Thursday, March 2, 2017

Dioxin in Galveston Bay sludge pits along Hall's Bayou

Fox investigation reveals Dioxin in Galveston Bay sludge pits

By: Greg Groogan POSTED:MAR 01 2017 06:51PM CST UPDATED:MAR 01 2017 11:07PM CST 

Just south of the Galveston Causeway, not far from splendid bay side homes, the terrain along the Intracoastal alters, with modest grass covered levees rising from the shoreline.

What lies behind is beyond the casual boater's line of sight, but, from the air all is revealed—a massive chain of grotesque storage ponds, each filled with millions of gallons of toxic sludge.

 by Taboola 

Fox investigation reveals Dioxin in Galveston Bay sludge pits The collection of unnaturally "black lagoons" stretches as far as the eye can see and they've been there for more than 40 years.

Largely forgotten, they came to the attention of Fox 26 because Dr. Kent Hood decided to blow the whistle on what he believes is an enormous and ongoing threat to public health.

"They wanted me to look at these sludges. We know we're not doing the right thing," said Hood.

Hood is talking about waste from the Simpson Pasadena Paper mill where he worked as a chemical engineer. It was waste which contained the cancer causing compound known as Dioxin.

Unbound now by confidentiality restraints, Hood says the contaminated sludge was loaded by the ton onto barges and dumped by McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Company into unlined, open pits along Hall's Bayou.

While the dumping violated no state law at the time, Hood contends McGinnis should have invested in recommended environmental safeguards, especially in relation to closure of the pits. 

"They did not use standard practices. They were negligent and I would say they were beyond reckless," said Hood.

As proof the sludge was toxic, Hood preserved 1992 storage recommendations and test results from environmental consulting firm RMT.

Those tests detected alarming levels of Dioxin in paper mill waste headed to the McGinnis pits.

Hood claims he ordered additional tests that year as well, which probed deeper into the pits.

"The sludges, I later found out, were parts per billion range," said Hood referring to Dioxin.

By the early 1990's the evidence in regard to Dioxin's impact on human health was mounting. It was a known carcinogen and proven to cause developmental problems in infants and infertility.

The primary way people are exposed to Dioxin is through the food supply, primarily fish.

But between 1966 and 1994 when the pits closed, anyone who questioned the safety of the waste was assured by McGinnis that the sludge it stored was harmless, posing no threat to humans or wildlife.

Documents obtained by Fox 26 show in 1993 McGinnis was still making the claim on the record before the Texas Water Commission and successfully persuading environmental regulators.

"The idea of putting it in an open pit on the side of a bay and thinking that's okay. I mean it's stupid on its face," said Mike Martin, a former State Representative who represented the Hitchcock community near the dump.

Twenty five years ago Martin helped lead a fight to close down the McGinnis pits and says the RMT test results confirm his worst fears. 

"It was asked at every single meeting I had and I got lied to and that's unacceptable because of the damage, the harm, the risk of the family sitting at the dinner table cannot be underestimated in any way," said Martin.

State records also show that back in 1992 well known environmental lawyer Jim Blackburn unsuccessfully pushed to have McGinnis prosecuted for dumping toxic sludge without a solid waste permit. 

"Basically there was deceit going on, if not outright lying and I think we need to get it cleared up," said Blackburn.

Compelled by Hood's evidence, to search for more, Fox 26 reviewed records accumulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

What we discovered is deeply troubling - testing commissioned by McGinnis in 2009, which revealed levels of Dioxin contamination in three ponds that were five times higher and more toxic than those found at the notorious EPA Superfund site known as the San Jacinto River Waste Pits.

What environmentalists had long suspected has now been confirmed with hard data from the waste company who did the dumping.

"Clearly there is a Dioxin issue at this site. The fisherman of Galveston Bay should rise up in mutiny against the government if they don't do something about this," said Blackburn.

Isolated behind locked gates on a large swathe of private land, the giant dumpsite is approachable only by water. Dozens of bird species can be seen flying in and out of the contamination zone.

 Along the Inter-coastal and other parts of Galveston Bay, Texas Parks and Wildlife has issued seafood consumption advisories. The principle chemical of concern is Dioxin.

McGinnis and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality claim the Dioxin is safely stored in the pits and hasn't reached the Bay.

But Bruce Bodson, a scientist and attorney with Galveston Bay Keeper, believes there's simply no way these levees safely contained the sludge held within from storm surge from hurricanes like Ike.

"Water gets over, things get churned up material comes out. The entire Bay system has a Dioxin advisory. All of these sites from the mills themselves have contributed over time," said Bodson.

McGinnes, which is a holding of Houston based Waste Management, declined our interview request and offered no response when provided the whistleblower's RMT test results.

The company, did however, offer this statement.

"Measured levels (of Dioxin) are typical of decades-old legacy waste from that period. The facility was certified closed more than a decade ago, the material continues to be safely contained, and TCEQ confirms that the ongoing maintenance of the site continues to be appropriate."

