# RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6

Contract No. 68-W6-0036

Version 1.0

Baseline Ecological Risk Assesment

State Marine Superfund Site

EPA Work Assignment No. 139-RICO-06BX

DCN 05-7 898

July 2005

In Association With:



# Science Applications International Corporation

Geo-Marine, Inc.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVI R O NME N TAL PROTECTION AG E NCY\331756\TASK 7- R A \ SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)

# P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC I 

# Contents

1. Data Used in the BERA.......................................................................................................1

2. Refinement of Chemicals of Po tential Ecological Concern............................................2

3. Contaminant Fate and Transport ......................................................................................4

4. Ecosystems and Receptors Potentially at Risk ................................................................4

5. Conceptual Site Model........................................................................................................4

6. Assessment Endpoints and Risk Questions.....................................................................5

7. Complete Exposure Pathways...........................................................................................5

8. Exposure Assessment .........................................................................................................5

9. Effects Assessment ............................................................................................................. .6

10. Risk Characterization.......................................................................................................... 6

11. Uncertainty Assessment .....................................................................................................9

12. Scientific Management Decision Point (SMDP) ............................................................11

**Attachments**

**List of Tables**

1 Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Former Wastewater Impoundments to BKG

2 Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Wastewater Treatment Facility to BKG

3 Comparison of Surface Soil Data from th e Current Aboveground Storage Tanks to BKG

4 Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Maintenance Shed Area to BKG

5 Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Tar Burn Area to BKG

6 Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Former Lauren Tank Farm to BKG

7 Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Non-source Area to BKG

8 Comparison of Intertidal Surface Sediment to BKG

9 Comparison of Near Shore Surface Sediment to BKG

10 Comparison of Offshore Surface Sediment (0-6 in.) to BKG

11 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of CO PCs in Former Wastewater Impoundments Soil

12 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of COPC s in the Wastewater Treatment Facility Soil

13 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of CO PCs in Current Aboveground Storage Tank Soil

14 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of COPCs in the Maintenance Shed Area Soil

15 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of COPCs in the Tar Burn Area Soil

16 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of CO PCs in the Former Lauren Tank Farm Soil

17 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of COPCs in the Non-source Soil

18 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of COPC s in the Lake Sabine Sediment – Intertidal

19 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of COPC s in the Lake Sabine Sediment – Nearshore

20 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of COPC s in the Lake Sabine Sediment – Offshore

21 Environmental Fate and Transport

22 Mechanisms of Ecotoxicity

23 Assessment and Measurement Endpoints

24 Wildlife Exposure Factors for Ecological Receptors

25 Chemical Specific Biotransfer, Bioconcentration, Bioaccumulation Factors—Media to Prey Tissue

# P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC II 

# 26 Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue Concentrations

27 Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in Soil

28 Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in Sediment

29 Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Avian Wildlife Receptors

30 Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Mammalian Wildlife Receptors

31 HQs for the White-footed Mouse in th e Former Wastewater Impoundments

32 HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Wastewater Treatment Facility

33 HQs for the White-footed Mouse in th e Current Aboveground Storage Tanks

34 HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Maintenance Shed Area

35 HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Tar Burn Area

36 HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Lauren Tank Farm

37 HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Non-source Area

38 HQs for the Northern Bobwhite Quail in the Upland Area

39 HQs for the Coyote in the Upland Area

40 Analysis of Risk to Benthic Invertebrates in the Lake Sabine – Intertidal

41 Analysis of Risk to Benthic Invertebrates in the Lake Sabine – Nearshore

42 Analysis of Risk to Benthic Invertebrates in the Lake Sabine – Offshore

43 HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine – Intertidal

44 HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine - Near Shore

45 HQ Summary for the Spotted Sandpiper

46 HQs for the Kingfisher in Lake Sabine

48 Summary of Chemicals of Potential Concern

49 Preliminary Remediation Goals

50 Calculation of Groundwater to Sediment Screening Value for Lead

**List of Figures**

1 Conceptual Site Model For Pathways To Ecological Receptors

2 Terrestrial Food Web

3 Marine Aquatic Food Web

4-10 Areas of PRG Exceedance in Soil and Sediment

**Attachment 1**

**Figures:**

**1** Plots For Inorganics In Soil

**2** Plots For Organics In Soil

3 Plots Of Sediment Data

4 Example Box And Whisker Plots

**List of Tables**

1 Upper Tolerance Limit (UTL), Upper Prediction Limit (UPL), and Maximum BKG Sample

Concentrations

2-14 Number and Percentage of UTL Exceedances

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 1 

# Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment

The following sections present the approach, assumptions, and conclusion of the baseline

ecological risk assessment (BERA) for the Stat e Marine Superfund Site (SMS). The BERA is

not a complete BERA outlining the full 8-Step process for ecological risk assessment under

CERCLA. Instead, the BERA concludes after step 3 (Baseline Problem Formulation [BPF]),

which consists primarily of a refinement of ri sk calculations in Steps 1 and 2 presented in

the RI report for the site, commonly referred to as Step 3a. The approach and assumptions

presented below are consistent with the EPA- approved Ecological Risk Assessment Work

Plan for the site (CH2MHILL, 2005)



# 1. Data Used in the BERA

• **Soil** - All historical surface (0-0.5’) soil data that were available to CH2M HILL

electronically as of June 17, 2005, were used in the BERA. 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 1995 Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) (TNRCC, 1996)

and 2001 Remedial Investigation (RI) (Westo n, 2001) based on historical activities

performed in six distinct areas. The data were grouped for the BERA based on the

groupings presented in the 1995 ESI and the groupings provided in the 2001 RI Report.

It should be noted that during the 1995 ESI, soil samples were grouped by areas

potentially impacted by the potential source s and included areas outside the immediate

source boundaries. The following soil da ta groupings were used in the BERA:

− Current Aboveground Storage Tank Area

− Former Lauren Tank Farm Area

− Former Wastewater Impoundments

− Maintenance Shed Area

− Tar Burn Area

− Wastewater Treatment Facility

− Non-Source Area

• **Sediment** – All historical sediment data collected from the 0-6 inch interval and

available to CH2M HILL electronically as of June 17, 2005 were used in the BERA. The

available data consisted of sediment samples collected in 1995, 1999, and 2001. The

sediment data were used to evaluate direct toxicity to lower trophic level organisms and

to model whole-body biota tissue concentrations for consumption by wildlife. Data from

other sources, including the Palmer Barge and Calcasieu Estuary ERAs, were used as a

frame of reference.

Site data were split into three distinct groupi ngs as presented previously in the RI Report

and described below:

• Intertidal Area – 0-6 inch samples collected al ong the shore of the site at the approximate

high water mark. Piscivorous birds and omni vorous shorebirds would be expected to

forage in this area.

• Near shore area - 0-6 inch samples collected below shallow waters where shorebirds and

piscivorous birds would both be expected to forage.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 2 

# • Offshore area – 0-6 inch samples collected below deeper waters where piscivorous birds

would forage but where the water is too deep for shorebirds.

• Ground water – Risk resulting from ground water would most likely present greatest

exposure to sediment dwelling organi sms and the pathway would be addressed

adequately through the evaluation of sedime nt chemistry data. No ground water seeps

were observed during the site reconnaissanc e visit on June 17, 2005. However, ground

water data from two shallow wells were analyzed to determine if ground water is a

source contributing to contamination identified in sediments in Sabine Lake adjacent to

the Site. The wells are located approximately 80 to 100 feet from the shore from well

screen depths around 25 feet bgs. According to the ground water profile presented in the

RI Report, the ground water elevation is a pproximately 2 feet above mean sea level at

the wells and is decreasing as it approaches Sabine Lake.



# 2. Refinement of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern

The COPECs were identified for soil and sedi ment by a five-part screening process that

evaluates 1) frequency of detection, 2) background concentrations, 3) risk-based screening

levels, 4) bioaccumulative COPECs, and 5) grad ient analysis (soils only). In addition,

chemicals that are considered essential nutrients (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and

sodium) will not be selected as COPECs.



# 2.1 Part 1: Frequency of Detection Evaluation

The frequency at which each chemical was detected was evaluated. Those constituents

detected at a frequency of five percent or less in soil or sediment within a particular

exposure area or data grouping were eliminat ed from the BERA for that specific exposure

area or data grouping. 4-methyl phenol was eliminated from the Non-source area of concern

(AOC) and acetophenone and benzaldehyde were eliminated from the nearshore sediment,

based on detections of less than 5 percent. The 5 percent of detected samples for these

compounds within these exposure areas did not appear to be hot spots. Those constituents

detected at a frequency greater than 5 percent were carried to Part 2 of the COPEC screening

process.



# 2.2 Part 2: Comparison to Background

A comparison was made of site chemical concentrations to background levels. The

following sources of background data were used in the comparison:

• **Soil** – site-specific background data collected in 1995 during the ESI and in 2001 during

the RI;

• **Sediment** – background data collected in Sabine Lake (in an area not impacted by the

site) during the 2001 RI and additional background sediment data from Sabine Lake

collected in 1998 and 1999 from the Calcasieu Estuary BERA were used.

The background comparison included the following components:

• **Graphical Comparison –** Box and whisker plots were prepared for visual comparison of

site and background data.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 3 

# • **Central Tendency Comparison –** Comparisons were performed to determine whether

an average shift of the site data population a ppeared to exist relative to the background

data population. This involved the no n-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.

• **Comparison to Background Threshold Value -** Upper tolerance limits (UTLs) and

Prediction Limits were calculated to estimate the upper tail of the background

population. These are presented as auxiliary statistics in th is study while the conclusions

from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum ar e used for risk decisions.

• **Final Data Evaluation –** After the preliminary conclusions were developed, the

background dataset underwent a final re view for inappropriate conclusions.

Those constituents concluded to exceed background concentrations were carried to Step 3 of

the COPEC screening process. A summary of th e background evaluation for each exposure

area is provided in **Tables 1-10** . The box and whisker plots are provided as **Attachment 1**

. Based on a limited data set with which to work, background statistics for organic

constituents were not used to eliminate co nstituents from further evaluation. Several

inorganic constituents in soil were eliminated from further consideration due to the results

of the background comparison. Only antimony was eliminated from further consideration

in sediments based upon the background co mparison. While background was used to

eliminate COPECs from further quantitative evaluation, there is still the potential for

ecological risks to exist at the Site from th e constituents that were eliminated. However,

these constituents were eliminated from quantitative evaluation be cause the statistical

background analysis has shown that the risk s attributable to the site could not be

distinguished from risks found in the general area and a remedy for such risks would not be

feasible.



# 2.3 Part 3: Comparison to Screening Levels

For each analyte carried to Step 3, the maxi mum detected concentration in each medium

within each exposure area was compared to it s appropriate medium-spe cific ecological riskbased screening levels, identified below and depicted in **Tables 11-20** :

• **Soil** – Qualitative (Iron and aluminum) and qu antitative EcoSSLs; terrestrial plant and

invertebrate screening levels in the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance document

(TNRCC, 2001)

. In addition, screening levels from other EPA sources were used as

necessary.

• **Sediment** –Screening levels and processes for derivation of benchmarks in the

Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance document (TNRCC, 2001)

. In addition, screening

levels from other EPA source s were used as necessary.

For those constituents without screening values , screening values for proxy chemicals were

used when available. Constituents with no ap propriate proxy toxicity values were retained

for quantitative evaluation for risk to uppe r trophic level wildlife. Those constituents

without either screening values or wildlif e TRVs were evaluated qualitatively.



# 2.4 Part 4: Determination of Bioaccumulative COPECs

Bioaccumulative COPECs for soil and sediment were determined using the information on

bioaccumulative chemicals as presented in the TCEQ Guidance for Conducting Ecological Risk

Assessments at Remediation Sites in Texas (TNRCC, 2001). All bioaccumulative constituents

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 4 

# were retained as COPECs and were carried into the risk analysis if they were detected at

levels greater than background. Bioaccumulati ve nature was not noted as a rationale for

retaining COPECs in **Tables 11-20** as coincidentally, all detected bioaccumulative

compounds above background were also above medium-specific screening levels.



# 2.5 Part 5: Gradient Analysis

A gradient analysis was performed for COPECs in soils that were not believed to be siterelated. Inorganic constituents and polycy clic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were

determined to be site-related. Thus, pesticid es remained the only COPECs for which to

perform a gradient analysis. Insufficient spat ial sampling coverage was available from

which to perform a gradient analysis.



# 3. Contaminant Fate and Transport

**Table 21** highlights contaminant fate and transport mechanisms. **Table 22** highlights

mechanisms of ecotoxicity for all COPECs identified.



# 4. Ecosystems and Receptors Potentially at Risk

Based upon previous site investigations and review of threatened and endangered species

lists for the area, the following feeding guilds and surrogate receptors were identified for

evaluation:

• **Terrestrial** –omnivorous birds (northern bobwhite quail) and mammals (white-footed

mouse), and carnivorous mammals (coyote)

• **Aquatic** –benthic invertebrates, omnivorous bi rds (spotted sandpiper), and carnivorous

birds (belted kingfisher)

Carnivorous birds may frequent the Site and be exposed to COPECs. However, due to large

home range sizes relative to the size of the Site and other site use factors, exposure from the

site was considered sufficiently low such t hat evaluation of risk was not warranted.

Herbivorous birds and mammals may occasionally be found at the Site. This feeding guild

was not evaluated because the majority of pl ant species found on site are not known to

provide significant nutritional value. Thus, th e main exposure route being evaluated, the

ingestion pathway, would not be substantial fo r this feeding guild at this Site. The most

likely scenario at the site is that any species of small bird or mammal living at the site would

need to be more omnivorous in its diet to meet its nutritional requirements. Hence,

omnivorous birds and mammals are much more likely to be found at the site and would

have the greatest exposure potential and po tential risk from site-related COPECs.



# 5. Conceptual Site Model

The existing draft ecological conceptual site model (CSM) presented in the RI Report was

revised, as appropriate, and is available as **Figure 1** . The CSM presents potential chemical

sources, release mechanisms, receptors, and exposure routes. Food web models are

presented for the terrestrial and aquatic ma rine food webs present at the site in **Figures 2**

and **3**

.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 5 

# 6. Assessment Endpoints and Risk Questions

Assessment endpoints were developed for each feeding guild identified with complete

significant exposure pathways to site-related contaminants. **Table 23** provides measurement

endpoints selected for each assessment endpoint. Risk hypotheses were developed for each

endpoint and conclusions were drawn at the en d of the risk assessment as to whether the

null hypothesis was accepted or rejected.



# 7. Complete Exposure Pathways

Potential exposure pathways were identifi ed in the BERA. The CSM illustrates which

pathways were significant, complete, and wh ich were evaluated. Specific exposure

pathways are presented in detail in **Figure 1**

.

Exposure pathways not explicitly addressed in this BERA include 1) inhalation and dermal

exposure pathways for upper trophic level or ganisms, 2) foliar uptake of dissolved COPCs

by aquatic plants, and 3) risk to amphibians and reptiles, because these pathways currently

lack enough accompanying toxicological exposu re information and guidance for a complete

quantitative evaluation (USEPA, 1999).

Exposure to subsurface soil was not consider ed. Some burrowing mammals may be exposed

to surface soils. However, it was assumed that the greatest exposure of the site-specific

COPECs would be in surface soils where uptake by invertebrates and the shallow rooted

plants found at the site would be the greatest.



# 8. Exposure Assessment

The EPA’s Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 1993) was the primary source of

exposure factors data. **Table 24** lists the factors used for each receptor and the source of the

data provided. BSAFs and BAFs used in the RI were reevaluated along with new values and

final values are presented in **Table 25** . Bioaccumulation regression models from oak ridge

national labatory (ORNL) and the ecological soil screening levels (EcoSSLs), which are

available in **Table 26** , were used as appropriate. Other factors were reevaluated or refined as

specified in Step 3 of the BERA process under CERCLA.

The exposure to upper trophic level organisms was assessed by quantifying the daily dose

of ingested contaminated food items (that is, plant and animal) and ingested media.

Exposure to receptors was estimated using chem ical-specific Exposure Point Concentrations

(EPCs), bioaccumulation data, and several othe r factors such as species-specific body

weights, ingestion rates, home range data, and area use factors. Prey tissue concentrations

were estimated using chemical-specific bi oaccumulation factors and bioaccumulation

regression models. Site-specific tissue data were not available. Instead, tissue concentrations

were modeled using literature data.

Benthic invertebrates were evaluated for direct toxicity to COPECs in sediment. EPCs were

compared directly to media screening levels.

Fish tissue concentrations used in modeling ingestion by piscivorous birds were modeled

using biota sediment accumulation factors. It was assumed that the fish from which these

BSAFs were developed were from the same trophic level as those expected in the diets of

piscivorous birds feeding adjacent to the Site.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 6 

# Initial EPCs were established as maximum detected concentrations. 95% UCLs were only

calculated for those COPECs for which risk estimates using maximum concentrations

indicated risk. For those COPECs suggesting risk based on maximum detected

concentrations, 95% UCLs were calculated using the most recent version of ProUCL. The

final list of COPECs and EPCs used for the risk evaluation is presented in **Tables 27** and **28**

for soil and sediment, respectively. For a handful of COPECs, EPCs were further refined to

mean concentrations when 95% UCLs indicated risk. Mean concentrations were considered

a reasonable exposure point concentration be cause, assuming available food sources and

cover are equal throughout the exposure area , receptors would not spend a greater percent

of their foraging time at any one point versus another (i.e., the higher concentration areas).

Area use factors (AUFs) were applied to exposu re estimates based on the ratio of exposure

area to home range. For herbivorous mammals, each source area onsite was evaluated as a

separate exposure area. All site data were comb ined as one exposure area for the coyote and

northern bobwhite. All sediment data were combined as one exposure area for the belted

kingfisher. Risk estimates for the spotted sa ndpiper were calculated separately for the

intertidal and nearshore exposure areas because it was anticipated that the intertidal area

contained significantly higher concentrations and separate calculations would help focus the

location of the risks. Since the combined area wa s slightly less than the home range, the risk

estimates were combined to determine total risk and were proportioned as 20 percent from

the intertidal area and 80 percent from the nearshore area, based on acreage. A site use

factor (SUF) was also applied to the risk estimates for the spotted sandpiper. The majority of

the species within the omnivorous bird feedin g guild are not year round residents of the

area and spend less than half the year at the site. An SUF of 50 percent was multiplied by

the AUF to determine a combined site use fact or for the spotted sandpiper risk estimates.



# 9. Effects Assessment

Toxicity values used in the screening level ev aluation (Steps 1 and 2) were reevaluated and

refined as shown in **Tables 29** and **30** . The USEPA (1999) TRV selection hierarchy was used

as guidance for identifying toxicity values us ed to develop TRVs and uncertainty factors

were applied as directed when necessary. The EcoSSLs (USEPA, 2005), Toxicological

Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision ( Sample et al. 1996), EPA’s ECOTOX database, and

EPA’s draft Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion

Facilities (1999) were consulted as possible sour ces for avian and mammalian TRVs.

For those constituents (if any) with missing toxicity values, toxicity values for proxy

chemicals were used if available. Constituents with no appropriate proxy toxicity values

were evaluated qualitatively.



# 10. Risk Characterization

Hazard quotients (HQ) were calculated by divi ding exposure point concentrations (EPC) by

ecological risk-based screening levels for benthic invertebrates and exposure doses by

toxicological reference values for wildlife. HI s were calculated for total LPAHs and HPAHs

as the sum of HQs for individual PAHs. Risk characterizations for the applicable receptors

in each exposure area are presented in **Tables 31-49**

.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 7 

# 10.1 Terrestrial Omnivorous /Insectivorous Mammals:

No observed adverse effect level ( 

# NOAEL)-based HQs for the white-footed mouse in the

Former Wastewater Impoundments are presented in **Table 31** . The NOAEL-based HQ

exceeds unity only for zinc (1.5). No lowest observed adverse effect level ( 

# LOAEL)-based HQs

exceed unity. Therefore, the risk to the om nivorous / insectivorous mammal feeding guild

lies in the risk management area between th e NOAEL and LOAEL. The risk was considered

marginal and was not recommended for further analysis or risk management.

NOAEL-based HQs for the white-footed mouse in the Wastewater Treatment Facility are

presented in **Table 32** . The NOAEL-based HQ exceeds unity only for zinc (1.9). No LOAELbased HQs exceed unity. Therefore, the ri sk to the omnivorous/ insectivorous mammal

feeding guild lies in the risk management area between the NOAEL and LOAEL. The risk

was considered marginal and was not recommended for further analysis or risk

management.

NOAEL-based HQs for the white-footed mouse in the Current Above Ground Storage

Tanks are presented in **Table 33** . The NOAEL-based HQ exceeds unity only for chromium

(1.3), lead (2.1), and zinc (1.7). The HI for HPAHs also exceeds unity (1.5). No LOAEL-based

HQs or HIs exceed unity. Therefore, all of the risks to the omnivorous/ insectivorous

mammal feeding guild lie in the risk management area between the NOAEL and LOAEL.

These risks were considered marginal and were not recommended for further analysis or

risk management.

NOAEL-based HQs for the white-footed mo use in the Maintenance Shed Area are

presented in **Table 34** . The NOAEL-based HQ exceeds unity only for beta endosulfan (1.7),

endrin aldehyde (1.5), and zinc (2.4). No LO AEL-based HQs exceed unity. However, the risk

for beta-endosulfan is not bound by a LOAEL du e to a lack of available toxicological data.

While there is no certainty with where the LAOEL TRV would lie relative to the NOAEL

TRV, an assumption that the LOAEL is as little as two times the NOAEL would yield a

LOAEL HQ below unity. Of all the TRVs presented in **Tables 27** and **28** , only two LOAEL

TRVs are less than two times the NOAEL TRV, so this assumption is well supported.

Therefore, all the risks to the omnivorous/ insectivorous mammal feeding guild lie in the

risk management area between the NOAEL and LOAEL. These risks were considered

marginal and were not recommended for further analysis or risk management.

NOAEL-based HQs for the white-footed mouse in the Tar Burn Area are presented in **Table**

**35** . The NOAEL-based HQ exceeds unity only for zinc (1.7). No LOAEL-based HQs exceed

unity. Therefore, the risk to the omnivoro us/ insectivorous mammal feeding guild lies in

the risk management area between the NOAEL and LOAEL. The risk was considered

marginal and was not recommended for further analysis or risk management.

NOAEL-based HQs for the white-footed mouse in the Lauren Tank Farm are presented in

**Table 36** . The NOAEL-based HQ exceeds unity only for alpha chlordane (1.3), cadmium

(1.1), endrin aldehyde (53), and zinc (1.7). The HI for HPAHs also exceeds unity (1.7).

LOAEL-based HQs also exceed unity for endrin aldehyde (5.3). No other LOAEL-based HQ

or HI exceeds unity. Risk to the omnivoro us/ insectivorous mammal feeding guild from

endrin aldehyde is recommended for further analysis or risk management.

NOAEL-based HQs for the white-footed mouse in the Non-source Area are presented in

**Table 37** . The NOAEL-based HQ exceeds unity only for cadmium (5), carbazole (1.2),

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 8 

# chrysene (1.1), dieldrin (114), endrin aldehyde (378), fluoranthene (3.5), heptachlor epoxide

(43), p,p’-DDE (1.6), and pyrene (2.3). The HI for HPAHs also exceeds unity (10). LOAELbased HQs also exceed unity for dieldrin (14), endrin aldehyde (38), and heptachlor epoxide

(4.3). No other LOAEL-based HQ or HI exceeds unity. The risk from zinc, which appears to

be attributable to a data outlier, is discussed further in the uncertainty analysis. Risks to the

omnivorous/ insectivorous mammal feeding gu ild from dieldrin, endrin aldehyde, and

heptachlor epoxide are recommended for further analysis or risk management.

**Terrestrial Omnivorous/Insectivorous Birds: HQs** for the northern bobwhite quail are

presented in **Table 38** . NOAEL-based HQs exceed 1.0 only for chromium, copper, lead, zinc,

dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, and DDT and its metabolites DDD and DDE. All HQs were

below 10. No LOAEL-based HQs exceed unity. Therefore, the risk to the omnivorous/

insectivorous bird feeding guild lies in th e risk management area between the NOAEL and

LOAEL. These risks were considered marginal and were not recommended for further

analysis or risk management.

**Terrestrial Carnivorous Mammals** : HQs for the coyote are presented in **Table 39** . No

NOAEL-based or LOAEL-based HQs exceed 1.0. Therefore, there is no risk to the

carnivorous mammal feeding guild. No further a nalysis or risk management is required.

**Benthic Invertebrates** : Sediment concentrations from all three exposure areas in Sabine

Lake were compared to primary and secondary effe cts levels indicative of toxicity to benthic

invertebrate communities. The effects levels selected are those proposed by the TCEQ’s

Ecological Risk Assessment Wo rkgroup in March 2004. For inorganic constituents, PAHs,

DDTs, and PCBs the values are effects range low (ERLs) and effects range median (ERMs)

values published by Long et al., 1995. For m any of the VOCs, values were derived using

equilibrium partitioning methodology as de scribed in TNRCC 2001. Since few marine

sediment screening values are available, thes e sources were given precedence and when not

available, other sources such as AET values were considered for screening purposes.

Benthic invertebrates range from immobile to having small home ranges; therefore, each

exposure area was evaluated independently. Constituents were identified as COCs for

benthic invertebrates when the maximum magn itude of exceedance of the primary effect

level is greater than 10 or if the frequency of exceedance of the secondary effect level

exceeds 20 %.

The analysis of the Intertidal Area indicates ma rginal or lower risk exists for all COPECs

except lead ( **Table 40** ). The maximum magnitude of exceedance of the primary effect levels

is less than 10 for all COPECs. For lead, the concentrations of two samples exceed the

secondary effect level. For all other COPECs , one or fewer samples exceed the secondary

effect level. Risks to benthic invertebrates fo r all COPECs except lead are marginal, do not

require further analysis, and are not recommended for risk management. The risk to benthic

invertebrates for lead requires furt her analysis and/or risk management.

The analysis of the Nearshore Area indicates ma rginal or lower risk exists for all COPECs

( **Table 41** ). The maximum magnitude of exceedance of the primary effect levels is less than

10 for all COPECs. For all COPECs, one or fewe r samples exceed the secondary effect level

with a maximum frequency of exceedance of less than 5%. Risks for all COPECs are

marginal, do not require further analysis, and are not recommended for risk management.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 9 

# For barium in the nearshore area, the concentrat ions of 20 samples exceed the primary effect

level and no secondary effect level is availa ble. Though approximately 45 percent of the

barium samples exceed the primary screening va lue, the risk is not considered significant.

The maximum magnitude of exceedance is less than ten. The value exceeded is the lowest of

the available toxicity test results that was av ailable for development of the Apparent Effects

Thresholds. Perhaps more importantly, screening values are not readily available for barium

in sediments. Of all the studies conducted over the years to develop screening values, no

other studies have included barium. Barium is not generally considered toxic. Barium in the

nearshore sediments is not recommended fo r further analysis or risk management.

The analysis of the Offshore Area indicates ma rginal or lower risks exist for all COPECs

( **Table 42** ). The maximum magnitude of exceedance of the primary effect levels is less than

10 for all COPECs and no sample concentrations exceed secondary effect levels. Risks to

benthic invertebrates for all COPECs are marg inal, do not require further analysis, and are

not recommended for risk management.

Omnivorous/Insectivorous Birds: HQs for the sp otted sandpiper in the Intertidal Area are

presented in **Table 43** . No NOAEL-based or LOAEL-based HQs exceed 1.0. HQs for the

spotted sandpiper in the Nearshore Area are presented in **Table 44** . The NOAEL-based HQs

for fluorene (3.2), manganese (2.6), phenanthrene (1.8), and thallium (2.1), exceed unity, as

does the LPAH HI (5). No LOAEL-based HQs exceed unity. **Table 45** presents the combined

total HQs for the spotted sandpiper represen ting omnivorous/ insectivorous shore birds

foraging in both the intertidal and nearsh ore areas. NOAEL-based HQs fluorene (3.3),

manganese (3.4), phenanthrene (1 .8), and thallium (2.1), exceed unity, as does the LPAH HI

(5). No LOAEL-based HQs exceed unity. Risks to omnivorous/ insectivorous shore birds

are marginal, do not require further analysis, and are not recommended for risk

management. No further analysis or risk management is required.

**Piscivorous Birds** : HQs for the belted kingfisher from the combined Intertidal, Nearshore,

and Offshore Areas are presented in **Table 46** . Only the NOAEL-based HQ for zinc exceeds

unity (7.5). No LOAEL-based HQs exceed unity. Therefore, the risk to the piscivorous bird

feeding guild lies in the risk management area between the NOAEL and LOAEL. This risk

was considered marginal and was not recommended for further analysis or risk

management.



# 11. Uncertainty Assessment

Uncertainties are inherent in all risk assessments. The nature and magnitude of the

uncertainties depend on the amount and quality of data available, the degree of knowledge

concerning site conditions, and the assu mptions made to perform the assessment. A

qualitative evaluation of the major general un certainties associated with this screening

assessment, in no particular order of importance, is outlined below:

• No avian and mammalian life history data specific to the site were available; therefore,

exposure parameters were either modeled ba sed on allometric relationships (e.g., food

ingestion rates) or were based on data from these same species in other portions of their

range. Because diet composition as well as fo od, water, and soil ingestion rates can differ

among individuals and locations, published pa rameter values may not accurately reflect

individuals present at the site. Consequent ly, risk may be eith er overestimated or

underestimated.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 10 

# • No site-specific data on concentrations in prey items were available. Therefore,

concentrations in these prey items we re estimated using literature-derived

bioaccumulation models. The suitability of these models is unknown. Consequently,

concentrations of COPECs in actual prey may be either higher or lower than the data

used in this screen.

• Literature-derived toxicity data based on laboratory studies were the only available

toxicity data used to evaluate risk to all receptor groups. It was assumed that effects

observed in laboratory species were indica tive of effects that would occur in wild

species. The suitability of this assumption is unknown. Consequently, the risk may be

either overestimated or underestimated.

• Dietary compositions were simplified for the si te receptors to estimate concentrations in

food items using bioaccumulation models. It was assumed that concentrations were

similar in comparable food types. The su itability of this assumption is unknown.

Consequently, risk may be either overestimated or underestimated.

• Because toxicity data specific for bird and mammal species at the site were not available,

it was necessary to extrapolate toxicity values from test species to site receptor species.

Although scaling factors were employed (Sam ple and Arenal, 1999), these factors are not

chemical-specific and are based on acute toxici ty data. Consequently, risk may be either

overestimated or underestimated.

• In this screen, risks for most chemicals were each considered independently. Because

chemicals may interact in an additive, ant agonistic, or synergistic manner, the

evaluation of single-chemical risk may either underestimate or overestimate risk

associated with chemical mixtures. The risk from PAHs and organochlorine pesticides

were summed to determine the combined risk.

• Detection limits for some data were insufficient because they were greater than

ecological screening values. These compounds were carried forward in the risk

assessment and evaluated for effects on wild life using one-half the detection limit as a

proxy value for non-detects. This assu mption could either underestimate or

overestimate risk, depending on the true concentration of those constituents.

• All sediment data used in the risk assessment is a minimum of four years old. The Site is

located along Sabine Lake adjacent to a canal that receives regular boat traffic. It is

dredged every two to three years. The sediment s in this area are also subject to tidal

movements. Sediments located in such an acti ve area are not likely to remain constant,

and as such, the available data from 2001, 1999, and 1995 are neither necessarily

reflective solely of site-related influence nor are they definitively representative of

existing conditions.

• There is a lack of spatial coverage for pesticid e data at the Site. Pesticides were detected

in some of the source areas; however, there was insufficient sample coverage to

determine if a site related gradients exist. Samples were not collected in many areas

surrounding pesticide detections. In these ar eas, risk could be either under or over

estimated, depending on the concentration in the surrounding area relative to the EPC

that was used in the risk estimates.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 11 

# • Risk was not calculated for reptiles and amphib ians due to insufficient toxicological data

and site-specific data. Some species of omnivorous birds have similar diets to those of

omnivorous reptiles and amphibians. Hence, conclusions for the omnivorous bird

feeding guild were considered representati ve of the reptiles and amphibians likely

living on the Site.

• Risk was not calculated for terrestrial plants or invertebrates. No endangered plant or

invertebrate species were identified within the area. Significant plant and insect species

were noted as thriving within the Site during the last site visit on June 17, 2005. Thus,

these lower trophic level organisms were not considered assessment endpoints for the

Site.

• Toxicity information adequate to quantify ec ological risks was not available for some

detected constituents. In some cases, data for surrogate chemicals were used. The use of

surrogate toxicity information to quantify to xicity for these contaminants might lead to

overestimates or underestimates of risk to ecological receptors. For some constituents,

there is no information available from which to develop TRVs. Consequently, these

constituents could not be eval uated. There is no information available from which to

develop TRVs for 13 COPECs for birds and 1 COPEC for mammals. For some COCs,

there is a mammal TRV but no avian TRV or vi ce versa. The uncertainty of risk to one

class of receptors in these cases is reduced by the lack of quantifiable risk to the other

class of organisms.

• The exposure dose estimates in this screenin g risk assessment assume that 100 percent of

the chemical concentrations to which recept ors are exposed is in the bioavailable form.

Most chemicals will not be 100 percent bioavaila ble. In the cases where bioavailability is

less than 100 percent, risk is overestimated.



# 12. Scientific Management Decision Point (SMDP)

**Table 47** presents a summary of the LOAEL-based HQs for all wildlife and effects range

medium (ERM) exceedances for benthic invertebrates. **Table 48** presents a summary of the

assessment and measurement endpoints and risk hypotheses posed with answers for each.

Any risks remaining after completion of the uncertainty analysis are considered

contaminants of concern (COCs) instead of COPE Cs. Based on calculated risks, Preliminary

Remediation Goals (PRGs) were developed for COCs in soil and sediment ( **Table 49** ). PRGs

are also presented in the Feasibility Study (FS) for the Site. PRGs were calculated based

upon the most sensitive receptor that pres ented risk to a given COC within a given

exposure area. PRGs represent the midway poin t between no-effect and lowest effect levels

for wildlife or between primary and second ary effect levels for sediment dwelling

organisms **. Figures 4** through **10** present areas of PRG exceedance in soil and sediment.

TABLE 47. SUMMARY OF RISKS BY EXPOSURE AREA AND RECEPTOR

Exposure Area White-footed Mouse Northern

Bobwhite Coyote Benthic

Invertebrates Spotted

Sandpiper Belted

Kingfisher

Former

Wastewater

Impoundments No Risk No Risk

No Risk - - -

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 12



# Exposure Area White-footed Mouse Northern

Bobwhite Coyote Benthic

Invertebrates Spotted

Sandpiper Belted

Kingfisher

Wastewater

Treatment Facility No Risk No Risk No Risk - - -

Current

Aboveground

Storage Tanks No Risk No Risk No Risk -

- -

Maintenance Shed

Area No Risk No Risk No Risk -

- -

Tar Burn Area No Risk No Risk No Risk -

- -

Former Lauren

Tank Farm Endrin Aldehyde - 5 No Risk No Risk - - -

Non Source Area Dieldrin – 11

Endrin Aldehyde – 37

Heptachlor Epoxide -

4 No Risk No Risk -

- -

Intertidal Area -

- - Lead - 4 X

ERM No Risk No Risk

Nearshore Area -

- - No Risk No Risk No Risk

Offshore Area -

- - No Risk No Risk No Risk



# The exact source of lead contamination in sediments is uncertain. Ground water is a

potential source. **Table 50** presents the calculation of a grou nd water to sediment protective

screening value (0.8 ug/L) based on method s described in the Texas Risk Reduction

Program (TRPP) guidance – TRRP-24. The concentration of lead in ground water samples

collected during the RI in 2001 (20 ug/L) is two orders of magnitude greater than the

screening value. This indicates that ground wate r from the site could be a potential source of

lead to sediments in the intertidal area th at indicate toxicity to benthic organisms.

While PRGs are presented for each medium, within Step 8 of the Ecological Risk

Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk

Assessments – Interim Final (EPA, 1997), the following two statements are made:

• “The risk manager must balanc e (1) residual risks posed by site contaminants before and

after implementation of the selected reme dy with (2) the potential impacts of the

selected remedy on the environment independent of contaminant effects.”

• “In instances where substantial ecological impact will result from the remedy (e.g.,

dredging a wetland), the risk manager will need to consider ways to mitigate the impact

of the remedy and compare mitigated impacts to the threats posed by the site

contamination.”

Net Environmental Benefit Analys is (NEBA) provides a framework to meet this guidance. A

NEBA can be conducted to support the select ion of remedial alternatives for sediments

adjacent to the Site. The purpose of the NEBA is to develop information for the EPA work

authorization manager (WAM) and other stakeholders to enable the development of a

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT VERSION 1.0 – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0.DOC 13 

# defensible, scientifically based cleanup approach at the Site. The overall goal is to identify

potential remedial alternatives that would pr ovide for the protection of human health and

the environment while providing the greatest net ecological value. Within the NEBA,

preliminary assumptions can be made regarding various input parameters and, as such, this

analysis is exploratory in nature and can be revised as necessary. NEBA is recommended as

a method to assist in remedial decision making at this site. A NEBA will be presented as an

appendix to the FS for the site. The key stakeholders would be expected to work

collaboratively to further refine the analyses in order to suit those purposes based on the

best information available at that time.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVI R O NME N TAL PROTECTION AG E NCY\331756\TASK 7- R A \ SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)

# P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\DRAFT ECORA\TECH MEMO.DOC 13 

# References

Abiola, F. A. 1992. Ecotoxicity of organochlori de insecticides: effects of endosulfan on birds

reproduction and evaluation of its induction effe cts in partridge, Perdix perdix L. Rev. Vet.

Med. 143: 443-450.

Ambrose, A. M., P. S. Larson, J. F. Borzelleca, and G. R. Hennigar, Jr. Long-term toxicologic

assessment of nickel in rats and dogs. J. Food Sci. Tech. 13: 181-187. 1976.

Aulerich, R. J. and R. K. Ringer. 1977. Current status of PCB toxicity, including reproduction

in mink. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6: 279.

Aulerich, R. J., R. K. Ringer, and M. R. Bleavi ns, et al. 1982. Effects of supplemental dietary

copper on growth, reproductive performance and kit survival of st andard dark mink and

the acute toxicity of copper to mink. J. Animal Sci. 55: 337-343.

Aulerich, R. J., R. K. Ringer, and S. Iwamot o. Effects of dietary mercury on mink. Arch.

Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2: 43-51. 1974.

Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a. Empirica l Model for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by

Plants. Prepared for the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management.

BJC/OR-133. September, 1998.

Bechtel Jacobs, 1998b. Biota Sediment Accumula tion Factors for Invertebrates: Review and

Recommendations for the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for the US Department of

Energy Office of Environmental Management. BJC/OR-112. August, 1998.

Bekoff, M. 1982. Coyote. Pp.447-459. In Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.), Wild

Mammals of North America. Biology, Manag ement and economics. The Johns Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore.

Bekoff, M., and M.C. Wells. 1980. The social ecology of coyotes . Sci. Am. 242(4):130-148.

Beyer, W.N. and C.D. Gish. 1980. Persistence in Earthworms and Potential Hazards to Birds

of Soil Applied DDT, Dieldrin, and He ptachlor. J. Appl. Ecol. 17:295-307.

Beyer, W.N, and C. Stafford. 1993. Survey and evaluation on contaminants in earthworms and in

soils derived from dredged material at confin ed disposal facilities in the Great Lakes Region

. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 24: 151-165.

Britton, W.M., and T.M. Huston. 1973. Influence of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the laying

Hen. Poultry Sci. 52:1620-1624.

Brooks, RlP.; Davis, W.J. 1987. Habitat selection by breeding belted kingfisher ( Ceryle

alcyon). Am. Midl. Nat. 117:63-70.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\DRAFT ECORA\TECH MEMO.DOC 14 

# Buben, J. A. and E. J. O'Flaherty. 1985. De lineation of the role of metabolism in the

hepatotoxicity of trichloroethylene and perchl oroethylene: a dose-effect study. Toxicol.

Appl. Pharmacol. 78:105-122

Cain, B.W., and E.A. Pafford. 1981. Effects of dietary nickel on survival and growth of Mallard

ducklings . Arch. Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 10:737-745.

Calder, W.A; Braun, E.J. 1983. Scaling of osmo tic regulation in mammals and birds. Am J.

Physiol. 244:R601-R606.

Campbell, S. M. and M. Jaber. Pentachlorophenol: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the

Northern Bobwhite . Prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. Easton, MD Under Project No.

345-103 and Submitted to Pentachlorophenol Task Force, SRA International, Inc.

Washington D.C., Report dated January 19, 1993.

Campbell-Kissock, L., L.H. Blankenship, J.W. Stewart. 1985. Plant and animal foods of

bobwhite and scaled quail in southwest Texas. Southeast. Nat. 30. 543-553.

Carriere, D., K. Fischer, D. Peakall and P. Angehrn. 1986. Effects of dietary aluminum in

combination with reduced calcium and phosphorus on the ring dove (Streptopelia risoria).

Water, Air, and Soil Poll. 30:757-764.

CH2M Hill. 2005. Ecological Risk Assessme nt Work Plan. Houston, Tx. June 2005.

Chakravarty, S. and P. Lahiri. 1986. Effect of lindane on eggshell characteristics and calcium

level in the domestic duck. Toxicology. 42:245-258.

Coulston, F. and A.C. Kolbye (Ed.). 1994. Interpretive Review of the Potential Adverse

Effects of Chlorinated Organic Chemicals on Hu man Health and the Environment: Report of

an Expert Panel. Chapter 5: Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Regul. Toxicol. and Pharmacol, 20:

187-307.

Crum, J. A., S. J. Bursian, R. J. Aulerich, P. Polin, and W. E. Braselton. 1993. The reproductive

effects of dietary heptachlor in mink (Mustela vison). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24:

156-164.

Diaz, G.W., R.J. Julian and R.J. Squires. 1994. Lesions in broiler chickens following

experimental intoxication with co balt. Avian Diseases, 38:308-316.

Dikshith, T. S. S., R. B. Raizada, M. K. Srivas tava, and B. S. Kaphalia. 1984. Response of rats

to repeated oral administration of endosulfan. Ind. Health. 22: 295-304.

Domingo, J.L., J.L. Paternain, J.M. Llobet, and J. Corbella. 1986b. Effects of vanadium on

reproduction, gestation, parturition, and lactatio n in rats upon oral administration. Life Sci.

39:819-824.

Exon, J.H. and L.D. Koller. 1982. Effects of transplacental exposure to chlorinated phenols.

Environ. Health Perspect. 46: 137-140.Fitzhugh, O. G. 1948. Use of DDT insecticides on food

products. Ind. Eng. Chem. 40: 704-705.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\DRAFT ECORA\TECH MEMO.DOC 15 

# Formigli, L., R. Scelsi, P. Poggi, C. Gregotti, A. DiNucci, E. Sabbioni, L. Gottardi, and L.

Manzo. Thallium-induced testicular toxicity in the rat. Environ. Res. 40: 531-539. 1986.

Good, E. E., and G. W. Ware. 1969. Effects of in secticides on reproduction in the laboratory

mouse, IV. Endrin and Dieldrin. Toxicol. Appl . Pharmacol. 14: 201-203. Gould, Ed. 1955. The

feeding efficiency of insectivorous bats. J. Mammal. 36: 399-407.

Grant, D. L., W. E. J. Phillips, and G. V. Hatina. 1977. Effects of hexachlorobenzene on

reproduction in the rat. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 5: 207-216.

Gray, L. E., Jr., J. Ostby, R. Sigmon, J. Ferrell, G. Rehnberg, R. Linder, R. Cooper, J. Goldman,

and J. Laskey. 1988. The development of a protocol to assess reproductive effects of

toxicants in the rat. Reprod. Toxicol. 2: 281-287.

Guthery, F.S.; Koerth, N.E.; Smith, D.S. 1988. Reproduction of northern bobwhites in semiarid

environments . J.Wildl. Manage. 52: 144-149.

Hancock, G.A. 1993. Preventol CMK: An acut e oral LD50 with bobwhite quail. Study

number PR711701, Miles repo rt number 105005. Prepared by Miles Incorporated,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Haseltine, S.D., L. Sileo, D. J. Hoffman, and B. D. Mulhern. 1985. Effects of Chromium on

Reproduction and Growth of Black Ducks. As cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . 1986.

Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invert ebrates: A Synoptic Review. January. Page

38.

Heinz, G.H., D.J. Hoffman, and L.G. Gold. 1989. Impaired Reproduction of Mallards Fed an

Organic Form of Selenium . Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):418-428.

Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. Lethal Dietary Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants

and Pesticides in Coturnix . Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 2.

Hoffman, D. J., J. Christian Franson, O. H. Pattee, C. M. Bunck, and A. Anderson. 1985.

Survival, growth, and accumulation of ingested lead in nestling American kestrels (Falco sparverius)

. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14: 89-94.

Hornshaw, T. C., R. J. Aulerich, and R. K. Ringer. 1986. Toxicity of o-Cresol to mink and

European ferrets. Environ. Toxicol. 5: 713-720.

HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank). 1999. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda,

Maryland (CD_ROM version), MICROMEDEX, Inc ., Englewood, Colorado (Edition expires

[1999]).

Johnson, D. Jr., A.L. Mehring, Jr., and H.W. Ti tus. 1960. Tolerance of Chickens for Barium.

Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 104:436-438.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\DRAFT ECORA\TECH MEMO.DOC 16 

# Lackey, J. A.; Huckaby, D. G. and B.G. Ormi ston. 1985. Peromyscus leucopus. The American

Society of Mammalogists. 247: 1-10

Lamb, J. C., IV, R. E. Chapin, J. Teague, A. D. Lawton, and J. R. Reel. 1987. Reproductive

effects of four phthalic acid esters in the mouse. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 88: 255-269.

Laskey, J.W. and F.W. Edens. 1985. Effects of chronic high-level manganese exposure on

male behavior in the Japanese Quail (Cotirnix coturnix japonica). 64:579-584.

Leach, R. M. Jr., K. Wei-Li Wang, and D.E. Baker. 1979. Cadmium and the food chain: the

effect of dietary cadmium on tissue composition in chicks and laying hens. J. Nutr. 109: 437-

443.

Mackenzie, K. M. and D. M. Angevine. 1981. Infertility in mice exposed in utero to

benzo[a]pyrene . Biol. Reprod. 24: 183-191.

Maruya, Keith A., Risebrough, Robert W., Horne, Alexander J. 1997: THE

BIOACCUMULATION OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS BY

BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES IN AN INTERTID AL MARSH. Environmental Toxicology

and Chemistry: Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 1087–1097.

Maxson, S.J.; Oring, L.W. 1980. Breeding season time and energy budgets of the

polyandrous spotted sandpiper. Behaviour 74: 200-263.

Mehring, A.L. Jr., J.H. Brumbaugh, A. J. Sutherland, and H.W. Titus. 1960. The tolerance of

growing chickens for dietary copper . Poult. Sci. 39:13-719.

Mendenhall, V. M., E. E. Klaas, and M. A. R. McLane. 1983. Breeding success of barn owls

(Tyto alba)fed low levels of DDE and dieldrin. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12: 235-240.

Millar, J.S. 1989. Reproduction and developm ent. In: Kirkland, G.L.; Lane, J.N., eds.

Advances in the study of Peromyscus (Rodentia). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press;

pp. 169-205.

Miller, J.R.; Miller, J.T. 1948. Nesting of the spotted sandpiper at Detroit, Michigan . Auk 65: 558-

567.

Nagy, K.A. 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirem ent scaling in mammals and birds. Ecol.

Monogr. 57: 111-128.

NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1980. Mineral Tolerance of Domestic Animals.

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 577 pp.

Navarro, H.A., C.J. Price, M.C. Marr, C.B. Myers, J.J. Heindel, and B.A. Schwetz. 1991. Final

report on the developmental toxicity of Naphthalene (CAS No. 91-20-3) in New Zealand

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\DRAFT ECORA\TECH MEMO.DOC 17 

# white rabbits. National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Services, Nati onal Institutes of Health. TER-91021.

Office of Pesticides Programs (OPP). 2000. Environmental effects database. Environmental

fate and Effects Division, USEPA, Washington, D.C.

Pattee, O. H. 1984. Eggshell thickness and reproduction in American kestrels exposed to chronic

dietary lead . Arch Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13: 29-34.

Patton, J. F., and M. P. Dieter. Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on Hepatic Function in the

Duck . Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 65C(1):33-36. 1980.

Peakall, D. B. Effects of di-N-buylphthalate and di-2-ethylhexylphthalate on the Eggs of

Ring Doves. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12: 698-702. 1974.

Perry, H.M., Jr., S.J. Kopp, M.W. Erlanger, and E.F. Perry. 1983. “ Cardiovascular effects of

chronic barium ingestion .” Conference on Trace Substances in Environmental Health, 17:155-

164.

Platonow, N.S. and B.L. Reinhart. 1973. The effects of polychlorinated biphenyls aroclor

1254 on chicken egg production, fertility and hatchability. Canadian Jo urnal of Comparative

Medicine. 37:341-346.

