RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 

Contract No. EP-W-06-021 

Version 1.1 

Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report 

October 2006 

Supplemental Remedial Investigation 

State Marine Superfund Site 

Port Arthur, Texas 

Remedial Action Contract No. EP-W-06-021 

Task Order No. 0002-RICO-06BX 

In Association With:

Weston Solutions

Geo-Marine, Inc. 

E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. 

Arrowhead Contracting, Inc. 

005934
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

005935
Version 1.1 

Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report 

State Marine Superfund Site 

Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas 

Remedial Action Contract No. EP-W-06-021 

EPA Task Order No. 0002-RICO-06BX 

CH2M HILL Project No. 344479 

DCN 0002-02009 

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Prepared by:

CH2M HILL, INC 

October 2006 

005936
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

005937
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC ES-1 OCTOBER 2006 

Executive Summary 

This report documents the results of the Supplemental Remedial Investigation (RI) performed for the 

State Marine Superfund (SMS) Site located in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. This 

Supplemental RI Report summarizes the data collected during the Supplement RI field investigation. 

The data collected were also used to support the completion of the Baseline Human Health Risk 

Assessment (BHHRA) and the Supplemental Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA), 

contained within Appendix E of this report. 

The SMS Site is located on Pleasure Islet, within Sabine Lake. Pleasure Islet was constructed of 

dredge spoils from the construction and routine maintenance of the Sabine-Neches Canal. The City of 

Port Arthur operated a municipal landfill on Pleasure Islet (including portions of the SMS Site) 

beginning in 1963. The landfill was closed in accordance with Texas Department of Health (TDH) 

requirements in December 1974. The SMS Site was operated as a barge cleaning and maintenance 

facility beginning in about 1973. A refining operation was also located onsite during the early 1980s. 

An RI was conducted at the Site in 2001 to determine the nature and extent of contamination present 

at the SMS Site. Data collected during the RI indicated that Site soils, sediments, and ground water 

have been impacted with metals and SVOCs. During the RI, difficulties encountered during drilling 

prevented the collection of subsurface soil samples over much of the Site. 

A Focused Feasibility Study (FFS), BHHRA, and BERA were performed for the SMS Site in 2005. 

The BHHRA indicated that potential risks are posed to human receptors by Site sediments through 

ingestion of fish. However, the BHHRA concluded that actual fish tissue data collected from Sabine 

Lake showed results that were much lower than the modeled results included in the BHHRA. The 

BERA identified potential risks to ecological receptors by Site sediments. The primary risks posed are 

to benthic organisms. Eight areas were identified where Site sediments exceeded Preliminary 

Remediation Goals (PRGs) for ecological risks. The BERA also indicated that the sediments might 

have been contaminated through the ground water-to-sediment pathway. The BERA did indicate that 

updated Site sediment data might yield results that indicate PRGs are no longer exceeded in Site 

sediments. In addition, Site stakeholders expressed concerns that the former wastewater 

impoundments might be the source of ground water contamination at the Site that then impacted Site 

sediments. In order to address these concerns, a Supplemental RI was performed in May and June 2006.

005938
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC ES-2 OCTOBER 2006 

The Supplemental RI included the completion of seven soil borings and collection of soil samples at 

17 locations. Five of the soil borings were completed within the area of the former wastewater 

impoundments to determine if soils in this area were the source of metals and SVOCs in ground 

water. Two borings were advanced downgradient (east) of the former wastewater impoundments and 

completed as monitor wells. 

Three monitor wells (two new wells and one existing well) completed within the shallow perched 

ground water zone at the Site were sampled to determine the concentrations of metals and SVOCs 

present. These wells were located downgradient of the former wastewater impoundments and 

between the impoundments and Sabine Lake. Ground water sampling was performed to determine the 

concentrations of metals and SVOCs in ground water and determine the potential for the ground 

water to be a source of the sediment contamination. 

Sediment sampling was performed at eight onsite and one background location for metals and SVOCs 

to update the sediment data for the Site. The sediment sampling was performed to evaluate the risks 

to ecological receptors based on current Site conditions. The ground water and sediment data were 

evaluated as part of the Supplemental BERA to determine the exposure pathways and risks to 

ecological receptors. 

The BHHRA determined that Site soils do not pose a potential current or future risk to human health. 

Ground water is deemed non-potable at the Site due to the presence of a nearby large brackish water 

body and the presence of the ground water within the buried landfill material. Estimated risks to 

human receptors through the sediment pathway via ingestion of fish exceeded acceptable risk levels 

for Arochlor 1242, copper, and zinc. However, the modeled fish tissue concentrations used in the 

BHHRA are much higher than the measured fish tissue concentrations from Sabine Lake as reported 

by the TDH. Therefore, the modeled fish tissue concentrations are overly conservative, and it is 

recommended that the measured concentrations be used rather than the modeled concentrations. 

PCBs were not detected in the fish tissue samples collected by TDH, and the maximum detected 

concentrations of copper and zinc in edible fish tissue were approximately one order of magnitude 

lower than the modeled concentrations. Since estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks (ELCRs) and 

Hazard Indices (HIs) are directly proportional to exposure point concentration, use of the measured 

fish tissue concentrations in the BHHRA would result in acceptable risk levels from fish ingestion 

exposures. Therefore, no further action in sediments is needed for protection of fish ingestion 

exposures.

005939
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC ES-3 OCTOBER 2006 

The Supplemental BERA identified barium, manganese, and selenium as slightly exceeding primary 

Ecological Screening Values (ESVs) in Site sediments for benthic organisms, suggesting risks are 

possible. Only selenium exceeded the secondary ESV suggesting a likely risk. However, based on the 

ground water and soil data collected as part of the Supplemental RI, the Supplemental BERA 

concluded that the Site is most likely not the source of selenium in sediments. Furthermore, the 

weight of evidence analysis conducted for the BERA concludes that there is very low probability of 

any elevated risk to sediment dwelling organisms from constituents of concern (COCs) originating at 

the SMS. A Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) of remedial alternatives was conducted in 

2005 that concluded that monitored natural attenuation would be the preferred alternative if active 

sources of contamination still existed. Since the new 2006 data suggest that concentrations do not 

pose a risk to benthic communities and since the Site is not considered a source of potential risk to 

these communities the NEBA was not updated. Monitoring may not be necessary based on the current 

data and the decision to continue monitroring is left to the discretion of the risk managers for the site 

(the EPA WAM and other stakeholders). 

005940
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank) 

.

005941
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC I OCTOBER 2006 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................1

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................. I

Acronym List ....................................................................................................................................... V

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Site Background................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Site History ...............................................................................................................1

1.1.2 Site Location and Description...................................................................................2

1.1.3 Operational History...................................................................................................2

1.1.4 Summary of Waste Management Areas....................................................................3

1.2 Site Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................4

1.2.1 Topography ...............................................................................................................5

1.2.2 Site Features..............................................................................................................5

1.2.3 Surface Water............................................................................................................6

1.2.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology...............................................................................7

1.2.5 Ground Water Use ....................................................................................................8

1.2.6 Ecological Resources ................................................................................................8

1.3 Previous Investigations.....................................................................................................9

1.3.1 Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) at SMS (TNRCC) ..................................................9

1.3.2 Remedial Investigation (Weston)............................................................................11

1.3.3 Other Investigations Adjacent to the SMS..............................................................13

1.3.3.1 Preliminary Assessment (TNRCC) ....................................................................13

1.3.3.2 Screening Site Inspection (TNRCC) ..................................................................13

1.3.3.3 Palmer Barge Line Site Expanded Site Investigation (Weston) .........................14

1.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination............................................................................15

1.4.1 Soil ..........................................................................................................................15

1.4.2 Sediment..................................................................................................................19

1.4.3 Ground Water/Surface Water..................................................................................21

1.4.3.1 October 2001 Ground Water Results..................................................................21

1.4.3.2 June 2002 Investigation Results .........................................................................22

1.5 Summary of Risk Assessments ......................................................................................22

1.5.1 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment ..............................................................22

1.5.2 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment.....................................................................23

1.6 Overview of Supplemental Remedial Investigation Tasks..........................................24

1.7 Report Organization.......................................................................................................24

2.0 Data Collection Activities.........................................................................................................25

2.1 Data Quality Objectives .................................................................................................25

2.2 Monitor Well Installation and Soil Boring Activities ..................................................27

2.2.1 Monitor Well Installation........................................................................................27

2.2.2 Soil Boring Activities..............................................................................................29

005942
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC II OCTOBER 2006 

2.3 Water Level Measurement and Ground Water Sampling Activities.........................30

2.4 Sediment Sampling Activities ........................................................................................31

2.5 Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes.............................................................32

2.6 Data Validation Activities ..............................................................................................33

2.7 Risk Assessment Activities .............................................................................................34

3.0 Supplemental RI Results..........................................................................................................35

3.1 Geologic Conditions........................................................................................................35

3.2 Water Levels....................................................................................................................35

3.3 Analytical Results ...........................................................................................................36

3.3.1 Soil Analytical Results............................................................................................36

3.3.1.1 Metals Results in Soils .......................................................................................37

3.3.1.2 SVOC Results in Soils........................................................................................39

3.3.2 Ground Water Analytical Results ...........................................................................42

3.3.2.1 General Ground Water Quality in the Shallow Perched Ground Water Zone....42

3.3.2.2 Metals Results in Ground Water ........................................................................43

3.3.2.3 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Results in Ground Water ...........................47

3.3.3 Sediment Analytical Results ...................................................................................48

3.3.3.1 Metals Results in Sediment ................................................................................49

3.3.3.2 SVOC Results in Sediment ................................................................................51

4.0 Summary of Risk Assessments ................................................................................................53

4.1 Summary of the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment ........................................53

4.1.1 Data Used in the HHRA ..........................................................................................53

4.1.2 Potential Receptors ..................................................................................................54

4.1.3 Summary..................................................................................................................55

4.2 Summary of the Supplemental Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment........................56

4.2.1 Data Used in the Supplemental BERA ...................................................................56

4.2.2 Summary..................................................................................................................56

5.0 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................................59

5.1 Nature of Soil Impacts....................................................................................................60

5.2 Nature of Ground Water Impacts .................................................................................60

5.3 Nature of Sediment Impacts ..........................................................................................61

5.4 Potential Effects on Human Health...............................................................................61

5.5 Potential Effects to Ecological Receptors......................................................................61

6.0 References..................................................................................................................................63

List of Tables 

Table 2-1 – Data Quality Objectives and Associated Supplemental Remedial Investigation Tasks 

Table 2-2 – List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation - May – June 

2006 

Table 2-3 – Monitor Well and Soil Boring Location Coordinates and Completion Details 

Table 2-4 – Water Level Data – May 2006 

Table 3-1 – Detections of Metals in Soil Samples – May 2006

005943
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC III OCTOBER 2006 

Table 3-2 – Detections of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples – May 2006 

Table 3-3 – Detections of Metals in Ground Water Samples – May 2006 

Table 3-4 – Detections of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Ground Water Samples – May 2006 

Table 3-5 – Detections of Metals in Sediment Samples – June 2006 

Table 3-6 – Detections of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Sediment Samples – June 2006 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 – Site Location Map 

Figure 1-2 – 2000 Aerial Photograph –Site Features Map 

Figure 1-3 – 2005 Aerial Photograph – Current Site Features Map 

Figure 2-1 – Sample Location Map 

Figure 3-1 – Water Level Elevations in the Shallow Perched Ground Water Zone – May 2006 

Figure 3-2 – Metals Detections in Soil Samples – May 2006 

Figure 3-3 – SVOC Dectetions in Soil Samples – May 2006 

Figure 3-4 – Total Metals Detections in Ground Water – May 2006 

Figure 3-5 – Dissolved Metals Detections in Ground Water – May 2006 

Figure 3-6 – SVOC Detections in Ground Water – May 2006 

Figure 3-7 – Metals Detections in Sediment Samples – June 2006 

Figure 3-8 – SVOC Detections in Sediment Samples – June 2006 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A – Data Quality Evaluation Report 

Appendix B – Soil Boring Logs and Monitor Well Completion Diagrams 

Appendix C – Laboratory Analytical Data Reports 

Appendix D – Field Data Sheets 

Appendix E – Risk Assessment Technical Memoranda 

Appendix E1 – Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 

Appendix E2 – Supplemental Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment 

005944
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank) 

005945
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC V OCTOBER 2006 

Acronym List 

AST Aboveground Storage Tank 

BERA Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment 

bgs below ground surface 

BHHRA Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 

bss below sediment surface 

C Celsius 

CCV continuing calibration verification 

COC Constituents of Concern 

COPC Chemicals of Potential Concern 

CRQL Contract Required Quantitation Limit 

CSM Conceptual Site Model 

CT Central Tendency 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DPT Direct-Push Technology 

DQO Data Quality Objective 

DRO Diesel Range Organic 

ELCR Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESI Expanded Site Inspection 

ESV Ecological Screening Value 

FFS Focused Feasibility Study 

FS Feasibility Study 

FSP Field Sampling Plan 

ft feet 

ft/ft feet per foot 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GRO Gasoline Range Organic 

HI Hazard Index 

HRS Hazard Ranking System 

in inch 

IDW investigation-derived waste 

LCS laboratory control sample 

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

mS/cm milliseimens per centimeter 

MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

MSSL Media Specific Screening Level 

mV millivolts 

N&E Nature and Extent 

005946
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC VI OCTOBER 2006 

NPL National Priorities List 

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 

ORP Oxidation Reduction Potential 

PA Preliminary Assessment 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

PBLS Palmer Barge Lines Superfund Site 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

PCL Protective Concentration Levels 

PCP Pentachlorophenol 

PID Photoionization Detector 

PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal 

PPE Personal Protective Equipment 

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

RI Remedial Investigation 

ROD Record of Decision 

RPD relative percent difference 

SIM Single Ion Monitoring 

SMP Site Management Plan 

SMS State Marine Superfund Site 

SSI Screening Site Inspection 

STL Severn Trent Laboratory 

SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound 

TACB Texas Air Control Board 

TAL Target Analyte List 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TCL Target Compound List 

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

TDH Texas Department of Health 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TDWR Texas Department of Water Resources 

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 

TNRCC Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission 

TOC Total Organic Carbon 

TRRP Texas Risk Reduction Program 

TWC Texas Water Commission 

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram 

μg/L micrograms per liter 

005947
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 1 OCTOBER 2006 

1.0 Introduction 

The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is a process by which the nature and extent of 

risks posed by a hazardous waste site are quantified and potential remedial options are evaluated 

sufficient to support an informed risk management decision regarding remedial action for a site. A RI 

was completed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the State Marine 

Superfund Site (SMS), as documented in the RI Report dated April 2003 (Weston, 2003). The results 

from the RI were used by EPA to complete a Focused Feasibility Study (FFS), a Baseline Human 

Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA), and a Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) 

(CH2M HILL, 2005a, CH2M HILL, 2005b, and CH2M HILL, 2005c). These reports identified 

the need for additional data collection to verify the ground water to sediment pathway, with respect to 

the former wastewater impoundment area at the site, and the need to update the sediment analytical 

data for evaluating risk to benthic organisms. This Supplemental RI was conducted by EPA to 

address these data needs. The BHHRA and BERAhave been updated to incorporate the results of the 

Supplemental RI. 

This introductory section provides a discussion of the site background and history, a summary of the 

environmental setting, a summary of previous site investigations, a description of the nature and 

extent of contamination based on the results of the 2001 RI, and a description of the contents of this 

Supplemental RI Report. 

1.1 Site Background 

This section provides a summary of the site background, including a brief history of the site and an 

overview of site waste management areas. A map of the site location is provided in Figure 1-1. 

1.1.1 Site History 

During a routine aerial surveillance of Jefferson County in July 1980, the SMS (also referred to as the 

‘Site’) was identified as a potentially hazardous waste site. The Site was a barge maintenance, 

cleaning, and salvage facility from 1974 through the early 1980s. Prior to that time, the City of Port 

Arthur used the Site as a municipal landfill between 1963 and 1974. As a result of subsequent 

investigations by the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR, predecessor agency to the 

Texas Water Commission [TWC], then the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission 

[TNRCC], which is currently the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TQEC]), the Site 

005948
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 2 OCTOBER 2006 

became a Listed Hazardous Waste Site. Following TWC scoring efforts in 1987 and later in 1992 

using the Hazard Ranking Scoring (HRS) system, the Site was referred to EPA Region 6 because the 

Site scored a 50.00 under the new HRS, indicating eligibility for listing on the National Priorities List 

(NPL). The EPA completed two separate HRS efforts, the last of which occurred in 1997. The Site 

was officially placed on the NPL on August 27, 1998. In June 1998, EPA requested CH2M HILL to 

conduct a preliminary RI/FS and prepare a Technical Memorandum. A RI was performed at the site 

in the autumn of 2001 (CH2M HILL, 2005a). 

1.1.2 Site Location and Description 

The Site is located on Old Yacht Club Road, Pleasure Islet, within the City of Port Arthur, Jefferson 

County, Texas. Pleasure Islet is a peninsula located approximately one-half mile southwest of the 

confluence of the Neches River and Sabine Lake. The approximately 17.2-acre Site consists of tracts 

3 and 6 on Old Yacht Club Road. The Sabine-Neches Canal forms the eastern border of the Site. The 

Site is bordered to the north by the Palmer Barge Lines Superfund Site (PBLS), to the west by Old 

Yacht Club Road, and to the south by undeveloped land owned by the State Marine property owner. 

Figure 1-2 provides current site features displayed on a 1998 aerial photograph. 

The Islet is a man-made landmass consisting of dredge spoils generated during the construction and 

maintenance of the Sabine-Neches Canal. The canal was constructed between 1898 and 

approximately 1920, near Sabine Lake and the Neches River, between the current Site location and 

the mainland (Port Arthur Historical Society, 1997). Pleasure Islet did not exist at the time as the 

area encompassing the Site was actually part of the northern tip of Pleasure Island. Between 1955 and 

1957, a portion of the canal along the western side of Pleasure Islet was abandoned and a new canal 

cut along the eastern and southern sides of Pleasure Islet. Pleasure Islet was created when a land 

bridge was constructed across the abandoned portions of the canal, between the northern tip of 

Pleasure Island and the mainland. 

1.1.3 Operational History 

Prior to 1957, Pleasure Islet was a part of Pleasure Island. Before 1955, few changes were observed in 

the area of Pleasure Islet. The islet was heavily vegetated and undeveloped. The islet received dredge 

spoils, most likely from the construction and routine maintenance of the initial intercoastal canal. 

Ownership of Pleasure Islet was transferred from the State of Texas to the City of Port Arthur in 

1955. A land bridge was constructed across the abandoned portions of the Sabine-Neches Canal, located 

on the western side of the islet, and development in the area began in 1957 (CH2M HILL, 1999). 

005949
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 3 OCTOBER 2006 

The City of Port Arthur began municipal landfill operations on the northern and central portions of 

the islet in approximately 1963. The landfill operation initially consisted of a burn pit in which wastes 

were incinerated. Burn operations ceased in 1969, after which time the landfill was used only for 

disposal of wastes. Trench methods were used for disposal of wastes in the landfill. In general, 

50-foot (ft) wide trenches were excavated to depths of approximately 6 to 9 feet. Approximately 

6 inches (in) of cover were placed over the wastes every two days, and a minimum of 2 feet of soil 

was placed over the area once a trench was filled (Weston, 2003). 

The City of Port Arthur closed the landfill in December 1974 in accordance with Texas Department 

of Health (TDH) regulations. This required that the entire landfill be covered with approximately 

2 feet of fine-grained fill material. It is believed that the cover material used was dredge spoils that 

originated on the islet (CH2M HILL, 1999). 

Operations at the Site began about 1973. The Site was initially operated under the names “State 

Welding and Marine Works” and “Golden Triangle Shipyard.” The specific operations at the Site 

during this time are unknown. However, operations likely included marine salvage and repairs, and 

off-loading and bulk storage of petroleum products (Weston, 2003). 

The construction of wastewater impoundments in the northwestern portion of the Site was also 

reported. The impoundments were reported to have been approximately 2 acres in size, unlined, and 

constructed with earthen dikes. The impoundments were used to store oil and wastewater from barge 

cleaning operations. Inspection reports from the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) and TDWR 

indicate that wastewater from the barge cleaning operations was directed to two aboveground storage 

tanks (ASTs) and then pumped to the wastewater impoundments. Some oil from the ASTs was 

diverted to an old ship located on land that was used as an oil/water separator (CH2M HILL, 1999). 

A TDWR inspection report from August 1980 indicated that facility modifications were made at the 

Site to allow process waste oils to be converted into bunker fuels. The facility modifications included 

a distillation column, three ASTs, one 20,000-barrel tank, and two 10,000-barrel tanks. Additional 

smaller tanks were later constructed at the Site. A TDWR inspection report associated these storage 

tanks with the Lauren Refining Company, which was also owned and operated by the owners of the 

Site. It is not known when the Lauren Refining Company first began operations at the Site, but it is 

likely to have occurred sometime in 1980 (CH2M HILL, 1999). 

1.1.4 Summary of Waste Management Areas 

The wastes generated and/or disposed at the Site appear to have included both raw product (original 

barge contents) and effluent generated during the cleaning and maintenance of barges. Waste 

005950
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 4 OCTOBER 2006 

generated and stored at the Lauren Refining Company includes wastes similar to those generated at 

the Site. Five different waste areas that were identified are listed below (CH2M HILL, 1999): 

• Wastewater treatment facility (excluding the impoundments) 

• Wastewater impoundments 

• Former Lauren Tank Farm 

• Sunken dock barges and offshore sunken barges 

• Vehicle storage and maintenance and waste storage/handling areas 

The locations and approximate sizes of the waste management areas, shown in Figure 1-2, were 

compiled from aerial photographs and Site inspection reports. Additional information regarding these 

areas is provided below: 

• The former wastewater treatment facility includes all structures and work areas between the 

dock barges and the former impoundments, including an area of blasting sand occurring at the 

shoreline and dock barges. 

• The impoundments include the areas previously identified on historical aerial photographs. 

• The former tank farm, which is considered a waste management area, includes the boundary 

of the former tank farm as well as the boundary of a spill that migrated outside of this area. 

• The dock barges (sunken and/or floating) and sunken barges are considered waste 

management areas and include sediments within and around the barges. 

• The vehicle storage, maintenance, and waste storage/handling areas include most of the area 

between the former tank farm and the former wastewater treatment facility. This area 

includes wastes associated with the repair or storage of vehicles or salvage materials, such as 

marine engines. Also included are at least three storage tanks from the Former Lauren Tank 

Farm, which were moved to the area between the office building and pump house 

(CH2M HILL, 2005a). 

1.2 Site Environmental Setting 

This section provides an overview of the Site environmental setting. Described in this section are the 

Site physical characteristics including topography, Site features, surface water, geology and 

hydrogeology, ground water use, and ecological resources. 

005951
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 5 OCTOBER 2006 

1.2.1 Topography 

Ground elevations range from sea level along the shoreline to a maximum of 11 feet above mean sea 

level (MSL) in the north central portions (Engineer’s Office, City of Port Arthur, 1998). The 

highest relief on Pleasure Islet is associated with the City of Port Arthur’s former municipal landfill, 

which underlies most of the central and northern portions of the Islet. Onsite, elevations range from 

approximately 2 to 7 feet above MSL. Drainage on the Islet is toward the adjacent waterways with 

surface drainage on the Site occurring to the east-southeast. 

1.2.2 Site Features 

The understanding of current conditions and Site features is based on aerial photographs, a Site 

inspection conducted in August 1998, and the 2003 RI (Weston, 2003). Vehicle access to the Site is 

limited to a single dirt road originating at the western Site border along Old Yacht Club Road. Within 

the Site, dirt roads and trails connect various areas of current or historical operations. Along the 

shoreline are two sunken barge docks, orientated parallel to and forming part of the shoreline. These 

two structures are the primary location where barges were moored during cleaning or maintenance. 

Two additional sunken barges lie perpendicular to the shoreline, as well as a third barge that is 

oriented parallel to the shoreline (CH2M HILL, 2005a). These features are clearly shown on 1998 

aerial photographs, as well as older photographs. Dredging of the canal in this area occurs 

approximately every two years (Saez, 1998). 

Old marine equipment, including cranes and marine salvage debris, are present on the dock barges 

and inland areas. Several structures still exist, including a maintenance shed, a former office building, 

former wastewater treatment facility structures (boiler house, compressor building, and a former 

pump house), and at least one additional structure of unknown use. Most of these structures are 

partially collapsed and appear abandoned except for the maintenance shed, which may still be in use. 

Several ASTs and 55-gallon drums sit at the Site. The status of the tanks and their contents was not 

investigated during the preliminary inspection (CH2M HILL, 1999), although several drums 

appeared to be partially full. Numerous vehicles, including old cranes, pickup trucks, and several 

tractors and tractor-trailers, are parked at the Site. None of the vehicles looked operational and several 

appear to be in various states of salvage or repair. The soil around many of the vehicles is oil stained. 

The Site is partially vegetated with native shrubbery and grasses. Much of the Site is overgrown and 

few structures are recognizable relative to the original operations observed on historical aerial 

photographs. Less than 10 feet of shoreline is exposed at most locations. However, aerial photographs 

indicate a broader shoreline between the two dock barges, which were not visited during the 

005952
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 6 OCTOBER 2006 

preliminary inspection. The area is tidally influenced (1 to 2 feet) and the amount of shoreline 

exposed is likely to vary between tides. During the preliminary inspection, passing ships were 

observed to generate significant wave action at the shoreline. Based on the wave action and proximity 

of the canal, it is likely that the shoreline is eroding. Several trees exist and wetland vegetation occurs 

near or along some areas of the shoreline. Sea gulls were observed roosting on the offshore sunken 

barges (CH2M HILL, 1999). 

Figure 1-2 shows the general Site conditions as of 2000 (the year the aerial photograph used as the 

basemap was taken). Changes to the general Site conditions have occurred since that time. 

Figure 1-3 shows the general site conditions base on an aerial photograph taken in the autumn of 

2005 (after Hurricane Rita made landfall in the area of the Site). Based on a comparison of the two 

photographs, many of the sunken barges shown in the 2000 photograph were much less visible in the 

2005 photograph. The sunken barges appear to have deteriorated during the intervening years. 

Several tugboats are shown stranded offshore of the northern portion of the Site in 2005 that were not 

present in 2000. Also, many of the Site structures have further collapsed or lost their roofs since 

2000. The 2005 aerial photograph also shows that additional erosion has occurred along the shoreline 

in the southern portion of the Site. Hurricane Rita made landfall near and passed through the area of 

the Site in September 2005. It is possible that some or all of the changes in Site conditions are related 

to Huricane Rita. 

