of the oxygen demand parameters. The Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is the quantity of oxygen utilized in the microbial oxidation of biodegradable or@anic material in the wastewater in a specific time (usually 5 days) and at a specific temperature (usually 68'F). The BOD usually indicates the oxygen required for the biological'oxidation of biodegradable carbon- aceous substances and in some cases for the degradation of nitro- genous materials. 5 The Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) represents an estimate of the organic and inorganic materials which can be oxidized by a chemical oxidizing agent. The Total Oxygen Demand (TOD) is a relatively new parameter for which equipment has recently been developed and provides an estimate of the oxygen required to satisfy all demands on the oxWenjesources in the stream. Equipment is also available for est ma 1ng the amount Of organic and inorganic carbon in the waste- water. The TOC can be related to the BOD and/or COD. The analytical procedures available for evaluating the parameters used to characterize the oxygen demand or carbon content of waste- waters have some limitations. A detailed discussion of all the pro- cedures is beyond the scope of this report. However, it is important to note that extreme caution is advisable in evaluating data relating to these parameters. The particulate and dissolved substances in wastewaters also effect the quality of the receiving stream. Deposition of organic and inorganic suspended material on the bottom of streams can cause sludge banks to form. The accumulation of dissolved solids in the water can limit the use of the water for some purposes. The solids in wastewaters are categorized below: (a) setteable solids are the suspended matter in a waste which will settle by gravity under quiescent conditions in one hour. (b) suspended solids are those materials which float on the surface or are in suspension in water and which are removed by laboratory filtering (c) total solids are defined as the residue remaining after the water is evaporated from the sample and the residue dried to a constant weight (d) dissolved solids are therefore the difference between the total solids and the suspended solids (e) volatile solids are that fraction of the total suspended or dissolved solids which are lost upon ignition of the dried residue. The characteristics of typical municipal wastewater are sum- marized in Table 1. The introduction of industrial wastewater into the collection system may markedly alter the composition of municipal wastewater. The amount of water used and the quantity of infiltration into the collection system also effects the characteristics of muni- cipal wastewater. The quantity of wastewater generated per person in Texas varies from less than 70 to 100 gallons per capita per day. The per capita wastewater flow increases with the population of the city. This increase may be attributed to the fact that larger quantities of water 6 TABLE I Characteristics of Typical Municipal Wastewater* Characteristic Maximum Average Minimum pH Units 7.5 7.2 6.8 BOD (mg/l)** 276 147 75 COD (mg/1) 436 288 159 Settleable Solids (mg/1) 6.1 3.3 1.8 Total Solids (mg/1) 640 453 322 Suspended Solids (mg/1) 258 145 83 Hunter, J. V. , and H. Heukelekian "The Composition of Domestic Sewage Fractions, journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 37, 1142 (1965) **mg/l milligrams per liter parts per million 7 are used for public purposes in the communities. Therefore, when the wastewater from public facilities is assessed on a per capita basis, this value will increase. The average municipaZ wastewater fZow in Texas is 88.9 gaZlons per capita per day. The average contribution of 5-day BOD and suspended solids for people in Texas respectively are 0.16 pounds and 0.21 pounds per capita per day. These values are considerably lower than those reported for the national average values for these parameters which are 135 gallons of wastewater, 0.20 pounds of 5-day BOD, and 0.23 pounds of sus- pended solids per capita per day, respectively. The characteristics of industrial wastewaters are as varied as the type of industry producing the wastes. The composition of wastewaters from different industries are presented for illustrative purposes in Tables 2 and 3. Most municipal and industrial wastewaters have been treated to some extent to improve the effluent quality before discharge into the surface waters. The number of treatment plants in each county in the Coastal Zone are presented in Figure 1 and Table 4. The information was obtained from the data maintained in the form of an inventory of waste treatment facilities at the Texas Water Quality Board for all wastewater discharges for which permits have been granted. These permits are required under the State Water Pollution Control Act passed by the 57th Legislature of the State of Texas in 1961. Current technology of wastewater treatment and renovation is such that the removal of almost all non-desirable constituents of wastewater is possible for some price. Treatment or renovation of wastewater is usually classified as primary, secondard or tertiary. Primary treatment includes numerous processes required for the re- moval and disposal of a portion of the suspended solids in the wastewater. Secondary treatment involves the removal of a portion of the dissolved organic material in the wastewater by means of microbiological oxidation. These processes are aerobic and vary in the way in which the bacteria are utilized. Waste stabilization ponds contain algae which provide the oxygen for use by bacteria in oxidizing the organic material. The effluent BOD is a function of the detention time and temperature. The effluent suspended solids concentration is between 50 and 100 mg/L. Trickling filters are treatment units in which bacteria which oxidize the organic matter grow in the form of slime attached to the surface of a rock or suitable support. These bacteria oxidize the organic matter with which they come in contact as the wastewater passes over the slime covered medium. Activated sludge is the general name applied to a number of similar processes which involve the introduction of oxygen into a system containing a mixture of suspended bacteria] growths (acti- vated sludge) and the dissolved organic material in the wastewater. 8 TABLE 2 Industrial Wastewater Characteristics Industry Flow (gal) BOD (lb) SS (lb) Other Brewery per barrel 370 1.9 1.03 Cannery per case 75 0.7 0.8 Total Dissolved Solids Dairy per 100 lb Creamery butter 410-1350 0.34-1.68 --- Cheese 1290-2310 0.45-3.0 --- Condensed and evaporated milk 310- 420 0.37-0.62 --- Ice Cream 620-1200 0 --- Milk 200- 500 0.05-0.26 --- Meat Packing per 100 live wt. killed old technology 2112 20.2 --- typical tech- nology 1294 14.4 advanced tech- nology 1116 11.3 --- Poultry Processing per 1000 birds old technology 4000 31.7 typical tech- nology 10400 26.2 --- new technology 7300 26.0 --- Petrochemical Plants Petroleum Refining Phenol Sulfide per barrel old technology 250 0.4 --- 0.03 0.01 typical tech- nology 100 0.1 0.01 0.003 newer technology 50 0.05 --- 0.005 0.003 9 TABLE 2 (cont'd.) Industry Flow (gal) BOD (lb) ss Ob) Oth2r Pulp & Paper per ton Bleached Kraft old technology 110,000 200 200 prevalent tech- nology 45,000 120 170 new technology 25,000 90 90 Bleached Sulfite old technology 95,000 Soo 120 prevalent tech- nology 55,000 330 100 new technology 30,000 100 50 Steel Mill per ingot ton old technology 9,860 --- 103 Ohenols, cyanides prevalent tech- nology 10,000 --- 125 Fluorides, ammonia new technology 13,750 --- 184 oil, acids, emul- sions, soluble metals Tannery per 100 lb 660 6.2, 13.0 Textile per pound of cloth Wool 63 0.30 --- Cotton 38 0.16 0.07 Synthetic Rayon 3- 7 0.02-0.04 0.02-0.09 Acetate 7-11 0.04-0.05 0.02-0.06 Nylon 12-18 0.04-0.06 0.02-0.04 Acrylic 21-29 0.10-0.15 0.03-0.15 Polyester 8-16 0.12-0.25 0.03-0.16 The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III, Industrial Waste Profiles, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D. C. (1968). No. I Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills No. 3 Pulp and Paper No. 4 Textile Products No. 5 Petroleum Refineries No. 6 Canneries No. 7 Leather Tanning and Finishing No. 8 Meat Products No. 9 Dairies 10 TABLE 3 Petro-Chemical Wastewater Characteristics Flow BOD COD Chemical Product (gal/ton) (mg/1) (mg/1) Other Characteristics Primary Petrochemicals: Ethylene 50-1,500 100-1,000 500-3,000 phenol, pH, oil Propylene 100-2,000 100-1,000 500-3,000 phenol, pH Primary Intermediates: Toluene 300-3,000 300-2,500 1,000-5,000 Xylene 200-3,000 500-4,000 1,000-8,000 Ammonia 300-3,000 25- 100 50- 250 oll,nitrogen, pH Methanol 300-3,000 300-1,000 500-2,000 oil Ethanol 300-4,000 300-3,000 1,000-4,000 oil, solids Butanol 200-2,000 500-4,000 1,000-8,000 heavy metals Ethyl Benzene 300-3,000 500-3,000 1,000-7,000 heavy metals Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 50-1,000 50- 150 100- 500 pH, oil, solids Secondary Intermediates: Phenol, Cumene 500-2,500 1,200-10,000 2,000-15,000 phenol, solids Acetone 500-1,500 1,000-5,000 2,000-10,000 Glycerin, Glycols 1,000-5,000 500-3,500 1,000-7,000 Urea 100-2,000 SO- 300 100- Soo Acetic Anhydride 1,000-8,000 300-5,000 500-8,000 pH Terephthalic Acid 1,000-3,000 1,000-3,000 2,000-4,000 heavy metals Acrylates 1,000@3,000 500-5,000 2,000-15,000 solids, color, cyanide Acrylonitrile 1,000-10,000 200- 700 500-1,500 color, cyanide, pH Butadiene 100-2,000 25- 200 100- 400 oil, solids Styrene 1,000-10,000 300-3,000 1,000-6,000 Vinyl Chloride 10- 200 200-2,000 500-5,000 TABLE 3 (cont'd.) Flow BOD COD Chemical Product (gal/ton) (mg/1) (mg/1) Other Characteristics Primary Polymers: Polyethylene 400-1,600 200-4,000 solids Polypropylene 400-1,600 200-4,000 deashing solvents Polystyrene 500-1,000 1,000-3,000 solids Polyvinyl Chloride 1,500-3,000 50- 500 1,000-2,000 Cellulose Acetate 10- 200 500-2,000 1,000-5,000 Butyl Rubber 2,000-6,000 800-2,000 2,500-5,000 Dyes and Pigments: 50,000-250,000 200- 400 500-2,000 heavy metals, color, solids, pH Miscellaneous Organics: Isocyanate 5,000-10,000 1,000-2,500 4,000-8,000 nitrogen Phenyl Glycine 5,000-10,000 1,000-2,SOO 4,000-8,000 phenol Parathion 3,000-8,000 1,500-3,500 3,000-6,000 solids, pH TributYl Phosphate 1,000-4,000 500-2,000 1,000-3,000 phosphorus NA 9 16 6 81 6 2 100 17 7-1 27 1. NA T1 6 - i ",;@ 3 4 T 13 17 i; 3 17 NA 16 6 4 -j@- , * 4 -A 6 1 -- --------- -- 4 3N, NA - NA 2 6 1 2 2 3 NA -- --------- 4 4 27 3 j- ----- 5 No. of Municipal Treatment Plants NA - -1 NA 1 - 10 No. of Indusirial Treatment Plants NA -17 -------ji NA No Information Available 14 6 -NA 12 3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS FIGURE I 13 TABLE 4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS Industrial Treatment Plants Based On Total Municipal Computer Print Out & Treatment Print Out TWDB Info. County Plants (1) (2) Aransas 3 NA NA Austin 2 NA NA Bee 3 2 2 Brazoria 16 3 6 Brooks I NA NA Calhoun 4 2 6 Cameron 12 2 3 Chambers 7 3 3 Colorado 4 2 3 DeWitt 4 NA NA Duval 3 1 1 Fort Bend 13 5 8 Galveston 17 14 17 Goliad 1 NA NA Harris 100 88 116 Hidalgo 14 5 6 Jackson 4 0 1 Jefferson 17 18 27 Jim Wells 4 1 1 Kenedy NA NA NA Kleberg 3 1 1 Lavaca 3 NA NA Liberty 6 1 1 Live Oak 2 2 2 Matagorda 6 2 2 McMullen NA 1 1 Montgomery 10 6 6 Nueces 12 19 27 Orange 9 8 8 Refugio 4 1 1 San Patricio 7 3 4 Victoria 6 1 3 Walker 3 NA NA Waller 6 2 2 Wharton 5 1 3 willacy 4 NA NA NA - No Information Available 14 The effluent of trickling filter and activated sludge plants contains between 15 and 25 mg/L of 5-day BOD and generally less than 20 mg/L of suspended solids. The destruction of disease causing bacteria remaining after primary and/or secondary treatment is generally