Poon, R., I. Chu, P. Lecavalier, V.E. Valli, W. Foster, S. Gupta, B. Thomas. 1998. “Effects of

Antimony on Rats Following 90-Day Exposure Via Drinking Water.” Food and Chemical

Toxicology 36(1):21-35.

Ransom, J.E. Jr. Ed. 1981. Harpers & Row's complete guide to North American Wildlife,

Western Edition. Harper & Row Publishers, New York, NY. p.384.

Rigdon, R.H. and J. Neal. 1965. Effects of feeding benzo(a)pyrene on fertility, embryos, and young

mice . J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 34: 297-305

Ronis, M. J. J., J. Gandy, and T. Badger. 1998. Endocrine mechanisms underlying

reproductive toxicity in the developing rat ch ronically exposed to dietary lead. J. Toxicol.

Environ. Health, Part A. 54: 77-99.

Salyer, J.C.; Lagler, K.F. 1946. The eastern belted kingfisher, Megac eryle alcyon alcyon (Linnaeus),

in relation to fish management. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 76:97-117.

Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II. 1996 . Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:

1996 Revision. Prepared for DOE. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.

Sample, B.E., Aplin; M.S., Efroymson; R.A.; Suter II; G.W.; Welsh, C.J.E. 1997. Methods and

tools for estimation of the exposure of terrestrial wildlife to contaminants. Environmental Sciences

Division Publication No. 4650. Prepared for DOE. October 1997.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\DRAFT ECORA\TECH MEMO.DOC 18 

# Sample et al., 1998. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for

Earthworms. Prepared for the US Depart ment of Energy Office of Environmental

Management. ES/ER/TM-220. February, 1998.

Schafer, E.W. 1972. The Acute Oral Toxicity of 369 Pesticidal, Pharmaceutical and Other

Chemicals to Wild Birds. Toxicological and Applied Pharmacology. 21:315-330.

Schlatterer, B., T. M. M. Coenen, E. Ebert, R. Grau, V. Hilbig, and R. Munk. 1993. Effects of

Bis(tri-n-butyltin)oxide in Japanese qu ail exposed during egg laying period: an

interlaboratory comparison study. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24: 440-448.

Schroeder, H. A., M. Mitchener, and A. P. Nasan. Zirconium, niobium, antimony,

vanadium, and lead in rates: Life-term studies. J. Nutr. 100: 59-68. 1970.

Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineerin g Command (SWDIV). Draft Final RI Report

for Group C Sites, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Marine Corps Base Camp

Pendleton, California. Prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. November 12, 1996.

Southworth, G.R., J.J. Beauchamp, and P.K. Schmieder. 1978. “Bioaccumulation Potential of

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Daphnia Pulex.” Water Research . Volume 12. Pages 973-

977.

Spann, J. L., G. H. Heinz and C. S. Hulse. 1986. Reproduction and health of mallards fed

endrin. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:755-759.

Stanley , T.R., Jr., J.W. Spann, G.J. Smith, and R. Rosscoe. 1994. Main and Interactive Effects

of Arsenic and Selenium on Mallard Reprod uctive and Duckling Growth and Survival.

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 26:444-451.

Stahl, J.L., J.L. Geger, and M.E. Cook. 1990. Breeding-hen and progeny performance when hens

are fed excessive dietary zinc . Poult. Sci. 69:259-263.

Steven, J. D., L. J. Davies, E. K. Stanley, R. A. Abbott, M. Ihnat, L. Bidstrup, and J. F.

Jaworski. Effects of chromium in the Canadian environment . NRCC No. 151017. 168 pp. 1976.

Stickel, L. F., W. H. Stickel, R. A. Dyrland, and D. L. Hughes. 1983. Oxychlordane, HCS3260, and nonachlor in birds: lethal residues and loss rates. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 12:

611-622.

Straube, E. F., N. H. Schuster, and A. J. Sinclair. 1980. Zinc toxicity in the ferret. J. Comp.

Path. 90: 355-361.

Stubblefield, W. A., G. A. Hancock, H. H. Prince, and R. K. Ringer. 1995b. Effects of naturally

weathered Exxon-Valdez crude-oil on mallard reproduction . Environmental Toxicology and

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\DRAFT ECORA\TECH MEMO.DOC 19 

# Chemistry 14:1951-1960.Suter, G. W. II, R. A. Efroymson, B. E. Sample, and D. S. Jones. 2000.

Ecological Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sites. CRC/Lewis Press. Boca Raton, FL.

Sutou, S., K. Yamamoto, H. Sendota, K. Tomomatsu, Y. Shimizu, and M. Sugiyama. Toxicity,

fertility, teratogenicity, and dominant lethal t ests in rats administered cadmium subchronically . I.

Toxicity studies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 4: 39–50. 1980.

Texas Natural Resource Commission (TNRCC). 2001. Guidance for Conduction Ecological Risk

Assessments at Remediation Sites in Texas. RG-263 (revised). December 2001.

Travis, C. C. and A. D. Arms. 1988. Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk, and vegetation

. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22:271-274.

Treon, J. F. and F. P. Cleveland. 1955. To xicity of certain chlorinated hydrocarbon

insecticides for laboratory animals, with special reference to aldrin and dieldrin. Ag. Food

Chem. 3: 402-408.

Tsuda, H., A. Hagiwara, M. Shibata, M. Ohshima, and N. Ito. 1982. ACarcinogenic Effect of

Carbazole in the Liver of (C57BL/6N x C3H/HeN)F 1 

# Mice. Journal of the National Cancer

Institute . Volume 69, Pages 1383 through 1389. As cited in EPA 1986.

U.S. EPA, 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Hand book. Office of Research and Development.

EPA/600/R-93/187.

USEPA, 1995. EPA Sediment Quality Benchmarks (SQBs). OW/Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response (OSWER) Joint Work Group, internal working document.

U.S. EPA. 1997. Ecological risk assessment guidance for Superfund: Process for designing

and conducting ecological risk assessments. Environmental Response Team. Edison, New

Jersey.

U.S. EPA. 1999. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste

Combustion Facilities. Volume 1. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. EPA 530 D-99

001A. Peer Review Draft. August.

U.S. EPA, 2000. Ecological Soil, Screening Leve l Guidance. Draft. Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response. July 10, 2000.

U.S. EPA. 2001. The Role of Screening-Level Risk Assessments and Refining Contaminants of

Concern in Baseline Ecological Risk Assessments . Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response Publication 9285.6-07P. April 26.

U.S. EPA. 2003d. Guidance for Developing Ecolog ical Soil Screening Levels. Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT – STATE MARINE SUPERFUND SITE

P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\DRAFT ECORA\TECH MEMO.DOC 20 

# U.S. EPA. 2005. Last updated on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2005 URL:

http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/SOPs.htm

U.S. EPA. 2005a. ECOTOX. (ECOTOXicology) database. http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/.

Last updated on Monday, May 16th, 2005.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF WS). 2002. Letter identifying status of

threatened and endangered species found in Bexar county.

Urban, D. 1970. Raccoon populations, movement patterns, and predation on a managed

waterfowl marsh. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34:372-382.

Weston (Seston Solutions Inc.). 2001. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Task Work

Plan. 2001.

White, D.H., and M.P. Dieter. Effects of Dietary Vanadium in Mallard Ducks . Journal of

Toxicology and Environmental Health. 4(1):43:50. (1978).

Weimeyer, S. N., E. F. Hill, J. W. Carpenter, and A. J. Krynitsky. Acute Oral Toxicity of

Sodium Cyanide in Birds. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 22:538-46. 1986.

Yoho, N.S.; and Dimmick, R.W. 1972. Habitat ut ilization by bobwhite quail during winter.

Proc. Natl. Bobwhite Quail Symp. 1:90-99.