1.2.3 Surface Water 

The surface water bodies near the Site include Sabine Lake, the Sabine and Neches Rivers, and the 

Sabine-Neches Canal. The Site is located along the shore of Sabine Lake. These surface water bodies 

are used for a variety of purposes (Weston, 2003). 

Sabine Lake is used for both commercial and recreational fishing. The lake also serves as a tourist 

and recreational water body for activities such as swimming and boating (Weston, 2003). Sabine 

Lake is an estuarine environment that supports vegetation, fish, crustacean, amphibian, reptile, and 

marine mammal species. In addition, the lake is used by migratory and fish eating species of birds. 

The lake is home to several threatened and endangered species including the green turtle (Chemlondia 

mydas), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kmpii), the gulf salt 

marsh snake (Nerodia clarkia), and the Texas diamondback terrapin (Malachlemys terrapin) (Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department, 2001, and EPA, 2000). 

The Sabine-Neches Canal connects the Gulf of Mexico to the cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and 

Orange. The canal has been improved and dredged over the years with the expansion of oil operations 

005953
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 7 OCTOBER 2006 

and chemical industries in the area. The canal is a busy water body with the shipping of assorted 

cargo and petroleum or petroleum-related products (Weston, 2003). 

1.2.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology 

The geology and hydrogeology of the Site are unusual, because the Site is situated on a man-made 

landmass within a waterway of considerable flow volume. This landmass consists of dredge spoils 

generated during construction and maintenance of the Sabine-Neches Canal. The City of Port Arthur 

used the Site as a municipal landfill from approximately 1963 until 1974. Trench and fill methods 

were employed for disposal of the municipal waste. The entire Site was subsequently capped with 

what is believed to be dredge spoils. Municipal landfill debris is present in the shallow subsurface 

across the majority of the Site (CH2M HILL, 1999). 

During the RI conducted by Weston in 2001, the presence of landfill debris prohibited recovery of 

subsurface soil samples in most instances; thus, detailed information on the subsurface soil conditions 

across the majority of the Site could not be obtained. The landfill material is usually encountered 

approximately 2 feet below the surface and typically ranges in thickness from 3 to 10 feet. Based on 

observations during monitor well installation activities, the soils underlying the landfill debris consist 

of dredge spoils underlain by alluvial deposits to the depths investigated (40 to 55 feet below ground 

surface [bgs]). These materials consisted primarily of saturated, very soft, gray silty clay. At one 

location, MW061, saturated, gray, silty sand was encountered at a depth of approximately 35 feet bgs 

(Weston, 2003). 

Monitor wells were installed at three locations during the RI field activities. The well locations were 

selected to obtain samples downgradient of the most significant source areas. In addition, based on 

observations during monitor well installation, ground water was typically encountered at depths of 

approximately 2 to 4 feet bgs. Below this depth, soils remained saturated throughout the depths 

investigated (40 to 55 feet bgs) without the presence of a distinct confining layer. Due to the 

extensive saturated thickness, two nested wells were installed at each of the three monitor well 

locations (shown on Figure 1-2), one to screen the upper 20 feet and one to screen the next 20 feet 

below. Because no previous ground water sampling had been conducted, the wells were used as a 

screening assessment of the ground water conditions (Weston 2003). 

Although an obvious aquitard was not observed during the well installations, the water quality data 

indicate the presence of two separate zones. Salinity measurements were consistently higher in the 

deeper wells, which could indicate that a shallow perched zone is present and has a fresh water 

impact from precipitation. In addition, the piezometric surface of the shallow well measurements 

005954
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 8 OCTOBER 2006 

appears to follow the land surface topography. This is commonly seen in shallow perched aquifers. 

Based on the depth-to-water measured in the shallow screened wells, the base of the landfill may 

serve as the lower aquitard of a perched shallow ground water zone. For both the deep- and shallowscreened wells, ground water appears to flow to the southeast with a hydraulic gradient of 1.18 x 10-3

feet per foot (ft/ft) and 2.13 x 10-2 ft/ft, respectively (Weston, 2003). 

1.2.5 Ground Water Use 

The main source of deep ground water in the area of the Site is the Gulf Coast Aquifer. The Gulf 

Coast Aquifer consists of alternating beds of clay, silt, sand, and gravel that are hydraulically 

connected and form a large, leaky, artesian aquifer system. Ground water is used for industrial and 

irrigation purposes approximately 1.5 miles from the Site (TNRCC, 1997). There is one domestic 

well located approximately 1 mile from the site. This well is hydraulically upgradient from the Site. 

In addition, 33 public, industrial, unknown use, test, and domestic wells were identified within a 

4-mile radius of the Site. Based on the ground water flow direction documented during the RI, these 

wells appear to be located upgradient or cross-gradient from the Site (Weston, 2003). 

Ground water at the Site is not known to be used for drinking purposes. There is no current or 

anticipated future use of ground water as a source of potable water at the Site. Because of the 

underlying landfill, which precludes use of shallow ground water and the proximity to brackish 

surface water, ground water is believed non-potable (Weston, 2003). 

1.2.6 Ecological Resources 

Pleasure Islet is situated in the northwest corner of Sabine Lake, a tidally-influenced estuary. Part of 

the designated use of this lake is high quality aquatic habitat and shellfish waters. The lake, which is 

an active habitat for a variety of water fowl and aquatic wildlife, contains a number of 

environmentally sensitive wetlands and bird rookeries, most of which have been designated as a 

National Wildlife Refuge. Critical habitats for various threatened or endangered species occur within 

a 15-mile radius of the Site. The high quality aquatic habitat provided by Sabine Lake supports a 

variety of wetland plants. Detailed information regarding wetlands, protected species, and critical 

habitat locations were not available in the reviewed site literature. 

Both commercial and noncommercial fishing occur in the area. There are three surface water intakes 

used only for industrial purposes within 15 miles downstream of the site. There are no drinking water 

intakes downstream of the site (TNRCC, 1997). 

005955
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 9 OCTOBER 2006 

1.3 Previous Investigations 

Pleasure Islet provided a convenient barge cleaning area for vessels carrying supplies and petroleum 

products through Sabine Lake. The SMS and PBLS both provided these types of services. In the 

course of the cleaning operations conducted at these two sites, hazardous materials spilled or were 

disposed inappropriately, potentially affecting human health and the environment. Several 

investigations have been conducted at the two sites in order to identify and characterize the sources 

and contaminants at both sites. This section summarizes the significant investigations at both the 

PBLS and SMS sites. 

1.3.1 Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) at SMS (TNRCC) 

In 1995, TNRCC initiated an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) at SMS. The objective of the TNRCC 

ESI was to collect sufficient data to develop an understanding of the Site contaminants and to identify 

the potential migration pathways, primary contaminant sources, exposure pathways, and presence of 

potential human health and ecological receptors. The following reports were completed from the data 

obtained from the field work during the ESI: 

• 1996 ESI (TNRCC). 

• 1997 HRS Documentation Report (TNRCC). 

• 1999 Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL). 

The work performed, summary of results, and conclusions are provided in the 1996 ESI Report 

(TNRCC, 1996). The data obtained from the ESI enabled the TNRCC to assign a hazardous ranking 

score to the Site as reported in the 1997 HRS Documentation Report. 

The analytical results from the ESI were also summarized by CH2M HILL in the 1999 Technical 

Memorandum and were used to develop a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) as part of a screening level 

RI/FS. As a result of the CSM, it was found that waste materials associated with barge cleaning 

operations were the primary source of contamination. In addition, complete exposure pathways to 

human and ecological receptors were found to exist (CH2M HILL, 1999). 

The 1995 sampling event included the collection of 30 soil samples, 34 sediment samples, and 9 

surface water samples by TNRCC. In addition, 8 background samples were collected from locations 

around Sabine Lake near the Site. The samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

005956
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 10 OCTOBER 2006 

metals, and cyanide (CH2M HILL, 1999). The following bullets summarize the investigation results 

obtained from the CH2M HILL 1999 Technical Memorandum: 

Soil Samples 

• VOCs were detected infrequently and at relatively low levels in several soil samples. None of 

the detected VOCs exceeded Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs). Two of the detected 

VOCs—acetone and methylene chloride—were potential laboratory contaminants and may 

not be Site related. 

• SVOCs including human carcinogens benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, 

benzo(a)fluoranthene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene were encountered in 

exceedences of PRGs in at least two samples from each waste area. These contaminants are 

part of a group of compounds referred to as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). 

• Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected sporadically across the Site. 

At least one sample from each waste management area contained pesticides and/or PCBs that 

exceeded applicable PRGs. 

• Metals were identified in every soil sample collected. Elevated levels of aluminum, 

chromium, copper, iron, lead, and zinc were encountered onsite and offsite. The highest 

levels of metals were generally located near or within the blasting sands area. 

Sediment Samples 

• VOCs were detected infrequently and at relatively low levels in several sediment samples. 

None of the VOCs detected were at concentrations exceeding their respective PRGs. Acetone 

and methylene chloride were potential laboratory contaminants and may not have been siterelated. 

• SVOCs, consisting primarily of PAHs, were found in five of seven sediment samples 

analyzed for SVOCs. Each of the five samples was collected adjacent to areas in which 

petroleum products were managed or disposed. Levels of benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (a) 

anthracene, benzo (b) fluoranthene, and benzo (k) fluoranthene were consistently elevated 

among the PAHs detected. 

• Pesticides and PCBs were detected infrequently in the sediment samples collected in Lake 

Sabine. Aroclor-1242 was detected in one sample, and lindane was detected in two sediment 

samples. 

005957
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 11 OCTOBER 2006 

• Metals including arsenic, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and zinc were 

identified in every sediment sample. The highest concentrations of metals were reported to 

occur along the shoreline and near the sunken barges. 

Surface Water Samples 

• Nine surface water samples were collected from Sabine Lake. No VOCs or pesticides/PCBs 

were detected. SVOCs that were detected included benzo (g,h,i) perylene and bis (2-

ethylhexyl) phthalate. The concentrations for both compounds were below their respective 

PRGs. 

• Metals that were detected above their respective PRGs in the surface water samples included 

antimony, arsenic, selenium, and thallium. 

No ground water samples were collected by TNRCC during this investigation. 

The ESI confirmed the presence of contaminated soil in source areas. The presence of SVOCs and 

metals in sediment and surface water samples suggested that contaminants had migrated from source 

areas. 

1.3.2 Remedial Investigation (Weston) 

An RI was conducted by Weston in 2001, consisting of two sampling events in the fall of 2001, 

where sediment samples from offsite locations in Sabine Lake and soil and ground water samples 

from onsite locations on the SMS were collected. 

As part of the field activities, the following sampling efforts were conducted: 

• Completion of 6 deep borings (to depths ranging from 25 ft to 60 ft bgs). 

• Installation of 6 monitor wells. 

• Completion of 5 shallow borings (to depths ranging from 4 ft to 9 ft bgs). 

• Collection of surface soil samples at 87 locations (to depths ranging from 0 to 6 in. bgs). 

• Collection of intertidal samples at 9 locations (to depths ranging from 0 to 6 in. bgs). 

• Collection of sediment samples from 46 locations (to depths ranging from 0 to 6 ft below 

sediment surface [bss]). 

005958
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 12 OCTOBER 2006 

The analytical results in the 2001 RI Report were reviewed and compared to the Tier 1 

Commercial/Industrial Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs) established under the Texas Risk 

Reduction Program (TRRP), and where appropriate, the results were also compared to background 

numbers for site contaminants. The following paragraphs summarize the findings of the 2001 RI. 

The 2001 RI Report did not compare the analytical results to numerical concentration values to assess 

ecological risks. The 2001 RI analytical results were evaluated in terms of ecological risks posed by 

the site contaminants in the 2005 BERA (CH2M HILL, 2005c), which is further discussed in 

Section 1.5.2. 

The most frequently detected contaminants for all sediment samples collected were metals including 

arsenic, lead, and mercury. For intertidal sediments, six metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, and selenium) and one SVOC (pentachlorophenol) exceeded Tier 1 PCLs. Constituents that 

exceeded Tier 1 PCLs for nearshore sediments included six metals (arsenic, barium, beryllium, 

cadmium, lead, and mercury) and one SVOC (3,3-dichlorobenzidine). Only arsenic, lead, and 

mercury exceeded Tier 1 PCLs for offshore sediments. The most frequently detected contaminants for 

all soils at the Site were metals including antimony, arsenic, barium, lead, mercury, and silver. These 

metals consistently exceeded the PCL for soil to protect ground water (GwSoil PCL). 

Based on the distribution of these constituents, Weston concluded that their occurrence is most likely 

a result of the former incineration and landfill operations (Weston, 2003). In general, the metals are 

widely distributed across the site and not limited to the SMS source areas. Although the distribution is 

widespread, several distinct patterns of the metals are apparent and include the following: 

• A “hot spot” of arsenic, barium, and lead is located on the north central boundary of the site. 

• Elevated antimony concentrations can be seen primarily in the north central portion of the 

site. 

• A hot spot of mercury and silver concentrations appears to be located near the northern edge 

of the Former Lauren Tank Farm area. 

Isolated detections of the SVOCs (including benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (a) anthracene, benzo (b) 

fluoranthene, and pentachlorophenol) were reported at relatively low concentrations for onsite soils. 

Because the SVOC exceedences were only detected at isolated locations, impact from operations on 

the Site appeared to be minimal (Weston, 2003). 

Nine constituents, including eight metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, lead, manganese, 

silver, and thallium) and one SVOC (pentachlorophenol), exceeded the Tier 1 PCLs for ground water 

005959
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 13 OCTOBER 2006 

ingestion (GWGWIng PCL). Based on a preliminary comparison of ground water analytical results to 

Class 3 ground water criteria, no constituents exceeded Class 3 ground water PCLs. However, due to 

the considerable saturated thickness observed in the subsurface soils, it is unlikely that determination 

of sustainable yield would result in a Class 3 ground water resource classification. As discussed 

previously, the site is situated on a man-made landmass within a very large waterway. The near 

surface strata consist of landfill debris and dredge spoils underlain by recent alluvial deposits. These 

materials are unconsolidated and saturated. Based on drilling observations and the water quality data 

collected at the site, it appears that the deeper ground water encountered at the site is directly 

influenced by the adjacent brackish water body, and the shallow ground water zone is perched within 

the landfill material. These data and the fact that a former landfill overlies the site make it unrealistic 

to assume any beneficial use of the shallow ground water (Weston, 2003). 

1.3.3 Other Investigations Adjacent to the SMS 

A Preliminary Assessment (PA), a Screening Site Inspection (SSI), and an ESI were conducted 

immediately adjacent to the Site at the PBLS. The PBLS is located on Pleasure Islet immediately 

north of the SMS. These investigations did not involve collecting soil, sediment, or ground water 

directly from the SMS; however, some sediment data obtained from the PBLS at nearshore and 

offshore locations were used in the human health and ecological screening risk assessment. Details of 

the PBLS investigations are summarized below. 

1.3.3.1 Preliminary Assessment (TNRCC) 

The PA at PBLS was conducted by TNRCC in November 1997. The objective during the PA was to 

assess whether there was contamination at PBLS that posed an immediate threat to human health and 

the environment. Source areas identified as potentially hazardous included the vacuum tank sump, the 

boiler house, the flare, the 12-tank battery and roll-off boxes, and the wastewater tanks (TNRCC, 

1998). These areas of concern were further evaluated in the 1998 SSI. 

1.3.3.2 Screening Site Inspection (TNRCC) 

In March 1998, TNRCC conducted the SSI at PBLS. The investigation was conducted in order to 

characterize the nature and extent of contamination and to determine whether the site would be 

eligible for placement on the NPL. Field activities included the collection of 13 soil samples at the 

various sources and 12 sediment samples from Sabine Lake (TNRCC, 1998). 

005960
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 14 OCTOBER 2006 

Soil samples were collected at the vacuum tank sumps, the boiler house, the flare, the 12-tank battery 

and roll-off box, and the wastewater tanks. The laboratory results showed numerous SVOCs, 

pesticides, and metals present at concentrations exceeding the contract required quantitation limits 

(CRQLs) at all the source areas. Two pesticides (aroclor-1254 and aroclor-1260) were detected in 

exceedence of their CRQLs at the 12-tank battery and roll-off box area (TNRCC, 1998). 

Sediment Samples 

Nine sediment samples were collected offsite in Sabine Lake to assess whether contamination had 

migrated from onsite source areas. Three background samples were collected to establish a 

comparison value for the release samples. The analytical results showed concentrations of cyanide, 

metals, and SVOCs. Barium, copper, manganese, and mercury were detected at concentrations three 

times the background values and were attributed to source areas at PBLS. Therefore, they were 

identified as released substances (TNRCC, 1998). 

The SSI determined that contaminated soil existed at offsite source areas at PBLS. Barium, copper, 

manganese, and mercury were detected at concentrations three times background levels in the 

sediment samples and could be attributable back to source areas; therefore, it was determined that 

hazardous substances had been released from the PBLS. 

1.3.3.3 Palmer Barge Line Site Expanded Site Investigation (Weston) 

In October 1999, Weston conducted an ESI at the PBLS. The purpose of the ESI was to identify 

immediate or potential threats that hazardous substances, attributable to the site, posed to human 

health and the environment and to identify the receptors, or targets, potentially exposed to the 

hazardous substances. The field activities during the ESI focused on determining the presence and 

nature of onsite contaminated soil and ground water and offsite contaminates in Sabine Lake. The 

information obtained in the ESI was used to evaluate whether the site should have been placed on the 

NPL or given a status of “No Further Remedial Action Planned” (Weston, 2000). 

Soil Samples 

The soil boring locations included the wastewater ASTs, the boiler house ASTs, the open top slop 

tanks, horizontal ASTs, 12 other ASTs, the flare, and background locations. Samples were collected 

from 0 to 2 feet and from 2 to 4 feet in depth. The laboratory results showed numerous VOCs, 

SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals present at concentrations exceeding the CRQLs at all the source 

areas (Weston, 2000). 

005961
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 15 OCTOBER 2006 

Ground Water Samples 

Ground water samples were collected downgradient of the wastewater AST (Tank 102) and the 

12 ASTs. The ground water samples were generally collected at 8 to 20 feet bgs. The analytical 

results showed one VOC (tert-butyl methyl ether), no SVOCs, one pesticide (4,4’-DDD), and 

13 metals detected at three times the background concentrations (Weston, 2000). 

Sediment Samples 

Weston collected 22 sediment samples, including 5 background samples, to document possible 

impact to Sabine Lake sediments adjacent to the PBLS. The samples were analyzed for VOCs, 

SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, metals, and cyanide. The results of the ESI documented that SVOCs, 

pesticides/PCBs, and numerous metals were present at levels exceeding background concentrations. 

The data were used to support the conclusion that a release to the surface water pathway had occurred 

(Weston, 2000). 

The ESI performed at the PBLS confirmed the presence of contaminated soil and contaminated 

ground water at several source areas. The presence of SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals in the 

sediment samples collected in Sabine Lake also confirmed that contaminants migrated from source 

areas to Sabine Lake, potentially affecting human and ecological receptors. 

1.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination 

The nature and extent (N&E) of contamination at the Site has been documented through sampling 

onsite and offsite of various environmental media during the RI (Weston, 2003) and previous field 

efforts. This section provides a summary of the N&E of contamination provided in the RI Report. As 

previously stated in Section 1.3.2, the 2001 RI Report did not compare the analytical results to 

numerical concentration values to assess ecological risks. The 2001 RI analytical results were 

evaluated in terms of ecological risks posed by the site contaminants in the 2005 BERA 

(CH2M HILL, 2005c), which is further discussed in Section 1.5.2. 

1.4.1 Soil 

Municipal landfill debris is present in the shallow subsurface across a large portion of the Site. The 

landfill material, which is usually encountered approximately 2 feet below the surface, typically 

ranges in thickness from 3 to 10 feet. The presence of this material prohibited recovery of subsurface 

soil samples in most instances; therefore, detailed information on the subsurface soil conditions was 

unavailable. Based on observations during monitoring well installation activities, the subsurface soils 

consist of dredge spoils to the depths investigated (40 to 55 feet bgs). These materials consisted 

005962
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 16 OCTOBER 2006 

primarily of saturated, very soft, gray, silty clay. At one location, MW061, saturated, gray, silty sand 

was encountered at a depth of approximately 35 feet bgs. 

The soil analytical results were compared to Commercial/Industrial PCLs for the 30-acre source area 

established in the TRRP. The comparisons were made to both the PCLs for soil considered protective 

of human health (TotSoilComb) and the GWSoil PCLs and/or the Texas-Specific Background 

Concentrations (for arsenic, barium, and lead). 

Background soil samples were collected from three offsite locations. The background samples were 

analyzed for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals and Target Compound List (TCL) SVOCs. 

Background sample analyses can be used to demonstrate that Site contaminants are naturally 

occurring or are present as a result of anthropogenic activities unrelated to Site operations. The 

background soil samples were compared to two benchmarks: the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial 

GWSoil PCLs from a 30-acre source area and the listed Texas-Specific Background Concentrations. 

Based on this comparison, arsenic, barium, lead, and mercury were reported at concentrations 

exceeding TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GWSoil PCLs. After comparing the average 

background concentrations to the listed Texas-Specific Background Concentrations, it was apparent 

that Site background conditions are similar to the Texas-Specific Concentrations for these metals. 

For the TCL SVOCs, no constituents were detected in the background samples above laboratory 

reporting limits with the exception of samples that were flagged or qualified based on unique 

reporting circumstances. 

Based on the evaluation of the background sample results, the Tier 1 PCLs were deemed appropriate 

for use as assessment levels at the Site, rather than the background results. Because the background 

sample concentrations are so similar to the Texas-Specific Background Concentrations, the published 

Texas-Specific Background Concentrations for arsenic, barium, and lead were selected for use as the 

critical PCLs for these constituents. 

Nine surface soil samples, including one field duplicate, were collected and analyzed for TAL metals 

and TCL SVOCs from the former Wastewater Impoundments Area. Based on the comparisons to 

TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial PCLs for soils, the following contaminants with the associated 

maximum reported concentrations were detected at levels exceeding GWSoil PCLs: antimony 

(20.5 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]), arsenic (7.4 mg/kg), barium (534 mg/kg), lead (210 mg/kg), 

and mercury (0.16 mg/kg). No TCL SVOCs were detected at levels exceeding PCLs. 

005963
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 17 OCTOBER 2006 

Eight surface soil samples, including one field duplicate, were collected and analyzed for TAL metals 

and TCL SVOCs from the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Arsenic, lead, mercury, and silver were 

found to exceed TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GWSoil PCLs with maximum reported 

concentrations of 10.4 mg/kg, 150 mg/kg, 0.98 mg/kg, and 1.4 mg/kg, respectively. No TCL SVOCs 

were detected at any sample location in the Wastewater Treatment Facility at levels exceeding PCLs. 

Four surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the Tar 

Burn Area. Lead, mercury, and silver were consistently found to exceed the TRRP Tier 1 

Commercial/Industrial GWSoil PCLs with maximum reported concentrations of 967 mg/kg, 

0.31 mg/kg, and 1.0 mg/kg, respectively. No TCL SVOCs were detected at concentrations exceeding 

risk based levels. 

Six surface soil samples, including two field duplicates, were collected and analyzed for TAL metals 

and TCL SVOCs from the AST area. Arsenic, lead, mercury, and silver were found to exceed TRRP 

Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GWSoil PCLs with maximum concentrations of 7.9 mg/kg, 558 mg/kg, 

0.13 mg/kg, and 0.96 mg/kg, respectively. The TCL SVOC analysis detected two constituents at 

concentrations above Tier 1 PCLs. These constituents and maximum reported concentrations included 

benzo (a) pyrene, (2.7 mg/kg), which exceeded both the TOTSoilComb and GWSoil PCLs, and 

pentachlorophenol (0.28 mg/kg), which exceeded the GWSoil PCL. 

Five surface soil samples, including one field duplicate, were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL 

SVOCs from the Maintenance Shed Area. Antimony, arsenic, lead, mercury, and thallium were 

detected at concentrations exceeding TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GWSoil PCLs. The 

maximum concentrations reported for these metals were 5.8 mg/kg, 19 mg/kg, 290 mg/kg, 

0.11 mg/kg, and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively. No TCL SVOCs were detected at any sample location in the 

Maintenance Shed Area at levels exceeding PCLs. 

Six surface soil samples were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from the Former Lauren 

Tank Farm Area. Arsenic and lead were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding TRRP Tier 

1 Commercial/Industrial GWSoil PCLs in the Former Lauren Tank Farm Area. The highest reported 

concentrations for arsenic and lead were 26.4 mg/kg and 1030 mg/kg, respectively. Antimony, 

cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium were also detected less frequently at 

concentrations exceeding the GWSoil PCLs. For TCL SVOCs, benzo (a) pyrene (5.1 mg/kg) was the 

only constituent to exceed Tier 1 PCLs. 

A majority of the sample locations at the Site came from areas that did not fall within the defined 

source areas. These sample locations were defined as non-source sample locations. A total of 66 

005964
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 18 OCTOBER 2006 

surface soil samples, including 6 field duplicates, were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs 

from the non-source area. The same trend was apparent in the non-source area as in the source areas 

with regard to the pattern of contaminants detected in the soils. 

Arsenic and lead were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 

Commercial / Industrial GWPCLs for soils with maximum reported concentrations of 48.7 mg/kg and 

2040 mg/kg, respectively. Seven additional TAL metals were detected at concentrations exceeding 

GWSoil PCLs but were detected much less frequently than arsenic and lead. These metals with the 

associated maximum reported concentrations included antimony (26.3 mg/kg), barium (744 mg/kg), 

beryllium (1.2 mg/kg), cadmium (16.4 mg/kg), copper (5480 mg/kg), mercury (0.54 mg/kg), silver 

(8.3 mg/kg), and thallium (2.9 mg/kg). 

For TCL SVOCs, three PAH compounds were detected at two locations that exceeded TOTSoilComb

and/or GWSoil PCLs. These PAHs and associated concentrations included benzo (a) anthracene 

(24 mg/kg), benzo (b) fluoranthene (25 mg/kg) and benzo (a) pyrene (19 mg/kg). Carbazole and PCP 

were also detected at 7.5 mg/kg and 0.060 mg/kg, respectively, at one location, which exceeds the 

GWSoil PCL. 

