I had always wondered what these pits were when looking at Google Earth, now I know.

Another massive site that is contaminated with insanely high levels of Dioxin - right next to the ICW.

GE coordinates - 2914'28.39"N, 95 2'27.42"W

Hall's Bayou Dump Site

Don't worry, I'm sure the new, leaner EPA will have that fixed in no time!

Yikes!

I've been in that area a hundred times and viewing it from the air I assumed they were sand pits that filled it.

That's why they make garlic butter.

Ike surely flooded that area. People suck.

I love that TCEQ is letting them self monitor the sites. What could possibly go wrong?

I've fished that area quite a bit and know for a fact it is not contained within those pits. Last year there was water pouring out of that area following heavy rains, directly into the intracoastal.

Gota De Limon said:

---

I love that TCEQ is letting them self monitor the sites. What could possibly go wrong?

---

I found that irritating (ok, it made me mad) as well. Nothing like having the ability to decide to just not report anything and it be A-OK with the .gov.....

Troutslime said:

---

I've fished that area quite a bit and know for a fact it is not contained within those pits. Last year there was water pouring out of that area following heavy rains, directly into the intracoastal.

---

Good thing I really only C&R...

Why do I feel like the EPA/TCEQ people tend to punt on the hard stuff and spend their time "enforcing" against little guys with stock ponds.... Maybe I'm reading it wrong... I was immediately reminded of that spill in Colorado a couple years ago.

I would like to see more analysis done as there might be an agenda at play. The only thing I trust less than lawyers are environmental lawyers.

schmellba99 said:

---

Gota De Limon said:

---

I love that TCEQ is letting them self monitor the sites. What could possibly go wrong?

---

I found that irritating (ok, it made me mad) as well. Nothing like having the ability to decide to just not report anything and it be A-OK with the .gov.....

---

This is how it's done at literally every industrial facility in Texas, active or inactive. The responsible party isn't personally collecting the data and generating the reports. They hire a consultant to do that. The data is sent to a third-party laboratory. The metrics being reported to the state are determined BY the state.

You'd rather have government doing the work which you'd be paying for?

Sad deal.

Quote:

---

Don't worry, I'm sure the new, leaner EPA will have that fixed in no time!

---

Well, the previous, bloated, overbearing EPA doesn't seem to have done anything about it.

Efficient and functional is what we need.

Sooper Jeenyus said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Gota De Limon said:

---

I love that TCEQ is letting them self monitor the sites. What could possibly go wrong?

---

I found that irritating (ok, it made me mad) as well. Nothing like having the ability to decide to just not report anything and it be A-OK with the .gov.....

---

This is how it's done at literally every industrial facility in Texas, active or inactive. The responsible party isn't personally collecting the data and generating the reports. They hire a consultant to do that. The data is sent to a third-party laboratory. The metrics being reported to the state are determined BY the state.

You'd rather have government doing the work which you'd be paying for?

---

When it comes to decades old abandoned dump sites in fairly senaitive areas with the potential for generational downstream effects - it shold be more than just the benevolent overlords trusting the word of the company that stands to foot the bill for remediation that remediation is not necessary.

Tell me, if the low bar is merely self reporting that everything is A-OK, what purpose does the EPA, TCEQ and however many other agencies that have overlapping duties serve?

That article had a few errors, not the least of which, TPWD doesn't issue advisories, DSHS does. The attached Risk Characterization has info on the latest sampling of West Bay. Although West Bay is included in the catfish consumption advisory for PCBs and dioxins, the sample sites closest to these pits didn't have high concentrations. Granted, the Carancahua Reef sites had very few fish.
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/seafood/GalvestonBay-RC-2010.pdf

The one frustrating aspect of being a conservative republican is that subjects like this get so highly politicized. Am I one of the few people that think we should expect to be able to have clean water, air, and food; while maintaining a healthy economy too? And not have it be a political talking point?

Bitter Old Man said:

---

Why do I feel like the EPA/TCEQ people tend to punt on the hard stuff and spend their time "enforcing" against little guys with stock ponds.... Maybe I'm reading it wrong... I was immediately reminded of that spill in Colorado a couple years ago.

---

*cough*radiation safety at a certain institution*cough*

schmellba99 said:

---

Sooper Jeenyus said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Gota De Limon said:

---

I love that TCEQ is letting them self monitor the sites. What could possibly go wrong?

