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 05-7898

July 2005

In Association With:

Science Applications International Corporation 

Geo-Marine, Inc. 

005592
BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT 

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 

005593
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 Potential 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 the 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 COPCs in Former Wastewater Impoundments Soil 

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

13 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of COPCs 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 COPCs 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 COPCs in the Lake Sabine Sediment – Intertidal 

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

20 Occurrence, distribution, and selection of COPCs 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 

005594
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 the Former Wastewater Impoundments 

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

33 HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the 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

005595
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 State 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 risk 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) (Weston, 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 sources and included areas outside the immediate 

source boundaries. The following soil data 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 groupings as presented previously in the RI Report 

and described below:

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

high water mark. Piscivorous birds and omnivorous 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. 

005596
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 organisms and the pathway would be addressed 

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

were observed during the site reconnaissance 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 approximately 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 sediment 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) gradient 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 eliminated 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. 

005597
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 appeared to exist relative to the background 

data population. This involved the non-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 this study while the conclusions 

from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum are used for risk decisions. 

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

background dataset underwent a final review for inappropriate conclusions. 

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

the COPEC screening process. A summary of the 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 constituents 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 comparison. 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 the constituents that were eliminated. However, 

these constituents were eliminated from quantitative evaluation because the statistical 

background analysis has shown that the risks 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 maximum detected concentration in each medium 

within each exposure area was compared to its appropriate medium-specific ecological riskbased screening levels, identified below and depicted in Tables 11-20: 

• Soil – Qualitative (Iron and aluminum) and quantitative 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 sources were used as necessary. 

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

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

for quantitative evaluation for risk to upper trophic level wildlife. Those constituents 

without either screening values or wildlife 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 

005598
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. Bioaccumulative 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 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were 

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

perform a gradient analysis. Insufficient spatial 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 birds (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 that 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 plant species found on site are not known to 

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

ingestion pathway, would not be substantial for 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 potential 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 marine food webs present at the site in Figures 2 

and 3. 

005599
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 end of the risk assessment as to whether the 

null hypothesis was accepted or rejected.

7. Complete Exposure Pathways 

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

pathways were significant, complete, and which 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 organisms, 2) foliar uptake of dissolved COPCs 

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

lack enough accompanying toxicological exposure information and guidance for a complete 

quantitative evaluation (USEPA, 1999). 

Exposure to subsurface soil was not considered. 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 chemical-specific Exposure Point Concentrations 

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

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

were estimated using chemical-specific bioaccumulation 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. 

005600
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 because, 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 exposure 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 combined 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 sandpiper 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 was 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 feeding 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 factor for the spotted sandpiper risk estimates. 

9. Effects Assessment 

Toxicity values used in the screening level evaluation (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 used 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 sources 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 dividing exposure point concentrations (EPC) by 

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

toxicological reference values for wildlife. HIs 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. 

005601
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 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 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 risk 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 mouse 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 LOAEL-based HQs exceed unity. However, the risk 

for beta-endosulfan is not bound by a LOAEL due 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 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 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 omnivorous/ 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), 

005602
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 guild 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 the 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 analysis or risk management is required.

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

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

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

Ecological Risk Assessment Workgroup 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 many of the VOCs, values were derived using 

equilibrium partitioning methodology as described in TNRCC 2001. Since few marine 

sediment screening values are available, these 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 magnitude 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 marginal 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 for 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 further analysis and/or risk management. 

The analysis of the Nearshore Area indicates marginal 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 fewer 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. 

005603
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 concentrations of 20 samples exceed the primary effect 

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

barium samples exceed the primary screening value, 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 available 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 for further analysis or risk management. 

The analysis of the Offshore Area indicates marginal 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 marginal, do not require further analysis, and are 

not recommended for risk management. 

Omnivorous/Insectivorous Birds: HQs for the spotted 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 representing omnivorous/ insectivorous shore birds 

foraging in both the intertidal and nearshore 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 assumptions made to perform the assessment. A 

qualitative evaluation of the major general uncertainties 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 based 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 food, water, and soil ingestion rates can differ 

among individuals and locations, published parameter values may not accurately reflect 

individuals present at the site. Consequently, risk may be either overestimated or 

underestimated. 

005604
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 were 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 indicative 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 site receptors to estimate concentrations in 

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

similar in comparable food types. The suitability 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 (Sample and Arenal, 1999), these factors are not 

chemical-specific and are based on acute toxicity 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, antagonistic, 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 wildlife using one-half the detection limit as a 

proxy value for non-detects. This assumption 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 sediments in this area are also subject to tidal 

movements. Sediments located in such an active 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 pesticide 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 areas, 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. 

005605
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 amphibians 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 representative 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 ecological 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 toxicity 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 evaluated. 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 vice 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 screening risk assessment assume that 100 percent of 

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

Most chemicals will not be 100 percent bioavailable. 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 COPECs. 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 presented risk to a given COC within a given 

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

for wildlife or between primary and secondary 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 

- - - 

005606
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 ground water to sediment protective 

screening value (0.8 ug/L) based on methods 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 water from the site could be a potential source of 

lead to sediments in the intertidal area that 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 balance (1) residual risks posed by site contaminants before and 

after implementation of the selected remedy 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 Analysis (NEBA) provides a framework to meet this guidance. A 

NEBA can be conducted to support the selection 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 

005607
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 provide 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. 

005608
BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT 

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 

005609
P:\USEPA\331756\TASK 7-RA\DRAFT ECORA\TECH MEMO.DOC 13 

References 

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

reproduction and evaluation of its induction effects 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. Bleavins, et al. 1982. Effects of supplemental dietary 

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

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

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

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

Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a. Empirical 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 Accumulation 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, Management 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 Heptachlor. 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 confined 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.

005610
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. Delineation of the role of metabolism in the 

hepatotoxicity of trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene: 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 osmotic 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 Assessment 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 Human 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 cobalt. Avian Diseases, 38:308-316. 

Dikshith, T. S. S., R. B. Raizada, M. K. Srivastava, 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 lactation 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.

005611
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 insecticides 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 acute oral LD50 with bobwhite quail. Study 

number PR711701, Miles report 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 Invertebrates: 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. Titus. 1960. Tolerance of Chickens for Barium. 

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

005612
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. Ormiston. 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 INTERTIDAL 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 development. 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 requirement 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 

005613
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, National 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 Journal 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 chronically exposed to dietary lead. J. Toxicol. 

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

Salyer, J.C.; Lagler, K.F. 1946. The eastern belted kingfisher, Megaceryle 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.

005614
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 Department 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 quail 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 Engineering 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 Reproductive 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 

005615
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 tests 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. Toxicity 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)F1 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 Handbook. 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 Level 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 Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Office of Solid 

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

005616
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 (USFWS). 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 utilization by bobwhite quail during winter. 

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

005617
Tables 

005618
BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT 

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 

005619
Table 1

Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Former Wastewater Impoundments to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 METAL ALUMINUM 0.715 no 12/12 5/5 6300 7240 4990 6370 0 0 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.121 Yes 8/12 1/5 8.62 2.03 1.4 0.43  METAL ARSENIC 0.642 no 12/12 5/5 5.78 8.3 6 6.4 0 0 

 METAL BARIUM 0.359 no 12/12 5/5 259 243 211 225 0 0 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.521 no 12/12 5/5 0.483 0.622 0.485 0.5 0 0 

 METAL CALCIUM 0.958 no 12/12 5/5 7770 22200 7110 16100 0 0 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.521 no 12/12 5/5 14.6 16.9 10.9 13.8 0 0 

 METAL COBALT 0.679 no 12/12 5/5 5.08 7.7 5.15 4.3 0 0 

 METAL COPPER 0.051 Yes 12/12 5/5 74.2 23.1 58.3 10.7 2 17 

 METAL CYANIDE 0.770 no 1/12 2/5 0.19 0.437 0.065 0.21 

 METAL IRON 0.359 no 12/12 5/5 20400 35400 17900 12000 0 0 

 METAL LEAD 0.061 Yes 12/12 5/5 120 32 83.1 22.2 5 42 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.939 no 12/12 5/5 1350 2150 1430 2600 0 0 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.878 no 12/12 5/5 274 544 275 427 0 0 

 METAL MERCURY 0.232 no 6/12 1/5 0.0908 0.061 0.07 0.065 

 METAL NICKEL 0.500 no 12/12 5/5 19.7 19.9 13.8 18.2 0 0 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.945 no 12/12 5/5 935 1430 946 1530 0 0 

 METAL SELENIUM 0.843 no 1/12 1/5 0.621 1.02 0.625 0.65 

 METAL SILVER 0.166 Yes 9/12 3/5 0.785 0.385 0.585 0.42 5 42 

 METAL SODIUM 0.562 no 8/12 5/5 354 362 321 312 0 0 

 METAL THALLIUM 0.500 no 4/12 1/5 1.19 1.85 0.675 0.65  METAL VANADIUM 0.748 no 12/12 5/5 16.5 23 16.9 18.3 0 0 

 METAL ZINC 0.028 Yes 12/12 5/5 210 66 211 56.5 6 50 

 SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.541 no 5/12 1/5 0.294 0.181 0.198 0.21  SVOC ACENAPHTHENE 0.698 no 8/12 1/5 0.146 0.156 0.0875 0.21  SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.582 no 11/12 1/5 0.689 0.215 0.195 0.22 

 SVOC ANTHRACENE 0.378 no 11/12 1/5 0.715 0.195 0.23 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.285 no 11/12 2/5 0.458 0.208 0.25 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.251 no 10/12 2/5 0.626 0.282 0.215 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.235 no 11/12 2/5 0.889 0.22 0.305 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.583 no 8/12 1/5 1.21 0.509 0.155 0.22  SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.735 no 8/12 2/5 0.168 0.191 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC CARBAZOLE 0.661 no 10/12 1/5 0.195 0.171 0.0875 0.21 

 SVOC CHRYSENE 0.236 no 11/12 2/5 0.905 0.275 0.365 0.22 

 SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.338 no 1/12 1/5 0.286 0.158 0.208 0.21 

 SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.963 no 8/12 1/5 0.123 0.239 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC FLUORANTHENE 0.073 Yes 11/12 3/5 0.738 0.157 0.34 0.085 4 33  SVOC FLUORENE 0.320 no 7/12 1/5 0.175 0.128 0.15 0.085 

 SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.500 no 9/12 2/5 0.474 0.262 0.11 0.22 

 SVOC NAPHTHALENE 0.521 no 5/12 1/5 0.244 0.175 0.198 0.21 

 SVOC PHENANTHRENE 0.251 no 12/12 2/5 0.531 0.166 0.225 0.22 

 SVOC PYRENE 0.131 Yes 11/12 2/5 1.44 0.311 0.365 0.22 

 SVOC 

 bis(2-ETHYLHEXYL) 

PHTHALATE 0.438 no 4/12 3/5 0.823 0.401 0.215 0.21 1 8 

1 of 104

005620
Table 2

Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Wastwater Treatment Facility to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 METAL ALUMINUM 0.500 no 7/7 5/5 6720 7240 6630 6370 0 0 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.086 Yes 6/7 1/5 2.24 2.03 1.7 0.43 

 METAL ARSENIC 0.318 no 7/7 5/5 8.33 8.3 6.8 6.4 0 0 

 METAL BARIUM 0.890 no 7/7 5/5 139 243 98.9 225 0 0 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.140 Yes 7/7 5/5 0.749 0.622 0.65 0.5 0 0  METAL CALCIUM 0.961 no 7/7 5/5 5220 22200 5630 16100 0 0 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.318 no 7/7 5/5 22.9 16.9 12.8 13.8 0 0 

 METAL COBALT 0.264 no 7/7 5/5 7.7 7.7 5.8 4.3 0 0 

 METAL COPPER 0.051 Yes 7/7 5/5 101 23.1 50.6 10.7 2 29 

 METAL CYANIDE 0.809 no 1/7 2/5 0.162 0.437 0.065 0.21 

 METAL IRON 0.175 Yes 7/7 5/5 47300 35400 17700 12000 0 0 

 METAL LEAD 0.022 Yes 7/7 5/5 90.3 32 61.4 22.2 3 43 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.682 no 7/7 5/5 1760 2150 1270 2600 0 0 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.682 no 7/7 5/5 1870 544 335 427 1 14 

 METAL MERCURY 0.174 Yes 5/7 1/5 0.231 0.061 0.07 0.065  METAL NICKEL 0.318 no 7/7 5/5 29.7 19.9 16.2 18.2 0 0 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.735 no 7/7 5/5 1280 1430 1070 1530 0 0 

 METAL SELENIUM 0.684 no 2/7 1/5 1.08 1.02 0.6 0.65 

 METAL SILVER 0.086 Yes 5/7 3/5 0.858 0.385 0.82 0.42 4 57 

 METAL SODIUM 0.110 Yes 7/7 5/5 1160 362 890 312 2 29 

 METAL THALLIUM 0.683 no 2/7 1/5 2.12 1.85 0.6 0.65 

 METAL VANADIUM 0.735 no 7/7 5/5 17.6 23 16.2 18.3 0 0 

 METAL ZINC 0.009 Yes 7/7 5/5 389 66 331 56.5 4 57 

 SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.711 no 2/7 1/5 0.153 0.181 0.205 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHENE 0.916 no 3/7 1/5 0.0971 0.156 0.085 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.878 no 4/7 1/5 0.148 0.215 0.085 0.22  SVOC ANTHRACENE 0.736 no 6/7 1/5 0.178 0.195 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC BENZALDEHYDE 0.048 Yes 2/7 3/5 0.125 0.0382 0.085 0.009 0 0 

 SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.563 no 5/7 2/5 0.219 0.208 0.11 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.595 no 5/7 2/5 0.201 0.282 0.1 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.375 no 5/7 2/5 0.324 0.22 0.15 0.22  SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.915 no 4/7 1/5 0.142 0.509 0.13 0.22  SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.737 no 5/7 2/5 0.129 0.191 0.085 0.22  SVOC CARBAZOLE 0.936 no 3/7 1/5 0.11 0.171 0.085 0.21  SVOC CHRYSENE 0.375 no 5/7 2/5 0.333 0.275 0.17 0.22 

 SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.979 no 5/7 1/5 0.0643 0.239 0.085 0.22  SVOC FLUORANTHENE 0.317 no 5/7 3/5 0.434 0.157 0.13 0.085 1 14 