# Tables

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVI R O NME N TAL PROTECTION AG E NCY\331756\TASK 7- R A \ SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)Table 1Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Former Wastewater Impoundments to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxMETAL ALUMINUM0.715no12/12 5/5 6300 7240 4990 63700011METAL ANTIMONY0.121Yes8/12 1/5 8.62 2.03 1.4 0.434METAL ARSENIC0.642no12/12 5/5 5.78 8.3 6 6.40000METAL BARIUM0.359no12/12 5/5 259 243 211 2250001METAL BERYLLIUM0.521no12/12 5/5 0.483 0.622 0.485 0.50000METAL CALCIUM0.958no12/12 5/5 7770 22200 7110 161000000METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.521no12/12 5/5 14.6 16.9 10.9 13.80000METAL COBALT0.679no12/12 5/5 5.08 7.7 5.15 4.30000METAL COPPER0.051Yes12/12 5/5 74.2 23.1 58.3 10.721736METAL CYANIDE0.770no1/12 2/5 0.19 0.437 0.065 0.210METALIRON0.359no12/12 5/5 20400 35400 17900 120000000METALLEAD0.061Yes12/12 5/5 120 32 83.1 22.254278METAL MAGNESIUM0.939no12/12 5/5 1350 2150 1430 26000000METAL MANGANESE0.878no12/12 5/5 274 544 275 4270000METAL MERCURY0.232no6/12 1/5 0.0908 0.061 0.07 0.0655METALNICKEL0.500no12/12 5/5 19.7 19.9 13.8 18.20012METAL POTASSIUM0.945no12/12 5/5 935 1430 946 15300000METAL SELENIUM0.843no1/12 1/5 0.621 1.02 0.625 0.650METALSILVER0.166Yes9/12 3/5 0.785 0.385 0.585 0.4254267METAL SODIUM0.562no8/12 5/5 354 362 321 3120002METAL THALLIUM0.500no4/12 1/5 1.19 1.85 0.675 0.650METAL VANADIUM0.748no12/12 5/5 16.5 23 16.9 18.30000METALZINC0.028Yes12/12 5/5 210 66 211 56.565077SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.541no5/12 1/5 0.294 0.181 0.198 0.211SVOC ACENAPHTHENE0.698no8/12 1/5 0.146 0.156 0.0875 0.215SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.582no11/12 1/5 0.689 0.215 0.195 0.225SVOC ANTHRACENE0.378no11/12 1/5 0.715 0.195 0.23 0.226SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.285no11/12 2/5 0.458 0.208 0.25 0.224SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.251no10/12 2/5 0.626 0.282 0.215 0.224SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.235no11/12 2/5 0.889 0.22 0.305 0.224SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.583no8/12 1/5 1.21 0.509 0.155 0.223SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.735no8/12 2/5 0.168 0.191 0.085 0.222SVOC CARBAZOLE0.661no10/12 1/5 0.195 0.171 0.0875 0.214SVOC CHRYSENE0.236no11/12 2/5 0.905 0.275 0.365 0.224SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.338no1/12 1/5 0.286 0.158 0.208 0.211SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.963no8/12 1/5 0.123 0.239 0.085 0.221SVOC FLUORANTHENE0.073Yes11/12 3/5 0.738 0.157 0.34 0.08543355SVOC FLUORENE0.320no7/12 1/5 0.175 0.128 0.15 0.0856SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.500no9/12 2/5 0.474 0.262 0.11 0.223SVOC NAPHTHALENE0.521no5/12 1/5 0.244 0.175 0.198 0.212SVOC PHENANTHRENE0.251no12/12 2/5 0.531 0.166 0.225 0.225SVOCPYRENE0.131Yes11/12 2/5 1.44 0.311 0.365 0.225SVOCbis(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE0.438no4/12 3/5 0.823 0.401 0.215 0.2118111 of 104Table 2Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Wastwater Treatment Facility to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxMETAL ALUMINUM0.500no7/7 5/5 6720 7240 6630 63700000METAL ANTIMONY0.086Yes6/7 1/5 2.24 2.03 1.7 0.430METAL ARSENIC0.318no7/7 5/5 8.33 8.3 6.8 6.40000METAL BARIUM0.890no7/7 5/5 139 243 98.9 2250000METAL BERYLLIUM0.140Yes7/7 5/5 0.749 0.622 0.65 0.50000METAL CALCIUM0.961no7/7 5/5 5220 22200 5630 161000000METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.318no7/7 5/5 22.9 16.9 12.8 13.80011METAL COBALT0.264no7/7 5/5 7.7 7.7 5.8 4.30000METAL COPPER0.051Yes7/7 5/5 101 23.1 50.6 10.722922METAL CYANIDE0.809no1/7 2/5 0.162 0.437 0.065 0.210METALIRON0.175Yes7/7 5/5 47300 35400 17700 120000011METALLEAD0.022Yes7/7 5/5 90.3 32 61.4 22.234335METAL MAGNESIUM0.682no7/7 5/5 1760 2150 1270 26000001METAL MANGANESE0.682no7/7 5/5 1870 544 335 42711411METAL MERCURY0.174Yes5/7 1/5 0.231 0.061 0.07 0.0653METALNICKEL0.318no7/7 5/5 29.7 19.9 16.2 18.20011METAL POTASSIUM0.735no7/7 5/5 1280 1430 1070 15300011METAL SELENIUM0.684no2/7 1/5 1.08 1.02 0.6 0.651METALSILVER0.086Yes5/7 3/5 0.858 0.385 0.82 0.4245755METAL SODIUM0.110Yes7/7 5/5 1160 362 890 31222944METAL THALLIUM0.683no2/7 1/5 2.12 1.85 0.6 0.651METAL VANADIUM0.735no7/7 5/5 17.6 23 16.2 18.30000METALZINC0.009Yes7/7 5/5 389 66 331 56.545767SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.711no2/7 1/5 0.153 0.181 0.205 0.211SVOC ACENAPHTHENE0.916no3/7 1/5 0.0971 0.156 0.085 0.211SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.878no4/7 1/5 0.148 0.215 0.085 0.221SVOC ANTHRACENE0.736no6/7 1/5 0.178 0.195 0.085 0.222SVOC BENZALDEHYDE0.048Yes2/7 3/5 0.125 0.0382 0.085 0.0090002SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.563no5/7 2/5 0.219 0.208 0.11 0.221SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.595no5/7 2/5 0.201 0.282 0.1 0.220SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.375no5/7 2/5 0.324 0.22 0.15 0.221SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.915no4/7 1/5 0.142 0.509 0.13 0.220SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.737no5/7 2/5 0.129 0.191 0.085 0.220SVOC CARBAZOLE0.936no3/7 1/5 0.11 0.171 0.085 0.211SVOC CHRYSENE0.375no5/7 2/5 0.333 0.275 0.17 0.221SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.979no5/7 1/5 0.0643 0.239 0.085 0.220SVOC FLUORANTHENE0.317no5/7 3/5 0.434 0.157 0.13 0.08511411SVOC FLUORENE0.500no3/7 1/5 0.131 0.128 0.09 0.0853SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.684no5/7 2/5 0.15 0.262 0.11 0.220SVOC NAPHTHALENE0.827no2/7 1/5 0.139 0.175 0.12 0.210SVOC PHENANTHRENE0.532no6/7 2/5 0.256 0.166 0.09 0.221SVOCPYRENE0.468no5/7 2/5 0.374 0.311 0.14 0.2212 of 104Table 3Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Current Aboveground Storage Tanks to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxMETAL ALUMINUM0.967no5/5 5/5 1780 7240 1040 63700000METAL ANTIMONY0.387no2/3 1/5 1.66 2.03 2.1 0.430METAL ARSENIC0.912no5/5 5/5 3.6 8.3 1.6 6.40000METAL BARIUM0.500no5/5 5/5 194 243 233 2250000METAL BERYLLIUM0.977no3/5 5/5 0.134 0.622 0.09 0.50000METAL CALCIUM0.967no4/5 5/5 3630 22200 1870 161000000METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.880no5/5 5/5 28.2 16.9 3.2 13.812011METAL COBALT0.967no5/5 5/5 1.81 7.7 1.2 4.30000METAL COPPER0.620no5/5 5/5 14.8 23.1 10.3 10.70000METAL CYANIDE0.867no2/5 2/5 0.122 0.437 0.06 0.210METALIRON0.911no5/5 5/5 7830 35400 5020 120000000METALLEAD0.580no5/5 5/5 134 32 20.4 22.212012METAL MAGNESIUM0.976no5/5 5/5 348 2150 219 26000000METAL MANGANESE0.967no5/5 5/5 140 544 75 4270000METAL MERCURY0.623no2/5 1/5 0.064 0.061 0.03 0.0652METALNICKEL0.967no5/5 5/5 5.88 19.9 4.7 18.20000METAL POTASSIUM0.983no5/5 5/5 396 1430 304 15300000METALSILVER0.500no4/5 3/5 0.458 0.385 0.33 0.4212022METAL SODIUM0.657no5/5 5/5 291 362 261 3120000METAL VANADIUM0.879no5/5 5/5 11.5 23 4.9 18.30000METALZINC0.420no5/5 5/5 142 66 76.3 56.512011SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.815no2/5 1/5 0.147 0.181 0.195 0.210SVOC ACENAPHTHENE0.541no2/5 1/5 0.215 0.156 0.2 0.211SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.968no4/5 1/5 0.087 0.215 0.02 0.220SVOC ANTHRACENE0.816no3/5 1/5 0.392 0.195 0.2 0.221SVOC BENZALDEHYDE0.160Yes3/5 3/5 0.0886 0.0382 0.03 0.0090002SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.657no5/5 2/5 0.648 0.208 0.05 0.221SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.657no5/5 2/5 0.596 0.282 0.06 0.221SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.657no5/5 2/5 0.966 0.22 0.09 0.221SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.815no3/5 1/5 0.308 0.509 0.2 0.220SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.838no5/5 2/5 0.388 0.191 0.04 0.221SVOC CARBAZOLE0.581no2/5 1/5 0.171 0.171 0.2 0.211SVOC CHRYSENE0.787no5/5 2/5 0.622 0.275 0.08 0.221SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.815no2/5 1/5 0.193 0.239 0.2 0.220SVOC FLUORANTHENE0.580no5/5 3/5 2.07 0.157 0.07 0.08512011SVOC FLUORENE0.211no1/5 1/5 0.255 0.128 0.2 0.0851SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.787no5/5 2/5 0.254 0.262 0.04 0.221SVOC NAPHTHALENE0.861no2/5 1/5 0.139 0.175 0.195 0.210SVOC PHENANTHRENE0.580no4/5 2/5 0.844 0.166 0.13 0.221SVOCPYRENE0.657no5/5 2/5 1.76 0.311 0.13 0.2213 of 104Table 4Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Maintenance Shed Area to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxMETAL ALUMINUM0.947no9/9 5/5 3470 7240 3370 63700000METAL ANTIMONY0.261no4/8 1/5 4.26 2.03 3.15 0.431METAL ARSENIC0.762no9/9 5/5 6.23 8.3 6.1 6.40001METAL BARIUM0.917no9/9 5/5 129 243 70.9 2250000METAL BERYLLIUM0.557no7/8 5/5 0.559 0.622 0.51 0.50011METAL CALCIUM0.781no9/9 5/5 34600 22200 7590 1610022222METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.699no9/9 5/5 12 16.9 10.4 13.80000METAL COBALT0.742no9/9 5/5 4.2 7.7 5 4.30000METAL COPPER0.500no9/9 5/5 49.1 23.1 18.9 10.711122METAL CYANIDE0.557no1/8 2/5 0.246 0.437 0.315 0.210METALIRON0.652no9/9 5/5 16700 35400 15500 120000000METALLEAD0.348no9/9 5/5 101 32 63.5 22.244445METAL MAGNESIUM0.897no9/9 5/5 1360 2150 845 26000001METAL MANGANESE0.967no9/9 5/5 207 544 113 4270000METAL MERCURY0.306no4/8 1/5 0.0856 0.061 0.065 0.0653METALNICKEL0.781no9/9 5/5 13.1 19.9 10.5 18.20000METAL POTASSIUM0.933no9/9 5/5 767 1430 948 15300000METALSILVER0.820no2/8 3/5 0.716 0.385 0.273 0.4222522METAL SODIUM0.699no9/9 5/5 293 362 243 3120000METAL THALLIUM0.744no3/9 1/5 27.1 1.85 0.6 0.651METAL VANADIUM0.967no9/9 5/5 10.5 23 10.7 18.30000METALZINC0.103Yes9/9 5/5 386 66 143 56.533355SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.889no4/9 1/5 0.131 0.181 0.085 0.211SVOC ACENAPHTHENE0.682no1/9 1/5 0.14 0.156 0.085 0.210SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.937no4/9 1/5 0.113 0.215 0.085 0.220SVOC ANTHRACENE0.604no6/9 1/5 0.156 0.195 0.1 0.223SVOC BENZALDEHYDE0.029Yes1/9 3/5 0.122 0.0382 0.085 0.0090001SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.703no4/9 2/5 0.216 0.208 0.085 0.221SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.603no7/9 2/5 0.343 0.282 0.12 0.222SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.371no5/9 2/5 0.558 0.22 0.27 0.221SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.934no7/9 1/5 0.242 0.509 0.11 0.220SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.500no4/9 2/5 0.393 0.191 0.085 0.221SVOC CARBAZOLE0.928no5/9 1/5 0.112 0.171 0.085 0.212SVOC CHRYSENE0.526no5/9 2/5 0.351 0.275 0.16 0.221SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.703no2/9 1/5 0.134 0.158 0.085 0.211SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.910no4/9 1/5 0.164 0.239 0.085 0.221SVOC FLUORANTHENE0.102Yes6/9 3/5 0.763 0.157 0.24 0.08522233SVOC FLUORENE0.390no1/9 1/5 0.147 0.128 0.085 0.0851SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.743no7/9 2/5 0.194 0.262 0.09 0.221SVOC NAPHTHALENE0.835no4/9 1/5 0.137 0.175 0.085 0.212SVOC PHENANTHRENE0.500no6/9 2/5 0.322 0.166 0.085 0.222SVOCPYRENE0.526no7/9 2/5 0.792 0.311 0.2 0.222SVOCbis(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE0.877no2/9 3/5 0.182 0.401 0.085 0.2100004 of 104Table 5Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Tar Burn Area to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxMETAL ALUMINUM0.547no4/4 5/5 8250 7240 5790 63700011METAL ANTIMONY0.107Yes4/4 1/5 2.75 2.03 1.85 0.430METAL ARSENIC0.500no4/4 5/5 6.45 8.3 6.8 6.40000METAL BARIUM0.849no4/4 5/5 119 243 120 2250000METAL BERYLLIUM0.453no4/4 5/5 0.508 0.622 0.505 0.50000METAL CALCIUM0.500no4/4 5/5 28400 22200 21700 161000011METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.500no4/4 5/5 13.9 16.9 11.5 13.80000METAL COBALT0.500no4/4 5/5 4.9 7.7 4.8 4.30000METAL COPPER0.107Yes4/4 5/5 64.7 23.1 43.2 10.712511METAL CYANIDE0.641no1/4 2/5 0.11 0.437 0.0675 0.210METALIRON0.406no4/4 5/5 13900 35400 12700 120000000METALLEAD0.052Yes4/4 5/5 320 32 138 22.237533METAL MAGNESIUM0.849no4/4 5/5 1350 2150 1250 26000000METAL MANGANESE0.721no4/4 5/5 321 544 344 4270000METAL MERCURY0.107Yes4/4 1/5 0.158 0.061 0.13 0.0653METALNICKEL0.500no4/4 5/5 14.6 19.9 12.1 18.20000METAL POTASSIUM0.721no4/4 5/5 1180 1430 1100 15300000METALSILVER0.024Yes4/4 3/5 0.873 0.385 0.845 0.42410044METAL SODIUM0.151Yes4/4 5/5 476 362 468 3120000METAL THALLIUM0.452no1/4 1/5 0.813 1.85 0.675 0.650METAL VANADIUM0.721no4/4 5/5 15.2 23 16.2 18.30000METALZINC0.035Yes4/4 5/5 327 66 393 56.537533SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.594no2/4 1/5 0.129 0.181 0.13 0.210SVOC ACENAPHTHENE0.241no1/4 1/5 0.183 0.156 0.228 0.210SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.594no3/4 1/5 0.21 0.215 0.17 0.221SVOC ANTHRACENE0.500no4/4 1/5 0.188 0.195 0.175 0.221SVOC BENZALDEHYDE0.051Yes3/4 3/5 1.66 0.0382 0.165 0.00912513SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.208no4/4 2/5 0.43 0.208 0.37 0.221SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.208no4/4 2/5 0.545 0.282 0.455 0.221SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.075Yes4/4 2/5 0.685 0.22 0.695 0.223SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.547no4/4 1/5 0.255 0.509 0.25 0.220SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.151Yes4/4 2/5 0.66 0.191 0.595 0.222SVOC CARBAZOLE0.594no3/4 1/5 0.168 0.171 0.15 0.211SVOC CHRYSENE0.151Yes4/4 2/5 0.468 0.275 0.34 0.221SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.241no1/4 1/5 0.223 0.158 0.228 0.210SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.873no4/4 1/5 0.105 0.239 0.09 0.220SVOC FLUORANTHENE0.052Yes4/4 3/5 0.753 0.157 0.51 0.08512523SVOC FLUORENE0.406no2/4 1/5 0.146 0.128 0.17 0.0851SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.318no4/4 2/5 0.375 0.262 0.345 0.220SVOC NAPHTHALENE0.594no2/4 1/5 0.131 0.175 0.135 0.210SVOC PHENANTHRENE0.279no4/4 2/5 0.37 0.166 0.25 0.222SVOCPYRENE0.151Yes4/4 2/5 0.725 0.311 0.64 0.221SVOCbis(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE0.075Yes2/4 3/5 1.37 0.401 0.275 0.21125115 of 104Table 6Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Former Lauren Tank Farm to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxMETAL ALUMINUM0.806no13/13 5/5 5350 7240 4730 63700000METAL ANTIMONY0.721no2/13 1/5 0.842 2.03 0.55 0.430METAL ARSENIC0.500no13/13 5/5 8.12 8.3 6.3 6.40011METAL BARIUM0.976no13/13 5/5 110 243 96.4 2250000METAL BERYLLIUM0.500no10/13 5/5 0.507 0.622 0.55 0.50000METAL CALCIUM0.961no13/13 5/5 6440 22200 4500 161000000METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.703no13/13 5/5 48.3 16.9 9.5 13.81811METAL COBALT0.423no13/13 5/5 6.22 7.7 5.4 4.30001METAL COPPER0.109Yes13/13 5/5 622 23.1 24.5 10.732334METAL CYANIDE0.705no1/13 2/5 0.252 0.437 0.19 0.210METALIRON0.423no13/13 5/5 24600 35400 17400 120000001METALLEAD0.109Yes13/13 5/5 137 32 51.4 22.232366METAL MAGNESIUM0.961no13/13 5/5 1210 2150 1230 26000000METAL MANGANESE0.944no13/13 5/5 254 544 208 4270001METAL MERCURY0.202no5/12 1/5 0.593 0.061 0.0675 0.0655METALNICKEL0.651no13/13 5/5 42.5 19.9 10.6 18.21811METAL POTASSIUM0.539no13/13 5/5 1420 1430 1330 15300011METAL SELENIUM0.961no3/13 1/5 0.754 1.02 0.4 0.651METALSILVER0.349no7/13 3/5 0.925 0.385 0.29 0.421846METAL SODIUM0.314no12/13 5/5 694 362 858 31232377METAL THALLIUM0.945no2/13 1/5 0.676 1.85 0.55 0.650METAL VANADIUM0.780no13/13 5/5 15.1 23 15.2 18.30000METALZINC0.126Yes13/13 5/5 222 66 111 56.532366SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.936no8/13 1/5 0.294 0.181 0.085 0.212SVOC ACENAPHTHENE0.520no2/13 1/5 0.294 0.156 0.085 0.211SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.923no9/13 1/5 0.204 0.215 0.085 0.222SVOC ANTHRACENE0.955no9/13 1/5 0.208 0.195 0.085 0.222SVOC BENZALDEHYDE0.040Yes5/13 3/5 0.241 0.0382 0.085 0.0090005SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.558no8/13 2/5 0.609 0.208 0.085 0.221SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.500no10/13 2/5 0.69 0.282 0.13 0.221SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.615no11/13 2/5 0.708 0.22 0.11 0.221SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.686no10/13 1/5 0.475 0.509 0.17 0.221SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.669no8/13 2/5 0.438 0.191 0.085 0.221SVOC CARBAZOLE0.654no3/13 1/5 0.315 0.171 0.085 0.211SVOC CHRYSENE0.615no10/13 2/5 0.692 0.275 0.11 0.221SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.500no1/13 1/5 0.356 0.158 0.085 0.211SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.929no8/13 1/5 0.308 0.239 0.085 0.221SVOC FLUORANTHENE0.615no11/13 3/5 0.695 0.157 0.08 0.0851822SVOC FLUORENE0.401no3/13 1/5 0.289 0.128 0.085 0.0853SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.633no11/13 2/5 0.316 0.262 0.12 0.221SVOC NAPHTHALENE0.936no8/13 1/5 0.2 0.175 0.085 0.212SVOC PHENANTHRENE0.721no9/13 2/5 0.308 0.166 0.085 0.223SVOCPYRENE0.596no11/13 2/5 0.758 0.311 0.085 0.222SVOCbis(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE0.832no7/13 3/5 0.488 0.401 0.11 0.2100116 of 104Table 7Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Non-source Area to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxALUMINUM0.759no54/54 5/5 5970 7240 5440 63700022METAL ANTIMONY0.221no27/47 1/5 2.99 2.03 0.96 0.436METAL ARSENIC0.715no52/54 5/5 6.61 8.3 5.95 6.41211METAL BARIUM0.817no54/54 5/5 182 243 130 2250012METAL BERYLLIUM0.715no51/54 5/5 0.985 0.622 0.465 0.52422METAL CALCIUM0.935no54/54 5/5 13300 22200 4860 161002425METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.554no54/54 5/5 16.7 16.9 10.2 13.81234METAL COBALT0.687no54/54 5/5 5.87 7.7 5 4.31211METAL COPPER0.126Yes54/54 5/5 192 23.1 21.8 10.710191516METAL CYANIDE0.950no8/54 2/5 0.103 0.437 0.065 0.210METALIRON0.378no54/54 5/5 22600 35400 14500 120000012METALLEAD0.197Yes54/54 5/5 224 32 38.3 22.218332122METAL MAGNESIUM0.980no54/54 5/5 1260 2150 1230 26000001METAL MANGANESE0.963no54/54 5/5 265 544 228 4270002METAL MERCURY0.647no17/54 1/5 0.0748 0.061 0.035 0.06517METALNICKEL0.755no54/54 5/5 18 19.9 10.7 18.21222METAL POTASSIUM0.791no54/54 5/5 1170 1430 1240 15300001METAL SELENIUM0.974no4/54 1/5 0.587 1.02 0.6 0.651METALSILVER0.001Yes53/54 3/5 0.982 0.385 0.7 0.4224444048METAL SODIUM0.153Yes54/54 5/5 639 362 405 312591518METAL THALLIUM0.898no10/54 1/5 0.856 1.85 0.6 0.650METAL VANADIUM0.897no54/54 5/5 14.7 23 14.8 18.30000METALZINC0.126Yes54/54 5/5 1060 66 101 56.520372123METAL 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.410no15/55 1/5 0.333 0.181 0.21 0.213SVOC ACENAPHTHENE0.144Yes6/55 1/5 0.545 0.156 0.215 0.215SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.831no28/55 1/5 0.38 0.215 0.21 0.227SVOC ANTHRACENE0.788no34/55 1/5 0.534 0.195 0.2 0.2210SVOC BENZALDEHYDE0.039Yes32/55 3/5 0.204 0.0382 0.07 0.00900123SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.620no40/55 2/5 0.72 0.208 0.18 0.228SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.721no48/55 2/5 0.619 0.282 0.1 0.227SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.558no45/55 2/5 0.839 0.22 0.21 0.2212SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.532no24/55 1/5 0.433 0.509 0.22 0.222SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.610no33/55 2/5 0.49 0.191 0.205 0.226SVOC CARBAZOLE0.500no18/55 1/5 0.385 0.171 0.21 0.216SVOC CHRYSENE0.684no43/55 2/5 0.747 0.275 0.175 0.228SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.113Yes5/55 1/5 0.402 0.158 0.22 0.213SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.898no30/55 1/5 0.264 0.239 0.19 0.223SVOC FLUORANTHENE0.516no46/55 3/5 1.46 0.157 0.12 0.08571388SVOC FLUORENE0.106Yes9/55 1/5 0.494 0.128 0.215 0.0857SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.708no42/55 2/5 0.358 0.262 0.18 0.224SVOC NAPHTHALENE0.421no14/55 1/5 0.408 0.175 0.21 0.214SVOC PHENANTHRENE0.660no38/55 2/5 1.25 0.166 0.16 0.229SVOCPYRENE0.645no43/55 2/5 1.14 0.311 0.185 0.225SVOCbis(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE0.153Yes20/55 3/5 0.685 0.401 0.225 0.2124667 of 104Table 8Comparison of Intertidal Surface Sediment (0-6 in., top of bank to mean lower water mark) to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxMETAL ALUMINUM0.042Yes9/9 5/5 1710 431 1730 44877877METAL ANTIMONY0.033Yes9/9 5/5 4.04 0.306 0.71 0.2966766METAL ARSENIC0.006Yes9/9 5/5 7.01 0.686 6.4 0.59910099METAL BARIUM0.006Yes9/9 5/5 45.9 4.52 47.1 4.4910099METAL BERYLLIUM0.012Yes2/9 2/5 0.123 0.0484 0.085 0.048...2METAL CADMIUM0.006Yes9/9 5/5 0.728 0.053 0.8 0.04988989METAL CALCIUM0.006Yes9/9 5/5 52100 111 12900 10888999METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.006Yes9/9 5/5 25 1.09 17.5 1.1910099METAL COBALT0.006Yes9/9 5/5 4.66 0.86 4.5 0.9677889METALIRON0.006Yes9/9 5/5 76300 1690 75000 1680910099METALLEAD0.006Yes9/9 5/5 204 1.92 67.3 2910099METAL MAGNESIUM0.026Yes9/9 5/5 1150 202 954 20877877METAL MANGANESE0.006Yes9/9 5/5 469 32 271 29.988999METAL MERCURY0.006Yes9/9 2/5 0.0659 0.00287 0.045 0.0019 ...9METALNICKEL0.006Yes9/9 5/5 22.3 0.778 14.3 0.81910099METAL POTASSIUM0.042Yes9/9 5/5 423 120 272 12877877METAL SODIUM0.006Yes9/9 5/5 987 403 928 41488999METAL VANADIUM0.010Yes9/9 5/5 8.77 2.28 8.7 2.177888METALZINC0.006Yes9/9 5/5 222 4.86 198 5.19100998 of 104Table 9Comparison of Near Shore Surface Sediment (0-6 in., shallow water to potential upland) to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxMETAL ALUMINUM0.001Yes43/43 5/5 4160 431 4810 44837863839METAL ANTIMONY0.789no11/43 5/5 0.333 0.306 0.22 0.291244METAL ARSENIC0.000Yes43/43 5/5 4.6 0.686 4.5 0.59431004343METAL BARIUM0.000Yes43/43 5/5 63.8 4.52 37.5 4.4431004343METAL BERYLLIUM0.002Yes33/43 2/5 0.529 0.0484 0.58 0.048...33METAL CADMIUM0.001Yes35/43 5/5 0.123 0.053 0.125 0.04923532730METAL CALCIUM0.000Yes43/43 5/5 1990 111 1170 10840934343METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.000Yes44/44 5/5 7.42 1.09 7.15 1.142954444METAL COBALT0.000Yes44/44 5/5 5.89 0.86 6.2 0.9636824444METALIRON0.000Yes43/43 5/5 10700 1690 9150 1680431004343METALLEAD0.000Yes43/43 5/5 18.9 1.92 9.1 2431004343METAL MAGNESIUM0.001Yes43/43 5/5 2180 202 2430 20837863740METAL MANGANESE0.001Yes43/43 5/5 190 32 116 29.935813940METAL MERCURY0.000Yes11/44 2/5 0.0455 0.00287 0.0368 0.0019 ...11METALNICKEL0.000Yes43/43 5/5 8.28 0.778 7.76 0.8141954343METAL POTASSIUM0.001Yes43/43 5/5 1230 120 1370 12837863739METAL SODIUM0.000Yes43/43 5/5 2020 403 1780 41440934242METAL VANADIUM0.000Yes43/43 5/5 12.6 2.28 14.2 2.136844143METALZINC0.000Yes43/43 5/5 127 4.86 30.7 5.14310043439 of 104Table 10Comparison of Offshore Surface Sediment (0-6 in.) to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemicalGroupParameterp-value fromWilcoxon RankSum (WRS) TestIs BackgroundExceeded viaWRS Test?SiteDetectionFrequencyBkgdDetectionFrequencySite MeanBkgdMeanSiteMedianBkgdMedianNumber ofExceedances ofNormal UTLPercent ofExceedancesof Normal UTLNumber ofExceedancesof NormalUPLNumber ofExceedances ofBackground MaxMETAL ALUMINUM0.005Yes11/11 5/5 5840 431 6800 44810911010METAL ANTIMONY0.764no1/11 5/5 0.258 0.306 0.28 0.290000METAL ARSENIC0.004Yes11/11 5/5 6.26 0.686 6.6 0.59111001111METAL BARIUM0.004Yes11/11 5/5 52.4 4.52 39 4.4111001111METAL BERYLLIUM0.012Yes10/11 2/5 0.61 0.0484 0.63 0.04810METAL CADMIUM0.010Yes11/11 5/5 0.102 0.053 0.1 0.0494361010METAL CALCIUM0.004Yes11/11 5/5 1970 111 1640 10810911111METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.004Yes11/11 5/5 8.05 1.09 8.8 1.1111001111METAL COBALT0.004Yes11/11 5/5 6.59 0.86 6.8 0.9610911111METALIRON0.004Yes11/11 5/5 11200 1690 12100 1680111001111METALLEAD0.004Yes11/11 5/5 9.75 1.92 9.8 2111001111METAL MAGNESIUM0.004Yes11/11 5/5 3040 202 3460 20810911011METAL MANGANESE0.004Yes11/11 5/5 385 32 388 29.99821011METAL MERCURY0.003Yes1/11 2/5 0.0327 0.00287 0.035 0.00191METALNICKEL0.004Yes11/11 5/5 12.5 0.778 10.3 0.8111100110METAL POTASSIUM0.004Yes11/11 5/5 1830 120 2270 12810911111METAL SODIUM0.004Yes11/11 5/5 3160 403 3470 414111001111METAL VANADIUM0.004Yes11/11 5/5 14.1 2.28 15.9 2.110911011METALZINC0.004Yes11/11 5/5 32.1 4.86 35.1 5.111100111110 of 104Table 11Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Wastewater Impoundments SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsMedium: Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM967=SM12320600=SM122 ND57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%0NoAl-SSLANTIMONY1LJvQ SM12744.7= SM95-SO-22 0.8317.2 mg/Kg 8/1266.67%0.3YesASLBARIUM104= SM95-SO-26 534=SM123 ND57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%330NoBKGDCADMIUM0.33LQSM1252.4= SM95-SO-22 0.161.4 mg/Kg 7/1258.33%0.4YesASLCALCIUM4970=SM12412200J SM95-SO-22 ND1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%NoNUTCHROMIUM, TOTAL5JKSM12736.2= SM95-SO-22 ND2.9 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%7.9NoBKGDCOPPER7.2=SM123298= SM95-SO-26 ND7.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%54YesASLIRON6050=SM12351900= SM95-SO-22 ND28.6 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%0NoFe-SSLLEAD12.6=SM123435= SM95-SO-19 ND0.86 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%15YesASLMAGNESIUM458LQSM1232010= SM95-SO-22 ND1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%NoNUTMANGANESE105=SM127478Jv SM95-SO-22 ND4.3 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%152NoBKGDMERCURY0.07LJ^QH SM1260.22= SM95-SO-26 0.140.14 mg/Kg 6/1250.00%0.1NoBKGDNICKEL2.5LQSM12359.2= SM95-SO-22 ND11.4 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%48NoBKGDPOTASSIUM319LQSM1231530= SM95-SO-26 ND1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%NoNUTSELENIUM1.3= SM95-SO-22 1.3= SM95-SO-22 1.31.3 mg/Kg 1/128.33%1NoBKGDSILVER0.29LQSM1232.6LQSM122 0.572.9 mg/Kg 9/1275.00%2YesASLSODIUM244J^ SM95-SO-19 768J SM95-SO-22 2651430 mg/Kg 8/1266.67%NoNUTTHALLIUM1.3= SM95-SO-19 3.8= SM95-SO-22 2.42.4 mg/Kg 4/1233.33%1NoBKGDVANADIUM5.5LQSM12326.4=SM120 ND14.3 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%2NoBKGDZINC40.4=SM123460= SM95-SO-22 ND5.7 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%120YesASLALDRIN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/40.00%0.0025NoNDALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXAN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDALPHA ENDOSULFAN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDALPHA-CHLORDANE0.0026= SM95-SO-26 0.003= SM95-SO-21 0.0017 0.0017 mg/Kg 2/450.00%YesNSLBETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDBETA ENDOSULFAN0.0081Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0081Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/425.00%YesNSLDELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXAN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDDIELDRIN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/40.00%0.000032NoNDENDOSULFAN SULFATE0.0092Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0092Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/425.00%YesNSLENDRIN0.0076= SM95-SO-21 0.014Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 2/450.00%YesNSLENDRIN ALDEHYDE0.01Jv SM95-SO-22 0.01Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/425.00%YesNSLENDRIN KETONE0.0099Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0099Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/425.00%YesNSLGAMMA BHC (LINDANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDGAMMA-CHLORDANE0.0028= SM95-SO-26 0.0056= SM95-SO-21 0.0017 0.0017 mg/Kg 2/450.00%YesNSLHEPTACHLOR0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDHEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE0.0051J SM95-SO-22 0.0051J SM95-SO-22 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/425.00%YesNSLMETHOXYCHLOR0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDP,P'-DDD0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDP,P'-DDE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDP,P'-DDT0.0091Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0091Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/425.00%YesNSLPCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/40.00%40NoNDPCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/40.00%40NoNDPCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/40.00%40NoNDPCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/40.00%40NoNDPCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/40.00%10NoNDPCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/40.00%10NoNDPCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/40.00%10NoNDTOXAPHENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 mg/kg 0/40.00%20NoND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL5.75.7 mg/kg 0/120.00%1.3NoND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%10NoND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%20NoND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND2,4-DINITROPHENOL5.75.7 mg/kg 0/120.00%20NoND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%3.2NoND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%0.03283NoND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%1NoND2-CHLOROPHENOL2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%20NoND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.028LJQK SM1240.7= SM95-SO-22 2.32.3 mg/Kg 5/1241.67%0.1YesASL2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%0.5NoND2-NITROANILINE5.75.7 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND2-NITROPHENOL2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND3-NITROANILINE5.75.7 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL5.75.7 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%7.95NoND4-CHLOROANILINE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%0.5NoND4-NITROANILINE5.75.7 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoND4-NITROPHENOL5.75.7 mg/kg 0/120.00%7NoND11 of 104Table 11Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Wastewater Impoundments SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsMedium: Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM967=SM12320600=SM122 ND57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%0NoAl-SSLANTIMONY1LJvQ SM12744.7= SM95-SO-22 0.8317.2 mg/Kg 8/1266.67%0.3YesASLBARIUM104= SM95-SO-26 534=SM123 ND57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%330NoBKGDCADMIUM0.33LQSM1252.4= SM95-SO-22 0.161.4 mg/Kg 7/1258.33%0.4YesASLCALCIUM4970=SM12412200J SM95-SO-22 ND1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%NoNUTCHROMIUM, TOTAL5JKSM12736.2= SM95-SO-22 ND2.9 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%7.9NoBKGDCOPPER7.2=SM123298= SM95-SO-26 ND7.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%54YesASLIRON6050=SM12351900= SM95-SO-22 ND28.6 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%0NoFe-SSLLEAD12.6=SM123435= SM95-SO-19 ND0.86 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%15YesASLACENAPHTHENE0.016LJQK SM1270.39J SM95-SO-22 0.922.3 mg/Kg 8/1266.67%20NoBSLACENAPHTHYLENE0.027LJQK SM1212.9= SM95-SO-22 0.172.3 mg/Kg 11/12 91.67%1.7YesASLACETOPHENONE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%300NoNDANTHRACENE0.025LJQK SM1212.9= SM95-SO-22 0.172.3 mg/Kg 11/12 91.67%0.1YesASLATRAZINE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%0.00005NoNDBENZALDEHYDE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoNDBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE0.022* SM95-SO-26 1.3= SM95-SO-22 0.172.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67%1.2YesASLBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE0.022* SM95-SO-26 1.3LJQK SM126 0.172.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67%1.2YesASLBENZO(A)PYRENE0.041LJQK SM1212.6= SM95-SO-22 0.172.3 mg/kg 10/12 83.33%0.1YesASLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE0.05= SM95-SO-26 3.6= SM95-SO-22 0.172.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67%1.2YesASLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE0.06LJQK SM1208.8* SM95-SO-22 0.452.3 mg/kg 8/1266.67%119NoBSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.022LJQK SM1210.65LJQK SM126 0.172.3 mg/kg 8/1266.67%25NoBSLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.16* SM95-SO-19 0.16* SM95-SO-19 2.32.3 mg/kg 1/128.33%0.23889YesDLBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%60NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoNDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE0.086* SM95-SO-26 4.9=SM125 2.32.3 mg/kg 4/1233.33%0.92594YesASLCAPROLACTAM2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoNDCARBAZOLE0.021LJQK SM1200.77= SM95-SO-22 0.452.3 mg/kg 10/12 83.33%YesNSLCARBAZOLE0.021LJQK SM1240.77= SM95-SO-22 0.452.3 mg/kg 10/12 83.33%YesNSLCHRYSENE0.044* SM95-SO-26 3.4* SM95-SO-22 0.172.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67%4.73NoBSLDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE0.069J SM95-SO-22 0.069J SM95-SO-22 2.32.3 mg/kg 1/128.33%200NoBSLDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE0.18LJQK SM1250.18LJQK SM125 2.32.3 mg/kg 1/128.33%709NoBSLDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.02LJQK SM1200.46= SM95-SO-22 0.452.3 mg/kg 8/1266.67%1.2YesDLDIBENZOFURAN0.032LJQK SM1240.21J SM95-SO-22 0.922.3 mg/Kg 6/1250.00%YesNSLDIETHYL PHTHALATE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%100NoNDDIMETHYL PHTHALATE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%200NoNDFLUORANTHENE0.03* SM95-SO-26 2.5= SM95-SO-22 0.172.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67%0.1YesASLFLUORENE0.014LJQK SM1270.34J SM95-SO-22 0.922.3 mg/Kg 7/1258.33%30NoBSLHEXACHLOROBENZENE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%0.0025NoNDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoNDHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%10NoNDHEXACHLOROETHANE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoNDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE0.039LJQK SM1213* SM95-SO-22 0.172.3 mg/kg 9/1275.00%1.2YesASLISOPHORONE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%NoNDN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%0.54368NoNDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE0.13J SM95-SO-22 0.13J SM95-SO-22 2.32.3 mg/kg 1/128.33%20NoBSLNAPHTHALENE0.07LJQK SM1220.86= SM95-SO-22 0.922.3 mg/Kg 5/1241.67%0.1YesASLNITROBENZENE2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%40NoNDPENTACHLOROPHENOL5.75.7 mg/kg 0/120.00%0.032NoNDPHENANTHRENE0.019LJQK SM1212.5= SM95-SO-22 ND2.3 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%0.1YesASLPHENOL2.32.3 mg/kg 0/120.00%30NoNDPYRENE0.042J SM95-SO-2610* SM95-SO-22 0.172.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67%0.1YesASL1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE0.003J SM95-SO-26 0.006* SM95-SO-19 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 2/450.00%0.1NoBSL1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%20.1NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%20NoND1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%20NoND1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%700NoND1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%20NoND1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE)0.10.1 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND2-HEXANONE0.010.01 mg/kg 0/40.00%12.6NoNDACETONE0.010.01 mg/kg 0/40.00%2.5NoNDBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%0.5NoNDBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDBROMODICHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDBROMOFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoND12 of 104Table 11Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Wastewater Impoundments SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsMedium: Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM967=SM12320600=SM122 ND57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%0NoAl-SSLANTIMONY1LJvQ SM12744.7= SM95-SO-22 0.8317.2 mg/Kg 8/1266.67%0.3YesASLBARIUM104= SM95-SO-26 534=SM123 ND57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%330NoBKGDCADMIUM0.33LQSM1252.4= SM95-SO-22 0.161.4 mg/Kg 7/1258.33%0.4YesASLCALCIUM4970=SM12412200J SM95-SO-22 ND1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%NoNUTCHROMIUM, TOTAL5JKSM12736.2= SM95-SO-22 ND2.9 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%7.9NoBKGDCOPPER7.2=SM123298= SM95-SO-26 ND7.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%54YesASLIRON6050=SM12351900= SM95-SO-22 ND28.6 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%0NoFe-SSLLEAD12.6=SM123435= SM95-SO-19 ND0.86 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00%15YesASLBROMOMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% No NDCARBON DISULFIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 0.09412 No NDCARBON TETRACHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 1000 No NDCHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 40 No NDCHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% No NDCHLOROFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 25 No NDCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 10.4 No NDCIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% No NDCIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% No NDCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% No NDDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% No NDDICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 39.5 No NDETHYLBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 5 No NDISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% No NDM,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% No NDMETHYL ACETATE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% No NDMETHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)0.010.01 mg/kg 0/40.00%89.6NoNDMETHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTA0.010.01 mg/kg 0/40.00%443NoNDMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDMETHYLENE CHLORIDE0.003= SM95-SO-22 0.006* SM95-SO-19 0.005 0.005 mg/Kg 3/475.00%2NoBSLO-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%200NoNDSTYRENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%300NoNDTERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDTETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDTOLUENE0.002J SM95-SO-26 0.004* SM95-SO-19 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 2/450.00%200NoBSLTRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDTRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDTRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDTRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%16.4NoNDVINYL CHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/40.00%NoNDRationale for Elimination/SelectionQualifier:ASL: Above Screening LevelsJ: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening LevelB: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detectedand greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening LevelJL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential NutrientJH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC ifpH<5.5 (USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance becausetotal PAHs were below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysiTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individuabenchmarks, so total PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than sitespecific background13 of 104Table 12Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Wastwater Treatment Facility SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Wastwater Treatment FacilityMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM2380J SM95-SO-16 11100=SM11958.9 MG/KG 7/7100.00%0NoAl-SSLANTIMONY1.1LJvQ SM1185.7LJvQ SM117A 1.117.7 MG/KG 6/785.71%0.3YesASLARSENIC4.7JKSM11814= SM95-SO-162.9 MG/KG 7/7100.00%31NoBKGDBARIUM66.1= SM95-SO-14 292=SM11858.9 MG/KG 7/7100.00%330NoBKGDBERYLLIUM0.33= SM95-SO-16 1.2= SM95-SO-141.5 MG/KG 7/7100.00%30NoBSLCADMIUM0.49LQSM1181.1LQSM116 0.281.3 MG/KG 4/757.14%0.4YesASLCHROMIUM, TOTAL11.3JLSM11863.6= SM95-SO-162.9 MG/KG 7/7100.00%7.9NoBKGDCOBALT4.4LQ SM117A14.2= SM95-SO-1614.7 MG/KG 7/7100.00%32NoBKGDCOPPER14= SM95-SO-14 299=SM1177.4 MG/KG 7/7100.00%54YesASLCYANIDE0.21LQ SM117A0.21LQSM117A 0.70.74 MG/KG 1/714.29%0.9NoBKGDIRON12700= SM95-SO-14 200000= SM95-SO-1629.5 MG/KG 7/7100.00%0NoFe-SSLLEAD27.2= SM95-SO-14 161= SM95-SO-160.88 MG/KG 7/7100.00%15YesASLMANGANESE85.8= SM95-SO-14 11320Jv SM95-SO-164.4 MG/KG 7/7100.00%152NoBKGDMERCURY0.06LQSM1160.98=SM117 0.140.14 MG/KG 5/771.43%0.1YesASLNICKEL11.4= SM95-SO-14 77.2= SM95-SO-1611.8 MG/KG 7/7100.00%48NoBKGDSELENIUM0.77LQSM1194.5= SM95-SO-16 1.41.4 MG/KG 2/728.57%1NoBKGDSILVER0.64LQSM1181.4LQSM116 0.562.9 MG/KG 5/771.43%2YesDLTHALLIUM2.2LQSM1199.9= SM95-SO-16 1.52.7 MG/KG 2/728.57%1NoBKGDVANADIUM8.8LQ SM117A26.2=SM11914.7 MG/KG 7/7100.00%2NoBKGDZINC131=SM119908=SM117A5.9 MG/KG 7/7100.00%120YesASLALDRIN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%0.0025NoNDALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDALPHA ENDOSULFAN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDALPHA-CHLORDANE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBETA ENDOSULFAN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDDELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDDIELDRIN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%0.000032NoNDENDOSULFAN SULFATE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDENDRIN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDENDRIN ALDEHYDE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDENDRIN KETONE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDGAMMA BHC (LINDANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDGAMMA-CHLORDANE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDHEPTACHLOR0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDHEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDMETHOXYCHLOR0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDP,P'-DDD0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDP,P'-DDE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDP,P'-DDT0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDPCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDPCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDPCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDPCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDPCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%10NoNDPCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%10NoNDPCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%10NoNDTOXAPHENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 mg/kg 0/20.00%20NoND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL1.21.2 MG/KG 0/70.00%1.3NoND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%10NoND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%20NoND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND2,4-DINITROPHENOL1.21.2 MG/KG 0/70.00%20NoND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%3.2NoND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%0.03283NoND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%1NoND2-CHLOROPHENOL0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%20NoND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.033LJQK SM1190.22LJQK SM117 0.480.48 MG/KG 2/728.57%0.1YesASL2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%0.5NoND2-NITROANILINE1.21.2 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND2-NITROPHENOL0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND3-NITROANILINE1.21.2 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL1.21.2 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%7.95NoND4-CHLOROANILINE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)0.023LJQK SM1170.023LJQK SM117 0.480.48 MG/KG 1/714.29%0.5NoBSL4-NITROANILINE1.21.2 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoND14 of 104Table 12Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Wastwater Treatment Facility SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Wastwater Treatment FacilityMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselection4-NITROPHENOL2.3F+ SM95-SO-16 2.3F+ SM95-SO-16 1.21.2 MG/KG 1/714.29%7NoBSLACENAPHTHENE0.014LJQK SM117A0.085LJQK SM119 0.410.48 MG/KG 3/742.86%20NoBSLACENAPHTHYLENE0.042LJQK SM1180.35LJQK SM117 0.410.48 MG/KG 4/757.14%1.7NoBSLACETOPHENONE0.023LJQK SM1190.12LJQK SM117 0.480.48 MG/KG 2/728.57%300NoBSLANTHRACENE0.019LJQK SM1160.45LJQK SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 6/785.71%0.1YesASLATRAZINE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%0.00005NoNDBENZALDEHYDE0.025LJQK SM117A0.051LJQK SM117 0.450.48 MG/KG 2/728.57%YesNSLBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE0.1LJQK SM1160.83=SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%1.2NoBSLBENZO(A)PYRENE0.1LJQK SM1160.65=SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%0.1YesASLBENZO(A)PYRENE0.1LJQK SM1180.65=SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%0.1YesASLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE0.13LJQK SM1171.1=SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%1.2NoBSLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE0.056LJQK SM1180.24LJQK SM117 0.410.48 MG/KG 4/757.14%119NoBSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.061LJQK SM1160.34LJQK SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%25NoBSLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%0.23889NoNDBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)0.013LJQK SM1190.025LJQK SM117 0.480.48 MG/KG 2/728.57%60NoBSLBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER)0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoNDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%0.92594NoNDCAPROLACTAM0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoNDCARBAZOLE0.031LJQK SM117A0.13LJSM119 0.410.48 MG/KG 3/742.86%YesNSLCHRYSENE0.098LJQK SM1161.3=SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%4.73NoBSLDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%200NoNDDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE0.033LJQK SM1190.033LJQK SM119 0.480.48 MG/KG 1/714.29%709NoBSLDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.025LJQK SM1160.1LJQK SM117 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%1.2NoBSLDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.025LJQK SM1160.1LJQK SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%1.2NoBSLDIBENZOFURAN0.026J SM95-SO-16 0.033LJQK SM117 0.480.48 MG/KG 3/742.86%YesNSLDIETHYL PHTHALATE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%100NoNDDIMETHYL PHTHALATE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%200NoNDFLUORANTHENE0.065LJQK SM1172.2=SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%0.1YesASLFLUORENE0.044J SM95-SO-16 0.097LJQK SM119 0.480.48 MG/KG 3/742.86%30NoBSLHEXACHLOROBENZENE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%0.0025NoNDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoNDHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%10NoNDHEXACHLOROETHANE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoNDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE0.085LJQK SM1160.42LJQK SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%1.2NoBSLISOPHORONE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%NoNDN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%0.54368NoNDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%20NoNDNAPHTHALENE0.036LJQK SM1190.12LJQK SM117 0.480.48 MG/KG 2/728.57%0.1YesASLNITROBENZENE0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%40NoNDPENTACHLOROPHENOL1.21.2 MG/KG 0/70.00%0.032NoNDPHENANTHRENE0.031LJQK SM1181.1=SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 6/785.71%0.1YesASLPHENOL0.480.48 MG/KG 0/70.00%30NoNDPYRENE0.13LJQK SM1161.6=SM119 0.170.48 MG/KG 5/771.43%0.1YesASL1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE0.009J SM95-SO-16 0.009J SM95-SO-16 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/250.00%0.1NoBSL1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%20.1NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%20NoND1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%20NoND1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%700NoND1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%20NoND1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE)0.10.1 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND2-HEXANONE0.010.01 mg/kg 0/20.00%12.6NoNDACETONE0.010.01 mg/kg 0/20.00%2.5NoNDBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%0.5NoNDBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBROMODICHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBROMOFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBROMOMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDCARBON DISULFIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%0.09412NoNDCARBON TETRACHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%1000NoNDCHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDCHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDCHLOROFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%25NoNDCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%10.4NoND15 of 104Table 12Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Wastwater Treatment Facility SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Wastwater Treatment FacilityMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionCIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDCIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDDICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 39.5 No NDETHYLBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 5 No NDISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDM,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDMETHYL ACETATE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDMETHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 89.6 No NDMETHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE)0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 443 No NDMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDMETHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.009 J SM95-SO-16 0.009 J SM95-SO-16 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/2 50.00% 2 No BSLO-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 200 No NDSTYRENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 300 No NDTERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDTETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDTOLUENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 200 No NDTRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDTRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDTRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDTRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 16.4 No NDVINYL CHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDRationale for Elimination/Selection Qualifier:ASL: Above Screening Levels J: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening Level B: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detected and greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening Level JL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential Nutrient JH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC if pH<5.5(USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if 5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance because totaPAHs were below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysiTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individual benchmarks, sototal PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than site-specificbackground16 of 104Table 13Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Current Aboveground Storage Tanks SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Current Aboveground Storage TanksMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM593=SM1293490=SM12867.6 MG/KG 5/5100.00%0NoAl-SSLANTIMONY2.1LJvQ SM1282.5LJvQ SM131 0.7720.3 MG/KG 2/366.67%0.3YesASLARSENIC1.5LQSM1297.9JvLSM1283.4 MG/KG 5/5100.00%31NoBSLBARIUM49.6=SM132276=SM13067.6 MG/KG 5/5100.00%330NoBSLBERYLLIUM0.09LQSM1300.31LQSM131 0.071.7 MG/KG 3/560.00%30NoBSLCADMIUM0.48LQSM1310.48LQSM131 0.151.7 MG/KG 1/520.00%0.4YesASLCHROMIUM, TOTAL1.6LQSM129126=SM1313.4 MG/KG 5/5100.00%7.9YesASLCOBALT0.67LQSM1293.1LQSM13116.9 MG/KG 5/5100.00%32NoBSLCOPPER4.4LQSM12936.7=SM1318.4 MG/KG 5/5100.00%54NoBSLCYANIDE0.12LQSM1280.31LSM131 0.120.84 MG/KG 2/540.00%0.9NoBSLIRON3460=SM12914500=SM13133.8 MG/KG 5/5100.00%0NoFe-SSLLEAD7.5=SM129558=SM1311 MG/KG 5/5100.00%15YesASLMANGANESE17.7=SM129379JvLSM1285.1 MG/KG 5/5100.00%152YesASLMERCURY0.1LQSM1280.13LQSM131 0.060.17 MG/KG 2/540.00%0.1YesASLNICKEL0.81LQSM12915.9=SM13113.5 MG/KG 5/5100.00%48NoBSLSELENIUM1.61.6 MG/KG 0/50.00%1NoNDSILVER0.26LQSM1320.96LQSM131 0.243.4 MG/KG 4/580.00%2YesDLTHALLIUM1.61.6 MG/KG 0/50.00%1NoNDVANADIUM3.4LSM12931=SM13116.9 MG/KG 5/5100.00%2YesASLZINC13.2=SM129484=SM1316.8 MG/KG 5/5100.00%120YesASL2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL1.41.4 MG/KG 0/50.00%1.3NoND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%10NoND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%20NoND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND2,4-DINITROPHENOL1.41.4 MG/KG 0/50.00%20NoND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%3.2NoND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%0.03283NoND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%1NoND2-CHLOROPHENOL0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%20NoND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.02QSM1320.11QSM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 2/540.00%0.1YesASL2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%0.5NoND2-NITROANILINE1.41.4 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND2-NITROPHENOL0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND3-NITROANILINE1.41.4 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL1.41.4 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%7.95NoND4-CHLOROANILINE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)0.046QSM1310.046QSM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 1/520.00%0.5YesDL4-NITROANILINE1.41.4 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND4-NITROPHENOL1.41.4 MG/KG 0/50.00%7NoNDACENAPHTHENE0.017QSM1320.46QSM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 2/540.00%20NoBSLACENAPHTHYLENE0.022QSM1290.18QSM131 0.390.55 MG/KG 4/580.00%1.7NoBSLACETOPHENONE0.016QSM1300.049QSM131 0.390.55 MG/KG 4/580.00%300NoBSLANTHRACENE0.014QSM1281.5=SM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 3/560.00%0.1YesASLATRAZINE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%0.00005NoNDBENZALDEHYDE0.008QSM1300.032QSM131 0.40.55 MG/KG 3/560.00%YesNSLBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE0.034QSM1293=SM1310.55 MG/KG 5/5100.00%1.2YesASLBENZO(A)PYRENE0.043QSM1292.7=SM1310.55 MG/KG 5/5100.00%0.1YesASLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE0.055QSM1294.4=SM1310.55 MG/KG 5/5100.00%1.2YesASLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE0.059QSM1280.97=SM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 3/560.00%119NoBSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.019QSM1281.8=SM1310.55 MG/KG 5/5100.00%25NoBSLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.03QSM1320.03QSM132 0.550.55 MG/KG 1/520.00%0.23889YesDLBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)0.04QSM1310.04QSM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 1/520.00%60NoBSLBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER)0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoNDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE0.690.69 MG/KG 0/50.00%0.92594NoNDCAPROLACTAM0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoNDCARBAZOLE0.024QSM1320.23QSM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 2/540.00%YesNSLCHRYSENE0.036QSM1292.8=SM1310.55 MG/KG 5/5100.00%4.73NoBSLDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%200NoNDDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%709NoNDDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.031QSM1320.33QSM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 2/540.00%1.2NoBSLDIBENZOFURAN0.009QSM1320.18QSM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 2/540.00%YesNSLDIETHYL PHTHALATE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%100NoNDDIMETHYL PHTHALATE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%200NoNDFLUORANTHENE0.021QSM12910DSM1311.7 MG/KG 5/5100.00%0.1YesASLFLUORENE0.47QSM1310.47QSM131 0.420.55 MG/KG 1/520.00%30NoBSLHEXACHLOROBENZENE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%0.0025NoNDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.550.55 MG/KG 0/50.00%NoND17 of 104Table 13Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Current Aboveground Storage Tanks SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Current Aboveground Storage TanksMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 10 No NDHEXACHLOROETHANE0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% No NDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.029 Q SM128 1.1 = SM131 0.55 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 1.2 No BSLISOPHORONE0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% No NDN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 0.54368 No NDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 20 No NDNAPHTHALENE 0.02 Q SM132 0.078 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 2/5 40.00% 0.1 Yes DLNITROBENZENE0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 40 No NDPENTACHLOROPHENOL 0.28 Q SM131 0.28 Q SM131 1.1 1.4 MG/KG 1/5 20.00% 0.032 Yes ASLPHENANTHRENE 0.035 Q SM130 3.8 = SM131 0.4 0.55 MG/KG 4/5 80.00% 0.1 Yes ASLPHENOL0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 30 No NDPYRENE 0.024 Q SM129 8.4 D SM131 1.7 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 0.1 Yes ASLRationale for Elimination/Selection Qualifier:ASL: Above Screening Levels J: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening Level B: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detected and greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening Level JL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential Nutrient JH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC if pH<5.5(USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if 5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance because totaPAHs were below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysiTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individual benchmarks, sototal PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than site-specificbackground18 of 104Table 14Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Maintenance Shed Area SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Maintenance Shed AreaMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM269= SM95-SO-6 6610= SM95-SO-953.9 MG/KG 9/9100.00%0NoAl-SSLANTIMONY5.8LJvQ SM11012= SM95-SO-4 113.2 MG/KG 4/850.00%0.3NoBKGDARSENIC1.9LQSM10819=SM1102.7 MG/KG 9/9100.00%31NoBKGDBARIUM13.7= SM95-SO-6306= SM95-SO-553.9 MG/KG 9/9100.00%330NoBKGDBERYLLIUM0.09LQSM1101.9= SM95-SO-12 0.251.3 MG/KG 7/887.50%30NoBKGDCADMIUM0.2LQSM1102.6= SM95-SO-5 0.251.1 MG/KG 4/850.00%0.4YesASLCHROMIUM, TOTAL1.5= SM95-SO-6 32.5=SM1102.7 MG/KG 9/9100.00%7.9NoBKGDCOBALT1.4= SM95-SO-66.6= SM95-SO-1213.5 MG/KG 9/9100.00%32NoBKGDCOPPER1.7Jv SM95-SO-6180=SM1106.7 MG/KG 9/9100.00%54NoBKGDCYANIDE0.15LQSM1100.15LQSM110 0.770.77 MG/KG 1/812.50%0.9NoBKGDIRON3160= SM95-SO-6 54800=SM11027 MG/KG 9/9100.00%0NoFe-SSLLEAD4.6= SM95-SO-6290=SM1100.81 MG/KG 9/9100.00%15NoBKGDMANGANESE0.14Jv SM95-SO-10 588=SM1104 MG/KG 9/9100.00%152NoBKGDMERCURY0.06LQSM1080.16= SM95-SO-5 0.130.13 MG/KG 4/850.00%0.1NoBKGDNICKEL1.1= SM95-SO-6 36.3=SM11010.8 MG/KG 9/9100.00%48NoBKGDSELENIUM1.31.3 MG/KG 0/80.00%1NoBKGDSILVER0.96LQSM1113.3=SM110 0.622.7 MG/KG 2/825.00%2NoBKGDTHALLIUM1.6= SM95-SO-12 237J^ SM95-SO-10 1.22.2 MG/KG 3/933.33%1NoBKGDVANADIUM2.7= SM95-SO-6 18.3= SM95-SO-513.5 MG/KG 9/9100.00%2NoBKGDZINC11.9= SM95-SO-6 2220= SM95-SO-125.4 MG/KG 9/9100.00%120YesASLALDRIN0.011= SM95-SO-12 0.011= SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%0.0025YesASLALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDALPHA ENDOSULFAN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDALPHA-CHLORDANE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDBETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDBETA ENDOSULFAN0.0057J SM95-SO-913J SM95-SO-5 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 3/650.00%YesNSLDELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.023J SM95-SO-12 0.023J SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLDIELDRIN0.054= SM95-SO-12 0.054= SM95-SO-12 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 3/650.00%0.000032YesASLENDOSULFAN SULFATE0.039Jv SM95-SO-12 0.039Jv SM95-SO-12 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLENDRIN18J SM95-SO-418J SM95-SO-4 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 1/616.67%YesNSLENDRIN ALDEHYDE0.0085JT SM95-SO-5 0.052= SM95-SO-12 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 3/650.00%YesNSLENDRIN KETONE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDGAMMA BHC (LINDANE)0.0059J SM95-SO-12 0.0059J SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLGAMMA-CHLORDANE0.036= SM95-SO-12 0.036= SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLHEPTACHLOR0.0079J SM95-SO-12 0.0079J SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLHEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE0.041= SM95-SO-12 0.041= SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLMETHOXYCHLOR0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDP,P'-DDD15J SM95-SO-415J SM95-SO-4 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 2/633.33%YesNSLP,P'-DDE0.05= SM95-SO-12 0.05= SM95-SO-12 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 2/633.33%YesNSLP,P'-DDT0.057= SM95-SO-1218J SM95-SO-5 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 3/650.00%YesNSLPCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%40NoNDPCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%40NoNDPCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%40NoNDPCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%40NoNDPCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%10NoNDPCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)1.1J SM95-SO-12 1.1J SM95-SO-12 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 1/616.67%10NoBSLPCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%10NoNDTOXAPHENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 mg/kg 0/60.00%20NoND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL22 MG/KG 0/90.00%1.3NoND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%10NoND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%20NoND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2,4-DINITROPHENOL22 MG/KG 0/90.00%20NoND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%3.2NoND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%0.03283NoND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%1NoND2-CHLOROPHENOL0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%20NoND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.028J SM95-SO-5 0.18J SM95-SO-4 0.790.79 MG/KG 4/944.44%0.1YesASL2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%0.5NoND2-NITROANILINE22 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2-NITROPHENOL0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND3-NITROANILINE22 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL22 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%7.95NoND4-CHLOROANILINE0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)0.790.79 MG/KG 0/90.00%0.5NoND4-NITROANILINE22 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND19 of 104Table 14Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Maintenance Shed Area SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Maintenance Shed AreaMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselection4-NITROPHENOL2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 7 No NDACENAPHTHENE 0.033 J SM95-SO-4 0.033 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% 20 No BSLACENAPHTHYLENE 0.012 LJQK SM110 0.29 J SM95-SO-4 0.45 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 1.7 No BSLACETOPHENONE 0.015 LJQK SM110 0.015 LJQK SM110 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% 300 No BSLANTHRACENE 0.015 LJQK SM110 0.29 J SM95-SO-4 0.45 0.79 MG/KG 6/9 66.67% 0.1 Yes ASLATRAZINE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 0.00005 No NDBENZALDEHYDE 0.011 Q SM111 0.011 Q SM111 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% Yes NSLBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.029 LJQK SM110 0.97 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 1.2 No BSLBENZO(A)PYRENE 0.018 LJQK SM108 1.3 = SM95-SO-4 0.17 0.79 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% 0.1 Yes ASLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.051 LJQK SM110 3.4 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 5/9 55.56% 1.2 Yes ASLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.049 LJQK SM110 1.2 = SM95-SO-4 0.17 0.79 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% 119 No BSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.027 LJQK SM110 2.4 = SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 25 No BSLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.047 J SM95-SO-4 0.13 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% 0.23889 Yes DLBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 60 No NDBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% No NDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER)0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% No NDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.032 J SM95-SO-6 0.4 = SM95-SO-12 0.92 0.92 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% 0.92594 No BSLCAPROLACTAM0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% No NDCARBAZOLE 0.02 Q SM111 0.3 J SM95-SO-4 0.37 0.79 MG/KG 5/9 55.56% Yes NSLCHRYSENE 0.05 LJQK SM110 1.7 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 5/9 55.56% 4.73 No BSLDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.014 J SM95-SO-5 0.057 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% 200 No BSLDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.074 = SM95-SO-12 0.14 Q SM111 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% 709 No BSLDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.035 Q SM111 0.49 = SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 1.2 No BSLDIBENZOFURAN 0.04 J SM95-SO-12 0.082 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% Yes NSLDIETHYL PHTHALATE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 100 No NDDIMETHYL PHTHALATE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 200 No NDFLUORANTHENE 0.034 LJQK SM110 3.5 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 6/9 66.67% 0.1 Yes ASLFLUORENE 0.098 J SM95-SO-4 0.098 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% 30 No BSLHEXACHLOROBENZENE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 0.0025 No NDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% No NDHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 10 No NDHEXACHLOROETHANE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% No NDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.027 LJQK SM110 1 = SM95-SO-4 0.17 0.79 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% 1.2 No BSLISOPHORONE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% No NDN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 0.54368 No NDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 20 No NDNAPHTHALENE 0.026 J SM95-SO-5 0.18 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 0.1 Yes ASLNITROBENZENE0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 40 No NDPENTACHLOROPHENOL2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 0.032 No NDPHENANTHRENE 0.028 LJQK SM110 1.2 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 6/9 66.67% 0.1 Yes ASLPHENOL0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 30 No NDPYRENE 0.034 LJQK SM108 4 = SM95-SO-12 0.17 0.79 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% 0.1 Yes ASL1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.002 J SM95-SO-12 0.002 J SM95-SO-12 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 0.1 No BSL1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND1,1-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 20.1 No ND1,1-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 20 No ND1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 20 No ND1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND1,2-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 700 No ND1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 20 No ND1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE)0.1 0.1 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND2-HEXANONE0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 12.6 No NDACETONE0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 2.5 No NDBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.5 No NDBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDBROMODICHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDBROMOFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDBROMOMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDCARBON DISULFIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.09412 No NDCARBON TETRACHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1000 No NDCHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 40 No NDCHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDCHLOROFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 25 No NDCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 10.4 No NDCIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDCIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No ND20 of 104Table 14Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Maintenance Shed Area SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Maintenance Shed AreaMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDDICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 39.5 No NDETHYLBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 5 No NDISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDM,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDMETHYL ACETATE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDMETHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 89.6 No NDMETHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE)0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 443 No NDMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDMETHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.001 J SM95-SO-6 0.001 J SM95-SO-6 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 2 No BSLO-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 200 No NDSTYRENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 300 No NDTERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDTETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDTOLUENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 200 No NDTRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDTRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDTRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDTRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 16.4 No NDVINYL CHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDRationale for Elimination/Selection Qualifier:ASL: Above Screening Levels J: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening Level B: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detected and greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening Level JL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential Nutrient JH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC if pH<5.5(USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if 5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance because totaPAHs were below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysiTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individual benchmarks, sototal PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than site-specificbackground21 of 104Table 15Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Tar Burn Area SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Tar Burn AreaMedium: Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimum samplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximum samplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM3510=SM11417900=SM11360.3 MG/KG 4/4100.00%0NoAl-SSLANTIMONY1.3LJvQSM1156LJvQSM11418.1 MG/KG 4/4100.00%0.3YesASLARSENIC4.3JvLSM1157.9JvLSM1123 MG/KG 4/4100.00%31NoBKGDBARIUM89.6=SM112146=SM11460.3 MG/KG 4/4100.00%330NoBKGDBERYLLIUM0.32LQSM1140.7LQSM1131.5 MG/KG 4/4100.00%30NoBKGDCADMIUM0.37LQSM1151.1LQSM1130.161.5 MG/KG 3/475.00%0.4YesASLCADMIUM0.37LQSM1151.1LQSM1140.161.5 MG/KG 3/475.00%0.4YesASLCHROMIUM, TOTAL10.1=SM11222.5=SM1143 MG/KG 4/4100.00%7.9NoBKGDCOBALT3.3LQSM1156.7LQSM11215.1 MG/KG 4/4100.00%32NoBKGDCOPPER17.4=SM112155=SM1147.5 MG/KG 4/4100.00%54YesASLCYANIDE0.24LQSM1150.24LQSM1150.140.63 MG/KG 1/425.00%0.9NoBKGDIRON12000=SM11518200=SM11330.2 MG/KG 4/4100.00%0NoFe-SSLLEAD38.7JKSM112967JKSM1140.9 MG/KG 4/4100.00%15NoBKGDMANGANESE182JvLSM115413JvLSM1134.5 MG/KG 4/4100.00%152NoBKGDMERCURY0.06LQSM1150.31=SM1140.15 MG/KG 4/4100.00%0.1YesASLNICKEL8LQSM11526.2=SM11412.1 MG/KG 4/4100.00%48NoBKGDSELENIUM1.41.4 MG/KG 0/40.00%1NoBKGDSILVER0.8LQSM1141LQSM1133 MG/KG 4/4100.00%2NoBSLTHALLIUM1.3LQSM1151.3LQSM1151.42.5 MG/KG 1/425.00%1NoBKGDVANADIUM11.6LQSM11417=SM11515.1 MG/KG 4/4100.00%2NoBKGDZINC96.3=SM112424=SM1146 MG/KG 4/4100.00%120YesASL2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL22 MG/KG 0/40.00%1.3NoND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%10NoND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%20NoND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND2,4-DINITROPHENOL22 MG/KG 0/40.00%20NoND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%3.2NoND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%0.03283NoND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%1NoND2-CHLOROPHENOL0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%20NoND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.025LJQKSM1140.042LJQKSM1150.470.81 MG/KG 2/450.00%0.1YesDL2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%0.5NoND2-NITROANILINE22 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND2-NITROPHENOL0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND3-NITROANILINE22 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL22 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%7.95NoND4-CHLOROANILINE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%0.5NoND4-NITROANILINE22 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoND4-NITROPHENOL22 MG/KG 0/40.00%7NoNDACENAPHTHENE0.035LJQKSM1150.035LJQKSM1150.490.81 MG/KG 1/425.00%20NoBSLACENAPHTHYLENE0.053LJQKSM1140.45LJQKSM1150.440.81 MG/KG 3/475.00%1.7NoBSLACETOPHENONE0.027LJQKSM1132=SM1150.490.81 MG/KG 2/450.00%300NoBSLANTHRACENE0.014QSM1120.39LJQKSM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%0.1YesASLATRAZINE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%0.00005NoNDBENZALDEHYDE0.025LJQKSM1146.3=SM1150.440.81 MG/KG 3/475.00%YesNSLBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE0.066QSM1120.92=SM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%1.2NoBSLBENZO(A)PYRENE0.075QSM1121.2=SM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%0.1YesASLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE0.15QSM1121.2=SM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%1.2NoBSLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE0.061QSM1120.46LJQKSM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%119NoBSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.056QSM1121.4=SM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%25NoBSLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.051LJQKSM1150.52=SM1140.470.81 MG/KG 2/450.00%0.23889YesASLBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%60NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER)0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoNDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE0.3LJQKSM1154.7DSM1140.50.99 MG/KG 2/450.00%0.92594YesASLCAPROLACTAM0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoNDCARBAZOLE0.081LJQKSM1140.29LJQKSM1150.440.81 MG/KG 3/475.00%YesNSLCHRYSENE0.098QSM1121.1=SM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%4.73NoBSLDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE0.034LJQKSM1140.034LJQKSM1140.810.81 MG/KG 1/425.00%200NoBSLDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%709NoNDDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.017QSM1120.23LJQKSM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%1.2NoBSLDIBENZOFURAN0.044LJQKSM1150.044LJQKSM1150.490.81 MG/KG 1/425.00%YesNSLDIETHYL PHTHALATE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%100NoNDDIMETHYL PHTHALATE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%200NoNDFLUORANTHENE0.097QSM1121.9=SM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%0.1YesASLFLUORENE0.019LJQKSM1140.12LJQKSM1150.470.81 MG/KG 2/450.00%30NoBSLHEXACHLOROBENZENE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%0.0025NoNDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoNDHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%10NoNDHEXACHLOROETHANE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoNDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE0.07QSM1120.74LJQKSM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%1.2NoBSLISOPHORONE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%NoNDN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%0.54368NoNDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%20NoNDNAPHTHALENE0.028LJQKSM1140.052LJQKSM1150.470.81 MG/KG 2/450.00%0.1YesDLNITROBENZENE0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%40NoND22 of 104Table 15Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Tar Burn Area SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Tar Burn AreaMedium: Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimum samplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximum samplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionPENTACHLOROPHENOL22 MG/KG 0/40.00%0.032NoNDPHENANTHRENE0.051QSM1120.93=SM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%0.1YesASLPHENOL0.810.81 MG/KG 0/40.00%30NoNDPYRENE0.12QSM1121.5=SM1150.81 MG/KG 4/4100.00%0.1YesASLRationale for Elimination/Selection:Qualifier:ASL: Above Screening LevelsJ: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening LevelB: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detectedand greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening LevelJL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential NutrientJH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC if pH<5.5(USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if 5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance because total PAHswere below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysisTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individual benchmarks, sototal PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%)BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than site-specificbackground23 of 104Table 16Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Lauren Tank Farm SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Former Lauren Tank FarmMedium: Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimum samplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximum samplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM3420=SM95-SO-3010200=SM95-SO-2854.8 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%0NoAl-SSLANTIMONY1.4LJvQSM1064.6LJvQSM1071.215.6 MG/KG 2/1315.38%0.3NoBKGDARSENIC4.1=SM10226.4=SM1072.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%31NoBKGDBARIUM63.8=SM95-SO-11289=SM10754.8 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%330NoBKGDBERYLLIUM0.12LQSM1070.88=SM95-SO-290.551.4 MG/KG 10/13 76.92%30NoBKGDCADMIUM0.48=SM95-SO-301.7=SM1040.341.4 MG/KG 5/1338.46%0.4YesASLCHROMIUM, TOTAL6.3=SM95-SO-11503JKSM1072.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%7.9NoBKGDCOBALT3LQSM10219.1=SM10713.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%32NoBKGDCOBALT3LQSM10519.1=SM10713.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%32NoBKGDCOPPER8.5=SM95-SO-117390=SM1076.8 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%54YesASLCYANIDE0.98=SM95-SO-70.98=SM95-SO-70.710.71 MG/KG 1/137.69%0.9NoBKGDIRON8470=SM102134000=SM10727.4 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%0NoFe-SSLLEAD15.7=SM95-SO-111030=SM1070.82 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%15YesASLMANGANESE41.8JSM95-SO-111020=SM1074.1 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%152NoBKGDMERCURY0.1LQSM1025.6J^HSM1070.140.14 MG/KG 5/1241.67%0.1NoBKGDNICKEL3.4=SM95-SO-11411=SM10711 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%48NoBKGDSELENIUM0.75LQSM1044.4=SM1070.851.4 MG/KG 3/1323.08%1NoBKGDSILVER0.28LQSM1026.9=SM1070.582.7 MG/KG 7/1353.85%2NoBKGDTHALLIUM1LQSM1041.4=SM95-SO-282.72.7 MG/KG 2/1315.38%1NoBKGDVANADIUM11.8LQSM10219.3=SM95-SO-2813.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%2NoBKGDVANADIUM11.8LQSM10219.3=SM95-SO-2913.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%2NoBKGDZINC27.1=SM95-SO-81480=SM1075.5 MG/KG 13/13 100.00%120YesASLALDRIN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.0025NoNDALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDALPHA ENDOSULFAN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDALPHA-CHLORDANE13=SM95-SO-713=SM95-SO-70.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLBETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDBETA ENDOSULFAN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDDELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDDIELDRIN0.0053JSM95-SO-70.0053JSM95-SO-70.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/616.67%0.000032YesASLENDOSULFAN SULFATE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDENDRIN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDENDRIN ALDEHYDE11TSM95-SO-3011TSM95-SO-30 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLENDRIN KETONE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDGAMMA BHC (LINDANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDGAMMA-CHLORDANE0.0078JSM95-SO-70.0078JSM95-SO-70.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLHEPTACHLOR0.0031JSM95-SO-70.0031JSM95-SO-70.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLHEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDMETHOXYCHLOR0.0170.017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDP,P'-DDD0.0091JSM95-SO-70.0091JSM95-SO-70.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLP,P'-DDE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDP,P'-DDT0.0076JSM95-SO-70.0076JSM95-SO-70.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/616.67%YesNSLPCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016)0.0330.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%40NoNDPCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)0.0330.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%40NoNDPCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)0.0330.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%40NoNDPCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)0.0330.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%40NoNDPCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)0.46JSM95-SO-280.58JSM95-SO-290.0330.033 mg/Kg 2/633.33%10NoBSLPCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)0.0330.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%10NoNDPCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260)0.0330.033 mg/kg 0/60.00%10NoNDTOXAPHENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 mg/kg 0/60.00%20NoND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL1111 MG/KG 0/130.00%1.3NoND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%10NoND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%20NoND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND2,4-DINITROPHENOL1111 MG/KG 0/130.00%20NoND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%3.2NoND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%0.03283NoND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%1NoND2-CHLOROPHENOL4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%20NoND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.022JSM95-SO-301.6LJQKSM1070.434.4 MG/KG 8/1361.54%0.1YesASL2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%0.5NoND2-NITROANILINE1111 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND2-NITROPHENOL4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND3-NITROANILINE1111 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL1111 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%7.95NoND4-CHLOROANILINE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)0.11LJQSM1060.11LJQSM1064.44.4 MG/KG 1/137.69%0.5YesDL4-NITROANILINE1111 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoND4-NITROPHENOL1111 MG/KG 0/130.00%7NoNDACENAPHTHENE0.031JSM95-SO-70.064LJQSM1064.44.4 MG/KG 2/1315.38%20NoBSLACENAPHTHYLENE0.036LJQSM1040.91LJQSM1060.174.4 MG/KG 9/1369.23%1.7YesDLACETOPHENONE0.023LJQSM1040.25LJQKSM1010.454.4 MG/KG 6/1346.15%300NoBSLANTHRACENE0.031LJQKSM1021.1LJQKSM1070.174.4 MG/KG 9/1369.23%0.1YesASLATRAZINE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%0.00005NoNDBENZALDEHYDE0.021LJQSM1040.097LJQSM1064.44.4 MG/KG 5/1338.46%YesNSL24 of 104Table 16Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Lauren Tank Farm SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Former Lauren Tank FarmMedium: Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimum samplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximum samplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE0.03LJQSM1044.2=SM1064.44.4 MG/KG 8/1361.54%1.2YesASLBENZO(A)PYRENE0.046LJQKSM1055.1=SM1064.44.4 MG/KG 10/13 76.92%0.1YesASLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE0.063LJQSM1047.1=SM1060.174.4 MG/KG 11/13 84.62%1.2YesASLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE0.059LJQSM1042.1JKSM1064.44.4 MG/KG 10/13 76.92%119NoBSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.023LJQKSM1052.5=SM1064.44.4 MG/KG 8/1361.54%25NoBSLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.024LJQKSM1030.024LJQKSM1034.44.4 MG/KG 1/137.69%0.23889YesDLBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)0.018LJQKSM1010.21LJQSM1064.44.4 MG/KG 2/1315.38%60NoBSLBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER)4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoNDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE0.094LJQKSM1011.9BJHSM1044.44.4 MG/KG 7/1353.85%0.92594YesASLCAPROLACTAM4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoNDCARBAZOLE0.03JSM95-SO-70.52LJQSM1064.44.4 MG/KG 3/1323.08%YesNSLCHRYSENE0.039LJQKSM1025.4=SM1064.44.4 MG/KG 10/13 76.92%4.73YesASLDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE0.056LJQSM1040.056LJQSM1044.44.4 MG/KG 1/137.69%200NoBSLDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE0.013LJQKSM1010.034JSM95-SO-284.44.4 MG/KG 3/1323.08%709NoBSLDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.022LJQKSM1020.94LJQSM1064.44.4 MG/KG 8/1361.54%1.2YesDLDIBENZOFURAN0.017LJQKSM1010.13LJQSM1064.44.4 MG/KG 2/1315.38%YesNSLDIETHYL PHTHALATE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%100NoNDDIMETHYL PHTHALATE0.025JSM95-SO-110.031JSM95-SO-304.44.4 MG/KG 2/1315.38%200NoBSLFLUORANTHENE0.029LJQKSM1057.6=SM1060.174.4 MG/KG 11/13 84.62%0.1YesASLFLUORENE0.029LJQKSM1010.18LJQSM1064.44.4 MG/KG 3/1323.08%30NoBSLHEXACHLOROBENZENE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%0.0025NoNDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoNDHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%10NoNDHEXACHLOROETHANE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoNDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE0.038LJQSM1042.2JKSM1060.174.4 MG/KG 11/13 84.62%1.2YesASLISOPHORONE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%NoNDN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%0.54368NoNDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%20NoNDNAPHTHALENE0.023LJQSM1041.4LJQSM1060.434.4 MG/KG 8/1361.54%0.1YesASLNAPHTHALENE0.023LJQKSM1051.4LJQSM1060.434.4 MG/KG 8/1361.54%0.1YesASLNITROBENZENE4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%40NoNDPENTACHLOROPHENOL1111 MG/KG 0/130.00%0.032NoNDPHENANTHRENE0.017LJQKSM1022LJQSM1060.174.4 MG/KG 9/1369.23%0.1YesASLPHENOL4.44.4 MG/KG 0/130.00%30NoNDPYRENE0.042LJQSM1047.4=SM1060.174.4 MG/KG 11/13 84.62%0.1YesASL1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.1NoND1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%20.1NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%20NoND1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%20NoND1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE)0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%700NoND1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%20NoND1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE)0.10.1 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND2-HEXANONE0.010.01 mg/kg 0/60.00%12.6NoNDACETONE0.003*SM95-SO-280.055JSM95-SO-300.010.01 mg/Kg 3/650.00%2.5NoBSLBENZENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.5NoNDBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDBROMODICHLOROMETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDBROMOFORM0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDBROMOMETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDCARBON DISULFIDE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.09412NoNDCARBON TETRACHLORIDE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%1000NoNDCHLOROBENZENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%40NoNDCHLOROETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDCHLOROFORM0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%25NoNDCHLOROMETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%10.4NoNDCIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDCIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDCYCLOHEXANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDDICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%39.5NoNDETHYLBENZENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%5NoNDISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE)0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDM,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS)0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDMETHYL ACETATE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDMETHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)0.002*SM95-SO-290.002*SM95-SO-290.010.01 mg/kg 2/633.33%89.6NoBSLMETHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)0.002*SM95-SO-290.002JSM95-SO-80.010.01 mg/kg 2/633.33%89.6NoBSLMETHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)0.002JSM95-SO-80.002*SM95-SO-290.010.01 mg/kg 2/633.33%89.6NoBSLMETHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)0.002JSM95-SO-80.002JSM95-SO-80.010.01 mg/kg 2/633.33%89.6NoBSLMETHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE)0.010.01 mg/kg 0/60.00%443NoNDMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDMETHYLENE CHLORIDE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%2NoNDO-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE)0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%200NoND25 of 104Table 16Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Lauren Tank Farm SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Former Lauren Tank FarmMedium: Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimum samplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximum samplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionSTYRENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%300NoNDTERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDTETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDTOLUENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%200NoNDTRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDTRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDTRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDTRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%16.4NoNDVINYL CHLORIDE0.0050.005 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDRationale for Elimination/Selection:Qualifier:ASL: Above Screening LevelsJ: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening LevelB: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detectedand greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening LevelJL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential NutrientJH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC if pH<5.5(USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if 5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance because total PAHswere below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysisTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individual benchmarks, sototal PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%)BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than site-specificbackground26 of 104Table 17Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Non-source SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Non-sourceMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM841=SM08119600=SM08260 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%0NoAl-SSLANTIMONY0.8LJvQ SM04726.3JvLSM085 0.8918 MG/KG 27/47 57.45%0.3NoBKGDARSENIC1.7LQSM09748.7=SM098 5.75.7 MG/KG 52/54 96.30%31NoBKGDBARIUM40.7LQSM051682=SM07760 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%330NoBKGDBERYLLIUM0.12LQSM08127= SM95-SO-13 0.411.5 MG/KG 51/54 94.44%30NoBKGDCADMIUM0.18LQSM05811.5=SM098 0.241.5 MG/KG 25/54 46.30%0.4YesASLCHROMIUM, TOTAL2.6JKSM08181.7=SM0983 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%7.9NoBKGDCOBALT0.81LQSM08165.6= SM95-SO-1315 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%32NoBKGDCOPPER5.6LQSM0735480JvLSM0787.5 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%54YesASLCYANIDE0.12LQSM0790.37LQSM058 0.560.68 MG/KG 8/5414.81%0.9NoBKGDIRON4420=SM081157000=SM09830 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%0NoFe-SSLLEAD8.6=SM0814090= SM95-SO-130.9 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%15YesASLMANGANESE24.9JKSM0811360J SM95-SO-134.5 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%152NoBKGDMERCURY0.08LQSM0680.54=SM079 0.110.14 MG/KG 17/54 31.48%0.1NoBKGDNICKEL1.4LQSM081243= SM95-SO-1312 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%48NoBKGDSELENIUM0.65LQSM0474.3= SM95-SO-13 1.41.4 MG/KG 4/547.41%1NoBKGDSILVER0.24LQSM0818.3=SM098 0.423 MG/KG 53/54 98.15%2YesASLTHALLIUM0.96LQSM0835.3Jv SM95-SO-13 5.95.9 MG/KG 10/54 18.52%1NoBKGDVANADIUM4.2LQSM08126.8=SM09015 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%2NoBKGDZINC12.6=SM08138700= SM95-SO-136 MG/KG 54/54 100.00%120YesASLALDRIN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%0.0025NoNDALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDALPHA ENDOSULFAN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDALPHA-CHLORDANE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBETA ENDOSULFAN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDDELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDDIELDRIN0.0099J SM95-SO-1817J SM95-SO-5 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/250.00%0.000032YesASLENDOSULFAN SULFATE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDENDRIN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDENDRIN ALDEHYDE31JT SM95-SO-1831JT SM95-SO-18 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/250.00%YesNSLENDRIN KETONE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDGAMMA BHC (LINDANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDGAMMA-CHLORDANE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDHEPTACHLOR0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDHEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE24J SM95-SO-1824J SM95-SO-18 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/250.00%YesNSLMETHOXYCHLOR0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDP,P'-DDD11JT SM95-SO-1811JT SM95-SO-18 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/250.00%YesNSLP,P'-DDE10J SM95-SO-5 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%YesNSLP,P'-DDT0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDPCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDPCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDPCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDPCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDPCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%10NoNDPCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%10NoNDPCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/20.00%10NoNDTOXAPHENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 mg/kg 0/20.00%20NoND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL1717 MG/KG 0/550.00%1.3NoND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%10NoND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%20NoND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND2,4-DINITROPHENOL1717 MG/KG 0/550.00%20NoND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%3.2NoND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%0.03283NoND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%1NoND2-CHLOROPHENOL6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%20NoND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.013LJQK SM0901.9LJQK SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 15/55 27.27%0.1YesASL2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%0.5NoND2-NITROANILINE1717 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND2-NITROPHENOL6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND3-NITROANILINE1717 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL1717 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%7.95NoND4-CHLOROANILINE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)0.021LJQK SM0700.22LJQK SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 2/553.64%0.5NoFD4-NITROANILINE1717 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoND27 of 104Table 17Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Non-source SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Non-sourceMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselection4-NITROPHENOL1717 MG/KG 0/550.00%7NoNDACENAPHTHENE0.012LJQ SM0949.6=SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 6/5510.91%20NoBSLACENAPHTHYLENE0.011LJQ SM0955=SM058 6.66.6 MG/KG 28/55 50.91%1.7YesASLACETOPHENONE0.013LJQ, LJQK,LJQKSM094,SM061, SM0810.82LJQK SM052 6.66.6 MG/KG 12/55 21.82%300NoBSLANTHRACENE0.01LJQ SM09613=SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 34/55 61.82%0.1YesASLATRAZINE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%0.00005NoNDBENZALDEHYDE0.007LJQ SM0950.15LJQK SM052 4.36.6 MG/KG 32/55 58.18%YesNSLBENZO(A)-FLUORANTHENE0.350.35 mg/Kg 0/10.00%20NoNDBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE0.012LJQK SM06124DSM087 6.612 MG/KG 40/55 72.73%1.2YesASLBENZO(A)PYRENE0.015LJQK SM06119DSM087 0.4712 MG/KG 48/55 87.27%0.1YesASLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE0.019LJQK SM06125DSM087 0.4712 MG/KG 45/55 81.82%1.2YesASLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE0.051LJQ SM0954.3=SM087 1.36.6 MG/KG 24/55 43.64%119NoBSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.02LJSM07712=SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 33/55 60.00%25NoBSLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.016LJQK SM0710.26LJQK SM058 6.66.6 MG/KG 9/5516.36%0.23889YesASLBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)0.026QSM0790.5LJQK SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 4/557.27%60NoBSLBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER)6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoNDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE0.031LJQK SM0493.2=SM095 6.66.6 MG/KG 20/55 36.36%0.92594YesASLCAPROLACTAM6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoNDCARBAZOLE0.012QSM0767.5=SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 18/55 32.73%YesNSLCHRYSENE0.021QSM07321DSM087 6.612 MG/KG 43/55 78.18%4.73YesASLDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE0.014J SM95-SO-18 0.44=SM070 6.66.6 MG/KG 5/559.09%200NoBSLDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE0.027LJQK SM0820.091LJQK SM080 6.66.6 MG/KG 4/557.27%709NoBSLDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.014LJQ SM0962.2LJQK SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 30/55 54.55%1.2YesASLDIBENZOFURAN0.011LJQ SM0863.8=SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 7/5512.73%YesNSLDIETHYL PHTHALATE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%100NoNDDIMETHYL PHTHALATE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%200NoNDFLUORANTHENE0.01LJQK SM05962DSM087 0.4712 MG/KG 46/55 83.64%0.1YesASLFLUORENE0.013LJQK SM0828.1=SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 9/5516.36%30NoBSLHEXACHLOROBENZENE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%0.0025NoNDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoNDHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%10NoNDHEXACHLOROETHANE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoNDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE0.016QSM0736.9=SM087 0.476.6 MG/KG 42/55 76.36%1.2YesASLISOPHORONE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%NoNDN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%0.54368NoNDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%20NoNDNAPHTHALENE0.014LJQ SM0946.8=SM087 6.66.6 MG/KG 14/55 25.45%0.1YesASLNITROBENZENE6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%40NoNDPENTACHLOROPHENOL1717 MG/KG 0/550.00%0.032NoNDPHENANTHRENE0.011LJQK SM07753DSM087 6.612 MG/KG 38/55 69.09%0.1YesASLPHENOL6.66.6 MG/KG 0/550.00%30NoNDPYRENE0.017LJQK SM08340DSM087 6.612 MG/KG 43/55 78.18%0.1YesASL1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%0.1NoND1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%20.1NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%20NoND1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%20NoND1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%700NoND1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%20NoND1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE)0.10.1 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoND2-HEXANONE0.010.01 mg/kg 0/20.00%12.6NoNDACETONE0.010.01 mg/kg 0/20.00%2.5NoNDBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%0.5NoNDBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBROMODICHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBROMOFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDBROMOMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDCARBON DISULFIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%0.09412NoNDCARBON TETRACHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%1000NoNDCHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%40NoNDCHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%NoNDCHLOROFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/20.00%25NoND28 of 104Table 17Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Non-source SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Non-sourceMedium:Surface SoilChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 10.4 No NDCIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDCIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDDICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 39.5 No NDETHYLBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 5 No NDISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDM,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDMETHYL ACETATE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDMETHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 89.6 No NDMETHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE)0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 443 No NDMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDMETHYLENE CHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 2 No NDO-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 200 No NDSTYRENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 300 No NDTERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDTETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 0.001 J SM95-SO-18 0.001 J SM95-SO-18 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/2 50.00% Yes NSLTOLUENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 200 No NDTRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDTRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDTRICHLOROETHANE 0.003 J SM95-SO-18 0.003 J SM95-SO-18 mg/Kg 1/1 100.00% Yes NSLTRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDTRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 16.4 No NDVINYL CHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% No NDRationale for Elimination/Selection Qualifier:ASL: Above Screening Levels J: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening Level B: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detected and greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening Level JL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential Nutrient JH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC if pH<5.5(USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if 5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance because totaPAHs were below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysiTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individual benchmarks, sototal PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than site-specificbackground29 of 104Table 18Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - IntertidBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Lake Sabine - IntertidalMedium: SedimentChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsample locationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsample locationMaximum NonDetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselection2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/90.00%0.029YesDL2,4-DINITROPHENOL0.710.71 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE0.043 0.043 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2-CHLOROPHENOL0.042 0.042 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.0034JQSM0050.091JSM003 0.0280.11 MG/KG 7/977.78%0.07YesASL2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/90.00%0.063NoND2-NITROANILINE0.057 0.057 MG/KG 0/90.00%1.43NoND2-NITROPHENOL0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE0.130.13 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND3-NITROANILINE0.110.11 MG/KG 0/90.00% 1.595669NoND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL0.210.21 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4-CHLOROANILINE0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)0.044=SM0010.044=SM001 0.029 0.038 MG/KG 1/911.11%0.67NoBSL4-NITROANILINE0.071 0.071 MG/KG 0/90.00% 1.050937NoND4-NITROPHENOL0.280.28 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDACENAPHTHENE0.0014JQSM0050.098=SM003 0.0210.08 MG/KG 8/988.89%0.016YesASLACENAPHTHYLENE0.0045JQSM0050.035JQSM004 0.012 0.056 MG/KG 7/977.78%0.044YesDLACETOPHENONE0.0033JQSM0080.043JQSM003 0.0280.11 MG/KG 2/922.22%YesNSLALUMINUM273JHSM0053530JHSM00833.2 MG/KG 9/9100.00% 18000NoBSLANTHRACENE0.0052JQSM0010.1=SM003 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 5/955.56%0.0853YesASLANTIMONY0.2BJK SM00916.1JKSM0073.3 MG/KG 9/9100.00%9.3YesASLARSENIC1.8=SM00613.7=SM0071.3 MG/KG 9/9100.00%8.2YesASLATRAZINE0.017 0.017 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDBARIUM10.8JHSM00583.6JHSM0021.3 MG/KG 9/9100.00%48YesASLBENZALDEHYDE0.0085JQSM0090.11JSM003 0.0750.11 MG/KG 3/933.33%YesNSLBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE0.0057JQSM0090.13=SM004 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 6/966.67%0.26NoBSLBENZO(A)PYRENE0.024=SM0090.24=SM003 0.002 0.053 MG/KG 8/988.89%0.43NoBSLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE0.019JQL SM0020.25=SM004 0.0070.16 MG/KG 8/988.89%1.7NoBSLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE0.016JQSM0090.16=SM003 0.0280.11 MG/KG 7/977.78%0.67NoBSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.019JQSM0080.14JQSM004 0.0090.21 MG/KG 8/988.89%1.7NoBSLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/90.00%0.062YesDLBERYLLIUM0.24BSM0010.33=SM009 0.190.31 MG/KG 2/922.22%YesNSLBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)0.051 0.051 MG/KG 0/90.00%1.1NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETH0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE33 MG/KG 0/90.00%0.182YesDLCADMIUM0.08=SM0061.49=SM0030.65 MG/KG 9/9100.00%1.2YesASLCALCIUM250JKSM006172000JKSM0016630 MG/KG 9/9100.00%YesNSLCAPROLACTAM0.11JSM0030.11JSM003 0.0750.11 MG/KG 1/911.11%YesNSLCARBAZOLE0.011JQSM0060.2=SM003 0.0210.08 MG/KG 4/944.44%YesNSLCHROMIUM, TOTAL2.2JKSM00687.2JKSM0020.66 MG/KG 9/9100.00%81YesASLCHRYSENE0.074=SM0060.12=SM003 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 4/944.44%0.384NoBSLCHRYSENE0.074=SM0060.12=SM004 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 4/944.44%0.384NoBSLCOBALT1.4=SM0068.2=SM0030.66 MG/KG 9/9100.00%10NoBSLCOPPER5=SM009313=SM0082.7 MG/KG 9/9100.00%34YesASLCYANIDE0.27BSM0040.55BSM003 0.160.709 MG/KG 4/944.44%YesNSLDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.025JQSM0060.029=SM007 0.028 0.028 MG/KG 2/922.22%0.0634NoBSLDIBENZOFURAN0.0051JQSM0040.079JSM003 0.0210.08 MG/KG 4/944.44%0.11NoBSLDIETHYL PHTHALATE0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/90.00%0.2NoNDDIMETHYL PHTHALATE0.010.01 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE0.037 0.037 MG/KG 0/90.00%1.4NoNDDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/90.00%6.2NoNDFLUORANTHENE0.009JQSM0090.24=SM003 0.0040.08 MG/KG 8/988.89%0.6NoBSLFLUORENE0.012JQSM0060.11=SM003 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 4/944.44%0.019YesASLHEXACHLOROBENZENE0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/90.00% 0.02232653 NoNDHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDHEXACHLOROETHANE0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/90.00% 0.1765725 NoNDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE0.027JQSM0080.18=SM003 0.0350.13 MG/KG 5/955.56%1.7NoBSLIRON5300JKSM006201000JKSM0031330 MG/KG 9/9100.00% 220000NoBSLISOPHORONE0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDLEAD14.1=SM009942=SM00313.8 MG/KG 9/9100.00%46.7YesASLMAGNESIUM189=SM0063620=SM001133 MG/KG 9/9100.00%YesNSLMANGANESE66.3=SM0091500=SM0022 MG/KG 9/9100.00%260YesASL30 of 104Table 18Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - IntertidBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation: Lake Sabine - IntertidalMedium: SedimentChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsample locationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsample locationMaximum NonDetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening LevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionMERCURY0.016BSM0060.18=SM0080.069 MG/KG 9/9100.00%0.15YesASLNAPHTHALENE0.014JQSM0050.4=SM003 0.0210.08 MG/KG 7/977.78%0.16YesASLNICKEL2.82=SM00685=SM0035.53 MG/KG 9/9100.00%20.9YesASLNITROBENZENE0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/90.00% 0.1272913 NoNDN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE0.042 0.042 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDPENTACHLOROPHENOL0.082JQSM0010.16JQSM003 0.210.8 MG/KG 2/922.22%0.36YesDLPHENANTHRENE0.0049JQSM0080.32=SM003 0.003 0.053 MG/KG 7/977.78%0.24YesASLPHENOL0.0092JQSM0080.0092JQSM008 0.028 0.028 MG/KG 1/911.11%0.42NoBSLPOTASSIUM76.4BJK SM0051230JKSM008133 MG/KG 9/9100.00%YesNSLPYRENE0.0052JQSM0050.23=SM0030.08 MG/KG 9/9100.00%0.665NoBSLPYRENE0.0052JQSM0050.23=SM0040.08 MG/KG 9/9100.00%0.665NoBSLSELENIUM0.18BJK SM0065.9JKSM003 1.92.6 MG/KG 8/988.89%1YesASLSILVER0.092 0.092 MG/KG 0/90.00%1NoNDSODIUM584=SM0061560=SM004133 MG/KG 9/9100.00%YesNSLTHALLIUM0.260.26 MG/KG 0/90.00%NoNDTRIBUTYLTIN0.0022 0.0022 MG/KG 0/90.00%3.4NoNDVANADIUM2.5=SM00515.5=SM0010.66 MG/KG 9/9100.00%57NoBSLZINC25.5=SM009594=SM0031.38 MG/KG 9/9100.00%150YesASLRationale for Elimination/SelectionQualifier:ASL: Above Screening LevelsJ: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening LevelB: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detectedand greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening LevelJL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential NutrientJH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC if pH<5.5(USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if 5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance because totaPAHs were below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysiTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individual benchmarksso total PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than sitespecific background31 of 104Table 19Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - NearshoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Lake Sabine - NearshoreMedium:SedimentChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsample locationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsample locationMaximum NonDetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening Level Criteria COPC flagRational forelimination orselection1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%15.83NoND1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%3.69NoND1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoND1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%1.8NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%25.8NoND1,1-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%92.47NoND1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoND1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE0.170.17 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%0.3866213NoND1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoND1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoND1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%4.44NoND1,2-DICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%25.8NoND1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%2.822749NoND1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%1.95NoND1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%4.21NoND1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE)0.10.1 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoND2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%0.029YesDL2,4-DINITROPHENOL0.340.34 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND2-CHLOROPHENOL0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND2-HEXANONE0.010.01 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.0027JQSM0310.011JSM028 0.170.17 MG/KG 5/4112.20%0.07YesDL2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.0027JQSM0310.011JQSM030 0.170.17 MG/KG 5/4112.20%0.07YesDL2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%0.063YesDL2-NITROANILINE0.330.33 MG/KG 0/410.00%1.43NoND2-NITROPHENOL0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE0.046JPB0090.075JPB010 0.170.17 MG/KG 2/414.88%YesNSL3-NITROANILINE0.330.33 MG/KG 0/410.00%1.595669NoND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL0.330.33 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND4-CHLOROANILINE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%0.67NoND4-NITROANILINE0.330.33 MG/KG 0/410.00%1.050937NoND4-NITROPHENOL0.330.33 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoNDACENAPHTHENE0.0042JQSM0310.58= SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 6/4114.63%0.016YesASLACENAPHTHYLENE0.0037JQSM0320.12JLSM028 0.170.17 MG/KG 6/4114.63%0.044YesASLACETONE0.065JB SM95-SE-9 0.095* SM95-SE-8 0.010.01 mg/kg 2/1020.00%1003.36NoBSLACETOPHENONE0.0057JQSM0270.0057JQSM027 0.170.17 MG/KG 1/412.44%YesNSLALDRIN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.08NoNDALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.00099YesDLALPHA ENDOSULFAN0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDALPHA-CHLORDANE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.00479NoNDALUMINUM408JHSM0278820JKPB00881.4 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%18000NoBSLANTHRACENE0.002JQSM0172= SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 15/41 36.59%0.0853YesASLANTIMONY0.22BJL SM0360.5BJLPB0073.28.1 MG/KG 11/45 24.44%9.3NoBSLARSENIC1.6=SM03011.7= SM95-SE-153.3 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%8.2YesASLATRAZINE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoNDBARIUM12.2JHSM022220JKPB0033.3 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%48YesASLBENZALDEHYDE0.037JPB0090.037JPB009 0.170.17 MG/KG 1/412.44%YesNSLBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%0.1360315NoNDBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE0.006JQSM0164.1* SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34%0.26YesASLBENZO(A)PYRENE0.026=SM0292.3* SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 22/41 53.66%0.43YesASLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE0.017JQSM0153.6* SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 25/41 60.98%1.7YesASLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE0.021JQK SM0270.24* SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 14/41 34.15%0.67NoBSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.021JQSM0291.9J SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34%1.7YesASLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.021JQSM0331.9J SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34%1.7YesASLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE0.021JQK SM0271.9J SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34%1.7YesASLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.024JQSM0270.064J SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 14/41 34.15%0.062YesASLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.024JQSM0330.064J SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 14/41 34.15%0.062YesASLBERYLLIUM0.1BSM0312.7= SM95-SE-9 0.380.81 MG/KG 35/45 77.78%YesNSLBETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.00099YesDLBETA ENDOSULFAN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)0.0012JQSM0300.037JPB009 0.170.17 MG/KG 3/417.32%1.1NoBSLBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND32 of 104Table 19Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - NearshoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Lake Sabine - NearshoreMedium:SedimentChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsample locationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsample locationMaximum NonDetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening Level Criteria COPC flagRational forelimination orselection1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%15.83NoNDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ET0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoNDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE0.047J SM95-SE-14 0.26J SM95-SE-9 0.270.27 MG/KG 3/417.32%0.182YesASLBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDBROMODICHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDBROMOFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%10.67NoNDBROMOMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDCADMIUM0.04BSM0360.27= SM95-SE-8 0.420.42 MG/KG 36/45 80.00%1.2NoBSLCALCIUM227= SM95-SE-26 30500= SM95-SE-16326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%YesNSLCAPROLACTAM0.037JPB0090.051=SM032 0.170.17 MG/KG 2/414.88%YesNSLCARBAZOLE0.0068JQSM0300.31J SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 10/41 24.39%YesNSLCARBON DISULFIDE0.002* SM95-SE-8 0.002* SM95-SE-8 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/1010.00%4.49971NoBSLCARBON TETRACHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%3.674083NoNDCHLOROBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%0.2861527NoNDCHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDCHLOROFORM0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%25.8NoNDCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%52.43NoNDCHROMIUM, TOTAL1.6= SM95-SE-1120= SM95-SE-81.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%81NoBSLCHRYSENE0.01JSM0273.9* SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34%0.384YesASLCIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDCIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%0.26NoNDCOBALT1.5=SM02721.2JKSM0121.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%10YesASLCOBALT1.5=SM02921.2JKSM0121.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%10YesASLCOBALT1.5=SM03021.2JKSM0121.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%10YesASLCOBALT1.5= SM95-SE-26 21.2JKSM0121.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%10YesASLCOPPER1.4=SM023312J SM95-SE-8 0.20.5 MG/KG 43/44 97.73%34YesASLCYANIDE11 MG/KG 0/450.00%NoNDCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDDELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.00099YesDLDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.019JQSM0330.23* SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 8/4119.51%0.0634YesASLDIBENZOFURAN0.0028JQL SM0310.36J SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 5/4112.20%0.11YesASLDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDDICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDDIELDRIN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.0043NoNDDIETHYL PHTHALATE0.0019JQSM0150.014JQSM029 0.170.17 MG/KG 4/419.76%0.2NoBSLDIMETHYL PHTHALATE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoNDDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE0.0045JQSM0290.096J SM95-SE-15 0.170.17 MG/KG 13/41 31.71%1.4NoBSLDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE0.0048JQSM0300.22* SM95-SE-8 0.170.17 MG/KG 2/414.88%6.2NoBSLENDOSULFAN SULFATE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDENDRIN0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.0035NoNDENDRIN ALDEHYDE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDENDRIN KETONE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDETHYLBENZENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%3.93NoNDFLUORANTHENE0.0032JQSM0179.1J SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 25/41 60.98%0.6YesASLFLUORENE0.0065JQSM0310.79= SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 6/4114.63%0.019YesASLGAMMA BHC (LINDANE)0.0034J SM95-SE-8 0.0034J SM95-SE-8 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/616.67%0.00099YesASLGAMMA-CHLORDANE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.00479NoNDHEPTACHLOR0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDHEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/60.00%0.053NoNDHEXACHLOROBENZENE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoNDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%0.02232653YesDLHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoNDHEXACHLOROETHANE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%0.1765725NoNDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE0.027JQSM0330.34* SM95-SE-9 0.170.17 MG/KG 15/41 36.59%1.7NoBSLIRON3850=SM03036200= SM95-SE-1565.1 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%220000NoBSLISOPHORONE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoNDISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDLEAD4.3=SM023362= SM95-SE-914.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%46.7YesASLM,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%7.47NoNDMAGNESIUM236=SM0274240JKPB003326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%YesNSLMANGANESE35.2=SM0231270JKSM0394.9 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%260YesASLMERCURY0.011BSM0330.045BSM034 0.210.21 MG/KG 11/45 24.44%0.15YesDLMETHOXYCHLOR0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/60.00%NoNDMETHYL ACETATE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDMETHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)0.010.01 mg/kg 0/100.00%23.64406NoNDMETHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANO0.010.01 mg/kg 0/100.00%272.06NoNDMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%NoNDMETHYLENE CHLORIDE0.005* SM95-SE-8 0.005* SM95-SE-8 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/1010.00%22.91NoBSLNAPHTHALENE0.0046JQPB0030.014JQSM028 0.170.17 MG/KG 7/4117.07%0.16YesDLNICKEL1.5= SM95-SE-11 26.4= SM95-SE-92.91 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%20.9YesASLNICKEL1.5= SM95-SE-26 26.4= SM95-SE-92.91 MG/KG 45/45 100.00%20.9YesASLNITROBENZENE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%0.1272913YesDLN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoNDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE0.170.17 MG/KG 0/410.00%NoND33 of 104Table 19Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - NearshoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXLocation:Lake Sabine - NearshoreMedium:SedimentChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsample locationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsample locationMaximum NonDetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentage ofdetectionScreening Level Criteria COPC flagRational forelimination orselection1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/100.00%15.83NoNDO-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 7.47 No NDP,P'-DDD0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.00781 No NDP,P'-DDE0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.374 No NDP,P'-DDT0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.046 No NDPCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.18 No NDPCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.18 No NDPCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.18 No NDPCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242) 0.084 J SM95-SE-9 0.084 J SM95-SE-9 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 0.18 No BSLPCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.18 No NDPCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.18 No NDPCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260)0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0.18 No NDPENTACHLOROPHENOL0.33 0.33 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 0.36 No NDPHENANTHRENE 0.0027 JQ SM017 7.1 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 21/41 51.22% 0.24 Yes ASLPHENOL0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 0.42 No NDPOTASSIUM 127 = SM027 2340 JK PB008 326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% Yes NSLPOTASSIUM 127 = SM027 2340 JK PB009 326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% Yes NSLPYRENE 0.0023 JQ SM017 8.8 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 25/41 60.98% 0.665 Yes ASLSELENIUM 0.13 B SM017 0.89 B SM037 1.2 6.5 MG/KG 21/45 46.67% 1 Yes DLSILVER0.83 0.83 MG/KG 0/45 0.00% 1 No NDSODIUM 432 = SM95-SE-26 5450 JK PB008 326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% Yes NSLSTYRENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 22.31 No NDTERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% No NDTETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 18.59 No NDTHALLIUM 1 = SM95-SE-11 2.1 = SM95-SE-8 1.7 1.7 MG/KG 2/45 4.44% Yes NSLTOLUENE 0.002 * SM95-SE-8 0.002 * SM95-SE-8 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/10 10.00% 5.66 No BSLTOXAPHENE0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% No NDTRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 0.4675266 No NDTRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 0.04 No NDTRIBUTYLTIN 0.00047 J SM033 0.0063 = SM037 0.014 0.014 MG/KG 12/35 34.29% 3.4 No BSLTRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE)0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% No NDTRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% No NDVANADIUM 3.3 = SM95-SE-26 22.6 JK PB008 1.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 57 No BSLVINYL CHLORIDE0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% No NDZINC 14.2 = SM95-SE-11 3910 = SM95-SE-9 1.46 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 150 Yes ASLRationale for Elimination/Selection Qualifier:ASL: Above Screening Levels J: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening Level B: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detected and greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening Level JL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential Nutrient JH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC ifpH<5.5 (USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if 5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance because totaPAHs were below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysiTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individual benchmarksso total PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than sitespecific background34 of 104Table 20Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - OffshoreBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site,PLocation:Lake Sabine - OffshoreMedium:SedimentChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentageof detectionScreeningLevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionALUMINUM562JKSM0418150JKSM04447.1 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 18000 No BSLANTIMONY0.27BJLPB0130.27BJLPB0130.84.6 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 9.3 No BKGDARSENIC2.9=SM0418.9=PB0141.9 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 8.2 YesASLBARIUM24.5JHSM021115JKPB0141.9 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 48 Yes ASLBERYLLIUM0.2BSM0400.89=PB014 0.0740.47 MG/KG 10/11 90.91%Yes NSLCADMIUM0.04BQSM0410.14=PB0140.1 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 1.2 No BSLCALCIUM247JKSM0415580JKSM045188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00%Yes NSLCHROMIUM, TOTAL2.2=SM04111.3=PB0120.94 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 81 No BSLCOBALT1.6=SM0419.7=SM0420.94 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 10 No BSLCOPPER1.6=SM0458.5=SM0400.5 MG/KG 8/8 100.00% 34 No BSLCYANIDE0.250.25 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDIRON4690JKSM04114900JKPB01237.7 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 220000 No BSLLEAD6.8=SM04114=PB01210.2 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 46.7 No BSLMAGNESIUM320JKSM0414300JKSM042188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00%Yes NSLMAGNESIUM320JKSM0414300JKSM044188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00%Yes NSLMANGANESE51.8=SM021745JKPB0142.8 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 260 Yes ASLMERCURY0.024BSM0400.024BSM040 0.089 0.089 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 0.15 No BSLNICKEL2.23=SM04144.1=PB0122.04 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 20.9 Yes ASLPOTASSIUM202JKSM0412460JKSM042188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00%Yes NSLSELENIUM0.27BPB0140.59BPB013 0.623.7 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 1 Yes DLSILVER0.130.13 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 1 No NDSODIUM705JKSM0415200JKPB012188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00%Yes NSLTHALLIUM0.370.37 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDVANADIUM2.9JKSM04118.9JKPB0130.94 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 57 No BSLZINC18.4=SM04145.6=PB0121.02 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 150 No BSLTRIBUTYLTIN0.0018=SM0400.0059=SM042 0.003 0.003 MG/KG 6/11 54.55% 3.4 No BSL2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PRO0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.009 0.009 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL0.009 0.009 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL0.010.