As for oversight, since confirmation of Dioxin contamination at the site more than seven years ago, TCEQ has allowed McGinnes to self-inspect the sludge pits on an annual basis and submit a report.

Advocates for better containment say the current course is risky at best.

"We have not seen the bad storm that is coming and it's coming," said Blackburn.

"We need a buffer between this area and people and their food sources," said Hood.

"This needs to be an emergency priority," said Martin.

On a bay where Texans have built homes collectively worth billions and treasure the health of native wildlife, people must now decide if they're truly protected from a compound among the most lethal and persistent on the planet.



family, friends, and neighbors, TCEQ is NOT working for the people, but for the industry, and Galveston Bay and humans are dying a slow death because of it, imo...terry

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2016 

GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION Remove San Jacinto waste pits dioxin to protect the bay and its users


WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2016 

CLEAN HARBORS Ruling may take more than year in bayou discharge request




TSS

Friday, December 23, 2016

GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION Remove San Jacinto waste pits dioxin to protect the bay and its users

Remove San Jacinto waste pits dioxin to protect the bay and its users

Posted: Thursday, December 22, 2016 10:00 pm

By SCOTT JONES

The Galveston Bay Foundation has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency, the responsible companies and other stakeholders on the San Jacinto River Waste Pits since this site was placed on the Superfund list in 2008. We are calling for removal of the dioxin wastes, rather than capping.

A cap on the waste pits could fail next spring from a flood or next summer from a hurricane, leading to an uncontrolled release of dioxins. We’d face that risk every year for another 750 years, the time it will take the wastes to degrade to a safe concentration. Removal done right using modern techniques, as has been done at other sites, is much less risky than capping. We need to remove this very real risk to the bay as soon as possible, once and for all.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report did not recommend one way or the other. It certainly did not recommend capping. The corps answered 18 questions posed by the EPA and you have to read all 224 pages to get the complete story. The foundation did so.

The truth is that either “side” could take from the report statements supporting their argument. However, the foundation believes the corps’ statements that highlight the risks of an uncontrolled release from a capped waste pit trump any statements that support capping. The corps stated the uncertainty in any analysis of the long-term reliability of the cap to protect us from hurricanes and floods is very high. In other words, we can’t analyze the risk and produce accurate models to determine if capping will protect us hundreds of years into the future.

The corps report tells us the risk from a controlled removal is acceptable by comparison. The corps writes “Excavating the Western Cell in the dry and containing the rest of the site in a sheet pile wall could reduce the resuspension release of waste to 0.3 percent.” That corresponds to a release of 480 metric tons of dry solids which would contain 2 grams of dioxin. Compare that to the EPA estimation of a 29 percent loss of the dioxin from an “upgraded” cap, 80 percent of which is severely eroded during a severe hydrological event (hurricane storm surge and flood flow). That release is about 140 times the amount of dioxin lost during a controlled removal.

And if you try to further enhance a cap to try to prevent such severe erosion by doubling the thickness of the cap with rocks much larger than what is being currently used, the EPA warns that the wastes could be pushed out of the sides of the cap, which would expose the dioxins to the river and the bay. That is one more reason the EPA came to the conclusion that removal is less risky than a cap. We are thankful they did so.

See www.galvbay.org/wastepits for more information on why we support removal. We urge you to do the same by writing a comment letter to EPA supporting their proposed plan by Jan. 12.
Scott Jones is the director of advocacy of the Galveston Bay Foundation.


http://www.galvnews.com/opinion/guest_columns/article_56fd18f7-8a0f-5557-988e-409de76de210.html


THANK YOU SCOTT AND GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION !

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site (SJRWP) Singeltary Submission





REMOVE IT!





Wednesday, November 30, 2016

San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site (SJRWP) Singeltary Submission

San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site (SJRWP) Singeltary Submission


I hope everyone will join GBF in supporting EPA’s proposed plan to _REMOVE_ the dioxin wastes at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits up in Channelview.  Those wastes pose a major threat to the whole Bay system if the site is hit by a hurricane or flood and GBF has been calling for removal for a couple of years now.  See www.sanjacintowastepits.com for more info and a sample comment letter.  Letters are due to EPA by January 12th.

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Singeltary
To: R6_San_Jacinto_Waste_Pits_Comments
Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:50 pm
Subject: San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site (SJRWP)


Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RA)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Dear Mr. Miller-
I am writing you to state my support for the U.S. EPA’s proposal to remove the dioxin wastes at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site (SJRWP). I agree with EPA that removal is the only correct and permanent cleanup solution for this site. I also agree with EPA that containment alternatives cannot be shown to reliably contain the waste over a long-term basis, subjecting the community to the continued risk of a catastrophic release of dioxin.
Galveston Bay and its tributaries have already suffered due to the past release of dioxin from this site. It still poses a major threat today, 50 years after the wastes were first placed here. Those who enjoy recreating on the river and Bay and eating local seafood face a threat to their health due to the presence of dioxin in sediments, fish, and crab. This source of dioxin at the SJRWP needs to be removed now, once and for all, so it no longer poses a threat to our community.