 SVOC FLUORENE 0.500 no 3/7 1/5 0.131 0.128 0.09 0.085  SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.684 no 5/7 2/5 0.15 0.262 0.11 0.22  SVOC NAPHTHALENE 0.827 no 2/7 1/5 0.139 0.175 0.12 0.21  SVOC PHENANTHRENE 0.532 no 6/7 2/5 0.256 0.166 0.09 0.22 

 SVOC PYRENE 0.468 no 5/7 2/5 0.374 0.311 0.14 0.22 

2 of 104

005621
Table 3

Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Current Aboveground Storage Tanks to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 METAL ALUMINUM 0.967 no 5/5 5/5 1780 7240 1040 6370 0 0 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.387 no 2/3 1/5 1.66 2.03 2.1 0.43 

 METAL ARSENIC 0.912 no 5/5 5/5 3.6 8.3 1.6 6.4 0 0 

 METAL BARIUM 0.500 no 5/5 5/5 194 243 233 225 0 0 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.977 no 3/5 5/5 0.134 0.622 0.09 0.5 0 0 

 METAL CALCIUM 0.967 no 4/5 5/5 3630 22200 1870 16100 0 0 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.880 no 5/5 5/5 28.2 16.9 3.2 13.8 1 20 

 METAL COBALT 0.967 no 5/5 5/5 1.81 7.7 1.2 4.3 0 0 

 METAL COPPER 0.620 no 5/5 5/5 14.8 23.1 10.3 10.7 0 0 

 METAL CYANIDE 0.867 no 2/5 2/5 0.122 0.437 0.06 0.21 

 METAL IRON 0.911 no 5/5 5/5 7830 35400 5020 12000 0 0  METAL LEAD 0.580 no 5/5 5/5 134 32 20.4 22.2 1 20 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.976 no 5/5 5/5 348 2150 219 2600 0 0 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.967 no 5/5 5/5 140 544 75 427 0 0 

 METAL MERCURY 0.623 no 2/5 1/5 0.064 0.061 0.03 0.065 

 METAL NICKEL 0.967 no 5/5 5/5 5.88 19.9 4.7 18.2 0 0 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.983 no 5/5 5/5 396 1430 304 1530 0 0 

 METAL SILVER 0.500 no 4/5 3/5 0.458 0.385 0.33 0.42 1 20 

 METAL SODIUM 0.657 no 5/5 5/5 291 362 261 312 0 0 

 METAL VANADIUM 0.879 no 5/5 5/5 11.5 23 4.9 18.3 0 0 

 METAL ZINC 0.420 no 5/5 5/5 142 66 76.3 56.5 1 20 

 SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.815 no 2/5 1/5 0.147 0.181 0.195 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHENE 0.541 no 2/5 1/5 0.215 0.156 0.2 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.968 no 4/5 1/5 0.087 0.215 0.02 0.22 

 SVOC ANTHRACENE 0.816 no 3/5 1/5 0.392 0.195 0.2 0.22 

 SVOC BENZALDEHYDE 0.160 Yes 3/5 3/5 0.0886 0.0382 0.03 0.009 0 0 

 SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.657 no 5/5 2/5 0.648 0.208 0.05 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.657 no 5/5 2/5 0.596 0.282 0.06 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.657 no 5/5 2/5 0.966 0.22 0.09 0.22  SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.815 no 3/5 1/5 0.308 0.509 0.2 0.22  SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.838 no 5/5 2/5 0.388 0.191 0.04 0.22  SVOC CARBAZOLE 0.581 no 2/5 1/5 0.171 0.171 0.2 0.21  SVOC CHRYSENE 0.787 no 5/5 2/5 0.622 0.275 0.08 0.22 

 SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.815 no 2/5 1/5 0.193 0.239 0.2 0.22  SVOC FLUORANTHENE 0.580 no 5/5 3/5 2.07 0.157 0.07 0.085 1 20 

 SVOC FLUORENE 0.211 no 1/5 1/5 0.255 0.128 0.2 0.085  SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.787 no 5/5 2/5 0.254 0.262 0.04 0.22  SVOC NAPHTHALENE 0.861 no 2/5 1/5 0.139 0.175 0.195 0.21 

 SVOC PHENANTHRENE 0.580 no 4/5 2/5 0.844 0.166 0.13 0.22 

 SVOC PYRENE 0.657 no 5/5 2/5 1.76 0.311 0.13 0.22 

3 of 104

005622
Table 4

Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Maintenance Shed Area to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 METAL ALUMINUM 0.947 no 9/9 5/5 3470 7240 3370 6370 0 0 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.261 no 4/8 1/5 4.26 2.03 3.15 0.43  METAL ARSENIC 0.762 no 9/9 5/5 6.23 8.3 6.1 6.4 0 0 

 METAL BARIUM 0.917 no 9/9 5/5 129 243 70.9 225 0 0 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.557 no 7/8 5/5 0.559 0.622 0.51 0.5 0 0  METAL CALCIUM 0.781 no 9/9 5/5 34600 22200 7590 16100 2 22 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.699 no 9/9 5/5 12 16.9 10.4 13.8 0 0 

 METAL COBALT 0.742 no 9/9 5/5 4.2 7.7 5 4.3 0 0 

 METAL COPPER 0.500 no 9/9 5/5 49.1 23.1 18.9 10.7 1 11 

 METAL CYANIDE 0.557 no 1/8 2/5 0.246 0.437 0.315 0.21 

 METAL IRON 0.652 no 9/9 5/5 16700 35400 15500 12000 0 0 

 METAL LEAD 0.348 no 9/9 5/5 101 32 63.5 22.2 4 44 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.897 no 9/9 5/5 1360 2150 845 2600 0 0 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.967 no 9/9 5/5 207 544 113 427 0 0 

 METAL MERCURY 0.306 no 4/8 1/5 0.0856 0.061 0.065 0.065 

 METAL NICKEL 0.781 no 9/9 5/5 13.1 19.9 10.5 18.2 0 0 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.933 no 9/9 5/5 767 1430 948 1530 0 0 

 METAL SILVER 0.820 no 2/8 3/5 0.716 0.385 0.273 0.42 2 25 

 METAL SODIUM 0.699 no 9/9 5/5 293 362 243 312 0 0 

 METAL THALLIUM 0.744 no 3/9 1/5 27.1 1.85 0.6 0.65 

 METAL VANADIUM 0.967 no 9/9 5/5 10.5 23 10.7 18.3 0 0 

 METAL ZINC 0.103 Yes 9/9 5/5 386 66 143 56.5 3 33 

 SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.889 no 4/9 1/5 0.131 0.181 0.085 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHENE 0.682 no 1/9 1/5 0.14 0.156 0.085 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.937 no 4/9 1/5 0.113 0.215 0.085 0.22  SVOC ANTHRACENE 0.604 no 6/9 1/5 0.156 0.195 0.1 0.22 

 SVOC BENZALDEHYDE 0.029 Yes 1/9 3/5 0.122 0.0382 0.085 0.009 0 0 

 SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.703 no 4/9 2/5 0.216 0.208 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.603 no 7/9 2/5 0.343 0.282 0.12 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.371 no 5/9 2/5 0.558 0.22 0.27 0.22  SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.934 no 7/9 1/5 0.242 0.509 0.11 0.22  SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.500 no 4/9 2/5 0.393 0.191 0.085 0.22  SVOC CARBAZOLE 0.928 no 5/9 1/5 0.112 0.171 0.085 0.21  SVOC CHRYSENE 0.526 no 5/9 2/5 0.351 0.275 0.16 0.22 

 SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.703 no 2/9 1/5 0.134 0.158 0.085 0.21 

 SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.910 no 4/9 1/5 0.164 0.239 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC FLUORANTHENE 0.102 Yes 6/9 3/5 0.763 0.157 0.24 0.085 2 22 

 SVOC FLUORENE 0.390 no 1/9 1/5 0.147 0.128 0.085 0.085 

 SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.743 no 7/9 2/5 0.194 0.262 0.09 0.22 

 SVOC NAPHTHALENE 0.835 no 4/9 1/5 0.137 0.175 0.085 0.21 

 SVOC PHENANTHRENE 0.500 no 6/9 2/5 0.322 0.166 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC PYRENE 0.526 no 7/9 2/5 0.792 0.311 0.2 0.22 

 SVOC 

 bis(2-ETHYLHEXYL) 

PHTHALATE 0.877 no 2/9 3/5 0.182 0.401 0.085 0.21 0 0 

4 of 104

005623
Table 5

Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Tar Burn Area to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 METAL ALUMINUM 0.547 no 4/4 5/5 8250 7240 5790 6370 0 0 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.107 Yes 4/4 1/5 2.75 2.03 1.85 0.43  METAL ARSENIC 0.500 no 4/4 5/5 6.45 8.3 6.8 6.4 0 0 

 METAL BARIUM 0.849 no 4/4 5/5 119 243 120 225 0 0 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.453 no 4/4 5/5 0.508 0.622 0.505 0.5 0 0 

 METAL CALCIUM 0.500 no 4/4 5/5 28400 22200 21700 16100 0 0 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.500 no 4/4 5/5 13.9 16.9 11.5 13.8 0 0 

 METAL COBALT 0.500 no 4/4 5/5 4.9 7.7 4.8 4.3 0 0 

 METAL COPPER 0.107 Yes 4/4 5/5 64.7 23.1 43.2 10.7 1 25 

 METAL CYANIDE 0.641 no 1/4 2/5 0.11 0.437 0.0675 0.21 

 METAL IRON 0.406 no 4/4 5/5 13900 35400 12700 12000 0 0 

 METAL LEAD 0.052 Yes 4/4 5/5 320 32 138 22.2 3 75 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.849 no 4/4 5/5 1350 2150 1250 2600 0 0 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.721 no 4/4 5/5 321 544 344 427 0 0 

 METAL MERCURY 0.107 Yes 4/4 1/5 0.158 0.061 0.13 0.065  METAL NICKEL 0.500 no 4/4 5/5 14.6 19.9 12.1 18.2 0 0 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.721 no 4/4 5/5 1180 1430 1100 1530 0 0 

 METAL SILVER 0.024 Yes 4/4 3/5 0.873 0.385 0.845 0.42 4 100 

 METAL SODIUM 0.151 Yes 4/4 5/5 476 362 468 312 0 0 

 METAL THALLIUM 0.452 no 1/4 1/5 0.813 1.85 0.675 0.65 

 METAL VANADIUM 0.721 no 4/4 5/5 15.2 23 16.2 18.3 0 0 

 METAL ZINC 0.035 Yes 4/4 5/5 327 66 393 56.5 3 75 

 SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.594 no 2/4 1/5 0.129 0.181 0.13 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHENE 0.241 no 1/4 1/5 0.183 0.156 0.228 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.594 no 3/4 1/5 0.21 0.215 0.17 0.22  SVOC ANTHRACENE 0.500 no 4/4 1/5 0.188 0.195 0.175 0.22 

 SVOC BENZALDEHYDE 0.051 Yes 3/4 3/5 1.66 0.0382 0.165 0.009 1 25 

 SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.208 no 4/4 2/5 0.43 0.208 0.37 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.208 no 4/4 2/5 0.545 0.282 0.455 0.22  SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.075 Yes 4/4 2/5 0.685 0.22 0.695 0.22  SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.547 no 4/4 1/5 0.255 0.509 0.25 0.22  SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.151 Yes 4/4 2/5 0.66 0.191 0.595 0.22  SVOC CARBAZOLE 0.594 no 3/4 1/5 0.168 0.171 0.15 0.21  SVOC CHRYSENE 0.151 Yes 4/4 2/5 0.468 0.275 0.34 0.22 

 SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.241 no 1/4 1/5 0.223 0.158 0.228 0.21 

 SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.873 no 4/4 1/5 0.105 0.239 0.09 0.22 

 SVOC FLUORANTHENE 0.052 Yes 4/4 3/5 0.753 0.157 0.51 0.085 1 25 

 SVOC FLUORENE 0.406 no 2/4 1/5 0.146 0.128 0.17 0.085  SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.318 no 4/4 2/5 0.375 0.262 0.345 0.22 

 SVOC NAPHTHALENE 0.594 no 2/4 1/5 0.131 0.175 0.135 0.21 

 SVOC PHENANTHRENE 0.279 no 4/4 2/5 0.37 0.166 0.25 0.22 

 SVOC PYRENE 0.151 Yes 4/4 2/5 0.725 0.311 0.64 0.22 

 SVOC 

 bis(2-ETHYLHEXYL) 

PHTHALATE 0.075 Yes 2/4 3/5 1.37 0.401 0.275 0.21 1 25 

5 of 104

005624
Table 6

Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Former Lauren Tank Farm to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 METAL ALUMINUM 0.806 no 13/13 5/5 5350 7240 4730 6370 0 0 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.721 no 2/13 1/5 0.842 2.03 0.55 0.43 

 METAL ARSENIC 0.500 no 13/13 5/5 8.12 8.3 6.3 6.4 0 0 

 METAL BARIUM 0.976 no 13/13 5/5 110 243 96.4 225 0 0 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.500 no 10/13 5/5 0.507 0.622 0.55 0.5 0 0 

 METAL CALCIUM 0.961 no 13/13 5/5 6440 22200 4500 16100 0 0 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.703 no 13/13 5/5 48.3 16.9 9.5 13.8 1 8 

 METAL COBALT 0.423 no 13/13 5/5 6.22 7.7 5.4 4.3 0 0 

 METAL COPPER 0.109 Yes 13/13 5/5 622 23.1 24.5 10.7 3 23 

 METAL CYANIDE 0.705 no 1/13 2/5 0.252 0.437 0.19 0.21 

 METAL IRON 0.423 no 13/13 5/5 24600 35400 17400 12000 0 0 

 METAL LEAD 0.109 Yes 13/13 5/5 137 32 51.4 22.2 3 23 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.961 no 13/13 5/5 1210 2150 1230 2600 0 0 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.944 no 13/13 5/5 254 544 208 427 0 0 

 METAL MERCURY 0.202 no 5/12 1/5 0.593 0.061 0.0675 0.065 

 METAL NICKEL 0.651 no 13/13 5/5 42.5 19.9 10.6 18.2 1 8 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.539 no 13/13 5/5 1420 1430 1330 1530 0 0 