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.029 No ND2,4-DINITROPHENOL0.20.2 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND2,4-DINITROTOLUENE0.011 0.011 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND2,6-DINITROTOLUENE0.010.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND2-CHLOROPHENOL0.012 0.012 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.07 No ND2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRES0.003 0.003 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.063 No ND2-NITROANILINE0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 1.43 No ND2-NITROPHENOL0.008 0.008 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 0.031JSM0410.049JPB012 0.049 0.049 MG/KG 4/11 36.36%Yes NSL3-NITROANILINE0.032 0.032 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 1.595669 No ND4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHEN0.053 0.053 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHEN0.010.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND4-CHLOROANILINE0.010.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No ND4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRES0.011 0.011 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.67 No ND4-NITROANILINE0.020.02 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 1.050937 No ND4-NITROPHENOL0.078 0.078 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDACENAPHTHENE0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.016 No NDACENAPHTHYLENE0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.044 No NDACETOPHENONE0.001 0.001 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDANTHRACENE0.00009JQSM0420.00009JQSM042 0.0030.02 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 0.0853 No BSLATRAZINE0.0006 0.0006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDBENZALDEHYDE0.039BSM0420.039BSM042 0.040.04 MG/KG 1/11 9.09%Yes NSLBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.0026JQSM0410.0084JQPB012 0.0030.02 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 0.26 No BSL35 of 104Table 20Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - OffshoreBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site,PLocation:Lake Sabine - OffshoreMedium:SedimentChemicalMinimumconcentrationMinimumqualifierMinimumsamplelocationMaximumconcentrationMaximumqualiliferMaximumsamplelocationMaximumNon-DetectResultMaximum Non-DetectRLUnitsFrequency ofdetectionPercentageof detectionScreeningLevelCriteriaCOPC flagRational forelimination orselectionBENZO(A)PYRENE0.022=SM0410.054=PB012 0.0030.02 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 0.43 No BSLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.015JQSM0410.034JQPB012 0.011 0.059 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 1.7 No BSLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE0.017JQSM0400.017JQSM040 0.007 0.028 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 0.67 No BSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.017JQSM0410.033JQPB012 0.014 0.079 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 1.7 No BSLBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.027JQSM0400.027JQSM040 0.038 0.038 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 0.062 No BSLBIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)0.039BSM0420.039BSM042 0.040.04 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 1.1 No BSLBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) ME0.010.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHE0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHA0.05=SM0430.06=PB012 0.067 0.067 MG/KG 2/11 18.18% 0.182 No BSLCAPROLACTAM0.039BSM0420.039BSM042 0.040.04 MG/KG 1/11 9.09%Yes NSLCARBAZOLE0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDCHRYSENE0.0022JQSM0410.0069JQPB012 0.0030.02 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 0.384 No BSLDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE0.006JSM0430.0064JQSM021 0.020.034 MG/KG 2/11 18.18% 1.4 No BSLDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 6.2 No NDDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.0634 No NDDIBENZOFURAN0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.11 No NDDIETHYL PHTHALATE0.0033JQPB0140.0033JQPB014 0.006 0.029 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 0.2 No BSLDIMETHYL PHTHALATE0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDFLUORANTHENE0.003JQSM0410.0058JQPB012 0.0060.03 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 0.6 No BSLFLUORENE0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.019 No NDHEXACHLOROBENZENE0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.02232653 No NDHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTA0.001 0.001 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDHEXACHLOROETHANE0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.1765725 No NDINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE0.009 0.009 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 1.7 No NDISOPHORONE0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDN-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAM0.011 0.011 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE0.003 0.003 MG/KG 0/11 0.00%No NDNAPHTHALENE0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.16 No NDNITROBENZENE0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.1272913 No NDPENTACHLOROPHENOL0.063 0.063 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 0.36 No NDPHENANTHRENE0.000089JQSM042 0.000089JQSM042 0.0040.02 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 0.24 No BSLPHENOL0.008JSM0450.008JSM045 0.007 0.034 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 0.42 No BSLPYRENE0.004JQSM0410.017JQPB012 0.0060.03 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 0.665 No BSLRationale for Elimination/Selection:Qualifier:ASL: Above Screening LevelsJ: Estimated ValueBSL: Below Screening LevelB: Value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit,ND: Not Detectedand greater than the Instrument Detection Limit.NSL: No Screening LevelJL: estimated low valueNUT: Essential NutrientJH: estimated high valueAl-SSL: Based on EPA Eco-SSL, only a COPC if pH<5.5 (USEPA 2003)mg/kg: milligram per kilogramFe-SSL: Baed on EPA Eco-SSL, not a COPC if 5<pH<8TOT: No individual compound exceedance because total PAHs were below benchmarkBAC: Bioaccumulative CompundGRA: Eliminated based upon gradient analysisTTL: Total PAHs is less than the individual benchmarks, so total PAHs is eliminatedFD: Frequency of Detection (less than 5%)BKGD: Eliminated based on detection less than site-specific background36 of 104Table 21Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteEnvironmental FateReferenceAluminumAluminum has only one oxidation state (3+); thus, its fate and transport in the environment depends upon itscoordination chemistry and the characteristics of the local environmental system. Aluminum does not exist as afree metal in nature due to its reactivity; it partitions between the solid and liquid phases by reacting with water,chloride, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, phosphate, humic materials, and clay. The greater the mineral content of thesoil, the lower the mobility of aluminum. In water, aluminum forms relatively water-insoluble complexes, or isfound as a water-soluble complex. Aluminum undergoes hydrolysis to form hydroxy aluminum species and pHdetermines the hydrolysis products that are formed. Aluminum adsorbs to suspended solids and sediment. At apH greater than 5.5, aluminum compounds exist predominantly in undissolved forms. Decreasing pH generallyresults in an increase in mobility for monomeric forms of aluminum.Bodek et al., 1988; James andRiha, 1989; Brusewitz, 1984;Snoeyink and Jenkins, 1980;Goenaga and Williams, 1988AntimonyAntimony usually occurs with the valence of 3+ and occasionally of 5+. Antimony binds to soil particles,particularly those containing iron, manganese, or aluminum. In water, antimony is oxidized when exposed toatmospheric oxygen.Ainsworth, 1988; Parris andBrinckman, 1976ArsenicThe physical characteristics of the soil matrix determine the dominant form of arsenic and its transport.Insoluble arsenic compounds bind tightly to organic matter in soil or sediment. Various forms of arsenic in soilare interconverted by chemical reactions and microbial activity. The bioavailability of arsenic in soil is inverselyproportional to the organic carbon and clay content of the soil matrix. Arsenic in soil is directly taken up byplants and soil microbes and invertebrates, and indirectly taken up by terrestrial receptors via ingestion. Insurface water, soluble inorganic arsenate (As5+) predominates under normal conditions and is more stable thanarsenite. Movement and partitioning of arsenic in water depends on the chemical form of arsenic and oninteractions with other materials present. Soluble forms of arsenic remain dissolved in the water column oradsorb onto sediments or soils, especially those containing clays, iron oxides, aluminum hydroxides,manganese compounds, and organic matter. Sediment bound arsenic is released back into the water byUSEPA, 1984a; ATSDR, 1993a;Ghassemi et al., 1981; USEPA,1980a; Callahan et al., 1979;Welch et al., 1988; Benson, 1989;Braman and Foreback, 1973; OakRidge, 1976; Woolson, 1975;Woodward et al., 1994; Jop et al.,1995; Bryan and Langston, 1992 inUSEPA, 2000pH, temperature, other metals, salinity, and biota.Uptake by plants from soil is influenced by soil elements, temperature and plant species. Aquatic organismsaccumulate arsenic but do not biomagnify it. Arsenic is accumulated by aquatic organisms primarily throughdietary exposure. Bioavailability is not dependent on the concentration of acid-volatile sulfides (AVS).Sediments are the major source of arsenic to infaunal organisms.BariumIn water, barium precipitates out of solution as an insoluble salt or adsorbs to suspended particulate matter.Barium in sediments is found mostly in the form of barium sulfate. Barium is not very mobile in most soilsystems. The rate of transportation of barium in soil is dependent on soil characteristics such as cationexchange capacity and calcium carbonate content. Barium naturally forms compounds in the 2+ oxidation state.Only trace amounts of barium dissolve in surface water. In general, the solubility of barium compoundsincreases with decreasing pH.Bodek et al., 1988; USEPA, 1984;Lagas et al., 1984; Benes et al.,1983; Bates, 1988; KabataPendias and Pendias, 1984BerylliumBeryllium adsorbs to clays at low pH and precipitates as insoluble complexes at higher pH; therefore, berylliumhas limited mobility in soil. In water, beryllium is speciated often by hydrolysis to form relatively insolubleberyllium hydroxide. Beryllium is not volatilized from water. Most beryllium in water will be present in either thesorbed state in suspended matter or in the sediment rather than in a dissolved form, thus limiting its mobility. Ata high water pH, formation of water-soluble complexes with hydroxide ions may increase its solubility andmobility.Callahan et al., 1979; ATSDR,1993b37 of 104Table 21Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteEnvironmental FateReferenceCadmiumCadmium exists primarily in the 2+ oxidation state. Cadmium in the water column can partition to dissolved andparticulate organic carbon. Cadmium speciation yields primarily the divalent form (2+) between pH conc of 4.0and 7.0 and it is this divalent form that is believed to be responsible for observed biological effects. Cadmiumcompounds in soil are stable and are not subject to degradation. Compounds can be transformed byprecipitation, dissolution, complexation, and ion exchange. In aquatic environments, cadmium compounds arenot affected by photolysis, volatilization, or biological methylation. Precipitation and sorption to mineral surfacesand organic materials are important removal processes. Concentrations are generally higher in sediments thanin overlying water.USEPA, 1980b; OHM/TADS, 1997;ATSDR, 1993c; McComish andOng, 1988; Callahan et al., 1979;McCracken IR, 1987; Elinder CG,1992; Stephenson and Mackie,1989 in USEPA, 2000Cadmium readily bioconcentrates inDaphnia sp., aquatic insects, mollusks, and crayfish. Fish uptake occursthrough both water and diet, however water is the primary uptake source. In mammals and birds, cadmiumaccumulates in the livers and kidneys following ingestion. The concentration of AVS is an important factorcontrolling the toxicity and bioaccumulation of cadmium in sediments.ChromiumIn soil, chromium 3+ is readily hydrolyzed and precipitated as chromium hydroxide. It exists in soil primarily asinsoluble oxide with very limited mobility. In water, chromium 6+ can occur in the soluble state. It can beadsorbed onto clay-like materials, organics, or iron oxides. chromium 6+ persists in water for 140 days, but iseventually reduced to chromium 3+ by organic matter or other reducing agents in water.Plants can bioaccumulate and reduce chromium. In aqueous solutions, within a pH range of 6 to 8, hexavalentchromium is distributed between two species: monovalent hydrochromate anion and divalent chromate anion. Alog bioconcentration factor (BCF) of 2.74 was reported for Daphnia magna. Hexavalent chromium tends toaccumulare in the gills of fish following exposure.CobaltThe mobility of cobalt in soil increases as soil pH decreases. The speciation and transport of cobalt in surfacewater and sediment is controlled by the presence of ligands, anions, pH, and redox potential. The speciation insoil depends on the nature of the soil, concentration of chelating/complexing agents, pH, and redox potential.Killey et al., 1984; McLaren et al.,1986; Toste et al., 1984; Mantouraet al., 1978; Smith and Carson,1981Copper occurs naturally in many organisms and is an essential micronutrient. Copper may exist in two oxidationstates: 1+ or 2+. Copper (1+) is unstable and oxidizes to the 2+ state in many aerated waters within the pHrange of 6 to 8. In the aquatic environment, the fate of copper is determined by the formation of complexes.Copper concentrations remaining in solution depend on water chemistry, such as pH and temperature, and theconcentration of other chemical species. The majority of copper released to surface waters settles out oradsorbs to sediments. Some copper complexes with both inorganic and organic ligand.Callahan et al., 1979; Tyler andMcBride, 1982; Fuhrer, 1986;Moffett and Zika, 1987; Harrisonand Bishop, 1984; Callahan et al.,1979; Woodward et al., 1994 inUSEPA, 2000As an essential nutrient, copper is strongly bioaccumulated by plants and animals. All organisms have activetransport mechanisms for it, but it does not biomagnify. Biogenic ligands play an important role in complexingcopper (which affects precipitation and sorption behavior), an biological activity is a major factor in determiningthe distribution and occurrence of copper in the ecosystem. Free copper ions are the most bioavailableinorganic forms. The amount of bioavailable copper in sediment is controlled mostly by the concentration ofAVS and organic matter. Copper is accumulated by aquatic organisms primarily through dietary exposure.USEPA, 1984c; Cary, 1982; Salehet al., 1989; Beaubien et al., 1994;Klerks and Bartholomew, 1991;Van der Putte and Part, 1982;Enserink et al., 1991 in USEPA,2000Copper38 of 104Table 21Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteEnvironmental FateReferenceIronIn the hydrosphere, iron minerals in igneous and metamorphic rocks are the primary sources of iron.Mobilization and redistribution occur with chemical weathering. Iron mobilizes mostly as dissolved Fe(II) inreducing conditions and as particulate Fe(III) oxyhydroxides in oxygenated conditions. In reducing conditions,Fe(II) is soluble and mobile below ~ pH 7 to 8. In oxidized surface waters and sediment, dissolved iron, Fe 3+and Fe (III) inorganic complexes, are mobile below ~ pH 3 to 4. Fe (III) as ferric-organic complexes, are alsomobile in many soils and in surface and groundwaters up to ~ pH 5 to 6; as colloidal ferric oxyhydroxidesbetween ~ pH 3 to 8.Langmuir, 1997LeadIn water, lead is most soluble and bioavailable under conditions of low pH, low organic content, low suspendedsediment concentrations, and low concentrations of salts of other metals. Therefore, the solubility in water islow. Most lead in natural waters is precipitated to sediment as carbonates and hydroxides. Lead is readilyprecipitated by many common anions. In sediments, lead is mobilized and released during sharp decreases inpH.In soils, the major sink for lead, is relatively immobile and can persist for long periods of time in numerousforms. Adsorption or precipitation of in soils is promoted by presence of organic matter, carbonates, andphosphate minerals. It usually accumulates in topsoil due to complexation with organic matter and thetransformation of soluble lead compounds to relatively insoluble sulfate or phosphate derivatives. The efficientfixation of lead by most soils greatly limits the transfer of lead to aquatic systems and also inhibits absorption oflead by plants. However, leaching of lead can be relatively rapid from some soils, especially at highlycontaminated sites or landfills.Aquatic biota (invertebrate and vertebrate) can bioconcentrate lead at levels greater than in water, andsometimes similar to those in sediments. Concentrations of lead tend to decrease with increasing aquatictrophic levels. However, lead does not appear to bioconcentrate significantly in fish but does in some shellfishsuch as mussels. Lead is accumulated by aquatic organisms equally from water and through dietary exposure.Bioaccumulation of organolead compounds is rapid and high and concentrated in the fatty tissues of aquaticorganisms. Log BCFs of 5.15 (cladoceran) and 3.56 (midge) were reported in the literature.ManganeseManganese transport and partitioning is controlled by the solubility of the chemical form present, which isdetermined by pH, oxidation-reduction potential, and the characteristics of available anions. Manganese mayexist in water in any of four oxidation states (2+, 3+, 4+, or 7+). Mn 24 is most common in waters (pH 4-7) butmay become oxidized at pH greater than 8 or 9. Adsorption to soil and sediment may be highly variablebecause adsorption depends on the cation exchange capacity and the organic composition of the substrate.Manganese in water may undergo oxidation at high pH or oxidation-reduction potential and is also subject tomicrobial activity.Schaanning et al., 1988; Curtin etal., 1980; Hemstock and Low,1953; Kabata-Pendias andPendias, 1984; Johnston andKipphut, 1988MercuryIn soil, mercury exists in the mercuric (Hg+2) and mercurous (Hg+1) states. Mercury adsorbs to soil or isconverted to volatile forms. Mercury can migrate by volatilization from aquatic and terrestrial sources throughthe reduction of metallic mercury to complex species. Atmospheric transport is a major environmentaldistribution pathway. Mercury 2+ is the predominant form of mercury in surface waters. Nonvolatile mercury insurface water binds to organic matter and sedimentparticles.Krabbenhoft and Babiarz, 1992;Callahan et al. 1979; ATSDR,1994a; Lee and Iverfeldt, 1991;SRC, 2000; Jenson and Jernelov,1969; Braune, 1987; Elliott et al.,Harrison and Laxen, 1981;Scoullos, 1986; May andMcKinney, 1981; Boggess, 1977;Benes et al., 1985; Prause et al.,1985; Demayo et al., 1982; Kayseret al. 1982; USEPA, 1979; SRC,2000; Hodson et al., 1984;Woodward et al., 1994;Timmermans et al., 199239 of 104Table 21Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteEnvironmental FateReferenceWhere mercury is found in soil, water and sediment methylmercury may also be found since it is both producedand destroyed by microbial processes involving mercury compounds. Fish and other aquatic orgamanismsreadily bioconcentrate methyl mercury either directly through water or through components of the food chain.Subsequently, fish eating birds tend to show the highest concentrations. Factors which affect the observedlevels of mercury in plants and animals at different trophic levels include age, surface area, metabolism, habitat,and activity. There is an inverse relationship between total mercury and percent methylmercury in tissues ofvarious avian species. Among mammals, mercury burdens are higher in fish-eating species than in herbivorousones. Bioconcentration factors for methylmercury are highly variable. Log BCFs for methylmercury in brooktrout range from 4.84 to 5.80.Bioaccumulation factors increased with higher levels in both the pelagic and benthic components of aquaticfood webs. Fish bioconcentrate methylmercury directly from water by uptake across the gills and piscivoresreadily accumulate mercury from dietary sources. Mercury is accumulated by all trophic levels withbiomagnification occurring up the food web. The transfer of mercury through the food web is affected by theform of mercury. Although inorganic mercury is the dominant form in the environment and easily accumulated, itis also depurated quickly. Methylmercury accumulates quickly, depurates very slowly, and therefore has agreater potential to biomagnify in higher trophic-level species.NickelMost nickel released into waterways is associated with particulate matter. Nickel is strongly adsorbed at mineralsurfaces such as oxides and hydrous oxides of iron, manganese, and aluminum. It is strongly adsorbed by soil.Soil pH and clay content most influence nickel sorption. The 2+ valence is the predominant species in solution.Nickel BCFs ranging from 40-100 suggest that the potential for bioconcentration in aquatic organisms is low tomoderate. Although aquatic organisms may accumulate nickel from their surroundings, there is little evidencefor significant biomagnification along the food chain. Water-soluble nickel compounds, such as the chlorideand sulfate compounds, are poorly absorbed by most living organisms. The uptake of nickel by plants dependsupon the extractable nickel content of a soil which is a function of physical, chemical and biological factors ofthe soil environment. Higher nickel concentrations have been observed in shellfish and crustacea than in fish.Bioaccumulation of nickel is most pronounced in sediments when the ratio of simultaneously extracted metals toacid-volatile sulfide (SEM/AVS) is greater than 1. Although nickel concentrations in animals from sediments withSEM/AVS ratios >1 were approximately 2- to 10-fold greater than nickel concentrations in benthic organismsfrom sediments with SEM/AVS <1, nickel uptake (tissue concentration) was proportional to the concentration insediment.SeleniumIn nature, selenium exists as six stable isotopes. Changes in the valence state of selenium are associated withits geologic distribution, redistribution, and use. Soluble selenates occur in alkaline soils and are slowly reducedto selenites, which are then readily taken up by plants. Selenium volatilizes from soils and sediments.Cappon and Smith, 1982; Lo andSandi, 1980; SRC, 2000; EPA,1995 in EPA, 2000.1992; Sheffy and St. Amant, 1982;Rodgers and Beamish, 1981; Wrenet al., 1983; Xun et al., 1987;Mathers and Johansen, 1985;Wiener and Spry, 1996; Eisler,2000Bowman et al., 1981; Evans, 1989;Rai and Zachara, 1984; Andersonand Christensen, 1988;Sunderman and Oskarsson, 1991;SRC, 2000; National ResearchCouncil Canada, 1981; DiToro etal., 199040 of 104Table 21Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteEnvironmental FateReferenceBCFs ranging from 200 to 3,600 for selenite and 65 to 500 for selenate suggest bioconcentration in aquaticorganisms will be moderate to very high. In sediments, reduced and tightly bound selenium will remain relativelyimmobile unless the sediments are chemically or biologically oxidized. Selenium is normally found at low levelsin aquatic ecosystems. Female fish have been shown to transfer selenium to their progeny and embryosshowed an increased incidence of edema and lordosis. Selenium can biomagnify sufficiently to cause acutetoxicity to fishes.SilverTransport and partitioning is influenced by the particular form of the compound. Under oxidizing conditions, theprimary silver compounds would be bromides, chlorides, and iodides, while under reducing conditions the freemetal and silver sulfide would predominate. Mobility in soils is affected by oxidation-reduction potential, pH, andthe presence of organic matter. In fresh water, silver often forms complex ions with chlorides, ammonium, andsulfates; forms soluble organic compounds; and adsorbs onto humic complexes and suspended particulates.Silver tends to form complexes with inorganic chemicals and humic substances in soil.Lindsay and Sadiq, 1979; Boyle,1968ThalliumIn soil, thallium exists in either the monovalent (thallous) or trivalent (thallic) form. The monovalent form is morecommon and stable. Thallium is reactive with air and moisture. Moisture increases the oxidation of thallium.Thallium adsorbs to soil and is not transformed or biodegraded. Elemental thallium is relatively insoluble inwater.Hampel, 1968; Standen, 1967;Callahan et al., 1979; Windholz,1976; Weast, 1975; Frantz andCarlson, 1987VanadiumTransport and partitioning in water and soil is influenced by pH, redox potential, and the presence ofparticulates. In fresh water, vanadium generally exists in solution as V4+ under reducing conditions and as V5+under oxidizing conditions. Mobility in soil is affected by pH and is fairly mobile in neutral or alkaline soils, but itsmobility decreases in acidic soils. Under oxidizing, unsaturated conditions some mobility is observed, but underreducing, saturated conditions vanadium is immobile. Vanadium entering water is generally converted from theless soluble trivalent state to the more soluble pentavalent state.Wehrli and Stumm, 1989; VanZinderen Bakker and Jaworski,1980; Byerrum et al., 1974ZincZinc occurs naturally in the 2+ oxidation state. Sorption to suspended and bed sediments is the dominantreaction involving zinc. The relative mobility of zinc in soil and aquatic systems is determined by factors such asthe solubility of the compound, pH, redox potential, and salinity. Zinc generally remains as a free ion at low pHconc.s. It partitions to sediments or suspended solids in surface water through sorption onto hydrous iron andmanganese oxides, clay minerals, and organic material. Zinc tends to sorb more readily at a high pH (pH>7)than at a low pH. Zinc sorbs strongly onto soil particulates and its mobility depends on the solubility of thespeciated forms of the element and on soil properties such as cation exchange capacity, pH, redox potential,and the chemical species present in soil.Callahan et al., 1979; Clement,1985; Pita and Hyne, 1975;USEPA, 1980e; Kalbasi et al.,1978; Camusso et al, 1995; SRC,2000; Timmermans et al., 1992Zinc compounds have low mobility in soils and are absorbed by plants and vegetables. Adsorbtion tosuspended solids and sediments is expected. Studies indicate that zinc is not a highly mobile element in mostaquatic habitats. In fish, zinc tends to accumulates in the gills, liver, kidney and opercular bone, but not themuscle. A log BCF of 2.90 was determined for the midgeChironomus riparius.41 of 104Table 21Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteEnvironmental FateReferencePesticidesPesticides can be transferred by volatilization, runoff, leaching, absorption and physical removal. Increasingtemperature, movement, and low relative humidity increase the chances of volatilization. A higher vaporpressure signifies a more volatile pesticide. Microbial, chemical, andphotodegradation are types of pesticide degradation. Stability greatly depends on the intensity of natural light,chemical and physical properties, and application site. Accelerated microbial degradation may occur when thesame pesticide is repeatedly used at the same site because of therapid build up of the microorganisms. The most significant reaction is hydrolysis. Chemical reactivity increaseswith temperature.Brown, C.L. and Hock W.K., 1990Polynuclear AromaticHydrocarbons (PAHs)Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are a diverse group of organic molecules composed of two or more fusedaromatic (benzene) rings. They are moderately persistent in the environment. In general, as the number ofrings increases, mobility and volatility decrease. Because of these physical-chemical properties, PAHs have lowsolubility, low volatility, and a high tendency to sorb to organic matter. In water, PAHs have high boiling pointsand are insoluble. When oil is spilled in water, PAH in the oil can enter the water column in dispersed form orbe absorbed on organic and inorganic compounds. In the terrestrial environment, PAHs tend to be associatedwith soil particulates and have low mobility in soil.Eisler, 2000; RTI, 1995; Varanasi,1985PAHs generally do not biomagnify in food chains despite high lipid solubility, because they are rapidlymetabolized. However, some PAHs can be detected in tissues of aquatic organisms and wildlife at highconcentrations immediately following exposure. In general, biodegradation rates are inversely related to thenumber of fused benzene rings and are further slowed by substitutions, including alkylation. Bioaccumulationand metabolism vary greatly among clams, invertebrates, shrimp, and fish. Bioaccumulation was substantiallyhigher for amphipods than for clams, shrimp, or fish. Clams unable to metabolize PAHs had higherconcentration levels of PAHs than amphipods, shrimp, and fish.Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)PhthalateIn the environment, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate undergoes biodegradation in water and soil. It is predicted toreact with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere. It has an estimated half-life of 12 hours in the air, 10 - 20 daysin soil, and days to weeks in water. The half-life of the molecule, due to evaporation from bodies of water, isabout 15 years. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate rapidly degrades in the marine environment by experimentalmicrocosms. This chemical has been found to bind organic acids in the soil and water, resulting in an increasein its solubility and mobility in the environment. It also absorbs to both freshwater and marine sediments.Callahan et al., 1979; Davey et al.,1990; Matsuda and Schnitzer,1971; USEPA, 1987a,b.DibenzofuranIn the atmosphere, dibenzofuran exists primarily in the gas-phase and sometimes in the particulate -phase. Asa gas, this chemical reacts with photochemically - produced hydroxyl radicals and has a half-life of 4.1 days. Asa particulate, wet and dry deposition are expected to be the dominant tropospheric removal process. In soil,this chemical has very low mobility. It is biodegraded in areas where populations of adapted microorganismsare present. In an aquatic environment, dibenzofuran is expected to strongly absorb to particulates andsediment. Dissolved dibenzofuran may volatilize from water. Adapted microbes supplied with sufficient oxygencan readily biodegrade dibenzofuran.Kwok et al., 1994; Mueller et al.,1991; Wilson et al., 1985; SRC,200142 of 104Table 21Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteEnvironmental FateReferencePerchloratePerchlorate (ClO4) is an anion that originates as a contaminant in ground water and surface waters from thedissolution of ammonium, potassium, magnesium, or sodium salts. Because perchlorate is nonlabile kinetically(i.e., the reduction of the central chlorine atom occurs extremely slowly) and sorption or natural chemicalreduction in the environment is not significant, perchlorate is exceedingly mobile in aqueous systems and canpersist for many decades under typical ground and surface water conditions.USEPA, 2002; NCEA web page(http://www.epa.gov/ncea/archive/perchlorate/perch2.htm)Notes:Information on the fate and transport of chemicals was researched through TOXNET (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/) in the Hazardous Substances Data Bank.Full citations for the primary references listed can be found on the HSDB summary for each chemical listed.43 of 104Table 22Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteMechanisms of EcotoxicityReferencesAluminumAluminum is a cytotoxin that interferes with enzymes associated with adenosine triphosphateand maintenance of neurotransmitters; it disrupts neuromotor activity and cognitive abilities;decreases offspring growth, body weights and neurological development; increases resorptionrates; alters calcium and phosphorus metabolism; causes embryo lethality; minor skeletalmalformations; decrease in egg shell strength and production.ATSDR, 1992; Sparling andLowe, 1996.AntimonyMutagenic in bacteria or phage; induces chromosomal aberrations or abnormal cell division;antimony combines with sulfhydryl groups in several respiratory enzymes; trivalent antimonyinduces heme oxygenase, which causes heme degradation in the liver and kidney; causespulmonary, hepatic and reproductive effects in mammals.ATSDR, 1990a; Drummondand Kappas, 1981 (HSDB);Flessel, 1977 (HSDB); Hays etal., 1991ArsenicReaction of trivalent form (arsenite) with sulfhydryl groups leads to enzyme (oxidativerespiration) inhibition. Methylated arsenic is transferred efficiently in food webs, but does notbioacccumulate. Arsenic reduces growth and development in plants and causes inhibition oflight activation, wilting, chlorosis, browning, dehydration and death in plants. Arsenic causesmalformations and death in toad embryos. It is carcinogenic and mutagenic and causesimpaired behavior, reduced growth, lack of appetite, suffocation by gill clogging and vascularcollapse in the gills, testicular and ovarian degeneration, liver damage, and failure tometabolize food in fish. Inorganic arsenic destroys the blood vessel lining in the gut and lowersblood pressure in birds. It also causes hepatocyte damage in birds by inhibition of the sodiumpump. Behavioral, systemic, growth, systemic and reproductive effects occur as a result ofchronic exposures. It is teratogenic, carcinogenic and possibly mutagenic in mammals. Itsdevelopmental effects include malformations (exencephaly, eye defects and renal and gonadalaSadiq 1992; Eisler, 2000;NRCC 1978 as cited in Eisler1998b; Nystrom 1984, as citedin Eisler 1998b; Stanley et al.1994; Whitworth et al. 1991;Camardese et al. 1990; ATSDR1993a; Domingo 1994;Sorensen 1991, as cited inIrwin et al. 1997; Mance, 1990.BariumBarium can inhibit intestinal absorption in the winter flounder. Barium accumulates in plantsand the bones in birds and mammals. It affects affects potassium metabolism in muscles andcauses respiratory weakness, muscle paralysis and stimulation, irregular cardiac contractionsand lowered pulse rate in mammals. Some reproductive effects (reduced ovary weight) havebeen observed.Amdur et al. 1991; ATSDR1990b; Schroeder 1970 ascited in ATSDR 1990b;Charney and Taglietta 1992;Borzelleca et al., 1988.BerylliumBeryllium exerts its effects in amphibians on the physiological processes (ion regulation andgas exchange) on the gill surface and skin. Gill abnormalities have been observed in exposedfish. Beryllium is primarily an inhalation stressor in mammals, with exposure resulting inhypersensitivity, pneumonitis and chronic granulomatous pulmonary disease. Phytotoxicity iscaused by the inhibition of enzyme activity.Amdur et al., 1991; Jagoe et al.1993; Brown et al., 1983(HSDB)44 of 104Table 22Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteMechanisms of EcotoxicityReferencesCadmiumCadmium causes mutagenesis, teratogenesis, carcinogenesis; It inhibits enzyme reactions byreplacement of essential divalent nutrients (e.g., zinc) at critical sites on proteins and enzymes;combines with sulfhydryl groups in enzymes; inhibition of Phase I and Phase IIbiotransformation reactions; kidney lesions; reduces growth rates and feed consumption;causes reproductive effects in birds; testicular damage; decreases hemoglobin and hematocrit;causes behavior, growth, and physiological changes in aquatic organisms; accumulatesprimarily in the kidneys; immunosuppressive effects have been shown in mice, fish, andoysters. Soluble form is highly available for plant uptake and can disturb enzyme activity.ATSDR, 1990c; Eisler, 2000;Hammons et al., 1978; Siewickiet al., 1983; Rompala et al,1994 as cited in Irwin et al,1997; Wren et al., 1995, ascited in Irwin et al., 1997;Malins and Ostrander, 1994, ascited in Irwin et al., 1997;Bodek et al., 1988.ChromiumBeneficial but not essential for plants; trivalent form essential form in mammals for maintainingefficient lipid, glucose and protein metabolism; mutagenic, teratogenic and carcinogenic;hexavalent form associated with inhibition of photosynthesis and interference with transportand mobilization of essential nutrients. Hexavalent form can cause oxidation stress in cells,abnormal enzyme activity, lowered resistance to pathogens, disrupted feeding, disruptedosmoregulation, histopathology, and damage to beta cells of pancreatic islets. Can causenephron and liver damage. Decreased weight gain, increased oxygen consumption, impairedreproduction, and increased hematocrit have been noted in aquatic organisms. Highdeposition of trivalent form in fish gills leads to tissue damage including hyperplasia, clubbingof lamellae, and necrosis.ATSDR, 1993c; Eisler, 2000;Moore et al., 1990, as cited inIrwin et al., 1997.CobaltCobalt produces adverse systemic and hematological effects and reduction in spermdevelopment, fertilization and implantation in mammals. A decrease in testicular size has beennoted in exposed rodents. It can cause interstitial fibrosis, enzyme inhibition and effectsassociated with mixed function monoxygenases. Cobalt chloride has been noted to produceneurotropic effects in rats.ATSDR, 1992b45 of 104Table 22Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteMechanisms of EcotoxicityReferencesCopperEssential element for animals as a component of metalloenzymes and respiratory pigments,iron utilization, function of enzymes in pigmentation, connective tissue formation and energyproduction; forms stable inhibitory complexes with cytochrome P-450; impairs function ofNADPH-cytochrome C reductase; inhibits heme biosynthesis; teratogen and possiblecarcinogen; accumulates in the liver and reduces liver's ability to excrete copper; decreasesgrowth and food consumption in birds; disrupts internal ion balance in aquatic organisms; altershematology, respiratory physiology, and cardiac physiology in fish; causes histological changesin the gills, kidneys, hematopoietic tissue, mechanoreceptors, and chemoreceptors in fish.Reproductive effects in fish include blockage of spawning, reduced egg production,abnormalities in young, and reduced survival of young.ATSDR, 1990d; Rand andPetrocelli, 1985, as cited inIrwin et al., 1997; Sorenson,1991, as cited in Irwin et al.,1997.IronEssential for the production of proteins in plants and hemoglobin in animals. Toxicity related tocellular oxidative stress, dysfunction and toxicity due to peroxide formation.HSDB, 1/19/00LeadInhibits growth in plants. Reduces photosynthetic activity by blocking sulfhydril groups andinhibiting the conversion of coproporphyrinogen to proporphyrinogen. Reduces mitosis andwater absorption. In animals, lead inhibits the formation of heme and reduces amino-levulinateacid dehydratase activity in blood. Toxic effects in animals include reduced growth andreproductive output, accumulation in hematopoietic organs, changes in the central nervoussystem (at high concentrations near those causing mortality) kidney disfunction, enzymeinhibition, and behavioral changes. In birds, lead decreases egg shell thickness and limitsgrowth, ovulation, and sperm formation. In fish, lead can increase mucous formation andcause death from suffocation.ATSDR, 1993b; Eisler, 2000;Finley and Stendell, 1978;Friberg et al., 1986; Heinz,1979; Rompala et al., 1984, ascited in Irwin et al., 1997.ManganeseManganese is cytotoxic and causes chromosomal aberations in rodents. Reduction intesticular growth (weight) and reduced seminal vesicle weight have been noted in rodentsexposed to manganese. Can cause dopamine depletion in nerve cells. Adverse behavioraland systemic effects have been noted in birds exposed to manganese above nutrient levels.ATSDR, 1992c46 of 104Table 22Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteMechanisms of EcotoxicityReferencesMercuryMercury binds strongly with sulfhydryl groups and interferes with thiol metabolism, inhibiting orinactivating proteins containing thiol ligands. This leads to mitotic disturbances and inhibitionof cell division. Organic mercury compounds are potent inhibitors of cell division.Methylmercury irreversibly destroys central nervous system neurons in mammals and aquaticorganisms and is the most toxic form. Mercury compounds adversely affect affect metabolism,growth, development and behavior in birds and mammals at relatively low exposure levels.The most sensitive target organ of inorganic mercury appears to be the kidneys.ATSDR, 1994a; Eisler, 2000;Leland and Kuwabara, 1985, ascited in Irwin et al., 1997.NickelNickel is nephrotoxic, carcinogenic, and immunotoxic in mammals. Elevated levels of nickelcause tremors, edema in joints and reduction in body weight and humerus length in birds;decreased reproductive capacity has been noted. Retarded growth, anemia, and decreasedenzyme activity have been observed in rats.ATSDR, 1995; Friberg et al.,1986, as cited in Irwin et al.,1997.SeleniumSelenium causes systemic and reproductive effects in birds and mammals. In birds, there areembryo development effects, including an increase in malformed embryos and decreasedhatchling and adult weight. Adverse effects on body weight and increases in the death ofyoung animals and the frequency of runts have been observed in mammals. In fish, seleniumcan cause reproductive failures, including an increase in birth defects. Decreased seedgermination and growth have been observed in plants.Eisler 1985b; ATSDR, 1994b;Sorensen, 1991, as cited inIrwin et al., 1997; Moore et al.,as cited in Irwin et al., 1997.SilverSilver has a strong affinity for sulfhydryl groups and proteins, resulting in cytotoxicity.Respiratory depression in aquatic organisms has been noted; can cause cardiac enlargement,vascular hypertension, hepatic necrosis, anemia, lowered immunological activity, kidneypathology, enzyme inhibition, growth retardation, and shortened life span in mammals andbirds.ATSDR, 1990e; Eisler, 2000.ThalliumExposure to elevated levels of thallium causes neuromorphological changes and systemiceffects in mammals (hair loss, increases in skeletal abnormalities and weight loss). Noinformation was located for birds.ATSDR, 1992d47 of 104Table 22Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteMechanisms of EcotoxicityReferencesVanadiumEssential for growth in some fungi and algae; stimulates photosynthesis in higher plants andcarries oxygen in some invertebrates; toxicity increases with valence (+5 most toxic); thepentavalent form inhibits enzyme systems such as monoamine oxidase, Na-K ATPase,tyrosinase, choline esterase, cholesterol synthetase; In mammals, toxic effects occur in therespiratory tracts as a result of inhalation of fumes and dust; dietary exposure causes adverseeffects on blood cell production; embryotoxicity observed in pregnant Sprague-Dawley ratesexposed to sodium metavanadate; in chickens, egg production suppressed upon exposure todietary vanadium; genotoxic in invitro test systems using bacteria, yeast and mouse cells(recombination repair, gene mutation, DNA synthesis).ATSDR, 1992e; Irwin et al.,1997; Luckey and Venugopal,1977ZincZinc is essential for normal reproduction and growth in plants and animals. In animals, it isregulated by metallothioneins, which temporarily store zinc, reducing its toxicity. Zincdependent enzymes regulate the rates of biosynthesis and catabolism of RNA and DNA. Athigh exposures, zinc interferes with the metabolism of calcium and iron and induces copperdeficiency. Zinc causes cytoplasmic vacuolation, cellular atrophy and cell death in thepancreas. It accumulates preferentially in bone and induces osteomalacia (softening of thebone) as a result of a deficiency of minerals, including calcium and phosphorous. In fish, zinccauses destruction of gill epithelium and tissue hypoxia. In rainbow trout, disruption of internalion balance has been noted.Eisler, 2000; Rand andPetrocelli, 1985, as cited inIrwin et al., 1997.PesticidesToxicity and mode of action are highly variable and are related to the structure of thepesticides. Potent estrogenic and enzyme-inducing properties, which interfered with fertility andreproduction, of the Organoc Chlorine pesticides (OCs) have been demonstrated in wildlife andlab species. In avian species, OCs interferes with steroid metabolism, causing egg thinning.Reproduction in fish is adversely affected by the bioconcentration of the pesticides in the yolksac of the fry. Gradual accumulation of residues of these compounds and their metabolites inbody tissues as well as the slow elimination from the system has been well documented. Asmany other pesticide, OCs and carbamate pesticides affect the nervous systems. They inhibitanticholinesterase activities, increasing secretions, broncho constriction, miosis,gastrointestinal cramps, urination, bradycardia)Klaassen , 1996 (Stickel, 1968;McFarland and Lacy, 1969;Longcore et al., 1971, McBlainet al, 1968;p Crum et al,1993)(Carson, 1962; Peakall,1970)48 of 104Table 22Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAnalyteMechanisms of EcotoxicityReferencesPolycyclic AromaticHydrocarbons (PAHs)Toxicity is highly variable and related to the number of ring structures and molecular weight.Low molecular weight compounds of 2 or three rings (e. g., naphthalene) cause acute toxicity,but are not carcinogenic. Higher molecular weight PAHs with > 4 rings (e. g., benzo(a)pyrene)are mutagenic, teratogenic and carcinogenic to a wider variety of animals. PAHs are toxic to avariety of animal tissues. Causes narcosis toxicity in aquatic animals.Eisler, 2000.PhthalatesLittle information is known about the ecotoxicological effects that might be caused by this typeof chemical. Adverse effects in animals were generally seen only at high doses or with longterm exposures. Mildly harmful effects have been seen in the livers and kidneys of some ratsand mice given very high doses (e.g., di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-octylphthalate). Longerexposures to high doses might affect the ability of both males and females to reproduce andcaused birth defects.ATSDR, 09/22/00Full citations for the primary references listed can be found on the HSDB summary for each chemical listed.49 of 104Table 23Assessment and Measurement EndpointsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAssessment Endpoint Guild (Food Web) RepresentativeSpeciesMeasurement EndpointsExposure RoutesNull Hypotheses1. Impairment of growth,reproduction, or survival ofpopulations of herbivorous birdsthat use the habitat on-site due toexposure to COCs attributable tothe siteHerbivorous Bird(Terrestrial)northern bobwhitequailComparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction,or other relevant NOAELs orLOAELs2. Impairment of growth,reproduction, or survival ofpopulations of omnivorousmammals that use the habitat onsite due to exposure to COCsattributable to the siteOmnivorous Mammal(Terrestrial)white-footed mouse Comparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction,or other relevant NOAELs orLOAELs3. Impairment of growth,reproduction, or survival ofpopulations of carnivorousmammals that use the habitat onsite due to exposure to COCsattributable to the siteCarnivorous Mammal(Terrestrial)coyoteComparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction,or other relevant NOAELs orLOAELs4. Impairment of growth,reproduction, or survival ofpopulations of benthicinvertebrates that use the habitaton-site due to exposure to COCsattributable to the siteBenthic Invertebrates(Aquatic)NAComparison of concentrations ofchemicals in on-site surface sedimentto literature-based screening levelsDirect exposure, ingestion measured concentrations do notexceed literature-basedscreening levels5. Impairment of growth,reproduction, or survival ofpopulations of insectivorousshore birds that use the habitaton-site due to exposure to COCsattributable to the siteInsectivorous ShoreBird (Aquatic)spotted sandpiper Comparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction,or other relevant NOAELs orLOAELs6. Impairment of growth,reproduction, or survival ofpopulations of carnivorous shorebirds that use the habitat on-sitedue to exposure to COCsattributable to the siteCarnivorous Bird(Aquatic)belted kingfisher Comparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction,or other relevant NOAELs orLOAELsNotes:NA = not applicableNOAEL = no observed adverse effect level50 of 104Table 23Assessment and Measurement EndpointsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAssessment Endpoint Guild (Food Web) RepresentativeSpeciesMeasurement EndpointsExposure RoutesNull Hypotheses95th UCL = 95th percent upper confidence levelLOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level51 of 104Table 24Wildlife Exposure Factors for Ecological ReceptorsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXBody WeightHome RangeDietary Composition (%)SpeciesFeedingGuildkgReferenceakg/kg-bw/dReferenceaValuecReferenceaTerrestrialInvertebratesSoilTerrestrialVertebratesPlantsAquaticInvertebratesAquaticVertebratesSedimentReference forDietary Food ItemsaReference for Incidental IngestionaNorthernBobwhite QuailHerbivorous Bird 0.157 Guthery et al., 1988 0.111 Nagy,1987 16.8 Yoho and Dimmick, 1972 0.09.3 0.0 100.0 0.00.00.0Campbell-Kissock etal., 1985Beyer et al. 1984. Estimated / Value for wildturkey; Considered an upper bound valueWhite-footedMouseOmnivorous Mammal 0.021Assumed comparableto deer mouse, Millar,19890.165 Nagy,1987 0.247 Lackey, 198550.0 2.4 0.0 50.0 0.00.00.0AssumedUsed Meadow Vole Information from Beyer et. al,1994Coyote Carnivorous Mammal 10.33Average of values fromCalifornia and Arizonapresented in Sample etal., 19970.04534 Nagy, 1987 3010Bekoff 1982, Bekoff andWells 19800.02.8 99.0 1.00.00.00.0 Ransom, 1981 Used Red Fox Data from Beyer et al., 1994SpottedSandpiperInsectivorous Bird 0.0425Average of males andfemales from Maxsonand Oring, 19800.42376 Nagy, 1987 12.0 Miller and Miller, 19480.00.0 0.0 0.0 100.00.018.0Maxson and Oring,1980Beyer et al, in PressBelted Kingfisher Piscivorous Bird 0.147Brooks and Davis, 1987in EPA, 1993 averageof adult values0.11364 Nagy,1987 2.2 Brooks & Davis, 19870.00.0 0.0 0.00.0100.0 0.0Salyer & Lagler, 1946in EPA, 1993Used green heron information from Sample et al.,1997NOTES:Referencesa) Complete references are available in the references section of the main text.AcronymsFood Ingestion Rateb) Food ingestion rates were calculated from body weight using Nagy's (1987) allometric equations as presented in Sample et al.,1997BW = body weightMammalsIfd = ingestion rate foodIfd = (0.0687(BW)^0.822)/BW - Placental Mammals (coyote)Iw = ingestion rate waterIfd = (0.0306(BW)^0.564)/BW - Rodents (white-footed mouse)kg = kilogramAvian Specieskg/kg-bw/d = kilograms food per kilogram bpodyweight per dayIfd = (0.0582(BW)^0.651)/BW - All Birds (quail, sandpiper, and kingfisher)l/kg-bw/d = liters water per kilogram body weight per dayHome Rangec) the home range values are all area measurements in units of acres except for the belted kingfisher, which is a linear measurement in kilometersFood Ingestion Rateb52 of 104Table 25Chemical Specific Biotransfer, Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors from Media to Prey TissueBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameSoil to Plant(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kg-soil)SourceSoil toTerrestrialInvertebrate(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kg-soil)SourceSoil toVertebrates(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kg-soil)SourceLogKowSourceSediment toBenthicInvertebrates(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kgsediment)SourceSediment toFishBSAF(mg/kg-wet)/(mg/kgsediment)Source2-METHYLPHENOL (o-CRESOL)NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.00 NA/assumed1 NA/assumed2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOLNANANANANANANA NA1.00 NA/assumed1 NA/assumed2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE0.757USEPA, 2000 0.200 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 3.716 TCEQ, 2004 2.09naphthalene usedas a surrogate0.000 TNRCC, 20013,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE1.186EPA, 200028.464EPA, 20000.000Travis and Arms, 19883.210 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumed4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL3.265USEPA, 2000 27.219USEPA, 20000.000Travis and Arms, 19882.068 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumed4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)3.3EPA, 200027.2EPA, 20001.0947 EPA, 2000 2.06 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedACENAPHTHENE0.515USEPA, 2000 0.300 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 4.151 TCEQ, 2004 2.04 Maruya et al, 1997 0.000 TNRCC, 2001ACENAPHTHYLENE0.6USEPA, 20000.2 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.0 USEPA, 2005 3.94 TCEQ, 2004 1.62 Maruya et al, 1997 0.000 TNRCC, 2001ACETONE25.146USEPA, 2000 24.873USEPA, 20000.000Travis and Arms, 1988-0.235 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedACETOPHENONE4.646EPA, 200026.798EPA, 20000.000Travis and Arms, 19881.670 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedALDRIN0.05USEPA, 2000 32.69USEPA, 2000 0.17238934Travis and Arms, 19886.75 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.5EPA, 200029.7EPA, 20000.525416 EPA, 2000 4.26 TNRCC, 2002a5.6highest valueACOE, 20047.310Tracy andHansen, 1996ALPHA-CHLORDANE0.04USEPA, 2000 32.98USEPA, 20000.29Travis and Arms, 19886.97 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.31Tracy andHansen, 1996ALUMINUMNANANANANANANA NA1.00 NA/assumed1 NA/assumedARSENICNANANANANANANA NA1.00 NA/assumed1 NA/assumedANTHRACENE0.43USEPA, 20000.32 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 4.35 TCEQ, 2004 0.19 Maruya et al, 1997 0 TNRCC, 2001ANTIMONY0.050ORNL, 20031.000NA/assumed1.000 NA/assumed 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.00 NA/assumedBARIUM0.100ORNL, 20030.160 Sample et al, 1998a 0.112 Sample et al, 1998b 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedBenzaldehyde3.788785337USEPA, 2000 27.04082889 USEPA, 2000 1.68927E-06Travis and Arms,19881.90 TCEQ, 2004 1.0NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedBENZENE25.14635255USEPA, 2000 24.87281846 USEPA, 2000 1.05256E-08Travis and Arms,1988-0.24 TCEQ, 2004 1.0NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedBENZO(a)ANTHRACENE0.15USEPA, 20000.27 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 5.52 TCEQ, 2004 0.36 Maruya et al, 1997 0.000 TNRCC, 2001BENZO(a)PYRENE0.091USEPA, 2000 0.340 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.109 TCEQ, 2004 0.13 Maruya et al, 1997 0.000 TNRCC, 2001BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE0.091USEPA, 2000 0.210 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.109 TCEQ, 2004 0.15 Maruya et al, 1997 0.000 TNRCC, 2001BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE0.054USEPA, 2000 0.150 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.697 TCEQ, 2004 0.22 Maruya et al, 1997 0.000 TNRCC, 2001BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE0.091USEPA, 2000 0.210 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.109 TCEQ, 2004 0.21 Maruya et al, 1997 0.000 TNRCC, 2001BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE0.279EPA, 200030.344EPA, 20000.432 EPA, 2000 4.845 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedBERYLLIUM0.010ORNL, 20031.182 Sample et al, 1998a 0.410Beyer and Stafford, 199 0.571 TCEQ, 2004 0.05Bechtel-Jacobs, 1998b1.000 NA/assumedBETA ENDOSULFAN0.203EPA, 200030.769EPA, 20000.004Travis and Arms, 19885.200 TCEQ, 2004 27.95 endosulfan sulfate as7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.5EPA, 20001.0NA/assumed0.5EPA, 2000 4.26 TCEQ, 2004 11.18ACOE, 2004, DeltaBHC as a surrogate7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)NANANANANANA3.76 TCEQ, 2004 NANA10.000 assumedBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE0.0EPA, 200034.9EPA, 20000.132 EPA, 2000 8.39 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed1 NA/assumedCADMIUMRMBechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b -0.07TCEQ, 20040.12maximum fromWeston, 20010.53maximum fromWeston, 2001CAPROLACTAM12.4EPA, 200025.7EPA, 20000.0Travis and Arms,19880.6 TCEQ, 20041.00 NA/assumed1 NA/assumedCARBAZOLE1.2USEPA, 200028.5USEPA, 20000.0Travis and Arms,19883.23 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedCHROMIUM, TOTAL0.04ORNL, 20033.16 Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b 0.00 TCEQ, 2004 RMBechtel-Jacobs,1998b1 NA/assumedCHRYSENE0.2USEPA, 20000.4 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00000000 USEPA, 2005 5.52 TCEQ, 2004 0.20 Maruya et al, 1997 0.000 TNRCC, 2001COBALT0.054ORNL, 20030.291 Sample et al, 1998a 0.100 Sample et al, 1998b 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 0.12Bechtel-Jacobs, 1998b1.000 NA/assumedCOPPERRMBechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b -0.571 TCEQ, 2004 RMBechtel-Jacobs, 1998b1.130maximum fromWeston, 2001CYANIDE1.000NA/assumed1.000NA/assumed1.000 NA/assumed NA NA0.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedDELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)0.589EPA, 200029.358EPA, 20000.000Travis and Arms, 19884.000 TCEQ, 2004 11.18highest valueACOE, 20047.310Tracy andHansen, 1996DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE0.054USEPA, 2000 0.490 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.697 TCEQ, 2004 0.21 Maruya et al, 1997 0.000 TNRCC, 200153 of 104Table 25Chemical Specific Biotransfer, Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors from Media to Prey TissueBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameSoil to Plant(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kg-soil)SourceSoil toTerrestrialInvertebrate(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kg-soil)SourceSoil toVertebrates(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kg-soil)SourceLogKowSourceSediment toBenthicInvertebrates(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kgsediment)SourceSediment toFishBSAF(mg/kg-wet)/(mg/kgsediment)SourceDIBENZOFURAN0.590715048USEPA, 2000 29.35344995 USEPA, 2000 0.000247345Travis and Arms,19884.00 TCEQ, 2004 1.0NA/assumed 0.000 TNRCC, 2001DIELDRIN0.2USEPA, 20003.9 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.0078Travis and Arms,19885.45 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.31Tracy andHansen, 1996DIETHYL PHTHALATE0.591USEPA, 2000 29.353USEPA, 20000.000thalene used as a surro3.996 TCEQ, 2004 2.09halene used as a surr1.000 NA/assumedENDOSULFAN SULFATE0.81EPA, 20001.00NA/assumed1.0000 NA/assumed 6.01 TCEQ, 2004 27.95ghest value ACOE, 207.310Tracy andHansen, 1996ENDRIN0.08ORNL, 20030.36USEPA, 20000.00Travis and Arms, 19884.56 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.31Tracy andHansen, 1996ENDRIN ALDEHYDE0.068USEPA, 2000 32.300USEPA, 20000.083Travis and Arms,19886.440 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996ENDRIN KETONE0.2USEPA, 2000 30.92644495 USEPA, 2000 0.005900516Travis and Arms,19885.33 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.31Tracy andHansen, 1996FLUORANTHENE0.26USEPA, 20000.37 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 4.93 TCEQ, 2004 0.21 Maruya et al, 1997 0 TNRCC, 2001FLUORENE0.58USEPA, 20000.20 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00Travis and Arms, 19884.02 TCEQ, 2004 776.44Beauchamp, and Sch 0 TNRCC, 2001GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)0.47EPA, 200029.66EPA, 20000.00Travis and Arms, 19884.26 TCEQ, 2004 5.59ghest value ACOE, 207.31Tracy andHansen, 1996GAMMA-CHLORDANE0.042USEPA, 2000 32.972USEPA, 20000.289Travis and Arms, 19886.966 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996HEPTACHLOR0.08USEPA, 20008.40 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.0475Travis and Arms, 19886.21 TCEQ, 2004 21281.13 EPA, 1999 7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE0.3USEPA, 20008.4 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.0021Travis and Arms,19884.91 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.31Tracy andHansen, 1996HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE0.03USEPA, 2000 33.56EPA, 20000.85Travis and Arms, 19887.42 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed1 NA/assumedINDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE0.05USEPA, 20000.21 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.15Travis and Arms, 19886.70 TCEQ, 2004 0.17 Maruya et al, 1997 0 TNRCC, 2001IRONNANANANANANANA NA1.00 NA/assumed1 NA/assumedLEADRMBechtel Jacobs, 1998a 1.5 Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b0.729TCEQ, 2004 RMBechtel-Jacobs,1998b1.00 NA/assumedMANGANESE0.680ORNL, 2003RM Sample et al, 1998a 0.06 Sample et al, 1998b 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedMERCURYRMBechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a 0.192 Sample et al, 1998b -0.471 TCEQ, 2004 RMBechtel-Jacobs,1998b3.23maximum fromWeston, 2001METHOXYCHLOR0.134USEPA, 2000 31.337USEPA, 20000.013Travis and Arms, 19885.667 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996NAPHTHALENE1.23USEPA, 20000.21 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00Travis and Arms, 19883.17 TCEQ, 2004 157.33Southworth,Beauchamp, andSchmieder, 19780.000 TNRCC, 2001NICKELRMBechtel Jacobs, 1998a 4.73 Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b -0.57 TCEQ, 2004 RMBechtel-Jacobs, 1998b0.05maximum fromWeston, 2001NITROBENZENE1.23USEPA, 20000.21 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 3.17 TCEQ, 2004 2.09 Maruya et al, 1997 1 NA/assumedPENTACHLOROPHENOL0.31EPA, 200037.13EPA, 20000.07727 EPA, 2000 4.74 TNRCC, 2002a1.00 NA/assumed 10.000 assumedP,P'-DDD0.112USEPA, 2000 0.270 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.021Travis and Arms, 19885.873 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996p,p'-DDE0.100USEPA, 2000 6.000 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.029Travis and Arms, 19885.996 TCEQ, 2004 66688.70 EPA, 1999 7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996P,P'-DDT0.0USEPA, 20000.6 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.2Travis and Arms,1988 6.79 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed7.310Tracy andHansen, 1996PHENANTHRENE0.43USEPA, 20000.28 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00Travis and Arms, 19884.35 TCEQ, 2004 1445.33Southworth,Beauchamp, andSchmieder, 19780 TNRCC, 2001PHENOL0.43USEPA, 20000.28 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 4.35 TCEQ, 2004 0.29 Maruya et al, 1997 1 NA/assumedPYRENE0.26USEPA, 20000.39 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 4.93 TCEQ, 2004 0.44 Maruya et al, 1997 0 TNRCC, 200154 of 104Table 25Chemical Specific Biotransfer, Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors from Media to Prey TissueBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameSoil to Plant(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kg-soil)SourceSoil toTerrestrialInvertebrate(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kg-soil)SourceSoil toVertebrates(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kg-soil)SourceLogKowSourceSediment toBenthicInvertebrates(mg/kg-dry)/(mg/kgsediment)SourceSediment toFishBSAF(mg/kg-wet)/(mg/kgsediment)SourceSELENIUMRMBechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a 0.24 TCEQ, 2004 1.17maximum fromWeston, 20011.230maximum fromWeston, 2001SILVER1.000NA/assumed1.710SWDIV, 19960.810 Sample et al, 1998b 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 1.71Bechtel-Jacobs, 1998b1.000 NA/assumedTHALLIUM0.004ORNL, 20031.000NA/assumed0.120 Sample et al, 1998b NA TCEQ, 2004 1.00 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumedTRIBUTYLTINNANANANANANANA NA7.97ghest value ACOE, 2010.000 assumedVANADIUM0.0055ORNL, 20030.088 Sample et al, 1998a 0.019 Sample et al, 1998b 0.00 TCEQ, 2004 0.04Bechtel-Jacobs,1998b1.000 NA/assumedZINCRMBechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b -0.47 TCEQ, 2004 RMBechtel-Jacobs,1998b1.140maximum fromWeston, 2001Notes:NA = not applicableN/A = not availableRM = Regression model used to estimate tissue concentration, see table 9b-141) All biotransfer factors are expressed as dry weight2) Soil-to-plant transfer factors for organics were derived using log BAFp=1.31-0.385*log Kow (USEPA, 2000)3) Bioaccumulation data for birds and reptiles were unavailable. Bioaccumulation data for small mammals were assumed to be equal for all vertebrates.4) Soil-to-invertebrate transfer factors for organics were derived using BAF=10^(log(Kow-0.6)/[0.01*10^(0.983logKow+0.00028] from EPA, 2000.5) Soil-to-small mammal transfer factors for organics were derived using BAF=10^((logKow*1.033)-7.735) from Travis and Arms, 19886) The BAFs for Beyer and Stafford, 1993 are for undepurated worms as opposed to the Sample et al., 1998a data which is for depurated worms7) Soil to small mammal values were not available for organics or for tin. Values for Baes et al, 1984 and for Travis and Arms, 1984 are the ratio of concentration in diet to concentration in tissue.As a result, it was assumed that the diets of the small vertebrates consumed by carnivores consisted of 75% plants and 25% insects.55 of 104Table 26Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameReceptorSoil/SedimentConcB0 B1 Prey Conc. (dry)Plants in Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsCOPPERGeneral1.4E+026.7E-01 3.9E-01 1.3E+01LEADGeneral2.2E+02-1.3E+00 5.6E-01 5.4E+00CADMIUMGeneral1.2E+00-0.476 0.546 7.0E-01ZINCGeneral2.8E+021.