The subsurface investigation during the 2001 RI did not proceed as originally intended due to a large 

portion of the Site having excessive landfill material and debris that prohibited subsurface sample 

recovery with conventional direct-push sampling equipment. According to the 2001 RI/FS Technical 

Work Plan, the entire sampling grid (87 stations) would be sampled for subsurface soils; however, 

due to Site conditions, only 15 locations were attempted. Of the 15 attempted, only 5 were successful 

in obtaining subsurface samples. Three additional locations were sampled using hollow-stem augers 

in which subsurface recovery was obtained. Thus, a total of 8 sample locations out of 18 attempted 

were successful. 

A total of 11 subsurface soil samples, including one field duplicate, were collected and analyzed for 

TAL metals and TCL SVOCs from locations collected across the Site. As with surface soil samples, 

arsenic and lead were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 

Commercial / Industrial GWSoil PCLs with maximum reported concentrations of 12.6 mg/kg and 

558 mg/kg, respectively. Seven additional TAL metals (antimony, beryllium, mercury, thallium, 

barium, cadmium, and silver) were detected at concentrations exceeding the GWSoil PCL values but 

were detected less frequently than arsenic and lead. For TCL SVOCs, only one constituent from the 

11 subsurface locations exceeded Tier 1 PCLs. PCP was detected at a concentration of 0.060 mg/kg. 

The remaining constituents were either not detected or detected at concentrations below Tier 1 PCLs. 

005965
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 19 OCTOBER 2006 

1.4.2 Sediment 

Sediments in the intertidal area typically consisted of brown sand with abundant shell fragments and 

some wood and roots. Due to the adjacent landfill, intertidal sediments also contained a large amount 

of debris such as glass and plastic fragments. 

Offshore and nearshore sediments varied in composition, depending on their proximity to the sunken 

barges along the shoreline. Generally, the area around and between the sunken barges consisted 

predominantly of a fine-grained silty sand with most samples containing occasional shell fragments. 

The sediments outside the sunken barges predominantly consisted of a dark silty to sandy clay with 

frequent shell fragments. It was also noted that the sediments adjacent to the PBLS were typically 

more fine-grained and darker in color. 

The analytical results are discussed below. It should be noted that at some stations TCL metal 

constituents were reported by both Severn Trent Laboratory (STL) and Colombia Analytical. Unless 

otherwise stated, the metals concentrations discussed in the text were reported by STL. The sediment 

analytical results have been compared to Commercial/Industrial PCLs for the 30-acre source area 

established in the TRRP. The tables present comparisons to both the soil PCL for combined ingestion, 

dermal contact, and inhalation of volatiles and particulates TotSoilComb, and to the PCL for soil to 

protect ground water GWSoil PCLs. These PCLs are appropriate for use as assessment levels for 

sediments at the SMS site based on the following criteria: 

• Surface water adjoining the Site is tidally influenced, and intertidal sediments are exposed at 

periods of low tide. Therefore, ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of volatiles and 

particulates are potential exposure routes for these media. 

• Nearshore and offshore sediments are not exposed during periods of low tide; however, these 

sediments are continually in contact with surface water. Use classification of Sabine Lake 

includes recreation, and ingestion is a potential exposure route. Therefore, the PCL for soil to 

protect ground water could be applied as a conservative measure for nearshore and offshore 

sediments as well as for intertidal sediments, which are in contact with surface water during 

periods of high tide. 

Further evaluation of the sediment analytical results are provided in the screening-level risk 

assessments in the RI appendices (Weston, 2003). 

Background sediment samples were collected from five offsite locations adjacent to Sydnes Island, 

which is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the State Marine site. The background sediment 

005966
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 20 OCTOBER 2006 

samples were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs. To evaluate whether it was beneficial to use 

the background results as assessment levels, the samples were compared to two benchmarks: the 

TRRP Tier 1 Commercial / Industrial ground water protection PCLs for soils from a 30-acre source 

area and the listed Texas-Specific Background Concentrations. 

Based on this comparison, mercury had detections slightly exceeding TRRP screening levels but 

significantly less than the listed Texas-Specific Background Concentrations. The average 

concentration was 0.004 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg). Although the average background 

concentration is above Tier 1 PCLs, it is significantly less than the Listed Texas-Specific 

Concentrations for metals and is reflective of values of background metal concentrations for the area. 

The remaining TAL metals were detected but did not exceed Tier 1 PCLs. 

For the TCL SVOCs, no constituents were detected in the background samples above laboratory 

reporting limits with the exception of samples that were flagged or qualified based on unique 

reporting circumstances. 

Based on this evaluation of the background sample results, the Tier 1 PCLs are appropriate for use as 

assessment levels, rather than the background results. Published Texas-Specific Background 

Concentrations for lead and mercury are appropriate for use as the critical PCL for these constituents. 

Nine intertidal sediment samples were collected and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs. Lead 

and mercury were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial / 

Industrial GWSoil PCLs for soils with maximum reported concentrations of 942 and 0.18 mg/kg, 

respectively. It should be noted that the lead concentrate was reported by Colombia Analytical. 

Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and selenium were also detected at concentrations above Tier 1 PCLs; 

however, these metals were detected less frequently. For the TCL SVOCs, Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 

was detected at a concentration exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial / Industrial GWSoil PCLs. 

PCP was detected at two intertidal locations at concentrations of 0.82 mg/kg and 0.160 mg/kg. 

Fifty-eight sediment samples, including eight field duplicates, were collected and analyzed for TAL 

metals and TCL SVOCs from the nearshore locations. Arsenic, lead, and mercury were consistently 

detected at concentrations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GWSoil PCLs for soils 

with maximum reported concentrations of 14.3, 29.9, and 0.075 mg/kg, respectively. Barium, 

beryllium, and cadmium were additional constituents that were infrequently detected at 

concentrations above Tier 1 PCLs. For TCL SVOCs, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine was the only constituent 

to exceed risk-based levels. This constituent was reported at a concentration of 0.075 mg/kg at 

location PB010-51, which exceeds the GWSoil PCL. 

005967
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 21 OCTOBER 2006 

A total of 12 sediment samples including 1 field duplicate was collected and analyzed for TAL metals 

and TCL SVOCs from the offshore locations. Arsenic, lead, and mercury were consistently detected 

at concentrations exceeding the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GWSoil PCLs for soils with 

maximum reported concentrations of 8.9, 15.1, and 0.072 mg/kg, respectively. For the TCL SVOCs, 

no constituents exceeded the comparison values. 

1.4.3 Ground Water/Surface Water 

The shallow ground water appears to be a mix of fresh and brackish water from the lake, making it 

unsuitable for human consumption. In addition, the ground water exists at depths where the landfill 

material exists. Therefore, ground water may be affected by constituents of concern from landfill 

wastes and not suitable for household drinking water use. Based on the high total dissolved solids 

(TDS) concentrations, the proximity of the Site to brackish surface water, and the presence of the 

underlying landfill, there is no current or anticipated future use of ground water as a source of potable 

water at the Site. Based on the available Site data, the ground water resource classification is Class 2. 

Ground water results were compared to both the TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial PCL for ground 

water ingestion (GwGwIng) and the EPA Region 6 Tap Water Media Specific Screening Levels 

(MSSLs). Further evaluation is provided in the risk assessments in the RI appendices (Weston, 

2003). The results from the following subsections are presented in the 2003 RI (Weston 2003). 

1.4.3.1 October 2001 Ground Water Results 

Six monitoring wells were installed at the Site and were sampled for metals, VOCs, and SVOCs. Of 

the six samples submitted for TAL metals analysis, every constituent exceeded TRRP Tier 1 

Commercial / Industrial GwGwIng PCLs for each sample location. In addition, arsenic, barium, lead, 

and manganese exceeded EPA Region 6 MSSLs. 

For VOCs and SVOCs, only PCP exceeded Tier 1 PCLs. The contaminant was detected in monitor 

well MW061B with a concentration of 0.004 micrograms per liter (μg/L). The remaining VOC and 

SVOC constituents were either not detected or were detected at concentrations below risk-based 

levels. Several organic constituents exceeded EPA Region 6 MSSLs for tap water, including the 

following: pentachlorophenol, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 

1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 

1,4-dichlorobenzene, and benzene. These constituents were reported at relatively low concentrations. 

005968
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 22 OCTOBER 2006 

1.4.3.2 June 2002 Investigation Results 

Weston conducted an additional investigation in June 2002. The investigation included collecting 

ground water samples from the six existing monitoring wells and collecting surface water from 

Sabine Lake. The primary objective for sampling the existing monitoring wells was to provide 

additional ground water data for the SMS site and to compare these data to the October 2001 ground 

water data. 

The primary objective for sampling the surface water adjacent to Site was to evaluate whether 

constituents were migrating through the ground water to Sabine Lake. The focus for sampling surface 

water was to detect TAL metals, particularly those that were detected in onsite ground water in excess 

of ecological-based surface water screening benchmarks. 

Surface water samples were analyzed for both total and dissolved metals. The analytical results were 

compared to the following two regulatory values: TRRP Tier 1 Commercial / Industrial GWGWIng and 

EPA Region 6 Tap Water MSSLs. Based on the results, lead (0.09 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) was 

the only constituent that exceeded regulatory values for total metals. No samples exceeded regulatory 

values for dissolved metals. 

Ground water samples were analyzed for total and dissolved metals. The analytical results were 

compared to the following regulatory values: TRRP Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial GWGWIng and EPA 

Region 6 Tap Water MSSLs. Based on the results, arsenic, and manganese were consistently detected 

above regulatory values. 

1.5 Summary of Risk Assessments 

The following sections summarize the results of the BHHRA and BERA completed in 2005. 

1.5.1 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 

The 2005 BHHRA evaluated potential risk to potential receptors including current and future onsite 

workers and trespassers and current and future offsite adults consuming fish caught from Sabine 

Lake. All estimated risks for soil exposure areas were within acceptable levels and no constituents of 

concern (COCs) were identified for the receptors in these exposure areas. Ground water data were not 

used in the BHHRA due to the lack of ground water receptors (ground water is not used as a potable 

source and no ground water seeps were observed at the site). Surface water data were not used in the 

BHHRA. Although one surface water sample was available, the methodology used for its collection 

reflected ground water quality rather than surface water. For sediment, copper, zinc, and Arochlor 

005969
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 23 OCTOBER 2006 

1242 were identified as potentially posing unacceptable risk based on protection of fish ingestion 

exposures. 

However, the modeled fish tissue concentrations used in the BHHRA were much higher than the 

measured fish tissue concentrations from Sabine Lake as reported by the TDH (which were within 

acceptable levels). Therefore, modeled fish ingestion exposures are overly conservative and 

sediments do not warrant risk management on the basis of potential human health risk from fish 

ingestion (CH2M HILL, 2005b). 

1.5.2 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment 

Based on data available at the time, the 2005 BERA identified potential risks for the benthic 

invertebrate community that may be living in the intertidal area along the banks of the site, the 

nearshore area, and the offshore area. PRGs were developed for nine COCs in sediment. A study of 

the bioavailability of the metals in sediments at the site indicated that the metals in the intertidal area 

are available and could be toxic in these areas. Data gaps were identified for the ecological risks 

identified in sediment. Risks identified in sediments do not take into account site specific information 

including toxicity studies, community analysis of the existing benthic community in the intertidal 

area, or evaluation of the available habitat onsite. Site specific information could suggest that the 

identified risks are over estimated or do not exist. An additional consideration identified in the BERA 

was that due to the transient nature of sediments and the highly active surroundings, data that are four 

years old or older may not be reflective of current conditions (CH2M HILL, 2005c). 

The sources of contamination in sediment were not identified with certainty. Several potential sources 

exist including the former landfill below the site, ground water, overland flow and erosion of surface 

soils, sunken barges in the nearshore area, and other facilities located adjacent to Sabine Lake. 

Analysis of shallow ground water from wells closest to Sabine Lake indicated that concentrations 

could exceed screening values developed to be protective of the ground water to sediment exposure 

pathway. The screening values for metals are lower than most common laboratory limits and may not 

be appropriate for the site. Furthermore, the shallow monitor wells containing the highest detections 

of contaminants in ground water concentrations were not located near sediment locations with 

elevated concentrations, suggesting a low influence of ground water on site sediments. The 

concentrations of COCs in soil were elevated in some locations and therefore, stormwater runoff from 

the site could be a source of contamination (CH2M HILL, 2005c). A supplemental BERA, 

presented in Appendix E-2 and summarized in Section 4.2, was performed in 2006 based on the 

supplemental RI results to assess these issues. 

005970
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 24 OCTOBER 2006 

1.6 Overview of Supplemental Remedial Investigation Tasks 

The Supplemental RI was performed to address the additional data needs identified in the BERA. The 

field activities were implemented to further evaluate the ground water to sediment contaminant 

migration pathway, update the sediment COC concentration data for the Site, and evaluate the 

toxicity of sediments to the benthic organism community in Sabine Lake near the Site. In addition, 

the former wastewater impoundments were investigated to determine if this area of the Site is a 

source of contamination to ground water. 

EPA performed the Supplemental RI field investigation tasks during late May and early June 2006. 

The field tasks included the installation of two additional shallow monitor wells downgradient from 

the former wastewater impoundments, completion and sampling of five soil borings in the area of the 

former wastewater impoundments, collection of nine composite sediment samples in Sabine Lake 

offshore from the site, and collection of sediment samples to perform toxicity testing on benthic 

organisms. 

Detailed plans for the implementation of the Supplemental RI tasks are described in the Field 

Sampling Plan (FSP), Version 1.1 (CH2M HILL, 2006a), Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), 

Version 1.1 (CH2M HILL, 2006b), and Site Management Plan (SMP), Version 1.0 (CH2M HILL, 

2006c). The data quality objectives (DQOs) are provided in the QAPP. 

1.7 Report Organization 

Section 2 of this report provides a description of the field activities completed in accordance with the 

site plans. This section includes a description of field procedures followed for the collection of soil, 

ground water, and sediment data and management of Investigation-Derived Wastes (IDW). Section 3

discusses the analytical results and the nature and extent of contamination based on the results 

obtained from the Supplemental RI. Section 4 summarizes the results of the updated BHHRA and 

BERA based on the results obtained during the Supplement RI. Summary and conclusions of the 

Supplemental RI are provided in Section 5, and a list of the references cited in this report is provided 

in Section 6. 

005971
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 25 OCTOBER 2006 

2.0 Data Collection Activities 

This section describes the objectives and procedures for the Supplemental RI field activities. This 

section includes a discussion of the DQOs and descriptions of the field work performed. 

2.1 Data Quality Objectives 

The objectives of the Supplemental RI/FS include the following: 

• Collect and analyze sediment samples to determine if contaminants in Sabine Lake sediments 

pose an unacceptable risk to benthic organisms. 

• Collect and analyze subsurface soil samples from the wastewater impoundment area to determine 

if contaminants in the impoundment soil could serve as a potential source of contamination to 

ground water and eventually to benthic organisms in the sediments of Sabine Lake. 

• Collect and analyze subsurface soil samples from the wastewater impoundment area to determine 

if contaminants in the impoundment soil pose an unacceptable risk to future onsite construction 

workers. 

• Install and develop monitoring wells at two of the soil boring locations in the wastewater 

impoundment area for associated ground water sampling. 

• Collect and analyze ground water samples to determine if site ground water is a current or 

potentially future source of contamination to benthic organisms in Sabine Lake. 

• Store, analyze, and properly dispose of any IDW that is produced during field activities in support 

of the Supplemental RI/FS. 

These project objectives have been used to develop specific DQOs, which are qualitative and 

quantitative statements that describe the type and quality of data needed to determine the current state 

of the contaminant distribution and to effectively assess the risk to ecological and human health. 

The DQO process used for this project follows the EPA QA/G4 guidance (EPA, 2000) and uses the 

seven-step DQO development process. The DQOs provide a basis for the investigation activities to be 

performed, and they ensure that data collected during the investigation will be of sufficient and 

adequate quality for their intended use. A detailed summary of the DQOs and the associated 

investigation activities established for the Supplemental RI/FS are presented in Table 2-1. 

005972
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 26 OCTOBER 2006 

The first step in the DQO process is to identify the problem. Semivolatile organics and metals 

contamination at the Site may potentially pose a risk to ecological and human health. The extent of 

the contamination must be determined to assess the risk and to develop and implement remediation 

strategies for the Site. Each specific problem is discussed, by individual matrix, in Table 2-1. 

The next step in the DQO process is to identify the decisions to be made. The overall goal of the 

Supplemental RI is to fill data gaps from the previous RI/FS in order to assess potential risk to 

ecological and human health and to support the development of a Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

Site. Each specific decision to be made is discussed, by individual matrix, in Table 2-1. 

The third step is to identify inputs to the decisions to be made. Historical information and data 

obtained from the previous investigations provided a significant amount of data regarding the Site. 

This data will be used in addition to the analytical data obtained from this investigation to complete 

the risk assessments and support the development of the ROD. Table 2-1 provides more detailed 

information regarding the various inputs to the decisions. 

The fourth step is to identify the boundaries of the study area. The Site is described in Section 1.1.2. 

Sampling took place within the boundaries of the Site, and all analytical data were obtained utilizing 

EPA-approved methodology. Sampling included the collection of sediment from Sabine Lake, ground 

water from monitor wells in the wastewater impoundment area, and subsurface soil from the 

wastewater impoundment area. Sampling occurred in late May and early June of 2006. More detailed 

information regarding the scope of field activities, the analyses performed, and the levels of data 

deliverables required from the laboratory are presented in Table 2-1. 

To achieve the goals of the project, several decision rules were developed as the fifth step of the DQO 

process. More detailed information regarding each of the decision rules associated with the decisions 

developed in Step 2 of the DQO process are presented in Table 2-1. 

The sixth step of the DQO process is to specify the limits of decision errors. The analytical results 

obtained in the investigation were reviewed to support the completion of the risk assessments and the 

development of the ROD. The analytical data obtained must be of sufficient completeness and quality 

to achieve the project DQOs. Random and/or systematic errors may be introduced during sample 

collection, sample handling and storage, sample analysis, data reduction, and data reporting. The 

quality control (QC) measures specified in the QAPP and the FSP were followed to aid in the 

establishment of analytical quality and to minimize these errors. Appropriate EPA-approved 

analytical methods were used to ensure sufficient analytical sensitivity. Finally, the Project Chemist 

validated the analytical data in accordance with the EPA’s National Functional Guidelines

005973
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 27 OCTOBER 2006 

(EPA, 1994a, EPA, 1994b, and EPA, 1994c) to determine if the data met project DQOs (see 

Section 2.6 and Appendix A). 

The final step of the DQO process is to optimize the design of the investigation. The primary goal of 

this investigation is support the completion of ecological and human health risk assessments and the 

development of a ROD for the site. Historical data was reviewed during the project planning process 

to assess the data gaps that exist, and the investigation was designed to collect just enough data to 

support project objectives, avoiding any unnecessary sample collection. 

2.2 Monitor Well Installation and Soil Boring Activities 

This section describes the activities associated with the installation of the new monitor wells and 

completion of the soil borings. 

2.2.1 Monitor Well Installation 

A preliminary Site visit was conducted on May 11, 2006. During this Site visit, the locations for the 

monitor well installations were determined. The current Site property owner was present during the 

Site visit. The property owner assisted with locating the approximate limits of the former wastewater 

impoundments to ensure that the monitor wells were located downgradient from them. 

Monitor well installation commenced on May 22, 2006. Two monitor wells (MW-136 and MW-137) 

were installed east of and downgradient from the former wastewater impoundments. The locations, 

along with the locations of the six existing site monitor wells, are shown in Figure 2-1. Each monitor 

well was completed within the shallow ground water to a depth of about 20 feet bgs. 

Each monitor well was drilled using the hollow-stem auger drilling method to the final completion 

depth. During drilling, soil samples were collected at five-foot intervals using split-core barrel 

samplers. Due to the wet, loose nature of the dredge spoils soil material, low to no recovery of soil 

material occurred below 5 to 8 feet bgs. Several attempts were made to increase recovery using 

direct-push technology (DPT) methods, 2-foot long split spoons, and soil catchers within the core 

barrels. Soil recovery was not increased using the different methods. After installation of monitor 

well MW137, a second borehole was drilled using DPT next to the well to attempt to recover 

sufficient soil material for lithologic logging and the collection of samples for analytical testing. 

Where recovered, the soil samples were visually examined by the onsite geologist to characterize the 

lithology of the borehole. The soil material was screened prior to logging for organic vapors using a 

photoionization detector (PID). The lithologic data from each borehole was documented on Soil 

Boring Logs provided in Appendix B. 

005974
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 28 OCTOBER 2006 

The drilling equipment (auger flights, core barrel samplers, and split spoons) were decontaminated 

between boreholes and prior to use at each drilling location in accordance with the procedures 

specified in the FSP (CH2M HILL, 2006a). Decontamination fluids were contained in 55 gallon 

drums. The soil cuttings were also contained in 55 gallon drums. The drums were labeled and 

transferred to the designated IDW storage area onsite. Management of IDW is further discussed in 

Section 2.5. 

Where sufficient soil material had been recovered, soil samples were collected for analysis of TAL 

total metals and TCL SVOCs. The FSP stated that at each location, a soil sample would be collected 

from above the landfill waste, within the landfill waste, and immediately below the landfill waste. 

Other than glass fragments and some pieces of broken bricks, no landfill wastes were encountered 

during drilling at either monitor well location. One soil sample was collected from MW-136 and two 

soil samples were collected from MW-137. Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, 

including location, depth, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. The sample collection 

was in accordance with the procedures described in the FSP and QAPP (CH2M HILL, 2006a, and 

CH2M HILL, 2006b). Each sample was submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory 

Kemron Environmental Services for analysis. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody 

forms as well as the laboratory reports containing the analytical results. The analytical results are 

discussed in Section 3.3.3. 

After completion of each borehole, the monitor wells were constructed. Each monitor well was 

constructed of 2-inch diameter schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing. The well screen 

consisted of 2-inch diameter schedule 40 PVC screen with a 0.010-in slot size. The screen lengths for 

both wells were 10-feet. A silica sand pack, consisting of 20/40 silica sand, was placed in each 

borehole annulus from the bottom of the borehole to a depth of approximately 2 feet above the top of 

the well screen. A hydrated bentonite seal was then placed on top of the sand pack to a depth of 

1 foot bgs. The remaining annulus was backfilled with cement during well pad construction. The 

finished wells, which extend to a height of approximately 3 feet above the ground surface, are 

completed at the surface with a protective casing and locking cap assembly. Each well has a 3-foot by 

3-foot concrete pad and is further protected by the installation of protective posts set around the well 

pad in concrete footings. 

A summary of the well construction details is provided in Table 2-3. The well construction details for 

the existing Site monitor wells are also provided in the Table 2-3. Each monitor well was surveyed to 

the nearest 0.01 foot to provide horizontal and vertical control after construction by a Registered 

Public Land Surveyor in the State of Texas. The survey information is also provided in Table 2-3. 

005975
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 29 OCTOBER 2006 

The monitor wells were constructed in accordance with the procedures described in the FSP 

(CH2M HILL, 2006a). The construction details for each monitor well are provided on Well 

Completion Diagrams contained in Appendix B. 

Each newly installed monitor well was developed after installation in accordance with the procedures 

contained in the FSP (CH2M HILL, 2006a). Each well was developed using surging combined with 

overpumping to remove sediment from the well and sand pack. During pumping, general water 

quality parameters, including pH, turbidity, conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and 

oxidation/reduction potential (ORP) were recorded on Well Development Logs. Drawdown was also 

measured during pumping. During initial pumping, water levels in both wells decreased to the top of 

the well screen prior to stabilization of water quality parameters. Each well was allowed to recover 

24 hours and pumping continued on the following day until water quality parameters had stabilized 

and a minimum of 5 well volumes were removed. Copies of the Well Development Logs are 

contained in Appendix D. All development water was contained in 55 gallon drums. The drums were 

labeled and transferred to the designated IDW storage area onsite. Management of IDW is further 

discussed in Section 2.5. 

2.2.2 Soil Boring Activities 

A preliminary Site visit was conducted on May 11, 2006. During this Site visit, the locations for the 

soil borings were determined. The current Site property owner was present during the Site visit. The 

property owner assisted with locating the approximate limits of the former wastewater impoundments 

to ensure that the soil borings were located within the limits of the former wastewater impoundments. 

Soil boring completion activities began on May 23, 2006. Five soil borings were completed within 

the identified boundary of the former wastewater impoundments. The locations of the soil borings are 

shown in Figure 2-1. Each soil boring was completed to a depth that was below the limits of the 

former landfill as determined by the onsite geologist. The soil borings were completed to depths of 

between 6 feet and 22 feet bgs. 

Each soil boring was drilled using the DPT method to the final completion depth. During drilling, soil 

samples were collected at 2-foot intervals using a 2-foot long split spoon sampler. Due to the wet, 

loose nature of the dredge spoils soil material and the presence of landfill debris, low to no recovery 

of soil material occurred at various intervals during the drilling. Where recovered, the soil samples 

were visually examined by the onsite geologist to characterize the lithology of the borehole. The soil 

material was screened prior to logging for organic vapors using a PID. The lithologic data from each 

borehole was documented on Soil Boring Logs provided in Appendix B. At boring SM-142, refusal 

005976
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 30 OCTOBER 2006 

was encountered within the landfill debris at 6 feet bgs. Attempts were made to move over distances 

of between 3 and 25 feet and redrill the borehole at 5 additional locations, with the same result. This 

borehole was not completed to a depth below the landfill. 

The drilling equipment (core barrel samplers and split spoons) was decontaminated between 

boreholes and prior to use at each drilling location in accordance with the procedures specified in the 

FSP (CH2M HILL, 2006a). Decontamination fluids were contained in 55 gallon drums. The soil 

cuttings were also contained in 55 gallon drums. The drums were labeled and transferred to the 

designated IDW storage area onsite. Management of IDW is further discussed in Section 2.5. 

During drilling, up to 3 soil samples were collected at each boring location for analysis of TAL total 

metals and TCL SVOCs. The FSP stated that at each location, a soil sample would be collected from 

above the landfill waste, within the landfill waste, and immediately below the landfill waste. The 

sample collection was in accordance with the procedures described in the FSP and QAPP 

(CH2M HILL, 2006a, and CH2M HILL, 2006b). Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, 

including location, depth, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. Including the monitor 

well borings, a total of 17 soil samples and 3 field duplicate samples were collected. Each sample was 

submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory Kemron Environmental Services for 

analysis. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as the laboratory reports 

containing the analytical results. The analytical results are discussed in Section 3.3.1. 