accomplished by adding chlorine to the plant effluent. Tertiary. treatment of water renovation systems include processes which will remove those substances which persist after primary and biological treatment. The persistent materials include: (a) suspended solids which are removed by sand filtration or microstraining, (b) dissolved organic materials which are removed by adsorption on activated carbon, (c) inorganic substances measured as total dissolved solids (TDS) which may be removed by ion exchange, and M nutrients such as phosphorus which may be removed by chemical precipitation and nitrogen which may be eliminated either biologically or by air stripping. The solids removed or generated during the treatment of waste- waters also require treatment and disposal. The alternate systems for wastewater and sludge treatment and disposal include a myriad combination of various unit processes and, therefore, will not be attempted at this time. However, improper handling and disposal of sludges can result in a source of water or air pollution. The wastewater discharge permit information maintained by the Texas Water Quality Board includes quantitative and qualitative data as well as the location of the treatment plant. This information is provided by the applicant for a permit. In addition to the permit data and return flow data which include actual wastewater flow and characteristics, data are also maintained for some of the permitted discharges. The quality information is based on grab samples of waste which do not represent the hourly and daily fluctuations. For the purpose of this inventory, the quantity of wastewater was expressed as a rate of flow in million gallons per day (MGD) and the quality of the wastewater was expressed in terms of those sub- stances which exerted an oxygen demand expressed as a Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) or the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and as Suspended Solids (SS). Phosphate information is also included for municipal effluents where information is available. These quality parameters were selected because this information is readily available for most discharges. The data are summarized for each county in the Coastal Zone in Tables 5 and 6 and the flow data for the municipal and industrialwastewaters is presented in Figure 2. The Texas Water Development Board also provided some of the information regarding the total flow of wastewaters in the various counties. The wastewater flow information is based on the return flow data provided in the form of a computer printout. 15 TABLE 5 Municipal Wastewater Discharges* Quality Suspended Flow BOD Solids Phosphates County (MGD) Pounds/day Pounds/day Pounds/day Aransas 1.39 564 867 71 Austin 0.53 347 245 83 Bee 1.30 314 240 366 Brazoria 9.89 2902 2970 977 Brooks 0.25 250 94 67 Calhoun 2.26 707 693 294 Cameron 15.18 8705 8243 1,703 Chambers 0.24 86 197 83 Colorado 1.52 1374 1368 134 DeWitt 2.81 432 455 216 Duval 0.50 200 218 15 FortBend 3.72 1293 1933 690 Galveston 14.95 16283 11257 1,788 Goliad 0.30 5 105 30 Harris 197.44 75443 128721 26,560 Hidalgo 18.25 8768 14752 2,504 Jackson 0.67 130 166 ------ Jefferson 65.90 23258 12575 9,274 Jim Wells 2.60 990 814 1,002 Kenedy ------ ----- ------ ------ Kleberg 2.10 685 633 214 Lavaca 0.96 2838 1324 672 Liberty 0.96 267 329 35 Live Oak 0.55 102 274 59 Matagorda 2.72 1215 440 508 McMullen ------ ----- ------ NA Montgomery 2.05 774 878 371 Nueces 28.50 11825 5980 5,815 Orange 7.U 4345 1406 813 Refugio 0.86 476 664 19,9 San Patricio 3.34 1753 2373 915 Victoria 3.85 951 3078 2,461 Walker 2.35 510 589 650 Waller 0.32 170 150 47 Wharton 1.82 751 649 663 Willacy 1.03 76 54 61 *Texas Water Quality Board(1970) Texas Water Development Board (1970) 16 TABLE 6 Industrial Wastewater Discharges* Qualit Suspended Flow BOD COD Solids County (MGD) Pounds/day Pounds/day Pounds/day Aransas ------- ------ ------- ------ Austin ------- ------ ------- ------ Bee 0.2 350 1401 856 Brazoria 26.35 2327 80147 1112 Brooks ------- ------ -------- ------ Calhoun 20.11 2152 85644 15823 Cameron 88.11 2636 2114 20678 Chambers 3.93 847 30765 462 Colorado 2.98 20 67 22 DeWitt ------- ------ ------- ------ Duval ------- ------ ------- ------ Fort Bend 38.60 7750 12593 30878 Galveston 125.19 112767 950662 300620 Goliad ------- ------ ------- ------ Harris 335.76 554260 1422807 555831 Hidalgo 5.36 221 1660 2703 Jackson ------ ------ ------- ------ Jefferson 209.55 183174 643791 130801 Jim Wells 0.09 66 162 55 Kenedy ------- ------ ------- ------ Kleberg ------- ------ ------- ------ Lavaca ------- ------ ------- ------ Liberty ------- ------ ------- ------ Live Oak 0.12 2 ------- ------ Matagorda 6.24 9846 11885 2812 McMullen 0.07 1 240 60 Montgomery 0.41 737 7982 271 Nueces 196.83 65106 934978 76935 Orange 130.21 151395 341480 91919 Refugio 0.04 1 5 4 San Patricio 0.3 24 495 35 Victoria 35.78 6755 10088 13010 Walker ------ ------ ------- ------ Waller ------- ------ ------- ------ Wharton 1.59 34 135 336 Willacy ------ ------ ------- ------ *Texas Water Quality Board (19701 Texas Water Development Board (1970) 17 2.4 1.0 7.3 - 3 130.2 0 0 - 5 197.4 - --,209 0 2 i 9'! 1.5 3 3 0 .7 T-0 ", * "" k,- - 15.0 "38.6 0 1 8 9 9"' 125.2 `4 1 .6 26. 2 8 0 7 3 .9', 0 i 6.2 3 2 .3 i '0 .6 243 . 1** 0.9 1.4 0.1 0-. 1 0 3 3 0 6 i 28 5 10 . 1-1 --4: @- 96.8 i2 .1 0 0.3 0 i 0 JLEGEND 18.3 15 MUNICIPAL FLOW (MGD) 5.4 80 INDUSTRIAL FLOW (MGD) 1.0 ...... - No informbtion available lu Tr. 2 lf8 -.1 Includes 1300 MGD cooling water for power stations "0- 2 . Includes 223 MGD cooling water for power stations MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER FLOWS (1970) FIGURE 2 18 Much of the information relating to the wastewater quality for both the municipal and industrial discharges was not available in the return flow data. These data are collected by the staff of the Texas Water Quality Board and the lack of some data is a reflection of the under-staffing resulting from budget limitations. The more recent data, namely that collected after February, 1970, would have to be obtained from the individual files and for each treatment plant which has a discharge permit. A system of self- reporting of the quality of the industrial wastewater influent has been initiated. However, as of this date, this system of reporting has been substantially less than 100 percent effective. As the self-reporting system develops and the difficulties eliminated, it would be possible to have monthly information regarding the effluent quality of each of the industrial discharges. It should be pointed out at this time that the quality of the effluent from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants is affected to a large extent by the characteristics of the incoming wastewater, by the operation of the particular plant as well as the adequacy of the plant to handle the present day wastewater flows. The infiltration of storm water or ground water into the municipal waste- water collection systems in the Coastal Zone may also contribute to the total amount of flow which must be treated by municipal facilities. During periods of heavy rain it is possible that the infiltration of storm water into the collection system could result in overloading the treatment system thereby resulting in only partial treatment of the wastewater. The municipal wastewater flow presented in Table 5 and Figure 2 does not represent the contribution of infiltration into the collection systems in most cases. Therefore, these numbers are some- what lower than the flow which would result during a period of high rainfall. Infiltration will also affect the quality of the wastewater reaching the treatment plant. The amount of industrial wastewaters which are introduced into the municipal wastewater collection system will also affect the treatment efficiency of municipal plants. There- fore, these factors may account for some of the variations in the quantities of potential pollutants discharged by municipal plants in the different counties. Many of the municipal wastewater treatment plants were not designed to treat the quantity of wastewater which now flows into the plant. Therefore, they are overloaded and at best can only provide an effluent which is partially treated and of desired quality. Many of the industrial wastewater treatment plants require upgrading in order to be able to effectively treat their particular wastewaters to a quality which meets water quality criteria. It is interesting to note that the discharge of municipal waste- water in 30 of the 36 counties is less than 10,000,000 gallons per day (10 MGD) and of these 30 counties, 18 counties have municipal 19 wastewater discharges of less than 3 MGD. Ten counties have a waste- water flow between 2 and 5 MGD while the wastewater flows in two counties is between 5 and 10 MGD. Three counties produce municipal wastewater flows between 10 and 20 MGD per day and the municipal waste- water flows in two counties is more than 20 MGD but less than 100 MGD. Almost 200 MGD of municipal wastewater is discharged in only one county. These data are based on the information available on the waste- water discharge permits and the return flow data. In many of these counties, only a portion of the population is served by a wastewater collection system. The Texas Municipal League has reported the number of sewer connections in various cities; however, the population served is not directly correlatable to the number of connections. The re- mainder of the population in these counties are required to treat and dispose of the wastewaters in individual septic tank systems. The available information which deals with the number of septic tanks and used to treat wastewater in the Coastal Zone is sparse. The proximity of the ground water table to the ground surface in the Coastal Zone makes it possible for the discharge from the septic tank absorption field system to enter the shallow ground water and be carried directly into the surface waters with minimal additional treatment. The information available on the number of people serviced by a municipal wastewater collection system is far from adequate. The results of an inventory compiled in 1968 by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration indicate that 6,819,000 people in Texas were served by adequate municipal wastewater facilities, and the waste- water of 1.925,000 people had no treatment. The percentage of the people in Texas who were served by less than adequate or no treatment facilities was 23.2 percent. These numbers are based on the 1960 Bureau of Census population data. In some cases, an estimate of the population served in a particular county exceeds the preliminary census estimate of the 1970 population for that county. In other cases, the information available on the discharge permit application is not complete and an estimate of the population served is not readily available. Because of these discrepancies it is almost impossible to develop an accurate figure which relates the number of people in a particular county who have individual wastewater disposal systems, which consist of a septic tank and absorption field. In general, most of the municipal wastewater treatment plants in the counties in the Coastal Zone require some upgrading in order to discharge effluents which meet the water quality criteria established by the Texas Water Quality Board. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in their Cost of Clean Water series estimated the projected cost to up- grade and construct municipal wastewater treatment facilities in Texas for fiscal years 1969-1973 to be @378,500,000. The capital outlays needed total $323,600,000 and the operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $72,200,000. The industrial wastewater discharges summarized in Table 2 do not include the wastewaters from feed lot operations but do include 20 the return flows from power generation.