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.1E+02Terrestrial Invertebrates in Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsCOPPEREarthworm1.4E+021.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.0E+01LEADEarthworm2.2E+02-2.2E-01 8.1E-01 6.2E+01CADMIUMEarthworm1.2E+002.1E+00 8.0E-01 9.9E+00ZINCEarthworm2.8E+024.4E+00 3.3E-01 5.5E+02Terrestrial Vertebratesin Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsCOPPER General1.4E+022.0E+00 1.4E-01 1.6E+01LEADGeneral2.2E+027.6E-02 4.4E-01 1.2E+01CADMIUMGeneral1.2E+00-0.4306 0.4865 7.2E-01ZINCGeneral2.8E+024.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.3E+02Plants in Waste Treatment FacilityCOPPERGeneral2.6E+026.7E-01 3.9E-01 1.7E+01LEADGeneral1.3E+02-1.3E+00 5.6E-01 4.1E+00MERCURYGeneral6.5E-01-1.0E+00 5.4E-01 2.9E-01CADMIUMGeneral8.3E-01-0.476 0.546 5.6E-01ZINCGeneral6.0E+021.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.7E+02Terrestrial Invertebrates in Waste Treatment FacilityCOPPEREarthworm2.6E+021.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.3E+01LEADEarthworm1.3E+02-2.2E-01 8.1E-01 4.1E+01MERCURYEarthworm6.5E-01-6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.8E-01CADMIUMEarthworm8.3E-012.1E+00 8.0E-01 7.2E+00ZINCEarthworm6.0E+024.4E+00 3.3E-01 7.0E+0256 of 104Table 26Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameReceptorSoil/SedimentConcB0 B1 Prey Conc. (dry)Terrestrial Vertebrates in Waste Treatment FacilityCOPPER General2.6E+022.0E+00 1.4E-01 1.7E+01LEADGeneral1.3E+027.6E-02 4.4E-01 9.3E+00CADMIUMGeneral8.3E-01-0.4306 0.4865 6.0E-01ZINCGeneral6.0E+024.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02Plants in Current Aboveground Storage TanksLEADGeneral5.6E+02-1.3E+00 5.6E-01 9.2E+00PENTACHLOROPHENOLGeneral2.8E-010.0E+00 5.9E+00 5.3E-04MERCURYGeneral1.3E-01-1.0E+00 5.4E-01 1.2E-01CADMIUMGeneral4.8E-01-0.476 0.546 4.2E-01ZINCGeneral4.8E+021.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.5E+02Terrestrial Invertebrates in Current Aboveground Storage TanksLEADEarthworm5.6E+02-2.2E-01 8.1E-01 1.3E+02PENTACHLOROPHENOLEarthworm2.8E-015.5E+00 3.3E-01 1.7E+02MANGANESEEarthworm3.8E+02-8.1E-01 6.8E-01 2.6E+01MERCURYEarthworm1.3E-01-6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.0E-01CADMIUMEarthworm4.8E-012.1E+00 8.0E-01 4.6E+00ZINCEarthworm4.8E+024.4E+00 3.3E-01 6.5E+02Terrestrial Vertebratesin Current Aboveground Storage TanksCHROMIUM, TOTAL General1.3E+02-1.5E+00 7.3E-01 8.1E+00LEAD General5.6E+027.6E-02 4.4E-01 1.8E+01PENTACHLOROPHENOLChicken2.8E-012.0E-01 4.5E-03 1.2E+00CADMIUMGeneral4.8E-01-0.4306 0.4865 4.5E-01ZINCGeneral4.8E+024.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02Plants in Maintenance Shed AreaCADMIUMGeneral4.2E-01-0.476 0.546 3.9E-0157 of 104Table 26Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameReceptorSoil/SedimentConcB0 B1 Prey Conc. (dry)ZINCGeneral1.1E+031.6E+00 5.6E-01 2.3E+02Terrestrial Invertebrates in Maintenance Shed AreaCADMIUMEarthworm4.2E-012.1E+00 8.0E-01 4.2E+00ZINCEarthworm1.1E+034.4E+00 3.3E-01 8.4E+02Terrestrial Vertebratesin Maintenance Shed AreaCADMIUM General4.2E-01-0.4306 0.4865 4.3E-01ZINCGeneral1.1E+034.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.5E+02Plants in Tar Burn AreaCOPPERGeneral1.6E+026.7E-01 3.9E-01 1.4E+01MERCURYGeneral3.1E-01-1.0E+00 5.4E-01 2.0E-01CADMIUMGeneral1.1E+00-0.476 0.546 6.5E-01ZINCGeneral4.2E+021.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.4E+02Terrestrial Invertebrates in Tar Burn AreaCOPPEREarthworm1.6E+021.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.0E+01MERCURYEarthworm3.1E-01-6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.4E-01CADMIUMEarthworm1.1E+002.1E+00 8.0E-01 8.9E+00ZINCEarthworm4.2E+024.4E+00 3.3E-01 6.2E+02Terrestrial Vertebratesin Tar Burn AreaCADMIUM General1.1E+00-0.4306 0.4865 6.8E-01ZINCGeneral4.2E+024.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02Plants in Lauren Tank FarmCOPPERGeneral1.3E+036.7E-01 3.9E-01 3.3E+01LEADGeneral1.0E+03-1.3E+00 5.6E-01 1.3E+01CADMIUMGeneral1.7E+00-0.476 0.546 8.3E-0158 of 104Table 26Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameReceptorSoil/SedimentConcB0 B1 Prey Conc. (dry)ZINCGeneral4.4E+021.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.4E+02Terrestrial Invertebrates in Lauren Tank FarmCOPPEREarthworm1.3E+031.7E+00 2.6E-01 3.6E+01LEADEarthworm1.0E+03-2.2E-01 8.1E-01 2.2E+02CADMIUMEarthworm1.7E+002.1E+00 8.0E-01 1.3E+01ZINCEarthworm4.4E+024.4E+00 3.3E-01 6.3E+02Terrestrial Vertebratesin Lauren Tank FarmCOPPER General1.3E+032.0E+00 1.4E-01 2.2E+01LEADGeneral1.0E+037.6E-02 4.4E-01 2.3E+01CADMIUMGeneral1.7E+00-0.4306 0.4865 8.4E-01ZINCGeneral4.4E+024.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02Plants in Non-source AreaCOPPERGeneral5.5E+036.7E-01 3.9E-01 5.8E+01LEADGeneral4.1E+03-1.3E+00 5.6E-01 2.8E+01MERCURYGeneral5.4E-01-1.0E+00 5.4E-01 2.6E-01CADMIUMGeneral1.2E+01-0.476 0.546 2.4E+00ZINCGeneral5.1E+011.6E+00 5.6E-01 4.3E+01Terrestrial Invertebrates in Non-source AreaCOPPEREarthworm5.5E+031.7E+00 2.6E-01 5.2E+01LEADEarthworm4.1E+03-2.2E-01 8.1E-01 6.6E+02MANGANESEEarthworm1.4E+03-8.1E-01 6.8E-01 6.1E+01MERCURYEarthworm5.4E-01-6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.7E-01CADMIUMEarthworm1.2E+012.1E+00 8.0E-01 5.8E+01ZINCEarthworm5.1E+014.4E+00 3.3E-01 3.1E+02Terrestrial Vertebratesin Non-source Area59 of 104Table 26Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameReceptorSoil/SedimentConcB0 B1 Prey Conc. (dry)COPPERGeneral5.5E+032.0E+00 1.4E-01 2.7E+01LEADGeneral4.1E+037.6E-02 4.4E-01 4.3E+01CADMIUMGeneral1.2E+01-0.4306 0.4865 2.1E+00ZINCGeneral5.1E+014.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.2E+02Plants in All Upland Area SoilCOPPERGeneral3.0E+026.7E-01 3.9E-01 1.8E+01LEADGeneral4.7E+02-1.3E+00 5.6E-01 8.3E+00PENTACHLOROPHENOLGeneral2.8E-010.0E+00 5.9E+00 5.3E-04MERCURYGeneral1.3E-01-1.0E+00 5.4E-01 1.2E-01CADMIUMGeneral1.2E+01-0.476 0.546 2.4E+00ZINCGeneral4.8E+021.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.5E+02Terrestrial Invertebrates in All Upland Area SoilCOPPEREarthworm3.0E+021.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.4E+01LEADEarthworm4.7E+02-2.2E-01 8.1E-01 1.1E+02PENTACHLOROPHENOLEarthworm2.8E-015.5E+00 3.3E-01 1.7E+02MANGANESEEarthworm3.8E+02-8.1E-01 6.8E-01 2.6E+01MERCURYEarthworm1.3E-01-6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.0E-01CADMIUMEarthworm1.2E+012.1E+00 8.0E-01 5.8E+01ZINCEarthworm4.8E+024.4E+00 3.3E-01 6.5E+02Terrestrial Vertebratesin All Upland Area SoilCHROMIUM, TOTAL General1.3E+02-1.5E+00 7.3E-01 8.1E+00COPPER General3.0E+022.0E+00 1.4E-01 1.8E+01LEADGeneral4.7E+027.6E-02 4.4E-01 1.6E+01PENTACHLOROPHENOLChicken2.8E-012.0E-01 4.5E-03 1.2E+00CADMIUMGeneral1.2E+01-0.4306 0.4865 2.1E+00ZINCGeneral4.8E+024.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02Aquatic Invertebrates in Lake Sabine - Intertidal60 of 104Table 26Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameReceptorSoil/SedimentConcB0 B1 Prey Conc. (dry)CHROMIUM, TOTALdepurated1.3E+020.0445 0.448 5.78E+00COPPERdepurated2.1E+011.2E+00 7.9E-02 4.4E+00LEADdepurated2.0E+02-5.2E-01 6.5E-01 1.9E+01MERCURYdepurated1.8E-01-6.7E-01 3.3E-01 2.9E-01NICKELdepurated8.5E+01-4.4E-01 7.0E-01 1.4E+01ZINCdepurated5.9E+021.9E+00 1.3E-01 1.5E+01Aquatic Invertebrates in Lake Sabine - NearshoreCOPPERdepurated2.1E+011.2E+00 7.9E-02 4.4E+00LEADdepurated2.0E+02-5.2E-01 6.5E-01 1.9E+01MERCURYdepurated1.8E-01-6.7E-01 3.3E-01 2.9E-01NICKELdepurated8.5E+01-4.4E-01 7.0E-01 1.4E+01ZINCdepurated5.9E+021.9E+00 1.3E-01 1.5E+01Aquatic Invertebrates in Lake Sabine - All SedimentCOPPERdepurated2.1E+011.2E+00 7.9E-02 4.4E+00LEADdepurated2.0E+02-5.2E-01 6.5E-01 1.9E+01MERCURYdepurated1.8E-01-6.7E-01 3.3E-01 2.9E-01NICKELdepurated8.5E+01-4.4E-01 7.0E-01 1.4E+01ZINCdepurated5.9E+021.9E+00 1.3E-01 1.5E+01Notes:All values are reported as dry weight.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.Equations:ln (Prey Conc) = B1*(ln[Site Specific Soil/Sediment Concentration]) + B0where:B0 = Slope.B1 = Intercept.References:Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a. Empirical Model for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. Preparethe US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. BJC/OR-133. September, 1998.Bechtel Jacobs, 1998. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and RecommendatioReservation. Prepared for the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. BJC/OR-1Sample et al., 1998a. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Prepared fo61 of 104Table 26Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameReceptorSoil/SedimentConcB0 B1 Prey Conc. (dry)US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. ES/ER/TM-220. February, 1998.Sample et al., 1998b. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Small Mammals. Preparethe US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. ES/ER/TM-219. February, 1998.USEPA, 2005. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. Attachment 4-1. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil ScrLevel (Eco-SSLs). Revised February 2005.62 of 104Table 27Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameUnitsFormer WastewaterImpoundmentsWastwaterTreatment FacilityCurrentAbovegroundStorage TanksMaintenanceShed AreaTar Burn AreaFormer LaurenTank FarmNon-sourceAll Upland Soil(mg/kg)2-METHYLNAPHTHALENEmg/Kg 7.00E-012.20E-01 1.10E-01 1.80E-01 4.20E-02 1.60E+00 1.90E+00 1.90E+004-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)mg/KgNANA4.60E-02NANA1.10E-01NA1.10E-01ACENAPHTHENEmg/Kg 3.90E-018.50E-02 4.60E-01 3.30E-02 3.50E-02 6.40E-02 9.60E+00 9.60E+00ACENAPHTHYLENEmg/Kg 2.90E+003.50E-01 1.80E-01 2.90E-01 4.50E-01 9.10E-01 5.00E+00 5.00E+00ALPHA-CHLORDANEmg/Kg 3.00E-03NANANANA2.16E+00NA1.30E+01ALDRINmg/KgNANANA1.10E-02NANANA1.10E-02ANTHRACENEmg/Kg 2.90E+004.50E-01 1.50E+00 2.90E-01 3.90E-01 1.10E+00 1.30E+01 1.30E+01ANTIMONYmg/Kg 4.47E+015.70E+00 2.50E+00NA6.00E+00NA2.63E+01 4.47E+01BENZALDEHYDEmg/KgNA5.10E-02 3.20E-02 1.10E-02 6.30E+00 9.70E-02 1.50E-01 6.30E+00BENZO(A)ANTHRACENEmg/Kg 1.30E+008.30E-01 3.00E+00 9.70E-01 9.20E-013.99E+002.40E+01 2.40E+01BENZO(A)PYRENEmg/Kg 2.60E+006.50E-01 2.70E+00 1.30E+00 1.20E+004.68E+001.90E+01 1.90E+01BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENEmg/Kg 3.60E+001.10E+00 4.40E+00 3.40E+00 1.20E+006.02E+002.50E+01 2.50E+01BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENEmg/Kg 6.50E-013.40E-01 1.80E+00 2.40E+00 1.40E+002.50E+001.20E+01 1.20E+01BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENEmg/Kg 8.80E+002.40E-01 9.70E-01 1.20E+00 4.60E-012.10E+004.30E+00 8.80E+00BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATEmg/Kg 1.60E-01NA3.00E-02 1.30E-01 5.20E-01 2.40E-02 2.60E-01 5.20E-01BETA ENDOSULFANmg/Kg 8.10E-03NANA1.00E-01NANA3.30E-03 1.30E+01BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATEmg/Kg 4.90E+00NANANA4.70E+00 1.90E+00 3.20E+00 4.90E+00CADMIUMmg/Kg1.25E+008.34E-014.80E-014.20E-011.10E+00 1.70E+001.15E+01 1.15E+01CARBAZOLEmg/Kg 7.70E-011.30E-01 2.30E-01 3.00E-01 2.90E-01 5.20E-011.29E+007.50E+00CHROMIUM, TOTALmg/KgNANA1.26E+02NANANA8.17E+01 1.26E+02CHRYSENEmg/Kg 3.40E+001.30E+00 2.80E+00 1.70E+00 1.10E+004.91E+002.10E+01 2.10E+01COPPERmg/Kg1.35E+022.55E+02NANA1.55E+02 1.33E+03 5.48E+03 2.98E+02DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)mg/KgNANANA2.30E-02NANA1.70E-03 2.30E-02DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENEmg/Kg 4.60E-011.00E-01 3.30E-01 4.90E-01 2.30E-019.40E-012.20E+00 2.20E+00DIBENZOFURANmg/Kg 2.10E-013.30E-02 1.80E-01 8.20E-02 4.40E-02 1.30E-01 3.80E+00 3.80E+00DIELDRINmg/KgNANANA5.40E-02NA5.30E-03 6.75E+001.09E+01ENDOSULFAN SULFATEmg/Kg 9.20E-03NANA3.90E-02NANA3.30E-03 3.90E-02ENDRINmg/Kg 1.40E-02NANA1.65E-03NANA3.30E-039.86E+00ENDRIN ALDEHYDEmg/Kg 1.00E-02NANA5.20E-02NA1.83E+00 1.30E+017.74E+00ENDRIN KETONEmg/Kg 9.90E-03NANANANANA3.30E-03 9.90E-03FLUORENEmg/Kg 3.40E-019.70E-02 4.70E-01 9.80E-02 1.20E-01 1.80E-01 8.10E+00 8.10E+00FLUORANTHENEmg/Kg 2.50E+002.20E+00 1.00E+01 3.50E+00 1.90E+006.44E+006.20E+01 6.20E+01GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)mg/KgNANANA5.90E-03NANA1.70E-03 5.90E-03GAMMA-CHLORDANEmg/Kg 5.60E-03NANA3.60E-02NA7.80E-03 1.70E-03 3.60E-02HEPTACHLORmg/KgNANANA7.90E-03NA3.10E-03 1.70E-03 7.90E-03HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDEmg/Kg 5.10E-03NANA4.10E-02NANA6.00E+001.31E+01INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENEmg/Kg 3.00E+004.20E-01 1.10E+00 1.00E+00 7.40E-016.30E-016.90E+00 6.90E+00LEADmg/Kg2.17E+021.29E+025.58E+02NANA1.03E+03 4.09E+034.67E+02MANGANESEmg/KgNANA3.79E+02NANANA1.36E+03 3.79E+02MERCURYmg/KgNA6.48E-011.30E-01NA3.10E-01NA5.40E-01 1.30E-01NAPHTHALENEmg/Kg 8.60E-011.20E-01 7.80E-02 1.80E-01 5.20E-02 1.40E+00 6.80E+00 6.80E+00PENTACHLOROPHENOLmg/KgNANA2.80E-01NANANANA2.80E-01P,P'-DDDmg/KgNANANA1.50E+01NA9.10E-03 1.10E+01 1.50E+01P,P'-DDEmg/KgNANANA5.00E-02NANA2.50E+00 1.00E+01P,P'-DDTmg/Kg 9.10E-03NANA5.70E-02NA7.60E-03 3.30E-03 1.80E+01PHENANTHRENEmg/Kg 2.50E+001.10E+00 3.80E+00 1.20E+00 9.30E-01 2.00E+00 5.30E+01 5.30E+01PYRENEmg/Kg 1.00E+011.60E+00 8.40E+00 4.00E+00 1.50E+006.32E+004.00E+01 4.00E+01SILVERmg/Kg 2.60E+001.40E+00 9.60E-01NANANA8.30E+00 2.60E+00VANADIUMmg/KgNANA3.10E+01NANANA2.68E+01 3.10E+01ZINCmg/Kg2.83E+025.96E+024.84E+021.06E+034.24E+024.44E+025.05E+014.76E+02Notes:63 of 104Table 27Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameUnitsFormer WastewaterImpoundmentsWastwaterTreatment FacilityCurrentAbovegroundStorage TanksMaintenanceShed AreaTar Burn AreaFormer LaurenTank FarmNon-sourceAll Upland Soil(mg/kg)NA - Eliminated during COPC selection or were not analyzed in the AOCConcentrations inBold= 95% UCLConcentrations inItalics= Max concentration used in lieu of UCL because UCL is greater than max. concentrationConcetrations in shaded cells = average concentration across exposure area64 of 104Table 28Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in SedimentBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameUnitsLake Sabine -IntertidalLake Sabine -NearshoreLake Sabine -OffshoreAll Sediment2-METHYLNAPHTHALENEmg/Kg 9.10E-021.10E-02NA9.10E-022-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)NA1.70E-01NA1.70E-012,4-DIMETHYLPHENOLmg/Kg 3.50E-021.70E-01NA1.70E-013,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINEmg/Kg NA7.50E-02 4.90E-02 7.50E-024-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)mg/Kg NANANA0.00E+00ACENAPHTHENEmg/Kg 9.80E-025.80E-01NA5.80E-01ACENAPHTHYLENEmg/Kg 3.50E-021.20E-01NA1.20E-01ACETOPHENONEmg/Kg 4.30E-025.70E-03NA4.30E-02ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROmg/Kg NA1.70E-03NA1.70E-03ALUMINUMmg/Kg NANANA3.53E+03ANTHRACENEmg/Kg 1.00E-012.00E+00NA2.00E+00ANTIMONYmg/Kg 1.61E+01NANA1.61E+01ARSENICmg/Kg 1.37E+011.17E+01 8.90E+00 1.37E+01BARIUMmg/Kg 4.59E+016.40E+01 1.15E+02 1.15E+02BENZALDEHYDEmg/Kg 1.10E-013.70E-02 3.90E-02 1.10E-01BENZO(A)ANTHRACENEmg/Kg NA4.10E+00NA4.10E+00BENZO(A)PYRENEmg/Kg NA2.30E+00NA2.30E+00BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENEmg/Kg NA3.60E+00NA3.60E+00BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENEmg/Kg NA2.40E-01NA2.40E-01BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENEmg/Kg NA1.90E+00NA1.90E+00BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATEmg/Kg 1.70E-016.40E-02NA1.70E-01BERYLLIUMmg/Kg 3.30E-012.70E+00 8.90E-01 2.70E+00BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYmg/Kg NA1.70E-03NA1.70E-03BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)mg/Kg NANANA0.00E+00BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATEmg/Kg 3.00E+002.60E-01NA2.00E-01CADMIUMmg/Kg 1.49E+00NANA1.49E+00CALCIUMmg/Kg 1.72E+05NA5.58E+03 1.72E+05CAPROLACTAMmg/Kg 1.10E-015.10E-02 3.90E-02 1.10E-01CARBAZOLEmg/Kg 2.00E-013.10E-01NA3.10E-01CHROMIUM, TOTALmg/Kg 8.72E+01NANA8.72E+01CHRYSENEmg/Kg NA3.90E+00NA3.90E+00COBALTmg/Kg NA8.46E+00NA8.46E+00COPPERmg/Kg2.14E+011.56E+01NA7.05E+0165 of 104Table 28Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in SedimentBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter NameUnitsLake Sabine -IntertidalLake Sabine -NearshoreLake Sabine -OffshoreAll SedimentCYANIDEmg/Kg 5.50E-01NANA5.50E-01DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROmg/Kg NA1.70E-03NA1.70E-03DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENEmg/Kg NA2.30E-01NA2.30E-01DIBENZOFURANmg/Kg NA3.60E-01NA3.60E-01FLUORANTHENEmg/Kg NA9.10E+00NA9.10E+00FLUORENEmg/Kg 1.10E-017.90E-01NA7.90E-01GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)mg/Kg NA3.40E-03NA3.40E-03HEXACHLOROBUTADIENEmg/Kg NA1.70E-01NA1.70E-01INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENEmg/Kg NA3.40E-01NA3.40E-01IRONmg/Kg NANANA0.00E+00LEADmg/Kg 2.04E+022.22E+01NA1.50E+02MAGNESIUMmg/Kg 3.62E+03NA4.30E+03 4.30E+03MANGANESEmg/Kg 1.50E+031.27E+03 7.45E+02 1.50E+03MERCURYmg/Kg 1.80E-014.50E-02NA1.80E-01NICKELmg/Kg 8.50E+012.64E+01 4.41E+01 8.50E+01NAPHTHALENEmg/Kg 4.00E-011.40E-02NA4.00E-01NITROBENZENEmg/Kg NA1.70E-01NA1.70E-01PENTACHLOROPHENOLmg/Kg 1.60E-01NANA1.60E-01PHENANTHRENEmg/Kg 3.20E-012.37E-01NA7.10E+00POTASSIUMmg/Kg 1.23E+03NA2.46E+03 2.46E+03PYRENEmg/Kg NA8.80E+00NA8.80E+00SELENIUMmg/Kg2.97E+003.71E-015.90E-01 5.90E+00THALLIUMmg/Kg NA5.42E-01NA5.42E-01TRIBUTYLTINmg/Kg NANANA0.00E+00VANADIUMmg/Kg NANANA0.00E+00ZINCmg/Kg 5.94E+021.54E+02NA3.91E+03Notes:NA - Eliminated during COPC selection or were not analyzed in the AOCConcentrations inBold= 95% UCLConcetrations in shaded cells = average concentration across exposure area66 of 104Table 29Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Avian Wildlife ReceptorsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXStudySelectionChemicalFormPrimary ReferenceTest speciesEndpointMeasured EffectDurationNOAELDose(mg/kgbw-d)LOAELDose(mg/kgbw-d)UncertaintyFactor(for normalizedNOAEL)NormalizedNOAELTRV(mg/kgbw-d)UncertaintyFactor(for normalizedLOAEL)NormalizedLOAELTRV(mg/kgbw-d)>2-METHYLPHENOL (o-CRESOL)4-METHYLPHENOL (p-CRESOL) Hancock, 1993 northern bobwhite mortality, growthmortality, growth, and feedconsumption(acute)125NA0.0334.167NANA2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOLNANANANANANANANANANANANA> 4-METHYLPHENOL (p-CRESOL)NAHancock, 1993northern bobwhite mortality, growth mortality, growth, and feedconsumption(acute)1.25E+02 NA0.01 1.25E+00 NANA3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINENANANANANANANANANANANANAACETOPHENONENANANANANANANANANANANANA>+ALDRINNAUSFWS, 1984northern bobwhite survivorshipLD50acuteNA 7.30E-01 0.01 7.30E-030.1 7.30E-02>+ALPHA BHC (ALPHAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)gamma BHC used as surrogateChakravarty and Lahiri 1986;Charkravarty et al. 1986mallard duck reproductionLOAEL8 weeks (during a critical lifestage) (chronic)NA 2.00E+01 0.12.00E+0012.00E+01>+ALPHA-CHLORDANEchlordane used as surrogateStickel et al. 1983 red-winged blackbird mortality% survival84 days (chronic) 2.14E+00 1.07E+0112.14E+0011.07E+01>ALUMINUMAl2(SO4)3Carriere et al., 1986ringed dove reproduction egg production, fertility,hatchability, egg shell thickness4 months (critical life stage)(chronic)1.10E+02 NA11.10E+02 NANAANTIMONYNANANANANANANANANANANANA>+ARSENICsodium arsenateStanley et al., 1994mallard duck reproductionnumber of ducklings persuccessful nest10 weeks (critical life stage)(chronic)9.30E+00 4.03E+0119.30E+0014.00E+01>+BARIUMBarium hydroxideJohnson et al. 1960one day old chick survivorship% survival4 weeks (not a critical lifestage) (subchronic)2.08E+02 4.17E+02 0.12.08E+01 0.1 4.17E+01BENZALDEHYDENANANANANANANANANANANANABENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATENANANANANANANANANANANANABERYLLIUMNANANANANANANANANANANANA>+BETA BHC (BETAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)gamma BHC used as surrogateChakravarty and Lahiri 1986;Charkravarty et al. 1986mallard duck reproductionLOAEL8 weeks (during a critical lifestage) (chronic)NA 2.00E+01 0.12.00E+0012.00E+01>BETA ENDOSULFANendosulfan used as a surrogateAbiola 1992gray partridge reproductionNOAEL4 weeks(during criticallifestyle) (chronic)1.00E+01 NA11.00E+01 NANABIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)Arochlor 1242 used as a surrogateBritton and Huston 1973chickenreproductionNA6 weeks (subchronic)5100.10.50.1 1> bis(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATENAPeakall 1974ringed dove reproduction egg shell thickness, waterabsorbed into shell, breakingstrength4 weeks (critical life-stage)(chronic)1.11E+00 NA11.11E+00 NANA>+CADMIUMcadmium sulfateLeach et al., 1979chickenreproductionegg production1 year (chronic) 6.10E-01 2.40E+0016.10E-0112.40E+00CAPROLACTAMNANANANANANANANANANANANACARBAZOLENANANANANANANANANANANANA>+CHROMIUM, TOTALCrK(SO4)Haseltine et al., 1985black duckreproductionduckling survival10 months (chronic) 1.00E+00 5.00E+0011.00E+0015.00E+00>COBALTNAEco-SSL (EPA, 2000)NANANA(chronic)1.30E+00 NA11.30E+00 NANA+COBALTNADiaz et al., 1994broiler chickengrowthweight14 days (during critical lifestage) (chronic)1.24E+01 2.47E+01 NANA12.47E+01>+COPPERcopper oxideMehring et al. 1960chicken survivorship, growth % survival, weight 10 weeks (subchronic) 4.70E+01 6.17E+01 0.14.70E+00 0.1 6.17E+00>+CYANIDENAWiemeyer et al 1986American kestrel MortalityLD50(acute)NA 4.00E+00 0.01 4.00E-020.1 4.00E-01>+DELTA BHC (DELTAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)gamma BHC used as surrogateChakravarty and Lahiri 1986;Charkravarty et al. 1986mallard duck reproductionLOAEL8 weeks (during a critical lifestage) (chronic)NA 2.00E+01 0.12.00E+0012.00E+01>+Dibenzofuranaromatic hydrocarbon mixturePatton and Dieter 1980mallardgrowthbody weight7 months (chronic)NA 3.25E+02 0.13.25E+0113.25E+02>DIELDRINNAMendenhall et al., 1983barn owlreproductionreproductive success2 years (chronic) 7.70E-02 NA17.70E-02NANA>ENDOSULFAN SULFATEendosulfan used as a surrogateAbiola 1992gray partridge reproductionNOAEL4 weeks(during criticallifestyle) (chronic)1.00E+01 NA11.00E+01 NANA>ENDRINNASpann et al. 1986mallard duck reproductionNOAEL>200 days (chronic) 3.00E-01 NA13.00E-01NANA>ENDRIN ALDEHYDEendrin used as surrogateSpann et al. 1986mallard duck reproductionNOAEL>200 days (chronic) 3.00E-01 NA13.00E-01NANA>ENDRIN KETONEendrin used as surrogateSpann et al. 1986mallard duck reproductionNOAEL>200 days (chronic) 3.00E-01 NA13.00E-01NANA>+ GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)NAChakravarty and Lahiri 1986;Charkravarty et al. 1986mallard duck reproductionLOAEL8 weeks (during a critical lifestage) (chronic)NA 2.00E+01 0.12.00E+0012.00E+01>+GAMMA-CHLORDANEchlordane used as surrogateStickel et al. 1983 red-winged blackbird mortality% survival84 days (chronic) 2.14E+00 1.07E+0112.14E+0011.07E+01>+HEPTACHLORNAHill and Camardese 1986quailmortality% survival5 day (acute)NA 6.50E+00 0.01 6.50E-020.1 6.50E-01>+ HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDEheptachlor used as surrogateHill and Camardese 1986quailmortalityLOAEL5 day (acute)NA 6.50E+00 0.01 6.50E-020.1 6.50E-01> HEXACHLOROBUTADIENENACoulston and Kolbye 1994;TERRETOX 2002Japanese quail reproductionreproduction90 days3.39E+00 NA13.39E+00 NANA>+HPAHcrude oilStubblefield et al. 1995mallardreproductionegg shell thickness7 months (chronic) 1.96E+01 NA11.96E+01 NANAHPAHbenzo(a)pyreneRigdon and Neal, 1963 white leghorn chicken reproduction fertility and malformationsSubchronic3.95E+01 NA0.13.95E+00 NANA>IRONNANational Academy of Science , 1980 poultrygeneral impaired performance, faet ofresidue for human consumptionunknown7.03E+01 NA0.17.32E+00 NANA>LEADmetallic leadPattee 1984American kestrel reproductionNA7 months (critical life stage)(chronic)3.85E+00 NA13.85E+00 NANA+LEADmetallic leadHoffman et al. 1985American kestrel survivorship% survival10 days (subacute) 1.25E+02 6.25E+02 NANA0.01 6.25E+00>+LPAHaromatic hydrocarbon mixturePatton and Dieter 1980mallardgrowthbody weight7 months (chronic)NA 3.25E+02 0.13.25E+0113.25E+02>+MANGANESEmanganese oxideLaskey and Edens, 1985 Coturnix japonica growth, behavior wight gain, aggressive behavior 75 days (chronic) 9.80E+01 9.77E+0219.80E+0119.77E+02>+MERCURYMeHgClHeinz, 1976; Heinz and Hoffman,1998mallard duck reproduction duckling 7 day survival 2.5 mo. to 2 generations(chronic)6.80E-02 3.70E-0116.80E-0213.70E-01>+METHOXYCHLORNANAmallard duckmortalityLD50unknownNA 1.15E+02 0.01 1.15E+00 0.1 1.15E+01>+NICKELnickel sulfateCain and Pafford, 1981mallard duck growth, survivorship % survival , weight gain 90 days (chronic) 7.74E+01 1.07E+0217.74E+0111.07E+02NITROBENZENENANANANANANANANANANANANA>+p,p'-DDDDDT used as a surrogateUSEPA, 1995mallardreproductionLOAEL2 years (chronic)NA 6.00E-010.16.00E-0216.00E-01>+p,p'-DDEDDT used as a surrogateUSEPA, 1995mallardreproductionLOAEL2 years (chronic)NA 6.00E-010.16.00E-0216.00E-01>+p,p'-DDTNAUSEPA, 1995mallardreproductionLOAEL2 years (chronic)NA 6.00E-010.16.00E-0216.00E-01>+ PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260) arochlor 1254 used as a surrogate Platonow and Reinhart, 1973chickenreproduction decreased egg production,concentration passed to the egg39 weeks (chronic)NA 8.80E-010.18.80E-0218.80E-0167 of 104Table 29Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Avian Wildlife ReceptorsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXStudySelectionChemicalFormPrimary ReferenceTest speciesEndpointMeasured EffectDurationNOAELDose(mg/kgbw-d)LOAELDose(mg/kgbw-d)UncertaintyFactor(for normalizedNOAEL)NormalizedNOAELTRV(mg/kgbw-d)UncertaintyFactor(for normalizedLOAEL)NormalizedLOAELTRV(mg/kgbw-d)>+ PENTACHLOROPHENOLNACampbell and Jaber, 1993 northern bobwhite survivorship% survivalSubacute2924860.012.920.014.86>+SELENIUMselenomethionineHeinz et al., 1989mallard duck reproduction impaired reproduction100 days (chronic) 4.00E-01 8.00E-0114.00E-0118.00E-01>SILVERNAUSEPA 1997mallard duckNANOAEL14 days (acute) 1.78E+03 NA0.01 1.78E+01 NANA+SILVERNAOPP, 2000northern bobwhite survivorshipLD5014 days (acute)NA 2.25E+03 NANA0.0122.5>+THALLIUMNASchafer 1972starlingsurvivorship% survival(acute)NA 5.30E+00 0.01 5.30E-020.1 5.30E-01>+TRIBUTYLTINbis tributyltin oxideSchlatterer et al., 1993 Coturnix japonica reproductionhatchability6 weeks (critical life stage)(chronic)6.76E+00 1.69E+0116.76E+0011.69E+01TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)NANANANANANANANANANANANATRICHLOROETHANENANANANANANANANANANANANA>VANADIUMvanadyl sulfateWhite and Dieter, 1978mallard duck survivorship, growth,systemicmortality, body weight, bloodchemistry12 weeks (chronic) 1.14E+01 NA11.14E+01 NANA>+ZINCzinc sulfateStahl et al. 1990chickenreproductionegg hatchability44 weeks (chronic) 1.45E+01 1.31E+0211.45E+0111.31E+02Notes:NOAEL = no observed adverse effect levelLOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level1) Selections of TRVs and application of Uncertainty Factors was performed in accordance withEcological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments(EPA, 1997)2) > denotes selected NOAEL endpoint study; + denotes selected LOAEL endpoint study; >+ denotes both NOAEL and LOAEL were selected from the same study3) the following preferences were used when selecting studies:NOAEL endpoints were given preference over LOAEL endpoints when both were available. Studies with LD50s as endpoints were only selected when studies for sublethal effects were not available.Chronic studies were selected over subchronic studies and subchronic studies were selected over acute studies when multiple studies of varying duration were available for selection.Studies with reproduction as the endpoint were selected before studies with mortality as the endpoint which were selected before studies with growth as the endpoint which were selected before studies with systemic effects as the endpoint.Studies with the most complete information and therefore the least resulting uncertainty were given preference in study selection.Studies from surrogate chemicals were only selected when no other study for a particular COC was found.4) Uncertainty factors were used to adjust all measured effect concentrations to chronic NOAELS and chronic LOAELs as follows:chronic LOAELS to chronic NOAELs = 0.1subchronic NOAELS to chronic NOAELs = 0.1subchronic LOAELs to chronic LOAELs = 0.1acute NOAELs to chronic NOAELs = .01acute LOAELs to chronic LOAELs = .015) Definitions of study duration for birdschronic = >10 weeks or during critical lifestagesubchronic = 4-10 weekssubacute = <4 weeks, multiple dosesacute = only one dose6) The one day old chick body weight from the Johnson et al. 1960 study on Barium was used as the body weight for chicken embryos in the Brunstrom et al. 1991 study on benzo(a)pyrene as a conservative measure (larger weight is conservative when used in c7) The weight of the red-winged black bird from the chlordane study (Stickel et al., 1983) was used for the weight for starling in Shafer 1972 Thallium study8) The study on aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures was selcted for all PAHs because using a mixture of these chemicals is more appropriate than using the value for just naphthalene.9) Complete references are available in the references section of the main body of the ERA68 of 104Table 30Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Mammalian Wildlife ReceptorsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXStudySelectionChemicalFormReferenceTest speciesEndpointMeasured EffectDurationNOAELDose(mg/kgbw-d)LOAELDose(mg/kgbw-d)Uncertainty Factor(for normalizedNOAEL)NormalizedNOAELTRV(mg/kgbw-d)Uncertainty Factor(for normalized LOAEL)NormalizedLOAELTRV(mg/kgbw-d)>4-METHYLPHENOL (p-CRESOL) 0-cresol used as a surrogate Hornshaw et al., 1986 minkreproductionNA6 months (chronic)2.19E+02NA12.19E+02NANA>+ALDRINNATreon and Cleveland, 1955 ratreproductionNOAEL and LOAEL3 generations (chronic)2.00E-011.00E+0012.00E-0111.00E+00>+ALPHA BHC (ALPHAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)BHC mixed isomersGrant et al .1977ratreproduction decreases litter size, reducedbirth weight, maternal mortality3 generations (>1 yr and criticallifestage)/ chronic5.63E-012.25E+0015.63E-0112.25E+00>+ALPHA-CHLORDANEchlordane used as surrogate WHO 1984 from Keplingeretal., 1968mousereproductionNA6 generations (chronic)4.58E+009.16E+0014.58E+0019.16E+00+ANTIMONYantimony potassium tartrate Poon et al., 1998ratgrowthbody weight13 weeks (chronic)6.10E+004.60E+0116.10E+0014.60E+01>BARIUMbarium chloridePerry et al., 1983ratgrowthgrowth and cardiovascularhypertension16 months (chronic)5.06E+00NA15.06E+00NANABENZALDEHYDENAKluwe et al., 1983mousesystemicforestomach lesions, kidneytoxicity13 weeks (chronic)1.43E+022.86E+0211.43E+0212.86E+02>BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATENANTP, 1997ratsystemicalterred liver weightchronic2.40E+02NA12.40E+02NANA>+BETA BHC (BETAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)BHC mixed isomersGrant et al .1977ratreproduction decreases litter size, reducedbirth weight, maternal mortality3 generations (>1 yr and criticallifestage)/ chronic5.63E-012.25E+0015.63E-0112.25E+00>BETA ENDOSULFANendosulfan used as a surrogate Dikshith et al., 1984ratreproduction, bloodchemistry30 days (subchronic)1.50E+00NA0.11.50E-01NANA>+ bis(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATENALamb et al., 1987mousereproductionreproductive effects 105 days (critical life stage)(chronic)1.83E+011.83E+0211.83E+0111.83E+02>+CADMIUMcadmium chlorideSutou et al., 1980ratreproductionno. live fetuses/female 6 weeks through reproduction(critical life stage) (chronic)1.00E+001.00E+0111.00E+0011.00E+01>+CARBAZOLENATsuda et al. 1982mousesurvivorshipmortality104 weeks (chronic)2.71E+005.42E+0012.71E+0015.42E+00>CHROMIUM, TOTALNAEco-SSL (USEPA, 2000) NANANA(chronic)2.45E+01NA12.45E+01NANA+CHROMIUM, TOTALK2Cr2O4Steven et al., 1976ratmortality3 months (chronic)NA1.31E+02NANA11.31E+02>+COPPERCuSO4*5H20Aulerich et al., 1982minkreproduction% kit survival357 days (chronic)1.17E+011.51E+0111.17E+0111.51E+01>+DELTA BHC (DELTAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)BHC mixed isomersGrant et al .1977ratreproduction decreases litter size, reducedbirth weight, maternal mortality3 generations (>1 yr and criticallifestage)/ chronic5.63E-012.25E+0015.63E-0112.25E+00>+DIELDRINNATreon and Cleveland, 1955 ratreproductionnumber of pregnancies 3 generations (chronic)NA2.00E-010.12.00E-0212.00E-01>ENDOSULFAN SULFATE endosulfan used as a surrogate Dikshith et al., 1984ratreproduction, bloodchemistry30 days (subchronic)1.50E+00NA0.11.50E-01NANA>+ENDRINNAGood and Waer 1969 mousereproductionLOAEL120 days(duringa critical lifestage(chronic)NA 9.20E-01 0.1 9.20E-02 1 9.20E-01>+ ENDRIN ALDEHYDE endrin used as surrogate Good and Waer 1969 mouse reproduction LOAEL 120 days(duringa critical lifestage(chronic)NA 9.20E-01 0.1 9.20E-02 1 9.20E-01>+ ENDRIN KETONE endrin used as surrogate Good and Waer 1969 mouse reproduction LOAEL 120 days(duringa critical lifestage(chronic)NA 9.20E-01 0.1 9.20E-02 1 9.20E-01>+ GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) BHC mixed isomers Grant et al .1977 rat reproduction decreases litter size, reducedbirth weight, maternal mortality3 generations (>1 yr and criticallifestage)/ chronic5.63E-012.25E+0015.63E-0112.25E+00>+GAMMA-CHLORDANEchlordane used as surrogate WHO 1984 from Keplingeretal., 1968mousereproductionNA6 generations (chronic)4.58E+009.16E+0014.58E+0019.16E+00>+HEPTACHLORNACrum et al.. 1993minkreproductionLOAEL181 days (chronic)NA1.00E+000.11.00E-0111.00E+00>+HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE heptachlor used as surrogate Crum et al.. 1993minkreproductionLOAEL181 days (chronic)NA1.00E+000.11.00E-0111.00E+00>+HPAHbenzo(a)pyrene Mackenzie and Angevine,1981mousereproduction reduced fertility in offspring 10 days (critical life-stage)(chronic)NA1.00E+010.11.00E+0011.00E+01>+LEADlead acetateRonis et al., 1998ratreproductionpup mortalitygestation through parturition(critical life stage) (chronic)3.20E+019.60E+0113.20E+0119.60E+01>+LPAHnaphthaleneNavarro et al., 1991ratreproduction maternal weight gain, litter size,fetal weightd 6-15 of gestation (critical lifestage) (chronic)5.00E+011.50E+0215.00E+0111.50E+02>+MANGANESEmanganese oxideLaskey et al., 1982ratreproductionfertility224 days (critical life stage)(chronic)8.80E+012.84E+0218.80E+0112.84E+02>+MERCURYMeHgClAulerich, 1974, Wobeser,1976, Wren et al., 1987,Dansereau et al., 1999minksurvivorship% survivalup to 2 generations (chronic) 7.70E-021.10E-0117.70E-0211.10E-01>+METHOXYCHLORNAGrey et al. 1988ratreproductionNOAEL and LOAEL 11 months(duringcritical lifestage)(chronic)4.00E+00 8.00E+00 1 4.00E+00 1 8.00E+00>+ NICKEL nickel sulfate hexahydrate Ambrose et al., 1976 rat reproduction reduced offspring body weightand kidney damage in young3 generations; 1 year (critical lifestage) (chronic)4.00E+01 8.00E+01 1 4.00E+01 1 8.00E+01>+PENTACHLOROPHENOL NAExon and Koller 1982 ratreproductionsignificantlydecreased litter sizeat 500 ppm, no significantchange number of kits, litsurvival at 50 ppm (PCP was85.5% pure) 90 days (critical life stage) (chrenic) 42.75 427.5 1 42.75 1 427.5>+p,p'-DDDDDT used as surrogateFitzhugh 1948ratreproductionNOAEL and LOAEL2 years (chronic)8.00E-014.00E+0018.00E-0114.00E+00>+p,p'-DDEDDT used as surrogateFitzhugh 1948ratreproductionNOAEL and LOAEL2 years (chronic)8.00E-014.00E+0018.00E-0114.00E+00>+p,p'-DDTNAFitzhugh 1948ratreproductionNOAEL and LOAEL2 years (chronic)8.00E-014.00E+0018.00E-0114.00E+00>+SILVERSilver nitrateACGIH, 1991ratgrowthweight gain reduction,elevatedmortality37 weeks (chronic)NA2.22E+020.12.22E+0112.22E+02>+THALLIUMNAFormigli et al. 1986ratreproductionmale testicular function 60 days prior to gestation (deliveryand lactation) (subchronic)NA7.40E-010.017.40E-0317.40E-01TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE)NABuben & O'Flaherty, 1985 mousesystemichepatotoxicitysubchronic1.43E+017.14E+010.11.43E+000.17.14E+00TRICHLOROETHANENANANANANANANANANANANANA>VANADIUMvanadyl sulfateSchroeder et al., 1970ratgrowth, survivorship growth rate, survival andlongevity, blood levels, heartweight and accumulation540 days (chronic)1.34E+00NA11.34E+00NANA+VANADIUMsodium metavanadate Domingo et al., 1986bratreproduction number of dead pups per litter 60 days prior to gestation (deliveryand lactation) (chronic)NA2.10E+00NANA12.10E+00>+ZINCzinc oxideStraube et al. 1980ferretsurvivorshipmortality~197 days (chronic)3.80E+011.10E+0213.80E+0111.10E+02Notes:NOAEL = no observed adverse effect levelLOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level1) Selections of TRVs and application of Uncertainty Factors was performed in accordance withEcological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments(EPA, 1997)69 of 104Table 30Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Mammalian Wildlife ReceptorsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXStudySelectionChemicalFormReferenceTest speciesEndpointMeasured EffectDurationNOAELDose(mg/kgbw-d)LOAELDose(mg/kgbw-d)Uncertainty Factor(for normalizedNOAEL)NormalizedNOAELTRV(mg/kgbw-d)Uncertainty Factor(for normalized LOAEL)NormalizedLOAELTRV(mg/kgbw-d)2) > denotes selected NOAEL endpoint study; + denotes selected LOAEL endpoint study; >+ denotes both NOAEL and LOAEL were selected from the same study3) the following preferences were used when selecting studies:NOAEL endpoints were given preference over LOAEL endpoints when both were available. Studies with LD50s as endpoints were only selected when studies for sublethal effects were not available.Chronic studies were selected over subchronic studies and subchronic studies were selected over acute studies when multiple studies of varying duration were available for selection.Studies with reproduction as the endpoint were selected before studies with mortality as the endpoint which were selected before studies with growth as the endpoint which were selected before studies with systemic effects as the endpoint.Studies with the most complete information and therefore the least resulting uncertainty were given preference in study selection.Studies from surrogate chemicals were only selected when no other study for a particular COC was found.4) Uncertainty factors were used to adjust all measured effect concentrations to chronic NOAELS and chronic LOAELs as follows:chronic LOAELS to chronic NOAELs = 0.1subchronic NOAELS to chronic NOAELs = 0.1subchronic LOAELs to chronic LOAELs = 0.1acute NOAELs to chronic NOAELs = .01acute LOAELs to chronic LOAELs = .015) Definitions of study duration for mammals.chronic = >12 weeks or during critical lifestagesubchronic = 4-12 weekssubacute = <4 weeks, multiple dosesacute = only one dose6) the weight of the ferret for the zinc TRV comes from http://www.ferrets-ferrets.com/70 of 104Table 31Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor (exposure area 1.00E+00Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction5.00E-01WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction2.40E-02BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSurface SoilExposure PointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE7.00E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.37E-02 1.15E-02 5.52E-02 2.77E-03 5.80E-02 1.16E-03 3.87E-04ACENAPHTHENE3.90E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.66E-02 9.65E-03 2.62E-02 1.54E-03 2.78E-02 5.55E-04 1.85E-04ACENAPHTHYLENE2.90E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.49E-01 5.26E-02 2.02E-01 1.15E-02 2.13E-01 4.26E-03 1.42E-03ALPHA-CHLORDANE3.00E-03 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1.05E-05 8.16E-03 8.17E-03 1.19E-05 8.18E-03 1.79E-03 8.93E-04ANTHRACENE2.90E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.04E-01 7.65E-02 1.80E-01 1.15E-02 1.92E-01 3.83E-03 1.28E-03ANTIMONY4.47E+01 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 1.84E-01 3.69E+00 3.87E+00 1.77E-01 4.05E+00 6.63E-01 8.80E-02BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE1.30E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.64E-02 2.89E-02 4.53E-02 5.15E-03 5.05E-02 5.05E-02 5.05E-03BENZO(A)PYRENE2.60E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.95E-02 7.29E-02 9.24E-02 1.03E-02 1.03E-01 1.03E-01 1.03E-02BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE3.60E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.69E-02 6.23E-02 8.93E-02 1.42E-02 1.04E-01 1.04E-01 1.04E-02BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE6.50E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.87E-03 1.13E-02 1.61E-02 2.57E-03 1.87E-02 1.87E-02 1.87E-03BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE8.80E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.91E-02 1.09E-01 1.48E-01 3.48E-02 1.83E-01 1.83E-01 1.83E-02BETA ENDOSULFAN8.10E-03 1.50E-01 NA 1.36E-04 2.05E-02 2.07E-02 3.21E-05 2.07E-02 1.38E-01 NABIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE4.90E+00 1.83E+01 1.83E+02 4.85E-03 1.41E+01 1.41E+01 1.94E-02 1.41E+01 7.70E-01 7.70E-02CADMIUM1.25E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.78E-02 8.13E-01 8.71E-01 4.93E-03 8.76E-01 8.76E-01 8.76E-02CARBAZOLE7.70E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 7.39E-02 1.81E+00 1.88E+00 3.05E-03 1.89E+00 6.96E-01 3.48E-01CHRYSENE3.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.29E-02 1.23E-01 1.66E-01 1.35E-02 1.80E-01 1.80E-01 1.80E-02COPPER1.35E+02 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 1.11E+00 1.61E+00 2.72E+00 5.36E-01 3.26E+00 2.78E-01 2.15E-01DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE4.60E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.04E-03 1.86E-02 2.06E-02 1.82E-03 2.24E-02 2.24E-02 2.24E-03DIBENZOFURAN2.10E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.02E-02 5.08E-01 5.18E-01 8.31E-04 5.19E-01 1.04E-02 3.46E-03ENDOSULFAN SULFATE9.20E-03 1.50E-01 NA 6.15E-04 7.59E-04 1.37E-03 3.64E-05 1.41E-03 9.40E-03 NAENDRIN1.40E-02 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 9.47E-05 4.14E-04 5.08E-04 5.54E-05 5.64E-04 6.13E-03 6.13E-04ENDRIN ALDEHYDE1.00E-02 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 5.58E-05 2.66E-02 2.67E-02 3.96E-05 2.67E-02 2.91E-01 2.91E-02ENDRIN KETONE9.90E-03 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.48E-04 2.52E-02 2.54E-02 3.92E-05 2.54E-02 2.76E-01 2.76E-02FLUORENE3.40E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.63E-02 5.61E-03 2.19E-02 1.35E-03 2.32E-02 4.65E-04 1.55E-04FLUORANTHENE2.50E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.31E-02 7.63E-02 1.29E-01 9.89E-03 1.39E-01 1.39E-01 1.39E-02GAMMA-CHLORDANE5.60E-03 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1.96E-05 1.52E-02 1.52E-02 2.22E-05 1.53E-02 3.33E-03 1.67E-03HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE5.10E-03 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.11E-04 3.53E-03 3.64E-03 2.02E-05 3.66E-03 3.66E-02 3.66E-0371 of 104Table 31Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor (exposure area 1.00E+00Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction5.00E-01WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction2.40E-02BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSurface SoilExposure PointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE3.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.33E-02 5.19E-02 6.53E-02 1.19E-02 7.72E-02 7.72E-02 7.72E-03LEAD2.17E+02 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 4.46E-01 5.09E+00 5.53E+00 8.57E-01 6.39E+00 2.00E-01 6.66E-02NAPHTHALENE8.60E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.72E-02 1.49E-02 1.02E-01 3.40E-03 1.06E-01 2.11E-03 7.03E-04P,P'-DDT9.10E-03 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 3.71E-05 4.20E-04 4.57E-04 3.60E-05 4.93E-04 6.17E-04 1.23E-04PHENANTHRENE2.50E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.94E-02 5.77E-02 1.47E-01 9.89E-03 1.57E-01 3.14E-03 1.05E-03PYRENE1.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.12E-01 3.22E-01 5.34E-01 3.96E-02 5.73E-01 5.73E-01 5.73E-02SILVER2.60E+00 2.22E+01 2.22E+02 2.14E-01 3.67E-01 5.81E-01 1.03E-02 5.91E-01 2.66E-02 2.66E-03ZINC2.83E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 9.15E+00 4.50E+01 5.41E+01 1.12E+00 5.52E+01 1.45E+00 5.01E-01Hazard Index for LPAHs5.16E-01 7.37E-01 1.25E+00 4.27E-02 1.30E+002.59E-02 8.64E-03Hazard Index for HPAHs4.30E-01 8.76E-01 1.31E+00 1.44E-01 1.45E+001.45E+00 1.45E-01Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAHmg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogramHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)body weight of receptor per day72 of 104Table 32Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Wastwater Treatment FacilityHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kgbw/d)1.65E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor 1.00E+00Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction5.00E-01WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate 5.00E-01BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion2.40E-02BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of PotentialConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointNOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlantChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebratesFood MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE2.20E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.37E-02 3.63E-03 1.74E-02 8.71E-04 1.82E-02 3.65E-04 1.22E-04ACENAPHTHENE8.50E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.61E-03 2.10E-03 5.71E-03 3.36E-04 6.05E-03 1.21E-04 4.03E-05ACENAPHTHYLENE3.50E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.80E-02 6.35E-03 2.43E-02 1.39E-03 2.57E-02 5.14E-04 1.71E-04ANTHRACENE4.50E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.61E-02 1.19E-02 2.80E-02 1.78E-03 2.97E-02 5.95E-04 1.98E-04ANTIMONY5.70E+00 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 2.35E-02 4.70E-01 4.93E-01 2.26E-02 5.16E-01 8.46E-02 1.12E-02BENZALDEHYDE5.10E-02 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 1.59E-02 1.14E-01 1.30E-01 2.02E-04 1.30E-01 9.08E-04 4.54E-04BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE8.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.05E-02 1.85E-02 2.89E-02 3.28E-03 3.22E-02 3.22E-02 3.22E-03BENZO(A)PYRENE6.50E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.87E-03 1.82E-02 2.31E-02 2.57E-03 2.57E-02 2.57E-02 2.57E-03BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE1.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.23E-03 1.90E-02 2.73E-02 4.35E-03 3.16E-02 3.16E-02 3.16E-03BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE2.40E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.07E-03 2.97E-03 4.04E-03 9.50E-04 4.98E-03 4.98E-03 4.98E-04BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE3.40E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.55E-03 5.89E-03 8.43E-03 1.35E-03 9.78E-03 9.78E-03 9.78E-04CADMIUM8.34E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.64E-02 5.91E-01 6.37E-01 3.30E-03 6.41E-01 6.41E-01 6.41E-02CARBAZOLE1.30E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 1.25E-02 3.05E-01 3.18E-01 5.15E-04 3.18E-01 1.17E-01 5.87E-02CHRYSENE1.30E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.64E-02 4.72E-02 6.36E-02 5.15E-03 6.87E-02 6.87E-02 6.87E-03COPPER2.55E+02 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 1.43E+00 1.90E+00 3.33E+00 1.01E+00 4.34E+00 3.71E-01 2.87E-01DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.44E-04 4.04E-03 4.48E-03 3.96E-04 4.88E-03 4.88E-03 4.88E-04DIBENZOFURAN3.30E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.61E-03 7.99E-02 8.15E-02 1.31E-04 8.16E-02 1.63E-03 5.44E-04FLUORANTHENE2.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.67E-02 6.71E-02 1.14E-01 8.71E-03 1.23E-01 1.23E-01 1.23E-02FLUORENE9.70E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.65E-03 1.60E-03 6.24E-03 3.84E-04 6.63E-03 1.33E-04 4.42E-05INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE4.20E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.87E-03 7.27E-03 9.14E-03 1.66E-03 1.08E-02 1.08E-02 1.08E-03LEAD1.29E+02 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 3.34E-01 1.62E+01 1.66E+01 5.12E-01 1.71E+01 5.34E-01 1.78E-01MERCURY6.48E-01 7.70E-02 1.10E-01 2.40E-02 3.95E-02 6.36E-02 2.56E-03 6.61E-02 8.59E-01 6.01E-01NAPHTHALENE1.20E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.22E-02 2.08E-03 1.42E-02 4.75E-04 1.47E-02 2.94E-04 9.82E-05PHENANTHRENE1.10E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.93E-02 2.54E-02 6.47E-02 4.35E-03 6.91E-02 1.38E-03 4.61E-04PYRENE1.60E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.40E-02 5.15E-02 8.54E-02 6.33E-03 9.18E-02 9.18E-02 9.18E-03SILVER1.40E+00 2.22E+01 2.22E+02 1.15E-01 1.97E-01 3.13E-01 5.54E-03 3.18E-01 1.43E-02 1.43E-0373 of 104Table 32Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Wastwater Treatment FacilityHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kgbw/d)1.65E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor 1.00E+00Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction5.00E-01WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate 5.00E-01BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion2.40E-02BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of PotentialConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointNOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlantChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebratesFood MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientZINC5.96E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.38E+01 5.74E+01 7.12E+01 2.36E+00 7.35E+01 1.93E+00 6.67E-01Hazard Index for LPAHs1.09E-01 1.33E-01 2.42E-01 9.72E-03 2.52E-015.04E-03 1.68E-03Hazard Index for HPAHs1.27E-01 2.42E-01 3.68E-01 3.47E-02 4.03E-014.03E-01 4.03E-02Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogramHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydro body weight of receptor per day74 of 104Table 33Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Current Aboveground Storage TanksHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kgbw/d) 1.65E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor (exposure 9.31E-01Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction5.00E-01WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion2.40E-02BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSoilExposurePointConcentratNOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)Intake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)Intake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE1.10E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 6.40E-03 1.69E-03 8.08E-03 4.05E-04 8.49E-03 1.70E-04 5.66E-054-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)4.60E-02 2.19E+02 NA 1.16E-02 9.61E-02 1.08E-01 1.70E-04 1.08E-01 4.92E-04 NAACENAPHTHENE4.60E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.82E-02 1.06E-02 2.88E-02 1.70E-03 3.05E-02 6.10E-04 2.03E-04ACENAPHTHYLENE1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.61E-03 3.04E-03 1.17E-02 6.63E-04 1.23E-02 2.46E-04 8.21E-05ANTHRACENE1.50E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.99E-02 3.69E-02 8.68E-02 5.53E-03 9.23E-02 1.85E-03 6.16E-04ANTIMONY2.50E+00 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 9.60E-03 1.92E-01 2.02E-01 9.21E-03 2.11E-01 3.45E-02 4.58E-03BENZALDEHYDE3.20E-02 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 9.31E-03 6.64E-02 7.57E-02 1.18E-04 7.59E-02 5.31E-04 2.65E-04BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE3.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.52E-02 6.22E-02 9.74E-02 1.11E-02 1.08E-01 1.08E-01 1.08E-02BENZO(A)PYRENE2.70E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.88E-02 7.05E-02 8.93E-02 9.95E-03 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-03BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE4.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.07E-02 7.09E-02 1.02E-01 1.62E-02 1.18E-01 1.18E-01 1.18E-02BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE9.70E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.01E-03 1.12E-02 1.52E-02 3.57E-03 1.88E-02 1.88E-02 1.88E-03BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE1.80E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.25E-02 2.90E-02 4.16E-02 6.63E-03 4.82E-02 4.82E-02 4.82E-03BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE3.00E-02 2.40E+02 NA 6.42E-04 6.99E-02 7.05E-02 1.11E-04 7.06E-02 2.94E-04 NACADMIUM4.80E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.19E-02 3.55E-01 3.87E-01 1.77E-03 3.88E-01 3.88E-01 3.88E-02CARBAZOLE2.30E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 2.06E-02 5.03E-01 5.24E-01 8.48E-04 5.24E-01 1.94E-01 9.68E-02CHROMIUM, TOTAL1.26E+02 2.45E+01 1.31E+02 3.87E-01 3.06E+01 3.10E+01 4.64E-01 3.14E+01 1.28E+00 2.39E-01CHRYSENE2.80E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.29E-02 9.46E-02 1.27E-01 1.03E-02 1.38E-01 1.38E-01 1.38E-02DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE3.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.37E-03 1.24E-02 1.38E-02 1.22E-03 1.50E-02 1.50E-02 1.50E-03DIBENZOFURAN1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.16E-03 4.06E-01 4.14E-01 6.63E-04 4.14E-01 8.29E-03 2.76E-03FLUORANTHENE1.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.98E-01 2.84E-01 4.82E-01 3.69E-02 5.19E-01 5.19E-01 5.19E-02FLUORENE4.70E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.10E-02 7.22E-03 2.82E-02 1.73E-03 2.99E-02 5.98E-04 1.99E-04INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE1.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.55E-03 1.77E-02 2.23E-02 4.05E-03 2.63E-02 2.63E-02 2.63E-03LEAD5.58E+02 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 7.07E-01 6.52E+01 6.59E+01 2.06E+00 6.80E+01 2.12E+00 7.08E-01MANGANESE3.79E+02 8.80E+01 2.84E+02 1.98E+01 1.96E+00 2.17E+01 1.40E+00 2.31E+01 2.63E-01 8.15E-02MERCURY1.30E-01 7.70E-02 1.10E-01 9.35E-03 3.05E-02 3.98E-02 4.79E-04 4.03E-02 5.23E-01 3.66E-01NAPHTHALENE7.80E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 7.37E-03 1.26E-03 8.62E-03 2.87E-04 8.91E-03 1.78E-04 5.94E-05PENTACHLOROPHENOL2.80E-01 4.28E+01 4.28E+02 4.04E-05 1.29E+01 1.29E+01 1.03E-03 1.29E+01 3.02E-01 3.02E-02PHENANTHRENE3.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.27E-01 8.17E-02 2.08E-01 1.40E-02 2.22E-01 4.44E-03 1.48E-0375 of 104Table 33Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Current Aboveground Storage TanksHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kgbw/d) 1.65E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor (exposure 9.31E-01Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction5.00E-01WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion2.40E-02BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSoilExposurePointConcentratNOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)Intake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)Intake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientPYRENE8.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.66E-01 2.52E-01 4.18E-01 3.10E-02 4.49E-01 4.49E-01 4.49E-02SILVER9.60E-01 2.22E+01 2.22E+02 7.37E-02 1.26E-01 2.00E-01 3.54E-03 2.03E-01 9.16E-03 9.16E-04VANADIUM3.10E+01 1.34E+00 2.10E+00 1.31E-02 2.09E-01 2.23E-01 1.14E-01 3.37E-01 2.51E-01 1.60E-01ZINC4.84E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.15E+01 4.99E+01 6.14E+01 1.78E+00 6.31E+01 1.66E+00 5.73E-01Hazard Index for LPAHs2.46E-01 5.48E-01 7.94E-01 2.50E-02 8.19E-011.64E-02 5.46E-03Hazard Index for HPAHs5.04E-01 9.04E-01 1.41E+00 1.31E-01 1.54E+001.54E+00 1.54E-01Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAHmg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogramHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) body weight of receptor per day76 of 104Table 34HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Maintenance Shed AreaHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor (exposure areadivided by home range)1.00E+00Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction5.00E-01WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction2.40E-02BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.12E-02 2.97E-03 1.42E-02 7.12E-04 1.49E-02 2.98E-04 9.95E-05ACENAPHTHENE3.30E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.40E-03 8.16E-04 2.22E-03 1.31E-04 2.35E-03 4.70E-05 1.57E-05ACENAPHTHYLENE2.90E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.49E-02 5.26E-03 2.02E-02 1.15E-03 2.13E-02 4.26E-04 1.42E-04ALDRIN1.10E-02 2.00E-01 1.00E+00 4.67E-05 2.97E-02 2.97E-02 4.35E-05 2.97E-02 1.49E-01 2.97E-02ANTHRACENE2.90E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.04E-02 7.65E-03 1.80E-02 1.15E-03 1.92E-02 3.83E-04 1.28E-04BENZALDEHYDE1.10E-02 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 3.44E-03 2.45E-02 2.80E-02 4.35E-05 2.80E-02 1.96E-04 9.79E-05BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE9.70E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.22E-02 2.16E-02 3.38E-02 3.84E-03 3.77E-02 3.77E-02 3.77E-03BENZO(A)PYRENE1.30E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 9.73E-03 3.64E-02 4.62E-02 5.15E-03 5.13E-02 5.13E-02 5.13E-03BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE3.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.55E-02 5.89E-02 8.43E-02 1.35E-02 9.78E-02 9.78E-02 9.78E-03BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE1.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.33E-03 1.48E-02 2.02E-02 4.75E-03 2.49E-02 2.49E-02 2.49E-03BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE2.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.80E-02 4.16E-02 5.95E-02 9.50E-03 6.90E-02 6.90E-02 6.90E-03BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 1.30E-01 2.40E+02 NA 2.99E-03 3.25E-01 3.28E-01 5.15E-04 3.29E-01 1.37E-03 NABETA ENDOSULFAN1.00E-01 1.50E-01 NA 1.68E-03 2.54E-01 2.55E-01 3.96E-04 2.56E-01 1.71E+00 NACADMIUM4.20E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.19E-02 3.43E-01 3.74E-01 1.66E-03 3.76E-01 3.76E-01 3.76E-02CARBAZOLE3.00E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 2.88E-02 7.05E-01 7.33E-01 1.19E-03 7.35E-01 2.71E-01 1.36E-01CHRYSENE1.70E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.14E-02 6.17E-02 8.31E-02 6.73E-03 8.98E-02 8.98E-02 8.98E-03DELTA BHC (DELTAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)2.30E-02 5.63E-01 2.25E+00 1.12E-03 5.57E-02 5.68E-02 9.10E-05 5.69E-02 1.01E-01 2.53E-02DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE4.90E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.18E-03 1.98E-02 2.20E-02 1.94E-03 2.39E-02 2.39E-02 2.39E-03DIBENZOFURAN8.20E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.99E-03 1.98E-01 2.02E-01 3.25E-04 2.03E-01 4.06E-03 1.35E-03DIELDRIN5.40E-02 2.00E-02 2.00E-01 7.26E-04 1.74E-02 1.81E-02 2.14E-04 1.83E-02 9.15E-01 9.15E-02ENDOSULFAN SULFATE3.90E-02 1.50E-01 NA 2.61E-03 3.22E-03 5.82E-03 1.54E-04 5.98E-03 3.98E-02 NAENDRIN1.65E-03 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.12E-05 4.88E-05 5.99E-05 6.53E-06 6.64E-05 7.22E-04 7.22E-05ENDRIN ALDEHYDE5.20E-02 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 2.90E-04 1.38E-01 1.39E-01 2.06E-04 1.39E-01 1.51E+00 1.51E-0177 of 104Table 34HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Maintenance Shed AreaHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor (exposure areadivided by home range)1.00E+00Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction5.00E-01WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction2.40E-02BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientFLUORANTHENE3.50E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 7.43E-02 1.07E-01 1.81E-01 1.39E-02 1.95E-01 1.95E-01 1.95E-02FLUORENE9.80E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.69E-03 1.62E-03 6.31E-03 3.88E-04 6.70E-03 1.34E-04 4.46E-05GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)5.90E-03 5.63E-01 2.25E+00 2.28E-04 1.44E-02 1.47E-02 2.34E-05 1.47E-02 2.61E-02 6.52E-03GAMMA-CHLORDANE3.60E-02 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1.26E-04 9.79E-02 9.80E-02 1.42E-04 9.81E-02 2.14E-02 1.07E-02HEPTACHLOR7.90E-03 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 5.42E-05 5.47E-03 5.53E-03 3.13E-05 5.56E-03 5.56E-02 5.56E-03HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE4.10E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 8.92E-04 2.84E-02 2.93E-02 1.62E-04 2.95E-02 2.95E-01 2.95E-02INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.44E-03 1.73E-02 2.18E-02 3.96E-03 2.57E-02 2.57E-02 2.57E-03NAPHTHALENE 1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.83E-02 3.12E-03 2.14E-02 7.12E-04 2.21E-02 4.42E-04 1.47E-04P,P'-DDD1.50E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 1.38E-01 3.34E-01 4.72E-01 5.94E-02 5.32E-01 6.65E-01 1.33E-01P,P'-DDE5.00E-02 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 4.14E-04 2.47E-02 2.51E-02 1.98E-04 2.53E-02 3.17E-02 6.34E-03P,P'-DDT5.70E-02 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 2.32E-04 2.63E-03 2.86E-03 2.26E-04 3.09E-03 3.86E-03 7.72E-04PHENANTHRENE1.20E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.29E-02 2.77E-02 7.06E-02 4.75E-03 7.54E-02 1.51E-03 5.02E-04PYRENE4.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.49E-02 1.29E-01 2.14E-01 1.58E-02 2.29E-01 2.29E-01 2.29E-02ZINC1.06E+03 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.90E+01 6.93E+01 8.84E+01 4.20E+00 9.26E+01 2.44E+00 8.40E-01Hazard Index for LPAHs1.08E-01 2.48E-01 3.55E-01 9.31E-03 3.65E-017.29E-03 2.43E-03Hazard Index for HPAHs1.73E-01 3.79E-01 5.52E-01 6.32E-02 6.15E-016.15E-01 6.15E-02Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAHmg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogramHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) body weight of receptor per day78 of 104Table 35HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Tar Burn AreaHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01WhereAUF - area use factor (exposure areadivided by home range)1.00E+00Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction5.00E-01Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction2.40E-02BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsBAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 4.20E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.62E-03 6.93E-04 3.31E-03 1.66E-04 3.48E-03 6.96E-05 2.32E-05ACENAPHTHENE3.50E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.49E-03 8.66E-04 2.35E-03 1.39E-04 2.49E-03 4.98E-05 1.66E-05ACENAPHTHYLENE4.50E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.31E-02 8.16E-03 3.13E-02 1.78E-03 3.31E-02 6.61E-04 2.20E-04ANTHRACENE3.90E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.39E-02 1.03E-02 2.42E-02 1.54E-03 2.58E-02 5.16E-04 1.72E-04ANTIMONY6.00E+00 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 2.47E-02 4.95E-01 5.19E-01 2.37E-02 5.43E-01 8.90E-02 1.18E-02BENZALDEHYDE6.30E+00 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 1.97E+00 1.40E+01 1.60E+01 2.49E-02 1.60E+01 1.12E-01 5.61E-02BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 9.20E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.16E-02 2.05E-02 3.21E-02 3.64E-03 3.57E-02 3.57E-02 3.57E-03BENZO(A)PYRENE1.