Each borehole was abandoned after completion. The boreholes were abandoned by backfilling the 

borehole with hydrated bentonite from total depth to ground surface. A summary of the soil boring 

completion details is provided in Table 2-3. Each soil boring was surveyed to the nearest 0.01-foot to 

provide horizontal and vertical control after construction using a Global Positioning System (GPS) 

unit. The survey information is also provided in Table 2-3. 

2.3 Water Level Measurement and Ground Water Sampling 

Activities 

Water level measurement and ground water sampling activities occurred on May 31, 2006. Water levels 

and total well depths were measured at the two new and six existing monitor wells to the nearest 

0.01-foot using a standard water level meter. The water level measurements are provided in Table 2-4. 

After water level measurement, monitor wells MW-116B, MW-136, and MW-137 were sampled 

using a peristaltic pump. Each well was sampled using dedicated tubing. The FSP stipulated that the 

low-flow purge method would be used to purge and sample each monitor well. Due to low yield, 

005977
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 31 OCTOBER 2006 

which resulted in an inability to maintain a drawdown during purging of less than 0.3-foot, wells 

MW-136 and MW-137 could not be sampled using the low-flow purge method. At both monitor 

wells, three well volumes were removed from the wells during purging and prior to sample collection. 

At the completion of purging at these two wells, the wells were almost dry. The pump was turned off 

and each well allowed to recover to 80 percent of the original static water level prior to ground water 

sample collection. 

During purging at each well, water quality parameters were monitored and recorded on a Well Purge 

and Sampling Field Data Sheet. At monitor well MW-116B, a ground water sample was collected 

after one well volume had been removed and the water quality parameters had stabilized. The water 

quality parameters that were recorded included pH, temperature, DO, turbidity, ORP, and 

conductivity. Copies of the Well Purge and Sampling Field Data Sheets are provided in Appendix D. 

After purging was completed at each well, a ground water sample was collected for analysis of total 

TAL metals, dissolved TAL metals, TCL SVOCs, and PAHs using the single ion monitoring (SIM) 

method to achieve detection limits that were lower than the ground water to surface water PCLs. 

Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, including location, depth, date sampled, sample 

type, and analytical method. The dissolved TAL metals samples were collected using a 0.45 micron 

filter. A total of 3 ground water samples and 1 field duplicate sample were collected. Each sample 

was submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory CH2M HILL Applied Sciences 

Laboratory for analysis. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as the 

laboratory reports containing the analytical results. The analytical results are discussed in Section 

3.3.2. The water level data are discussed in Section 3.2. 

The purge water was contained in 55 gallon drums along with the well development and drilling 

decontamination fluids. The drums were labeled and transferred to the designated IDW storage area 

onsite. Management of IDW is further discussed in Section 2.5. 

2.4 Sediment Sampling Activities 

Sediment sampling activities began on June 8, 2006 and were completed on June 9, 2006. Nine 

sediment samples were collected during the sediment sampling activity. Eight sediment samples were 

collected from areas where PRGs were exceeded in the intertidal, nearshore, and offshore areas at the 

Site. One sediment sample was collected from a nearby reference location in Sabine Lake. The 

locations of the sediment samples are shown in Figure 2-1. Each sample was collected in water 

depths ranging between 2 and 15 feet. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) assisted with the 

collection of the sediment samples. 

005978
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 32 OCTOBER 2006 

Each sediment sample was collected from a boat using a ponar dredge sampler. At each sampling 

area, a composite sample was collected from between 1 and 5 different locations within the sampling 

area. Each sediment sampling location was surveyed to the nearest 0.01-foot to provide horizontal 

and vertical control after construction using a GPS unit. The survey information is provided in 

Table 2-3. Each individual composite sample location point is shown on Figure 2-1. Due to the 

limited amount of sediment present in many of the areas, from 3 to over 30 individual grab samples of 

the sediment material were required to obtain enough sediment volume for sample analysis. 

During the sediment sampling, descriptive information from each location including depth of surface 

water, sediment color, general sediment moisture content, sediment grain size, sediment recovery, 

number of sample locations, number of grab samples collected for each composite, and water quality 

parameters were recorded on a Sediment Investigation Sampling Form. The water quality parameters 

that were recorded included pH, temperature, DO, turbidity, ORP, conductivity, salinity, and TDS. 

Copies of the Sediment Investigation Sampling Forms are provided in Appendix D. 

Each sediment sample was collected for analysis of TAL metals, TCL SVOCs, PAHs using the SIM 

method to achieve detection limits, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), grain size, benthic invertebrate 

taxonomic identification, and bioassay. Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, including 

location, surface water depth, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. A total of 9 sediment 

samples and 1 field duplicate sample were collected. The samples collected for TAL metals, TCL 

SVOCs, PAHs, TOC, and grain size were submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory 

Kemron Environmental Services for analysis. The samples collected for benthic invertebrate 

taxonomic identification were submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory Dennington 

and Associates for analysis. The samples collected for bioassay were submitted under Chain-ofCustody to the offsite laboratory PBS&J Environmental Toxicology Laboratory for analysis. Based 

on the sediment analytical results (discussed in Section 3.3.3), it was determined that the sediment 

bioassays were not required. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as 

the laboratory reports containing the analytical results. The analytical results are discussed in Section 

3.3.3. 

2.5 Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes 

The field investigation activities resulted in the generation of soil, used personal protective equipment 

(PPE), and liquid IDW. This IDW was managed in accordance with the FSP and SMP 

(CH2M HILL, 2006a, and CH2M HILL, 2006c), as described in the following paragraphs. 

005979
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 33 OCTOBER 2006 

During the Supplemental RI drilling activities, 2 drums of liquid IDW and 9 drums of soil and PPE 

IDW were generated. In addition, drums remaining from the 2001 RI were also present at the Site. At 

the request of the EPA Remedial Project Manager, these wastes were consolidated onsite with the 

Supplemental RI wastes and characterized for disposal. The characterization results were received in 

late September. Disposal of the waste is expected to occur in early October. . 

Liquid IDW included decontamination fluids, well development water, and purge water. A composite 

sample was collected from the Supplemental RI wastes to characterize the wastes and determine if the 

IDW qualified as a hazardous waste. Samples were collected of the liquid IDW for the analysis of 

VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides, Herbicides, Metals, and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons – Gasoline Range 

Organics and Diesel Range Organics (TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO). Table 2-2 lists the details regarding 

each sample, including location, date sampled, sample type, and analytical method. Each sample was 

submitted under Chain-of-Custody to the offsite laboratory Kemron Environmental Services for 

analysis. Appendix C includes copies of the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as the laboratory reports 

containing the analytical results. The liquid IDW will be disposed once the 2001 RI wastes have been 

consolidated onsite with the Supplemental RI wastes. 

The soil IDW included drill cuttings from the soil borings. A composite sample was collected from 

the Supplemental RI wastes to characterize the wastes and determine if the IDW qualified as a 

hazardous waste using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). Samples were 

collected of the soil IDW for the analysis of VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides, Herbicides, Metals, 

TPH-GRO, and TPH-DRO. Table 2-2 lists the details regarding each sample, including location, date 

sampled, sample type, and analytical method. Each sample was submitted under Chain-of-Custody to 

the offsite laboratory Kemron Environmental Services for analysis. Appendix C includes copies of 

the Chain-of-Custody forms as well as the laboratory reports containing the analytical results. The 

soil IDW will be disposed once the 2001 RI wastes have been consolidated onsite with the 

Supplemental RI wastes. 

2.6 Data Validation Activities 

Upon collection of the field data and receipt of the analytical results from each laboratory, the data 

were validated to assess the effect of the overall field sample collection and laboratory analytical 

process on the usability of the data. The data were also validated to ensure that they were sufficient to 

meet the project DQOs. All data were validated based on the criteria set forth in EPA’s National 

Functional Guidelines (EPA, 1994a, EPA, 1994b, and EPA, 1994c). A technical memorandum 

detailing the data validation and data quality evaluation process and results is provided in Appendix A. 

005980
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 34 OCTOBER 2006 

The following bullets provide a summary and the conclusions of the data validation and data quality 

evaluation process: 

• Overall, the quality of the analytical data was found to be within the QC limits established by 

the project DQOs, the analytical methods, and the guidelines presented in USEPA’s National 

Functional Guidelines. 

• Six non-detect results were rejected due to extremely poor matrix spike/matrix spike 

duplicate (MS/MSD) recovery – 1 selenium result and 2 SVOC results in sample 

SM140SB03052306, and 3 SVOC results in sample C-SD-03. Other MS/MSD data and 

laboratory control sample (LCS) data suggested that these poor MS/MSD recoveries were 

isolated occurrences. 

• The project completeness goal was achieved for the overall data set and for each individual 

analytical method and sample matrix as well. 

• Aside from the six rejected data points discussed above the other QC issues encountered were 

relatively minor and included the following: 

− Minor blank contamination with metals. 

− Low recovery in one continuing calibration verification (CCV) for TPH. 

− One extraction holding time exceedence for a single pyridine result in an IDW sample. 

− Minor serial dilution exceedence for chromium, cobalt, manganese, sodium, and lead. 

− Field duplicate imprecision in soil samples due to soil heterogeneity and isolated imprecision 

in water samples. 

− Minor recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) outside criteria in soil MS/MSDs. 

2.7 Risk Assessment Activities 

The results obtained during the Supplemental RI were used to update the BHHRA and BERA for the 

Site. Both risk assessments were updated to assess, based on the additional data, whether Site-related 

contaminants pose a potential current or future risk to human health or the environment in the absence 

of remedial action. This assessment provides a basis for determining whether remedial action is 

necessary at the Site, identify which exposure pathways might warrant remediation, and provide 

justification for performance of remedial actions. The results of the updated BHHRA and BERA are 

summarized in Section 5. The complete, updated BHHRA and BERA Technical Memoranda are 

provided in Appendices E-1 and E-2, respectively.

005981
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 35 OCTOBER 2006 

3.0 Supplemental RI Results 

Provided in this section is a discussion of the results of the Supplemental RI field investigation. The 

geological conditions, ground water flow, soil analytical results, ground water analytical results, and 

sediment analytical results are discussed in the following sections. 

3.1 Geologic Conditions 

As discussed in Section 1.2.4, the geology at the Site, as determined during the RI, consists of a 

surface clay layer, landfill debris, and dredge spoils. The surface clay layer is a cap placed over the 

landfill material when the landfill was closed in 1974. The dredge spoils are material dredged from 

the Sabine-Neches Canal during construction and maintenance activities and consists of fine sand, 

silt, and clay (Weston, 2003). 

The geologic conditions encountered during the Supplemental RI were consistent with those 

documented during the RI (the boring logs are contained in Appendix B). The surface layer was fill 

material consisting mostly of clay. The fill material contains varying percentages of gravel, sand, silt, 

and clay. Broken pieces of glass and brick were often present in the surface fill layer. The fill layer 

was encountered from ground surface to depths of 2 to 3.5 feet bgs. The landfill material consists of 

gravel, sand, silt, and clay fill containing debris, trash, and glass. The thickness of the landfill material 

varies in the area of the wastewater impoundments from 4.5 ft to 19 feet. The landfill material is 

present at depths between 2 feet bgs and 21.5 feet bgs. The landfill material was thickest at borings 

SM138 and SM140 (see Figure 2-1 for the boring locations). Although glass and brick fragments 

were encountered during the drilling of the monitor wells (MW-136 and MW-137 – see Figure 2-1), 

no landfill waste was encountered at these two locations. Below the landfill waste, dredge spoils were 

encountered at the soil boring locations. The dredge spoils were encountered below the surface clay 

fill layer at the monitor well locations. The dredge spoils are composed of varying percentages of fine 

sand, silt, and clay. Saturated conditions were generally encountered within either the landfill material 

or dredge spoils at depths between 4 feet and 8 feet bgs. 

3.2 Water Levels 

Water levels were collected from the two new and five of the six existing site monitor wells on May 

31, 2006. The water level measurements are provided in Table 2-4. The water level meter did not 

record a water level in monitor well MW068B. The meter was determined to be functioning properly. 

005982
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 36 OCTOBER 2006 

During water level collection, the meter provided false water level indications. It is suspected that the 

probe was sticking to the side of the well casing, and water along the well casing was causing the 

water level meter to provide inaccurate water level measurements at this well. This monitor well is 

screened within the deeper ground water zone at the Site. 

The water levels collected for the shallow, perched ground water at the site were used to prepare a 

potentiometric surface contour map, which is provided in Figure 3-1. As shown on Figure 3-1, 

ground water in the shallow perched ground water zone at the Site is toward Sabine Lake. The ground 

water flow direction is toward the southeast in the shallow perched zone in the southern portion of the 

Site, and toward the south-southeast in the northeast portion of the Site. Horizontal ground water flow 

gradients for the shallow perched ground water zone were calculated between monitor well pairs 

MW068B/MW061B and MW136/MW116B. The horizontal flow gradient in the shallow perched 

ground water between monitor wells MW068B and MW061B is 0.02 ft/ft. The horizontal flow 

gradient between monitor wells MW136 and MW116B is 0.005 ft/ft. The horizontal ground water 

flow gradient is steeper across the southern portion of the Site, as compared with the northeast portion 

of the Site. The potentiometric contour lines on Figure 3-1 show the difference in the horizontal flow 

gradient within the shallow perched ground water zone. The contours are much closer together 

between monitor well MW068B and MW061A, indicating a steeper horizontal flow gradient between 

these two wells. 

3.3 Analytical Results 

This section discusses the analytical results obtained from the soil, ground water, and sediment 

sampling activities performed during the Supplemental RI. Copies of the laboratory reports 

containing the analytical results are included in Appendix C. 

3.3.1 Soil Analytical Results 

Soil samples were collected from seven soil borings between May 22 and May 24, 2006. Five borings 

were completed in the area of the former wastewater impoundments (SB138 through SB142) and two 

borings were completed east of the wastewater impoundments (SB136/MW136 and SB137/MW137). 

The samples collected from these borings were analyzed for TAL total metals and TCL SVOCs. 

The analytical results for metals detected in soil samples are summarized in Table 3-1. The analytical 

results for SVOCs detected in soil samples are summarized in Table 3-2. 

005983
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 37 OCTOBER 2006 

Further evaluation of the soil analytical results in terms of human health and ecological risks are 

provided in Appendix E. The following sections provide a discussion of the results obtained from the 

soil samples. 

3.3.1.1 Metals Results in Soils 

The following metals were detected in the Supplemental RI soil samples: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, 

barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, total chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, 

mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc (see Table 3-1). 

Aluminum was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Aluminum concentrations ranged from 

5,680 mg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 20,000 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs). 

Antimony was detected at 10 soil sample locations. Antimony was not detected at soil sample 

locations SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs), SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs, and 20 to 22 ft bgs), SM139 (0 to 2 ft bgs, 

and 6 to 8 ft bgs), SM140 (21.5 to 22 ft bgs), and SM141 (6.5 to 8 ft bgs). Where detected, the 

antimony concentrations ranged from 0.504 J mg/kg (see Table 3-1 for a definition of the data 

qualifiers) at SM141 (0 to 2 ft bgs) up to 11.7 J mg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Arsenic was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 2.64 mg/kg 

at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 14.3 mg/kg at SM139 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Barium was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Barium concentrations ranged from 43.3 mg/kg 

at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs) up to 540 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs). 

Beryllium was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Beryllium concentrations ranged from 0.138 J 

mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs) up to 1.08 mg/kg at SM139 (6 to 8 ft bgs). 

Calcium was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Calcium concentrations ranged from 

3,630 mg/kg at SM141 (in the field duplicate sample collected from 6.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 

79,000 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs). 

Cadmium was detected at 13 soil sample locations. Cadmium was not detected at soil sample 

locations SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs), SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs), SM139 (6 to 8 ft bgs), and SM141 (6.5 to 8 

ft bgs). Where detected, the cadmium concentrations ranged from 0.118 mg/kg at SM138 (0 to 2 ft 

bgs) up to 7.77 mg/kg at SM13 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Chromium was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Chromium concentrations ranged from 9.3 

mg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 81.1 mg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

005984
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 38 OCTOBER 2006 

Cobalt was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Cobalt concentrations ranged from 2.61 mg/kg at 

SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 16.6 mg/kg at SM139 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Copper was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Copper concentrations ranged from 4.23 mg/kg at 

SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs) up to 547 mg/kg at SM139 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Iron was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Iron concentrations ranged from 12,600 mg/kg at 

SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs) up to 329,000 mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs). 

Potassium was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Potassium concentrations ranged from 612 

mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs) up to 3,110 at SM139 (6 to 8 ft bgs). 

Mercury was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Mercury concentrations ranged from 0.207 J 

mg/kg at SM141 (5 to 6 ft bgs) up to 1.04 mg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Magnesium was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Magnesium concentrations ranged from 953 

mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs) up to 8,150 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs). 

Manganese was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Manganese concentrations ranged from 94.9 

mg/kg at SM139 (6 to 8 ft bgs) up to 1,350 mg/kg at SM137 (7 to 8 ft bgs). 

Sodium was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Sodium concentrations ranged from 132 mg/kg 

at SM138 (0 to 2 ft bgs) up to 1,860 mg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs). 

Nickel was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Nickel concentrations ranged from 3.02 mg/kg at 

SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 43.8 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs). 

Lead was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Lead concentrations ranged from 9.68 J mg/kg at 

SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs) up to 951 mg/kg at SM141 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Selenium was detected at only two soil sample locations. Selenium was detected at a concentration of 

1.99 mg/kg at SM137 (2 to 4 ft bgs) and 4.68 J mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs). 

Silver was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Silver concentrations ranged from 0.328 J mg/kg at 

SM141 (in the field duplicate sample collected at 6.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 13.9 mg/kg at SM141 (5 to 

6 ft bgs). 

Vanadium was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Vanadium concentrations ranged from 10.9 

mg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) up to 35.6 mg/kg at SM141 (6.5 to 8 ft bgs). 

Zinc was detected at all 17 soil sample locations. Zinc concentrations ranged from 37.8 J mg/kg at 

SM138 (20 to 22 ft bgs) up to 4,140 mg/kg at SM136 (0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs). 

005985
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 39 OCTOBER 2006 

The metals results in soil samples are presented on Figure 3-2. Aerially, the metals results show no 

general pattern relative to higher metals concentrations being associated specifically with the former 

wastewater impoundments. Maximum detections of individual metals occur at all seven boring 

locations. Vertically, the metals concentrations do not exhibit an increasing or decreasing trend 

relative to depth. However, the metals concentrations were typically higher in the samples collected 

above or within the landfill waste material. The highest detection for aluminum, barium, calcium, 

magnesium, nickel, selenium, and zinc occurred in a sample collected from above the landfill waste 

material (all at SM136). The highest detection for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

copper, iron, mercury, manganese, sodium, lead, and silver occurred in a sample collected from 

within the landfill waste material. The highest detection for beryllium, potassium, and vanadium 

occurred in a sample collected from below the landfill waste material. 

3.3.1.2 SVOC Results in Soils 

The following SVOCs were detected in the Supplemental RI soil samples: 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2-

methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo (a) anthracene, benzo (a) 

pyrene, benzo (b) fluoranthene, benzo (g,h,i) perylene, benzo (k) fluoranthene, bis (2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate, butyl benzylphthalate, carbazole, chrysene, cresols (m&p), di-n-butylphthalate, 

dibenzofuran, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, phenol, 

and pyrene (see Table 3-2). 

2,4-Dimethylphenol was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 8,020 

μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at two soil sample locations. The 2-methylnaphthalene 

concentration in these two soil samples was 2,170 J μg/kg (see Table 3-2 for a definition of the data 

qualifiers) at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) and 9,020 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Acenaphthene was detected at two soil sample locations. The acenaphthene concentration in these two 

soil samples was 1,480 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) and 4,410 J μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Acenaphthylene was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 5,830 μg/kg at 

SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

Anthracene was detected at three soil sample locations. The anthracene concentrations ranged from 

6,290 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 19,000 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

005986
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 40 OCTOBER 2006 

Benzo (a) anthracene was detected at three soil sample locations. The benzo (a) anthracene 

concentrations ranged from 2,050 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 10,800 μg/kg at SM142 (0 

to 2 ft bgs). 

Benzo (a) pyrene was detected at three soil sample locations. The benzo (a) pyrene concentrations 

ranged from 1,470 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 10,800 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

Benzo (b) fluoranthene was detected at three soil sample locations. The benzo (b) fluoranthene 

concentrations ranged from 1,640 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 15,100 μg/kg at SM142 (0 

to 2 ft bgs). 

Benzo (g,h,i) perylene was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 7,320 

μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

Benzo (k) fluoranthene was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 4,330 

μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected at eight soil sample locations. The bis (2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate concentrations ranged from 120 J μg/kg at SM141 (5 to 6 ft bgs) up to 79,200 μg/kg at 

SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Butyl benzylphthalate was detected at two soil sample locations. The butyl benzylphthalate 

concentration in these two soil samples was 840 J μg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) and 

26,200 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Carbazole was detected at three soil sample locations. The carbazole concentrations ranged from 

1,520 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 9,720 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

Chrysene was detected at three soil sample locations. The chrysene concentrations ranged from 

4,170 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 15,500 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

Cresols (m & p) were detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 11,400 μg/kg 

at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Di-n-butylphthalate was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 

33,200 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

Dibenzofuran was detected at two soil sample locations. The dibenzofuran concentration in these two 

soil samples was 1,260 J μg/kg at SM138 (11.5 to 12 ft bgs) and 4,130 J μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

005987
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 41 OCTOBER 2006 

Fluoranthene was detected at three soil sample locations. The fluoranthene concentrations ranged 

from 5,460 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 18,300 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

Fluorene was detected at three soil sample locations. The fluorene concentrations ranged from 

2,760 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 6,190 J μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 

4,810 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

Naphthalene was detected at three soil sample locations. The naphthalene concentrations ranged from 

2,170 J μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 33,900 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Phenanthrene was detected at three soil sample locations. The phenanthrene concentrations ranged 

from 10,600 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 19,500 μg/kg at SM142 (5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Phenol was detected at only one soil sample location. The concentration was 6,510 J μg/kg at SM142 

(5 to 6 ft bgs). 

Pyrene was detected at three soil sample locations. The pyrene concentrations ranged from 

6,300 μg/kg at SM140 (7.5 to 8 ft bgs) up to 13,700 μg/kg at SM142 (0 to 2 ft bgs). 

The SVOC results in soil samples are presented on Figure 3-3. SVOC detections occurred at borings 

SM138, SM140, SM141, and SM142. SVOCs were not detected in soil samples collected from the 

two soil borings where monitor wells were installed (MW136 and MW137) or at boring SM139. Only 

bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and butyl benzylphthalate were detected at boring SM138, and only 

bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected at boring SB141. The remaining SVOCs were detected at 

borings SM140 and SM142 only. The SVOC concentrations were higher in the samples collected at 

boring SM142. In general, the highest detections of SVOCs occurred in the soil samples collected 

from within the landfill waste material. At SM142, several SVOCs were also detected in the soil 

sample collected above the landfill waste material at a depth of 0 to 2 ft bgs. At this location, many 

SVOC concentrations were higher in the 0 to 2 ft bgs sample than in the 5 to 6 ft bgs sample 

(collected from within the landfill waste material). Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was the only SVOC 

detected in soil samples collected from below the landfill waste material. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 

was detected at SM138 (at a depth of 20 to 22 ft bgs) and SM140 (at a depth of 21.5 to 22 ft bgs). At 

both locations, the bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentration decreased in the sample collected below 

the landfill waste material. 

005988
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 42 OCTOBER 2006 

3.3.2 Ground Water Analytical Results 

Ground water samples were collected from monitor wells MW116B, MW136, and MW137 on May 

31, 2006. These monitor wells are located downgradient of the former wastewater impoundments 

within the shallow perched ground water zone. The samples collected from these wells were analyzed 

for TAL metals (total and dissolved), TCL SVOCs, and PAHs (via the SIM analytical method). The 

SIM analytical method was used to achieve lower detection limits for the PAHs than are achieved 

using the standard method (SW8270C). In addition, general ground water quality parameters were 

measured during purging at each monitor well. 

The analytical results for metals detected in ground water samples (dissolved and total) are 

summarized in Table 3-3. The analytical results for SVOCs detected in ground water samples are 

summarized in Table 3-4. 

Further evaluation of the ground water analytical results in terms of ecological risks are provided in 

Appendix E. The following sections provide a discussion of the results obtained from the ground 

water samples. 

3.3.2.1 General Ground Water Quality in the Shallow Perched Ground Water Zone 

General water quality parameters were monitored during purging and sampling of the monitor wells. 

The parameters monitored included pH, temperature, DO, turbidity, ORP, and conductivity. The 

water quality data were recorded on Well Purge and Sampling Field Data Sheets, provided in 

Appendix D. All water quality parameters were collected using a Horriba model U-22 meter and 

flow through cell. Because three well volumes were removed during purging at monitor wells 

MW136 and MW137, stabilization of all general water quality parameters was not achieved at these 

wells prior to ground water sample collection. 

The pH measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 6.66 to 6.95 standard units. The pH 

measurements recorded just prior to sample collection were 6.86, 6.85, and 6.95 at monitor wells 

MW116B, MW136, and MW137 respectively. All measured pH values were near neutral (7.0). 

Temperature measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 21.32 degrees Celsius (oC) to 

23.58 oC. 

DO measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 9.48 to 5.58 mg/L. The DO 

measurements recorded just prior to sample collection were 5.58 mg/L, 7.3 mg/L, and 6.6 mg/L at 

MW116B, MW136, and MW137, respectively. The DO measurements indicate oxidizing conditions 

005989
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 43 OCTOBER 2006 

exist in the perched ground water at the Site. DO measurements can be positively (high) biased due to 

diffusion of oxygen from air into the sample tubing or flow through cell. 

Turbidity measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 8.0 to greater than 

1,000 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs). The turbidity measurements recorded just prior to 

sample collection were 23.8 (NTUs), 67.3 NTUs, and 162 NTUs at MW116B, MW136, and MW137, 

respectively. Due to the high turbidity measurements, a filtered and an unfiltered ground water 

sample was collected at each well to obtained dissolved and total metals concentrations. 

The ORP measurements during ground water sampling ranged from -152 to -80 millivolts (mV). The 

ORP measurements recorded just prior to sample collection were -80 mV, -144 mV, and -94 mV at 

monitor wells MW116B, MW136, and MW137, respectively. The ORP measurements indicate 

reducing conditions in the shallow perched ground water at the Site. These measurements contradict 

the DO measurements. For the reasons given regarding the collection of the DO data, the ORP results 

are believed to be more representative of the conditions in the shallow perched ground water. 