 METAL SELENIUM 0.961 no 3/13 1/5 0.754 1.02 0.4 0.65 

 METAL SILVER 0.349 no 7/13 3/5 0.925 0.385 0.29 0.42 1 8 

 METAL SODIUM 0.314 no 12/13 5/5 694 362 858 312 3 23 

 METAL THALLIUM 0.945 no 2/13 1/5 0.676 1.85 0.55 0.65 

 METAL VANADIUM 0.780 no 13/13 5/5 15.1 23 15.2 18.3 0 0 

 METAL ZINC 0.126 Yes 13/13 5/5 222 66 111 56.5 3 23 

 SVOC 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.936 no 8/13 1/5 0.294 0.181 0.085 0.21  SVOC ACENAPHTHENE 0.520 no 2/13 1/5 0.294 0.156 0.085 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.923 no 9/13 1/5 0.204 0.215 0.085 0.22  SVOC ANTHRACENE 0.955 no 9/13 1/5 0.208 0.195 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC BENZALDEHYDE 0.040 Yes 5/13 3/5 0.241 0.0382 0.085 0.009 0 0 

 SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.558 no 8/13 2/5 0.609 0.208 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.500 no 10/13 2/5 0.69 0.282 0.13 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.615 no 11/13 2/5 0.708 0.22 0.11 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.686 no 10/13 1/5 0.475 0.509 0.17 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.669 no 8/13 2/5 0.438 0.191 0.085 0.22  SVOC CARBAZOLE 0.654 no 3/13 1/5 0.315 0.171 0.085 0.21  SVOC CHRYSENE 0.615 no 10/13 2/5 0.692 0.275 0.11 0.22 

 SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.500 no 1/13 1/5 0.356 0.158 0.085 0.21 

 SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.929 no 8/13 1/5 0.308 0.239 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC FLUORANTHENE 0.615 no 11/13 3/5 0.695 0.157 0.08 0.085 1 8  SVOC FLUORENE 0.401 no 3/13 1/5 0.289 0.128 0.085 0.085 

 SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.633 no 11/13 2/5 0.316 0.262 0.12 0.22 

 SVOC NAPHTHALENE 0.936 no 8/13 1/5 0.2 0.175 0.085 0.21  SVOC PHENANTHRENE 0.721 no 9/13 2/5 0.308 0.166 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC PYRENE 0.596 no 11/13 2/5 0.758 0.311 0.085 0.22 

 SVOC 

 bis(2-ETHYLHEXYL) 

PHTHALATE 0.832 no 7/13 3/5 0.488 0.401 0.11 0.21 0 0 

6 of 104

005625
Table 7

Comparison of Surface Soil Data from the Non-source Area to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 ALUMINUM 0.759 no 54/54 5/5 5970 7240 5440 6370 0 0 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.221 no 27/47 1/5 2.99 2.03 0.96 0.43 

 METAL ARSENIC 0.715 no 52/54 5/5 6.61 8.3 5.95 6.4 1 2 

 METAL BARIUM 0.817 no 54/54 5/5 182 243 130 225 0 0 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.715 no 51/54 5/5 0.985 0.622 0.465 0.5 2 4 

 METAL CALCIUM 0.935 no 54/54 5/5 13300 22200 4860 16100 2 4 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.554 no 54/54 5/5 16.7 16.9 10.2 13.8 1 2 

 METAL COBALT 0.687 no 54/54 5/5 5.87 7.7 5 4.3 1 2 

 METAL COPPER 0.126 Yes 54/54 5/5 192 23.1 21.8 10.7 10 19 

 METAL CYANIDE 0.950 no 8/54 2/5 0.103 0.437 0.065 0.21 

 METAL IRON 0.378 no 54/54 5/5 22600 35400 14500 12000 0 0 

 METAL LEAD 0.197 Yes 54/54 5/5 224 32 38.3 22.2 18 33 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.980 no 54/54 5/5 1260 2150 1230 2600 0 0 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.963 no 54/54 5/5 265 544 228 427 0 0 

 METAL MERCURY 0.647 no 17/54 1/5 0.0748 0.061 0.035 0.065 

 METAL NICKEL 0.755 no 54/54 5/5 18 19.9 10.7 18.2 1 2 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.791 no 54/54 5/5 1170 1430 1240 1530 0 0 

 METAL SELENIUM 0.974 no 4/54 1/5 0.587 1.02 0.6 0.65 

 METAL SILVER 0.001 Yes 53/54 3/5 0.982 0.385 0.7 0.42 24 44 

 METAL SODIUM 0.153 Yes 54/54 5/5 639 362 405 312 5 9 

 METAL THALLIUM 0.898 no 10/54 1/5 0.856 1.85 0.6 0.65 

 METAL VANADIUM 0.897 no 54/54 5/5 14.7 23 14.8 18.3 0 0 

 METAL ZINC 0.126 Yes 54/54 5/5 1060 66 101 56.5 20 37 

 METAL 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.410 no 15/55 1/5 0.333 0.181 0.21 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHENE 0.144 Yes 6/55 1/5 0.545 0.156 0.215 0.21 

 SVOC ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.831 no 28/55 1/5 0.38 0.215 0.21 0.22  SVOC ANTHRACENE 0.788 no 34/55 1/5 0.534 0.195 0.2 0.22  SVOC BENZALDEHYDE 0.039 Yes 32/55 3/5 0.204 0.0382 0.07 0.009 0 0 

 SVOC BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.620 no 40/55 2/5 0.72 0.208 0.18 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.721 no 48/55 2/5 0.619 0.282 0.1 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.558 no 45/55 2/5 0.839 0.22 0.21 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.532 no 24/55 1/5 0.433 0.509 0.22 0.22 

 SVOC BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.610 no 33/55 2/5 0.49 0.191 0.205 0.22 

 SVOC CARBAZOLE 0.500 no 18/55 1/5 0.385 0.171 0.21 0.21 

 SVOC CHRYSENE 0.684 no 43/55 2/5 0.747 0.275 0.175 0.22 

 SVOC DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.113 Yes 5/55 1/5 0.402 0.158 0.22 0.21  SVOC DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.898 no 30/55 1/5 0.264 0.239 0.19 0.22 

 SVOC FLUORANTHENE 0.516 no 46/55 3/5 1.46 0.157 0.12 0.085 7 13 

 SVOC FLUORENE 0.106 Yes 9/55 1/5 0.494 0.128 0.215 0.085 

 SVOC INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.708 no 42/55 2/5 0.358 0.262 0.18 0.22 

 SVOC NAPHTHALENE 0.421 no 14/55 1/5 0.408 0.175 0.21 0.21 

 SVOC PHENANTHRENE 0.660 no 38/55 2/5 1.25 0.166 0.16 0.22 

 SVOC PYRENE 0.645 no 43/55 2/5 1.14 0.311 0.185 0.22 

 SVOC 

 bis(2-ETHYLHEXYL) 

PHTHALATE 0.153 Yes 20/55 3/5 0.685 0.401 0.225 0.21 2 4 

7 of 104

005626
Table 8

Comparison 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, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 METAL ALUMINUM 0.042 Yes 9/9 5/5 1710 431 1730 448 7 78 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.033 Yes 9/9 5/5 4.04 0.306 0.71 0.29 6 67 

 METAL ARSENIC 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 7.01 0.686 6.4 0.59 9 100 

 METAL BARIUM 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 45.9 4.52 47.1 4.4 9 100 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.012 Yes 2/9 2/5 0.123 0.0484 0.085 0.048 . . 

 METAL CADMIUM 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 0.728 0.053 0.8 0.049 8 89  METAL CALCIUM 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 52100 111 12900 108 8 89 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 25 1.09 17.5 1.1 9 100 

 METAL COBALT 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 4.66 0.86 4.5 0.96 7 78 

 METAL IRON 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 76300 1690 75000 1680 9 100 

 METAL LEAD 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 204 1.92 67.3 2 9 100 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.026 Yes 9/9 5/5 1150 202 954 208 7 78 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 469 32 271 29.9 8 89 

 METAL MERCURY 0.006 Yes 9/9 2/5 0.0659 0.00287 0.045 0.0019 . . 

 METAL NICKEL 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 22.3 0.778 14.3 0.81 9 100 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.042 Yes 9/9 5/5 423 120 272 128 7 78 

 METAL SODIUM 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 987 403 928 414 8 89 

 METAL VANADIUM 0.010 Yes 9/9 5/5 8.77 2.28 8.7 2.1 7 78 

 METAL ZINC 0.006 Yes 9/9 5/5 222 4.86 198 5.1 9 100 

8 of 104

005627
Table 9

Comparison of Near Shore Surface Sediment (0-6 in., shallow water to potential upland) to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 METAL ALUMINUM 0.001 Yes 43/43 5/5 4160 431 4810 448 37 86 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.789 no 11/43 5/5 0.333 0.306 0.22 0.29 1 2 

 METAL ARSENIC 0.000 Yes 43/43 5/5 4.6 0.686 4.5 0.59 43 100 

 METAL BARIUM 0.000 Yes 43/43 5/5 63.8 4.52 37.5 4.4 43 100 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.002 Yes 33/43 2/5 0.529 0.0484 0.58 0.048 . . 

 METAL CADMIUM 0.001 Yes 35/43 5/5 0.123 0.053 0.125 0.049 23 53 

 METAL CALCIUM 0.000 Yes 43/43 5/5 1990 111 1170 108 40 93 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.000 Yes 44/44 5/5 7.42 1.09 7.15 1.1 42 95 

 METAL COBALT 0.000 Yes 44/44 5/5 5.89 0.86 6.2 0.96 36 82 

 METAL IRON 0.000 Yes 43/43 5/5 10700 1690 9150 1680 43 100 

 METAL LEAD 0.000 Yes 43/43 5/5 18.9 1.92 9.1 2 43 100 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.001 Yes 43/43 5/5 2180 202 2430 208 37 86 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.001 Yes 43/43 5/5 190 32 116 29.9 35 81 

 METAL MERCURY 0.000 Yes 11/44 2/5 0.0455 0.00287 0.0368 0.0019 . . 

 METAL NICKEL 0.000 Yes 43/43 5/5 8.28 0.778 7.76 0.81 41 95 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.001 Yes 43/43 5/5 1230 120 1370 128 37 86 

 METAL SODIUM 0.000 Yes 43/43 5/5 2020 403 1780 414 40 93 

 METAL VANADIUM 0.000 Yes 43/43 5/5 12.6 2.28 14.2 2.1 36 84 

 METAL ZINC 0.000 Yes 43/43 5/5 127 4.86 30.7 5.1 43 100 

9 of 104

005628
Table 10

Comparison of Offshore Surface Sediment (0-6 in.) to BackgroundBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXChemical 

Group Parameter

p-value from 

Wilcoxon Rank 

Sum (WRS) Test

 Is Background 

Exceeded via 

WRS Test?

 Site 

Detection 

Frequency

 Bkgd 

Detection 

Frequency

 Site Mean Bkgd Mean Site Median Bkgd Median Number of Exceedances of Normal UTL Percent o

Exceedanc

of Normal U

 METAL ALUMINUM 0.005 Yes 11/11 5/5 5840 431 6800 448 10 91 

 METAL ANTIMONY 0.764 no 1/11 5/5 0.258 0.306 0.28 0.29 0 0 

 METAL ARSENIC 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 6.26 0.686 6.6 0.59 11 100 

 METAL BARIUM 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 52.4 4.52 39 4.4 11 100 

 METAL BERYLLIUM 0.012 Yes 10/11 2/5 0.61 0.0484 0.63 0.048 

 METAL CADMIUM 0.010 Yes 11/11 5/5 0.102 0.053 0.1 0.049 4 36 

 METAL CALCIUM 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 1970 111 1640 108 10 91 

 METAL CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 8.05 1.09 8.8 1.1 11 100 

 METAL COBALT 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 6.59 0.86 6.8 0.96 10 91 

 METAL IRON 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 11200 1690 12100 1680 11 100 

 METAL LEAD 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 9.75 1.92 9.8 2 11 100 

 METAL MAGNESIUM 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 3040 202 3460 208 10 91 

 METAL MANGANESE 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 385 32 388 29.9 9 82 

 METAL MERCURY 0.003 Yes 1/11 2/5 0.0327 0.00287 0.035 0.0019 

 METAL NICKEL 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 12.5 0.778 10.3 0.81 11 100 

 METAL POTASSIUM 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 1830 120 2270 128 10 91 

 METAL SODIUM 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 3160 403 3470 414 11 100 

 METAL VANADIUM 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 14.1 2.28 15.9 2.1 10 91 

 METAL ZINC 0.004 Yes 11/11 5/5 32.1 4.86 35.1 5.1 11 100 

10 of 104

005629
Table 11

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Wastewater Impoundments SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Former Wastewater Impoundments

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Screen

Cr

ALUMINUM 967 = SM123 20600 = SM122 ND 57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% ANTIMONY 1 LJvQ SM127 44.7 = SM95-SO-22 0.83 17.2 mg/Kg 8/12 66.67% 0

BARIUM 104 = SM95-SO-26 534 = SM123 ND 57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 3

CADMIUM 0.33 LQ SM125 2.4 = SM95-SO-22 0.16 1.4 mg/Kg 7/12 58.33% 0

CALCIUM 4970 = SM124 12200 J SM95-SO-22 ND 1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 5 JK SM127 36.2 = SM95-SO-22 ND 2.9 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 7

COPPER 7.2 = SM123 298 = SM95-SO-26 ND 7.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

IRON 6050 = SM123 51900 = SM95-SO-22 ND 28.6 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

LEAD 12.6 = SM123 435 = SM95-SO-19 ND 0.86 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% MAGNESIUM 458 LQ SM123 2010 = SM95-SO-22 ND 1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

MANGANESE 105 = SM127 478 Jv SM95-SO-22 ND 4.3 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 1

MERCURY 0.07 LJ^QH SM126 0.22 = SM95-SO-26 0.14 0.14 mg/Kg 6/12 50.00% 0NICKEL 2.5 LQ SM123 59.2 = SM95-SO-22 ND 11.4 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% POTASSIUM 319 LQ SM123 1530 = SM95-SO-26 ND 1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

SELENIUM 1.3 = SM95-SO-22 1.3 = SM95-SO-22 1.3 1.3 mg/Kg 1/12 8.33% 

SILVER 0.29 LQ SM123 2.6 LQ SM122 0.57 2.9 mg/Kg 9/12 75.00% 

SODIUM 244 J^ SM95-SO-19 768 J SM95-SO-22 265 1430 mg/Kg 8/12 66.67% 

THALLIUM 1.3 = SM95-SO-19 3.8 = SM95-SO-22 2.4 2.4 mg/Kg 4/12 33.33% 

VANADIUM 5.5 LQ SM123 26.4 = SM120 ND 14.3 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% ZINC 40.4 = SM123 460 = SM95-SO-22 ND 5.7 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 1