This location is unsuitable for containment. EPA’s own Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments states that low-level, dioxin-bearing wastes can be capped and isolated in a low energy environment such as a protected harbor or low flow stream. However, the wastes in this pit are not low-level, and the San Jacinto River is not low energy, protected, or low flow. Attempting to cap the wastes in this location is simply too risky.
EPA has estimated that the dioxin concentrations in the northern pits, up to 44,000 parts per trillion, will NOT degrade to a safe level for another 750 years, so the cap itself will have to endure for over seven centuries as the river and the land around it move and change. A lot can happen at this site by the Year 2766 including hurricane strikes, major floods, new river channel cuts, river course changes, and barge strikes. Any such event could cause containment to fail.
The cap, purportedly designed to withstand a 100-year flood, has had repeated problems in the short 5 years it has been in place. Despite these problems, those responsible now want to convince us that they can make the cap permanent by simply adding more rock. Neither of the original companies responsible for disposing of waste at this location exist 50 years after its initial placement. So, we also have to ask who will repair a cap hundreds of years from now?
Instead of forcing future generations to deal with this mess, we need to take care of it now. Thank you again for your proposed plan to remove the wastes!
Sincerely,

with kindest regards,


Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas 77518

on the bottom, Galveston Bay... http://galvestonbay.blogspot.com/





Saturday, November 26, 2016

RICE SPEED DIKE WOULD DESTROY SUNNY SAN LEON AS WE KNOW IT AS FISHERMANS PARIDISE

RICE SPEED DIKE WOULD DESTROY SUNNY SAN LEON AS WE KNOW IT AS FISHERMANS PARIDISE

RICE SPEED DIKE WANTS TO BURY DOLLAR REEF AND SURROUND SUNNY SAN LEON WITH DREDGE AND GATE


Bay protection needed in addition to Ike Dike, Rice-based center says

By Harvey Rice

November 25, 2016 Updated: November 25, 2016 2:35pm

GALVESTON - As political support builds for a $6 billion storm-surge protection system to shield Texas' Gulf Coast from a future disaster, experts at Rice University are warning that the massive "Ike Dike" proposal won't be adequate to fully protect the coast from a destructive wall of water.

A hurricane with 130 mph winds could whip up a storm surge within Galveston Bay, sending a tsunami-like wave crashing into residential and industrial areas, warned Phil Bedient, the director of Rice University's Severe Storm Protection Education and Evacuation from Disasters (SSPEED) Center. Worse, a large-enough storm could push water above the 17-foot storm surge gate that would link dikes on Galveston Island and the Bolivar Peninsula, resulting in a potentially lethal storm surge.

"There are just too many ways to overtop 17 feet," Bedient said.

The SSPEED Center says it has come up with the only plan so far to protect the vulnerable petrochemical complexes and residential areas from a surge originating from inside Galveston Bay.

The center believes the bay protection plan, known as the In-Bay System, is necessary to complement the Ike Dike, the coastal barrier recommended this year by the six-county Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District.

While he said the Ike Dike would provide adequate protection from a storm like Hurricane Ike, which made landfall on the eastern tip of Galveston Island in September 2008, it would not do so should a larger or similar storm strike from a different angle. "We just want to make sure we have multiple lines of defense," Bedient said. A storm surge sweeping into petrochemical complexes could cause between $50 billion and $90 billion in damage, he added.

SSPEED and researchers at Texas A&M Galveston, including Bill Merrell, the marine scientist who developed the Ike Dike concept, differed for years over the best approach to storm-surge protection. In 2010, SSPEED proposed several smaller projects that could be built faster and cheaper with local money, reasoning that getting federal dollars would be a long process that might not be completed before the next big storm.

The center's ideas failed to gain political traction, and the storm surge district endorsed the Ike Dike concept. SSPEED now backs the Ike Dike idea, too, but believes it's not enough. It favors building a system of offshore berms inside the bay and a surge gate across the Houston Ship Channel near San Leon. North of the gate, the berms would run along the off-shore side of the ship channel. South of the gate, the berms would run along the side of the channel closest to shore until they tied into the Texas City Levee, which would be raised. At the northern end, a berm-levee would extend east to Houston Point near Baytown and go several miles inland.

Building the In-Bay System would add about $2.5 billion to the estimated $6 billion cost of building the Ike Dike, which itself is part of a broader $11.63 billion plan for protecting Galveston, Harris, Chambers, Brazoria, Jefferson and Orange counties.