Conductivity measurements during ground water sampling ranged from 5.66 to 11.4 milliseimens per 

centimeter (mS/cm). The conductivity measurements recorded just prior to sample collection were -

5.66 mS/cm, 10.4 mS/cm, and 9.2 mS/cm at monitor wells MW116B, MW136, and MW137, 

respectively. The high conductivity values are most likely a result of the influence of the brackish 

water in Sabine Lake being in hydraulic communication with the shallow perched ground water and 

the presence of the landfill material within the shallow perched ground water at the Site. 

3.3.2.2 Metals Results in Ground Water 

The following metals were detected in the Supplemental RI total metals ground water samples: 

aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, calcium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, potassium, 

mercury, magnesium, manganese, sodium, nickel, lead, vanadium, and zinc (see Table 3-3). The 

following metals were detected in the Supplemental RI dissolved metals ground water samples: 

arsenic, barium, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, nickel, 

lead, selenium, vanadium, and zinc (see Table 3-3). 

Aluminum was detected in the total metals sample from two monitor wells. Aluminum was not 

detected in the dissolved metals samples. The total aluminum concentrations ranged from 866 J μg/L 

at MW137 up to 12,500 μg/L at MW136. 

Arsenic was detected in the total metals sample at the three monitor wells. Arsenic was detected in 

the dissolved metals sample at monitor well MW136 only. The total arsenic concentrations ranged 

005990
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 44 OCTOBER 2006 

from 12.7 JH μg/L (see Table 3-3 for a definition of the data qualifiers) at MW116B up to 

22.7 JH μg/L at MW137. The dissolved arsenic concentration at well MW136 was 14.1 JH μg/L. 

Barium was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at all three monitor wells. The total 

barium concentrations ranged from 517 μg/L in the field duplicate sample at monitor well MW137 up 

to 1,220 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved barium concentrations ranged from 543 μg/L at well 

MW116B up to 1,250 μg/L at well MW136. 

Beryllium was detected in the total metals sample at two monitor wells. Beryllium was not detected in 

the dissolved metals samples. The total beryllium concentration was 0.58 J μg/L in the field duplicate 

sample from well MW137 and 0.684 J μg/L at MW136. 

Calcium was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at all three monitor wells. The total 

calcium concentrations ranged from 129,000 μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well MW137 up to 

201,000 μg/L at well MW116B. The dissolved calcium concentrations ranged from 146,000 μg/L at 

well MW137 up to 203,000 μg/L at well MW116B. 

Cadmium was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at two monitor wells. The total 

cadmium concentrations were 0.457 J μg/L at well MW137 and 1.22 J μg/L at well MW136. The 

dissolved cadmium concentrations were 0.447 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.714 J μg/L at MW137. 

Chromium was detected in the total metals sample at all three monitor wells. Chromium was not 

detected in the dissolved metals samples. The total chromium concentrations ranged from 3.97 J μg/L 

at well MW116B up to 14.5 μg/L at well MW136. 

Cobalt was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at two monitor wells. The total cobalt 

concentrations were 5.87 J μg/L at well MW136 and 7.95 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well 

MW137. The dissolved cobalt concentrations were 1.65 J μg/L at MW136 and 4.91 J μg/L at MW137. 

Copper was detected in the total metals sample at two monitor wells. Copper was detected in the 

dissolved metals sample at one monitor well. The total copper concentrations were 16.7 J μg/L in the 

field duplicate sample at well MW137 and 31.4 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved copper 

concentration was 5.1 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample from well MW137. 

Iron was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at all three monitor wells. The total iron 

concentrations ranged from 1,500 J μg/L at well MW137 up to 35,800 μg/L at well MW136. The 

dissolved iron concentrations ranged from 752 μg/L at well MW137 up to 27,800 μg/L at well MW136. 

005991
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 45 OCTOBER 2006 

Potassium was detected in the total and dissolved metals sample at all three monitor wells. The total 

potassium concentrations ranged from 39,500 J μg/L at well MW116B up to 65,400 J μg/L at well 

MW137. The dissolved potassium concentrations ranged from 39,200 J μg/L at well MW116B up to 

60,400 J μg/L at well MW136. 

Mercury was detected in the total metals samples at two monitor wells. Mercury was not detected in 

the dissolved metals samples. The total mercury concentrations were 0.0355 J μg/L in the field 

duplicate sample at well MW137 and 0.0455 J μg/L at well MW136. 

Magnesium was detected in the total and dissolved metals samples at all three monitor wells. The 

total magnesium concentrations ranged from 101,000 μg/L at well MW116B up to 317,000 μg/L at 

well MW136. The dissolved magnesium concentrations ranged from 93,700 μg/L at well MW116B 

up to 300,000 μg/L at well MW136. 

Manganese was detected in the total and dissolved metals samples at all three monitor wells. The total 

manganese concentrations ranged from 1,400 μg/L at well MW116B up to 8,390 μg/L at well 

MW136. The dissolved manganese concentrations ranged from 1,310 μg/L at well MW116B up to 

7,680 μg/L at well MW136. 

Sodium was detected in the total and dissolved metals samples at all three monitor wells. The total 

sodium concentrations ranged from 591,000 μg/L at well MW116B up to 1,720,000 J μg/L at well 

MW136. The dissolved sodium concentrations ranged from 521,000 μg/L at well MW116B up to 

1,550,000 J μg/L at well MW136. 

Nickel was detected in the total and dissolved metals samples at all three monitor wells. The total 

nickel concentrations ranged from 13.6 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 164 μg/L at well MW116B. The 

dissolved nickel concentrations ranged from 7.41 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 170 μg/L at well 

MW116B. 

Lead was detected in the total metals samples at all three monitor wells. Lead was detected in the 

dissolved metals samples at two monitor wells. The total lead concentrations ranged from 2.26 J μg/L 

at well MW116B up to 71 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved lead concentrations ranged from 2.37 

J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well MW137 to 2.49 J μg/L at well MW116B. 

Selenium was not detected in the total metals samples. Selenium was detected in the dissolved metals 

sample at one monitor well. Selenium was detected at a concentration of 9.41 J μg/L in the dissolved 

metals sample at well MW116B. 

005992
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 46 OCTOBER 2006 

Vanadium was detected in the total metals samples at all three monitor wells. Vanadium was detected 

in the dissolved metals samples at two monitor wells. The total vanadium concentrations ranged from 

1.87 J μg/L at well MW116B up to 24.6 J μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved vanadium 

concentrations were 1.69 J μg/L at well MW116B and 5.2 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well 

MW137. 

Zinc was detected in the total and dissolved metals samples at all three monitor wells. The total zinc 

concentrations ranged from 48.1 μg/L at well MW116B up to 258 μg/L at well MW136. The dissolved 

zinc concentrations ranged from 34.8 μg/L at well MW136 up to 72.8 μg/L at well MW137. 

In general, the total metals and dissolved metals results were similar for each sample (see Table 3-3). 

However, for aluminum, arsenic, chromium, and iron, the total and dissolved metals concentrations 

varied by as much as an order-of-magnitude difference in three of the four samples collected. For 

beryllium, copper, vanadium, and zinc, the total and dissolved metals concentrations varied by as 

much as an order-of-magnitude difference in two of the four samples collected. For each of these 

analytes, the total metals concentrations were higher than the dissolved metals concentrations. 

The total metals results in ground water are presented on Figure 3-4. Selenium was not detected in 

the total metals samples. With the exception of arsenic, calcium, cobalt, potassium, and nickel, the 

highest total metals concentrations occur in upgradient monitor well MW136. Monitor well MW136 

is located downgradient of the former wastewater impoundments, but this well is also located 

downgradient of the PBLS Site (see Figure 3-1). Arsenic concentrations were similar in all three 

wells. Beryllium, cobalt, sodium, and potassium concentrations were similar in wells MW136 and 

MW137 and slightly lower in downgradient well MW116B. Calcium concentrations were similar in 

wells MW116B and MW136 and slightly lower in well MW137. The highest nickel concentrations 

occurred in downgradient well MW116B. 

The dissolved metals results in ground water are presented on Figure 3-5. Aluminum, beryllium, 

chromium, and mercury were not detected in the dissolved metals samples. Arsenic, barium, and iron 

concentrations were highest in monitor well MW136. Arsenic was detected in the dissolved sample 

from MW136 only. Barium and iron concentrations were similar in wells MW137 and MW116B. 

Cadmium, cobalt, copper, vanadium, and zinc concentrations were highest in monitor well MW137. 

The cadmium concentration was slightly lower in MW136, and cadmium was not detected in 

MW116B. The cobalt was not detected in the dissolved sample from MW116B. Copper was detected 

in the dissolved samples from MW137 only. Vanadium was not detected in the dissolved sample 

from MW136, and zinc concentrations were similar in MW136 and MW116B. Potassium, 

005993
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 47 OCTOBER 2006 

manganese, and sodium concentrations were similar in MW136 and MW137 and lower in MW116B. 

Calcium, magnesium, nickel, and selenium concentrations were highest in monitor well MW116B. 

Calcium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations were higher in well MW136 than in well MW137. 

Nickel concentrations were slightly higher in well MW137 than in well MW136. Selenium was only 

detected in the dissolved sample from MW116B. Lead concentrations in MW137 and MW116B were 

similar, while lead was not detected at MW136. Most dissolved metals concentrations are higher in 

the downgradient monitor wells MW116B and MW137 than in MW136. Arsenic, iron, and barium 

concentrations are higher upgradient in well MW136, while cadmium, potassium, and manganese 

concentrations are higher in upgradient wells MW136 and MW137 than in MW116B. 

3.3.2.3 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Results in Ground Water 

The following SVOCs were detected in the Supplemental RI ground water samples: diethylphthalate, 

acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo (a) anthracene, benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (b) 

fluoranthene, benzo (g,h,i) perylene, benzo (k) fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno 

(1,2,3-cd) perylene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene (see Table 3-4). 

Diethyphthalate was detected at all three monitor wells. The diethylphthalate concentrations ranged 

from 1.83 J (see Table 3-4 for a definition of the data qualifiers) μg/L at well MW116B up to 4.28 J 

μg/L in the field duplicate sample at well MW137. 

Acenaphthene was detected at all three monitor wells. The acenaphthene concentrations ranged from 

0.0114 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 1.12 μg/L at well MW116B. 

Acenaphthylene was detected at monitor well MW116B only. The concentration was 0.0408 μg/L. 

Benzo (a) anthracene was detected at two monitor wells. The benzo (a) anthracene concentration was 

0.0042 J μg/L at well MW137 and 0.0078 J μg/L at well MW116B. 

Benzo (a) pyrene was detected at two monitor wells. The benzo (a) pyrene concentration was 0.0028 

J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0037 J at well MW137. 

Benzo (b) fluoranthene was detected at two monitor wells. The benzo (b) fluoranthene concentration 

was 0.0034 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0036 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at MW137. 

Benzo (g,h,i) perylene was detected at two monitor wells. The benzo (g,h,i) perylene concentration 

was 0.0018 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0027 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at MW137. 

Benzo (k) fluoranthene was detected at two monitor wells. The benzo (k) fluoranthene concentration 

was 0.0015 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0037 J μg/L at well MW137. 

005994
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 48 OCTOBER 2006 

Chrysene was detected at all three monitor wells. The chrysene concentrations ranged from 0.0033 J 

μg/L at MW136 up to 0.0046 J μg/L at well MW116B. 

Fluoranthene was detected at all three monitor wells. The fluoranthene concentrations ranged from 

0.0101 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 0.532 μg/L at well MW116B. 

Fluorene was detected at all three monitor wells. The fluorene concentrations ranged from 0.004 J 

μg/L at well MW136 up to 0.0573 μg/L at well MW116B. 

Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene was detected at two monitor wells. The indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene concentration 

was 0.0018 J μg/L at well MW136 and 0.0027 J μg/L in the field duplicate sample at MW137. 

Naphthalene was detected at all three monitor wells. The naphthalene concentrations ranged from 

0.0085 J μg/L at well MW136 up to 0.0247 J μg/L at well MW137. 

Phenanthrene was detected at all three monitor wells. The phenanthrene concentrations ranged from 

0.0063J μg/L at MW116B up to 0.0161 J μg/L at well MW137. 

Pyrene was detected at all three monitor wells. The pyrene concentrations ranged from 0.0079 J μg/L 

at well MW137 up to 0.297 μg/L at well MW116B. 

The SVOC results in ground water are presented on Figure 3-6. The concentrations of most SVOCs 

detected in ground water samples were highest in either monitor well MW116B or MW137. 

Acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo (a) anthracene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, 

and pyrene concentrations were highest in MW116B. Diethylphthalate, benzo (a) pyrene, benzo (b) 

fluoranthene, benzo (g,h,i) perylene, benzo (k) fluoranthene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene, naphthalene, and 

phenanthrene concentrations were higher in MW137. Most SVOCs that were detected in ground water 

were present at concentrations near the laboratory reporting limits. SVOC concentrations are higher 

in the two downgradient monitor wells (MW116B and MW137) than in upgradient well MW136. 

3.3.3 Sediment Analytical Results 

Sediment samples were collected from eight locations between June 8 and June 9, 2006. Each sample 

was comprised of 3 to 30 ponar grabs composited from 1 to 5 sampling locations. A background 

sample was also collected (Station I). Samples were analyzed for TAL metals and TCL SVOCs. 

These data were used in the Supplemental BERA to evaluate potential risk to benthic invertebrates in 

the areas of concern as identified in the FFS (Appendix E-2). The analytical results for metals 

detected in sediment samples are provided in Table 3-5. The analytical results for SVOCs detected in 

sediment samples are provided in Table 3-6. 

005995
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 49 OCTOBER 2006 

The only protocol deviations from those described in the DQOs were those indicating toxicity 

bioassays would be performed using Leptocheirus plumulosus or Neanthes virens 10-day sediment 

bioassays, and that macroinvertebrate taxonomic identification would be performed for community 

analysis. These analyses were not performed due to the very low likelihood for adverse effects expected 

from sediments adjacent to SMS based on the marginal exceedences of primary screening values in 

recent samples and source evaluation, as discussed in the Supplemental BERA (see Appendix E-2). 

Descriptions of field sampling locations, including surface water quality measurements at sampling 

locations and particle size analyses, are provided in Attachment B of the Supplemental BERA (see 

Appendix E-2). 

3.3.3.1 Metals Results in Sediment 

The following metals were detected in the Supplemental RI sediment samples: aluminum, antimony, 

arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, total chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, 

manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc (see Table 3-5). 

The metals aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, iron, potassium, 

magnesium, manganese, sodium, nickel, lead, selenium, vanadium, and zinc were detected at the 

background sample location (I-SD). Antimony, cadmium, copper, mercury, silver, and thallium were 

not detected at the background location. For all metals, the concentrations were lowest at the 

background location. 

Aluminum was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The aluminum concentrations 

ranged from 4,040 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 16,200 mg/kg at location D-SD. 

Antimony was detected at two onsite sediment sample locations. The antimony concentration was 

0.121 J (see Table 3-5 for a definition of the data qualifiers) mg/kg at location B-SD and 0.237 JL at 

location C-SD. 

Arsenic was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The arsenic concentrations ranged 

from 3.59 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 6 mg/kg at location A-SD. 

Barium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The barium concentrations ranged 

from 27.7 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 264 mg/kg at location C-SD. 

Beryllium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The beryllium concentrations 

ranged from 0.266 J mg/kg at location F-SD up to 0.826 mg/kg at location D-SD. 

005996
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 50 OCTOBER 2006 

Calcium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The calcium concentrations ranged 

from 556 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 2,820 mg/kg at location A-SD. Cadmium was detected at seven 

onsite sediment sample locations. Cadmium was not detected at sample location F-SD. The cadmium 

concentrations ranged from 0.0846 J mg/kg at location D-SD up to 0.158 mg/kg at location H-SD. 

Chromium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The chromium concentrations 

ranged from 6.32 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 17.3 mg/kg at location D-SD. 

Cobalt was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The cobalt concentrations ranged 

from 3.13 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 7.01 mg/kg in the field duplicate sample at location H-SD. 

Copper was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The copper concentrations ranged 

from 5.24 mg/kg at location H-SD up to 18.3 mg/kg at location E-SD. 

Iron was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The iron concentrations ranged from 

9,840 B mg/kg at location F-SD up to 17,100 B mg/kg at location C-SD. 

Potassium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The potassium concentrations 

ranged from 717 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 3,200 JH mg/kg at location C-SD. 

Mercury was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The mercury concentrations 

ranged from 0.0201 J mg/kg at location D-SD up to 0.0405 J mg/kg at location C-SD. 

Magnesium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The magnesium 

concentrations ranged from 1,050 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 4,620 mg/kg at location C-SD. 

Manganese was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The manganese concentrations 

ranged from 65.7 mg/kg at location D-SD up to 405 mg/kg at location C-SD. 

Sodium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The sodium concentrations ranged 

from 1,610 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 7,290 mg/kg at location C-SD. 

Nickel was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The nickel concentrations ranged 

from 5.38 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 12.4 mg/kg at location A-SD. 

Lead was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The lead concentrations ranged from 

10.9 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 18.7 mg/kg at location A-SD. 

Selenium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The selenium concentrations 

ranged from 2.22 mg/kg at location D-SD up to 4.66 mg/kg at location A-SD. 

005997
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 51 OCTOBER 2006 

Silver was detected at one onsite sediment sample locations. The silver concentration was 0.263 J 

mg/kg at location F-SD. 

Thallium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The thallium concentrations 

ranged from 0.0347 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 0.28 mg/kg at location A-SD. 

Vanadium was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The vanadium concentrations 

ranged from 9.89 mg/kg at location E-SD up to 30.2 JH mg/kg at location C-SD. 

Zinc was detected at all eight onsite sediment sample locations. The zinc concentrations ranged from 

27.2 mg/kg at location F-SD up to 94.7 mg/kg at location A-SD. 

The metals results in sediment are presented on Figure 3-7. The metals concentrations in sediment 

were higher at locations A-SD and C-SD for most metals. The metals concentrations in sediment 

were lowest at locations B-SD, D-SD, E-SD, and F-SD. 

3.3.3.2 SVOC Results in Sediment 

The following SVOCs were detected in the Supplemental RI sediment samples: 2-methylnaphthalene, 

anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, 

benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, 

pyrene (see Table 3-6). SVOCs were not detected as the background sediment sample location I-SD 

or at onsite sediment sample location H-SD. 

2-Methylnaphthalene was detected at onsite sediment sample location F-SD only. The 2-

methylnaphthalene concentration at this location was 17.9 μg/kg. 

Anthracene was detected at onsite sediment sample location B-SD only. The anthracene concentration 

at this location was 10 J (see Table 3-6 for a definition of the data qualifiers) μg/kg. 

Benzo (a) anthracene was detected at six onsite sediment sample locations. The benzo (a) anthracene 

concentrations ranged from 8.23 J μg/kg at location C-SD up to 56 J μg/kg at location A-SD. 

Benzo (a) pyrene was detected at five onsite sediment sample locations. The benzo (a) pyrene 

concentrations ranged from 9.2 J μg/kg at location C-SD up to 54.8 J μg/kg at location A-SD. 

Benzo (b) fluoranthene was detected at five onsite sediment sample locations. The benzo (b) 

fluoranthene concentrations ranged from 10.5 J μg/kg at location C-SD up to 143 μg/kg at location 

A-SD. 

005998
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 52 OCTOBER 2006 

Benzo (g,h,i) perylene was detected at three onsite sediment sample locations. The benzo (g,h,i) 

perylene concentrations ranged from 9.06 J μg/kg at location F-SD up to 16.6 J μg/kg at location B-SD. 

Benzo (k) fluoranthene was detected at onsite sediment sample location A-SD only. The benzo (k) 

fluoranthene concentration at this location was 29.8 J μg/kg. 

Chrysene was detected at six onsite sediment sample locations. The chrysene concentrations ranged 

from 8.09 J μg/kg at location C-SD up to 82.6 μg/kg at location A-SD. 

Fluoranthene was detected at seven onsite sediment sample locations. The fluoranthene 

concentrations ranged from 11 J μg/kg at location C-SD up to 170 μg/kg at location A-SD. 

Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene was detected at onsite sediment sample location B-SD only. The indeno 

(1,2,3-cd) pyrene concentration at this location was 10.9 J μg/kg. 

Naphthalene was detected at onsite sediment sample location F-SD only. The naphthalene 

concentration at this location was 10.6 J μg/kg. 

Phenanthrene was detected at five onsite sediment sample locations. The phenanthrene concentrations 

ranged from 8.76 J μg/kg at location F-SD up to 58.9 μg/kg at location A-SD. 

Pyrene was detected at six onsite sediment sample locations. The pyrene concentrations ranged from 

19.8 μg/kg at location D-SD up to 104 μg/kg at location A-SD. 

The SVOC results in sediment are presented on Figure 3-8. SVOC concentrations in sediment 

samples were highest at sample location A-SD. The SVOC concentrations decrease away from 

sample location A-SD toward the southeast. 

005999
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 53 OCTOBER 2006 

4.0 Summary of Risk Assessments 

This section provides a summary of the evaluation of the estimated risks associated with the State 

Marine Site contaminants. The full BHHRA and BERA TMs are provided in Appendix E. 

4.1 Summary of the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 

The following sections summarize the conclusions of the BHHRA for the State Marine Superfund 

Site, completed by CH2M HILL in July 2006 (Appendix E-1). 

4.1.1 Data Used in the HHRA 

Soil 

All historical soil data from the 0-5 ft interval that were available to CH2M HILL electronically as of 

June 17, 2005, were used in the BHHRA. The available data consisted of soil samples collected in 

1995 and 2001 from various areas, including six hot spot areas that were identified during the ESI and 

RI. In additional, the BHHRA incorporated supplemental soil samples collected from the Wastewater 

Impoundment Area in May 2006. The following data groupings were used in the BHHRA: 

• Wastewater Impoundment Area 

• Wastewater Treatment Facility 

• Tar Burn Area 

• Current Aboveground Storage Tank Area 

• Maintenance Shed Area 

• Former Lauren Tank Farm 

• Non-Source Area 

Ground Water 

Ground water data were not used in the BHHRA due to the lack of ground water receptors (ground 

water is not used as a potable source, chemicals of potential concern are inorganics and semivolatile 

organic compounds, and no ground water seeps were observed during the site reconnaissance visit on 

June 17, 2005). 

006000
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 54 OCTOBER 2006 

Surface Water 

Surface water data were not used in the BHHRA. (Although one surface water sample was available, 

the methodology used for its collection reflected ground water quality rather than surface water). 

Sediment 

All historical sediment data collected from the 0 to 6-inch interval and available to CH2M HILL 

electronically as of June 17, 2005, were used in the BHHRA. The available data consisted of 

sediment samples collected in 1995 and 2001. All sediment groupings previously identified in the ESI 

and RI data sets were combined into one sediment grouping. The sediment data were used to model 

edible fish tissue concentrations. 

The 2006 sediment data were not included in the BHHRA. However, sediment concentrations 

detected in 2006 were lower than the sediment concentrations previously detected that were used to 

model fish tissue concentrations. Therefore, if the 2006 data had been used in the BHHRA, the 

modeled fish tissue concentrations and estimated risks would be lower than those presented in the 

BHHRA. Based on the measured fish tissue concentrations in Sabine Lake, no chemicals warranting 

risk management were identified for sediment. 

Fish 

Historical edible fish tissue data were collected by TDH in Sabine Lake, and are discussed in the 

Uncertainty Assessment of the BHHRA. 

4.1.2 Potential Receptors 

The following receptors were identified onsite and near the Site and were evaluated for significant 

exposure pathways in the BHHRA: 

• Current onsite – industrial/commercial worker (site owner), adult trespasser 

(although very infrequent since the site is remote in relation to residential areas) 

• Current offsite – adult or child eating fish caught in Lake Sabine 

• Future onsite – industrial/commercial worker, construction worker, and adult trespasser 

(although very infrequent since the site is remote in relation to residential areas) 

• Future offsite – adult or child eating fish caught in Sabine Lake 

006001
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 55 OCTOBER 2006 

4.1.3 Summary 

In summary, all risks for soil exposure areas are within acceptable levels and no COCs were 

identified for the receptors in these exposure areas. 

Based on sediment samples collected in 1995 and 2001, copper, zinc, and Arochlor 1242 

were identified as chemicals potentially posing unacceptable risks for fish ingestion 

exposures. The 2006 sediment data were not included in the BHHRA. However, sediment 

concentrations detected in 2006 were lower than the sediment concentrations previously 

detected that were used to model fish tissue concentrations. Therefore, if the 2006 data had 

been used in the BHHRA, the modeled fish tissue concentrations and estimated risks would 

be lower than those presented in the BHHRA. 

The reasonable maximum exposure risks calculated for a current/future offsite 

fisherman based on the modeled fish tissue concentrations are summarized below. 

Ingestion exposures to COPCs in sediment (bioaccumulated by fish in Sabine Lake) were 

estimated for an adult. An estimated ELCR of 2x10-4 and estimated HI of 7 were calculated. 

One COPC (Arochlor 1242) was estimated to exceed an individual ELCR of 1x10-5 and 

copper and zinc were estimated to exceed an HI of 1. 

However, it is important to note that the modeled fish tissue concentrations used in the 

BHHRA are much higher than the measured fish tissue concentrations from Sabine Lake as 

reported by the TDH. Therefore, the modeled fish tissue concentrations are overly 

conservative, and it is recommended that the measured concentrations be used rather than the 

modeled concentrations. PCBs were not detected in the fish tissue samples collected by 

TDH, and the maximum detected concentrations of copper and zinc in edible fish tissue were 

approximately one order of magnitude lower than the modeled concentrations. Since 

estimated ELCRs and HIs are directly proportional to exposure point concentration, use of 

the measured fish tissue concentrations in the BHHRA would result in acceptable risk levels 

from fish ingestion exposures. Therefore, no COCs were identified for sediments and no 

further action in sediments is needed for protection of fish ingestion exposures. 

006002
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 56 OCTOBER 2006 

4.2 Summary of the Supplemental Baseline Ecological Risk 

Assessment 

The following sections summarize the conclusions of the supplemental baseline ecological risk 

assessment (BERA) for the State Marine Superfund Site, completed by CH2M HILL in July 2006 

(Appendix E-2). 