ALDRIN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 0.0

ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXAN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

ALPHA ENDOSULFAN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

ALPHA-CHLORDANE 0.0026 = SM95-SO-26 0.003 = SM95-SO-21 0.0017 0.0017 mg/Kg 2/4 50.00% 

BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

BETA ENDOSULFAN 0.0081 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0081 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/4 25.00% 

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXAN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

DIELDRIN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 0.00

ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.0092 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0092 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/4 25.00% 

ENDRIN 0.0076 = SM95-SO-21 0.014 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 2/4 50.00% 

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.01 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.01 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/4 25.00% 

ENDRIN KETONE 0.0099 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0099 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/4 25.00% 

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.0028 = SM95-SO-26 0.0056 = SM95-SO-21 0.0017 0.0017 mg/Kg 2/4 50.00% 

HEPTACHLOR 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.0051 J SM95-SO-22 0.0051 J SM95-SO-22 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/4 25.00% 

METHOXYCHLOR 0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

P,P'-DDD 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

P,P'-DDE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

P,P'-DDT 0.0091 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0091 Jv SM95-SO-22 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/4 25.00% 

PCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

TOXAPHENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 5.7 5.7 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROPHENOL 5.7 5.7 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 3

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 0.0

2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.028 LJQK SM124 0.7 = SM95-SO-22 2.3 2.3 mg/Kg 5/12 41.67% 0

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 0

2-NITROANILINE 5.7 5.7 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

2-NITROPHENOL 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

3-NITROANILINE 5.7 5.7 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 5.7 5.7 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 7

4-CHLOROANILINE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 0

4-NITROANILINE 5.7 5.7 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

4-NITROPHENOL 5.7 5.7 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

11 of 104

005630
Table 11

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Wastewater Impoundments SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Former Wastewater Impoundments

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Screen

Cr

ALUMINUM 967 = SM123 20600 = SM122 ND 57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% ANTIMONY 1 LJvQ SM127 44.7 = SM95-SO-22 0.83 17.2 mg/Kg 8/12 66.67% 0

BARIUM 104 = SM95-SO-26 534 = SM123 ND 57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 3

CADMIUM 0.33 LQ SM125 2.4 = SM95-SO-22 0.16 1.4 mg/Kg 7/12 58.33% 0

CALCIUM 4970 = SM124 12200 J SM95-SO-22 ND 1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 5 JK SM127 36.2 = SM95-SO-22 ND 2.9 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 7

COPPER 7.2 = SM123 298 = SM95-SO-26 ND 7.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

IRON 6050 = SM123 51900 = SM95-SO-22 ND 28.6 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

LEAD 12.6 = SM123 435 = SM95-SO-19 ND 0.86 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.016 LJQK SM127 0.39 J SM95-SO-22 0.92 2.3 mg/Kg 8/12 66.67% 

ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.027 LJQK SM121 2.9 = SM95-SO-22 0.17 2.3 mg/Kg 11/12 91.67% 

ACETOPHENONE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 3

ANTHRACENE 0.025 LJQK SM121 2.9 = SM95-SO-22 0.17 2.3 mg/Kg 11/12 91.67% 0

ATRAZINE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 0.0

BENZALDEHYDE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.022 * SM95-SO-26 1.3 = SM95-SO-22 0.17 2.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67% 

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.022 * SM95-SO-26 1.3 LJQK SM126 0.17 2.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67% 

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.041 LJQK SM121 2.6 = SM95-SO-22 0.17 2.3 mg/kg 10/12 83.33% 0

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.05 = SM95-SO-26 3.6 = SM95-SO-22 0.17 2.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67% 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.06 LJQK SM120 8.8 * SM95-SO-22 0.45 2.3 mg/kg 8/12 66.67% 1

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.022 LJQK SM121 0.65 LJQK SM126 0.17 2.3 mg/kg 8/12 66.67% 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.16 * SM95-SO-19 0.16 * SM95-SO-19 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 1/12 8.33% 0.2

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.086 * SM95-SO-26 4.9 = SM125 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 4/12 33.33% 0.9

CAPROLACTAM 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

CARBAZOLE 0.021 LJQK SM120 0.77 = SM95-SO-22 0.45 2.3 mg/kg 10/12 83.33% 

CARBAZOLE 0.021 LJQK SM124 0.77 = SM95-SO-22 0.45 2.3 mg/kg 10/12 83.33% 

CHRYSENE 0.044 * SM95-SO-26 3.4 * SM95-SO-22 0.17 2.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67% 4

DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.069 J SM95-SO-22 0.069 J SM95-SO-22 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 1/12 8.33% 2

DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.18 LJQK SM125 0.18 LJQK SM125 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 1/12 8.33% 7

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.02 LJQK SM120 0.46 = SM95-SO-22 0.45 2.3 mg/kg 8/12 66.67% 

DIBENZOFURAN 0.032 LJQK SM124 0.21 J SM95-SO-22 0.92 2.3 mg/Kg 6/12 50.00% 

DIETHYL PHTHALATE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 1

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 2

FLUORANTHENE 0.03 * SM95-SO-26 2.5 = SM95-SO-22 0.17 2.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67% 0

FLUORENE 0.014 LJQK SM127 0.34 J SM95-SO-22 0.92 2.3 mg/Kg 7/12 58.33% 

HEXACHLOROBENZENE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 0.0

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROETHANE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.039 LJQK SM121 3 * SM95-SO-22 0.17 2.3 mg/kg 9/12 75.00% 

ISOPHORONE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 0.5

N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 0.13 J SM95-SO-22 0.13 J SM95-SO-22 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 1/12 8.33% 

NAPHTHALENE 0.07 LJQK SM122 0.86 = SM95-SO-22 0.92 2.3 mg/Kg 5/12 41.67% 0

NITROBENZENE 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

PENTACHLOROPHENOL 5.7 5.7 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 0

PHENANTHRENE 0.019 LJQK SM121 2.5 = SM95-SO-22 ND 2.3 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 0PHENOL 2.3 2.3 mg/kg 0/12 0.00% 

PYRENE 0.042 J SM95-SO-26 10 * SM95-SO-22 0.17 2.3 mg/kg 11/12 91.67% 0

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.003 J SM95-SO-26 0.006 * SM95-SO-19 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 2/4 50.00% 0

1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 2

1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 7

1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE) 0.1 0.1 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

2-HEXANONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 1

ACETONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 2

BENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 0

BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

BROMOFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

12 of 104

005631
Table 11

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Wastewater Impoundments SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Former Wastewater Impoundments

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Screen

Cr

ALUMINUM 967 = SM123 20600 = SM122 ND 57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% ANTIMONY 1 LJvQ SM127 44.7 = SM95-SO-22 0.83 17.2 mg/Kg 8/12 66.67% 0

BARIUM 104 = SM95-SO-26 534 = SM123 ND 57.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 3

CADMIUM 0.33 LQ SM125 2.4 = SM95-SO-22 0.16 1.4 mg/Kg 7/12 58.33% 0

CALCIUM 4970 = SM124 12200 J SM95-SO-22 ND 1430 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 5 JK SM127 36.2 = SM95-SO-22 ND 2.9 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 7

COPPER 7.2 = SM123 298 = SM95-SO-26 ND 7.2 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

IRON 6050 = SM123 51900 = SM95-SO-22 ND 28.6 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

LEAD 12.6 = SM123 435 = SM95-SO-19 ND 0.86 mg/Kg 12/12 100.00% 

BROMOMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% CARBON DISULFIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 0.0CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 1CHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% CHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% CHLOROFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% CHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 1CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% CYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 3ETHYLBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% ISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% METHYL ACETATE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 8

METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTA 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 4

METHYLCYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.003 = SM95-SO-22 0.006 * SM95-SO-19 0.005 0.005 mg/Kg 3/4 75.00% 

O-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 2

STYRENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 3

TERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

TOLUENE 0.002 J SM95-SO-26 0.004 * SM95-SO-19 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 2/4 50.00% 2

TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 1

VINYL CHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/4 0.00% 

Rationale 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 value

Al-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 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 background

13 of 104

005632
Table 12

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Wastwater Treatment Facility SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Wastwater Treatment Facility

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

ALUMINUM 2380 J SM95-SO-16 11100 = SM119 58.9 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

ANTIMONY 1.1 LJvQ SM118 5.7 LJvQ SM117A 1.1 17.7 MG/KG 6/7 85.71% 

ARSENIC 4.7 JK SM118 14 = SM95-SO-16 2.9 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

BARIUM 66.1 = SM95-SO-14 292 = SM118 58.9 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

BERYLLIUM 0.33 = SM95-SO-16 1.2 = SM95-SO-14 1.5 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% CADMIUM 0.49 LQ SM118 1.1 LQ SM116 0.28 1.3 MG/KG 4/7 57.14% 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 11.3 JL SM118 63.6 = SM95-SO-16 2.9 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

COBALT 4.4 LQ SM117A 14.2 = SM95-SO-16 14.7 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

COPPER 14 = SM95-SO-14 299 = SM117 7.4 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

CYANIDE 0.21 LQ SM117A 0.21 LQ SM117A 0.7 0.74 MG/KG 1/7 14.29% 

IRON 12700 = SM95-SO-14 200000 = SM95-SO-16 29.5 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

LEAD 27.2 = SM95-SO-14 161 = SM95-SO-16 0.88 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

MANGANESE 85.8 = SM95-SO-14 11320 Jv SM95-SO-16 4.4 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

MERCURY 0.06 LQ SM116 0.98 = SM117 0.14 0.14 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% 

NICKEL 11.4 = SM95-SO-14 77.2 = SM95-SO-16 11.8 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

SELENIUM 0.77 LQ SM119 4.5 = SM95-SO-16 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 2/7 28.57% SILVER 0.64 LQ SM118 1.4 LQ SM116 0.56 2.9 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% 

THALLIUM 2.2 LQ SM119 9.9 = SM95-SO-16 1.5 2.7 MG/KG 2/7 28.57% 

VANADIUM 8.8 LQ SM117A 26.2 = SM119 14.7 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% ZINC 131 = SM119 908 = SM117A 5.9 MG/KG 7/7 100.00% 

ALDRIN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ALPHA ENDOSULFAN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ALPHA-CHLORDANE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

BETA ENDOSULFAN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

DIELDRIN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ENDRIN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ENDRIN KETONE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

HEPTACHLOR 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

METHOXYCHLOR 0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% P,P'-DDD 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

P,P'-DDE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

P,P'-DDT 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

TOXAPHENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 1.2 1.2 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROPHENOL 1.2 1.2 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.033 LJQK SM119 0.22 LJQK SM117 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 2/7 28.57% 

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

2-NITROANILINE 1.2 1.2 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 2-NITROPHENOL 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

3-NITROANILINE 1.2 1.2 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 1.2 1.2 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

4-CHLOROANILINE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 0.023 LJQK SM117 0.023 LJQK SM117 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 1/7 14.29% 

4-NITROANILINE 1.2 1.2 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

14 of 104

005633
Table 12

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Wastwater Treatment Facility SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Wastwater Treatment Facility

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

4-NITROPHENOL 2.3 F+ SM95-SO-16 2.3 F+ SM95-SO-16 1.2 1.2 MG/KG 1/7 14.29% 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.014 LJQK SM117A 0.085 LJQK SM119 0.41 0.48 MG/KG 3/7 42.86% 

ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.042 LJQK SM118 0.35 LJQK SM117 0.41 0.48 MG/KG 4/7 57.14% 

ACETOPHENONE 0.023 LJQK SM119 0.12 LJQK SM117 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 2/7 28.57% 

ANTHRACENE 0.019 LJQK SM116 0.45 LJQK SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 6/7 85.71% ATRAZINE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

BENZALDEHYDE 0.025 LJQK SM117A 0.051 LJQK SM117 0.45 0.48 MG/KG 2/7 28.57% BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.1 LJQK SM116 0.83 = SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% 

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.1 LJQK SM116 0.65 = SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% 

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.1 LJQK SM118 0.65 = SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.13 LJQK SM117 1.1 = SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.056 LJQK SM118 0.24 LJQK SM117 0.41 0.48 MG/KG 4/7 57.14% 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.061 LJQK SM116 0.34 LJQK SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 0.013 LJQK SM119 0.025 LJQK SM117 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 2/7 28.57% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER) 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

CAPROLACTAM 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

CARBAZOLE 0.031 LJQK SM117A 0.13 LJ SM119 0.41 0.48 MG/KG 3/7 42.86% 

CHRYSENE 0.098 LJQK SM116 1.3 = SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% 

DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.033 LJQK SM119 0.033 LJQK SM119 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 1/7 14.29% DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.025 LJQK SM116 0.1 LJQK SM117 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.025 LJQK SM116 0.1 LJQK SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% DIBENZOFURAN 0.026 J SM95-SO-16 0.033 LJQK SM117 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 3/7 42.86% DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

FLUORANTHENE 0.065 LJQK SM117 2.2 = SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% 

FLUORENE 0.044 J SM95-SO-16 0.097 LJQK SM119 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 3/7 42.86% 

HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROETHANE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.085 LJQK SM116 0.42 LJQK SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% 

ISOPHORONE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

NAPHTHALENE 0.036 LJQK SM119 0.12 LJQK SM117 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 2/7 28.57% NITROBENZENE 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

PENTACHLOROPHENOL 1.2 1.2 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% PHENANTHRENE 0.031 LJQK SM118 1.1 = SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 6/7 85.71% 

PHENOL 0.48 0.48 MG/KG 0/7 0.00% 

PYRENE 0.13 LJQK SM116 1.6 = SM119 0.17 0.48 MG/KG 5/7 71.43% 

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.009 J SM95-SO-16 0.009 J SM95-SO-16 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/2 50.00% 

1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE) 0.1 0.1 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 2-HEXANONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ACETONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

BENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% BROMOFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% BROMOMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CARBON DISULFIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

CHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CHLOROFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

CHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

15 of 104

005634
Table 12

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Wastwater Treatment Facility SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Wastwater Treatment Facility