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.98E-03 3.36E-02 4.26E-02 4.75E-03 4.74E-02 4.74E-02 4.74E-03BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 1.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.98E-03 2.08E-02 2.98E-02 4.75E-03 3.45E-02 3.45E-02 3.45E-03BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 4.60E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.04E-03 5.69E-03 7.73E-03 1.82E-03 9.55E-03 9.55E-03 9.55E-04BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 1.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.05E-02 2.42E-02 3.47E-02 5.54E-03 4.03E-02 4.03E-02 4.03E-03BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 5.20E-01 2.40E+02 NA 1.19E-02 1.30E+00 1.31E+00 2.06E-03 1.32E+00 5.48E-03 NABIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 4.70E+00 1.83E+01 1.83E+02 4.65E-03 1.35E+01 1.35E+01 1.86E-02 1.35E+01 7.38E-01 7.38E-02CADMIUM1.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.40E-02 7.37E-01 7.91E-01 4.35E-03 7.95E-01 7.95E-01 7.95E-02CARBAZOLE2.90E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 2.78E-02 6.81E-01 7.09E-01 1.15E-03 7.10E-01 2.62E-01 1.31E-01CHRYSENE1.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.39E-02 3.99E-02 5.38E-02 4.35E-03 5.81E-02 5.81E-02 5.81E-03COPPER1.55E+02 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 1.17E+00 1.67E+00 2.84E+00 6.13E-01 3.45E+00 2.95E-01 2.28E-01DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 2.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.02E-03 9.29E-03 1.03E-02 9.10E-04 1.12E-02 1.12E-02 1.12E-03DIBENZOFURAN4.40E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.14E-03 1.06E-01 1.09E-01 1.74E-04 1.09E-01 2.18E-03 7.25E-04FLUORANTHENE1.90E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.03E-02 5.80E-02 9.83E-02 7.52E-03 1.06E-01 1.06E-01 1.06E-02FLUORENE1.20E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 5.75E-03 1.98E-03 7.73E-03 4.75E-04 8.20E-03 1.64E-04 5.47E-05INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 7.40E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.29E-03 1.28E-02 1.61E-02 2.93E-03 1.90E-02 1.90E-02 1.90E-03MERCURY3.10E-01 7.70E-02 1.10E-01 1.61E-02 3.62E-02 5.23E-02 1.23E-03 5.36E-02 6.96E-01 4.87E-01NAPHTHALENE5.20E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 5.27E-03 9.00E-04 6.17E-03 2.06E-04 6.38E-03 1.28E-04 4.25E-0579 of 104Table 35HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Tar Burn AreaHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01WhereAUF - area use factor (exposure areadivided by home range)1.00E+00Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction5.00E-01Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction2.40E-02BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsBAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientPHENANTHRENE9.30E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.33E-02 2.15E-02 5.47E-02 3.68E-03 5.84E-02 1.17E-03 3.89E-04PYRENE1.50E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.18E-02 4.82E-02 8.01E-02 5.94E-03 8.60E-02 8.60E-02 8.60E-03ZINC4.24E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.14E+01 5.13E+01 6.27E+01 1.68E+00 6.44E+01 1.69E+00 5.85E-01Hazard Index for LPAHs8.76E-02 1.51E-01 2.38E-01 8.16E-03 2.47E-014.93E-03 1.64E-03Hazard Index for HPAHs1.32E-01 2.73E-01 4.06E-01 4.21E-02 4.48E-014.48E-01 4.48E-02Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAHmg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogramHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHbody weight of receptor per day80 of 104Table 36HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Lauren Tank FarmHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 WhereAUF - area use factor (exposure area divided by homerange) 1.00E+00Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction5.00E-01Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction5.00E-01WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction2.40E-02BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsBAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE1.60E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 9.99E-02 2.64E-02 1.26E-01 6.33E-03 1.33E-01 2.65E-03 8.84E-044-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)1.10E-01 2.19E+02 NA 2.98E-02 2.47E-01 2.77E-01 4.35E-04 2.77E-01 1.26E-03 NAACENAPHTHENE6.40E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.72E-03 1.58E-03 4.30E-03 2.53E-04 4.55E-03 9.11E-05 3.04E-05ACENAPHTHYLENE9.10E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.68E-02 1.65E-02 6.33E-02 3.60E-03 6.69E-02 1.34E-03 4.46E-04ALPHA-CHLORDANE2.16E+00 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 7.54E-03 5.87E+00 5.88E+00 8.55E-03 5.89E+00 1.29E+00 6.43E-01ANTHRACENE1.10E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.93E-02 2.90E-02 6.84E-02 4.35E-03 7.27E-02 1.45E-03 4.85E-04BENZALDEHYDE9.70E-02 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 3.03E-02 2.16E-01 2.47E-01 3.84E-04 2.47E-01 1.73E-03 8.63E-04BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE3.99E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.03E-02 8.87E-02 1.39E-01 1.58E-02 1.55E-01 1.55E-01 1.55E-02BENZO(A)PYRENE4.68E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.50E-02 1.31E-01 1.66E-01 1.85E-02 1.85E-01 1.85E-01 1.85E-02BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE6.02E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.51E-02 1.04E-01 1.49E-01 2.38E-02 1.73E-01 1.73E-01 1.73E-02BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE2.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 9.33E-03 2.60E-02 3.53E-02 8.31E-03 4.36E-02 4.36E-02 4.36E-03BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE2.50E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.87E-02 4.33E-02 6.20E-02 9.89E-03 7.19E-02 7.19E-02 7.19E-03BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE2.40E-02 2.40E+02 NA 5.51E-04 6.00E-02 6.06E-02 9.50E-05 6.07E-02 2.53E-04 NABIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE1.90E+00 1.83E+01 1.83E+02 1.88E-03 5.46E+00 5.46E+00 7.52E-03 5.47E+00 2.98E-01 2.98E-02CADMIUM1.70E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 6.84E-02 1.04E+00 1.11E+00 6.73E-03 1.12E+00 1.12E+00 1.12E-01CARBAZOLE5.20E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 4.99E-02 1.22E+00 1.27E+00 2.06E-03 1.27E+00 4.70E-01 2.35E-01CHRYSENE4.91E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 6.19E-02 1.78E-01 2.40E-01 1.94E-02 2.60E-01 2.60E-01 2.60E-02COPPER1.33E+03 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 2.74E+00 2.94E+00 5.68E+00 5.27E+00 1.09E+01 9.36E-01 7.23E-01DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE9.40E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.18E-03 3.80E-02 4.22E-02 3.72E-03 4.59E-02 4.59E-02 4.59E-03DIBENZOFURAN1.30E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 6.33E-03 3.15E-01 3.21E-01 5.15E-04 3.21E-01 6.43E-03 2.14E-03DIELDRIN5.30E-03 2.00E-02 2.00E-01 7.13E-05 1.70E-03 1.78E-03 2.10E-05 1.80E-03 8.98E-02 8.98E-03ENDRIN ALDEHYDE1.83E+00 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.02E-02 4.87E+00 4.88E+00 7.24E-03 4.89E+00 5.32E+01 5.32E+00FLUORANTHENE6.44E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.37E-01 1.96E-01 3.33E-01 2.55E-02 3.58E-01 3.58E-01 3.58E-02FLUORENE1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.62E-03 2.97E-03 1.16E-02 7.12E-04 1.23E-02 2.46E-04 8.20E-05GAMMA-CHLORDANE7.80E-03 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 2.73E-05 2.12E-02 2.12E-02 3.09E-05 2.13E-02 4.64E-03 2.32E-03HEPTACHLOR3.10E-03 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 2.13E-05 2.15E-03 2.17E-03 1.23E-05 2.18E-03 2.18E-02 2.18E-03INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE6.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.80E-03 1.09E-02 1.37E-02 2.49E-03 1.62E-02 1.62E-02 1.62E-03LEAD1.03E+03 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 1.07E+00 1.79E+01 1.90E+01 4.08E+00 2.30E+01 7.20E-01 2.40E-01NAPHTHALENE1.40E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.42E-01 2.42E-02 1.66E-01 5.54E-03 1.72E-01 3.44E-03 1.15E-0381 of 104Table 36HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Lauren Tank FarmHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 WhereAUF - area use factor (exposure area divided by homerange) 1.00E+00Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction5.00E-01Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction5.00E-01WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction2.40E-02BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsBAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientP,P'-DDD9.10E-03 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 8.39E-05 2.03E-04 2.87E-04 3.60E-05 3.23E-04 4.03E-04 8.06E-05P,P'-DDT7.60E-03 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 3.10E-05 3.51E-04 3.82E-04 3.01E-05 4.12E-04 5.15E-04 1.03E-04PHENANTHRENE2.00E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 7.15E-02 4.62E-02 1.18E-01 7.92E-03 1.26E-01 2.51E-03 8.37E-04PYRENE6.32E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.34E-01 2.03E-01 3.37E-01 2.50E-02 3.62E-01 3.62E-01 3.62E-02ZINC4.44E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.17E+01 5.21E+01 6.38E+01 1.76E+00 6.56E+01 1.73E+00 5.95E-01Hazard Index for LPAHs4.17E-01 4.62E-01 8.79E-01 2.92E-02 9.08E-011.82E-02 6.05E-03Hazard Index for HPAHs4.98E-01 1.02E+00 1.52E+00 1.52E-01 1.67E+001.67E+00 1.67E-01Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAHmg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogramHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) body weight of receptor per day82 of 104Table 37HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Non-source AreaHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed MouseFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 WhereAUF - area use factor (exposure area divided by homerange) 1.00E+00Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction5.00E-01 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction2.40E-02 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsBAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE1.90E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.19E-01 3.13E-02 1.50E-01 7.52E-03 1.57E-01 3.15E-03 1.05E-03ACENAPHTHENE9.60E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.08E-01 2.37E-01 6.45E-01 3.80E-02 6.83E-01 1.37E-02 4.55E-03ACENAPHTHYLENE5.00E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.57E-01 9.07E-02 3.48E-01 1.98E-02 3.67E-01 7.35E-03 2.45E-03ANTHRACENE1.30E+01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.65E-01 3.43E-01 8.08E-01 5.15E-02 8.59E-01 1.72E-02 5.73E-03BENZALDEHYDE1.50E-01 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 4.69E-02 3.34E-01 3.81E-01 5.94E-04 3.82E-01 2.67E-03 1.34E-03BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE2.40E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.03E-01 5.34E-01 8.37E-01 9.50E-02 9.32E-01 9.32E-01 9.32E-02BENZO(A)PYRENE1.90E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.42E-01 5.33E-01 6.75E-01 7.52E-02 7.50E-01 7.50E-01 7.50E-02BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE2.50E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.87E-01 4.33E-01 6.20E-01 9.89E-02 7.19E-01 7.19E-01 7.19E-02BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE4.30E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.91E-02 5.32E-02 7.23E-02 1.70E-02 8.93E-02 8.93E-02 8.93E-03BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE1.20E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.98E-02 2.08E-01 2.98E-01 4.75E-02 3.45E-01 3.45E-01 3.45E-02BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE2.60E-01 2.40E+02 NA 5.97E-03 6.51E-01 6.56E-01 1.03E-03 6.58E-01 2.74E-03 NABIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE3.20E+00 1.83E+01 1.83E+02 3.17E-03 9.20E+00 9.20E+00 1.27E-02 9.21E+00 5.03E-01 5.03E-02CADMIUM1.15E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.94E-01 4.76E+00 4.95E+00 4.55E-02 5.00E+00 5.00E+00 5.00E-01CARBAZOLE1.29E+00 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 1.24E-01 3.02E+00 3.15E+00 5.10E-03 3.15E+00 1.16E+00 5.82E-01CHRYSENE2.10E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.65E-01 7.62E-01 1.03E+00 8.31E-02 1.11E+00 1.11E+00 1.11E-01DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE2.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 9.78E-03 8.89E-02 9.87E-02 8.71E-03 1.07E-01 1.07E-01 1.07E-02DIBENZOFURAN3.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.85E-01 9.20E+00 9.38E+00 1.50E-02 9.40E+00 1.88E-01 6.26E-02DIELDRIN6.75E+00 2.00E-02 2.00E-01 9.08E-02 2.17E+00 2.26E+00 2.67E-02 2.29E+00 1.14E+02 1.14E+01ENDRIN ALDEHYDE1.30E+01 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 7.26E-02 3.46E+01 3.47E+01 5.15E-02 3.47E+01 3.78E+02 3.78E+01FLUORANTHENE6.20E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.32E+00 1.89E+00 3.21E+00 2.45E-01 3.45E+00 3.45E+00 3.45E-01FLUORENE8.10E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.88E-01 1.34E-01 5.21E-01 3.21E-02 5.54E-01 1.11E-02 3.69E-03HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE6.00E+00 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.31E-01 4.16E+00 4.29E+00 2.37E-02 4.31E+00 4.31E+01 4.31E+00INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE6.90E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.07E-02 1.19E-01 1.50E-01 2.73E-02 1.77E-01 1.77E-01 1.77E-02NAPHTHALENE6.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 6.90E-01 1.18E-01 8.07E-01 2.69E-02 8.34E-01 1.67E-02 5.56E-03P,P'-DDD1.10E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 1.01E-01 2.45E-01 3.46E-01 4.35E-02 3.90E-01 4.87E-01 9.75E-02P,P'-DDE2.50E+00 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 2.07E-02 1.24E+00 1.26E+00 9.89E-03 1.27E+00 1.58E+00 3.17E-01PHENANTHRENE5.30E+01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.90E+00 1.22E+00 3.12E+00 2.10E-01 3.33E+00 6.66E-02 2.22E-02PYRENE4.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.49E-01 1.29E+00 2.14E+00 1.58E-01 2.29E+00 2.29E+00 2.29E-01ZINC5.05E+01 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 3.51E+00 2.55E+01 2.90E+01 2.00E-01 2.92E+01 7.69E-01 2.65E-01Hazard Index for LPAHs4.41E+00 1.14E+01 1.58E+01 4.01E-01 1.62E+013.24E-01 1.08E-0183 of 104Hazard Index for HPAHs3.21E+00 5.91E+00 9.12E+00 8.56E-01 9.98E+009.98E+00 9.98E-01Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogramHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) body weight of receptor per day84 of 104Table 38Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the Northern Bobwhite Quail in the Upland AreaHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Northern Bobwhite QuailWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.11E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COCAUF - area use factor (exposure area 9.54E-01in soil at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction1.00E+00Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * ( PF * BAFP )TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction9.30E-02Contaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmedia intake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE1.90E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 1.52E-01 1.52E-01 1.87E-02 1.71E-01 5.26E-03 5.26E-044-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)1.10E-01 1.25E+00 NA 3.83E-02 3.83E-02 1.08E-03 3.94E-02 3.15E-02 NAACENAPHTHENE9.60E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.523269365 5.23E-01 9.45E-02 6.18E-01 1.90E-02 1.90E-03ACENAPHTHYLENE5.00E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.30E-01 3.30E-01 4.92E-02 3.79E-01 1.17E-02 1.17E-03ALPHA-CHLORDANE1.30E+01 2.14E+00 1.07E+01 5.82E-02 5.82E-02 1.28E-01 1.86E-01 8.70E-02 1.74E-02ALDRIN1.10E-02 7.30E-03 7.30E-02 5.99E-05 5.99E-05 1.08E-04 1.68E-04 2.30E-02 2.30E-03ANTHRACENE1.30E+01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 5.97E-01 5.97E-01 1.28E-01 7.25E-01 2.23E-02 2.23E-03ANTIMONY4.47E+01 NA NA 2.37E-01 2.37E-01 4.40E-01 6.77E-01 NA NABENZALDEHYDE6.30E+00 NA NA 2.53E+00 2.53E+00 6.20E-02 2.59E+00 NA NABENZO(A)ANTHRACENE2.40E+01 1.96E+01 NA 3.88E-01 3.88E-01 2.36E-01 6.25E-01 3.19E-02 NABENZO(A)PYRENE1.90E+01 1.96E+01 NA 1.83E-01 1.83E-01 1.87E-01 3.70E-01 1.89E-02 NABENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE2.50E+01 1.96E+01 NA 2.40E-01 2.40E-01 2.46E-01 4.86E-01 2.48E-02 NABENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE1.20E+01 1.96E+01 NA 1.15E-01 1.15E-01 1.18E-01 2.33E-01 1.19E-02 NABENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE8.80E+00 1.96E+01 NA 5.02E-02 5.02E-02 8.66E-02 1.37E-01 6.98E-03 NABENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE5.20E-01 NA NA 1.53E-02 1.53E-02 5.12E-03 2.04E-02 NA NABETA ENDOSULFAN1.30E+01 1.00E+01 NA 2.80E-01 2.80E-01 1.28E-01 4.08E-01 4.08E-02 NABIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE4.90E+00 1.11E+00 NA 6.22E-03 6.22E-03 4.82E-02 5.45E-02 4.91E-02 NACADMIUM1.15E+01 6.10E-01 2.40E+00 2.50E-01 2.50E-01 1.13E-01 3.63E-01 5.95E-01 1.51E-01CARBAZOLE7.50E+00 NA NA 9.24E-01 9.24E-01 7.38E-02 9.98E-01 NA NACHROMIUM, TOTAL1.26E+02 1.00E+00 5.00E+00 5.33E-01 5.33E-01 1.24E+00 1.77E+00 1.77E+00 3.55E-01CHRYSENE2.10E+01 1.96E+01 NA 3.40E-01 3.40E-01 2.07E-01 5.47E-01 2.79E-02 NACOPPER2.98E+02 4.70E+00 6.17E+00 1.95E+00 1.95E+00 2.93E+00 4.88E+00 1.04E+00 7.91E-0185 of 104Table 38Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the Northern Bobwhite Quail in the Upland AreaHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Northern Bobwhite QuailWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.11E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COCAUF - area use factor (exposure area 9.54E-01in soil at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction1.00E+00Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * ( PF * BAFP )TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction9.30E-02Contaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmedia intake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientDELTA BHC (DELTAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)2.30E-02 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 1.43E-03 1.43E-03 2.26E-04 1.66E-03 8.30E-04 8.30E-05DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE2.20E+00 1.96E+01 NA 1.26E-02 1.26E-02 2.17E-02 3.42E-02 1.75E-03 NADIBENZOFURAN3.80E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.38E-01 2.38E-01 3.74E-02 2.75E-01 8.46E-03 8.46E-04DIELDRIN1.09E+01 7.70E-02 NA 1.89E-01 1.89E-01 1.08E-01 2.96E-01 3.85E+00 NAENDOSULFAN SULFATE3.90E-02 1.00E+01 NA 3.34E-03 3.34E-03 3.84E-04 3.73E-03 3.73E-04 NAENDRIN9.86E+00 3.00E-01 NA 8.55E-02 8.55E-02 9.70E-02 1.83E-01 6.09E-01 NAENDRIN ALDEHYDE7.74E+00 3.00E-01 NA 5.55E-02 5.55E-02 7.62E-02 1.32E-01 4.39E-01 NAENDRIN KETONE9.90E-03 3.00E-01 NA 1.90E-04 1.90E-04 9.75E-05 2.87E-04 9.57E-04 NAFLUORENE8.10E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 4.98E-01 4.98E-01 7.97E-02 5.78E-01 1.78E-02 1.78E-03FLUORANTHENE6.20E+01 1.96E+01 NA 1.69E+00 1.69E+00 6.10E-01 2.30E+00 1.17E-01 NAGAMMA BHC (LINDANE)5.90E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 2.92E-04 2.92E-04 5.81E-05 3.50E-04 1.75E-04 1.75E-05GAMMA-CHLORDANE3.60E-02 2.14E+00 1.07E+01 1.62E-04 1.62E-04 3.54E-04 5.16E-04 2.41E-04 4.82E-05HEPTACHLOR7.90E-03 6.50E-02 6.50E-01 6.96E-05 6.96E-05 7.78E-05 1.47E-04 2.27E-03 2.27E-04HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE1.31E+01 6.50E-02 6.50E-01 3.67E-01 3.67E-01 1.29E-01 4.96E-01 7.64E+00 7.64E-01INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE6.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 3.94E-02 3.94E-02 6.79E-02 1.07E-01 5.47E-03 NALEAD4.67E+02 3.85E+00 6.25E+00 8.82E-01 8.82E-01 4.60E+00 5.48E+00 1.42E+00 8.77E-01MANGANESE3.79E+02 9.80E+01 9.77E+02 2.73E+01 2.73E+01 3.73E+00 3.10E+01 3.16E-01 3.17E-02MERCURY1.30E-01 6.80E-02 3.70E-01 1.29E-02 1.29E-02 1.28E-03 1.42E-02 2.08E-01 3.83E-02NAPHTHALENE6.80E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 8.85E-01 8.85E-01 6.69E-02 9.52E-01 2.93E-02 2.93E-03PENTACHLOROPHENOL2.80E-01 2.92E+00 4.86E+00 5.58E-05 5.58E-05 2.76E-03 2.81E-03 9.63E-04 5.79E-04P,P'-DDD1.50E+01 6.00E-02 6.00E-01 1.78E-01 1.78E-01 1.48E-01 3.25E-01 5.42E+00 5.42E-0186 of 104Table 38Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the Northern Bobwhite Quail in the Upland AreaHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Northern Bobwhite QuailWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.11E-01Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COCAUF - area use factor (exposure area 9.54E-01in soil at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction1.00E+00Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * ( PF * BAFP )TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction9.30E-02Contaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kgbw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmedia intake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientP,P'-DDE1.00E+01 6.00E-02 6.00E-01 1.06E-01 1.06E-01 9.84E-02 2.05E-01 3.41E+00 3.41E-01P,P'-DDT1.80E+01 6.00E-02 6.00E-01 9.42E-02 9.42E-02 1.77E-01 2.71E-01 4.52E+00 4.52E-01PHENANTHRENE5.30E+01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.43E+00 2.43E+00 5.22E-01 2.95E+00 9.09E-02 9.09E-03PYRENE4.00E+01 1.96E+01 NA 1.09E+00 1.09E+00 3.94E-01 1.48E+00 7.57E-02 NASILVER2.60E+00 1.78E+01 NA 2.75E-01 2.75E-01 2.56E-02 3.01E-01 1.69E-02 NAVANADIUM3.10E+01 1.14E+01 NA 1.80E-02 1.80E-02 3.05E-01 3.23E-01 2.84E-02 NAZINC4.76E+02 1.45E+01 1.31E+02 1.57E+01 1.57E+01 4.69E+00 2.04E+01 1.40E+00 1.55E-01Hazard Index for LPAHs2.34E+00 2.34E+00 4.08E-01 2.75E+002.05E-01 2.05E-02Hazard Index for HPAHs3.02E+00 3.02E+00 1.71E+00 4.73E+003.23E-01 0.00E+00Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAHmg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogramHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon body weight of receptor per day87 of 104Table 39Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the Coyote in the Upland AreaHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the CoyoteWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kgbw/d) 4.53E-02Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor (exposure 5.32E-03Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction1.00E-02WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsVPF - vertebrate prey fraction9.90E-01BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion2.80E-02Contaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromVertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE1.90E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.47E-06 0.00E+00 3.47E-06 1.28E-05 1.63E-05 3.26E-07 1.09E-074-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)1.10E-01 2.19E+02 NA 8.73E-07 2.88E-05 2.96E-05 7.43E-07 3.04E-05 1.39E-07 NAACENAPHTHENE9.60E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.19E-05 0.00E+00 1.19E-05 6.49E-05 7.68E-05 1.54E-06 5.12E-07ACENAPHTHYLENE5.00E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 7.52E-06 0.00E+00 7.52E-06 3.38E-05 4.13E-05 8.26E-07 2.75E-07ALPHA-CHLORDANE1.30E+01 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1.33E-06 9.06E-04 9.07E-04 8.78E-05 9.95E-04 2.17E-04 1.09E-04ALDRIN1.10E-02 2.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.37E-09 4.53E-07 4.54E-07 7.43E-08 5.29E-07 2.64E-06 5.29E-07ANTHRACENE1.30E+01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.36E-05 0.00E+00 1.36E-05 8.78E-05 1.01E-04 2.03E-06 6.76E-07ANTIMONY4.47E+01 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 5.39E-06 1.07E-02 1.07E-02 3.02E-04 1.10E-02 1.80E-03 2.39E-04BENZALDEHYDE6.30E+00 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 5.76E-05 2.54E-09 5.76E-05 4.26E-05 1.00E-04 7.00E-07 3.50E-07BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE2.40E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.85E-06 0.00E+00 8.85E-06 1.62E-04 1.71E-04 1.71E-04 1.71E-05BENZO(A)PYRENE1.90E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.16E-06 0.00E+00 4.16E-06 1.28E-04 1.33E-04 1.33E-04 1.33E-05BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE2.50E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.48E-06 0.00E+00 5.48E-06 1.69E-04 1.74E-04 1.74E-04 1.74E-05BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE1.20E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.63E-06 0.00E+00 2.63E-06 8.11E-05 8.37E-05 8.37E-05 8.37E-06BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE8.80E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.14E-06 0.00E+00 1.14E-06 5.95E-05 6.06E-05 6.06E-05 6.06E-06BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE5.20E-01 2.40E+02 NA 3.49E-07 5.37E-05 5.40E-05 3.51E-06 5.75E-05 2.40E-07 NABETA ENDOSULFAN1.30E+01 1.50E-01 NA 6.38E-06 1.34E-05 1.98E-05 8.78E-05 1.08E-04 7.18E-04 NABIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE4.90E+00 1.83E+01 1.83E+02 1.42E-07 1.55E-04 1.55E-04 3.31E-05 1.88E-04 1.03E-05 1.03E-06CADMIUM1.15E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.69E-06 5.10E-04 5.15E-04 7.77E-05 5.93E-04 5.93E-04 5.93E-05CARBAZOLE7.50E+00 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 2.11E-05 7.17E-08 2.11E-05 5.07E-05 7.18E-05 2.65E-05 1.33E-05CHROMIUM, TOTAL1.26E+02 2.45E+01 1.31E+02 1.22E-05 1.93E-03 1.94E-03 8.51E-04 2.79E-03 1.14E-04 2.13E-05CHRYSENE2.10E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 7.75E-06 0.00E+00 7.75E-06 1.42E-04 1.50E-04 1.50E-04 1.50E-05COPPER2.98E+02 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 4.45E-05 4.19E-03 4.24E-03 2.01E-03 6.25E-03 5.34E-04 4.13E-04DELTA BHC (DELTAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)2.30E-02 5.63E-01 2.25E+00 3.27E-08 1.37E-09 3.40E-08 1.55E-07 1.89E-07 3.36E-07 8.42E-08DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE2.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.86E-07 0.00E+00 2.86E-07 1.49E-05 1.51E-05 1.51E-05 1.51E-06DIBENZOFURAN3.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 5.42E-06 2.25E-07 5.64E-06 2.57E-05 3.13E-05 6.26E-07 2.09E-0788 of 104Table 39Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the Coyote in the Upland AreaHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the CoyoteWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kgbw/d) 4.53E-02Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor (exposure 5.32E-03Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction1.00E-02WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsVPF - vertebrate prey fraction9.90E-01BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion2.80E-02Contaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromVertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientDIELDRIN1.09E+01 2.00E-02 2.00E-01 4.30E-06 2.04E-05 2.47E-05 7.38E-05 9.85E-05 4.93E-03 4.93E-04ENDOSULFAN SULFATE3.90E-02 1.50E-01 NA 7.62E-08 9.32E-06 9.39E-06 2.63E-07 9.66E-06 6.44E-05 NAENDRIN9.86E+00 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.95E-06 2.23E-06 4.18E-06 6.66E-05 7.08E-05 7.69E-04 7.69E-05ENDRIN ALDEHYDE7.74E+00 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.26E-06 1.53E-04 1.54E-04 5.23E-05 2.06E-04 2.24E-03 2.24E-04ENDRIN KETONE9.90E-03 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 4.33E-09 1.40E-08 1.83E-08 6.69E-08 8.52E-08 9.26E-07 9.26E-08FLUORENE8.10E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.14E-05 5.01E-07 1.19E-05 5.47E-05 6.66E-05 1.33E-06 4.44E-07FLUORANTHENE6.20E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.85E-05 0.00E+00 3.85E-05 4.19E-04 4.57E-04 4.57E-04 4.57E-05GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)5.90E-03 5.63E-01 2.25E+00 6.67E-09 6.53E-10 7.32E-09 3.99E-08 4.72E-08 8.38E-08 2.10E-08GAMMA-CHLORDANE3.60E-02 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 3.69E-09 2.49E-06 2.49E-06 2.43E-07 2.73E-06 5.97E-07 2.98E-07HEPTACHLOR7.90E-03 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.59E-09 8.96E-08 9.11E-08 5.34E-08 1.45E-07 1.45E-06 1.45E-07HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE1.31E+01 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 8.37E-06 6.75E-06 1.51E-05 8.88E-05 1.04E-04 1.04E-03 1.04E-04INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE6.90E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.98E-07 2.51E-04 2.52E-04 4.66E-05 2.99E-04 2.99E-04 2.99E-05LEAD4.67E+02 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 2.01E-05 3.91E-03 3.93E-03 3.16E-03 7.08E-03 2.21E-04 7.38E-05MANGANESE3.79E+02 8.80E+01 2.84E+02 6.22E-04 5.31E-03 5.94E-03 2.56E-03 8.50E-03 9.66E-05 2.99E-05MERCURY1.30E-01 7.70E-02 1.10E-01 2.94E-07 5.96E-06 6.26E-06 8.78E-07 7.13E-06 9.27E-05 6.49E-05NAPHTHALENE6.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.02E-05 5.61E-08 2.02E-05 4.59E-05 6.62E-05 1.32E-06 4.41E-07PENTACHLOROPHENOL2.80E-01 4.28E+01 4.28E+02 1.27E-09 2.90E-04 2.90E-04 1.89E-06 2.91E-04 6.82E-06 6.82E-07P,P'-DDD1.50E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 4.05E-06 7.70E-05 8.10E-05 1.01E-04 1.82E-04 2.28E-04 4.56E-05P,P'-DDE1.00E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 2.42E-06 6.86E-05 7.11E-05 6.76E-05 1.39E-04 1.73E-04 3.47E-05P,P'-DDT1.80E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 2.15E-06 8.26E-04 8.29E-04 1.22E-04 9.50E-04 1.19E-03 2.38E-04PHENANTHRENE5.30E+01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 5.55E-05 7.18E-06 6.26E-05 3.58E-04 4.21E-04 8.41E-06 2.80E-06PYRENE4.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.49E-05 0.00E+00 2.49E-05 2.70E-04 2.95E-04 2.95E-04 2.95E-05SILVER2.60E+00 2.22E+01 2.22E+02 6.27E-06 5.03E-04 5.09E-04 1.76E-05 5.27E-04 2.37E-05 2.37E-06VANADIUM3.10E+01 1.34E+00 2.10E+00 4.11E-07 1.41E-04 1.41E-04 2.09E-04 3.51E-04 2.62E-04 1.67E-04ZINC4.76E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 3.57E-04 3.29E-02 3.33E-02 3.22E-03 3.65E-02 9.60E-04 3.31E-04Hazard Index for LPAHs5.33E-05 7.25E-07 5.40E-05 2.80E-04 3.34E-046.67E-06 2.22E-0689 of 104Table 39Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationHQs for the Coyote in the Upland AreaHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXIncidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the CoyoteWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kgbw/d) 4.53E-02Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the site (mg/kg)AUF - area use factor (exposure 5.32E-03Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFV))PF - plant fraction1.00E-02WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsVPF - vertebrate prey fraction9.90E-01BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion2.80E-02Contaminat of Potential ConcernSurfaceSoilExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromTerrestrialPlant(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromVertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Soil MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmediaintake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientHazard Index for HPAHs6.88E-05 0.00E+00 6.88E-05 1.18E-03 1.24E-031.24E-03 1.24E-04Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAHmg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogramHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hybody weight of receptor per day90 of 104Table 40Analysis of Risk to Benthic Invertebrates in the Lake Sabine - IntertidalBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXCOPCUnits#Samples#Detects FODMinimumDetectMaximuDetectPrimaryEffectScreeningLevelMaximum HQ -Primary EffectLevel# Nondetects >PrimaryEffect Level# Detects >PrimaryEffectLevelSecondaryEffectScreeningLevelMaximumHQ -SecondaryEffect Level# Nondetects >SecondaryEffect Level# Detects >SecondaryEffect LevelMagnitude ofPrimaryEffectExceedanceFrequencyofSecondaryEffectExceedanceIdentified as a COC?2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL MG/KG 9 0 0.00% -- -- 0.029 --10--------<10-- No2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE MG/KG 9 7 77.78% 0.0034 0.091 0.07 1.301 0.67 0.1358 00<100 NoACENAPHTHENEMG/KG 9 8 88.89% 0.0014 0.098 0.016 6.12512 0.5 0.196 00<100 NoACENAPHTHYLENE MG/KG 9 7 77.78% 0.0045 0.035 0.044 0.795500 0.64 0.05469 00<100 NoACETOPHENONEMG/KG 9 2 22.22% 0.0033 0.043 ----------------<10-- NoANTHRACENEMG/KG 9 5 55.56% 0.0052 0.1 0.0853 1.17201 1.1 0.09091 00<100 NoANTIMONYMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 0.2 16.1 ----------------<10-- NoARSENICMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 1.8 13.7 8.2 1.6710370 0.1957 00<100 NoBARIUMMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 10.8 83.6 48 1.74204--------<10-- NoBENZALDEHYDEMG/KG 9 3 33.33% 0.0085 0.11 ----------------<10-- NoBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATEMG/KG 9 0 0.00% -- -- ----------------<10-- NoBERYLLIUMMG/KG 9 2 22.22% 0.24 0.33 ----------------<10-- NoBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHA MG/KG 9 0 0.00% -- -- 0.182 --30 2.647 --10<100 NoCADMIUMMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 0.08 1.49 1.2 1.24203 9.6 0.1552 00<100 NoCALCIUMMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 250 172000 ----------------<10-- NoCAPROLACTAMMG/KG 9 1 11.11% 0.11 0.11 ----------------<10-- NoCARBAZOLEMG/KG 9 4 44.44% 0.011 0.2 ----------------<10-- NoCHROMIUM, TOTAL MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 2.2 87.2 81 1.07701 370 0.2357 00<100 NoCOPPERMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 5 313 34 9.20605 270 1.159 01<10 0.1111111 NoCYANIDEMG/KG 9 4 44.44% 0.27 0.55 ----------------<10-- NoFLUORENEMG/KG 9 4 44.44% 0.012 0.11 0.019 5.78902 0.54 0.2037 00<100 NoLEADMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 14.1 942 46.7 20.1705 218 4.321 02<10 0.2222222 YesMAGNESIUMMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 189 3620 ----------------<10-- NoMANGANESEMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 66.3 1500 260 5.76905--------<10-- NoMERCURYMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 0.016 0.18 0.15 1.201 0.71 0.2535 00<100 NoNAPHTHALENEMG/KG 9 7 77.78% 0.014 0.4 0.16 2.505 2.1 0.1905 00<100 NoNICKELMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 2.82 85 20.9 4.06702 51.6 1.647 01<10 0.1111111 NoPENTACHLOROPHENOL MG/KG 9 2 22.22% 0.082 0.16 0.36 0.444400--------<10-- NoPHENANTHRENEMG/KG 9 7 77.78% 0.0049 0.32 0.24 1.33302 1.5 0.2133 00<100 NoPOTASSIUMMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 76.4 1230 ----------------<10-- NoSELENIUMMG/KG 9 8 88.89% 0.18 5.9 15.913--------<10-- NoSODIUMMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 584 1560 ----------------<10-- NoZINCMG/KG 9 9 100.00% 25.5 594 150 3.9605 410 1.449 01<10 0.1111111 NoNotes:-- = Not availablemg/kg = milligrams per kilogramCompounds were identified as COCs if the magnitude of exceedance exceeded 10 or if the frequency of exceedance exceeded 20 %HQ = Hazard Quotient = Maximum Detect / Benchmark91 of 104Table 41Analysis of Risk to Benthic Invertebrates in the Lake Sabine - NearshoreBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXCOPCUnits#Samples#Detects FODMinimumDetectMaximuDetectPrimaryEffectScreeningLevelMaximumHQ -PrimaryEffectLevel# Non-detects> PrimaryEffect Level# Detects >PrimaryEffect LevelSecondaryEffectScreeningLevelMaximumHQ -SecondaryEffect Level# Nondetects >SecondaryEffect Level# Detects >SecondaryEffect LevelMagnitude ofPrimary EffectExceedanceFrequency ofSecondaryEffectExceedanceIdentifiedas a COC?ACENAPHTHENEMG/KG 41 6 14.63% 0.0042 0.58 0.016 36.25430.5 1.1601<102.44% NoACENAPHTHYLENEMG/KG 41 6 14.63% 0.0037 0.12 0.044 2.72761 0.64 0.1875 00<100.00% NoACETOPHENONEMG/KG 41 1 2.44% 0.0057 0.0057 -- --------------<10--NoANTHRACENEMG/KG 41 15 36.59% 0.002 2 0.0853 23.45421.1 1.818 01<102.44% NoARSENICMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 1.6 11.7 8.2 1.4270270 0.1671 00<100.00% NoBARIUMMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 12.2 220 48 4.583020-------->10--NoBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATEMG/KG 41 14 34.15% 0.024 0.064 -- --------------<10--NoBERYLLIUMMG/KG 45 35 77.78% 0.1 2.7 -- --------------<10--NoALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) MG/KG 6 0 0.00% -- -- -- --------------<10--NoBETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) MG/KG 6 0 0.00% -- -- -- --------------<10--NoDELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) MG/KG 6 0 0.00% -- -- -- --------------<10--NoGAMMA BHC (LINDANE)MG/KG 6 1 16.67% 0.0034 0.0034 -- --------------<10--NoBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATEMG/KG 41 3 7.32% 0.047 0.26 0.182 1.42911 2.647 0.09822 00<100.00% NoBENZO(A)ANTHRACENEMG/KG 41 19 46.34% 0.006 4.1 0.26 15.77031.6 2.562 01<102.44% NoBENZALDEHYDEMG/KG 41 1 2.44% 0.037 0.037 -- --------------<10--NoBENZO(A)PYRENEMG/KG 41 22 53.66% 0.026 2.3 0.43 5.349021.6 1.437 01<102.44% NoBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENEMG/KG 41 25 60.98% 0.017 3.6 1.7 2.118019.6 0.375 00<100.00% NoBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENEMG/KG 41 19 46.34% 0.021 1.9 1.7 1.118019.6 0.1979 00<100.00% NoCALCIUMMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 227 30500 -- --------------<10--NoCAPROLACTAMMG/KG 41 2 4.88% 0.037 0.051 -- --------------<10--NoCARBAZOLEMG/KG 41 10 24.39% 0.0068 0.31 -- --------------<10--NoCHRYSENEMG/KG 41 19 46.34% 0.01 3.9 0.384 10.16032.8 1.393 01<102.44% NoCOBALTMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 1.5 21.2 10 2.1203--------<10--NoCOPPERMG/KG 45 44 97.78% 1.4 312 34 9.17603270 1.156 01<102.22% NoDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENEMG/KG 41 8 19.51% 0.019 0.23 0.0634 3.62841 0.26 0.8846 00<100.00% NoDIBENZOFURANMG/KG 41 5 12.20% 0.0028 0.36 -- --------------<10--No3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINEMG/KG 41 2 4.88% 0.046 0.075 -- --------------<10--No2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOLMG/KG 41 0 0.00% -- -- 0.029 --60--------<10--NoFLUORENEMG/KG 41 6 14.63% 0.0065 0.79 0.019 41.5843 0.54 1.463 01<102.44% NoFLUORANTHENEMG/KG 41 25 60.98% 0.0032 9.1 0.6 15.17025.1 1.784 01<102.44% NoHEXACHLOROBUTADIENEMG/KG 41 0 0.00% -- -- -- --------------<10--NoMERCURYMG/KG 45 11 24.44% 0.011 0.045 0.15 0.370 0.71 0.06338 00<100.00% NoPOTASSIUMMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 127 2340 -- --------------<10--No2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL)MG/KG 41 0 0.00% -- -- 0.063 --60--------<10--NoMAGNESIUMMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 236 4240 -- --------------<10--NoMANGANESEMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 35.2 1270 260 4.885010--------<10--No2-METHYLNAPHTHALENEMG/KG 41 5 12.20% 0.0027 0.011 0.07 0.1571 60 0.67 0.01642 00<100.00% NoSODIUMMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 432 5450 -- --------------<10--NoNAPHTHALENEMG/KG 41 7 17.07% 0.0046 0.014 0.16 0.0875 602.1 0.006667 00<100.00% NoNICKELMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 1.5 26.4 20.9 1.26302 51.6 0.5116 00<100.00% NoNITROBENZENEMG/KG 41 0 0.00% -- -- -- --------------<10--NoLEADMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 4.3 362 46.7 7.75202218 1.661 01<102.22% NoPHENANTHRENEMG/KG 41 21 51.22% 0.0027 7.1 0.24 29.58021.5 4.733 02<104.88% NoPYRENEMG/KG 41 25 60.98% 0.0023 8.8 0.665 13.23032.6 3.385 01<102.44% NoSELENIUMMG/KG 45 21 46.67% 0.13 0.89 1 0.8930--------<10--NoTHALLIUMMG/KG 45 2 4.44% 1 2.1 -- --------------<10--NoZINCMG/KG 45 45 100.00% 14.2 3910 150 26.0702410 9.537 02<104.44% NoNotes:-- = Not availableCompounds were identified as COCs if the magnitude of exceedance exceeded 10 or if the frequency of exceedance exceeded 20 %mg/kg = milligrams per kilogramHQ = Hazard Quotient = Maximum Detect / Benchmark92 of 104Table 42Analysis of Risk to Benthic Invertebrates in the Lake Sabine - OffshoreBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXCOPCUnits#Samples#Detects FODMinimumDetectMaximuDetectPrimaryEffectScreeningLevelMaximumHQ -PrimaryEffectLevel# Non-detects> PrimaryEffect Level# Detects >PrimaryEffect LevelSecondaryEffectScreeningLevelMaximumHQ -SecondaryEffect Level# Nondetects >SecondaryEffect Level# Detects >SecondaryEffect LevelMagnitude ofPrimary EffectExceedanceFrequency ofSecondaryEffectExceedanceIdentifiedas a COC?3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE MG/KG 11 4 36.36% 0.031 0.049<10NoARSENIC MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 2.9 8.9 8.2 1.085 0 1 70 0.1271 0 0 <10 0.00% NoBARIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 24.5 115 48 2.396 0 4 <10 NoBENZALDEHYDE MG/KG 11 1 9.09% 0.039 0.039<10 NoBERYLLIUM MG/KG 11 10 90.91% 0.2 0.89<10 NoCALCIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 247 5580<10 NoCAPROLACTAM MG/KG 11 1 9.09% 0.039 0.039<10 NoMAGNESIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 320 4300<10 NoMANGANESE MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 51.8 745 260 2.865 0 8 <10 NoNICKEL MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 2.23 44.1 20.9 2.11 0 1 51.6 0.8547 0 0 <10 0.00% NoPOTASSIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 202 2460<10 NoSELENIUM MG/KG 11 3 27.27% 0.27 0.59 1 0.59 0 0 <10 NoSODIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 705 5200<10 NoNotes:-- = Not availablemg/kg = milligrams per kilogramCompounds were identified as COCs if the magnitude of exceedance exceeded 10 or if the frequency of exceedance exceeded 20 %HQ = Hazard Quotient = Maximum Detect / Benchmark93 of 104Table 43HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine - IntertidalHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment IntakeIncidental Sediment Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Spotted SandpiperWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d)4.24E-01ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the COCSUF - area use factor X site use factor1.00E-01in sediment at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction0.00E+00Food Intake = FIR * AUF * ConcSed*( AIF * BAFI )AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction1.00E+00WhereFPF - fish prey fraction0.00E+00BAFI = bioaccumulation factor for invertebratesISF - incidental sediment ingestion fraction1.80E-01Contaminat of Potential ConcernSedimentExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)SedimentMediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmedia intake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE9.10E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 8.06E-03 8.06E-03 6.94E-04 8.75E-03 2.69E-04 2.69E-052,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL3.50E-02 NANA 1.48E-03 1.48E-03 2.67E-04 1.75E-03 NA NAACENAPHTHENE9.80E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 8.47E-03 8.47E-03 7.48E-04 9.22E-03 2.84E-04 2.84E-05ACENAPHTHYLENE3.50E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.41E-03 2.41E-03 2.67E-04 2.67E-03 8.22E-05 8.22E-06ACETOPHENONE4.30E-02 NANA 1.82E-03 1.82E-03 3.28E-04 2.15E-03 NA NAANTIMONY1.61E+01 NANA 6.82E-01 6.82E-01 1.23E-01 8.05E-01 NA NAANTHRACENE1.00E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 8.09E-04 8.09E-04 7.63E-04 1.57E-03 4.84E-05 4.84E-06ARSENIC1.37E+01 9.30E+00 4.00E+01 5.81E-01 5.81E-01 1.04E-01 6.85E-01 7.37E-02 1.71E-02BARIUM4.59E+01 2.08E+01 4.17E+01 1.95E+00 1.95E+00 3.50E-01 2.30E+00 1.10E-01 5.51E-02BENZALDEHYDE1.10E-01 NANA 4.66E-03 4.66E-03 8.39E-04 5.50E-03 NA NABENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE1.70E-01 NANA 7.20E-03 7.20E-03 1.30E-03 8.50E-03 NA NABERYLLIUM3.30E-01 NANA 6.29E-04 6.29E-04 2.52E-03 3.15E-03 NA NABIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE3.00E+00 1.11E+00 NA 1.27E-01 1.27E-01 2.29E-02 1.50E-01 1.35E-01 NACADMIUM1.49E+00 6.10E-01 2.40E+00 7.58E-03 7.58E-03 1.14E-02 1.89E-02 3.11E-02 7.89E-03CAPROLACTAM1.10E-01 NANA 4.66E-03 4.66E-03 8.39E-04 5.50E-03 NA NACARBAZOLE2.00E-01 NANA 8.48E-03 8.48E-03 1.53E-03 1.00E-02 NA NACHROMIUM, TOTAL8.72E+01 1.00E+00 5.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.65E-01 6.65E-01 6.65E-01 1.33E-01COPPER2.14E+01 4.70E+00 6.17E+00 1.85E-01 1.85E-01 1.64E-01 3.48E-01 7.41E-02 5.64E-02CYANIDE5.50E-01 4.00E-02 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.20E-03 4.20E-03 1.05E-01 1.05E-02FLUORENE1.10E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.62E+00 3.62E+00 8.39E-04 3.62E+00 1.11E-01 1.11E-02LEAD2.04E+02 3.85E+00 6.25E+00 8.16E-01 8.16E-01 1.56E+00 2.37E+00 6.16E-01 3.80E-01MANGANESE1.50E+03 9.80E+01 9.77E+02 6.36E+01 6.36E+01 1.14E+01 7.50E+01 7.65E-01 7.68E-02MERCURY1.80E-01 6.80E-02 3.70E-01 1.24E-02 1.24E-02 1.37E-03 1.37E-02 2.02E-01 3.72E-02NAPHTHALENE4.00E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 3.05E-03 2.67E+00 8.22E-02 8.22E-03NICKEL8.50E+01 7.74E+01 1.07E+02 5.98E-01 5.98E-01 6.48E-01 1.25E+00 1.61E-02 1.17E-02PENTACHLOROPHENOL1.60E-01 2.92E+00 4.86E+00 6.78E-03 6.78E-03 1.22E-03 8.00E-03 2.74E-03 1.65E-03SELENIUM2.97E+00 4.00E-01 8.00E-01 1.47E-01 1.47E-01 2.27E-02 1.70E-01 4.25E-01 2.12E-01ZINC5.94E+02 1.45E+01 1.31E+02 6.27E-01 6.27E-01 4.53E+00 5.16E+00 3.56E-01 3.94E-02Notes:mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogram HPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)body weight of receptor per dayLPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH94 of 104Table 44HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine - Near ShoreHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment IntakeIncidental Sediment Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Spotted SandpiperWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.24E-01ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the COCSUF - area use factor X site usefactor4.00E-01in sediment at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction0.00E+00Food Intake = FIR * AUF * ConcSed*( AIF * BAFI )AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction 1.00E+00WhereFPF - fish prey fraction0.00E+00BAFI = bioaccumulation factor for invertebratesISF - incidental sediment ingestion1.80E-01Contaminat of Potential ConcernSedimentExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)SedimentMediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmedia intake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE7.50E-02 NANA 1.27E-02 1.27E-02 2.29E-03 1.50E-02 NA NA2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE1.10E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.90E-03 3.90E-03 3.36E-04 4.23E-03 1.30E-04 1.30E-05ACENAPHTHENE5.80E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.01E-01 2.01E-01 1.77E-02 2.18E-01 6.72E-03 6.72E-04ACENAPHTHYLENE1.20E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.30E-02 3.30E-02 3.66E-03 3.67E-02 1.13E-03 1.13E-04ACETOPHENONE5.70E-03 NANA 9.66E-04 9.66E-04 1.74E-04 1.14E-03 NA NAALPHA BHC (ALPHAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)1.70E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 1.61E-03 1.61E-03 5.19E-05 1.66E-03 8.31E-04 8.31E-05ANTHRACENE2.00E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 6.47E-02 6.47E-02 6.10E-02 1.26E-01 3.87E-03 3.87E-04ARSENIC1.17E+01 9.30E+00 4.00E+01 1.98E+00 1.98E+00 3.57E-01 2.34E+00 2.52E-01 5.85E-02BARIUM6.40E+01 2.08E+01 4.17E+01 1.08E+01 1.08E+01 1.95E+00 1.28E+01 6.15E-01 3.07E-01BENZALDEHYDE3.70E-02 NANA 6.27E-03 6.27E-03 1.13E-03 7.40E-03 NA NABENZO(A)ANTHRACENE4.10E+00 1.96E+01 NA 2.49E-01 2.49E-01 1.25E-01 3.74E-01 1.91E-02 NABENZO(A)PYRENE2.30E+00 1.96E+01 NA 4.95E-02 4.95E-02 7.02E-02 1.20E-01 6.11E-03 NABENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE3.60E+00 1.96E+01 NA 9.15E-02 9.15E-02 1.10E-01 2.01E-01 1.03E-02 NABENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE2.40E-01 1.96E+01 NA 8.75E-03 8.75E-03 7.32E-03 1.61E-02 8.20E-04 NABENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE1.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 6.76E-02 6.76E-02 5.80E-02 1.26E-01 6.41E-03 NABENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE6.40E-02 NANA 1.08E-02 1.08E-02 1.95E-03 1.28E-02 NA NABERYLLIUM2.70E+00 NANA 2.06E-02 2.06E-02 8.24E-02 1.03E-01 NA NABETA BHC (BETAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)1.70E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 3.22E-03 3.22E-03 5.19E-05 3.27E-03 1.64E-03 1.64E-04BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE2.60E-01 1.11E+00 NA 4.41E-02 4.41E-02 7.93E-03 5.20E-02 4.68E-02 NACAPROLACTAM5.10E-02 NANA 8.64E-03 8.64E-03 1.56E-03 1.02E-02 NA NACARBAZOLE3.10E-01 NANA 5.25E-02 5.25E-02 9.46E-03 6.20E-02 NA NACHRYSENE3.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 1.31E-01 1.31E-01 1.19E-01 2.50E-01 1.27E-02 NACOBALT8.46E+00 1.30E+00 NA 1.75E-01 1.75E-01 2.58E-01 4.33E-01 3.33E-01 NA95 of 104Table 44HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine - Near ShoreHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment IntakeIncidental Sediment Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Spotted SandpiperWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.24E-01ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the COCSUF - area use factor X site usefactor4.00E-01in sediment at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction0.00E+00Food Intake = FIR * AUF * ConcSed*( AIF * BAFI )AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction 1.00E+00WhereFPF - fish prey fraction0.00E+00BAFI = bioaccumulation factor for invertebratesISF - incidental sediment ingestion1.80E-01Contaminat of Potential ConcernSedimentExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)SedimentMediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmedia intake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientCOPPER1.56E+01 4.70E+00 6.17E+00 5.37E-01 5.37E-01 4.75E-01 1.01E+00 2.15E-01 1.64E-01DELTA BHC (DELTAHEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)1.70E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 3.22E-03 3.22E-03 5.19E-05 3.27E-03 1.64E-03 1.64E-04DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE2.30E-01 1.96E+01 NA 8.15E-03 8.15E-03 7.02E-03 1.52E-02 7.74E-04 NADIBENZOFURAN3.60E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 6.10E-02 6.10E-02 1.10E-02 7.20E-02 2.22E-03 2.22E-04FLUORANTHENE9.10E+00 1.96E+01 NA 3.27E-01 3.27E-01 2.78E-01 6.05E-01 3.08E-02 NAFLUORENE7.90E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 1.04E+02 1.04E+02 2.41E-02 1.04E+023.20E+003.20E-01GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)3.40E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 3.22E-03 3.22E-03 1.04E-04 3.33E-03 1.66E-03 1.66E-04HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE1.70E-01 3.39E+00 NA 2.88E-02 2.88E-02 5.19E-03 3.40E-02 1.00E-02 NAINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE3.40E-01 1.96E+01 NA 9.97E-03 9.97E-03 1.04E-02 2.03E-02 1.04E-03 NALEAD2.22E+01 3.85E+00 6.25E+00 3.55E-01 3.55E-01 6.77E-01 1.03E+00 2.68E-01 1.65E-01MANGANESE1.27E+03 9.80E+01 9.77E+02 2.15E+02 2.15E+02 3.87E+01 2.54E+022.59E+002.60E-01MERCURY4.50E-02 6.80E-02 3.70E-01 1.24E-02 1.24E-02 1.37E-03 1.37E-02 2.02E-01 3.72E-02NAPHTHALENE1.40E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.73E-01 3.73E-01 4.27E-04 3.74E-01 1.15E-02 1.15E-03NICKEL2.64E+01 7.74E+01 1.07E+02 7.43E-01 7.43E-01 8.05E-01 1.55E+00 2.00E-02 1.45E-02NITROBENZENE1.70E-01 NA NA 6.02E-02 6.02E-02 5.19E-03 6.54E-02 NA NAPHENANTHRENE2.37E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 5.81E+01 5.81E+01 7.23E-03 5.81E+011.79E+001.79E-01PYRENE8.80E+00 1.96E+01 NA 6.49E-01 6.49E-01 2.68E-01 9.17E-01 4.68E-02 NASELENIUM3.71E-01 4.00E-01 8.00E-01 7.36E-02 7.36E-02 1.13E-02 8.49E-02 2.12E-01 1.06E-01THALLIUM5.42E-01 5.30E-02 5.30E-01 9.19E-02 9.19E-02 1.65E-02 1.08E-012.05E+002.05E-01ZINC1.54E+02 1.45E+01 1.31E+02 6.50E-01 6.50E-01 4.70E+00 5.35E+00 3.69E-01 4.08E-02Hazard Index for LPAHs1.04E+02 1.04E+02 1.18E-01 1.04E+025.01E+005.01E-01Hazard Index for HPAHs9.42E-01 9.42E-01 7.84E-01 1.73E+001.35E-01 0.00E+00Notes:HPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogram96 of 104Table 44HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine - Near ShoreHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment IntakeIncidental Sediment Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Spotted SandpiperWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.24E-01ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the COCSUF - area use factor X site usefactor4.00E-01in sediment at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction0.00E+00Food Intake = FIR * AUF * ConcSed*( AIF * BAFI )AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction 1.00E+00WhereFPF - fish prey fraction0.00E+00BAFI = bioaccumulation factor for invertebratesISF - incidental sediment ingestion1.80E-01Contaminat of Potential ConcernSedimentExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromInvertebrates(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)SedimentMediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmedia intake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotientLPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAHbody weight of receptor per day97 of 104Table 45HQ Summary for the Spotted SandpiperBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Multi-MediaNOAELHazard Quotient allExposure AreasTotal Multi-MediaLOAELHazard Quotient allExposure AreasContaminat of Potential ConcernLake Sabine -IntertidalLake Sabine -Near ShoreLake Sabine -IntertidalLake Sabine-Near Shore2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE2.69E-041.30E-044.00E-042.69E-051.30E-054.00E-053,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINENANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+004-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL)NANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00ACENAPHTHENE2.84E-046.72E-037.00E-032.84E-056.72E-047.00E-04ACENAPHTHYLENE8.22E-051.13E-031.21E-038.22E-061.13E-041.21E-04ACETOPHENONENANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE NA8.31E-048.31E-04NA8.31E-058.31E-05ANTHRACENE4.84E-053.87E-033.92E-034.84E-063.87E-043.92E-04ANTIMONYNANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00BARIUM1.10E-016.15E-017.25E-015.51E-023.07E-013.62E-01BENZALDEHYDENANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00BENZO(A)ANTHRACENENA1.91E-021.91E-02NANA0.00E+00BENZO(A)PYRENENA6.11E-036.11E-03NANA0.00E+00BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENENA1.03E-021.03E-02NANA0.00E+00BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENENA8.20E-048.20E-04NANA0.00E+00BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENENA6.41E-036.41E-03NANA0.00E+00BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATENANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00BERYLLIUMNANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00BERYLLIUMNANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)NA1.64E-031.64E-03NA1.64E-041.64E-04BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL)NANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE1.35E-014.68E-021.82E-01NANA0.00E+00CAPROLACTAMNANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00CARBAZOLENANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00CHRYSENENA1.27E-021.27E-02NANA0.00E+00COBALTNA3.33E-013.33E-01NANA0.00E+00COPPER7.41E-022.15E-012.90E-015.64E-021.64E-012.20E-01CYANIDE1.05E-01NA1.05E-011.05E-02NA1.05E-02DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)NA1.64E-031.64E-03NA1.64E-041.64E-04DIBENZOFURANNA2.22E-032.22E-03NA2.22E-042.22E-04FLUORANTHENENA3.08E-023.08E-02NANA0.00E+00FLUORENE1.11E-013.20E+003.31E+001.11E-023.20E-013.31E-01GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)NA1.66E-031.66E-03NA1.66E-041.66E-04HEXACHLOROBUTADIENENA1.00E-021.00E-02NANA0.00E+00INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENENA1.04E-031.04E-03NANA0.00E+00IRONNANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00LEAD6.16E-012.68E-018.84E-013.80E-011.65E-015.45E-01MANGANESE7.65E-012.59E+003.36E+007.68E-022.60E-013.37E-01MERCURY2.02E-012.02E-014.04E-013.72E-023.72E-027.43E-02Multi-Media NOAEL Hazard QuotientsMulti-Media LOAEL Hazard Quotients98 of 104Table 45HQ Summary for the Spotted SandpiperBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Multi-MediaNOAELHazard Quotient allExposure AreasTotal Multi-MediaLOAELHazard Quotient allExposure AreasContaminat of Potential ConcernLake Sabine -IntertidalLake Sabine -Near ShoreLake Sabine -IntertidalLake Sabine-Near ShoreMulti-Media NOAEL Hazard QuotientsMulti-Media LOAEL Hazard QuotientsNAPHTHALENE8.22E-021.15E-029.37E-028.22E-031.15E-039.37E-03NICKEL1.61E-022.00E-023.61E-021.17E-021.45E-022.61E-02NITROBENZENENANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00PENTACHLOROPHENOL2.74E-03NA2.74E-031.65E-03NA1.65E-03PHENANTHRENENA1.79E+001.79E+00NA1.79E-011.79E-01PYRENENA4.68E-024.68E-02NANA0.00E+00SELENIUM4.25E-012.12E-016.37E-012.12E-011.06E-013.19E-01THALLIUMNA2.05E+002.05E+00NA2.05E-012.05E-01TRIBUTYLTINNANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00VANADIUMNANA0.00E+00NANA0.00E+00ZINC3.56E-013.69E-017.24E-013.94E-024.08E-028.02E-02Hazard Index for LPAHsNA5.01E+005.01E+00NA5.01E-015.01E-01Hazard Index for HPAHsNA1.35E-011.35E-01NA0.00E+000.00E+0099 of 104Table 46HQs for the Kingfisher in Lake SabineHazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentHazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXTotal Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment IntakeAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Belted KingfisherWhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.14E-01ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the COCAUF - area use factor (exposure area 2.05E-01in sediment at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction0.00E+00Food Intake = FIR * AUF *ConcSed*( BSAF * FPFI )AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00WhereFPF - fish prey fraction1.00E+00BSAF = biota sediment accumulation factorISF - incidental sediment ingestion0.00E+00Contaminat of Potential ConcernChemicalGroupSedimentExposurePointConcentration(mg/kg)NOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)LOAELRTVwild(mg/kg bw/d)ChemicalIntake fromFish (usingBSAF)(mg/kg bw/d)Food MediumIntake(mg/kg bw/d)Total Dose(summary ofmedia intake)NOAELHazardQuotientLOAELHazardQuotient3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINESVOC7.50E-02 NANA 1.74E-03 1.74E-03 1.74E-03 NA NAACENAPHTHENELPAH 5.80E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00ACETOPHENONESVOC 4.30E-02 NANA 1.00E-03 1.00E-03 1.00E-03 NA NAANTHRACENELPAH 2.00E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00ANTIMONYMET1.61E+01 NANA 1.17E+00 1.17E+00 1.17E+00 NA NABARIUMMET1.15E+02 2.08E+01 4.17E+01 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 1.28E-01 6.42E-02BENZALDEHYDESVOC 1.10E-01 NANA 2.56E-03 2.56E-03 2.56E-03 NA NABENZO(A)ANTHRACENEHPAH 4.10E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NABENZO(A)PYRENEHPAH 2.30E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NABENZO(B)FLUORANTHENEHPAH 3.60E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NABENZO(K)FLUORANTHENEHPAH 1.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NABENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATESVOC 1.70E-01 NANA 3.81E+00 3.81E+00 3.81E+00 NA NABERYLLIUMMET2.70E+00 NANA 1.19E+00 1.19E+00 1.19E+00 NA NABIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATESVOC 2.00E-01 1.11E+00 NA 4.65E-03 4.65E-03 4.65E-03 4.19E-03 NACAPROLACTAMSVOC 1.10E-01 NANA 2.56E-03 2.56E-03 2.56E-03 NA NACARBAZOLESVOC 3.10E-01 NANA 7.21E-03 7.21E-03 7.21E-03 NA NACHRYSENEHPAH 3.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NACOBALTMET8.46E+00 1.30E+00 6.17E+00 1.97E-01 1.97E-01 1.97E-01 1.51E-01 3.19E-02COPPERMET7.05E+01 4.70E+00 6.17E+00 1.85E+00 1.85E+00 1.85E+00 3.94E-01 3.00E-01CYANIDEMET5.50E-01 4.00E-02 4.00E-01 1.28E-02 1.28E-02 1.28E-02 3.20E-01 3.20E-02DIBENZOFURANLPAH 3.60E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00FLUORANTHENEHPAH 9.10E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NAFLUORENELPAH 7.90E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)PEST3.40E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 5.78E-04 5.78E-04 5.78E-04 2.89E-04 2.89E-05LEADMET1.50E+02 3.85E+00 6.25E+00 3.48E+00 3.48E+00 3.48E+00 9.05E-01 5.57E-01MERCURYMET1.80E-01 6.80E-02 3.70E-01 1.35E-02 1.35E-02 1.35E-02 1.99E-01 3.65E-02NICKELMET8.50E+01 7.74E+01 1.07E+02 9.88E-02 9.88E-02 9.88E-02 1.28E-03 9.23E-04100 of 104PHENANTHRENELPAH 7.10E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00PYRENEHPAH 8.80E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NASELENIUMMET5.90E+00 4.00E-01 8.00E-01 1.69E-01 1.69E-01 1.69E-01 4.22E-01 2.11E-01THALLIUMMET5.42E-01 5.30E-02 5.30E-01 1.26E-02 1.26E-02 1.26E-02 2.38E-01 2.38E-02ZINCMET3.91E+03 1.45E+01 1.31E+02 1.04E+02 1.04E+02 1.04E+02 7.15E+00 7.91E-01Hazard Index for LPAHs0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+000.00E+00 0.00E+00Hazard Index for HPAHs0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+000.00E+00 0.00E+00Notes:MET: metalHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)PEST = pesticidemg/kg-bw/d:mLPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAHSVOC = semivolatile organic carbon101 of 104Table 48Summary of Chemicals of Potential ConcernBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXAssessment EndpointGuild (Food Web) RepresentativeSpeciesMeasurement EndpointsExposure RoutesNull HypothesesHypothesisAcception/RejectionCOCs Identified1. Impairment of growth, reproduction, orsurvival of populations of herbivorousbirds that use the habitat on-site due toexposure to COCs attributable to the siteHerbivorous Bird(Terrestrial)northern bobwhitequailComparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction, or otherrelevant NOAELs or LOAELsAccepted2. Impairment of growth, reproduction, orsurvival of populations of omnivorousmammals that use the habitat on-sitedue to exposure to COCs attributable tothe siteOmnivorous Mammal(Terrestrial)white-footed mouse Comparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction, or otherrelevant NOAELs or LOAELsRejected DIELDRIN, ENDRINALDEHYDE, HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE3. Impairment of growth, reproduction, orsurvival of populations of carnivorousmammals that use the habitat on-sitedue to exposure to COCs attributable tothe siteCarnivorous Mammal(Terrestrial)coyoteComparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction, or otherrelevant NOAELs or LOAELsAccepted4. Impairment of growth, reproduction, orsurvival of populations of benthicinvertebrates that use the habitat on-sitedue to exposure to COCs attributable tothe siteBenthic Invertebrates(Aquatic)NAComparison of concentrations ofchemicals in on-site surface sedimentto literature-based screening levelsDirect exposure, ingestion measured concentrations do notexceed literature-based screeninglevelsRejected LEAD5. Impairment of growth, reproduction, orsurvival of populations of insectivorousshore birds that use the habitat on-sitedue to exposure to COCs attributable tothe siteInsectivorous ShoreBird (Aquatic)spotted sandpiper Comparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction, or otherrelevant NOAELs or LOAELsAccepted6. Impairment of growth, reproduction, orsurvival of populations of carnivorousshore birds that use the habitat on-sitedue to exposure to COCs attributable tothe siteCarnivorous Bird(Aquatic)belted kingfisher Comparison of exposure doses toNOAELs or LOAELs based onpublished values for survival, growthand reproductionDirect exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceedsurvival, growth, reproduction, or otherrelevant NOAELs or LOAELsAcceptedNotes:NA = not applicableNOAEL = no observed adverse effect levelLOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level95th UCL = 95th percent upper confidence level102 of 104Table 49Preliminary Remediation GoalsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter Mediumsis of Lower and Upper RanLowerRangePRGUpperRangePRGFinalPRGDIELDRIN soil white-footed mouse TRVs 5.90E-02 5.90E-013.25E-01ENDRIN ALDEHYDE soil white-footed mouse TRVs 3.44E-02 3.44E-011.89E-01HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE soil white-footed mouse TRVs 1.39E-01 1.39E+007.66E-01LEADsediment ERLs and ERMs 4.67E+01 2.18E+021.32E+02103 of 104Table 50Calculation of Groundwater to Sediment Screening Value for LeadBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXSedGW =SedRBEL * Ksed-w*SWMFwhere:SedGW = Groundwater-sediment protection PCL (mg COC/L groundwater)8.25E-04SedRBEL = Risk-based exposure limit for sediment (mg COC/kg sediment)132Ksed-w= Sediment-groundwater partition coefficient (mg/L-groundwater/mg/kg-sediment)4.17E-05=ρsed/(Θ+Kdρsed)ρsed= Sediment bulk density (g-soil/cm3-sediment) as dry weight1.67Θ= Total Sediment Porosity (cm3-por space/cm3-sediment)0.37Kd= Sediment-water sorption coefficient (g-H2O/g-sediment)24000SWMF = Surface water mixing factor (unitless)0.15104 of 104