The cost of the proposed storm barrier could also be raised by an enhancement being promoted by the Center for Texas Beaches and Shores at Texas A&M Galveston, although no estimates have been made. Instead of raising the coastal highway or building a berm inland, the cheapest methods for building a storm-surge barrier to protect Galveston Island and the Bolivar Peninsula, the center is proposing a hard barrier on the beach masked by a dune system built with sand dredged from the Gulf of Mexico. The storm-surge district decided not to include the In-Bay System in its final recommendation because of misgivings by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department about the effect on marine life.

The Texas A&M center is also skeptical about the need for the In-Bay System.

"Rice is doing great work ... but the consensus is that you want to do as little in the bay as possible," said Sam Brody, a Texas A&M marine scientist. He said buying out homeowners in hazardous areas or elevating structures are among the alternatives to the In-Bay system.

The SSPEED Center is studying how the In-Bay System would affect the environment and expects to complete its report in late 2017 or early 2018, Bedient said.

"We are looking at this very carefully," Bedient said. He said that there are already banks of dredged material rising as much as 25 feet out of the water along the ship channel. The In-Bay System would extend those banks, leaving access to the bay through a number of small boat gates.

The levees would be designed with hiking and biking trails that would allow treks several miles into the bay. Bedient said the In-Bay system's lower price means it can be built using local funds, allowing work to begin on it as part of a storm-surge system before federal money becomes available.

Congress won't consider funding the Ike Dike project until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completes its study of what storm-surge protection measures are needed. The Corps is studying the entire coast and will make recommendations independent of the storm surge district's. The recommendation for the six-county area in the storm-surge district study is scheduled to be completed in June 2018.

The In-Bay System will be eligible for federal funding only if the Corps includes that concept in its recommendation.

Harvey Rice

Galveston Bureau Reporter, Houston Chronicle



>>> The levees would be designed with hiking and biking trails that would allow treks several miles into the bay.<<<


WHO CARES!



I remember the RICE SPEED Dike people were wanting to completely draw us off the map to make way for recreational use after the next big one. it's about the big petro chemical and the ship channel that funnels all of Houston Texas waste just about every time they flush a toilet after main breaks or over flows and heads our way. 

LEAVE GALVESTON BAY ALONE RICE SPEED, PLEASE! GO AWAY!


JUST SAY NO TO THE DAMN RICE SPEED DIKE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU MUST DO IT! 


Tuesday, September 1, 2015

IKE DIKE 3rd PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 'MID-BAY' GATE NEAR SAN LEON ACROSS TO SMITH POINT AREA





say no to the RICE DIKE and or any Centennial Gate across the end of Galveston Bay at Fred Hartman Bridge, including the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). ...

Thursday, November 27, 2014

IKE DIKE VS RICE DIKE PUBLIC INPUT SOUGHT PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF TAMU IKE DIKE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



Tuesday, August 5, 2014

 *** Ike Dike Scientist Professor William Merrell sees NO chance of compromise !



Monday, April 15, 2013

Hurricane Ike: 5 Years Later Conference Rice Dike Proposal September 24-25, 2013



Sunday, June 9, 2013

RICE DIKE AND IKE DIKE ARE RIVALS NO MORE, AND HAS BACKED OFF THE PROPOSAL OF A 20-MILE 25 FOOT LEVEE ALONG SH 146



Monday, November 18, 2013

Is your community just collateral damage? RICE DIKE VS IKE DIKE



Friday, December 6, 2013

IKE DIKE TAMU VS Rice SSPEED Dike Centennial gate from Hell



October 10, 2012

IKE DIKE PROPOSED BY RICE UNIVERSITY hangs our Bayshore communities out to dry, IN 25 FEET OF WATER, to make way for WATERFRONT RECREATION $$$



Sunday, December 9, 2012

*** RICE DIKE PROPOSAL COULD DESTROY GALVESTON BAY BAYSHORE COMMUNITIES



Sunday, June 26, 2016

GALVESTON BAY STUDY RECOMMENDS STORM SURGE PROTECTION MEASURES FOR UPPER TEXAS COAST

June 21, 2016

The recommendation takes parts of two alternatives that had been released as possible recommendations earlier this year. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A PROPOSAL TO BUILD A LEVEE ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 146, WHICH DREW OBJECTIONS FROM SOME COUNTY RESIDENTS WHO COULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUTSIDE THE WALL. snip...






Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 Galveston Bay, on the bottom flounder9@verizon.net

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

CLEAN HARBORS Ruling may take more than year in bayou discharge request

Ruling may take more than year in bayou discharge request

By Allen Jones Updated 9:04 am, Wednesday, November 16, 2016

It will take a little more than a year for an administrative law judge to rule in a contested case hearing regarding a hazardous-waste recycling company's request to treat and discharge excess from petroleum refining and petrochemical industries into Dickinson Bayou.