4.2.1 Data Used in the Supplemental BERA 

A focused sediment sampling program was executed to investigate current chemical concentrations at 

target areas (areas of elevated concentrations or hot-spots) identified during the 2006 feasibility study 

as requiring further investigation. The sampling program targeted the classes of constituents (metals 

and PAHs) retained as COCs in the BERA in the “hot-spots” vicinities. Chemical concentrations in 

sediment were used to evaluate the toxicity to lower trophic level organisms and potential source 

areas for Sabine Lake: 

• Lake Sabine Sediment – Surface sediment composites of 2 to five samples were collected 

from each of eight locations where concentrations of historical samples exceeded ecological 

risk-based criteria. Potential risks to benthic invertebrates were evaluated through the 

comparison of sediment chemistry to sediment screening values. 

• SMS Ground water – Potential risk to sediment dwelling organisms resulting from SMS 

ground water discharging to sediment and thus representing sediment pore water was 

addressed through the evaluation of the ground water-to-sediment pathway. Ground water 

data analyzed were used to determine if ground water is a source contributing to 

contamination identified in sediments in Sabine Lake adjacent to the Site. 

• SMS Soil – Potential risk to sediment dwelling organisms resulting from SMS soil runoff as 

overland flow and becoming incorporated in the sediment was addressed through the 

evaluation of the soil-to-sediment pathway. Current and historical soil data were used to 

determine if SMS surface soil is a source contributing to contamination identified in Sabine 

Lake sediments adjacent to the Site. 

4.2.2 Summary 

Risk analysis performed in 2005 concluded that elevated risks in sediment were marginal and limited 

to small hot-spots. Recent sediment sampling in the areas of previous hot-spots indicates that 

concentrations of almost all inorganic and organic constituents were lower in May 2006, than in the 

006003
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 57 OCTOBER 2006 

historical dataset. There were very few exceedences of conservative ecological risk screening 

benchmarks and those that did occur were of low magnitude and only in isolated samples. The 

supplemental BERA weight of evidence analysis conducted for COPCs indicates there is very low 

probability of any elevated risk to sediment dwelling organisms from COCs originating at the SMS. 

The exact source of the low level risk in isolated sediment areas is uncertain; however, based on 

further evaluation, SMS is not the likely source of these chemical concentrations. Current Site ground 

water concentrations do not exceed aquatic organism exposure to water-screening benchmarks 

protective of benthic invertebrates for COPECs identified in the Supplemental BERA. In addition, the 

distribution of shallow monitor wells with maximum detected ground water concentrations were not 

associated with sediment locations with elevated concentrations, a low ground water hydraulic 

gradient exists across the site, and the high surface water flows in the shipping canal all suggest a low 

influence of ground water on site sediments. Surface runoff was also investigated as a potential 

source of contaminants to the sediment. Few detected concentrations of the sediment COCs in soils, 

the depth of high concentration samples in soils, surface hydrology, and the unlikely soil erosion due 

to heavy vegetation suggest that this source is also unlikely. Sunken barges in the near shore area and 

other facilities adjacent to the lake as sources of the low level risks were not investigated. 

006004
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006005
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 59 OCTOBER 2006 

5.0 Summary and Conclusions 

The Supplemental RI field investigation was implemented to evaluate the potential impacts of 

contaminated sediments in Sabine Lake to benthic organisms. The BERA and FFS performed during 

2005 indicated that nine areas existed where contaminant concentrations in sediments exceeded PRGs 

for the Site. The BERA indicated that uncertainty existed with the sediment and ground water data 

collected during the 2001 RI. The BERA recommended that updated data collection and evaluation of 

the ground water-to-sediment pathway might reduce the uncertainties associated with the BERA. In 

addition, further evaluation of the former wastewater impoundment area of the Site as a source of 

contamination was included as part of the Supplemental RI to address stakeholder concerns in this 

portion of the Site. 

The overall objectives of the Supplemental RI were to address concerns regarding the wastewater 

ponds acting as a source of contamination to sediments in Sabine Lake through the ground water-tosediment pathway, update the sediment data in the nine areas where PRGs were determined to be 

exceeded in the 2005 BERA and FFS Reports, and update the BERA and BHHRA using the updated 

Site data. To address these objectives, five soil borings were completed and soil sampling performed 

within the former wastewater impoundments. Soil samples were collected to evaluate if the former 

wastewater impoundments are acting as a source of contamination to the ground water. Two 

additional soil borings were completed downgradient (east) of the former wastewater ponds for 

purposes of soil sample collection and monitor well installations. Ground water samples were 

collected from the two newly installed monitor wells and one existing monitor well located 

downgradient of the former wastewater impoundments. The ground water sampling was performed to 

determine if ground water contamination present at the Site is acting as a source of contamination to 

the sediments. Sediment samples were collected from the nine areas where PRGs were exceeded in 

Sabine Lake to update the Site data for completion of the BERA. Both the BERA and BHHRA were 

updated using the additional data collected during the Supplemental RI to evaluate the risks posed by 

Site contaminants to human and ecological receptors. 

The following sections discuss summarize the results and present the conclusions based on the data 

collected at the Site during the Supplemental RI. Risks to both human and ecological receptors are 

also discussed. 

006006
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 60 OCTOBER 2006 

5.1 Nature of Soil Impacts 

The Supplemental RI included the collection of 17 soil samples from seven boring locations for the 

analysis of TAL metals and TCL SVOCs. The analytical results indicate that Site soils are impacted 

by both metals and SVOCs. Metals concentrations are typically higher in samples collected from 

above and within the landfill waste materials. 

The metals concentrations show no general pattern relative to higher concentrations being located 

within the area of the former wastewater impoundments. Selenium was the only metal determined to 

exceed ESVs within Site sediments (see Appendix E-2). Selenium was detected in only two soil 

samples (at 0.5 to 1.7 ft bgs at SM136, and at 2 to 4 ft bgs at SM137). Based on the lack of detection 

of selenium in soil samples, the soils are unlikely to be the ultimate source of selenium within the site 

sediments. 

SVOCs were primarily detected at borings SM140 and SM142. These two borings were located at the 

center (SM140) and southeast corner of the former wastewater impoundments. At SM140, SVOCs 

were detected primarily within the sample collected from within the landfill waste material (at 7.5 to 

8 ft bgs). At SM142, SVOCs were detected from soil samples collected both above and within the 

landfill waste material (at 0 to 2 ft and 5 to 6 ft bgs, respectively). SVOC concentrations in soil were 

highest at boring SM142. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was the only SVOC detected in soil samples 

collected from below the landfill waste material. The data indicate that the landfill waste material is 

the most likely source of the SVOCs, especially at location SM140, and that the SVOCs are not 

specifically associated with the former wastewater impoundments. No SVOCs were determined to be 

of ecological concern in Site sediments. 

5.2 Nature of Ground Water Impacts 

The Supplemental RI included the collection of three ground water samples from three monitor well 

locations for the analysis of total and dissolved TAL metals—TCL SVOCs, and PAHs. The three 

monitor wells were completed within the shallow perched ground water zone. The analytical results 

indicate that the shallow perched ground water zone is impacted with metals and low concentrations 

of SVOCs. 

Total metals concentrations in the shallow perched ground water zone were generally higher in the 

upgradient monitor well MW136. This well is located downgradient of both the former wastewater 

impoundments and the PBLS Site. Most dissolved metals concentrations in the shallow perched 

ground water zone were generally higher in the two downgradient monitor wells MW137 and 

006007
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 61 OCTOBER 2006 

MW116B. Selenium was detected in a dissolved ground water sample collected at well MW116B 

only. This concentration does not exceed the ESV for the ground water-to-sediment pathway 

protective of benthic organisms. Site ground water is not likely the source of the selenium 

concentrations in Site sediments. 

SVOC concentrations in the shallow perched ground water zone were generally higher in the two 

downgradient monitor wells MW137 and MW116B. Most of the SVOC detections in ground water 

were near the laboratory reporting limits. 

5.3 Nature of Sediment Impacts 

The Supplemental RI included the collection of nine sediment samples from eight onsite locations 

and one offsite location for the analysis of TAL metals, TCL SVOCs, and PAHs. The analytical 

results indicate that Site sediments are impacted with low levels of metals and SVOCs. 

Metals concentrations in Site sediments were higher at locations A-SD and C-SD. These two 

locations are both situated in the northern area of the Site. The Supplemental BERA determined that 

Selenium was the only metal to exceed an ESV value in Site sediments and pose risks to benthic 

organisms. The selenium exceedences occurred at all eight Site sediment sampling locations. 

SVOC concentrations in Site sediments were highest at location A-SD. The SVOC concentrations 

decreased away from location A-SD toward the south and southeast. The SVOC concentrations in 

Site sediments were determined to not exceed ESVs. 

5.4 Potential Effects on Human Health 

The BHHRA (Appendix E-1) was performed to assess whether site-related constituents pose a 

potential current or future risk to human health if no additional remedial actions are performed at the 

Site. Potentially complete exposure pathways were concluded to be soil and sediment. Ground water 

was not evaluated because site ground water is not a potable source of water. 

All risks for soil and sediment exposure areas were determined to be within acceptable risk levels and 

no COCs were identified for receptors through soil or sediment exposure. 

5.5 Potential Effects to Ecological Receptors 

The Supplemental BERA was performed to assess whether site-related constituents pose a potential 

risk to ecological receptors if no additional remedial actions are performed at the Site. Potentially 

complete exposure pathways were evaluated to assess risk to sediment dwelling organisms. Sampling 

006008
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 62 OCTOBER 2006 

of “hot-spots” identified in the FFS was performed to provide updated sediment data for metals and 

PAHs in Site sediments. 

The Supplemental BERA determined that there were very few exceedences of the conservative 

ecological screening benchmark values in the updated sediment data. The exceedences that did occur 

were of low magnitude. Selenium was identified as the primary COC to exceed ESVs in Site 

sediments (Appendix E-2). The weight of evidence analysis performed for the Supplemental BERA 

indicated that there was a very low probability of any elevated risk to sediment dwelling organisms 

from COCs originating from the Site. 

A Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) of remedial alternatives was conducted in 2005. The 

NEBA concluded that monitored natural attenuation would be the preferred alternative if sources of 

contamination still existed. Since the new 2006 data suggest that concentrations do not pose 

unacceptable risk to benthic communities and since the Site is not considered a source of potential 

risk to these communities the NEBA was not updated. Monitoring may not be necessary based on the 

current data, and the decision to continue monitoring is at the discretion of the risk managers for the 

site (the EPA Remedial Project Manager and other stakeholders).

006009
SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 63 OCTOBER 2006 

6.0 References 

CH2M HILL, 1999. Response Action Contract, EPA Region 6, Technical Memorandum, State 

Marine Superfund Site. March 19, 1999. 

CH2M HILL, 2005a. Final Focused Feasibility Study Report, State Marine Superfund Site. EPA. 

September 2005. 

CH2M HILL, 2005b. Human Health Risk Assessment, State Marine Superfund Site. EPA. September 

2005. 

CH2M HILL 2005c. Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment, State Marine Superfund Site. EPA. 

September 2005. 

CH2M HILL, 2006a. Field Sampling Plan, Supplemental Remedial Investigation, State Marine 

Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Texas. Version 1.1. May 2006. 

CH2M HILL, 2006b. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Supplemental Remedial Investigation, State 

Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Texas. Version 1.1. May 2006. 

CH2M HILL, 2006c. Site Management Plan, Supplemental Remedial Investigation, State Marine 

Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Texas. Version 1.0. April 2006. 

Engineer’s Office, City of Port Arthur, 1998. Untitled 24 X 36 topographic map for Pleasure Islet and 

vicinity overlaid onto post-1974 aerial photograph. 1998. 

Port Arthur Historical Society, 1997. Port Arthur Centennial History (1898-1998), A Pictorial 

History of Port Arthur, Texas. Looking Glass Media. 1997-1998. 

Saez, Louise, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas (Saez), 1998. Telephone conversation 

with P. van Noort. October 13, 1998. 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), 1996. Expanded Site Inspection 

Report, State Marine of Port Arthur. 1997. 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), 1997. HRS Documentation Record, 

State Marine of Port Arthur. 1997. 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), 1998. Preliminary 

Assessment/Screening Site Inspection Work Plan. Palmer Barge Line, Inc. March 1998. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Division, Diversity and Habitat Assessment Programs 

(TPWD), 2001. County Lists of Texas’ Special Species. Jefferson County, 2001.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994a. U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program 

National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA/540/R-94/012. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. February 

1994. 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994b. U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program 

National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA/540/R-94-013. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. February 

1994. 

006010
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC 64 OCTOBER 2006 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994c. U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program 

National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. Multi-Media, MultiConcentration (ILMO1.0) and Low Concentration Water (OLCO1.0). EPA/540/R-94/090. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. 1994.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. Ecological Soil, Screening Level 

Guidance. Draft. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. July 10, 2000.

Weston Solutions Inc. (Weston), 2000. ESI Report Palmer Barge Line Site, Port Arthur, Jefferson 

County, Texas. Volume I-ESI Report, EPA. January 2000.

Weston Solutions Inc. (Weston), 2003. Remedial Investigation Report, State Marine Superfund Site, 

Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. EPA. April 2003. 

006011
Tables 

006012
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006013
SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_TABLE2-1_2006-10.DOC 1 OF 3 

TABLE 2-1

Data Quality Objectives and Associated Supplemental Remedial Investigation Tasks State Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Texas 

Problem Statement Decision to be Made Inputs to the Decision Decision Rule Remedial Investigatio

Tasks 

Surface Sediment (0 to 15 centimeters) from Sabine LakeConstituents may be present in surface sediment at concentrations that pose potentially unacceptable risks to benthic organisms in Sabine Lake. 

Decide whether benthic organisms may be exposed to constituent concentrations in surface sediment of Sabine Lake. 

Conceptual site and exposure model Surface sediment analytical data (including historical data of sufficient quality) Ecological risk-based screening levels for sediment TRVs (NOECs and LOECs) developed from site-specific bioassays Leptocheirus plumulosus or Neanthes virens survival and growth bioassay results qualitative evaluation of habitat taxonomic identification 

If analytical chemistry data exhibit constituent concentrations in sediment that exceed ecological benchmarks then proceed with the bioassay analysis. If a weight-of-evidence analysis indicates that benthic organisms from Sabine lake are exposed to constituent concentrations that pose potentially unacceptable risks, this pathway will be addressed as part of the FS. 

Within ten defined areas where historical data exceed sediment PRGscollect sediment samplebased upon 2-5 grabs foeach area, benthic and epibenthic organisms, ahabitat quality data. Analyze composite sediment samples for SVOCs (including PAHsTOC, TAL Metals, and grain size. Collect field analytical measurements of area surface water where sediments are collectedPerform Leptocheirus plumulosus or Neanthes virens 10-day bioassaysCompute macroinvertebrate indiceof biological integrity from taxonomic identification sediment samples sieveand archived for community analysis. Discuss habitat quality from additional field data and observations. Conduct the baseline ecological risk assessment, including a weight-of-evidence analysis for community analysis. 

006014
SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_TABLE2-1_2006-10.DOC 2 OF 3 

TABLE 2-1

Data Quality Objectives and Associated Supplemental Remedial Investigation Tasks State Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Texas 

Problem Statement Decision to be Made Inputs to the Decision Decision Rule Remedial Investigatio

Tasks 

Site Ground WaterConstituents potentially present in ground water, resulting from historical surface releases or from subsurface contaminant sources, may constitute a source of contamination to benthic invertebrates in Sabine Lake. 

Decide whether modeled concentrations in ground water at the ground water sediment interface are acting as a source of contamination to benthic invertebrates exposed to constituent in surface sediment that pose potentially unacceptable risks. 

Conceptual site and exposure model ground water analytical data. Ecological risk-based screening levels for ground water designed to be protective of benthic invertebrates. TRVs (NOECs and LOECs) developed from site-specific bioassays. 

If a weight-of-evidence analysis suggests benthic invertebrates are exposed to constituent concentrations that pose potentially unacceptable risks and that ground water is a potential source of the contamination, this pathway will be addressed as part of the FS. 

Collect ground water samples from 1 well located between former site operations and Sabine Lake. Analyze alsamples for SVOCs (including PAHs), and total and dissolved TAL metals. Conduct the baseline ecological risk assessment, including a weight-of-evidence analysis. 

Subsurface Soil from Wastewater Impoundment Contaminants may have been disposed in the former impoundments 

Determine whether contaminants are present in subsurface soils 

Historical site use info Subsurface soil data 

If constituents are detected above screening criteria, a further risk evaluation may be required. 

Constituents potentially present in subsurface soil of impoundments may constitute a source of contamination to ground water that flows toward Sabine Lake eventually causing adverse effects to benthic invertebrates in Sabine Lake. 

Decide whether compounds detected in the impoundments are leaching to ground water and eventually to sediment. 

Conceptual site and exposure model Subsurface soil data ground water analytical data 

If detected compounds in the impoundment are also found in ground water, then the impoundments may be a source of present and future risk to benthic organisms exposed to the ground water and this pathway will be addressed as part of the FS. 

Constituents potentially present in subsurface soil of impoundments may constitute a source of contamination to future onsite construction workers. 

Decide whether contaminants in the former impoundment pose a risk to future on-site construction workers. 

Conceptual site and exposure model Subsurface soil data Human health risk-based screening levels Receptor-specific exposure factors Chemical-specific toxicological data 

If the risk assessment indicates potential cancer risks in the range of 1X 10-4

to 1X 10-6 or hazard indices 

greater than one then a risk management decision will be made and the pathway may be addressed in the FS. 

Collect subsurface soil samples from 5 locationand 3 depths within the impoundment. Analyze asamples for SVOCs (including PAHs), and TAmetals. Compare subsurface soand ground water data. Update original human health risk assessment fthe impoundment. 

006015
SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_TABLE2-1_2006-10.DOC 3 OF 3 

TABLE 2-1

Data Quality Objectives and Associated Supplemental Remedial Investigation Tasks State Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, Texas 

Problem Statement Decision to be Made Inputs to the Decision Decision Rule Remedial Investigatio

Tasks 

Soil Investigation-Derived Waste Constituents potentially present in soil cuttings or other soil IDW produced during field activities may constitute a hazardous waste and require special disposal requirements. 

Determine whether constituent concentrations in the IDW samples exceed RCRA or LDR limits for classification as hazardous waste. 

IDW analytical data RCRA limits LDR limits 

If any RCRA constituent concentration in the soil IDW TCLP leachate exceeds the RCRA limit, the waste will be classified as hazardous. If the IDW is classified as hazardous, the concentrations will be compared to LDR numbers to assess disposal options. 

At the end of all field activities, the IDW will be sampled to determine if qualifies as a hazardousclass 1, class 2, or class waste for disposal purposes. The soil IDW will be analyzed for the fTCLP parameters, TPH, and paint filter liquids. Based on the analytical results, the IDW will be transported offsite and disposed of at an appropriate facility. 

Liquid Investigation-Derived Waste Constituents potentially present in purge water or other liquid IDW produced during field activities may constitute a hazardous waste and require special disposal requirements. 

Determine whether constituent concentrations in the IDW samples exceed RCRA or LDR limits for classification as hazardous waste. 

IDW analytical data RCRA limits LDR limits 

If any RCRA constituent concentration in the liquid IDW exceeds the RCRA limit, the waste will be classified as hazardous. If the IDW is classified as hazardous, the concentrations will be compared to LDR numbers to assess disposal options. 

At the end of all field activities, the IDW will be sampled to determine if qualifies as a hazardousclass 1, class 2, or class waste for disposal purposes. The liquid IDW will be analyzed for the same parameters as the soil IDW except no paint filter will be performed athe liquids will be analyzed as totals (no TCLP leachate performed). Based on the analytical results, the IDW will be transported offsite and disposed of at an appropriate facility. 

Notes:FS = Feasibility study TAL = CLP Target Analyte List ORP = Oxidation reduction poLOEC = Lowest observed effect concentration TCL = CLP Target Compound List TPH = Total petroleum hydrocNOEC = No observed effect concentration SVOCs = Semivolatile organic compounds GRO = Gasoline range organiTOC = Total organic carbon PAHs = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons DRO = Diesel range organics 

006016
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006017
Table 2-2

List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation May - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Type of Investigation StationID Sample Location SampleID

Depth

(feet bgs)*

Date and Time

Collected Matrix Sample Type

Soil Boring Samples: Total number of samples = 21 (including quality control samples)

Soil Boring SM136SB01 SM136 SM136SB01052206 0.5 - 1.7 5/22/06 8:05 soil normal Soil Boring SM136SB01 SM136 SM136SB01052206 0.5 - 1.7 5/22/06 8:05 soil normal Soil Boring SM137SB01 SM137 SM137SB01052306 2 - 4 5/23/06 9:20 soil normal Soil Boring SM137SB01 SM137 SM137SB01052306 2 - 4 5/23/06 9:20 soil normal Soil Boring SM137SB02 SM137 SM137SB02052306 7 - 8 5/23/06 9:25 soil normal Soil Boring SM137SB02 SM137 SM137SB02052306 7 - 8 5/23/06 9:25 soil normal Soil Boring SM138SB01 SM138 SM138SB01052306 0 - 2 5/23/06 11:20 soil normal MS/MSoil Boring SM138SB01 SM138 SM138SB01052306 0 - 2 5/23/06 11:20 soil normal MS/MSoil Boring SM138SB02 SM138 SM138SB02052306 11.5 - 12 5/23/06 12:10 soil normal Soil Boring SM138SB02 SM138 SM138SB02052306 11.5 - 12 5/23/06 12:10 soil normal Soil Boring SM138SB03 SM138 SM138SB03052306 20 - 22 5/23/06 12:55 soil normal Soil Boring SM138SB03 SM138 SM138SB03052306 20 - 22 5/23/06 12:55 soil normal Soil Boring SM138SB03 SM138 SM138FD03052306 20 - 22 5/23/06 13:00 soil quality control field dupSoil Boring SM138SB03 SM138 SM138FD03052306 20 - 22 5/23/06 13:00 soil quality control field dupSoil Boring SM139SB01 SM139 SM139SB01052306 0 - 2 5/23/06 14:05 soil normal Soil Boring SM139SB01 SM139 SM139SB01052306 0 - 2 5/23/06 14:05 soil normal Soil Boring SM139SB02 SM139 SM139SB02052306 5 - 6 5/23/06 14:25 soil normal Soil Boring SM139SB02 SM139 SM139SB02052306 5 - 6 5/23/06 14:25 soil normal Soil Boring SM139SB03 SM139 SM139SB03052306 6 - 8 5/23/06 14:40 soil normal Soil Boring SM139SB03 SM139 SM139SB03052306 6 - 8 5/23/06 14:40 soil normal Soil Boring SM140SB01 SM140 SM140SB01052306 0.5 - 2 5/23/06 15:20 soil normal Soil Boring SM140SB01 SM140 SM140SB01052306 0.5 - 2 5/23/06 15:20 soil normal Soil Boring SM140SB02 SM140 SM140SB02052306 7.5 - 8 5/23/06 15:40 soil normal Soil Boring SM140SB02 SM140 SM140SB02052306 7.5 - 8 5/23/06 15:40 soil normal Soil Boring SM140SB03 SM140 SM140SB03052306 21.5 - 22 5/23/06 16:35 soil normal MS/MSoil Boring SM140SB03 SM140 SM140SB03052306 21.5 - 22 5/23/06 16:35 soil normal MS/MSoil Boring SM140SB03 SM140 SM140FD03052306 21.5 - 22 5/23/06 16:40 soil quality control field dupSoil Boring SM140SB03 SM140 SM140FD03052306 21.5 - 22 5/23/06 16:40 soil quality control field dupSoil Boring SM141SB01 SM141 SM141SB01052406 0 - 2 5/24/06 7:50 soil normal Soil Boring SM141SB01 SM141 SM141SB01052406 0 - 2 5/24/06 7:50 soil normal Soil Boring SM141SB02 SM141 SM141SB02052406 5 - 6 5/24/06 8:15 soil normal Soil Boring SM141SB02 SM141 SM141SB02052406 5 - 6 5/24/06 8:15 soil normal Soil Boring SM141SB03 SM141 SM141SB03052406 6.5 - 8 5/24/06 8:25 soil normal Soil Boring SM141SB03 SM141 SM141SB03052406 6.5 - 8 5/24/06 8:25 soil normal Soil Boring SM141SB03 SM141 SM141FD03052406 6.5 - 8 5/24/06 8:25 soil quality control field dupSoil Boring SM141SB03 SM141 SM141FD03052406 6.5 - 8 5/24/06 8:25 soil quality control field dupSoil Boring SM142SB01 SM142 SM142SB01052406 0 - 1 5/24/06 9:20 soil normal Soil Boring SM142SB01 SM142 SM142SB01052406 0 - 1 5/24/06 9:20 soil normal Soil Boring SM142SB02 SM142 SM142SB02052406 5 - 6 5/24/06 9:45 soil normal Soil Boring SM142SB02 SM142 SM142SB02052406 5 - 6 5/24/06 9:45 soil normal 

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xls PAGE 1 OF 5 

006018
Table 2-2

List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation May - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Type of Investigation StationID Sample Location SampleID

Depth

(feet bgs)*

Date and Time

Collected Matrix Sample Type

Soil Boring SM138EB01 SM138 SM138EB01052306 NA 5/23/06 13:40 water quality control equipment bSoil Boring SM138EB01 SM138 SM138EB01052306 NA 5/23/06 13:40 water quality control equipment bGround water investigation: Total number of samples = 6 (including quality control samples)ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136GW01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water normal 

ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136GW01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water normal 

ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136GW01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water normal ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136GW01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water normal 

ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136MS01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSD ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136MS01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSD ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136MS01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSD 

ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136MS01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSD ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136MSD01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSD ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136MSD01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSD 

ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136MSD01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSD 

ground water MW136GW01 MW136 MW136MSD01053106 15 5/31/06 20:25 ground water quality control MS/MSD 

ground water MW137GW01 MW137 MW137GW01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water normal ground water MW137GW01 MW137 MW137GW01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water normal 

ground water MW137GW01 MW137 MW137GW01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water normal ground water MW137GW01 MW137 MW137GW01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water normal 

ground water MW137GW01 MW137 MW137FD01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water quality control field duplicground water MW137GW01 MW137 MW137FD01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water quality control field duplic

ground water MW137GW01 MW137 MW137FD01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water quality control field duplicground water MW137GW01 MW137 MW137FD01053106 15 5/31/06 19:50 ground water quality control field duplicground water MW116BGW01 MW116B MW116BGW01053106 15 5/31/06 13:30 ground water normal ground water MW116BGW01 MW116B MW116BGW01053106 15 5/31/06 13:30 ground water normal ground water MW116BGW01 MW116B MW116BGW01053106 15 5/31/06 13:30 ground water normal ground water MW116BGW01 MW116B MW116BGW01053106 15 5/31/06 13:30 ground water normal Sediment investigation: Total number of samples = 3 (including quality control samples)