# Figures

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA \DRAFT ECORA\BLANK PAGE.DOCDOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)Primary ReleasePrimary and TransportSecondarySecondary Release andExposureIdentified Receptors andSourceMechanismsSourceTransport MechanismMediaExposure Routes

Terrestrial Plants Soil Invertebrates Omnivorous Mammals - white-footed mouse Herbivorous Birds - Northern Bobwhite Carnivorous Mammals - Coyote Omnivorous Amphibians and reptiles Algae and Aquatic Vascular Plants - lillie s, reeds, sedges, epiphytes, periphytes,

phytoplankton Benthic Invertebrates - crayfish, snails, clams, annelids, caddisflies, mayflies, etc. Piscivorous, Omnivorous, Herbivorous and Planktivorous Fish Omivorous Birds - Spotted Sandpiper Piscivorous Birds - Belted Kingfisher Water Column Invertebrates - zooplankton, (rotifers, cladocerans, copepods), insectsAmbient AirDD D D D DSurface SoilD D/ID/ID/ID/ID/IPlantsI ID/I IIPreyIIIISurface Water -Lake SabineD/ID/I D/I D/ID/ID/I D/ISediment - LakeSabineDD D D/ID/IDD/ILegendI = IngestionPrey SpeciesIII I I ID = Direct ContactA = InhalationExposure pathways shown inBOLDare complete but were notevaluated due to lack of significance or data for evaluationDenotes a complete insignificant pathwayDenotes a complete significant pathwayFIGURE 1Conceptual Site Model for Pathways to Ecological ReceptorsState Marine Superfund SiteTerrestrial Plant UptakeTerrestrial Prey UptakeAquatic Prey Uptakefrom Sediments and WaterSuspendedSolids/StormwaterLeachingGroundwaterOverlandflowVolatilization andDust EmissionsHistoric ReleasesDuringManufacturingProcesses, WasteMaterials, andAffected SoilDRAFT - Discussion Purposes Only1 of 1Figure1_CSM.xls (Figure1)07/14/2005 7:25 AM

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVI R O NME N TAL PROTECTION AG E NCY\331756\TASK 7- R A \ SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)Carnivorous MammalsCoyote*, Red Fox*, Badger, SpottedSkunk, BobcatCarnivorous Amphibians/ReptilesEastern Yellowbelly Racer*, Great PlainsRat SnakeFigure 2Terrestrial FoodwebState Marine Superfund SiteOmnivorous MammalsWhite-footed mouse, LeastShrew*, Nine-Banded ArmadilloOmnivorous Amphibians/ReptilesVariousBufosp., Omate Box Turtle*InvertebratesArachnids, Gastropods, Oligochaetes,Insects, NematodesTerrestrial PlantsBermuda grass, Brazilian Vervain, Common reed,Southern Dewberry, Goldenrod, Giant Ragweed,Chinese tallow, Black willowSoilNutrients, Detritus

TROPHIC LEVEL 1

TROPHIC LEVEL 2

TROPHIC LEVEL 3 TROPHIC LEVEL 4Herbivorous BirdsNorthern Bobwhite*, MourningDove, Red-winged blackbird,Sparrow Species* receptors with an asterisk are species (orclosely related species) found in USEPA'sWildlife Exposure factors Handbook (1993)Receptorsin Italics are selected asrepresentative end point species for theirrespective guild s

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVI R O NME N TAL PROTECTION AG E NCY\331756\TASK 7- R A \ SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)Carnivorous BirdsOsprey, Brown or WhitePelican, White Egrets,Great blue or Tricoloredherons, Belted kingfisher*,Figure 3Marine Aquatic FoodwebState Marine Superfund SiteAlgaePhyloplankton, Epiphytes,PeriphytesWater and SedimentNutrients, Detritus, Bacteria, Fungi

TROPHIC LEVEL 1

TROPHIC LEVEL 2

TROPHIC LEVEL 3

TROPHIC LEVEL 4* receptors with an asterisk are species (orclosely related species) found in USEPA'sWildlife Exposure factors Handbook (1993)Receptorsin Italics are selected asrepresentative end point species for theirrespective guild sAquatic VegetationSmooth cordgrass, Bull rush, SeagrassesBenthicInvertebratesAmphipods, Insect larvae,Gastropods, Bivalves,Shrimp, CrabsWaterColumnInvertebratesCopepods, Diatoms,Bivalve larvae, Shrimps,Larval crabsHerbivorous/Planktivorous FishMullet, Sailfin MollyOmnivorous FishSheepshead, Sheepshead minnow,Gafftopsail, Hardhead catfishCarnivorous FishSpotted sea trout, Red drum,Black drumOmnivorous BirdsGulls, Terns, Willets,Blacknecked stilt,SpottedSandpiperOmnivorous Amphibians/ReptilesDiamond back, Terrapin

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVI R O NME N TAL PROTECTION AG E NCY\331756\TASK 7- R A \ SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)

# SO-18 (mg/kg)

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 31

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 24



# SO-30 (mg/kg)

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 11 

# SO-5 (mg/kg)

DIELDRIN 17 

# SO-4 (mg/kg)

DIELDRIN 10

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 21 SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL



# FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\ECO\FIG-4.mxd 

# 300 0 300 150

SCALE IN FEET 

# Figure 4 

# LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/13/2005 Note:

Text within labels that is Blue

Exceeds the PRG for that Criteria. 

# Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Property Boundary

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge Soil Samples that Do Not

Exceed any PRG Criteria

Soil Samples that

Exceed the Ecological

PRG Criteria

Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area 

# PARAMETER ECOLOGICAL

PRG VALUE

DIELDRIN 0.354 mg/kg

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.207 mg/kg

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.835 mg/kg

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVI R O NME N TAL PROTECTION AG E NCY\331756\TASK 7- R A \ SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)

# SO-30 (mg/kg)

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 11 

# SO-7 (mg/kg)

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ND



# SO-8 (mg/kg)

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ND 

# SO-11 (mg/kg)

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ND 

# SO-6 (mg/kg)

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ND



# SO-28\29 (mg/kg)

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ND R = 50' 

# 7847.598469 Sq. Ft.

FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\ECO\FIG-5.mxd 

# 100 0 100 50

SCALE IN FEET 

# Figure 5 

# LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/13/2005 

# Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Property Boundary

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge Soil Samples that

Do Not Exceed PRG Criteria

Soil Samples that Exceed

Ecological PRG Criteria

Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Buffer Around

Hot Spot Area

Note:

Text within labels that is Blue

Exceeds the PRG for that Criteria.

ND = NON DETECT 

# PARAMETER ECOLOGICAL

PRG VALUE

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.207 mg/kg

# SO-5 (mg/kg)

DIELDRIN 17

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.0085 

# SO-4 (mg/kg)

DIELDRIN 10

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 21

R = 50' R = 50' 

# 11192.421405 Sq. Ft.

FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\ECO\FIG-6.mxd 

# 50 0 50 25

SCALE IN FEET 

# Figure 6 

# LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/13/2005 

# Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Property Boundary

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge Soil Samples that

Do Not Exceed PRG Criteria

Soil Samples that Exceed

the Ecological PRG Criteria

Buffer Around

Hot Spot Area Note:

Text within labels that is Blue

Exceeds the PRG for that Criteria.

ND = NON DETECT 

# PARAMETER ECOLOGICAL

PRG VALUE

DIELDRIN 0.354 mg/kg

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.207 mg/kg

# SO-13 (mg/kg)

DIELDRIN ND

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ND

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE ND 

# SM117A (mg/kg)

ZINC 908=



# SO-18 (mg/kg)

DIELDRIN ND

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 31

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 24 

# SO-14\15 (mg/kg)

DIELDRIN ND

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ND

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE ND 

# SO-16 (mg/kg)

DIELDRIN ND

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ND

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE ND



# SO-10 (mg/kg)

DIELDRIN ND

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE ND

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE ND R = 25' 

# 1904.330229 Sq. Ft.

FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\ECO\FIG-7.mxd 

# 50 0 50 25

SCALE IN FEET 

# Figure 7 

# LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/13/2005 

# Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Property Boundary

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge Soil Samples that

Do Not Exceed PRG Criteria

Soil Samples that Exceed

the Ecological PRG Criteria Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area Offshore Area

Foot Buffer Around

Hot Spot Area

Note:

Text within labels that is Blue

Exceeds the PRG for that Criteria.

ND = NON DETECT 

# PARAMETER ECOLOGICAL

PRG VALUE

DIELDRIN 0.354 mg/kg

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.207 mg/kg

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.835 mg/kg

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVI R O NME N TAL PROTECTION AG E NCY\331756\TASK 7- R A \ SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)

# SM008 (mg/kg)

LEAD 189



# SM003 (mg/kg)

LEAD 942



# SM003 (mg/kg)

LEAD 432 SABINE-NECHES NAVIGATION CHANNEL



# FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\ECO\FIG-8.mxd 

# 200 0 200 100

SCALE IN FEET 

# Figure 8 

# LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/13/2005 

# Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Property Boundary

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge Sediment Samples that

Do Not Exceed PRG Criteria

Sediment Samples that Exceed

the Ecological PRG Criteria

Nearshore Area Intertidal Area

Offshore Area Note:

Text within labels that is Blue

Exceeds the PRG for that Criteria. 

# PARAMETER ECOLOGICAL

PRG VALUE

LEAD 132 mg/kg

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVI R O NME N TAL PROTECTION AG E NCY\331756\TASK 7- R A \ SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)

# R=50' 

# SM008 (mg/kg)

LEAD 189 

# SM009 (mg/kg)

LEAD 14.1



# SE-7 (mg/kg)

LEAD 6.5



# SM037 (mg/kg)

LEAD 14.4 4180 Sq. Ft.

FILENAME: J:\State_Marine\Project\MXD\ECO\FIG-9.mxd 

# 100 0 100 50

SCALE IN FEET 

# Figure 9 

# LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/13/2005 

# Area of Interest

Landfill Area

Property Boundary

Road

Navigation Channel

Sunken Barge Sediment Samples that

Do Not Exceed PRG Criteria

Sediment Samples that Exceed

the Ecological PRG Criteria Nearshore Area

Intertidal Area Offshore Area

Note:

Text within labels that is Blue

Exceeds the PRG for that Criteria. 

# PARAMETER ECOLOGICAL

PRG VALUE

LEAD 132 mg/kg

Buffer Around

Hot Spot Area

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA \DRAFT ECORA\BLANK PAGE.DOCDOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)

# Attachment 1

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA \DRAFT ECORA\BLANK PAGE.DOCDOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)

# Introduction

Background data were availabl e for both soil and sediment for the State Marine site.

These included five soil and five sedime nt samples. The background data are

summarized in **Table 1.** Both inorganic and organic parameter concentrations were

available, with the organic data having a higher percentage of nondetects, as is typical.

With this few samples, and the typically higher frequency of nondet ects, decisions with

background comparisons with the organi c data are not recommended. However,

statistics were carried out and reported for all parameters that were detected in both site

and background populations.

This statistical analysis primarily focused on comparisons of central tendency using the

nonparametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. These comparisons were reinforced with

graphical comparisons of the background and site data via box and whisker plots. The

comparison results with inorganics were us ed in consideration of which parameters

would be included in risk calculations. Background threshold values were also

calculated, as discussed later, but their use is not recommended for definitive decisions

(with inorganic or organic data) since estimates of the upper tail of the background

population carry considerable uncertaint y with only five background samples.

**Wilcoxon Rank Sum Comparisons**

The Wilcoxon Rank Sum (WRS) test is a nonparametric test used for determining

whether a difference exists between two popula tions. It can be used to test whether

measurements from one population (such as the site population) tend to be shifted

higher than those from another population (such as the background population).

Acknowledged as a nonparametric test, it is suggested by EPA background guidance for

cases when the sample size is less than 20 (EPA, 2002). As a nonparametric test based on

ranks of the data, it is less influenced by spurious results in either data set than

parametric tests, such as a t-test perf ormed on the concentrations, which makes a

distributional assump tion about the data.

This test calculates the probability that the observed differences between the two

populations are due merely to random variabil ity in the data, as opposed to being due to

an actual elevated shift in one. If this prob ability is less than a chosen significance level,

in this case 0.20, then the decision is made that a significant difference does exist

between the two populations. A significance level of 0.20 implies that one has 80%

confidence ([1 – 0. 20]*100%) that the two gr oups will be determined to be statistically

equivalent when they actually are.

With a background data set of only five sa mples (five for soil and five for sediment)

there is still considerable uncertainty in these background comparisons, but

complemented with the box and whisker plots presented in **Figures 1, 2, and 3** , a useful

understanding of how the background and si te populations compare can be obtained.

**Figure 1** presents plots for inorganics in soil, while **Figure 2** presents plots for organics

in soil. Plots of sediment data appear in **Figure 3.** Box and whisker plots are explained

in the following section.

# The results of these comparisons are presented in **Tables 2 through 14** for each matrixsite combination. While each table needs to be reviewed individually, four soil metals

are seen to be most likely to exceed backgrou nd. These are copper, lead, silver, and zinc.

Occasionally, these were not seen to exc eed background and occasionally other soil

metals were. For sediment, all metals exce pt for antimony were found to significantly

exceed background.

**Box and Whisker Plots**

Box and whisker plots are often very good at demonstrating how much overlap exists

between two or more populations. These plots simultaneously present information on

the central tendency, variability, and skewness for a sample data set by sketching the

center 50 percent of the concentrations with a box, and then illustrating the typical tail

regions of the distribution with whiskers (see EPA, 2000 for methodology and

examples). For atypical concentrations th at extend further from the center than the

whiskers, individual data symbols are plotted. These plots often provide a better visual

perspective on the comparison between popu lations than scatter pl ots, particularly

when a large number of data points cause in dividual scatter plot symbols to overlap.

Specifically, these box and whisker plots are constructed as follows:

• The height of the box represents the interquartile range (IQR). The IQR is the

distance between the 25th and the 75th percentiles.

• The horizontal line in the box interior represents the median.

• The vertical lines issuing from the bo x extend to the minimum and maximum

measured values (as long as these minimum and maximum values do not extend

further from the box than a distance of 1.5 times the IQR).

• Individual data symbols are used for co ncentrations that exceed the whiskers.

These principles are seen in the ex ample box and whisker plots shown in **Figure 4** . The

upper and lower edges of the box and the en ds of the whiskers all represent actual

measured concentrations in the sample data set. Specifically, for Data Group C, the 25th

percentile, 75th percentile, and median are all labe led as part of the box. In this plot the

overall minimum value serves as the end of th e whisker since it is within a distance of

1.5 x IQR from the box. The maximum valu es (and the next to the largest value),

however, are further from the box than a distance of 1.5 × IQR. Thus, they are labeled as

outliers. The third largest overall value, that represents the largest value within a

distance of 1.5 risk based concentration IQR, serves as the end of the upper whisker.

Various interpretations are possible by ex amining these box and whisker plots. For

example, if extensive overlap exists between the box plots from different data groups,

such as between data groups B and C, then the measurements from each group, on

average, are very similar. Conversely, little overlap, as seen between data group A and

the other two, suggests that the measurements from the groups are, on average, quite

different. The box and whisker plots presented in **Figures 1 through 3** offer a similar

# opportunity to visualize the comparisons be tween site and background concentrations

for inorganic soil, organic soil, and inorganic sediment, respectively.

75th Percentile

Median Outlier

25th Percentile Max Whisker Value Outlier

25th Percentile

Minimum ValueConcentration



# 0 10 20 30

Data Group ABC



# Figure 4: Example Box and Whisker Plots

**Comparisons to a Background Threshold Value**

A common feature in comparisons to background involves the calculation of a

background threshold value to which indivi dual site concentrations are compared.

There are various threshold values that can be calculated and three are included here.

These are the upper tolerance limit (UTL), the upper prediction limit (UPL), and the

maximum of background sample concentratio ns. Although these are presented in

**Table 1** , none of them were used definitively in determining whether a site should be

considered to exceed background (the WRS te st was used for this). The size of the

background data set (5 samples) makes it di fficult to estimate an appropriate elevated

background value. Instead, th ey are presented as auxiliary information, particularly for

those accustomed to considering these thresholds.

The UTL was calculated as a 95 percent/95 pe rcent background UTL, that is, an upper

bound (with 95 percent confidence) of the ba ckground 95th percentile. The calculation

of UTLs depends on a distributi onal assumption. Given that the sample size (5 samples)

did not lend itself to a good understanding of the distribution, all UTLs were calculated

assuming normality. Some environmen tal data sets, including background,

demonstrate more skewness than a normal distribution (positive skewness), but

# assuming normality tends to offer a lower ca lculated upper bound than if an attempt is

made to adjust for skewness, such as with a log transformation. Thus, the assumption

of normality tended to offer values conservative for the environment.

Furthermore, the Shapiro-Wilk test for norm ality was performed on each parameter (see

**Table 1)** with the results suggesting that normality was a typically good assumption

(only a few p-values less than 0.05, the recommended threshold for this test of

normality) although with only five samples one would typically not expect there to be

sufficient evidence to reject normality (u nless strong deviations from a normal

distribution were indicated). The normal UTLs were calculated using the following

equation:



# ( ) sKxUTL ×+=

,

where 

# x is the sample mean;

K is the tolerance factor; and

s is the sample standard deviation.

Since UTLs are an estimate of the 95 th 

# percentile of the background population, one

understands that (with 95% confidence) as many as 5% of results equivalent to

background may exceed this threshold.

Included in **Tables 2 through 14** are the number of exceedances of the UTL as well as the

percentage of exceedances. Assuming the background populations for which the UTLs

were calculated were normally distributed, one would expect this percentage to exceed

5% only about 5% of the time (1 in 20) if the upper tails of the site and background

populations are equivalent. Of course, considerable uncertainty exists given the

background sample size, so this comparison was not relied upon, even though it is

reported.

Some consideration to using UPLs as a bac kground threshold value has been voiced in

the environmental community. It is an upper confidence limit on the next encountered

site result. The UPLs were also calculated with a confidence level of 95% and an

assumption of normality as follows:



# n stxUPL

n 

# 1 1

1,95.0 

# +××+=

− 

# ,

where 

# x is the sample mean;

t is the Student’s t statistic;

n is the number of background samples; and

s is the sample standard deviation.

Adjustments to the equation are possible to expand the limit to include some future

number of multiple results, but this is not typical of those proposing UPLs as a

background threshold value. Because the UPL focuses on the next encountered result, it

sometimes results in a large number of exc eedances (of the UPL) when the number of

site results to be compared is large (even more so than the UTL). Being closer to the

# mean, it is often considered a more stable value than the UTL, but it also results in more

exceedances by results equivalent to th ose in the background population (false

indications of individual ex ceedances over background).

The number of exceedances are provided in **Tables 2 through 14** . Also include are the

number of exceedances of the background sample maximum. The number of UPL

exceedances are more than th e number of exceedances of the UTL which is to be

expected since it tends to estimate a lower percentile than the UTL. Even more

exceedances are noted with the background sample maximum. The background sample

maximum also estimates a value less than the 95 th 

# percentile with small data sets. (It

would not estimate the 95 th 

# percentile, with 95% confidence, unless about 60 background

samples were available.)

As would be expected, the number of exceed ances of these background threshold values

increases when the site population appears to exceed the background population (as

indicated by the WRS test). With a small number of background samples, however,

estimating an upper percentile of the backgrou nd population carries a lot of uncertainty,

and reliance on these values is not recommended.

**References**

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Guidance for Data Quality

Assessment. Practical Methods for Data Analysis . Office of Research and Development,

Washington, D.C. 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Guidance for Comparing Background

and Chemical Concentrations in Soil for CERCLA Sites , Office of Emergency and Remedial

Response, 2002.

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA \DRAFT ECORA\BLANK PAGE.DOCDOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)63/635/5 9/9 43/43 11/11 21/635/59/9 11/43 1/1163/635/59/9 43/43 11/1163/635/59/9 43/43 11/11Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected InorganicsNS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship trafficBkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;ALUMINUM

Concentration, mg/kg0100020003000400050006000700080009000Bkgd ALL INT NS OSANTIMONY

Concentration, mg/kg024681012141618Bkgd ALL INT NS OSARSENIC

Concentration, mg/kg02468101214Bkgd ALL INT NS OSBARIUM

Concentration, mg/kg0100200300Bkgd ALL INT NS OS45/632/5 2/9 33/43 10/11 55/635/5 9/9 35/43 11/1163/635/59/9 43/43 11/1164/645/59/9 44/44 11/11Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected InorganicsNS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship trafficBkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;BERYLLIUM

Concentration, mg/kg0123Bkgd ALL INT NS OSCADMIUM

Concentration, mg/kg0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6Bkgd ALL INT NS OSCALCIUM

Concentration, mg/kg020000400006000080000100000120000140000160000180000Bkgd ALL INT NS OSCHROMIUM, TOTAL

Concentration, mg/kg0102030405060708090Bkgd ALL INT NS OS64/645/5 9/9 44/44 11/11 63/640/5 9/9 43/44 11/1163/635/59/9 43/43 11/1163/635/59/9 43/43 11/11Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected InorganicsNS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship trafficBkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;COBALT

Concentration, mg/kg0102030Bkgd ALL INT NS OSCOPPER

Concentration, mg/kg0100200300400Bkgd ALL INT NS OSIRON

Concentration, mg/kg050000100000150000200000250000Bkgd ALL INT NS OSLEAD

Concentration, mg/kg01002003004005006007008009001000Bkgd ALL INT NS OS63/635/5 9/9 43/43 11/11 63/635/59/9 43/43 11/1121/642/59/9 11/44 1/1163/635/59/9 43/43 11/11Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected InorganicsNS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship trafficBkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;MAGNESIUM

Concentration, mg/kg010002000300040005000Bkgd ALL INT NS OSMANGANESE

Concentration, mg/kg02004006008001000120014001600Bkgd ALL INT NS OSMERCURY

Concentration, mg/kg0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18Bkgd ALL INT NS OSNICKEL

Concentration, mg/kg0102030405060708090Bkgd ALL INT NS OS63/635/5 9/9 43/43 11/11 63/635/59/9 43/43 11/1163/635/59/9 43/43 11/1163/635/59/9 43/43 11/11Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected InorganicsNS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship trafficBkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;POTASSIUM

Concentration, mg/kg0100020003000Bkgd ALL INT NS OSSODIUM

Concentration, mg/kg0100020003000400050006000Bkgd ALL INT NS OSVANADIUM

Concentration, mg/kg0102030Bkgd ALL INT NS OSZINC

Concentration, mg/kg01000200030004000Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

# BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA \DRAFT ECORA\BLANK PAGE.DOCDOC JULY 2005 

# (This page intentionally left blank.)