After convening a preliminary hearing on Oct. 25, Administrative Law Judge Joanne Summerhays set a procedural calendar that started with a 30-day discovery process Nov. 8 and will end with closing arguments Nov. 14, 2017. Summerhays could file her ruling next year on Dec. 9, according to the hearing schedule.

The San Leon Municipal Utility District, the Raz Halili Trust and several San Leon-area residents requested the hearing and are acting together in opposition to the discharge request filed last year by Clean Harbors San Leon Inc. The Massachusetts-based company, which provides environmental, energy and industrial services throughout North America, operates a facility at 2700 Ave. S. in San Leon.

The groups opposing Clean Harbors' request claim that dumping treated wastewater into the bayou that feeds into Galveston Bay could further pollute the bayou, which already is considered a health hazard by the state because of high levels of bacteria.

"Here's the reality - Clean Harbors San Leon's interest is purely a financial one, and they have viewed the unincorporated community of San Leon as an easy opportunity to dump chemical pollutants," said Chad Wilbanks, spokesman for those opposing Clean Harbors' discharge request. "The effect on the community, the bay waters and environment would be disastrous."

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has already given Clean Harbors preliminary approval to amend its existing permit, which allows the company to discharge treated stormwater into the bayou. A favorable ruling by the administrative judge would support Clean Harbors' request to use a process that the company claims will remove physical, chemical and biological contaminants from leftover oily waste and make it safe to release into the environment.

If its request is approved, Clean Harbors would be permitted to pump as much as 105,000 gallons of combined treated wastewater and stormwater daily into an outfall of Dickinson Bayou. RESIDENTS EXPRESS FEARS
Many area residents believe the process isn't strict enough or could fail, which they fear could send contaminated water into the bayou and eventually into the bay.

San Leon and surrounding communities use the bay for commercial and sports fishing and recreation. MaryLou Bishop lives near Clean Harbors in Hillmans Landing and is among those opposing the company in the contested case hearing. In a letter, she wrote in May to the TCEQ, Bishop said the area is already experiencing a decline in its natural resources because of pollution in the bay. She worries that the pollution is harming people's health.

"My family members are suffering diseases that are common along the Gulf Coast, making it noted as almost No. 1 in cancer and (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)," Bishop wrote to the commission. "My mother drags around a 60-foot oxygen cord and cannot even go out of the house."

The treated wastewater would not impair the bayou's existing water quality, said Phillip Retallick, Clean Harbors' senior vice president of compliance and regulatory affairs, in a previous interview. That's why, he said, the TCEQ gave the company a preliminary permit amendment to discharge treated wastewater.
Attempts to reach an attorney representing Clean Harbors in the case were unsuccessful.

The state agency establishes surface water-quality standards, monitors and assesses waterways and organizes projects to protect or restore natural waterways. Clean Harbors San Leon's application to amend its permit to include treated wastewater discharge has gone through public hearings, analysis by the state environmental quality agency and review by the agency's executive director.

According to the TCEQ, Clean Harbors' discharge of treated wastewater will not pose a threat to the bayou's water quality, aquatic life or biological condition. Based on the agency's analysis, the TCEQ's executive director issued a draft permit that if upheld in the contested case hearing, could allow Clean Harbors to discharge treated wastewater into the bayou.

Clean Harbors' San Leon facility currently transports its contaminated water 28 miles to an incinerator in Deer Park. If its permit amendment is upheld by the judge, the company would be allowed to avoid the trip. The waste would be put through a multistage filtering process and released into a ditch that flows into an unnamed tidal tributary of the bayou. It wasn't until several area residents and entities filed contested case hearing requests claiming the discharge could have a direct impact on their personal property that Clean Harbors' permit amendment was halted. The TCEQ then referred the matter to the State Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent organization within the state's executive branch that conducts hearings and mediations.

A polluted waterway

A 2005 report that was part of a project funded by the TCEQ indicated that industrial activity contributed to accumulation of metal pollutants in sediment in the 431-square-mile watershed that includes Dickinson Bay. The most common water-quality problem, according to the report, is a surplus of coliform bacteria, especially in Dickinson Bayou. The bayou is listed by the TCEQ as impaired for historical use because levels of fecal coliform bacteria.

A 68-page document of filed contested hearing requests on the TECQ's website mostly mirrors Bishop's concerns. Phil Cone, president of the nonprofit group Save our Shores, also requested the hearing. He wrote to the commission on behalf of SOS members.

SOS works to educate the public about threats to the ecology of Galveston Bay and the entire Gulf Coast. In his letter, Cone alleged that Clean Harbors has already "extinguished aquatic life in waters that should be teeming with it." "We have reached a period of intelligence that we know 'water' is a 'NUMBER ONE' resource that is to be treasured," he wrote. "To do anything to endanger our future water supply and quality is only asking for 'BIG' trouble." The hearing

During the hearing, parties on both sides of the issue will make opening statements, present evidence, offer witness testimony, document exhibits, offer objections and give closing statements. Wilbanks said a team of regulatory experts is developing and presenting evidence supporting his party's claims.