* Of the 36 counties in the Coastal Zone, 14 counties have no industrial discharges. The quantity of wastewater discharged from industrial use is concentrated in Harris, Jefferson, Nueces, Orange, Galveston, Cameron, Victoria, Brazoria, Fort Bend, and Calhoun counties. These ten counties account for 99 percent of total industrial wastewater discharge in the Coastal Zone area. The majority of this industrial wastewater flow is associated with the refining and petrochemical industries. The quality of the industrial wastewater discharges is based on the information included on the permit application and in the return flow data which were made available by the Texas Water Quality Board in the form of a computer printout sheet. Where information relating the quality of the parti- cular discharge to the flow was not available, these flow data were not included in calculating the total pollutional load generated in the various counties. Some industrial wastewaters are difficult to treat and treatment to meet regulatory standards is considered to be economically unfeas- ible. These industrial wastewaters may be injected into subsurface porous strata. These wastes are merely stored below ground in strata which are sealed by impervious strata, thus isolated from usable underground water supplies or mineral resources. Sedimentary rocks in the unfractured state generally can store large volumes of wastes. This group of rocks includes sandstones, limestones, and dolomites; unconsolidated sands are generally ex- cellent disposal formations. Fractured strata should be avoided since vertical fissures may exist and the injected waste may travel vertically towards usable water supplies. Disposal wells vary in depth from a few hundred feet to about 15,000 feet. The capacity of various wells ranges from less than 10 to more than 2000 gallons per minute. Waste disposed of in injection wells includes streams containing acids, alkalies, chlorides, chroMates, cyanides, high BOD wastes, nitrates, phosphates, radioactive wastes, and others which are difficult or more expensive to dispose of by other methods. The disposal system consists of a well and surface equipment such as pumps and pretreatment equipment which may be necessary to remove constituents of the waste which may interfere with subsurface disposal. Some of the details of the design of the injection tubing and the well are shown in Figure 3. A casing, generally of steel, is cemented in place to seal the disposal stratum from the other strata which were penetrated during the drilling of the well. An injection tube transports the waste from the surface to the disposal stratum. An oil or fresh water is used to fill the annular space between the injection stratum. By monitoring the pressure of fluid, leaks in the injection tube or damage to the casing can readily be detected. * The report on Energy and Power includes a detailed discussion on the environmental effects of the alternate methods of power pro- duction, 21 ". Sy',,iACE PIPE SAN FRESHWTEWSAM12 R @ 01.5-112-.1 ESS 11-1 7-1ZI-k CC ION; FIGURE 3 TYPICAL INJECTION WELL 22 The surface installation usually includes a storage pit or tank to level out variations in flow., equipment necessary for pretreatment of the waste and high pressure pumps. The degree of treatment re- quired depends on the characteristics of the wastewater, the com- patability of the formation water and the wastewater, and the character- istics of the receiving formation. Injection wells are located in nine counties in the Coastal Zone. A total of 43 injection wells which have been permitted are located in the Coastal Zone. Three of these permitted wells have not been installed. The number of wells and actual wastewater discharges are presented in Table 7 and Figure 4. The formations into which the industrial wastewaters are pumped are also listed in Table 7. The depth of the wells range from 3400 to 7650 feet below the ground surface. The permitted flow exceeds the actual flow being discharged into the injection well in some of the counties. This information regarding the total quantity of flow discharged into injection wells was obtained from the permit data available from the Texas Water Quality Board. No attempt was made to characterize the industrial wastewaters which were injected into the wells. The total volume of industrial wastewaters disposed of in injection wells represents only a small fraction of the total quantity of in- dustrial wastewater flow which is discharged into surface waters. Injection wells are located in those counties where the industrial activity is relatively high and where industrial wastewater flows far outshadow the amount of municipal wastewater flow which has been reported. The discharge of salt waters resulting from the exploration for natural gas and oil into surface waters and ground waters can cause potential problems. The' data presented in Table 8 and in Figure 5 indicate the quantity of salt water which must be disposed of in the various counties in the Coastal Zone. The method of salt water dis- posal is also shown in this table. These data were obtained from the Texas Water Development Board and are based on the result of a 1961 survey. Since this 1961 survey, the Texas Railroad Commission has restricted the discharge of salt water into open pits and surface waters. Therefore, based on this restriction, no salt water is presently discharged into surface water or into open unlined pits in the Coastal Zone. The results of a 1968 survey of salt water dis- charges were not available in a form that could be easily summarized in the limited time during which this inventory was compiled. Solid Waste Solid wastes include a broad spectrum of materials which are no longer useful to man or for industrial purposes in their present form. A general classification of solid wastes which may be generated in a municipality is presented in Table 9. Most municipalities collect and dispose of "ordinary refuse," "buZky waste," and in many cases, "abandoned vehicles." The extent to which municipal service is 23 TABLE 7 Wastewater Discharges into Injection Wells* Actual Permitted Flow Flow County Numbe (MG (MGD) Brazoria 6 2.34 3.31 Chambers I ------ 2.69 Galveston 5 1.065 1.281 Harris 9 1.983 1.983 Jefferson 5 0.955 0.955 Matagorda 4 2.325 2.325 Nueces 3 0.019 0.091 Orange 6 1.239 1.239 Victoria 4 2,18 2.18 Formation Miocene 22 5.84 7.19 Pliocene-Miocene 7 2.64 2.64 Salt Dome 3 ------ 2.694 Sands 3 0.552 0.552 Sandstone 4 2.18 2.18 Frio 4 1.151 1.151 *Texas Water Quality Board 24 1.2 1.0 2 0 7 5 9 %5 3.3 6 2.3 2 .2 4 J out..". 3 LEGEND 3 TOTAL PERMITTED FLOW (MGD NUMBER OF INJECTION WELLS WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS (1970) FIG URE 4 25 TABLE 8 Salt Water Discharges (1961) (Million Gallons Per Day) Injection Surface County Wells- Open Pits Water Other Total Aransas -- 0,20 0.24 0.44 Austin 0.56 0.02 -- -- 0.58 Bee 0.43 0.31 <0.01 0.74 Brazoria 4.62 0.22 <0.01 4.84 Brooks <0.01 0.01 -- <0.01 0.02 Calhoun 0,11 0.29 0.08 <0.01 0.48 Cameron -- 0.51 -- -- 0.51 Chambers 1.82 0.24 1.19 0.02 3.27 Colorado <0.01 <0.01 -- <0.01 0.02 De Witt 0.19 0.22 -- 0.41 Duval 5.19 2.06 -- 0.06 7.31 Fort Bend 0.77 0.14 0.01 -- 0.92 Galveston 1.07 0.28 1.04 0.02 2.41 Goliad 0.43 0.14 -- -- 0.57 Harris 2.08 0.70 2.33 0.01 5.12 Hidalgo 0.04 0.16 0.32 -- 0.52 Jackson 0.26 0.04 0.06 <0.01 0.36 Jefferson 1.76 0.17 0.39 0.01 2.33 Jim Wells 0.30 0.32 -- <0.01 0.62 Kenedy 0.01 -- <0.01 -- 0.02 Kleberg -- 0.19 0.02 <0.01 0.21 Lavaca 0.05 0.03 -- -- 0.08 Liberty 1.35 0.20 0.06 <0.01 1.61 Live Oak 0.01 0.26 -- <0.01 0.27 Matagorda 1,37 0.14 <0.01 1.51 McMullen -- 0.60 -- 0.60 Montgomery 1.97 0.09 -- 0.21 2.27 Nueces 1.40 1.98 2.64 0.02 6.04 Orange 0.07 0.58 0.92 -- 1.57 Refugio 2.68 1.54 0.99 -- 5.21 San Patricio 0.88 2.93 7.27 0.02 11.10 Victoria 5.98 1.23 -- 0.01 7.22 Walker -- -- -- Waller 0.09 <0.01 -- -- 0.09 Wharton 0.20 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.22 Willacy 0.01 0.06 -- <0.01 0.08 Texas Water Development Board (1961) 26 2.27 5 7 0. D9 1 .61 I7"o. 5B 5 12 .27 1 0.02 2.41 0.92 4.84 0.41 7122 0,48 (3-74--t.Zl 0,44 0.27 ICOIA, 6z 7 31 7`0 4 LEGE io.oz 0. 02 7.0 - Salt Water Discharge (MGD) /0 52 SALT WATER DISCHARGE WELLS (196 1) FIGURE 5 27 TABLE 9 CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTES A. Ordinary Refuse 1. Garbage includes animal and vegetable residue resulting from the preparation, cooking and eating of food. This material is readily decomposed and is generally the cause of the foul odors associated with domestic solid wastes. 2. Rubbish or trash includes all other materials which are generally discarded by a homeowner, resident, small business, commercial establishment or restaurant. A portion of this material is burnable. 3. Yard trimmings include debris from cutting lawns, pruning etc. , but excludes branches longer than 3 feet in length and tree stumps. 4. Small dead animals includes, dogs, cats, squirrels, etc. which are accidentally killed on public streets or roads. 5. Street refuse - litter from receptacles. B. Bulky or Oversized Wastes Discarded stoves, refrigerators or other large appliances and sofa, stuffed chairs or other large pieces of furniture, as well as, large branches, fallen trees, and tree stumps. C. Abandoned Vehicles D. Industrial Wastes E. Demolition Wastes F. Construction Wastes G. Hospital Wastes H. Hazardous Wastes Include explosive toxic or radioactive liquids and solids 1. Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludges 28 provided to small businesses, restaurants, commercial establishments and industry is determined by the policy established by individual municipality or local government. The composition of ordinary municipal refuse is presented in Table 10. It is interesting to note that paper and paper products constitute about 40 percent of the weight of the refuse and that garbage constitutes only ten percent of the weight. The use of household disposal units will reduce the quantity of garbage that enters the refuse collection system but will increase the load of suspended solids which must be handled at the municipal wastewater treatment plant. The relative percentage of glass, paper, metals, and plastics will depend on the pack-aging industry, although based on present trends an increase in the quantity of paper and paper products can be expected. The solid waste production data for the Coastal Zone is pre- sented in Table 11 and Figure 6. These data were obtained from the Texas State Department of Health and represent the results of a 1968 survey. The quantity of refuse collected by municipal and pri- vate vehicles and disposed of in municipal, county, and privately owned disposal sites are based on estimates provided by the muni- cipal and county official and disposal site operators. The amount of industrial solid wastes which are collected 13y private organizations are generally not included in these lists. Some of the private collectors can dispose of solid waste in muni- cipal or county disposal facilities do not accept sludges, industrial solid wastes, or hazardous solid wastes. The amount of refuse generated daily per person is also shown in Table 11 This number is based on the total estimated quantity of refuse collected annually divided by the estimated population served. Refuse collection vehicles are not routinely weighed in most areas; therefore, the weight of refuse collected is merely a guess. Since this per capita production rate is based on two estimated figures, the specific volume for each county varies con- siderably from the next. The per capita refuse production varies from a a minimum of 0.69 pounds per capita per day to a maximum of 13. 