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% ETHYLBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% ISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYL ACETATE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE) 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYLCYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.009 J SM95-SO-16 0.009 J SM95-SO-16 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/2 50.00% O-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% STYRENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TOLUENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% VINYL CHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% Rationale 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-specificbackground

16 of 104

005635
Table 13

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Current Aboveground Storage Tanks SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Current Aboveground Storage Tanks

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

ALUMINUM 593 = SM129 3490 = SM128 67.6 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

ANTIMONY 2.1 LJvQ SM128 2.5 LJvQ SM131 0.77 20.3 MG/KG 2/3 66.67% 

ARSENIC 1.5 LQ SM129 7.9 JvL SM128 3.4 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% BARIUM 49.6 = SM132 276 = SM130 67.6 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

BERYLLIUM 0.09 LQ SM130 0.31 LQ SM131 0.07 1.7 MG/KG 3/5 60.00% CADMIUM 0.48 LQ SM131 0.48 LQ SM131 0.15 1.7 MG/KG 1/5 20.00% CHROMIUM, TOTAL 1.6 LQ SM129 126 = SM131 3.4 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

COBALT 0.67 LQ SM129 3.1 LQ SM131 16.9 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

COPPER 4.4 LQ SM129 36.7 = SM131 8.4 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

CYANIDE 0.12 LQ SM128 0.31 L SM131 0.12 0.84 MG/KG 2/5 40.00% IRON 3460 = SM129 14500 = SM131 33.8 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% LEAD 7.5 = SM129 558 = SM131 1 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

MANGANESE 17.7 = SM129 379 JvL SM128 5.1 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

MERCURY 0.1 LQ SM128 0.13 LQ SM131 0.06 0.17 MG/KG 2/5 40.00% NICKEL 0.81 LQ SM129 15.9 = SM131 13.5 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% SELENIUM 1.6 1.6 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

SILVER 0.26 LQ SM132 0.96 LQ SM131 0.24 3.4 MG/KG 4/5 80.00% 

THALLIUM 1.6 1.6 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

VANADIUM 3.4 L SM129 31 = SM131 16.9 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% ZINC 13.2 = SM129 484 = SM131 6.8 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROPHENOL 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.02 Q SM132 0.11 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 2/5 40.00% 

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

2-NITROANILINE 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 2-NITROPHENOL 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

3-NITROANILINE 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

4-CHLOROANILINE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 0.046 Q SM131 0.046 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 1/5 20.00% 

4-NITROANILINE 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 4-NITROPHENOL 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.017 Q SM132 0.46 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 2/5 40.00% ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.022 Q SM129 0.18 Q SM131 0.39 0.55 MG/KG 4/5 80.00% 

ACETOPHENONE 0.016 Q SM130 0.049 Q SM131 0.39 0.55 MG/KG 4/5 80.00% ANTHRACENE 0.014 Q SM128 1.5 = SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 3/5 60.00% ATRAZINE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

BENZALDEHYDE 0.008 Q SM130 0.032 Q SM131 0.4 0.55 MG/KG 3/5 60.00% BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.034 Q SM129 3 = SM131 0.55 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.043 Q SM129 2.7 = SM131 0.55 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.055 Q SM129 4.4 = SM131 0.55 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.059 Q SM128 0.97 = SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 3/5 60.00% 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.019 Q SM128 1.8 = SM131 0.55 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.03 Q SM132 0.03 Q SM132 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 1/5 20.00% BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 0.04 Q SM131 0.04 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 1/5 20.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER) 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.69 0.69 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

CAPROLACTAM 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

CARBAZOLE 0.024 Q SM132 0.23 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 2/5 40.00% CHRYSENE 0.036 Q SM129 2.8 = SM131 0.55 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.031 Q SM132 0.33 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 2/5 40.00% DIBENZOFURAN 0.009 Q SM132 0.18 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 2/5 40.00% DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

FLUORANTHENE 0.021 Q SM129 10 D SM131 1.7 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% 

FLUORENE 0.47 Q SM131 0.47 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 1/5 20.00% HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% 

17 of 104

005636
Table 13

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Current Aboveground Storage Tanks SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Current Aboveground Storage Tanks

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% HEXACHLOROETHANE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.029 Q SM128 1.1 = SM131 0.55 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% ISOPHORONE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% NAPHTHALENE 0.02 Q SM132 0.078 Q SM131 0.42 0.55 MG/KG 2/5 40.00% NITROBENZENE 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% PENTACHLOROPHENOL 0.28 Q SM131 0.28 Q SM131 1.1 1.4 MG/KG 1/5 20.00% PHENANTHRENE 0.035 Q SM130 3.8 = SM131 0.4 0.55 MG/KG 4/5 80.00% PHENOL 0.55 0.55 MG/KG 0/5 0.00% PYRENE 0.024 Q SM129 8.4 D SM131 1.7 MG/KG 5/5 100.00% Rationale 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-specificbackground

18 of 104

005637
Table 14

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Maintenance Shed Area SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Maintenance Shed Area

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

ALUMINUM 269 = SM95-SO-6 6610 = SM95-SO-9 53.9 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% ANTIMONY 5.8 LJvQ SM110 12 = SM95-SO-4 1 13.2 MG/KG 4/8 50.00% 

ARSENIC 1.9 LQ SM108 19 = SM110 2.7 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% BARIUM 13.7 = SM95-SO-6 306 = SM95-SO-5 53.9 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

BERYLLIUM 0.09 LQ SM110 1.9 = SM95-SO-12 0.25 1.3 MG/KG 7/8 87.50% CADMIUM 0.2 LQ SM110 2.6 = SM95-SO-5 0.25 1.1 MG/KG 4/8 50.00% 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 1.5 = SM95-SO-6 32.5 = SM110 2.7 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

COBALT 1.4 = SM95-SO-6 6.6 = SM95-SO-12 13.5 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

COPPER 1.7 Jv SM95-SO-6 180 = SM110 6.7 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

CYANIDE 0.15 LQ SM110 0.15 LQ SM110 0.77 0.77 MG/KG 1/8 12.50% 

IRON 3160 = SM95-SO-6 54800 = SM110 27 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% LEAD 4.6 = SM95-SO-6 290 = SM110 0.81 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% MANGANESE 0.14 Jv SM95-SO-10 588 = SM110 4 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

MERCURY 0.06 LQ SM108 0.16 = SM95-SO-5 0.13 0.13 MG/KG 4/8 50.00% NICKEL 1.1 = SM95-SO-6 36.3 = SM110 10.8 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% SELENIUM 1.3 1.3 MG/KG 0/8 0.00% 

SILVER 0.96 LQ SM111 3.3 = SM110 0.62 2.7 MG/KG 2/8 25.00% 

THALLIUM 1.6 = SM95-SO-12 237 J^ SM95-SO-10 1.2 2.2 MG/KG 3/9 33.33% 

VANADIUM 2.7 = SM95-SO-6 18.3 = SM95-SO-5 13.5 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

ZINC 11.9 = SM95-SO-6 2220 = SM95-SO-12 5.4 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% ALDRIN 0.011 = SM95-SO-12 0.011 = SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ALPHA ENDOSULFAN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ALPHA-CHLORDANE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

BETA ENDOSULFAN 0.0057 J SM95-SO-9 13 J SM95-SO-5 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 3/6 50.00% 

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.023 J SM95-SO-12 0.023 J SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% DIELDRIN 0.054 = SM95-SO-12 0.054 = SM95-SO-12 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 3/6 50.00% ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.039 Jv SM95-SO-12 0.039 Jv SM95-SO-12 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 

ENDRIN 18 J SM95-SO-4 18 J SM95-SO-4 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 1/6 16.67% 

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.0085 JT SM95-SO-5 0.052 = SM95-SO-12 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 3/6 50.00% ENDRIN KETONE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 0.0059 J SM95-SO-12 0.0059 J SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.036 = SM95-SO-12 0.036 = SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 

HEPTACHLOR 0.0079 J SM95-SO-12 0.0079 J SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.041 = SM95-SO-12 0.041 = SM95-SO-12 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 

METHOXYCHLOR 0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% P,P'-DDD 15 J SM95-SO-4 15 J SM95-SO-4 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 2/6 33.33% 

P,P'-DDE 0.05 = SM95-SO-12 0.05 = SM95-SO-12 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 2/6 33.33% 

P,P'-DDT 0.057 = SM95-SO-12 18 J SM95-SO-5 0.0033 0.0033 mg/Kg 3/6 50.00% 

PCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254) 1.1 J SM95-SO-12 1.1 J SM95-SO-12 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 

PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

TOXAPHENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.028 J SM95-SO-5 0.18 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2-NITROANILINE 2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 2-NITROPHENOL 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

3-NITROANILINE 2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-CHLOROANILINE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-NITROANILINE 2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

19 of 104

005638
Table 14

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Maintenance Shed Area SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Maintenance Shed Area

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

4-NITROPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% ACENAPHTHENE 0.033 J SM95-SO-4 0.033 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.012 LJQK SM110 0.29 J SM95-SO-4 0.45 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% ACETOPHENONE 0.015 LJQK SM110 0.015 LJQK SM110 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% ANTHRACENE 0.015 LJQK SM110 0.29 J SM95-SO-4 0.45 0.79 MG/KG 6/9 66.67% ATRAZINE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% BENZALDEHYDE 0.011 Q SM111 0.011 Q SM111 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.029 LJQK SM110 0.97 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.018 LJQK SM108 1.3 = SM95-SO-4 0.17 0.79 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.051 LJQK SM110 3.4 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 5/9 55.56% BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.049 LJQK SM110 1.2 = SM95-SO-4 0.17 0.79 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.027 LJQK SM110 2.4 = SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.047 J SM95-SO-4 0.13 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER) 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.032 J SM95-SO-6 0.4 = SM95-SO-12 0.92 0.92 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% CAPROLACTAM 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% CARBAZOLE 0.02 Q SM111 0.3 J SM95-SO-4 0.37 0.79 MG/KG 5/9 55.56% CHRYSENE 0.05 LJQK SM110 1.7 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 5/9 55.56% DI-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% DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.074 = SM95-SO-12 0.14 Q SM111 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.035 Q SM111 0.49 = SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% DIBENZOFURAN 0.04 J SM95-SO-12 0.082 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% FLUORANTHENE 0.034 LJQK SM110 3.5 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 6/9 66.67% FLUORENE 0.098 J SM95-SO-4 0.098 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% HEXACHLOROETHANE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.027 LJQK SM110 1 = SM95-SO-4 0.17 0.79 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% ISOPHORONE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% NAPHTHALENE 0.026 J SM95-SO-5 0.18 J SM95-SO-4 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% NITROBENZENE 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% PENTACHLOROPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% PHENANTHRENE 0.028 LJQK SM110 1.2 = SM95-SO-12 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 6/9 66.67% PHENOL 0.79 0.79 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% PYRENE 0.034 LJQK SM108 4 = SM95-SO-12 0.17 0.79 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.002 J SM95-SO-12 0.002 J SM95-SO-12 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE) 0.1 0.1 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 2-HEXANONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% ACETONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% BENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% BROMOFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% BROMOMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% CARBON DISULFIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% CHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% CHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% CHLOROFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% CHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% CYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

20 of 104

005639
Table 14

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Maintenance Shed Area SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Maintenance Shed Area

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% ETHYLBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% ISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% METHYL ACETATE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE) 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% METHYLCYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.001 J SM95-SO-6 0.001 J SM95-SO-6 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% O-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% STYRENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% TERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% TOLUENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% VINYL CHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% Rationale 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-specificbackground

21 of 104

005640
Table 15

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Tar Burn Area SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Tar Burn Area

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Scr

ALUMINUM 3510 = SM114 17900 = SM113 60.3 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

ANTIMONY 1.3 LJvQ SM115 6 LJvQ SM114 18.1 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

ARSENIC 4.3 JvL SM115 7.9 JvL SM112 3 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

BARIUM 89.6 = SM112 146 = SM114 60.3 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

BERYLLIUM 0.32 LQ SM114 0.7 LQ SM113 1.5 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

CADMIUM 0.37 LQ SM115 1.1 LQ SM113 0.16 1.5 MG/KG 3/4 75.00% 

CADMIUM 0.37 LQ SM115 1.1 LQ SM114 0.16 1.5 MG/KG 3/4 75.00% 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 10.1 = SM112 22.5 = SM114 3 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% COBALT 3.3 LQ SM115 6.7 LQ SM112 15.1 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

COPPER 17.4 = SM112 155 = SM114 7.5 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

CYANIDE 0.24 LQ SM115 0.24 LQ SM115 0.14 0.63 MG/KG 1/4 25.00% 

IRON 12000 = SM115 18200 = SM113 30.2 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

LEAD 38.7 JK SM112 967 JK SM114 0.9 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

MANGANESE 182 JvL SM115 413 JvL SM113 4.5 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

MERCURY 0.06 LQ SM115 0.31 = SM114 0.15 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

NICKEL 8 LQ SM115 26.2 = SM114 12.1 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

SELENIUM 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

SILVER 0.8 LQ SM114 1 LQ SM113 3 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% THALLIUM 1.3 LQ SM115 1.3 LQ SM115 1.4 2.5 MG/KG 1/4 25.00% 

VANADIUM 11.6 LQ SM114 17 = SM115 15.1 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

ZINC 96.3 = SM112 424 = SM114 6 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 2,4-DINITROPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.025 LJQK SM114 0.042 LJQK SM115 0.47 0.81 MG/KG 2/4 50.00% 

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2-NITROANILINE 2 2 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

2-NITROPHENOL 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 3-NITROANILINE 2 2 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 4-CHLOROANILINE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

4-NITROANILINE 2 2 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

4-NITROPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.035 LJQK SM115 0.035 LJQK SM115 0.49 0.81 MG/KG 1/4 25.00% 

ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.053 LJQK SM114 0.45 LJQK SM115 0.44 0.81 MG/KG 3/4 75.00% 

ACETOPHENONE 0.027 LJQK SM113 2 = SM115 0.49 0.81 MG/KG 2/4 50.00% ANTHRACENE 0.014 Q SM112 0.39 LJQK SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

ATRAZINE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

BENZALDEHYDE 0.025 LJQK SM114 6.3 = SM115 0.44 0.81 MG/KG 3/4 75.00% 

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.066 Q SM112 0.92 = SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.075 Q SM112 1.2 = SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.15 Q SM112 1.2 = SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.061 Q SM112 0.46 LJQK SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.056 Q SM112 1.4 = SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.051 LJQK SM115 0.52 = SM114 0.47 0.81 MG/KG 2/4 50.00% 