The success of any TCEQ permit application, he said, is always based on the science and laws surrounding the request. He believes there is enough evidence to persuade the hearing's judge to rule against Clean Harbors' TCEQ discharge stormwater permit amendment application.

The administrative judge will consider the evidence and write a decision recommending an outcome. The outcome will then be presented to the TCEQ for approval or modification. The TCEQ's commissioners will review the decision to ensure all policy considerations have been met.

Wilbanks said the hearing and the meeting at which the judge's decision is considered by the TCEQ are open to the public. Although only the hearing's parties can participate in the process, he said: "It's hard to ignore a concerned community sitting in the back of the room."

Follow the case online at www.soah.texas.gov. A procedural calendar is available on the site.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Clean Harbors San Leon, Texas Environmental groups join fight against controversial permit application

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Clean Harbors Hearing set in company’s request to discharge into Dickinson bayou

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000 Final Plea For Appeal For Hearing

 Saturday, July 18, 2015

 DICKINSON BAYOU NEEDS TO BE SAVED, NO MORE TREATED OR NON TREATED WATER DISCHARGE PERMITS

Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas, USA, Galveston Bay

 SINGELTARY SHORT SUBMISSION

 CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ

 RN Number:

 RN100890235

 Permit No.: WQ0004086000

 Singeltary Submission;

 Greetings TCEQ et al,

 I kindly wish to submit my strong opposition for any permit for CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ Permit No.: WQ0004086000, to allow any treated or non-treated waste water, or anything else, to be allowed to be discharged into the Dickinson Bayou watershed or nearby locations adjacent to Dickinson Bay, inside of Galveston bay.

The Public needs to be able to comment on this, and should.

The Dickinson Bayou watershed has been so strained environmentally due to many reasons over the past decades, some reasons include Livestock, Pets, faulty septic systems, agricultural activities, urban run-off and what all that contains, pesticide runoff, waste water treatment plants, just to name a few, but now we have an industrial complex that wants to grow at the mouth of Dickinson Bayou, a Bayou that already has studies that show it’s very sluggish in terms of tidal movement, and a Bayou that has consistently been in trouble, year after year after decade.

In my opinion, I believe one of the main reasons that causes this, besides all the pollution, is the fact Dickinson Bayou needs to, should have been dredged, with a continuous dredge maintained from inside the mouth, and past the old grave yard, across those flats, on up until Dickinson Bayou gets deep, all the way to the ship channel.

The water quality in Dickinson Bayou, has been bad for some time due to little tidal movement. Just very recently, the Houston Chronicle ran an article on a workshop (see below in reference materials) on how to improve Dickinson Bayou due to unacceptably high levels of bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. so why would TCEQ or anyone allow such a permit to throw more fuel to the fire?
the old spillway inlet at the mouth of Dickinson Bayou, and outlet over on the Bacliff Side, is and has been dead in the water years and years, with no movement through there to help oxygenate the water, we have had numerous fish kills, with one massive flounder kill.

why can the ship channel have a continuous life time dredge for the tanker traffic, but yet never dredge Dickinson Bayou, when the Army Corp of Eng said long ago that this needed to be done to maintain a healthy Bayou? what are we waiting on?

Via the FOIA, I received the HL&P construction permits back in the 60’s, and the dredging that the Army Corp of engineers said would come and be maintained constantly.

That never happened.

This constant maintaining of a dredge was to be done all the way to the ship channel, to prevent just what has happened, and it says so in the permit.

see permit PDF in my reference materials below.

Until Dickinson Bayou is dredged out and all the way to the ship channel so Dickinson Bayou can breath again, anything else in my opinion will be futile.

with no changes to the plan to address the issue of dredging Dickinson Bayou to address the tidal flow issues, and proper flushing of Dickinson Bayou, all your going to have is a toilet that does not flush properly, that our children have been playing and swimming in, and consuming the seafood there from.

some kind of tourist attraction, welcome to the Toilet Bowl.

 I strongly protest, and strongly object, in totality, to Permit No.: WQ0004086000 for CLEAN HARBORS SAN LEON TCEQ RN Number: RN100890235, please deny this permit. ...

 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas 77518

 REFERENCE

 ENFORCEMENT FOR CLEAN HARBORS

 Item 35

 Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E.

 Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County; RN100890235; for public drinking water violations pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

 Item 35 Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E. Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc. in Galveston County; RN100890235; for public drinking water violations pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 341 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (Jessica Schildwachter, Candy Garrett) Approve the Agreed Order. ZC/TB; all agree.

 An agreed order was entered regarding Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc., Docket No. 2014-1366-PWS-E on April 1, 2015, assessing $234 in administrative penalties with $234 deferred.