9 pounds per capita per day. The average production rate for the Coastal Zone based on the total estimated population seeved and the total estimated quantity of refuse collected is 5.13 pounds per capita pep day. This value compares well with the value of 5 pounds per capita per day which is normally accepted as a reasonable rate of refuse pro- duction. Adequate records of the actual weight of the refuse collected daily is required in each county if a reasonable estimate of the per capita production is to be available for future planning of a solid waste management program. Other solid wastes which are not included in the ordinary municipal refuse which require disposal are also lisded in Table 11. Abandoned automobiles pose serious 29 TABLE 10 COMPOSITION OF ORDINARY MUNICIPAL REFUSE Component Weight Percen Paper 40 Garbage 10 Other Combustibles textile plastics fats, etc. 25 grass tree limbs Inerts glass ceramics stones 25 metals ash 30 TABLE 11 Solid Waste Production* Population Quantity County Served Tons/year Pound s/ca pita/day Aransas 9,600 10,800 6.2 Austin 14,300 5 000 1.9 Bee 23,500 17,500 4.1 Brazoria 106,000 91,100 4.7 Brooks 9,000 6,902 4.0 Calhoun 20,200 20,035 5.5 Cameron 134,900 164,85o 6. 7 Chambers 12,200 91500 4.3 Colorado 1B,500 12,810 3.8 De Witt 19,800 27,956 7.7 Duval 13,700 4,90o 2.0 Fort Bend 51,300 30,700 3.3 Galveston 168,600 403,600 13.2 Goliad 5,000 900 1.0 Harris 1,597,800 1,209,150 4.1 Hidalgo 177, 100 313, 100 9.7 Jackson 14,100 10,320 4.0 Jefferson 247,600 287,900 6.4 Jim Wells 31,500 30,110 5.2 Kenedy 700 90 0.7 Kleberg 30,900 24,360 4.3 Lavaca 19,700 5,350 1.5 Liberty 32 500 23,800 3.7 Live Oak 7,200 2,800 2.1 Matagorda 31 700 23,150 4.0 McMullen 1 200 150 0.7 Montgomery 46,400 16,000 1.9 Nueces 232,500 183,150 4. 3 Orange 72,900 54,600 4.1 Refugio 10,200 11,260 6.0 San Patricio 47,200 35,831 4.2 Victoria 56,800 34,300 3.3 Walker 28,500 25,185 4.9 Waller 14,700 11,950 4.4 Wharton 39, 600 24,400 3.4 Willacy 14,600 9,600 3. 6 *Texas State Department of Health (1968) 31 2 3 8 0 0. 54600 11950 .11 1 5 6 4 287900 >Z000 1209150 5 9500 -2\ 22 - /12 8 10, 2 3 0 7 0 0 i( 5350 6 ! - @, - 1. j ---- \ 11 - 403600 ,>,.- ft-4-u U f9iloo 10 3 2'@ 6'6' ', --- 4E .11 4 A, 1.12' 956 " .1 ., '@, @? - i7O 3 3 -% 2 7; 0) 3 23150 3 20035 2800 \175 4 11260 . . . . . . " ---7" 2 3 'eew-v 10800 4 Zt. 2 35831 4900 3 3 24360 3 16902 90 LEGEND 13100 9600 12 3 100 REFUSE PRODUCTION (TONS/YEAR M850 2 NUMBER OF DISPOSAL SITES 9 9 5 0 '4-4 06 4 315 0 2 035 4 O@ REFUSE PRODUCTION (1968) FIGURE 6 32 problems to most municipalities. The results of a 1966 study of Solid Waste Production in Selected Texas Cities indicate that 1.6 passenger vehicles were abandoned for each 1,000 people. Therefore one could expect that about 5,@000 automobiles will be abandoned in the Coastal Zone during 1970. The sludge and residues resulting from the treatment of water for municipal supply and industrial use as well as from the treat- ment of municipal and industrial wastewaters also present a solid waste disposal problem. The quantity of sludge produce during treatment of water is affected by the quality of raw water supply, the chemicals added, the degree of treatment required to make the water suitable for municipal water supply, or for the specific in- dustrial purpose. The water treatment sludges generally contain chemical precipitates and the sludges are difficult to concentrate but do not contain sufficient quantities of putrescible organic material; therefore, very little offensive odors are associated with these sludges. The characteristics of the wastewaters and the de- gree of treatment required will effect the quantity of sludge which is generated during the treatment of municipal and industrial waste- waters. These wastewater sludges generally contain putrescible organic material which readily decompose resulting in obnoxious odors. Therefore, these sludges require some type of treatment and disposal facilities at different treatment plants will vary. The residual solids may be buried or placed on the land as a soil con- ditioning agent. Therefore the disposal of the solid residue and sludges from the treatment of wastewaters may result in pollution of ground and surface waters if improperly disposed of on land and air pollution if proper air cleaning is not furnished during in- cineration. The characteristics of industrial solid wastes are as varied as the industries located in the Coastal Zone. A very limited amount of information regarding the characteristics of the industrial solid waste is available. The staff of the Texas Water Quality Board is actively engaged in surveying the solid wastes generated at industrial facilities. The results of this survey, when completed, should pro- vided qualitative and quantitative data for various types of industries. Most industrial'plant sites will store the sludges from water and wastewater treatment in lagoons on the plant site, if land is available. otherwise these residues and other semi-solid residues are hauled off for disposal by private collectors. Most of the com- bustible residues in solid waste in industrial plant sites are in- cinerated at the plant-site or collected by a private collection agency for disposal at some other site. Disposal of municipal solid waste in the counties in the Coastal Zone is primarily on the land. The number of solid waste disposal sites reported in the Coastal Zone totals 175. This total includes four incinerator sites, three of which are in Harris County and one in Hidalgo County. One compost plant has also been reported in 33 Harris County. The remaining refuse disposal sites include sanitary landfills and open dumps. Of the 175 number of @and disposal sites, OrZy 13 are considered to be sanitary landfills. The remainder of the land disposal sites are considered to be substandard landfills generally characterized by uncontrolled burning of refuse, improper covering of the refuse at the end of the day, presence of rats and flies, drainage of runoff to surface water, blowing paper, and odors. It should be pointed out that this information is based on a survey which was conducted by the Texas State Department of Health in 1968. Therefore, the number of disposal sites may have increased during this time and some of the dumps converted to sanitary landfills. The information available indicates that none of the incinerators plants for the disposal of refuse are presently in operation. The one operating compost plant which handled about 350 tons of refuse per day for the city of Houston in Harris County, has recently been shut down since the market for reclaimed materials was a casualty of the economic slowdown. A sanitary landfill includes the placement of the refuse on the ground or in a prepared trench and compacted with a catepillar bull- dozer or similar equipment. The compacted refuse is covered at the end of each operating day with about six inches of compacted soil. No burning of the refuse is permitted at the landfill site and proper drainage of the site is provided. The pollution of ground water by refuse in sanitary landfills can take place only if the following conditions exist: (a) the sanitary landfill is directly above or adjacent to an aquifer,. (b) the refuse in the sanitary landfill becomes supersaturated because of percolation of rainfall, pooling of surface water, or flow of ground water, and (c) Zeached fluids are produced and the Zeachate enters the aquifer. The geology, topography and ground water and surface water re- sources at the proposed sanitary landfill site should be carefully evaluated.* The site which provided the least potential for water pollution should be selected. Refuse in sanitary landfill can absorb an extraordinary amount of water before supersaturated conditions develop and leachate is produced. Paper itself can absorb two to three times its weight in water. Leachate was produced only after 15 inches of water was * The Bureau of Economic Geology has recently completed a study of the coastal region in which they identified potential landfill sites. 34 continually applied at the rate of one inch per day to a fill in a ten-foot deep bin. The quantity of waste required to produce a leachate was about 25 gallons per cubic yard of fill or about 65 gallons per ton of refuse. The overall picture of water pollution from a sanitary landfill is quite complex. The chances of water pollution can be minimized by locating the sanitary landfill away from ground water aquifers and surface water supplies. Proper draining of the site to avoid supersaturation of the refuse in the sanitary landfill is also necessary to eliminate production of leachate. Open burning of refuse at dumps also contributes to the particulate and gaseous emissions to the atmosphere which constitute air pollution. The organic material in the refuse provides a good breeding place for flies. In the warm summer months, the time for flies to develop from the egg stage to adult is about 5 to 7 days. Although flies have not been directly incriminated with the transmission of diseases from refuse to humans, the flies are a nuisance. The garbage in the re- fuse also provides a source of food for rats. Therefore, an open dump is generally infested with rats which in turn can migrate from the dump to adjacent housing. Water that accumulates in discarded containers provides a breeding place for mosquitoes which in turn are vectors for the transmission of diseases such as encephaliti'es, malaria, and yellow fever. Of these diseases, encephalitis is probably the most common and of most concern in the Coastal Zone. Air Pollution The gaseous and particulate emissions from industrial activities are presented in Table 12. These emissions to the atmosphere do not include the particulate material and gases generated during the un- controlled burning of refuse in open dumps, nor the emissions from motor vehicles. The data in Table 12 were obtained for surveys con- ducted by the Texas Air Control Board and are expressed in terms of tons per year. The industrial gaseous emi .ssions into the atmosphere include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid, flourides, and other compounds. Water vapor is also gaseous but is considered relatively harmless and not an air pollutant in the same sense as chemical compounds. The particulate and gaseous emissions into the atmosphere are also presented in Figure 7. There are not industrial emissions into the - atmosphere in 14 of the counties in the Coastal Zone. Industrial gases are emitted in 21 counties, while particulate material and gases are reported to be emitted in only 12 counties. The data presented in Table 12 indicate that the industrial counties account for the bulk of the atmospheric emissions. On a weight basis the industrial gaseous emission exceed the industrial particulate emission by a wide margin. More than 11,300,000 tons per year of industrial gaseous emissions excluding water vapor and more than 92,000 tons per year of particulate emissions have been reported 35 0 0 i68010'-- 99690 7655 104 495 2434 0 .1%, --6- 528360 0 24417 .1580804 0 43411 "0 9 0 27 685065 0 0 10711 ",,.Al 42 0 - f 6990 5073 0 T-MU5 7 65 0 0 0 -0 22801 6670 0 0 0 0 116205 0 7 -- - -------- 00 900603 0 0 i 5011 1263 2 0 - 0 0 i 1 0 LEGEND 7- 200 Gases emitted (tons/year) 374 10 Particulates emitted (tons/year) 1-. 0 9 "M6 0 Industrial Emissions to the Atmosphere Figure 7 36 TABLE 12 INDUSTRIAL AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS* (TONSATAR) County Gases Particulates Water Vapor Aransas 116205 7 532000 Austin 0 0 0 Bee 0 0 0 Brazoria 286990. 