Sediment A A A-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 11:00 Sediment normal 

Sediment A A A-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 11:00 Sediment normal Sediment A A A-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 11:00 Sediment normal 

Sediment A A A-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 11:00 Sediment normal Sediment A A A-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 11:00 Sediment normal Sediment A A A-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 11:00 Sediment normal

Sediment A A A-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 11:00 Sediment normal 

Sediment B B B-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 12:05 Sediment normal Sediment B B B-SD-01 8 - 9 Sediment normal Sediment B B B-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 12:05 Sediment normal 

Sediment B B B-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 12:05 Sediment normal Sediment B B B-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 12:05 Sediment normal 

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xls PAGE 2 OF 5 

006019
Table 2-2

List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation May - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Type of Investigation StationID Sample Location SampleID

Depth

(feet bgs)*

Date and Time

Collected Matrix Sample Type

Sediment B B B-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 12:05 Sediment normal

Sediment B B B-SD-01 8 - 9 6/8/06 12:05 Sediment normal 

Sediment C C C-SD-01 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment normal 

Sediment C C C-SD-01 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment normal 

Sediment C C C-SD-01 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment normal Sediment C C C-SD-01 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment normal Sediment C C C-SD-01 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment normal Sediment C C C-SD-01 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment normal

Sediment C C C-SD-01 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment normal 

Sediment D D D-SD-01 10 6/8/06 16:40 Sediment normal 

Sediment D D D-SD-01 10 6/8/06 16:40 Sediment normal 

Sediment D D D-SD-01 10 6/8/06 16:40 Sediment normal Sediment D D D-SD-01 10 6/8/06 16:40 Sediment normal Sediment D D D-SD-01 10 6/8/06 16:40 Sediment normal Sediment D D D-SD-01 10 6/8/06 16:40 Sediment normal

Sediment D D D-SD-01 10 6/8/06 16:40 Sediment normal 

Sediment E E E-SD-01 3 - 4 6/8/06 14:20 Sediment normal 

Sediment E E E-SD-01 3 - 4 6/8/06 14:20 Sediment normal Sediment E E E-SD-01 3 - 4 6/8/06 14:20 Sediment normal 

Sediment E E E-SD-01 3 - 4 6/8/06 14:20 Sediment normal Sediment E E E-SD-01 3 - 4 6/8/06 14:20 Sediment normal Sediment E E E-SD-01 3 - 4 6/8/06 14:20 Sediment normal

Sediment E E E-SD-01 3 - 4 6/8/06 14:20 Sediment normal 

Sediment F F F-SD-01 8 6/8/06 17:25 Sediment normal 

Sediment F F F-SD-01 8 6/8/06 17:25 Sediment normal 

Sediment F F F-SD-01 8 6/8/06 17:25 Sediment normal 

Sediment F F F-SD-01 8 6/8/06 17:25 Sediment normal Sediment F F F-SD-01 8 6/8/06 17:25 Sediment normal Sediment F F F-SD-01 8 6/8/06 17:25 Sediment normal

Sediment F F F-SD-01 8 6/8/06 17:25 Sediment normal 

Sediment G G G-SD-01 8 - 10 6/9/06 10:50 Sediment normal 

Sediment G G G-SD-01 8 - 10 6/9/06 10:50 Sediment normal 

Sediment G G G-SD-01 8 - 10 6/9/06 10:50 Sediment normal 

Sediment G G G-SD-01 8 - 10 6/9/06 10:50 Sediment normal Sediment G G G-SD-01 8 - 10 6/9/06 10:50 Sediment normal Sediment G G G-SD-01 8 - 10 6/9/06 10:50 Sediment normal

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xls PAGE 3 OF 5 

006020
Table 2-2

List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation May - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Type of Investigation StationID Sample Location SampleID

Depth

(feet bgs)*

Date and Time

Collected Matrix Sample Type

Sediment G G G-SD-01 8 - 10 6/9/06 10:50 Sediment normal 

Sediment H H H-SD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment normal Sediment H H H-SD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment normal 

Sediment H H H-SD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment normal 

Sediment H H H-SD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment normal Sediment H H H-SD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment normal Sediment H H H-SD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment normal

Sediment H H H-SD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment normal 

Sediment I I I-SD-01 2 6/9/06 11:45 Sediment normal Sediment I I I-SD-01 2 6/9/06 11:45 Sediment normal 

Sediment I I I-SD-01 2 6/9/06 11:45 Sediment normal 

Sediment I I I-SD-01 2 6/9/06 11:45 Sediment normal Sediment I I I-SD-01 2 6/9/06 11:45 Sediment normal Sediment I I I-SD-01 2 6/9/06 11:45 Sediment normal

Sediment I I I-SD-01 2 6/9/06 11:45 Sediment normal 

Sediment FD H FD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment quality control field duplic

Sediment FD H FD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment quality control field duplic

Sediment FD H FD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment quality control field duplic

Sediment FD H FD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment quality control field duplic

Sediment FD H FD-01 4 6/9/06 10:15 Sediment quality control field duplic

Sediment C C MS/MSD 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSD 

Sediment C C MS/MSD 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSD Sediment C C MS/MSD 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSD Sediment C C MS/MSD 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSD Sediment C C MS/MSD 15 6/8/06 15:30 Sediment quality control MS/MSD Investigation-derived waste sampling for disposal: total number of samples = 2IDW IWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB01052406 5/24/06 13:50 solid waste normal IDW IWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB01052406 5/24/06 13:50 solid waste normal IDW IWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB01052406 5/24/06 13:50 solid waste normal IDW IWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB01052406 5/24/06 13:50 solid waste normal IDW IWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB01052406 5/24/06 13:50 solid waste normal 

IDW IWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB01052406 5/24/06 13:50 solid waste normal 

IDW IWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB01052406 5/24/06 13:50 solid waste normal 

IDW IWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB01052406 5/24/06 13:50 solid waste normal 

IDW IWSB01 Supplemental RI Soils IWSB01052406 5/24/06 13:50 solid waste normal 

IDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal 

IDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal 

IDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal 

IDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal IDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal 

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xls PAGE 4 OF 5 

006021
Table 2-2

List of Samples Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation May - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Type of Investigation StationID Sample Location SampleID

Depth

(feet bgs)*

Date and Time

Collected Matrix Sample Type

IDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal IDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal IDW IWGW01 Supplemental RI Liquids IWGW01053106 5/31/06 16:00 liquid waste normal Notes:Analysis Methods:SW7470 - MercurySW8015-E - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Diesel Range OrganicsSW6010 - MetalsSW8015-P - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Gasoline Range OrganicsSW8270C - Semivolatile Organic CompoundsSW8260B - VOCsSW8270C-SIM - PAHs single ion monitoringSW8081A - PesticidesSW8051A - HerbicidesSW1311 - Toxicity Characteristic Leaching ProcedureEPA 9095A - paint filter liquids

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-2_2006-10.xls PAGE 5 OF 5 

006022
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006023
Table 2-3

Monitor Well and Soil Boring Location Coordinates and Completion Details

State Marine Superfund Site

Port Arthur, Texas

Monitor Wells

Monitor Well 

ID Northing Easting

Reference 

Elevation 

(ft MSL)

Ground 

Surface 

Elevation 

(ft MSL)

Total 

Depth 

(ft BTOC)

Depth of 

Screened 

Interval (ft bgs)

Elevation of 

Screened Interval 

(ft MSL)

MW-061A 13932253.35 3595376.96 7.99 5.82 43.08 18 - 43 -12.18 - -37.18

MW-061B 13932253.35 3595376.96 7.97 5.82 26.98 5 - 25 0.82 - -19.18

MW-068A 13932451.58 3595178.31 12.45 10.39 44.88 20 - 45 -9.61 - -34.61

MW-068B 13932451.58 3595178.31 12.62 10.42 23.30 5 - 20 5.42 - -9.61

MW-116A 13932782.17 3595749.92 6.97 4.51 40.80 20 - 40 -15.49 - -35.49

MW-116B 13932782.17 3595749.92 6.97 4.51 27.30 5 - 25 -0.49 - -20.49

MW-136 13933017.70 3595694.50 9.58 6.72 22.93 10 - 20 -3.28 - -13.28

MW-137 13932827.90 3595615.90 10.05 7.04 23.20 10 - 20 -2.96 - -12.96

Soil Borings

Soil Boring 

ID Northing Easting

Ground 

Surface 

Elevation 

(ft MSL)

Total 

Depth 

(ft bgs)

SB138 13933144.87 3595454.50 9.00 22

SB139 13933089.95 3595544.64 5.41 12

SB140 13933043.50 3595495.19 4.16 22

SB141 13932931.96 3595387.47 10.53 8

SB142 13932872.67 3595480.78 7.02 6

Sediment Sample Locations

Sediment 

Sample Area

Location 

Number Northing Easting

A 1 13933019.62 3596068.42

B 1 1392682.96 3595978.71

2 13932780.78 3595981.93

3 13932749.24 3596065.51

4 13932659.45 3596119.64

5 13932064.90 3596032.39

C 1 13932522.25 3596172.48

2 13932545.48 3596132.52

D 1 13932405.38 3596033.55

2 13932369.63 3596043.46

3 13932510.63 3596027.66

4 13932323.48 3596070.21

5 13932411.03 3596005.54

E 1 13932395.72 3595840.66

2 13932254.59 3595802.03

3 13932285.48 3595728.84

4 13932330.43 3595584.06

5 13932229.59 3595715.87

F 1 13932150.07 3595913.67

2 13932000.13 3595835.43

G 1 13931942.40 3595660.49

2 13931911.75 359667.62

H 1 13932049.97 3595517.33

2 13932084.38 3595466.32

3 13932012.08 3595016.67

4 13931986.92 3595436.61

I (reference) 1 13938347.76 3605370.79

Notes:

Northing and Easting coordinates are State Plane, Texas South Central Zone, North American Datum of 1983

Elevations are relative to the North American Vertical Datum, 1988

ft - feet

MSL - Mean Sea Level

bgs - below ground surface

BTOC - Below Top of Casing

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-3_2006-10.xls PAGE 1 OF 1 OCTOBER 2006

006024
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006025
Table 2-4

Water Level Data - May 2006

State Marine Superfund Site

Port Arthur, Texas

Well ID Date Collected

Reference 

Elevation 

(ft MSL)

Depth to Water 

(ft BTOC)

Water Level 

Elevation 

(ft MSL)

MW-061A 05/31/06 8.14 6.65 1.49

MW-061B 05/31/06 8.13 6.49 1.64

MW-068A 05/31/06 12.73 NM ---

MW-068B 05/31/06 12.77 5.48 7.29

MW-116A 05/31/06 7.38 5.61 1.77

MW-116B 05/31/06 7.38 5.14 2.24

MW-136 05/31/06 9.58 6.06 3.52

MW-137 05/31/06 10.05 7.28 2.77

Notes:

ft - feet

MSL - mean sea level

BTOC - below top of casing

NM - water level not measured in MW-068A. Water level meter provided false water level

indications from water along the side of the well casing.

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table2-4_2006-10.xls\Table 2-4 PAGE 1 OF 1 OCTOBER 2006

006026
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006027
Table 3-1

Detections of Metals in Soil Samples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Station ID : SM136 SM137 SM137 SM138 SM138 SM138 

Sample ID : SM136SB01052206 SM137SB01052306 SM137SB02052306 SM138SB01052306 SM138SB02052306 SM138SB03052306 SM138

Date Collected : 5/22/06 8:05 5/23/06 9:20 5/23/06 9:25 5/23/06 11:20 5/23/06 12:10 5/23/06 12:55 5/2

Sample Type : N N N N N N

Matrix : SS SB SB SS SB SB 

Upper Depth : 0.5 2 7 0 11.5 20 

Lower Depth : 1.7 4 8 2 12 22 

Reference Sample ID : SM138

Aluminum mg/kg 20000 = 8770 = 6030 = 11200 = 5680 = 10600 = 1

Antimony mg/kg 4.73 J 1.97 J 0.433 U 1.84 JL 0.616 U 0.491 U 0

Arsenic mg/kg 13.3 = 5.05 = 9.71 = 5.33 = 2.64 = 4.58 = 

Barium mg/kg 540 = 137 = 43.3 = 301 J 108 = 49.9 J 

Beryllium mg/kg 0.367 J 0.526 = 0.138 J 0.625 = 0.18 J 0.646 = Calcium mg/kg 79000 = 21800 = 5230 = 33000 J 22600 = 1760 J Cadmium mg/kg 7.24 = 0.959 = 4.33 U 0.118 = 0.304 = 0.0491 U 0

Chromium mg/kg 55 = 25 = 34.9 = 14.1 = 9.3 = 11.2 = 

Cobalt mg/kg 16.9 = 4.21 = 15.4 = 4.79 = 2.61 = 7.48 = 

Copper mg/kg 373 = 57.2 = 117 = 41.6 = 30.8 = 4.23 = 

Iron mg/kg 103000 = 15100 = 329000 = 16300 = 17900 = 12600 = 1Potassium mg/kg 1880 = 1190 = 612 = 1460 = 718 = 1760 = 

Mercury mg/kg 0.134 J 0.127 J 0.467 = 0.0901 J 0.0267 J 0.03 J 0

Magnesium mg/kg 8150 = 2380 = 953 = 2010 = 1070 = 2490 = 

Manganese mg/kg 534 = 188 = 1350 = 134 J 119 = 195 = 

Sodium mg/kg 1230 = 271 = 424 = 132 = 244 = 1380 = 

Nickel mg/kg 43.8 = 16.4 = 15.3 = 11.4 J 3.02 = 9 = 

Lead mg/kg 574 = 118 = 641 = 59.7 J 129 = 9.68 J 

Selenium mg/kg 4.68 J 1.99 = 217 U 0.444 U 3.08 U 2.46 U 

Silver mg/kg 5.23 = 0.991 = 7.01 = 0.794 = 0.851 = 0.46 J Vanadium mg/kg 29.9 = 18.6 = 24.1 = 21.3 JH 10.9 = 21.9 = 

Zinc mg/kg 4140 = 603 = 1440 = 287 J 285 = 37.8 J 

Notes:mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSS - surface soil sampleSB - subsurface soil sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported concentration is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased high

Analyte Unit

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-1_2006-10.xlsTable 3-1 Page 1 of 2 

006028
Table 3-1

Detections of Metals in Soil Samples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Station ID : 

Sample ID : 

Date Collected : 

Sample Type : 

Matrix : 

Upper Depth : 

Lower Depth : 

Reference Sample ID : 

Aluminum mg/kg

Antimony mg/kgArsenic mg/kgBarium mg/kgBeryllium mg/kgCalcium mg/kgCadmium mg/kgChromium mg/kgCobalt mg/kgCopper mg/kgIron mg/kgPotassium mg/kgMercury mg/kgMagnesium mg/kgManganese mg/kgSodium mg/kgNickel mg/kgLead mg/kgSelenium mg/kgSilver mg/kgVanadium mg/kgZinc mg/kg

Analyte Unit

SM140 SM140 SM140 SM140 SM141 SM141 

SM140SB01052306 SM140SB02052306 SM140SB03052306 SM140FD03052306 SM141SB01052406 SM141SB02052406 SM141

5/23/06 15:20 5/23/06 15:40 5/23/06 16:35 5/23/06 16:40 5/24/06 7:50 5/24/06 8:15 5/2

N N NFDN N 

SS SB SB SB SS SB 

0.5 7.5 21.5 21.5 0 5 

2 822 222 6 

SM140SB03052306 

11200 = 14100 = 9290 = 9850 = 12600 = 14700 = 1

3.19 J 2.7 J 0.626 UJ 0.539 U 0.504 J 3.39 J 

5 = 6.15 = 5.05 = 6.26 = 3.99 = 5.45 = 

125 = 168 = 59.6 JH 52.5 = 72.1 = 319 = 

0.61 = 0.721 = 0.611 J 0.661 = 0.559 = 0.571 = 

9040 = 6620 = 4250 J 2330 J 11100 = 21300 = 

0.554 = 0.589 = 1.13 JL 0.635 J 0.358 = 2.58 = 0

18.7 = 20.9 J 12.3 JH 12.3 = 17.5 = 45.9 = 

5.24 = 6.64 J 7.36 J 7.1 J 5.48 = 13.4 = 

76.8 = 74.2 = 14.5 = 11.7 = 64.7 = 291 = 

23000 = 28400 = 22400 J 14100 J 24100 = 126000 = 2

1550 = 2220 = 1670 JH 1910 = 1560 = 2140 = 

0.18 J 0.121 J 0.532 J 0.0871 J 0.0572 J 0.207 J 0

1900 = 2180 = 2630 = 2900 = 1660 = 2400 = 

158 = 191 J 181 = 193 = 200 = 590 = 

619 = 1860 = 1590 = 1770 = 642 = 1290 = 

13.5 = 14.9 = 9.45 = 10.3 = 12 = 14.5 = 

180 = 120 J 75.6 J 42.5 J 132 = 951 = 

4.45 U 2.56 U 2.69 U 4.8 U 22 U 

1.51 = 1.35 = 1.13 = 0.703 = 1.88 = 13.9 = 

22.3 = 25.1 = 20.1 JH 20.8 = 19.9 = 23.9 = 

279 = 293 = 74.3 = 59.2 = 178 = 2910 = 

Notes:mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSS - surface soil sampleSB - subsurface soil sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported concentration is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased high

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-1_2006-10.xlsTable 3-1 Page 2 of 2 

006029
Table 3-2

Detections of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Station ID : SM138 SM138 SM138 SM140 SM140 SM140 SM141 

Sample ID : SM138SB02052306 SM138SB03052306 SM138FD03052306 SM140SB02052306 SM140SB03052306 SM140FD03052306 SM141SB02052406 S

Date Collected : 5/23/06 12:10 5/23/06 12:55 5/23/06 13:00 5/23/06 15:40 5/23/06 16:35 5/23/06 16:40 5/24/06 8:15 

Sample Type : N N FD N N FD N 

Matrix : SB SB SB SB SB SB SB 

Upper Depth : 11.5 20 20 7.5 21.5 21.5 5 

Lower Depth : 12 22 22 8 22 22 6 

Reference Sample ID : SM138SB03052306 SM140SB03052306

2,4-Dimethylphenol ug/kg 1420 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 2170 J 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Acenaphthene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1480 J 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Acenaphthylene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Anthracene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 6290 = 127 U 124 U 113 U Benzo (a) anthracene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 2050 J 127 U 124 U 113 U Benzo (a) pyrene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1470 J 127 U 124 U 113 U Benzo (b) fluoranthene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1640 J 127 U 124 U 113 U Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ug/kg 17200 = 491 J 998 J 1920 J 138 J 491 J 120 J Butyl benzylphthalate ug/kg 840 J 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U Carbazole ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1520 J 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Chrysene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 4170 = 127 U 124 U 113 U cresols, m & p ug/kg 1420 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U Di-n-butylphthalate ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Dibenzofuran ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1260 J 127 U 124 U 113 U Fluoranthene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 5460 = 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Fluorene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 2760 = 127 U 124 U 113 U Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Naphthalene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 2170 J 127 U 124 U 113 U Phenanthrene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 10600 = 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Phenol ug/kg 1420 U 116 U 115 U 1110 U 127 U 124 U 113 U Pyrene ug/kg 725 U 116 U 115 U 6300 = 127 U 124 U 113 U 

Notes:ug/kg - micrograms per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSS - surface soil sampleSB - subsurface soil sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported result is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limit

Analyte Unit

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-2_2006-10.xlsTable 3-2 Page 1 of 1 

006030
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006031
Table 3-3

Detections of Metals in Ground Water Samples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Station ID : 

Sample ID : 

Date Collected : 

Sample Type : 

Matrix : 

Reference Sample ID : 

Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total 

Aluminum UG/L 82.3 U 52.4 U 12500 = 43.8 U 866 J 

Arsenic UG/L 12.7 JH 9.32 U 22.3 JH 14.1 JH 22.7 JH 

Barium UG/L 555 = 543 = 1220 = 1250 = 573 = Beryllium UG/L 0.0635 U 0.0635 U 0.684 J 0.0635 U 0.0635 U 

Calcium UG/L 201000 = 203000 = 198000 = 189000 = 137000 = Cadmium UG/L 0.351 U 0.351 U 1.22 J 0.447 J 0.351 U 

Chromium UG/L 3.97 J 0.842 U 14.5 = 0.842 U 0.842 U 

Cobalt UG/L 0.332 U 0.332 U 5.87 J 1.65 J 4.94 J Copper UG/L 2.27 U 2.27 U 31.4 = 2.27 U 2.27 U Iron UG/L 2030 = 981 = 35800 = 27800 = 1500 J Potassium UG/L 39500 J 39200 J 63400 J 60400 J 65400 J Mercury UG/L 0.0347 U 0.0347 U 0.0455 J 0.0347 U 0.0347 U Magnesium UG/L 101000 = 93700 = 317000 = 300000 = 230000 = Manganese UG/L 1400 = 1310 = 8390 = 7680 = 5510 = Sodium UG/L 591000 = 521000 = 1720000 J 1550000 J 1420000 = 

Nickel UG/L 164 = 170 = 13.6 J 7.41 J 14 J 

Lead UG/L 2.26 J 2.49 J 71 = 1.52 U 2.47 J 

Selenium UG/L 8.77 U 9.41 J 8.77 U 8.77 U 8.77 U Vanadium UG/L 1.87 J 1.69 J 24.6 J 0.71 U 7.73 J 

Zinc UG/L 48.1 = 36.2 = 258 = 34.8 = 70.9 J 

Notes:UG/L - micrograms per literN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateWG = groundwater sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported concentration is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased high

Analyte Unit

WG

MW116B

MW116BGW01053106

5/31/06 13:30

N

WG

MW136

MW136GW01053106

5/31/06 20:25

N

WG

MW137

MW137GW01

N

05/31/2006 

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-3_2006-10.xlsTable 3-3 Page 1 of 1 

006032
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006033
Table 3-4

Detections of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Ground Water Samples - May 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Station ID : MW116B MW136 MW137 

Sample ID : MW116BGW01053106 MW136GW01053106 MW137GW01053106 MW

Date Collected : 5/31/06 13:30 5/31/06 20:25 5/31/06 19:50 

Sample Type : N N N 

Matrix : WG WG WG 

Reference Sample ID : MW

Diethylphthalate UG/L 1.83 J 2.82 J 2.21 J 

Acenaphthene UG/L 1.12 = 0.0114 J 0.028 = 

Acenaphthylene UG/L 0.0408 = 0.00121 U 0.00118 U Anthracene UG/L 0.0199 J 0.00119 U 0.0042 J Benzo(a)anthracene UG/L 0.0078 J 0.0032 J 0.0021 J Benzo(a)pyrene UG/L 0.00136 U 0.0028 J 0.0037 J Benzo(b)fluoroanthene UG/L 0.00142 U 0.0034 J 0.00133 U 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene UG/L 0.0016 U 0.0018 J 0.0015 U 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene UG/L 0.00149 U 0.0015 J 0.0037 J 

Chrysene UG/L 0.0046 J 0.0033 J 0.00168 U 

Fluoranthene UG/L 0.532 = 0.0101 J 0.0044 J Fluorene UG/L 0.0573 = 0.004 J 0.0108 J 

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene UG/L 0.00124 U 0.0018 J 0.00116 U 

Naphthalene UG/L 0.0142 J 0.0085 J 0.0247 J Phenanthrene UG/L 0.0063 J 0.0102 J 0.0119 J Pyrene UG/L 0.297 = 0.0101 J 0.0079 J 

Notes:UG/L - micrograms per literN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateWG - groundwater sampleYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported result is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limit

Analyte Unit

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-4_2006-10.xlsTable 3-4 Page 1 of 1 

006034
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006035
Table 3-5

Detections of Metals in Sediment Samples - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Station ID : A-SD B-SD C-SD D-SD E-SD F-SD G-SD H-SD 

Sample ID : A-SD-01 B-SD-02 C-SD-03 D-SD-04 E-SD-05 F-SD-06 G-SD-07 H-SD-08 FD

Date Collected : 6/8/06 11:00 6/8/06 12:05 6/8/06 15:30 6/8/06 16:40 6/8/06 14:20 6/8/06 17:25 6/9/06 10:50 6/9/06 10:15 6/9/

Sample Type : N N N N N N N N 

Matrix : SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 

Reference Sample ID : H-

Analyte Unit

Aluminum mg/kg 13000 = 9130 = 15500 = 16200 = 4360 = 4040 = 11400 = 11000 = 10Antimony mg/kg 0.0947 U 0.121 J 0.237 JL 0.0801 U 0.0634 U 0.0653 U 0.0963 U 0.0883 U 0.

Arsenic mg/kg 6 = 4.5 = 5.73 = 5.29 = 4.12 = 3.59 = 5.32 = 4.19 = 5Barium mg/kg 191 = 135 = 264 = 43.5 = 27.7 = 44.4 = 36.6 = 37.8 = 4

Beryllium mg/kg 0.737 = 0.527 J 0.768 J 0.826 = 0.284 J 0.266 J 0.747 = 0.625 J 0Calcium mg/kg 2820 = 1430 = 2560 = 938 = 1040 = 556 = 1670 = 1440 = 1Cadmium mg/kg 0.108 J 0.0913 J 0.1 J 0.0846 J 0.0989 J 0.0508 U 0.133 = 0.158 = 0

Chromium mg/kg 15.1 = 11.6 = 16.6 = 17.3 = 6.32 = 6.7 = 12.7 = 12 = 1Cobalt mg/kg 6.37 = 4.78 = 6.7 = 5.58 = 3.18 = 3.13 = 4.37 = 6.09 = 7Copper mg/kg 15.2 = 7.82 = 8.62 = 6.04 = 18.3 = 7.39 = 8.85 = 5.24 = 5

Iron mg/kg 16700 B 12600 B 17100 B 14100 B 11100 B 9840 B 12600 B 15000 B 14

Potassium mg/kg 2880 = 2010 = 3200 JH 2970 = 717 = 793 = 2190 = 2030 = 1Mercury mg/kg 0.0396 J 0.0288 J 0.0405 J 0.0201 J 0.0376 J 0.0232 J 0.0215 J 0.0215 J 0.