 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. previous comment

 Response to Public Comments Eight TMDLs for Indicator Bacteria in Dickinson Bayou and Three Tidal Tributaries (Segments 1103 and 1104)

 November 12, 2013

 Terry Singeltary (written)

 The TCEQ efforts to bring back quality water, instead of polluted water to the Dickinson Bayou and its Tributaries, are greatly appreciated. However, I think it all will be futile, if Dickinson Bayou is not dredged out to where the water can flow freely with the tidal movements. I believe that due to Dickinson Bayou not being dredged and maintained properly, to allow for a maximum flow, by Houston Lighting and Power Co. (HL&P) is/was a cause to a great many of our problems in Dickinson Bayou, and surrounding waters. I also believe that HL&P, the Army, or the Army Corp of Engineers should foot the total bill for the dredging.

 The TCEQ and local stakeholders in the Dickinson Bayou watershed have agreed to work together to reduce bacteria pollution in Dickinson Bayou and its tributaries, as described in the I-Plan document. At the same time, stakeholders in the watershed are continuing to explore ways to decrease the effects of pollution on Dickinson Bayou. The TCEQ does not have regulatory authority to compel private or public entities to dredge Texas waterways to improve flow. No changes were made to the I-Plan based on this comment.


Workshop to look at efforts to protect, improve Dickinson Bayou

 By Annette Baird

 Updated 1:10 pm, Tuesday, July 14, 2015

 *** But the 100-square-mile watershed, from which water flows into Dickinson and Galveston bays, has been tested with unacceptably high levels of bacteria, posing possible health and environmental risks. ***

 High concentrations of bacteria measured in Dickinson Bayou Tidal, Segment 1103, and four of its tributaries might pose a health risk for people who swim or wade in the bayou. Bacteria from human and animal waste may indicate the presence of disease-causing microorganisms that may cause illness.

 http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/80-dickinsonbayoubacteria.html

Dickinson Bayou does not meet water quality standards for DO or pathogen indicator bacteria.

 *** Elevated bacteria (fecal coliform, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus) and depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations (often


Dickinson Bayou Special Study

Dickinson Bayou currently does not meet state requirements for aquatic life or contact recreation

According to the 2005 Galveston Bay Indicators Project, the areas of Galveston Bay with the greatest number of TCEQ criteria-level exceedences for fecal coliform bacteria are Buffalo Bayou, the Houston Ship Channel, Clear Creek, and Dickinson Bayou (Figure 5-60).

July 2005

Public Health Issues

Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou have levels of fecal coliform bacteria that exceed the screening levels used by TCEQ to determine which water bodies need to be listed as impaired for historical use. Both water bodies would be considered a health risk for contact recreation.


*** SEE HL&P PERMIT ABOUT MAINTAINING A CONSTANT DREDGE FOR DICKINSON BAYOU AND WHY ***



Saturday, July 18, 2015

DICKINSON BAYOU NEEDS TO BE SAVED, NO MORE TREATED OR NON TREATED WATER DISCHARGE PERMITS

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 Galveston Bay flounder9@verizon.net


 Thank you for submitting your comments on this pending permit application. Thank you for submitting your comments on this pending permit application. You will receive an e-mail confirmation of your comments that you can print for your records.

 *If you do not receive an e-mail confirmation within one hour, we HAVE NOT received your comments.
 If you do not receive confirmation, please be sure to contact the Office of the Chief Clerk immediately at 512-239-3300. Please note, successfully submitting your comments online does not guarantee you filed them timely.

 Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:57 PM

 Subject: TCEQ Confirmation: Your public comment on Permit Number WQ0004086000 was received.
 SNIP...END...TSS

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Oral Comments Public Meeting Clean Harbors San Leon, Inc.[8] WQ0004086000 La Marque 14 01/25/16 Dickinson Bayou

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

CLEAN HARBORS, TCEQ, DICKINSON BAYOU, PUBLIC MEETING JANUARY 25, 2016

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria Troubled Waters

Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Galveston County BACLIFF TEXAS FLOUNDER FISH KILL MASSIVE AUGUST 11, 2012
(see video of the dead flounder floating)

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

GALVESTON BAY REPORT CARD 2015

 

Terry Singletary and I have been sampling water from Dickinson Bayou and monitoring continuous fish kills in efforts to get someone to understand the critical condition of this waterway for the past six years. The bayou has a high concentration of fecal matter (human excrement). This is due to an occasional upset in the sewage plants that dump into the bayou, and by old and broken septic  tanks along the bayou’s edge.  In sampling the dissolved oxygen concentration in the water, we have discovered that the oxygen content is depleted, causing over four miles of a “dead zone” which will not sustain aquatic life. This four mile dead zone is growing at approximately a quarter of a mile every year.













Dead fish symptom of ailing bayous




Harvey Rice Updated 2:45 pm, Monday, November 19, 2012




Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle





Image 1 of 3



Steve Hoyland Sr., co-owner of the monthly SeaBreeze News, runs his boat through Dickinson Bayou. Concerned over fish kills, he hired a lab to test the quality of the water.