5073 35584194 Brooks 0 0 0 Calhoun 22801 0 3020000 Cameron 20860 0 523000 Chambers 0 0 3716 Colorado 0 0 0 DeWitt 0 0 0 Duval 0 0 0 Fort Bend 927 0 428008 Galveston 6685065 10711 13740000 Goliad 0 0 0 Harris 1580804 43441 296465702 Hidalgo 5374 9 439290 Jackson 1 0 0 Jefferson 528360 24417 19400000 Jim Wells 0 0 0 Kenedy 0 0 0 Kleberg 1263 2 13140 Lavaca 0 0 0 Liberty 495 0 50000 Live Oak 0 0 0 Matagorda 21865 65 3457650 McMullen 6670 0 0 Montgomery 68010 104 1892149 Nueces 900603 5011 21B32105 Orange 99690 2434 14740482 Refugio 0 0 0 San Patricio 13403 1700 4124300 Victoria 20700 0 5000000 Walker 0 0 0 Waller 7655 0 4777936 Wharton 1420 0 122000 Willacy 0 0 0 *Texas Air Control Board (1970) 37 for the Coastal Zone. The relatively low amount of particulate material in the industrial emissions may be attributable to the fact that most industries burn natural gas which results in fewer particles than other fossil fuels. Enforcement of the Air Pollution Control legislation relating to particulate emissions may also be responsible for the relatively low quantity. Gaseous emissions are more difficult to remove and in most cases are not visible; therefore, the gases go by unnoticed except for any odors or colors associated with the gases. Each industry has characteristic emissions which are unique to an industrial category or classification. Some typical emissions for industrial and agricultural activities are summarized in Table 13. The quantity and quality of gaseous and particulate emissions is related to the raw material used, the process applied and the effectiveness of the air pollution control equipment which is in- stalled, if in fact any air cleaning devices are used. The industrial emissions have the most direct effect on the environment immediately adjacent to the source of the emissions. In many cases the industrial emissions to the atmosphere are mani- fested by visible plumes at plant sites. This dramatic emission of colored plumes, particulate materials and chemical mists, etc., may travel some distance and affect the health and property of ill- dividuals at relatively remote locations. Odors may be the principle indicator of industrial emissions when no plume is obvious. motor vehicles also contribute to the emissions to the atmosphere. An inventory of the number of motor vehicles registered in the various counties in the Coastal Zone is presented in Table 14. The motor vehicles are classified in the following categories: passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and a category including truck tractors, tractors, construction machinery, etc. The number of vehicles in the Coastal Zone which have exempt registration is not included. The distribution of passenger vehicles among the population in the Coastal Zone expressed as registered passenger vehicles per person is presented in Table 15 and Figure 8. The ratio does not vary significantly and covers a range of 0.28 to 0.49 re- gistered passenger vehicles per person. The average for the Coastal Zone is 0.40 passenger vehicles per person. The population density is higher in the urban industrial counties and the total number of passenger vehicles is also high in these counties. Therefore the automobile emissions add to the industrial gaseous and particulate emissions. The major components of automobile emissions are shown in Table 16 and include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen@ oxides of sulfur, and particulate material. The particulate material includes carbon particles, lead particles, and condensates which are discharged in the exhaust. The characteristics and quantity of automobile exhaust are a function of the speed of the vehicles and data in Table 16 are based on an average speed of 25 miles per hour. 38 TABLE 13 CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS Type of Industry Emissions Chemical Industry Ammonia Plant Ammonia fumes, carbon monoxide Chlorine Plant Chlorine, gas, liquid chlorine, mercury Nitric Acid Plant Nitric Oxide, nitrogen dioxide, acid mist Paint and Varnish Fumes, aldehydes, ketones Manufacturing Phenols, terpenes, particulates Phosphoric Acid Plants P205 Acid mist, nitrogen oxides Phosphoric Acid Gaseous fluorides Fertilizer Plant Silicon tetrafluoride, hydrogen fluoride Sulfuric Acid Plant Sulfur dioxide, acid mist Food and Fiber Industry Cotton Ginning Particulates, dust Coffee Roasting Particulates, smoke, odors Feed and Grain Mills Dust Metallurgical Industry Aluminum Ore Reduction Particulate alumina, carbon and fluorides, gaseous fluorine Copper Smelters Carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and fine particulate fume Iron and Steel Mills Particulates, fumes, smoke, particulate lead fumes Lead Smelters Lead fumes, sulfur dioxide Zinc Smelters Particulates, fumes, sulfur dioxide 39 TABLE 13 (con'd.) Secondary Metals Industry Ferrous Metals Particulates Aluminum Fine Particulates , gaseous chlorine and fluorine Brass and Bronze Smelting Particulates, zinc oxide fumes Gray Iron foundary Particulates Lead Smelting Particulates, sulfur compounds Magnesium Melting Particulates Zinc Processes Particulates galvanizing, calcining smelting and sweating Mineral Products Industry Asphalt Roofing Particulates, oil mist Asphaltic Concrete Plant Particulates Calcium Carbide Plant Acetylene, sulfur dioxide sulfur trioxide, particulates Cement Plant dust Concrete Batch Plant Particulates Frit Manufacturing Plant Particulates, condensed metallic fumes , fluorides Glass Manufacturing Plant Particulates, fluorides Lime Manufacturing Plant Particulates Insulation Manufacturing Plants Asbestos fiber, rock wool fibers Petroleum Refinery Hydrocarbons , particulates, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, ammonia Plastics Ethylene, methacrylate Petrochemical Plants Losses of interinediate and final product Pulp and Paper Industry Particulates, Hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfur Dry Cleaning Plants Chlorinated hydrocarbons, tetrachloro- ethylene, petroleum solvents , hydrocarbon vapors 40 TABLE 13 (con'd.) Metal Scrap Yards Smoke, soot Rendering Plant Organic vapors, odors Agricultural Activities Crop spraying and dusting Organic phosphates, chlorinated hydrocarbons, arsenic and lead Field Burning Smoke, flyash, soot Refuse Incineration Particulates, flyash Open Dump Refuse Burning Particulates, odors, hydrocarbons, smoke 41 TABLE 14 REGISTERED VEHICLES (1970)* Motor, County Passenger Trucks Buses Cycles Others Aransas 3432 1027 0 56 49 Austin 5573 2667 0 60 137 Bee ' 8620 2718 0 220 127 Brazoria 45085 14984 0 1105 456 Brooks 2643 378 0 25 48 Calhoun 7124 2315 0 165 78 Cameron 50099 12363 117 957 658 Chambers 5813 3936 0 53 476 Colorado 73B7 3915 0 88 215 DeWitt 8705 3406 0 94 '139 Duval 3403 1702 0 38 43 Fort Bend 18930 6544 0 251 289 Galveston 70214 15179 96 1514 549 Goliad 1778 881 0 19 18 Harris 796310 152919 472 16521 10547 Hidalgo 62817 19244 4 1029 959 Jackson 5166 2592 0 72 117 Jefferson 113815 23968 42 2227 1179 Jim Wells 12145 4324 2 183 264 Kenedy 204 102 0 1 2 Kleberg 11507 2671 0 419 364 Lavaca 7207 3160 0 417 94 Liberty 13192 6692 0 263 324 Live Oak 2435 1507 0 19 49 Matagorda 10909 4328 7 139 122 McMullen 398 320 0 8 17 Montgomery 17149 8213 0 497 250 Nueces 105038 20782 1 2034 1962 Orange 29012 8161 0 483 118 Refugio 3863 1562 0 59 68 San Patricio 17691 5664 0 232 247 Victoria 23502 6129 0 596 425 Walker 6910 2763 0 155 83 Waller 4942 2646 0 60 47 Wharton 14767 6009 0 178 264 Willacy 4855 2177 0 61 B6 *Texas State Highway Department (1970) 42 TABLE 15 POPULATION AND PASSENGER VEHICLE DENSITIES (1970) County Population/Sq. Mi. Vehicles/Person Aransas 33.1 0.41 Austin 20.9 0.42 Bee 25.6 0.39 Brazoria 75.0 0.42 Brooks 8.2 0.34 Calhoun 33.8 0.42 Cameron 144.2 0.36 Chambers 15.4 0.48 Colorado 18.2 0.43 DeWitt 58.0 0.49 Duval 6.5 0.30 Fort Bend 58.4 0.37 Galveston 415.9 0.42 Goliad 5.3 0.39 Harris 1006.0 0.46 Hidalgo 107.9 0.36 Jackson 15.3 0.41 Jefferson 254.7 0.47 Jim Wells 36.9 0.38 Kenedy 0.5 0.31 Kleberg 38.6 0.36 Lavaca 19.3 0.41 Liberty 26.5 0.43 Live Oak 6.1 0.39 Matagorda 24.7 0.39 McMullen 0.9 0.38 Montgomery 43.3 0.37 Nueces 2B4.2 0.45 Orange 188.0 0.41 Refugio 11.6 0.42 San Patricio 59.3 0.40 Victoria 57.2 0.44 Wa lker 30.9 0.28 Waller 27.0 0.35 Wharton 33.8 0.41 Willacy 25.4 0.31 43 vo -28 0.37 0.35 0 4 3 1 0 .4 wwlcN W-P 0.4V 0.46 .4 0.43 0.37 0 41 0.42 0.42 0. 9 0.39 .4 0.39 -- --------- o 9-9- i 0.42 0.38 !0.39', 0.42 0.41 S" 0.40 0 0 .3 i 0.45 !0.3 0. 34i 7 (173 6 --0.31 0.36 NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTERED PER PERSON (1970) 41 FIGURE 8 44 TABLE 16 Characteristics of Automobile Exhausts* Quantity pounds per 1000 vehicle-miles Emis sion 1966 1968** 1970** Carbon Monoxide 165.0 15.0 10.4 Hydrocarbons 12.5 1.5 1.0 Oxides of Nitrogen 8.5 ----- ---- oxides of Sulfur 0.6 ----- ---- Particulates 0.8 ----- ---- *Duprey, R. L. , Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Durham, North Carolina, 1968. **Air/'Water Pollution Report, January 29, 1968. NOTE: 1966 - typical emissions of automobiles produced before 1966 1968 - typical emissions of 1968 model year automobiles with mandatory air pollution control devices installed 1970 - typical emissions of 1970 model year automobiles with air pollution control devices installed 45 The information shows typical emissions in the exhaust of automobiles produced before 1966 on which no air pollution control devices were installed as well as for passenger vehicles on which the mandatory air pollution control devices were installed. The air pollution control devices installed on the 1970 model year vehicles should reduce the quantities of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from 15.0 to 10.4 pounds per vehicle mile and from 1.5 to 1.0 pounds per vehicle mile, respectively. The quantity of gaseous emissions from automobile exhausts in the Coastal Zone would be about 1,000,000 tons per year. Compara- tively speaking, industrial emissions in the Coastal Zone exceed 11,000,000 tons per year. This estimate is based on the fact that one-third of the vehicles in the Coastal Zone were equipped with air pollution control devices to meet the standards set during 1968 and 1970, and the fact that each of the passenger vehicles were driven for 10,000 miles during the year. As the number of older vehicles are replaced by those vehicles with effective air pollution control devices pollutant emissions to the atmosphere will be markedly re- duced. However, the disposal of the abandoned vehicles could lead to a solid waste handling and disposal problem. The gaseous and particulate emissions from those vehicles which use diesel fuel must also be included in the inventory. The character- istics of the emissions from vehicles burning diesel fuel is summarized in Table 17. The emissions to the atmosphere from aircraft also contribute to the total air pollution inventory. Typical emissions for aircraft are summarized in Table 18. The cotton ginning operation is characterized by emissions of particulate material and gases into the atmosphere. Cotton gins are located in 18 counties in the.Coastal Zone. The counties in which cotton gins are located and the quantity of cotton processed are pre- sented in Table 19. The quantity of particulate emissions resulting from the ginning operation is also presented in this table. Approxi- mately 11.7 pounds of particulates are generated from each bale of cotton processed. It should be noted, however, that the cotton ginning operation has been declining in the Coastal Zone. Therefore, cotton gins as sources of air pollution should also be on a decline. Animal Waste The oroduction of animals such as beef cattle, milk-cows, hogs, sheep and lambs, chickens, and turkeys present a solid waste manage- ment problem and can be the source of water pollution. The number of animals produced in the various counties in the Coastal Zone are summarized in Table 20. The source of this information is the U.S. Census of Agricultural, 1964. A number of the counties in the Coastal Zone rank mnong the top ten counties in Texas in the production of particular animals. Five counties in the Coastal Zone are among the top ten counties in Texas 46 TABLE 17 Characteristics of Motor Vehicle Exhausts* Quantity pounds per 1000 gallons of fuel Automobiles Diesel Emission (gasoline) Engines Carbon Monoxide 2300 60 Hydrocarbons 200 136 Oxides of Nitrogen 113 222 Oxides of Sulfur 9 40 Particulates 12 110 *Duprey, R. L. , Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Durham, North Carolina, 1968. 