---

I found that irritating (ok, it made me mad) as well. Nothing like having the ability to decide to just not report anything and it be A-OK with the .gov.....

---

This is how it's done at literally every industrial facility in Texas, active or inactive. The responsible party isn't personally collecting the data and generating the reports. They hire a consultant to do that. The data is sent to a third-party laboratory. The metrics being reported to the state are determined BY the state.

You'd rather have government doing the work which you'd be paying for?

---

When it comes to decades old abandoned dump sites in fairly senaitive areas with the potential for generational downstream effects - it shold be more than just the benevolent overlords trusting the word of the company that stands to foot the bill for remediation that remediation is not necessary.

Tell me, if the low bar is merely self reporting that everything is A-OK, what purpose does the EPA, TCEQ and however many other agencies that have overlapping duties serve?

---

You're not getting it. The "low bar" is ESTABLISHED by the TCEQ/EPA. They tell you how, where, and what to look for and how often to look for it. Then a third party completes the actual data collection, analysis, and reporting to the TCEQ/EPA. If they find any aspect of it to be inadequate, believe me, they WILL request more, typically more than is necessary or required by law. All the while, the "benevolent overlords" will pay for whatever TCEQ/EPA requests, however absurd. Those pits, and many others just like them, were granted closure based on applicable regulation of the time.

Show me some data indicating this has resulted in a release which poses an unacceptable risk to human health and/or the environment and I'll go get my pitchfork and torch. It's funny, most days this board laments the EPA for their overreach and unattainable regulation. The next, they aren't doing enough.

Bitter Old Man said:

---

Why do I feel like the EPA/TCEQ people tend to punt on the hard stuff and spend their time "enforcing" against little guys with stock ponds.... Maybe I'm reading it wrong... I was immediately reminded of that spill in Colorado a couple years ago.

---

Probably because you don't realize how much money the big guys spend every year to stay on the right side of regulation. By and large, EPA/TCEQ doesn't care what you do on your property and it would have to be a pretty significant SNAFU for them to hear about it in the first place.

Quote:

---

Why do I feel like the EPA/TCEQ people tend to punt on the hard stuff and spend their time "enforcing" against little guys with stock ponds.... Maybe I'm reading it wrong... I was immediately reminded of that spill in Colorado a couple years ago.

---

I have watched the TCEQ for a long time and I think I know how they work.

If you are a large "visible" company you are far more likely to get a slap on the wrist than if you are a medium or small sized company.

If you employ people in a small town or rural area, you are more likely to be treated with kid gloves than if you employ folks in a large city.

The old paper mill in Zavalla, TX is a good example. The mill was built without the required liners in their dioxin pits. The pits leaked into a creek that fed in lake Sam Rayburn. The TCEQ knew about the leak, but when the mill threatened closure because the fix was too expensive, the TCEQ gave the mill a waiver year after year. It was the largest employer in the area along with the US government (Forest Service) and was important to the area. Local politicians put pressure on the TCEQ for the sake of the local economy. But then in a town of 200+ people, 7 people developed lymphoma and or leukemia. Turns out the water intake for Zavalla was near where the creek with dioxins flowed into the lake. Media got hold of the story and suddenly there was a scramble to fix the pits.

On the other hand remember the story from a year or two ago about the company who cleaned chemical tanker trucks on the east side of Houston? Plumes of noxious stuff that neighbors kept complaining about. I think one of their employees died from respiratory issues while inside a truck. Small employer in a large city. Their impact on the local economy was negligible. TCEQ shut them down faster than you can flip a light switch.

MaxPower said:

---

Don't worry, I'm sure the new, leaner EPA will have that fixed in no time!

---

It can be confounding, either they met the standards at the time or they have ongoing monitoring or ongoing evaluation that you might not be able to "see" in activity. TCEQ and EPA usually don't let RPs just ignore it, they pursue. Now the effectiveness and timeliness that they pursue is wide ranging and that is where you get in to "WTF are their priorities?"