Magnesium mg/kg 4230 = 2820 = 4620 = 3510 = 1050 = 1150 = 3430 = 2930 = 2Manganese mg/kg 297 = 173 = 405 = 65.7 = 127 = 123 = 165 = 138 = 1

Sodium mg/kg 5250 = 3320 = 7290 = 3940 = 1610 = 2050 = 4720 = 3810 = 3

Nickel mg/kg 12.4 = 8.59 = 12.2 = 11.3 = 8.07 = 5.38 = 10.6 = 9.15 = 9Lead mg/kg 18.7 = 15.8 = 15.7 = 11.5 = 15.8 = 10.9 = 12.5 = 12.1 = Selenium mg/kg 4.66 = 3.15 = 3.69 = 2.22 = 3.85 = 2.41 = 2.96 = 3.87 = 3Silver mg/kg 0.346 U 0.287 U 0.391 U 0.288 U 0.255 U 0.263 J 0.328 U 0.315 U 0

Thallium mg/kg 0.28 = 0.0752 = 0.0966 = 0.0826 = 0.0347 = 0.0436 = 0.0837 = 0.0851 = 0.

Vanadium mg/kg 25.5 = 18.8 = 30.2 JH 26.5 = 9.89 = 10.5 = 23.7 = 21.8 = 2Zinc mg/kg 94.7 = 63.2 = 59.7 = 44.4 = 71.2 = 27.2 = 36.8 = 84.1 = 

Notes:mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSD - sedimentYellow shading and bold text indicates detectionsData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported result is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitB: Analyte was detected in associated method blank sampleJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased high

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-5_2006-10.xlsTable 3-5 Page 1 of 1 

006036
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006037
Table 3-6

Detections of Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Sediment Samples - June 2006State Marine Superfund SitePort Arthur, Texas

Station ID : A-SD B-SD C-SD D-SD E-SD F-SD G-SD H-SD 

Sample ID : A-SD-01 B-SD-02 C-SD-03 D-SD-04 E-SD-05 F-SD-06 G-SD-07 H-SD-0

Date Collected : 6/8/06 11:00 6/8/06 12:05 6/8/06 15:30 6/8/06 16:40 6/8/06 14:20 6/8/06 17:25 6/9/06 10:50 6/9/06 10

Sample Type : N N N N N N N N

Matrix : SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 

Reference Sample ID : 

Parameter Name Unit

2-Methylnaphthalene ug/kg 29.4 U 9.85 U 5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U 17.9 = 5.67 U 5.19 U 

Anthracene ug/kg 29.4 U 10 J 5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U 8.11 U 5.67 U 5.19 U Benzo (a) anthracene ug/kg 56 J 20.3 = 8.23 J 10.8 J 25 J 12.6 J 5.67 U 5.19 U 

Benzo (a) pyrene ug/kg 54.8 J 20.4 = 9.2 J 12.3 J 19.6 U 11.7 J 5.67 U 5.19 U 

Benzo (b) fluoranthene ug/kg 143 = 26.3 = 10.5 J 15.7 J 19.6 U 13.7 J 5.67 U 5.19 U Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ug/kg 29.4 U 16.6 J 5.96 U 9.92 J 19.6 U 9.06 J 5.67 U 5.19 U 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/kg 29.8 J 9.85 U 5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U 8.11 U 5.67 U 5.19 U 

Chrysene ug/kg 82.6 = 29.6 = 8.09 J 11.8 J 19.9 J 10.6 J 5.67 U 5.19 U 

Fluoranthene ug/kg 170 = 33.5 = 11 J 12.8 J 47.4 = 14.8 J 5.73 J 5.19 U 

Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene ug/kg 29.4 U 10.9 J 5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U 8.11 U 5.67 U 5.19 U Naphthalene ug/kg 29.4 U 9.85 U 5.96 U 9.47 U 19.6 U 10.6 J 5.67 U 5.19 U Phenanthrene ug/kg 58.9 = 13.7 J 9.67 J 9.47 U 23.4 J 8.76 J 5.67 U 5.19 U 

Pyrene ug/kg 104 = 44.2 = 14.4 = 19.8 = 49 = 33.7 = 5.67 U 5.19 U 

Notes:mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramN - normal sampleFD - field duplicateSD - sedimentData Qualifiers:=: Reported concentrationJ: Reported result is estimatedU: Not detected at reported quantitation limitB: Analyte was detected in associated method blank sampleJL: Reported concentration is estimated and biased lowJH: Reported concentration is estimated and biased high

Supplemental RI_Ver1.1_Table3-6_2006-10.xlsTable 3-6 Page 1 of 1 

006038
STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 

VERSION 1.1 

SM_SUPPLEMENTAL RI_VER1.1_2006-10.DOC OCTOBER 2006 

(This page intentionally left blank)

006039
Figures 

006040
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006041
Project

Location

FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\FIG_1-1.mxd

£ 200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 1-1

Site Location Map

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/13/2005

Streets

Property Boundary

PROJECT LOCATION

Austin

Dallas

Houston

Fort Worth

San Antonio

PROJECT

LOCATION

Port Arthur

* Image Data: Provided by Aerial Viewpoint

 Date Flown: 2000

006042
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006043
PALMER BARGE SITE

STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

TAR BURN AREA

FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

MAINTENCE SHED AREA

WASTEWATER

TREATMENT FACILITY

APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF THE

FORMER LAUREN REFINING CO. TANK FARM

CURRENT ABOVE GROUND

STORAGE TANK AREA

FORMER

OFFICE BUILDING

DISTILLATION

COLUMN SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL

FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\2006\FIG_1-2.mxd

£ 200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 1-2

2000 Aerial Photograph

Current Site Features Map

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 8/01/2005 SDaigle

Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Property Boundary

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge

 Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

* Image Data: Provided by Aerial Viewpoint

 Date Flown: 2000

006044
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006045
FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

SABINE-NECHES

NAVIGATION

CHANNEL

SABINE-NECHES

NAVIGATION

CHANNEL

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Figure1-3.mxd

£ 200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 1-3

2005 Aerial Photograph

Current Site Features Map

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 8/01/2006

Property Boundary

Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge

Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

* Image Data: Provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

 Map Projection is NAD 83 State Plane (feet) South Central TX.

 Date Flown: 2005

006046
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006047
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

A@

A@

FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

B-SD

C-SD

D-SD

F-SD

G-SD

H-SD

E-SD

A-SD

SABINE-NECHES

NAVIGATION

CHANNEL

SABINE-NECHES

NAVIGATION

CHANNEL

MW137

MW136

SM141

SM142

SM140

SM139

SM138

MW116B MW116A

MW068B MW068A

MW061B MW061A

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\SamplesLocations.mxd

£ 200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 2-1

Sample Location Map

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/10/2006

Property Boundary Soil !( Boring Locations

Deep Nested

Monitor Well

Shallow Nested

Monitor Well

New Shallow Monitor A@ Well Locations Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge

Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

!(

MW061 A

!(

MW061 B

Location of Grab Sample for

Composite Sediment Sample

* Image Data: Provided by the

US Army Corps of Engineers.

Map Projection is NAD 83 State

Plane (feet) South Central TX.

Date Flown: 2005

006048
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006049
A@

A@

A@

A@

A@

FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

3.0

2.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

4.0

MW137

2.77

MW136

3.52

MW116B

2.24

MW068B

7.29

MW061B

1.64

SABINE-NECHES

NAVIGATION

CHANNEL

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\GW_Contours.mxd

£ 200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 3-1

Water Level Elevations

in the Shallow Perched

Ground Water Zone - May 2006

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/10/2006

Property Boundary Note:

Water level elevations are in ft above MSL.

Water level contour interval is 0.5 ft.

Water level data contoured by hand.

Shallow Monitor A@ Well Locations Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge

Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

Groundwater Contours

MW068B

7.29 Monitor Well ID

and Water Level Elevation

* Image Data: Provided by the

 US Army Corps of Engineers.

 Map Projection is NAD 83 State

 Plane (feet) South Central TX.

 Date Flown: 2005

006050
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006051
FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

SM136 (mg/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 0.5 - 1.67

Aluminum 20000

Antimony 4.73

Arsenic 13.3

Barium 540

Beryllium 0.367

Cadmium 7.24

Calcium 79000

Chromium, Total 55

Cobalt 16.9

Copper 373

Iron 103000

Lead 574

Magnesium 8150

Manganese 534

Mercury 0.134

Nickel 43.8

Potassium 1880

Selenium 4.68

Silver 5.23

Sodium 1230

Vanadium 29.9

Zinc 4140

SM142 (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 0 - 2 5 - 6

Aluminum 10800

Antimony 4.1

Arsenic 8.4

Barium 135

Beryllium 0.646

Cadmium 0.387

Calcium 14500

Chromium, Total 24.5

Cobalt 9.91

Copper 168

Iron 52600

Lead 171

Magnesium 2280

Manganese 299

Mercury 0.0678

Nickel 25.8

Potassium 1460

Selenium ND

Silver 2.42

Sodium 1490

Vanadium 21.9

Zinc 377

11400

11.7

5.56

312

0.319

0.807

10300

81.1

9.11

526

57400

589

1430

282

1.04

26

892

ND

2.86

1270

17

1040

SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL

SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL

MW068A MW068B

MW061A MW061B

SM140 (mg/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 0.5-2 7.5-8 21.5-22 21.5-22FD 

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium, Total

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

14100

2.7

6.15

168

0.721

0.589

6620

20.9

6.64

74.2

28400

120

2180

191

0.121

14.9

2220

ND

1.35

1860

25.1

293

9290

ND

5.05

59.6

0.611

1.13

4250

12.3

7.36

14.5

22400

75.6

2630

181

0.532

9.45

1670

ND

1.13

1590

20.1

74.3

9850

ND

6.26

52.5

0.661

0.635

2330

12.3

7.1

11.7

14100

42.5

2900

193

0.0871

10.3

1910

ND

0.703

1770

20.8

59.2

11200

3.19

5

125

0.61

0.554

9040

18.7

5.24

76.8

23000

180

1900

158J

0.18

13.5

1550

ND

1.51

619

22.3

279

SM138 (mg/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 0-2 11.5-12 20-22 20-22FD 

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium, Total

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

5680

ND

2.64

108

0.18

0.304

22600

9.3

2.61

30.8

17900

129

1070

119

0.0267

3.02

718

ND

0.851

244

10.9

285

10600

ND

4.58

49.9

0.646

ND

1760

11.2

7.48

4.23

12600

9.68

2490

195

0.03

9

1760

ND

0.46

1380

21.9

37.8

12500

ND

4.12

74

0.686

ND

4890

13.2

6.6

7.46

13700

23.7

2670

167

0.0253

8.93

1960

ND

0.611

1450

23.7

60

11200

1.84

5.33

301

0.625

0.118

33000

14.1

4.79

41.6

16300

59.7

2010

134

0.0901

11.4

1460

ND

0.794

132

21.3

287

SM139 (mg/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 0-2 5-6 6-8 

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium, Total

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

13800

6.88

14.3

379

0.358

7.77

24900

61.2

16.6

547

134000

718

2450

693

0.0429

34.6

1340

ND

5.71

891

23.4

1500

18100

ND

8.98

96.8

1.08

ND

4650

17.7

14.1

11.3

18000

18.1

3150

94.9

0.128

21.1

3110

ND

0.689

498

33

72.6

13700

ND

12.2

163

0.702

0.913

15900

32.1

11

115

74500

264

1950

485

0.214

23

1280

ND

2.31

246

30.5

563

SM137 (mg/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 2-4 7-8 

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium, Total

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

6030

ND

9.71

43.3

0.138

ND

5230

34.9

15.4

117

329000

641

953

1350

0.467

15.3

612

ND

7.01

424

24.1

1440

8770

1.97

5.05

137

0.526

0.959

21800

25

4.21

57.2

15100

118

2380

188

0.127

16.4

1190

1.99

0.991

271

18.6

603

SM141 (mg/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 0-2 5-6 6.5-8 6.5-8FD 

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium, Total

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

14700

3.39

5.45

319

0.571

2.58

21300

45.9

13.4

291

126000

951

2400

590

0.207

14.5

2140

ND

13.9

1290

23.9

2910

19700

ND

8.55

92.9

1.03

ND

4510

17.6

5.22

13.4

21500

25.6

2490

386

0.0303

8.66

2060

ND

0.706

1310

35.6

56.1

16200

ND

12.8

89

0.904

ND

3630

13.5

4.1

14.8

13400

25

2080

130

0.0398

7.25

1830

ND

0.328

1180

26.5

44=

12600

0.504

3.99

72.1

0.559

0.358

11100

17.5

5.48

64.7

24100

132

1660

200

0.0572

12

1560

ND

1.88

642

19.9

178

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Soil_Metals.mxd

200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 3-2

Metals Detections in

Soil Samples - May 2006

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 9/20/2006

Property Boundary Soil

Boring Locations

Shallow Monitor

Area of Interest Well Locations

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

Note:

ft - Feet

bgs - Below Ground Surface

mg/kg - Milligrams Per Kilogram

FD - Field Duplicate

ND - Not Detected

006052
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006053
A@

A@

A@

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

A@

A@

FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

MW137

MW136

SABINE-NECHES

NAVIGATION

CHANNEL

SM139

MW116B MW116A

MW068B

MW068A

MW061B

MW061A

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Soil_SVOC.mxd

£ 200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 3-3

SVOC Detection in

Soil Samples - May 2006

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/14/2006

Property Boundary Soil !( Boring Locations

Shallow Monitor Area of Interest A@ Well Locations

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

Note:

ft - Feet

bgs - Below Ground Surface

ug/kg - Micrograms Per Kilogram

FD - Field Duplicate

ND - Not Detected

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 120

Depth (5 - 6 FT)

SM141 (ug/kg)

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 120

Depth (5 - 6 FT)

SM141 (ug/kg)

SM138 (ug/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 11.5-12 20-22 20-22(FD)

Benzyl Butyl Phthalate 840 ND ND

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 17200 491 998

SM142 (ug/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 0-2 5-6 

2,4-Dimethylphenol

2-Methylnaphthalene

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)Anthracene

Benzo(a)Pyrene

Benzo(b)Fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene

Benzo(k)Fluoranthene

Benzyl Butyl Phthalate

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate

Carbazole

Chrysene

Cresols, m p

Dibenzofuran

Di-N-Butyl Phthalate

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Phenol

Pyrene

ND

ND

ND

5830

19000

10800

10800

15100

7320

4330

ND

ND

9720

15500

ND

ND

ND

18300

3440

4810

2360

16100

ND

13700

8020

9020

4410

ND

6390

5390

3750

4990

ND

ND

26200

79200

3870

5240

11400

4130

33200

12800

6190

ND

33900

19500

6510

9400

SM140 (ug/kg)

Depth (ft bgs) 7.5-8 21.5-22 21.5-22(FD)

2-Methylnaphthalene 2,170 ND ND

Acenaphthene 1,480 ND ND

Anthracene 6,290 ND ND

Benzo(a)Anthracene 2,050 ND ND

Benzo(a)Pyrene 1,470 ND ND

Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 1,640 ND ND

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 1,920 138 491

Carbazole 1,520

Chrysene 4,170

Dibenzofuran 1,260

Fluoranthene 5,460

Fluorene 2,760

Naphthalene 2,170

Phenanthrene 10,600

Pyrene 6,300

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

138

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

491

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

2170

1480

6290

2050

1470

1640

1920

1520

4170

1260

5460

2760

2170

10600

6300

006054
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006055
FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

MW068A

MW116B (ug/L)

Arsenic 12.7

Barium 555

Calcium 201000

Chromium, Total 3.97

Iron 2030

Lead 2.26

Magnesium 101000

Manganese 1400

Nickel 164

Potassium 39500

Selenium ND

Sodium 591000

Vanadium 1.87

Zinc 48.1

MW136 (ug/L)

Aluminum 12500

Arsenic 22.3

Barium 1220

Beryllium 0.684

Cadmium 1.22

Calcium 198000

Chromium, Total 14.5

Cobalt 5.87

Copper 31.4

Iron 35800

Lead 71

Magnesium 317000

Manganese 8390

Nickel 13.6

Potassium 63400

Selenium ND

Sodium 1720000

Vanadium 24.6

Zinc 258

MW068B

MW137 (ug/L) N FD

Aluminum 866 4,790

Arsenic 22.7 17.2

Barium 573 517

Beryllium ND 0.58

Cadmium ND 0.457

Calcium 137000 129000

Cobalt 4.94 ND

Copper ND 16.7

Iron 1500 5910

Lead 2.47 18.5

Magnesium 230000 211000

Manganese 5510 5290

Mercury ND 0.0355

Nickel 14 20

Potassium 65400 64000

Selenium ND ND

Sodium 1420000 1390000

Vanadium 7.73 16.7

Zinc 70.9 135

MW061B MW061A

SM141

SM142

SM140

SM139

SM138

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\GW_Metal.mxd

200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 3-4

Total Metals Detections

In Ground Water - May

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 9/20/2006

Property Boundary

Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge

Soil

Boring Locations

Shallow Monitor

Well Locations

Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

Note:

ug/L - Micrograms Per Liter

N - Normal

FD - Field Duplicate

ND - Not Detected

006056
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006057
FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

MW137 (ug/L) N FD

Barium , Dissolved 557 579

Cadmium , Dissolved 0.365 0.714

Calcium, Dissolved 146000 163000

Cobalt, Dissolved 4.91 4.79

Copper, Dissolved 2.35 5.1

Iron, Dissolved 752 996

Lead, Dissolved ND 2.37

Magnesium, Dissolved 239000 257000

Manganese, Dissolved 6350 7230

Nickel, Dissolved 14.6 14.5

Potassium, Dissolved 59100 54300

Selenium, Dissolved ND ND

Sodium, Dissolved 1290000 1290000

Vanadium, Dissolved 4.59 5.2

Zinc, Dissolved 72.8 72

MW136 (ug/L)

Arsenic, Dissolved 14.1

Barium , Dissolved 1250

Cadmium , Dissolved 0.447

Calcium, Dissolved 189000

Cobalt, Dissolved 1.65

Iron, Dissolved 27800

Magnesium, Dissolved 300000

Manganese, Dissolved 7680

Nickel, Dissolved 7.41

Potassium, Dissolved 60400

Selenium, Dissolved ND

Sodium, Dissolved 1550000

Zinc, Dissolved 34.8

MW068B MW068A

MW061B MW061A

SABINE-NECHES

NAVIGATION

CHANNEL

SM141

SM142

SM140

SM139

SM138

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\GW_MetalDiss.mxd

200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 3-5

Dissolved Metals Detections

In Ground Water - May 2006

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 9/20/2006

Property Boundary

Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge

Soil

Boring Locations

Shallow Monitor

Well Locations

Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

Note:

ug/L - Micrograms Per Liter

N - Normal

FD - Field Duplicate

ND - Not Detected

Zinc, Dissolved 36.2

Vanadium, Dissolved 1.69

Sodium, Dissolved 521000

Selenium, Dissolved 9.41

Potassium, Dissolved 39200

Nickel, Dissolved 170

Manganese, Dissolved 1310

Magnesium, Dissolved 93700

Lead, Dissolved 2.49

Iron, Dissolved 981

Calcium, Dissolved 203000

Barium, Dissolved 543

Depth (0 FT)

MW116B (ug/L)

Zinc, Dissolved 36.2

Vanadium, Dissolved 1.69

Sodium, Dissolved 521000

Selenium, Dissolved 9.41

Potassium, Dissolved 39200

Nickel, Dissolved 170

Manganese, Dissolved 1310

Magnesium, Dissolved 93700

Lead, Dissolved 2.49

Iron, Dissolved 981

Calcium, Dissolved 203000

Barium, Dissolved 543

Depth (0 FT)

MW116B (ug/L)

006058
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006059
A@

A@

A@

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

A@

A@

FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

MW137 (ug/L) N FD 

Diethyl Phthalate 

Acenaphthene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)Anthracene

Benzo(a)Pyrene

Benzo(b)Fluoroanthene

Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene

Benzo(k)Fluoranthene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

2.21

0.028

0.0042

0.0021

0.0037

ND

ND

0.0037

ND

0.0044

0.0108

ND

0.0247

0.0119

0.0079

4.28

0.0265

0.0059

0.0035

0.003

0.0036

0.0027

ND

0.0035

0.0124

0.0111

0.0027

0.023

0.0161

0.0154

MW116B (ug/L) N 

Diethyl Phthalate 

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)Anthracene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

MW136 (ug/L) N 

Diethyl Phthalate 

Acenaphthene

Benzo(a)Anthracene

Benzo(a)Pyrene

Benzo(b)Fluoroanthene

Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene

Benzo(k)Fluoranthene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

2.82

0.0114

0.0032

0.0028

0.0034

0.0018

0.0015

0.0033

0.0101

0.004

0.0018

0.0085

0.0102

0.0101

1.83

1.12

0.0408

0.0199

0.0078

0.0046

0.532

0.0573

0.0142

0.0063

0.297

MW068B MW068A

MW061B MW061A

SABINE-NECHES

NAVIGATION

CHANNEL

SM141

SM142

SM140

SM139

SM138

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\GW_SVOC.mxd

£ 200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 3-6

SVOC Detections In

Ground Water - May 2006

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/14/2006

Property Boundary

Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge

Soil !( Boring Locations

Shallow Monitor A@ Well Locations

Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

Note:

ug/L - Micrograms Per Liter

N - Normal

FD - Field Duplicate

ND - Not Detected

006060
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006061
A@

A@

A@

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

A@

A@

FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

A-SD (mg/kg) N 

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Cobalt

Chromium, Total

Copper

Iron

Potassium

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Sodium

Nickel

Lead

Selenium

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

13000

6

191

0.737

0.108

2820

6.37

15.1

15.2

16700

2880

4230

297

0.0396

5250

12.4

18.7

4.66

0.28

25.5

94.7

B-SD (mg/kg) N 

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Cobalt

Chromium, Total

Copper

Iron

Potassium

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Sodium

Nickel

Lead

Selenium

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

9130

0.121

4.5

135

0.527

0.0913

1430

4.78

11.6

7.82

12600

2010

2820

173

0.0288

3320

8.59

15.8

3.15

0.0752

18.8

63.2

C-SD (mg/kg) N 

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Cobalt

Chromium, Total

Copper

Iron

Potassium

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Sodium

Nickel

Lead

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

15500

0.237

5.73

264

0.768

0.1

2560

6.7

16.6

8.62

17100

3200

4620

405

0.0405

7290

12.2

15.7

3.69

0.0966

59.7

D-SD (mg/kg) N 

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Cobalt

Chromium, Total

Copper

Iron

Potassium

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Sodium

Nickel

Lead

Selenium

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

16200

5.29

43.5

0.826

0.0846

938

5.58

17.3

6.04

14100

2970

3510

65.7

0.0201

3940

11.3

11.5

2.22

0.0826

26.5

44.4

H-SD (mg/kg) N FD 

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Calcium

Cadmium

Cobalt

Chromium, Total

Copper

Iron

Potassium

Magnesium

Manganese

Sodium

Mercury

Nickel

Lead

Selenium

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

11100

4.19

37.8

0.625

1440

0.158

6.09

12

5.24

15000

2030

2930

138

3810

0.0215

9.15

12.1

3.87

0.0851

21.8

84.1

10200

5.03

40.4

0.625

1480

0.131

7.01

11.3

5.64

14300

1940

2840

149

3590

0.0246

9.37

13

3.63

0.0806

20.6

66

G-SD (mg/kg) N 

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Calcium

Cadmium

Cobalt

Chromium, Total

Copper

Iron

Potassium

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Sodium

Nickel

Lead

Selenium

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

11400

5.32

36.6

0.747

1670

0.133

4.37

12.7

8.85

12600

2190

3430

165

0.0215

4720

10.6

12.5

2.96

0.0837

23.7

36.8

F-SD (mg/kg) N 

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Calcium

Cobalt

Chromium, Total

Copper

Iron

Potassium

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Sodium

Nickel

Lead

Selenium

Silver

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

4040

3.59

44.4

0.266

556

3.13

6.7

7.39

9840

793

1150

123

0.0232

2050

5.38

10.9

2.41

0.263

0.0436

10.5

27.2

E-SD (mg/kg) N 

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Cobalt

Chromium, Total

Copper

Iron

Potassium

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Sodium

Nickel

Lead

Selenium

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

4360

4.12

27.7

0.284

0.0989

1040

3.18

6.32

18.3

11100

717

1050

127

0.0376

1610

8.07

15.8

3.85

0.0347

9.89

71.2

MW116A MW116B

MW068A MW068B

MW061BA

SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL

SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL

MW136

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Sed_Metals.mxd

£ 300 150 0 300

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 3-7

Metals Detections in

Sediment Samples - June 2006

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/14/2006

Property Boundary Soil !( Boring Locations

Shallow Monitor A@ Well Locations Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge

Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

Location of Grab Sample for

Composite Sediment Sample

Note:

mg/kg - Milligrams Per Kilogram

N - Normal

FD - Field Duplicate

006062
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006063
A@

A@

A@

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

A@

A@

C-SD (mg/kg) 

Benzo(a)Anthracene 

Benzo(a)Pyrene

Benzo(b)Fluoranthene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

B-SD (mg/kg) 

Anthracene

Benzo(a)Anthracene

Benzo(a)Pyrene

Benzo(b)Fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

FORMER WASTEWATER

IMPOUNDMENTS

A-SD (mg/kg) 

Benzo(a)Anthracene

Benzo(a)Pyrene

Benzo(b)Fluoranthene

Benzo(k)Fluoranthene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

10.0

20.3

20.4

26.3

16.6

29.6

33.5

10.9

13.7

44.2

8.23

9.2

10.5

8.09

11.0

9.67

14.4

D-SD (mg/kg) 

Benzo(a)Anthracene 

Benzo(a)Pyrene

Benzo(b)Fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

10.8

12.3

15.7

9.92

11.8

12.8

19.8

E-SD (mg/kg) 

Benzo(a)Anthrancene 

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

25.1

19.9

47.4

23.4

49.0

F-SD (mg/kg) 

2-Methylnaphthalene

Benzo(a)Anthracene 

Benzo(a)Pyrene

Benzo(b)Fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

17.9

12.6

11.7

13.7

9.06

10.6

14.8

10.6

8.86

33.7

G-SD (mg/kg) 

Fluoranthene 5.73

H-SD

56

54.8

143

29.8

82.6

170

58.9

104

MW116A MW116B

MW068A MW068B

MW061A MW061B

SM141

SM142

SM140 SM139

MW137

MW136

FILENAME: \\texan\IS_proj\ J:\State_Marine\Project\2006\MXD\Sed_Metals.mxd

£ 200 100 0 200

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 3-8

SVOC Detections In

Sediment Samples - June 2006

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/14/2006

Property Boundary Soil !( Boring Locations

Shallow Monitor A@ Well Locations Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge

Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area

Offshore Area

Location of Grab Sample for

Composite Sediment Sample

Note:

mg/kg - Milligrams Per Kilogram

006064
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

006065