47 TABLE 18 Characteristics of Aircraft Exhaust Below 3500 Feet* (pounds per flight**) jet Aircraft Piston (per engine) TurboProp Engine Fan 2 4 2 4 Emission Conventional jet Engine Engine Engine Engine Carbon Monoxide 8.75 5.15 2.0 9.0 134.0 326.0 Hydrocarbons 2.50 4.75 0.3 1.2 25.0 60.0 Oxides of Nitrogen 5.75 2.30 1.1 5.0 6.3 15.4 Particulates 8.5 1.85 0.6 2.5 0.6 1.4 *Duprey, R. L. , Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Durham, North Carolina, 1968. **Flight is defined as a combination of a landing and a take-off. 48 TABLE 19 COTTON GINNING* Particulate Bales Ginned From Emissions County 1966 Crop pounds Austin 6,971 81,561 Bee 4,485 52,475 Brazoria 4,504 52,697 Calhoun 5,562 65,075 Cameron 108,805 1,273,019 Colorado 5,934 69,428 Fort Bend 24,006 280,870 Hidalgo 98,867 1,156,744 Jackson 2,886 33,766 Jim Wells 8,113 94,922 Lavaca 7,692 89,996 Matagorda 4,304 50,357 Nueces 66,624 779,501 Refugio 9,586 112,156 San Patricio 59,161 692,184 Victoria 6,632 77,594 Wharton 30,723 359,459 Willacy 42,217 493,939 *U.S. Bureau of Census Reports 49 TABLE 2 0 ANIMAL PRODUCTION* Milk Sheep County Cattle Cows Hogs Lambs Chickens Turkeys Aransas 2,392 11 139 130 1,384 3 Austin 83,498 2,361 6,373 2,270 134,703 2,244 Bee 37,009 539 1,714 483 29,373 137 Brazoria 98,388 2,149 4,416 839 120,395 393 Brooks 39,768 1,389 134 72 44,384 40,049 Calhoun 13,208 76 115 468 6,314 163 Cameron 25,780 1,771 1,821 290 68,965 422 Chambers 46,879 51 408 330 16,312 111 Colorado 86,641 1,904 4,434 1,314 235,906 18,649 DeWitt 76,859 3,965 7,113 3,669 93,855 173,122 Duval 47,767 3,844 367 205 4,976 212 Fort Bend 74,451 1,038 5,047 730 104,001 4,837 Galveston 17,711 2,154 447 170 209,453 259 Gollad 44,670 224 5,978 1,902 17,118 2,389 Harris 95,829 13,190 4,964 1,259 344,948 575 Hidalgo 76,296 3,244 5,057 234 115,651 4,147 Jackson 59,176 355 1,569 739 25,223 627 Jefferson 45,813 533 376 280 15,052 213 jimWells 51,099 9,181 1,479 442 40,872 20,271 Kenedy 26,797 92 4 --- 43 --- Kleberg 72,567 715 4,828 320 18,898 878 Lavaca 81,670 4,092 10,639 2,542 214,768 144,778 Liberty 47,502 1,241 1,165 113 50,667 208 Live Oak 40,290 501 3,726 198 25,277 179 Matagorda 75,706 214 1,283 974 13,771 836 McMullen 36,600 41 69 5 1,037 7 Montgomery 37,599 2,874 2,105 93 61,744 338 Nueces 21,516 161 2,583 576 60,791 2 732 Orange 9,154 105 1,114 122 12,730 35 Refugio 39,874 65 893 3,223 4,134 146 San Patricio 36,666 86 1,483 332 50,203 161 Victoria 69,256 620 2,924 2,406 49,598 11,775 Walker 37,9B7 1,272 4,558 112 46,694 521 Waller 46,864 1,397 2,059 589 34,072 1,161 Wharton 88,655 1,733 2,357 1,067 69,349 2,222 Willacy 18,533 802 1,255 173 86,107 176 *U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1964 50 in the production of particular animals. Five counties in the Coastal Zone are among the top ten in beef cattle production. These counties include Brazoria (1), Harris (3), Wharton (6), Colorado (7), Austin (8). Harris County also ranks second in the State in the production of dairy cattle. Lavaca County ranks seventh in the pro- duction of swine and tenth in the production of turkeys, while DeWitt County ranks seventh in the turkey production. The characteristics of animal waste are presented in Table 21. The information in this table show that for beef cattle, each animal produces 60 pounds of manure per day and each animal produces wastes which have the some strength of the waste produced by 3.5 humans based on the total pounds of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) produced. The potential for pollution of surface and ground waters as the result of runoff from rainfall from those areas where animals have grown in high con- centration is quite evident. Many of these animals are raised in feed lots. A total number of 147 feed lot sites have been reported to be located in 28 of the 36 counties which are included in the Coastal Zone. The operating feed lots number 40 and are located in'14 counties. The reported number of sites which have been permanently closed is 45. This in- ventory of feed lots was made available by the personnel of the Texas Water Quality Board. Data for the Coastal Zone are summarized in Table 22 and Figure 9. The State of Texas ranks second in the United States in the number of cattle marketed from feed lots. In 1968, 1594 cattle feed lots marketed 1,970,000 cattle. However, 1,858,000 cattle were marketed from 294 feed lots which had a capacity of over 1000 head of cattle. The effective handling, treatment and disposal of these con- centrated wastes must be included in any animal waste management program. The disposal methods represent additional costs, therefore, a wide variety of systems are employed. The degree of treatment ranges from almost no treatment to extensive waste processing. Pesticides Pesticides for the control of insects which damage crops and undesirable weeds enter the surface water during periods of runoff of storm water and from agricultural lands. The pesticides are transported by the streams and rivers to the bays and estuaries in the Coastal Zone. many of these organic compounds are not readily assimilated in the aquatic system and persist for Long periods of time. The results of a survey conducted by the Texas Water Develop- ment Board and the U.S. Geological Survey are presented in Tables 23 and 24. The data in these tables indicate that the pesticides which are commonly found in water samples include DDD, DDE, and DDT. The pesticides were found in the waters of four of the estuaries in which the survey was conducted. It is interesting to note that in some of the sediment samples these insecticides were detected although no pesticides were present in the overlying water at the 51 TABLE 21 CHARACTERISTICS OF ANIMAL WASTES* Beef Dairy Cattle Cattle Poultry Swine Sheep Animal Weight (lb) 950 1400 5 200 100 Manure Produced (lb/day) 60.0 BO. 6 0.4 17.4 7.2 Dry Solids (lb/day) 10.0 10.0 0.1 0.9 1.7 BOD (lb/animal/day) 1.0 1.0 0.02 0.3 ----- Total Nitrogen (lb/animal/day) 0.3 0.4 0.003 0.05 ----- Population Equivalent** 3.5 ------ ----- 0.90 0.31 *Livestock Industries in Texas as Related to Water Quality, Preliminary Report, Texas Water Quality Board, June, 1970. **Population Equivalent is the number of humans required to produce the same amount of BOD produced by one animal. These numbers are based on the contribution to the BOD of municipal wastewater attirbutable to the organic material in human excrement. 52 TABLE 22 FEEDLOTS* No. of . No. of No.of Reported Sites Operating Sites Closed Sites No Information Aransas No information available Austin is 8 6 1 Bee 2 NA 2 NA Brazoria 5 2 2 1 Brooks No information available Calhoun No information available Cameron 6 3 3 NA Chambers No information available Colorado 8 4 NA 4 DeWitt 16 5 NA 11 Duval I NA I NA Fort Bend 3 1 2 NA Galveston 2 1 1 NA Goliad 7 3 NA 4 Harris 6 4 2 NA Hidalgo 8 1 4 3 Jackson 2 NA NA 2 Jefferson 2 NA NA 2 Jim Wells 7 NA 7 NA Kenedy No information available Kleberg 3 NA 1 2 Lavaca 11 4 NA 7 Liberty 4 2 2 NA Live Oak 9 NA 7 2 Matagorda 1 NA NA I McMullen No information available Montgomery 3 1 2 NA Nueces 1 NA NA 1 Orange 5 NA NA 5 Refugio 1 NA 1 NA San Patricio 5 1 1 3 Victoria No information available Walker 2 NA NA 2 Waller 1 NA 1 NA Wharton 11 NA NA 11 Willacy No information available *Texas Water Quality Board (1970) NA - No Information Available 53 NA 3 3 4 5 NA 0 \ I ' 6 - e NA 8 4 NA 4 3 2 4 .16 @7A ilz2 2 NA NA N, 7 3 NA NA i 9 2 NA NA .... ----- ------ --------- 7 0 i 3 TA, NA NA LEGEND 5 NUMBER CLF FEEDLOTS REPORTED 2 NUMBER OF OPERATING FEEDLOTS 6 2 N 5 2 NA NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE FEEDLOTS (1970) FIGURE 9 54 TABLE 23 Pesticides* Insecticides A-DDD B-DDE C-DDT D-Dieldrin Insecticide** Water Total Sediment Total Estuary D (PPB) 11 @gL (PP B) Arroyo Colorado x x 0.05 N N N N Arroyo Colorado cutoff ---- x x x 3.21 Arroyo Colorado (Laguna Madre) ---- Lavaca-Tres Palacios x 0.01 x x x 22.80 Lavaca-Tres Palacios (Tres Palacios Bay) X x x 3.17 Lavaca-Tres Palacios, (Texas Intercoastal Waterway) x x x - 0.69 N N N N Lavaca-Tres Palacios (Palacios Bay) - x - - 0.01 x x x x 100.20 Lavaca-Tres Palacios, (Lavaca Bay) x x x - 1.02 N N N N Lavaca-Tress Palacios (Lavaca River) x x x x 8.16 *Texas Water Development Board (1970) **(x) indicates compound is present in the sample (-) indicates compound is not present in the sample (N) indicates no sample available 55 TABLE 23 - Gon'd. Insecticide** Water Total Sediment Total Estuary (PP B) A B C (PP B) Guadalupe (San Antonio Bay) x 0.02 x x x x 3.64 Guadalupe (Guadalupe Bay) x 0.61 x x x x 9.14 Guadalupe (Guadalupe Estuary) - - x 0.01 x x - - 4.30 Guadalupe Guadalupe River - - x 0.02 x x - - 4.00 Colorado River - - - ---- X x x - 24.70 East Matagorda (Matagorda Bay) - - - x x x - 2.83 Sabine-Neches - - - x x - - 1.40 Laguna Madre (Baffin Bay) - - x 0.01 x x - - 2.50 Nueces Bay - - - ---- N N N N Nueces Estuary - - - N N N N Mission-Aransas - - - N N N N *Texas Water Development Board (1970) **(x) indicates compound is present in the sample H indicates compound is riot present in the sample (N) indicates no sample available 56 TABLE 24 Pesticides* Herbicides A-2,4-D B-Silvex C-2,4,5,-T Herbicides** Water Total Sediment Total Estuary (PPB) A B C (PP B) Arroyo Colorado N N N Arroyo Colorado Cutoff Arroyo Colorado (Laguna Madre) x 0.01 N N N Lavaca-Tres Palacios x - x 0.04 N N N Lavaca-Tres Palacios (Tres Palacios Bay) x - x 0.22 N N N Lavaca-Tres Palacios (Texas Intercoastal Waterway) N N N Lavaca-Tres Palacios (Palacios Bay) x - x 0.27 N N N Lavaca-Tres Palacios (Lavaca Bay) x - x 0.18 N N N Lavaca-Tres Palacios (Lavaca River) N N N *Texas Water Development Board (1970) **(x) indicates compound is present in the sample (-) indicates compound is not present in the sample (N) indicates no sample available 57 TABLE 24 - Con'd. Herbicide** Water Tota 1 Sediment Total Estuary (PP B) A (PPB) Guadalupe (San Antonio Bay) x x 0.17 N N N Guadalupe (Guadalupe Bay) x x 0.27 N N N Guadalupe (Guadalupe Estuary) N N N Guadalupe (Guadalupe River) N N N Colorado River x - x 0.07 N N N East Matagorda (Matagorda Bay) x - x 0.08 N N N Sabine-Neches - - x 0.02 N N N Laguna Madre (Baffin Bay) - - x 0.02 N N N Nueces Bay - - N N N Nueces Estuary N N N N N N Mission-Aransas - - x 0.13 N N N *Texas Water Development Board (1970) -*(x) indicates compound is present in the, sample (-) indicates compound is not present in the sample (N) indicates no sample available 58 time of sampling. A typical example is the Arroyo-Colorado Estuary at the Cutoff. The insecticides detected in the sediments included DDD, DDE, and Dieldrin. These data also indicate that insecticides can be concentrated in the sediments of an estuary and bay. This fact is pointed out by comparing the concentrations of the insecti- cides in the overlying water with that detected in the sediment. The concentration of insecticides in the water in the estuaries range between 0.01 and 1.02 parts per billion (ppb); however, the concentra- tion of insecticides detected in the sediments range from 1.40 to 100.2 ppb. In fact, the lowest concentration of insecticides