I've seen EPA go completely nuts on a stormwater pond causing about $17 million in remediation being done that was totally unwarranted and right across the street they had a chemical plant that would eat the soles of your boots off if you walked across areas of it too much. I also have seen the Railroad commission make a company spend a few million bucks to chase and establish a methane plume in groundwater that has no relevant Texas clean up standard and on the other hand most of us has seen some pretty bad stuff that just sits with nothing being done or a contractor or owner that obviously is cutting corners.

The pace is the biggest issue, it can slow to a crawl based on either side.

Trust me, I do get it. I'm in industry, and have (albeit fairly limited) experience with this.

And I know what the SOP is for most things - especially things that have the potential for both massive costs and for unwelcome or bad press - and that generally is the SSS mentality. It's nothing new, has been going on for decades....and is a reason why we have places like the San Jacinto pits, the Hall's Bayou pits and the various superfund sites around the area. A whole lot of it was simply ignorance to long term issues 50 or 75 years ago - but a whole lot of it was also tied to the fact that dumping sludge in pits in BFE was a hell of a lot cheaper than what it would cost to clean it correctly. Hey, it's human nature.

And the state/feds are limited on resources - a lot of times it comes down to the fact that they simply cannot police things properly, and a lot of it comes down to the fact that if light is shed on the truth - people stand to lose their livelyhoods because a problem has been festering for 40 years that was essentially swept under the rug.

So if the state/feds deem 100ppb as a maximum threshold (just using arbitrary numbers, want to point that out because you strike me as the type to split hairs over something like this when it's obviously an example and not absolute data) - it's always hunky dory and everybody can sleep at night if the data they get magically states that the concentration is 90ppb. Everybody is covered, right?

And we have posters here that have seen runoff in person from those areas, and we've had a couple of pretty significant storms come through with tidal surges. I grew up on the coast not too far from this area and I know what happens to tidal surges and runoff when even tropical storms hit - much less when something like Ike rolls through with a pretty fuggin big storm surge.

If this were something that had a short half life that did not genetically affect aquatic life, probably wouldn't be as big of a deal either. I just personally see this (and the San Jacinto pits) as a huge issue that should be taken care of instead of the mantra of "all is well, stay calm" that we seem to get with both.

schmellba99 said:

---

Trust me, I do get it. I'm in industry, and have (albeit fairly limited) experience with this.

And I know what the SOP is for most things - especially things that have the potential for both massive costs and for unwelcome or bad press - and that generally is the SSS mentality. It's nothing new, has been going on for decades....and is a reason why we have places like the San Jacinto pits, the Hall's Bayou pits and the various superfund sites around the area. A whole lot of it was simply ignorance to long term issues 50 or 75 years ago - but a whole lot of it was also tied to the fact that dumping sludge in pits in BFE was a hell of a lot cheaper than what it would cost to clean it correctly. Hey, it's human nature.

And the state/feds are limited on resources - a lot of times it comes down to the fact that they simply cannot police things properly, and a lot of it comes down to the fact that if light is shed on the truth - people stand to lose their livelyhoods because a problem has been festering for 40 years that was essentially swept under the rug.

So if the state/feds deem 100ppb as a maximum threshold (just using arbitrary numbers, want to point that out because you strike me as the type to split hairs over something like this when it's obviously an example and not absolute data) - it's always hunky dory and everybody can sleep at night if the data they get magically states that the concentration is 90ppb. Everybody is covered, right?

And we have posters here that have seen runoff in person from those areas, and we've had a couple of pretty significant storms come through with tidal surges. I grew up on the coast not too far from this area and I know what happens to tidal surges and runoff when even tropical storms hit - much less when something like Ike rolls through with a pretty fuggin big storm surge.

If this were something that had a short half life that did not genetically affect aquatic life, probably wouldn't be as big of a deal either. I just personally see this (and the San Jacinto pits) as a huge issue that should be taken care of instead of the mantra of "all is well, stay calm" that we seem to get with both.

---

Some have determined that it's practically impossible to remediate this stuff due to it's persistence and location. I don't think people are making excuses, they're just pragmatic on the likelihood of it ever being cleaned up. The best option is managing and monitoring the location, similar to a landfill, until a technology is developed to treat the area safely and effectively. Don't ignore the fact that digging up the area poses enormous risk and further contamination.