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER) 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.3 LJQK SM115 4.7 D SM114 0.5 0.99 MG/KG 2/4 50.00% 

CAPROLACTAM 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% CARBAZOLE 0.081 LJQK SM114 0.29 LJQK SM115 0.44 0.81 MG/KG 3/4 75.00% 

CHRYSENE 0.098 Q SM112 1.1 = SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.034 LJQK SM114 0.034 LJQK SM114 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 1/4 25.00% 

DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.017 Q SM112 0.23 LJQK SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

DIBENZOFURAN 0.044 LJQK SM115 0.044 LJQK SM115 0.49 0.81 MG/KG 1/4 25.00% 

DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% FLUORANTHENE 0.097 Q SM112 1.9 = SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

FLUORENE 0.019 LJQK SM114 0.12 LJQK SM115 0.47 0.81 MG/KG 2/4 50.00% 

HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROETHANE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.07 Q SM112 0.74 LJQK SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% 

ISOPHORONE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

NAPHTHALENE 0.028 LJQK SM114 0.052 LJQK SM115 0.47 0.81 MG/KG 2/4 50.00% 

NITROBENZENE 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

22 of 104

005641
Table 15

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Tar Burn Area SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Tar Burn Area

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Scr

PENTACHLOROPHENOL 2 2 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% PHENANTHRENE 0.051 Q SM112 0.93 = SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% PHENOL 0.81 0.81 MG/KG 0/4 0.00% 

PYRENE 0.12 Q SM112 1.5 = SM115 0.81 MG/KG 4/4 100.00% Rationale 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 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 background

23 of 104

005642
Table 16

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Lauren Tank Farm SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Former Lauren Tank Farm

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Scr

ALUMINUM 3420 = SM95-SO-30 10200 = SM95-SO-28 54.8 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

ANTIMONY 1.4 LJvQ SM106 4.6 LJvQ SM107 1.2 15.6 MG/KG 2/13 15.38% 

ARSENIC 4.1 = SM102 26.4 = SM107 2.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

BARIUM 63.8 = SM95-SO-11 289 = SM107 54.8 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

BERYLLIUM 0.12 LQ SM107 0.88 = SM95-SO-29 0.55 1.4 MG/KG 10/13 76.92% 

CADMIUM 0.48 = SM95-SO-30 1.7 = SM104 0.34 1.4 MG/KG 5/13 38.46% 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 6.3 = SM95-SO-11 503 JK SM107 2.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

COBALT 3 LQ SM102 19.1 = SM107 13.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% COBALT 3 LQ SM105 19.1 = SM107 13.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% COPPER 8.5 = SM95-SO-11 7390 = SM107 6.8 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

CYANIDE 0.98 = SM95-SO-7 0.98 = SM95-SO-7 0.71 0.71 MG/KG 1/13 7.69% 

IRON 8470 = SM102 134000 = SM107 27.4 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

LEAD 15.7 = SM95-SO-11 1030 = SM107 0.82 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

MANGANESE 41.8 J SM95-SO-11 1020 = SM107 4.1 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

MERCURY 0.1 LQ SM102 5.6 J^H SM107 0.14 0.14 MG/KG 5/12 41.67% 

NICKEL 3.4 = SM95-SO-11 411 = SM107 11 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% SELENIUM 0.75 LQ SM104 4.4 = SM107 0.85 1.4 MG/KG 3/13 23.08% 

SILVER 0.28 LQ SM102 6.9 = SM107 0.58 2.7 MG/KG 7/13 53.85% THALLIUM 1 LQ SM104 1.4 = SM95-SO-28 2.7 2.7 MG/KG 2/13 15.38% VANADIUM 11.8 LQ SM102 19.3 = SM95-SO-28 13.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

VANADIUM 11.8 LQ SM102 19.3 = SM95-SO-29 13.7 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

ZINC 27.1 = SM95-SO-8 1480 = SM107 5.5 MG/KG 13/13 100.00% 

ALDRIN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ALPHA ENDOSULFAN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ALPHA-CHLORDANE 13 = SM95-SO-7 13 = SM95-SO-7 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

BETA ENDOSULFAN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

DIELDRIN 0.0053 J SM95-SO-7 0.0053 J SM95-SO-7 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 

ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ENDRIN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 11 T SM95-SO-30 11 T SM95-SO-30 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% ENDRIN KETONE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.0078 J SM95-SO-7 0.0078 J SM95-SO-7 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% HEPTACHLOR 0.0031 J SM95-SO-7 0.0031 J SM95-SO-7 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

METHOXYCHLOR 0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

P,P'-DDD 0.0091 J SM95-SO-7 0.0091 J SM95-SO-7 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 

P,P'-DDE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

P,P'-DDT 0.0076 J SM95-SO-7 0.0076 J SM95-SO-7 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% PCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248) 0.46 J SM95-SO-28 0.58 J SM95-SO-29 0.033 0.033 mg/Kg 2/6 33.33% 

PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

TOXAPHENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 11 11 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROPHENOL 11 11 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.022 J SM95-SO-30 1.6 LJQK SM107 0.43 4.4 MG/KG 8/13 61.54% 

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

2-NITROANILINE 11 11 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 2-NITROPHENOL 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

3-NITROANILINE 11 11 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 11 11 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

4-CHLOROANILINE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 0.11 LJQ SM106 0.11 LJQ SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 1/13 7.69% 

4-NITROANILINE 11 11 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

4-NITROPHENOL 11 11 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.031 J SM95-SO-7 0.064 LJQ SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 2/13 15.38% 

ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.036 LJQ SM104 0.91 LJQ SM106 0.17 4.4 MG/KG 9/13 69.23% 

ACETOPHENONE 0.023 LJQ SM104 0.25 LJQK SM101 0.45 4.4 MG/KG 6/13 46.15% 

ANTHRACENE 0.031 LJQK SM102 1.1 LJQK SM107 0.17 4.4 MG/KG 9/13 69.23% 

ATRAZINE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

BENZALDEHYDE 0.021 LJQ SM104 0.097 LJQ SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 5/13 38.46% 

24 of 104

005643
Table 16

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Lauren Tank Farm SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Former Lauren Tank Farm

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Scr

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.03 LJQ SM104 4.2 = SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 8/13 61.54% 

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.046 LJQK SM105 5.1 = SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 10/13 76.92% 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.063 LJQ SM104 7.1 = SM106 0.17 4.4 MG/KG 11/13 84.62% 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.059 LJQ SM104 2.1 JK SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 10/13 76.92% 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.023 LJQK SM105 2.5 = SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 8/13 61.54% 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.024 LJQK SM103 0.024 LJQK SM103 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 1/13 7.69% 

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 0.018 LJQK SM101 0.21 LJQ SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 2/13 15.38% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER) 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.094 LJQK SM101 1.9 BJH SM104 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 7/13 53.85% 

CAPROLACTAM 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

CARBAZOLE 0.03 J SM95-SO-7 0.52 LJQ SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 3/13 23.08% 

CHRYSENE 0.039 LJQK SM102 5.4 = SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 10/13 76.92% 

DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.056 LJQ SM104 0.056 LJQ SM104 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 1/13 7.69% 

DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.013 LJQK SM101 0.034 J SM95-SO-28 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 3/13 23.08% 

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.022 LJQK SM102 0.94 LJQ SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 8/13 61.54% DIBENZOFURAN 0.017 LJQK SM101 0.13 LJQ SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 2/13 15.38% DIETHYL PHTHALATE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 0.025 J SM95-SO-11 0.031 J SM95-SO-30 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 2/13 15.38% 

FLUORANTHENE 0.029 LJQK SM105 7.6 = SM106 0.17 4.4 MG/KG 11/13 84.62% 

FLUORENE 0.029 LJQK SM101 0.18 LJQ SM106 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 3/13 23.08% 

HEXACHLOROBENZENE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROETHANE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.038 LJQ SM104 2.2 JK SM106 0.17 4.4 MG/KG 11/13 84.62% 

ISOPHORONE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

NAPHTHALENE 0.023 LJQ SM104 1.4 LJQ SM106 0.43 4.4 MG/KG 8/13 61.54% 

NAPHTHALENE 0.023 LJQK SM105 1.4 LJQ SM106 0.43 4.4 MG/KG 8/13 61.54% 

NITROBENZENE 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

PENTACHLOROPHENOL 11 11 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

PHENANTHRENE 0.017 LJQK SM102 2 LJQ SM106 0.17 4.4 MG/KG 9/13 69.23% 

PHENOL 4.4 4.4 MG/KG 0/13 0.00% 

PYRENE 0.042 LJQ SM104 7.4 = SM106 0.17 4.4 MG/KG 11/13 84.62% 

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE) 0.1 0.1 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 2-HEXANONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% ACETONE 0.003 * SM95-SO-28 0.055 J SM95-SO-30 0.01 0.01 mg/Kg 3/6 50.00% 

BENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

BROMOFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

BROMOMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

CARBON DISULFIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

CHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

CHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

CHLOROFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

CHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

CYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ETHYLBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

METHYL ACETATE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 0.002 * SM95-SO-29 0.002 * SM95-SO-29 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 2/6 33.33% 

METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 0.002 * SM95-SO-29 0.002 J SM95-SO-8 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 2/6 33.33% 

METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 0.002 J SM95-SO-8 0.002 * SM95-SO-29 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 2/6 33.33% 

METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 0.002 J SM95-SO-8 0.002 J SM95-SO-8 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 2/6 33.33% 

METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE) 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

METHYLCYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

O-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

25 of 104

005644
Table 16

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Former Lauren Tank Farm SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Former Lauren Tank Farm

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Scr

STYRENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

TERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

TOLUENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

VINYL CHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

Rationale 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 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 background

26 of 104

005645
Table 17

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Non-source SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Non-source

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

ALUMINUM 841 = SM081 19600 = SM082 60 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% ANTIMONY 0.8 LJvQ SM047 26.3 JvL SM085 0.89 18 MG/KG 27/47 57.45% 

ARSENIC 1.7 LQ SM097 48.7 = SM098 5.7 5.7 MG/KG 52/54 96.30% BARIUM 40.7 LQ SM051 682 = SM077 60 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% 

BERYLLIUM 0.12 LQ SM081 27 = SM95-SO-13 0.41 1.5 MG/KG 51/54 94.44% 

CADMIUM 0.18 LQ SM058 11.5 = SM098 0.24 1.5 MG/KG 25/54 46.30% CHROMIUM, TOTAL 2.6 JK SM081 81.7 = SM098 3 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% 

COBALT 0.81 LQ SM081 65.6 = SM95-SO-13 15 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% 

COPPER 5.6 LQ SM073 5480 JvL SM078 7.5 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% 

CYANIDE 0.12 LQ SM079 0.37 LQ SM058 0.56 0.68 MG/KG 8/54 14.81% 

IRON 4420 = SM081 157000 = SM098 30 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% 

LEAD 8.6 = SM081 4090 = SM95-SO-13 0.9 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% MANGANESE 24.9 JK SM081 1360 J SM95-SO-13 4.5 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% MERCURY 0.08 LQ SM068 0.54 = SM079 0.11 0.14 MG/KG 17/54 31.48% 

NICKEL 1.4 LQ SM081 243 = SM95-SO-13 12 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% SELENIUM 0.65 LQ SM047 4.3 = SM95-SO-13 1.4 1.4 MG/KG 4/54 7.41% 

SILVER 0.24 LQ SM081 8.3 = SM098 0.42 3 MG/KG 53/54 98.15% 

THALLIUM 0.96 LQ SM083 5.3 Jv SM95-SO-13 5.9 5.9 MG/KG 10/54 18.52% VANADIUM 4.2 LQ SM081 26.8 = SM090 15 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% ZINC 12.6 = SM081 38700 = SM95-SO-13 6 MG/KG 54/54 100.00% 

ALDRIN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ALPHA ENDOSULFAN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ALPHA-CHLORDANE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

BETA ENDOSULFAN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

DIELDRIN 0.0099 J SM95-SO-18 17 J SM95-SO-5 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/2 50.00% ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ENDRIN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 31 JT SM95-SO-18 31 JT SM95-SO-18 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/2 50.00% 

ENDRIN KETONE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

HEPTACHLOR 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 24 J SM95-SO-18 24 J SM95-SO-18 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/2 50.00% 

METHOXYCHLOR 0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% P,P'-DDD 11 JT SM95-SO-18 11 JT SM95-SO-18 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 1/2 50.00% P,P'-DDE 10 J SM95-SO-5 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% P,P'-DDT 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

TOXAPHENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 17 17 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROPHENOL 17 17 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.013 LJQK SM090 1.9 LJQK SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 15/55 27.27% 

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2-NITROANILINE 17 17 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

2-NITROPHENOL 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

3-NITROANILINE 17 17 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 17 17 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

4-CHLOROANILINE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 0.021 LJQK SM070 0.22 LJQK SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 2/55 3.64% 

4-NITROANILINE 17 17 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

27 of 104

005646
Table 17

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Non-source SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Non-source

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

4-NITROPHENOL 17 17 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.012 LJQ SM094 9.6 = SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 6/55 10.91% ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.011 LJQ SM095 5 = SM058 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 28/55 50.91% 

ACETOPHENONE 0.013

LJQ, LJQK, 

LJQK

SM094, 

SM061, SM081 0.82 LJQK SM052 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 12/55 21.82% 

ANTHRACENE 0.01 LJQ SM096 13 = SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 34/55 61.82% ATRAZINE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% BENZALDEHYDE 0.007 LJQ SM095 0.15 LJQK SM052 4.3 6.6 MG/KG 32/55 58.18% BENZO(A)-FLUORANTHENE 0.35 0.35 mg/Kg 0/1 0.00% 

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.012 LJQK SM061 24 D SM087 6.6 12 MG/KG 40/55 72.73% 

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.015 LJQK SM061 19 D SM087 0.47 12 MG/KG 48/55 87.27% 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.019 LJQK SM061 25 D SM087 0.47 12 MG/KG 45/55 81.82% 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.051 LJQ SM095 4.3 = SM087 1.3 6.6 MG/KG 24/55 43.64% BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.02 LJ SM077 12 = SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 33/55 60.00% BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.016 LJQK SM071 0.26 LJQK SM058 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 9/55 16.36% BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 0.026 Q SM079 0.5 LJQK SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 4/55 7.27% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETHER) 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.031 LJQK SM049 3.2 = SM095 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 20/55 36.36% 