in the water was detected in the water sample taken at the location in Pala- cious Bay in which the sediment concentration was in excess of 100 ppb. This concentration of insecticides by the sediments can be at- tributed in part to the clay particles on which the insecticide is adsorbed which are flushed into the bays. Plankton which concentrate the insecticides upon dying will fall to the bottom of the bay or may be consumed by predators which in turn concentrate the compound. In- secticides are also removed from the water and become concentrated in the food chain. Relatively high concentrations have been reported in plankton and fish harvested from the bays in the Coastal Zone. Samples of water from the various bays and estuaries were also analyzed for herbicides. The herbicides detected in the water samples included 2, 4-D, and 2, 4, 5, -T. The herbicides concentration ranged from 0.01 ppb to a maximum of 0.27 ppb. Only one sample of sediment was analyzed for herbicides; therefore, no information is available which would indicate the ability of the herbicides to persist in the environment for sufficiently long periods of time and become concentra- ted in the sediments. Radioactive Substances The release of radioactive materials into the environment can be another source of environmental pollution. There are 376 licensees for use of radioactive materials in the Coastal Zone. This number represents 33 percent of the licensees in the State of Texas. The licensees in the Coas tal Zone are found in 17 counties. The location of the licensees for use of radioactive materials is presented in Table 25. This information was made available by the Occupational Health Division of the Texas Department of Health who monitor all possible sources of radiation pollution and regulate the use of rad- iation. The majority of the radioactive material in the Coastal Zone is used in hospitals or in the offices of doctors and radiologists, and by well loggers. The radioactive material is used in such a way that there is little or no chance of release of this material to the en- vironment. The only radioactive regulator located in the Coastal Zone is in the N. S. Savanah when this vessel is in port. The N. S. Savanah does not discharge any radioactive waste into the bays in the Coastal Zone. There are no radioactive dumps reported in the Coastal Zone. This data indicates that there are no present problems with releases of radiation into the environment. 59 TABLE 25 RADIOACTIVE SOURCES* Number of Licenses County For Radioactive Material Aransas I Austin 3 Brazoria 10 Calhoun 2 Cameron 7 Colorado 1 DeWitt 7 Fort Bend 1 Galveston 24 Harris 223 Hidalgo 10 Jefferson 38 Matagorda 4 Nueces 28 Orange 8 Victoria 6 Walker 3 *Texas State Department of Health (1970) 60 LIMITATIONS OF INVENTORY This inventory of waste sources is useful in pointing to sources of potential pollution; however, it does not in itself provide any information regarding the collective effects of these discharges and emissions on the environment of the Coastal Zone. The available data in many instances is incomplete and additional information is necessary in order to complete the inventory of waste sources in the Coastal Zone and to be able to evaluate the effects of these waste discharges on the environment. Coordination of data collection, storage and management is essential. The result of this study indicates that a number of State agencies collect and store similar data to be used for different pur- poses. Many of the agencies do not upgrade their inventory of data as frequently as other agencies; therefore, different conclusions are drawn after reviewing what many people consider is the same information. Much of the available information is several years old and does not reflect any improvement in operation of the treatment or disposal facility which may have been completed since the data were collected. Data which are necessary to complete the overall inventory of water carried pollutants include monthly information regarding the quality and flow of all municipal and industrial discharges. The self-reporting system of obtaining effluent quality and quantity information could provide the necessary information to maintain an accurate and current inventory of wastewater discharges. However, the self-r6porting system will be only of limited value if the muni- cipal and industrial personnel can be convinced that they are not in jeopardy of retroactive penalties for not complying with the effluent standards. This does not mean that the penalty for non-compliance would be eliminated. However, some statute of limitation should be established during which time the municipality or industry is subject to the penalty for non-compliance. The quality of the receiving streams is necessary in order to effectively evaluate the effects of municipal and industrial dis- charges on the water quality. A system of data collection to provide this information would be extremely costly. Presently water quality data are collected by the staff of the Texas Water Quality Board and of the Texas Water Development Board in cooperation with the personnel of the United States Geological Survey. The inventory of water quality is not complete. Continuous monitoring will be necessary to evaluate any improvement in water quality resulting from more effective wastewater treatment. The cost of collecting this water qual ity information could be markedly reduced if the data were gathered by the industrial and 61 municipal personnel who monitor the quality of their respective effluents. In other words, by tying the water quality information with the effluent quality data on a self-report system the cost of collecting the water quality information can be markedly reduced. The quality of the surface water in the Coastal Zone was not a part of this inventory due to time and information-availability constraints; however, this information is essential to any water pollution control and water quality management programs. The effect of discharges from power stations which would increase the temperature of the receiving stream must also be included in these programs. Information of the quantity of water returned to the surface waters and the temperature of these returned flows are being collected by another task group and is not in this particular inventory. The concentration of heavy metals in industrial and municipal discharges is also not routinely determined. The concentration of coZiform organisms or other fecal organisms or viruses in municipal wastewaters and any sanitary waste from industrial plants should also be available. This information will provide a means of evaluating the treatment efficiency of the plant when considered in connection with the other effluent quality data. Information relating to the number of septic tanks and absorption fields in the Coastal Zone is very sparse. The proximity of the ground water table to the surface of the ground on the Coastal Zone makes it imperative that the number of septic tanks be determined and that the quality of the ground water in the vicinity of the septic tank system be evaluated in order to determine the effect of the septic tank discharges on the water quality. It is especially important that those areas in the Coastal Zone which have high pop- ulation densities and where septic tanks are used be identified and steps taken to eliminate septic tanks in those areas. The infiltration of storm water during periods of heavy rainfall can markedly increase the quantity of wastewater which must be treated at the municipal treatment plant. The quantity of infiltration into the municipal collection system should be determined and proper steps be taken to minimize infiltration by proper water proofing of the joints in the collection system. The quality characteristics of storm waters which flush a wide assortment of materials from rooftops, streets, industrial plant sites, agricultural lands, lawns and other surfaces must be determined in order to completely develop an effective inventory of pollution sources. The effects of drainage from open refuse dumps which can contribute to the pollution load of streams should be evaluated. The extent of this pollution is dependent on the quantity and quality of flow in the stream as well as in the quantity of runoff from the dump. The effect of leachate for dumps on the quality of water in the ground water table in the Coastal Zone should also be evaluated. 62 Data which relate to the direct contribution made by the runoff or percolation from feedlots to the pollution of surface and'ground water in the Coastal Zone are not complete at this time. The method of waste disposal and the quality of effluents from the operating feed lots should be determined. The staff of the Texas Water Quality Board are attempting to compile information regarding the operating feed lots and their effect on water sources and land. The solid waste information-availabZe for the Coastal Zone is incomplete. The rate of refuse production for the counties in the Coastal Zone are estimates based on an estimate of the refuse col- lected and disposed of in municipal, private, and county facilities since very few municipalities actually weigh the collected refuse. Therefore, in order to determine the actual amount of refuse produced on a per capita basis it is essential that the weights of refuse col- lected be recorded and relia6le estimates of the population served be developed. In many of the counties covered in this study, the population served within a county exceeded the population estimated by the 1970 Census. The quantity of refuse generated by those people who are not serviced by a municipal or private collection system must also be determined. The number of abandoned vehicles and quantity of bulk wastes must be determined for the various counties in the Coastal Zone. Information relating to the quantity of water treatment and waste treatment plant sludges produced in the Coastal Zone as well as the method of disposal of these sludges must be included in any inventory of solid wastes. There is almost no information available which relates to the characteristics and quantity of industrial solid waste generated in the Coastal Zone. The characteristics of the industrial solid waste are as varied as there are industries since each particular type of industry generates a specific type of industrial solid waste. Sludges and other residue formed by industrial activity must also be included in this inventory of industrial solid wastes. The staff of the Texas Water Quality Board has embarked on a program to develop quantitative and qualitative data for industrial solid wastes. The information dealing with the solid waste disposal practices in the Coastal Zone is based on the 1968 survey. More current surveys must be completed in order to determine what effect the curtailment of open burning by legislation has on converting the open dumps to sanitary landfills. In many areas the "Rest Areas" provided along the highways by the Texas Highway Department have become the dumping grounds for household refuse. It is essential that all open dumps be converted to sanitary landfills, in order to reduce potential water and air pollution which are generally associated with open dumps. Conversion of the open dumps to sanitary landfills will also improve the overall health of the community and environment by eli- minating breeding places for rats, flies,'and mosquitoes. The quantity of manure generated at feedlots and methods'of manure disposal must 63 also be considered in any overall inventory of solid wastes. The sources of industrial air pollution and the Coastal Zone have been compiled and the characteristics of the emi .ssions sum- marized by the Texas Air