I get that. But based on the other thread, there are methods to cook it in place. Still isn't cheap though, and unfortunately that ends up being the driving factor in no remediation at all. I'd consider this, and the San Jacinto pits, however, a very high risk area - there is just too much potential for failure and the results of that failure to render an entire bay system a hazard for the long term to not look at what can be done and what should be done - doing nothing seems like a kick the can down the road approach.

I'm generally a limited government type, but this is one area that the .gov should step in and do the right thing IMO.

Where is this exactly?....those coordinates gave me somewhere in Houston when I used them (not that I really know what I'm doing)

p-wonk01 said:

---

Where is this exactly?....those coordinates gave me somewhere in Houston when I used them (not that I really know what I'm doing)

---

Type those exact coordinates into google earth. It'll take you to some pits south of Galveston bridge.

These pits here. I'm not sure if it's all of them though. I had always assumed they were old sand or gravel pits.

https://goo.gl/maps/ujCYExyjw4P2

If you simply Google "Halls Bayou", look at the aerial, they stick out like a sore thumb.

p-wonk01 said:

---

Where is this exactly?....those coordinates gave me somewhere in Houston when I used them (not that I really know what I'm doing)

---

If the coordinates don't work, look up Flamingo Isles on google earth. From there, follow the ICW south for about 5.17 miles. You'll see Carancahua Lake and some square pits running NW-SE, most of which are black. Those are the pits.

If you're in the industry then you know what's involved in establishing those regulatory values you referenced in your 100 ppb example. It's actually quite a bit of science and modelling, no magic involved. I deal with these risk-based values every day; no need for backhanded insults.

Part of the problem with legacy sites is what we knew and what enforced at the time, that's true. You want something more to be done about it now? OK. But, for many of these places, that's going to be a hell of a large price tag and you and I are going to have to pay for it. I'm not saying the cause is unworthy, but that's where the money is going to have to come from. And you won't want the TCEQ or EPA overseeing the job, either. Trust me on that, if nothing else...

As for people witnessing releases, what did they do about it? Report it? Collect a sample? Hire someone to officially investigate the impact to their property? If not, why not? If you have a property that's been impacted by these pits, I'm happy to help. I'll get you a good environmental attorney and oversee the investigation, but it won't be free.

Bitter Old Man said:

---

Why do I feel like the EPA/TCEQ people tend to punt on the hard stuff and spend their time "enforcing" against little guys with stock ponds.... Maybe I'm reading it wrong... I was immediately reminded of that spill in Colorado a couple years ago.

---

did I miss something, when has TCEQ spent their time "enforcing" against guys with stock ponds.

Sooper Jeenyus said:

---

If you're in the industry then you know what's involved in establishing those regulatory values you referenced in your 100 ppb example. It's actually quite a bit of science and modelling, no magic involved. I deal with these risk-based values every day; no need for backhanded insults.

Part of the problem with legacy sites is what we knew and what enforced at the time, that's true. You want something more to be done about it now? OK. But, for many of these places, that's going to be a hell of a large price tag and you and I are going to have to pay for it. I'm not saying the cause is unworthy, but that's where the money is going to have to come from. And you won't want the TCEQ or EPA overseeing the job, either. Trust me on that, if nothing else...

As for people witnessing releases, what did they do about it? Report it? Collect a sample? Hire someone to officially investigate the impact to their property? If not, why not? If you have a property that's been impacted by these pits, I'm happy to help. I'll get you a good environmental attorney and oversee the investigation, but it won't be free.

---

First, I absolutely believe you that we don't want TCEQ or EPA overseeing these cleanups. While I'm sure there are some good individuals at both the overarching bureaucracy of both is terrible. Remember, it was the EPA who caused the release of the mining tailings into the Animas River in Colorado recently. That was a bloody shambles.

Second, while I'm very much a small government/small "l" libertarian I absolutely believe in using taxpayer dollars to clean up such looming disasters. Obviously, when there's a responsible entity in the picture they need to pony up too. Even if it puts them out of business- after all, they could be sued out of business by various torts for their acts too.

Cleaning up sites like this is precisely what the government should be involved in. It's absolutely within the proper role of government due to the overall threat to public health and resources. In fact, cleaning up sites like this should be job 1 for agencies like the EPA or the TCEQ. And if not the number one role, then it needs to be in the top 3 jobs.

I'd wager that it's far more important today for the EPA to clean up old sites like this than to promulgate all sorts of new regulations of dubious benefit.