SAN LEON - Powering his small boat across Dickinson Bay, Steve Hoyland Sr. worries about fish kills near the mouth of Dickinson Bayou every summer for the last six years.



"I've lived here my whole life, but in the last two years you can't catch (anything)," said Hoyland, 61, part owner of the monthly San Leon Seabreeze News.



Hoyland points to the depth finder to show how silt has clogged the mouth of the bayou and prevented the tide from cleansing it with oxygenated water. "We've got a serious problem here," he said.



Officials charged with overseeing water quality say that fish kills, where thousands of fish die for lack of oxygen in the water, are a symptom of urban encroachment on bayous like Dickinson that lace the Houston region. The urbanized area in the Dickinson Bayou watershed more than doubled between 2002 and 2008.

The 27 miles of Dickinson Bayou that snake through Galveston and Brazoria counties are plagued with low oxygen levels that occasionally kill fish. The bayou is filled with bacteria that can cause illness to swimmers and pollutants such as oil, pesticides, human waste from septic tanks and animal waste washed into the bayou through storm drains.



Of 139 water bodies in Harris and Galveston counties, 91 have excessive bacteria levels that make them unsafe for human contact, 21 have low dissolved oxygen levels and in 33 the cancer-causing toxic contaminants dioxin and PCB have been found in fish tissue, according to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The bacteria levels in Buffalo Bayou, for example, are generally higher than Dickinson Bayou and pesticides are found in the tissue of fish there in addition to dioxin and PCB, the TCEQ says.

In Dickinson Bayou, E. coli and enteroccus bacteria levels are more than double the federal standard, said Todd Running, clean rivers program manager for the Houston-Galveston Area Council. The federal standard for E. coli is 126 colonies per 100 milliliters of water, Running said, but the levels in the bayou range from 247 to 1,645. The standard for enteroccus, a bacteria measured in the tidal area of the bayou because of its resistance to saltwater, is 35, he said, but bayou levels range from 373 to 8,485.

Public not aware



State and local agencies are working on plans to reduce pollution in the bayous, but they take years to complete and rely on the cooperation of a public that is largely unaware that seemingly unimportant things like leaving pet waste in the yard contribute to the thousands of small incidents that add up to tons of pollution washed through storm drains into the bayou. The TCEQ says that the most common sources of bacteria are wastewater treatment plants, stormwater runoff, septic tank overflows and failures, and broken sewer lines.



Runoff from residences



"All of our urban streams have issues and it's a result of more people living in the area, more pipes that are more likely to break, plus it's runoff from our yards and our streets and our parking lots," said Charris York, stormwater projects coordinator for the Texas Coastal Watershed Program.



Excess yard fertilizer, household chemicals, septic tank leakage and illegal discharges from wastewater treatment plants add to the load of pollutants draining from 106 square miles of Dickinson Bayou watershed.



There are 11 wastewater treatment plants on Dickinson Bayou. The TCEQ issued its most recent violation notice to KC Utilities in August. The commission fined Meadowland utilities $132,000 in December for seven violations.



The TCEQ estimates that there are 1,546 failing septic tanks in the Dickinson Bayou watershed.



Hoyland published several articles calling attention to the poor water quality at the mouth of the bayou.



He took two experts from Eastex Environmental Laboratory Inc. out on his boat to take water samples at the mouth of Dickinson Bayou and a nearby intake channel cut for the now abandoned Houston Power & Light generating plant that once pulled water from Dickinson Bay for cooling.



"We found areas of concern with dissolved oxygen levels," said Mark Bourgeois, one of the Eastex analysts who took the samples.

Low oxygen levels are typical during the summer on the sluggishly flowing bayou, said Winston Denton, upper coast assessment team leader for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The long list of documented fish kills because of low oxygen stretches back to the 1970s when federal clean water laws first required reporting.



Call for dredging



Hoyland believes that dredging the mouth of the bayou would allow tidal flows to wash oxygen into the bayou mouth. TCEQ oxygen readings show that on average the bayou's tidal area, unlike the rest of the bayou, meets state oxygen level standards.

Oxygen levels fluctuate, however, and Running said that dredging has improved water quality at the mouth of other bayous, but that there is no guarantee that it would work on Dickinson Bayou.



The TCEQ and local agencies are developing a plan to reduce the pollution to acceptable levels that likely will combine regulations with voluntary compliance. The plan is being written with the assistance of local businesses, cities and residents. "We have a lot of input from different folks who have knowledge," York said. The plan has been in the works for about two years and the draft is expected to be ready for public review early next year, she said.



Meanwhile Hoyland continues to write about water quality problems and hopes that a plan to build a new wastewater treatment plant nearby will include dredging the mouth of Dickinson Bayou. "It would be a great thing if they do something good for the environment," he said.








Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas, USA

on the bottom...Galveston Bay