Pollution Control Board. Very little information is available which indicate the effects of these atmos- pheric discharges on the overall quality of the air and Coastal Zone. The surveillance of the individual discharges of industrial air pollutants must be monitored in order to maintain a current inventory of quantity and quality of emissions into the atmosphere. The characteristics of the industrial emissions as well as the quality of the ambient air can be reported on a regular basis. A self-reporting system similar to that proposed for monitoring waste- water discharges should be developed for air quality monitoring. The contribution to the emissions to the atmosphere by auto- mobiles also contribute to the overall quality of the air in the Coastal Zone. Federal legislation which requires air pollution control devices on all new cars will significantly reduce the quan- tity of these emissions. The contribution to the overall air pol- lution in the Coastal Zone caused by open burning of refuse at open dumps must also be included. However, as the open dumps are converted to sanitary landfills this source of air pollution will be eliminated. An inventory of emissions into the atmosphere from other activities such as cotton ginning, grain, drying and storage must also be in- cluded in the inventory of air pollution. An overall inventory of the quantity of organic pesticides and heavy metals which enter the surface waters in the Coastal Zone should be completed. The heavy metals and pesticides accumulate in the aquatic food chain. There is considerable evidence, based upon Parks and Wildlife data, that these materials build up in the sediments, and become concentrated there. Therefore, a routine program is needed to determine the concentration of these materials in both the tissues of the organisms forming the food chain and in the underlying sediments. This information could then be used to assess the impact of these materials on the entire aquatic community. 64 APPLICATIONS OF INVENTORY A complete inventory of waste sources in the Coastal Zone of Texas is essential to the development and planning of a complete program of environmental quality management. The interaction among the air, land, and water environments make it necessary that all liquid, solid, and gaseous emissions into the environment must be included in any plan. The completed inventory can be used for a multitude of planning programs. On a local level, the officials can have a realistic assessment of the emissions into the environment and the overall effects of these discharges on the environment, In many cases, the resources of a particular municipality or county may not be sufficient to cope with the control of pollution. However, if the county was incorporated into some type of regional planning program or into some area council of governments, financial resources and technical competence can be made available to even the smallest community or the least densely populated county. There are five area councils in the Coastal Zone at the present time. The counties which make up the individual planning groups are shown in Figure 10. These groups include all but six of the counties. A complete inventory of waste sources for the counties in a particular planning council would also assist these groups in developing an effective plan of action for managing the quality of the environment. This information can'be used to inform the public of the overall environmental quality. In this way, the public can decide on the steps that must be taken to remedy the situation and improve the environmental quality. This information can also be used as a basis on which to decide what degree of in- dustriaZ development might be permitted to take place in a given area. On the other hand, industry can also take advantage of such an in- ventory in evaluating the resources of a particular county in the Coastal Zone as well as the quantity of emissions and discharges already present near the proposed plan site. State agencies which have specific responsibilities for various aspects of environmental quality maintenance can also benefit from a complete inventory of waste sources. Those agencies which are responsible primarily for the enforcement of pollution control legis- lation and maintenance of environmental quality can use the inventory to quantitatively identify those areas which the effluents must be cleaned up to a greater extent in order to maintain or improve the quality of the air and water resources. By continuous updating of the inventory, these agencies can also have available the changes inenvironmental quality resulting from enforcement of pollution control legislation. Those agencies responsible for the planning of the resources of the Coastal Zone can also benefit from a waste inventory. This inventory would immediately provide an indication of the pollutional effects or load on the environment resulting from 65 Ir B C An" A South East Texas Planning Commission B Houston-Galveston Area Council C Golden Crescent Council of Governments D Coastal Bend Regional Planning Commission E Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council E FIGURE 10. AREAL PLANNING COUNCILS 66 development of the resources of the region. The consequences of developing other resources in the Coastal Zone can also be projected on the basis of environmental effects of past development. An inventory of all of the pollution sources should be developed not only for the Coastal Zone,.but for the entire state. This state- wide inventory is especially important when it comes to developing a water resources management program. All of the major Texas rivers flow from the inland portion of the state through the Coastal Zone and into the Coastal bays. Therefore, persistant organic and in- organic constituents of wastewaters can be transported great distances in our streams and dumped into the estuary and bay streams. The accumulation of toxic materials in the food chain of the aquatic organisms of the bays and Gulf waters can reduce the value of the com- mercial fisheries in the Coastal Zone. The quality of the water in the bays and estuaries of the Coastal Zone can be markedly affected, not only by the industrial and municipal discharges of wastewater, but also by the regulations of the flow of fresh water carried by the rivers which flow from the inland portion of the state into the Coastal area. As more stringent effluent standards are required for industrial and municipal wastewater discharges, the complete reuse of water by industries and municipalities would further reduce the quantity of fresh water which is returned to the estuary and bay system. The influence of the reduced freshwater flows caused by impound- ment of streams coupled with increased reuse of water must be con- sidered in any overall water resources management plan. Atmospheric emissions effect the immediate area into which they are released. However, these materials may be carried by the wind for great distances and may in fact have a detrimental effect on the quality of the air in counties in which no industrial emissions are located. Therefore it is essential that an inventory of the atmos- pheric emissions for each area of the state be available and that a current inventory of the quality of the air in various counties also be maintained. 67 REFERENCES Automobile Dis osal - A National Problem, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. , 1967. 2. Control of Cotton Gin Waste Emissions, Texas State Department of Health, Division of Occupational Health and Radiation Control, Austin, Texas, July 1964. 3. The Cost of Cleqn W_ater Volumes 1, 11, 111, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal. Water Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C., 1967-1968. 4. The Cost of Clean Water and Its Economic Impact, Volumes II, III, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminsitration, Washington, D. C. , January 1969. 5. The Economics of Clean Water, Volumes 1, 11, 111, and Summary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis- tration, Washington, D. C. , March 1970. 6. Projected Wastewater Treatment Costs in the Organic Chemicals Indus- try, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D. C. , June 1968. 7. Refuse Collection and Disposal Practices, Texas Municipal League, Austin, Texas, October 1965. 8. __ Sewer Service in Texas Cities, Texas Municipal League, Austin, Texas, December 1967. 9. A Statistical Andlysis of Data on Oil Field Brine Production and Dis- posal in Texas for the Year 1961 from an Inventory Conducted by the Texas Railroad Commission (Summary), Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas, February 1963. 68 Water Quality Standard's Summary, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, Texas, September 1969. Water Service in Texas Cities, Texas Municipal League, Austin, Texas, July 1968. 12. Chow, C. S. , J. F. Malina, Jr. , and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr. Effluent Quality and Treatment Economics for Industrial Wastewaters Technical Report EFIE-08-6802, CRWR 29, Center for Research in Water Resources, Environmental Health Engineering Laboratory, The Univer- sity of Texas at Austin, August, 196B. 13. Curington, H. W. , D. M. Wells, F. D. Masch, B. J. Copeland, E. F. Gloyna, Return Flows - Impact on Texas Bay Sys_tems Texas Water Develop- ment Board, Austin, Texas , January 1966. 14. Dupuy, A. J. , D. B. Manigold, J. A. Schulze, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved Oxygen, Selected Nutrients, and Pesticide Records of Texas Surface Waters, 1968, Texas Water Development Board, Report 108, Austin, Texas, February 1970. 15. Espey, W. H. , R. J. Huston, W. D. Bergman, J. E. Stover, G. H. Ward, Galveston Bay Study Phase I - Technical Report, Tracer Sciences and Systems Division, Austin, Texas, October 1968. 16. Floyd, B. A., E. G. Fruh, E. M. Davis, Limnological Investigations of Texas Impoundments for Water Qualit Management Purposes, Technical Report to the Office of Water Resources Research, U.S. Department of the Interior EHE-12-6801, CRWR-33, University of Texas at Austin, January 1969. 17. Gazda, L. P. , J. F. Malina, Jr. , Land Disposal of Municipal Solid Wastes In Selected Standard Metro- politan Statistical Areas in Texas, Technical Report to the U.S. Public Health Service, EHE-69-13, University of Texas at Austin, April 1969. 18. Gloyna, E. F. , and D. L. Ford, Petrochemical Effluents Treatment Practices, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D. C. , February 1970. 19. Hahl, D. C. , K. W. Ratzlaff, Chemical and.Physical Characteristics of Water in Estuaries of Texas, September 1967-September 1968- Texas Water Development Board, Report 117, Austin, Texas, May 1970. 69 20. Martin, B. P. , J. F. Malina, Jr. , Lower Rio Grande Valley Regional Solid Waste Disposal Plan Utilizing Rail-Haul, Technical Report to the U.S. Public Health Service, EHE- 70-01, University of Texas at Austin, January 1970. 21. Moseley, J. C. , J. P. Malina, Jr. , nses for Deep-Well Disposal of Aqueous Industrial Wastes Technical Re- port EHE-07-6801, CRWR-28, Center for Research in Water Resources, Environmental Health Engineering Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin, July 1968. 22. Pittman, D. , and P. Harris, Livestock Industries In Texas as Related to Water Qualit , The Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, Texas, june 1970. 23. Smith, M. L. , and J. F. Malina, Jr. , Solid Waste Production and Disposal in Selected Texas Cities, Tech- nical Report to the U.S. Public Health Service, EHE-08-6801, Environ- mental Health Engineering Laboratory, The University of Texas At Austin, August 1968. 70 A, -me M aw IALI GRMRTIG,N CINTER 4 AS IN i ;@, , 3 6668 14109 8063 1