CAPROLACTAM 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

CARBAZOLE 0.012 Q SM076 7.5 = SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 18/55 32.73% 

CHRYSENE 0.021 Q SM073 21 D SM087 6.6 12 MG/KG 43/55 78.18% 

DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.014 J SM95-SO-18 0.44 = SM070 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 5/55 9.09% DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.027 LJQK SM082 0.091 LJQK SM080 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 4/55 7.27% 

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.014 LJQ SM096 2.2 LJQK SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 30/55 54.55% 

DIBENZOFURAN 0.011 LJQ SM086 3.8 = SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 7/55 12.73% 

DIETHYL PHTHALATE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

FLUORANTHENE 0.01 LJQK SM059 62 D SM087 0.47 12 MG/KG 46/55 83.64% 

FLUORENE 0.013 LJQK SM082 8.1 = SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 9/55 16.36% 

HEXACHLOROBENZENE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROETHANE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.016 Q SM073 6.9 = SM087 0.47 6.6 MG/KG 42/55 76.36% 

ISOPHORONE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

NAPHTHALENE 0.014 LJQ SM094 6.8 = SM087 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 14/55 25.45% 

NITROBENZENE 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

PENTACHLOROPHENOL 17 17 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

PHENANTHRENE 0.011 LJQK SM077 53 D SM087 6.6 12 MG/KG 38/55 69.09% 

PHENOL 6.6 6.6 MG/KG 0/55 0.00% 

PYRENE 0.017 LJQK SM083 40 D SM087 6.6 12 MG/KG 43/55 78.18% 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE) 0.1 0.1 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 2-HEXANONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

ACETONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

BENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% BROMOFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% BROMOMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CARBON DISULFIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

CHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CHLOROFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% 

28 of 104

005647
Table 17

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Non-source SoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Non-source

Medium: Surface Soil

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Sc

CHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% CYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% ETHYLBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% ISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYL ACETATE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE) 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYLCYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% O-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% STYRENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 0.001 J SM95-SO-18 0.001 J SM95-SO-18 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/2 50.00% TOLUENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TRICHLOROETHANE 0.003 J SM95-SO-18 0.003 J SM95-SO-18 mg/Kg 1/1 100.00% TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% VINYL CHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/2 0.00% Rationale 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-specificbackground

29 of 104

005648
Table 18

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - IntertidBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Lake Sabine - Intertidal

Medium: Sediment

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Scre

2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE 0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROPHENOL 0.71 0.71 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 0.043 0.043 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 0.042 0.042 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.0034 JQ SM005 0.091 J SM003 0.028 0.11 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% 

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) 0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2-NITROANILINE 0.057 0.057 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

2-NITROPHENOL 0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 0.13 0.13 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

3-NITROANILINE 0.11 0.11 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 1

4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 0.21 0.21 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-CHLOROANILINE 0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 0.044 = SM001 0.044 = SM001 0.029 0.038 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% 

4-NITROANILINE 0.071 0.071 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 1

4-NITROPHENOL 0.28 0.28 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.0014 JQ SM005 0.098 = SM003 0.021 0.08 MG/KG 8/9 88.89% ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.0045 JQ SM005 0.035 JQ SM004 0.012 0.056 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% ACETOPHENONE 0.0033 JQ SM008 0.043 JQ SM003 0.028 0.11 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% ALUMINUM 273 JH SM005 3530 JH SM008 33.2 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

ANTHRACENE 0.0052 JQ SM001 0.1 = SM003 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 5/9 55.56% 

ANTIMONY 0.2 BJK SM009 16.1 JK SM007 3.3 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

ARSENIC 1.8 = SM006 13.7 = SM007 1.3 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

ATRAZINE 0.017 0.017 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

BARIUM 10.8 JH SM005 83.6 JH SM002 1.3 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

BENZALDEHYDE 0.0085 JQ SM009 0.11 J SM003 0.075 0.11 MG/KG 3/9 33.33% 

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.0057 JQ SM009 0.13 = SM004 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 6/9 66.67% 

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.024 = SM009 0.24 = SM003 0.002 0.053 MG/KG 8/9 88.89% 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.019 JQL SM002 0.25 = SM004 0.007 0.16 MG/KG 8/9 88.89% 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.016 JQ SM009 0.16 = SM003 0.028 0.11 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.019 JQ SM008 0.14 JQ SM004 0.009 0.21 MG/KG 8/9 88.89% 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

BERYLLIUM 0.24 B SM001 0.33 = SM009 0.19 0.31 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 0.051 0.051 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE 0.035 0.035 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ETH 0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 3 3 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

CADMIUM 0.08 = SM006 1.49 = SM003 0.65 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% CALCIUM 250 JK SM006 172000 JK SM001 6630 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

CAPROLACTAM 0.11 J SM003 0.11 J SM003 0.075 0.11 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% CARBAZOLE 0.011 JQ SM006 0.2 = SM003 0.021 0.08 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 2.2 JK SM006 87.2 JK SM002 0.66 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

CHRYSENE 0.074 = SM006 0.12 = SM003 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 

CHRYSENE 0.074 = SM006 0.12 = SM004 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 

COBALT 1.4 = SM006 8.2 = SM003 0.66 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% COPPER 5 = SM009 313 = SM008 2.7 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

CYANIDE 0.27 B SM004 0.55 B SM003 0.16 0.709 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.025 JQ SM006 0.029 = SM007 0.028 0.028 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% 

DIBENZOFURAN 0.0051 JQ SM004 0.079 J SM003 0.021 0.08 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% 

DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 0.01 0.01 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.037 0.037 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

FLUORANTHENE 0.009 JQ SM009 0.24 = SM003 0.004 0.08 MG/KG 8/9 88.89% 

FLUORENE 0.012 JQ SM006 0.11 = SM003 0.014 0.053 MG/KG 4/9 44.44% HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 0.

HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROETHANE 0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 0

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.027 JQ SM008 0.18 = SM003 0.035 0.13 MG/KG 5/9 55.56% IRON 5300 JK SM006 201000 JK SM003 1330 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% ISOPHORONE 0.021 0.021 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

LEAD 14.1 = SM009 942 = SM003 13.8 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

MAGNESIUM 189 = SM006 3620 = SM001 133 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

MANGANESE 66.3 = SM009 1500 = SM002 2 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

30 of 104

005649
Table 18

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - IntertidBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Lake Sabine - Intertidal

Medium: Sediment

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Scre

MERCURY 0.016 B SM006 0.18 = SM008 0.069 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

NAPHTHALENE 0.014 JQ SM005 0.4 = SM003 0.021 0.08 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% NICKEL 2.82 = SM006 85 = SM003 5.53 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

NITROBENZENE 0.028 0.028 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 0

N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 0.042 0.042 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

PENTACHLOROPHENOL 0.082 JQ SM001 0.16 JQ SM003 0.21 0.8 MG/KG 2/9 22.22% PHENANTHRENE 0.0049 JQ SM008 0.32 = SM003 0.003 0.053 MG/KG 7/9 77.78% 

PHENOL 0.0092 JQ SM008 0.0092 JQ SM008 0.028 0.028 MG/KG 1/9 11.11% 

POTASSIUM 76.4 BJK SM005 1230 JK SM008 133 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

PYRENE 0.0052 JQ SM005 0.23 = SM003 0.08 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

PYRENE 0.0052 JQ SM005 0.23 = SM004 0.08 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

SELENIUM 0.18 BJK SM006 5.9 JK SM003 1.9 2.6 MG/KG 8/9 88.89% 

SILVER 0.092 0.092 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

SODIUM 584 = SM006 1560 = SM004 133 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

THALLIUM 0.26 0.26 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

TRIBUTYLTIN 0.0022 0.0022 MG/KG 0/9 0.00% 

VANADIUM 2.5 = SM005 15.5 = SM001 0.66 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

ZINC 25.5 = SM009 594 = SM003 1.38 MG/KG 9/9 100.00% 

Rationale 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 value

Al-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 tota

PAHs 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 background

31 of 104

005650
Table 19

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - NearshoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Lake Sabine - Nearshore

Medium: Sediment

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Screenin

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 0.

1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 2

1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

1,4-DIOXANE (P-DIOXANE) 0.1 0.1 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PROPANE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROPHENOL 0.34 0.34 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2-HEXANONE 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.0027 JQ SM031 0.011 J SM028 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 5/41 12.20% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.0027 JQ SM031 0.011 JQ SM030 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 5/41 12.20% 

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2-NITROANILINE 0.33 0.33 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

2-NITROPHENOL 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 0.046 J PB009 0.075 J PB010 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 2/41 4.88% 

3-NITROANILINE 0.33 0.33 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 1

4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 0.33 0.33 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

4-CHLOROANILINE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

4-NITROANILINE 0.33 0.33 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 1

4-NITROPHENOL 0.33 0.33 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.0042 JQ SM031 0.58 = SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 6/41 14.63% 

ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.0037 JQ SM032 0.12 JL SM028 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 6/41 14.63% 

ACETONE 0.065 JB SM95-SE-9 0.095 * SM95-SE-8 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 2/10 20.00% 1ACETOPHENONE 0.0057 JQ SM027 0.0057 JQ SM027 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 1/41 2.44% 

ALDRIN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0

ALPHA ENDOSULFAN 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ALPHA-CHLORDANE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0

ALUMINUM 408 JH SM027 8820 JK PB008 81.4 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

ANTHRACENE 0.002 JQ SM017 2 = SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 15/41 36.59% 

ANTIMONY 0.22 BJL SM036 0.5 BJL PB007 3.2 8.1 MG/KG 11/45 24.44% ARSENIC 1.6 = SM030 11.7 = SM95-SE-15 3.3 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% ATRAZINE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

BARIUM 12.2 JH SM022 220 JK PB003 3.3 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

BENZALDEHYDE 0.037 J PB009 0.037 J PB009 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 1/41 2.44% 

BENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 0.

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.006 JQ SM016 4.1 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34% 

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.026 = SM029 2.3 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 22/41 53.66% 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.017 JQ SM015 3.6 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 25/41 60.98% 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.021 JQK SM027 0.24 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 14/41 34.15% 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.021 JQ SM029 1.9 J SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34% 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.021 JQ SM033 1.9 J SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34% 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.021 JQK SM027 1.9 J SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34% 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.024 JQ SM027 0.064 J SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 14/41 34.15% 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.024 JQ SM033 0.064 J SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 14/41 34.15% 

BERYLLIUM 0.1 B SM031 2.7 = SM95-SE-9 0.38 0.81 MG/KG 35/45 77.78% 

BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0

BETA ENDOSULFAN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 0.0012 JQ SM030 0.037 J PB009 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 3/41 7.32% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

32 of 104

005651
Table 19

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - NearshoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Lake Sabine - Nearshore

Medium: Sediment

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Screenin

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER (2-CHLOROETHYL ET 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.047 J SM95-SE-14 0.26 J SM95-SE-9 0.27 0.27 MG/KG 3/41 7.32% 

BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

BROMOFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

BROMOMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

CADMIUM 0.04 B SM036 0.27 = SM95-SE-8 0.42 0.42 MG/KG 36/45 80.00% CALCIUM 227 = SM95-SE-26 30500 = SM95-SE-16 326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

CAPROLACTAM 0.037 J PB009 0.051 = SM032 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 2/41 4.88% 

CARBAZOLE 0.0068 JQ SM030 0.31 J SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 10/41 24.39% CARBON DISULFIDE 0.002 * SM95-SE-8 0.002 * SM95-SE-8 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/10 10.00% 4CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 3

CHLOROBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 0.

CHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

CHLOROFORM 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

CHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 1.6 = SM95-SE-11 20 = SM95-SE-8 1.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

CHRYSENE 0.01 J SM027 3.9 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 19/41 46.34% 

CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

COBALT 1.5 = SM027 21.2 JK SM012 1.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

COBALT 1.5 = SM029 21.2 JK SM012 1.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

COBALT 1.5 = SM030 21.2 JK SM012 1.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

COBALT 1.5 = SM95-SE-26 21.2 JK SM012 1.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

COPPER 1.4 = SM023 312 J SM95-SE-8 0.2 0.5 MG/KG 43/44 97.73% 

CYANIDE 1 1 MG/KG 0/45 0.00% 

CYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.019 JQ SM033 0.23 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 8/41 19.51% 

DIBENZOFURAN 0.0028 JQL SM031 0.36 J SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 5/41 12.20% 

DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

DIELDRIN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.0019 JQ SM015 0.014 JQ SM029 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 4/41 9.76% 

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.0045 JQ SM029 0.096 J SM95-SE-15 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 13/41 31.71% 

DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.0048 JQ SM030 0.22 * SM95-SE-8 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 2/41 4.88% ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ENDRIN 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ENDRIN KETONE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

ETHYLBENZENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

FLUORANTHENE 0.0032 JQ SM017 9.1 J SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 25/41 60.98% 

FLUORENE 0.0065 JQ SM031 0.79 = SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 6/41 14.63% 

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 0.0034 J SM95-SE-8 0.0034 J SM95-SE-8 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 1/6 16.67% 0

GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0

HEPTACHLOR 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.0017 0.0017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 0.0

HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROETHANE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 0.

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.027 JQ SM033 0.34 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 15/41 36.59% 

IRON 3850 = SM030 36200 = SM95-SE-15 65.1 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 2

ISOPHORONE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

ISOPROPYLBENZENE (CUMENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

LEAD 4.3 = SM023 362 = SM95-SE-9 14.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

M,P-XYLENE (SUM OF ISOMERS) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

MAGNESIUM 236 = SM027 4240 JK PB003 326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

MANGANESE 35.2 = SM023 1270 JK SM039 4.9 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% 

MERCURY 0.011 B SM033 0.045 B SM034 0.21 0.21 MG/KG 11/45 24.44% 

METHOXYCHLOR 0.017 0.017 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 

METHYL ACETATE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 2

METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (4-METHYL-2-PENTANO 0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

METHYLCYCLOHEXANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.005 * SM95-SE-8 0.005 * SM95-SE-8 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/10 10.00% NAPHTHALENE 0.0046 JQ PB003 0.014 JQ SM028 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 7/41 17.07% 

NICKEL 1.5 = SM95-SE-11 26.4 = SM95-SE-9 2.91 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% NICKEL 1.5 = SM95-SE-26 26.4 = SM95-SE-9 2.91 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% NITROBENZENE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 0.

N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% 

33 of 104

005652
Table 19

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - NearshoBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Location: Lake Sabine - Nearshore

Medium: Sediment

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentage of detection Screenin

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 

O-XYLENE (1,2-DIMETHYLBENZENE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% P,P'-DDD 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% 0P,P'-DDE 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% P,P'-DDT 0.0033 0.0033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% PCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% PCB-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% PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260) 0.033 0.033 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% PENTACHLOROPHENOL 0.33 0.33 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% PHENANTHRENE 0.0027 JQ SM017 7.1 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 21/41 51.22% PHENOL 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 0/41 0.00% POTASSIUM 127 = SM027 2340 JK PB008 326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% POTASSIUM 127 = SM027 2340 JK PB009 326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% PYRENE 0.0023 JQ SM017 8.8 * SM95-SE-9 0.17 0.17 MG/KG 25/41 60.98% SELENIUM 0.13 B SM017 0.89 B SM037 1.2 6.5 MG/KG 21/45 46.67% SILVER 0.83 0.83 MG/KG 0/45 0.00% SODIUM 432 = SM95-SE-26 5450 JK PB008 326 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% STYRENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% TERT-BUTYL METHYL ETHER 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% THALLIUM 1 = SM95-SE-11 2.1 = SM95-SE-8 1.7 1.7 MG/KG 2/45 4.44% TOLUENE 0.002 * SM95-SE-8 0.002 * SM95-SE-8 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 1/10 10.00% TOXAPHENE 0.17 0.17 mg/kg 0/6 0.00% TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% 0.TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% TRIBUTYLTIN 0.00047 J SM033 0.0063 = SM037 0.014 0.014 MG/KG 12/35 34.29% TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% VANADIUM 3.3 = SM95-SE-26 22.6 JK PB008 1.6 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% VINYL CHLORIDE 0.005 0.005 mg/kg 0/10 0.00% ZINC 14.2 = SM95-SE-11 3910 = SM95-SE-9 1.46 MG/KG 45/45 100.00% Rationale 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 tota

PAHs 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 background

34 of 104

005653
Table 20

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - OffshoreBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, PLocation: Lake Sabine - Offshore

Medium: Sediment 

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentag

of detectio

ALUMINUM 562 JK SM041 8150 JK SM044 47.1 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

ANTIMONY 0.27 BJL PB013 0.27 BJL PB013 0.8 4.6 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

ARSENIC 2.9 = SM041 8.9 = PB014 1.9 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

BARIUM 24.5 JH SM021 115 JK PB014 1.9 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

BERYLLIUM 0.2 B SM040 0.89 = PB014 0.074 0.47 MG/KG 10/11 90.91% 

CADMIUM 0.04 BQ SM041 0.14 = PB014 0.1 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

CALCIUM 247 JK SM041 5580 JK SM045 188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% CHROMIUM, TOTAL 2.2 = SM041 11.3 = PB012 0.94 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

COBALT 1.6 = SM041 9.7 = SM042 0.94 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

COPPER 1.6 = SM045 8.5 = SM040 0.5 MG/KG 8/8 100.00% 

CYANIDE 0.25 0.25 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

IRON 4690 JK SM041 14900 JK PB012 37.7 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% LEAD 6.8 = SM041 14 = PB012 10.2 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

MAGNESIUM 320 JK SM041 4300 JK SM042 188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

MAGNESIUM 320 JK SM041 4300 JK SM044 188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% MANGANESE 51.8 = SM021 745 JK PB014 2.8 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

MERCURY 0.024 B SM040 0.024 B SM040 0.089 0.089 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

NICKEL 2.23 = SM041 44.1 = PB012 2.04 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

POTASSIUM 202 JK SM041 2460 JK SM042 188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% SELENIUM 0.27 B PB014 0.59 B PB013 0.62 3.7 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 

SILVER 0.13 0.13 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

SODIUM 705 JK SM041 5200 JK PB012 188 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

THALLIUM 0.37 0.37 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

VANADIUM 2.9 JK SM041 18.9 JK PB013 0.94 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% 

ZINC 18.4 = SM041 45.6 = PB012 1.02 MG/KG 11/11 100.00% TRIBUTYLTIN 0.0018 = SM040 0.0059 = SM042 0.003 0.003 MG/KG 6/11 54.55% 2,2'-OXYBIS(1-CHLORO)PRO 0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.009 0.009 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 0.009 0.009 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 0.01 0.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROPHENOL 0.2 0.2 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 0.011 0.011 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 0.01 0.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2-CHLOROPHENOL 0.012 0.012 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRES 0.003 0.003 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

2-NITROANILINE 0.014 0.014 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 2-NITROPHENOL 0.008 0.008 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 0.031 J SM041 0.049 J PB012 0.049 0.049 MG/KG 4/11 36.36% 3-NITROANILINE 0.032 0.032 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHEN 0.053 0.053 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL 0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHEN 0.01 0.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

4-CHLOROANILINE 0.01 0.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL 0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRES 0.011 0.011 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

4-NITROANILINE 0.02 0.02 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

4-NITROPHENOL 0.078 0.078 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% ACETOPHENONE 0.001 0.001 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

ANTHRACENE 0.00009 JQ SM042 0.00009 JQ SM042 0.003 0.02 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

ATRAZINE 0.0006 0.0006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

BENZALDEHYDE 0.039 B SM042 0.039 B SM042 0.04 0.04 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.0026 JQ SM041 0.0084 JQ PB012 0.003 0.02 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 

35 of 104

005654
Table 20

Occurrence, distribution, and selection of chemicals of potential concern in the Lake Sabine Sediment - OffshoreBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, PLocation: Lake Sabine - Offshore

Medium: Sediment 

Chemical Minimum concentration Minimum qualifier Minimum sample location Maximum concentration Maximum qualilifer Maximum sample location Maximum Non-Detect Result Maximum Non- Detect RL Units Frequency of detection Percentag

of detectio

BENZO(A)PYRENE 0.022 = SM041 0.054 = PB012 0.003 0.02 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 0.015 JQ SM041 0.034 JQ PB012 0.011 0.059 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 0.017 JQ SM040 0.017 JQ SM040 0.007 0.028 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 0.017 JQ SM041 0.033 JQ PB012 0.014 0.079 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.027 JQ SM040 0.027 JQ SM040 0.038 0.038 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) 0.039 B SM042 0.039 B SM042 0.04 0.04 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) ME 0.01 0.01 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHE 0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHA 0.05 = SM043 0.06 = PB012 0.067 0.067 MG/KG 2/11 18.18% 

CAPROLACTAM 0.039 B SM042 0.039 B SM042 0.04 0.04 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

CARBAZOLE 0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

CHRYSENE 0.0022 JQ SM041 0.0069 JQ PB012 0.003 0.02 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 

DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.006 J SM043 0.0064 JQ SM021 0.02 0.034 MG/KG 2/11 18.18% 

DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE 0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% DIBENZOFURAN 0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.0033 JQ PB014 0.0033 JQ PB014 0.006 0.029 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

FLUORANTHENE 0.003 JQ SM041 0.0058 JQ PB012 0.006 0.03 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 

FLUORENE 0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.004 0.004 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTA 0.001 0.001 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

HEXACHLOROETHANE 0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 0.009 0.009 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% ISOPHORONE 0.006 0.006 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAM 0.011 0.011 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% 

N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 0.003 0.003 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% NAPHTHALENE 0.005 0.005 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% NITROBENZENE 0.007 0.007 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% PENTACHLOROPHENOL 0.063 0.063 MG/KG 0/11 0.00% PHENANTHRENE 0.000089 JQ SM042 0.000089 JQ SM042 0.004 0.02 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

PHENOL 0.008 J SM045 0.008 J SM045 0.007 0.034 MG/KG 1/11 9.09% 

PYRENE 0.004 JQ SM041 0.017 JQ PB012 0.006 0.03 MG/KG 3/11 27.27% 

Rationale 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 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 background

36 of 104

005655
Table 21

Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Environmental Fate 

Aluminum

Aluminum has only one oxidation state (3+); thus, its fate and transport in the environment depends upon its coordination chemistry and the characteristics of the local environmental system. Aluminum does not exist as a free 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 the soil, the lower the mobility of aluminum. In water, aluminum forms relatively water-insoluble complexes, or is found as a water-soluble complex. Aluminum undergoes hydrolysis to form hydroxy aluminum species and pH determines the hydrolysis products that are formed. Aluminum adsorbs to suspended solids and sediment. At a pH greater than 5.5, aluminum compounds exist predominantly in undissolved forms. Decreasing pH generally results in an increase in mobility for monomeric forms of aluminum. 

Bodek Riha, SnoeyGoen

Antimony

Antimony 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 to atmospheric oxygen.

AinswBrinck

Arsenic

The 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 soil are interconverted by chemical reactions and microbial activity. The bioavailability of arsenic in soil is inversely proportional to the organic carbon and clay content of the soil matrix. Arsenic in soil is directly taken up by plants and soil microbes and invertebrates, and indirectly taken up by terrestrial receptors via ingestion. In surface water, soluble inorganic arsenate (As5+) predominates under normal conditions and is more stable than arsenite. Movement and partitioning of arsenic in water depends on the chemical form of arsenic and on interactions with other materials present. Soluble forms of arsenic remain dissolved in the water column or adsorb 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 by 

USEPGhass1980aWelch BramaRidgeWood1995; USEP

pH, temperature, other metals, salinity, and biota.Uptake by plants from soil is influenced by soil elements, temperature and plant species. Aquatic organisms accumulate arsenic but do not biomagnify it. Arsenic is accumulated by aquatic organisms primarily through dietary exposure. Bioavailability is not dependent on the concentration of acid-volatile sulfides (AVS). Sediments are the major source of arsenic to infaunal organisms.

Barium

In 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 soil systems. The rate of transportation of barium in soil is dependent on soil characteristics such as cation exchange 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 compounds increases with decreasing pH.

Bodek Lagas 1983; Pendi

Beryllium

Beryllium adsorbs to clays at low pH and precipitates as insoluble complexes at higher pH; therefore, beryllium has limited mobility in soil. In water, beryllium is speciated often by hydrolysis to form relatively insoluble beryllium hydroxide. Beryllium is not volatilized from water. Most beryllium in water will be present in either the sorbed state in suspended matter or in the sediment rather than in a dissolved form, thus limiting its mobility. At a high water pH, formation of water-soluble complexes with hydroxide ions may increase its solubility and mobility. 

Callah1993b 

37 of 104

005656
Table 21

Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Environmental Fate 

Cadmium

Cadmium exists primarily in the 2+ oxidation state. Cadmium in the water column can partition to dissolved and particulate organic carbon. Cadmium speciation yields primarily the divalent form (2+) between pH conc of 4.0 and 7.0 and it is this divalent form that is believed to be responsible for observed biological effects. Cadmium compounds in soil are stable and are not subject to degradation. Compounds can be transformed by precipitation, dissolution, complexation, and ion exchange. In aquatic environments, cadmium compounds are not affected by photolysis, volatilization, or biological methylation. Precipitation and sorption to mineral surfaces and organic materials are important removal processes. Concentrations are generally higher in sediments than in overlying water.

USEPATSDOng, McCra1992; 1989 

Cadmium readily bioconcentrates in Daphnia sp. , aquatic insects, mollusks, and crayfish. Fish uptake occurs 

through both water and diet, however water is the primary uptake source. In mammals and birds, cadmium accumulates in the livers and kidneys following ingestion. The concentration of AVS is an important factor controlling the toxicity and bioaccumulation of cadmium in sediments. 

Chromium

In soil, chromium 3+ is readily hydrolyzed and precipitated as chromium hydroxide. It exists in soil primarily as insoluble oxide with very limited mobility. In water, chromium 6+ can occur in the soluble state. It can be adsorbed onto clay-like materials, organics, or iron oxides. chromium 6+ persists in water for 140 days, but is eventually 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, hexavalent chromium is distributed between two species: monovalent hydrochromate anion and divalent chromate anion. A log bioconcentration factor (BCF) of 2.74 was reported for Daphnia magna. Hexavalent chromium tends to accumulare in the gills of fish following exposure.

Cobalt

The mobility of cobalt in soil increases as soil pH decreases. The speciation and transport of cobalt in surface water and sediment is controlled by the presence of ligands, anions, pH, and redox potential. The speciation in soil depends on the nature of the soil, concentration of chelating/complexing agents, pH, and redox potential. 

Killey 1986; et al., 1981

Copper occurs naturally in many organisms and is an essential micronutrient. Copper may exist in two oxidation states: 1+ or 2+. Copper (1+) is unstable and oxidizes to the 2+ state in many aerated waters within the pH range 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 the concentration of other chemical species. The majority of copper released to surface waters settles out or adsorbs to sediments. Some copper complexes with both inorganic and organic ligand.

CallahMcBriMoffeand B1979; USEP

As an essential nutrient, copper is strongly bioaccumulated by plants and animals. All organisms have active transport mechanisms for it, but it does not biomagnify. Biogenic ligands play an important role in complexing copper (which affects precipitation and sorption behavior), an biological activity is a major factor in determining the distribution and occurrence of copper in the ecosystem. Free copper ions are the most bioavailable inorganic forms. The amount of bioavailable copper in sediment is controlled mostly by the concentration of AVS and organic matter. Copper is accumulated by aquatic organisms primarily through dietary exposure. 

USEPet al., Klerks Van dEnser2000

Copper

38 of 104

005657
Table 21

Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Environmental Fate 

Iron

In 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) in reducing 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 also mobile in many soils and in surface and groundwaters up to ~ pH 5 to 6; as colloidal ferric oxyhydroxides between ~ pH 3 to 8. 

Langm

Lead

In water, lead is most soluble and bioavailable under conditions of low pH, low organic content, low suspended sediment concentrations, and low concentrations of salts of other metals. Therefore, the solubility in water is low. Most lead in natural waters is precipitated to sediment as carbonates and hydroxides. Lead is readily precipitated by many common anions. In sediments, lead is mobilized and released during sharp decreases in pH.In soils, the major sink for lead, is relatively immobile and can persist for long periods of time in numerous forms. Adsorption or precipitation of in soils is promoted by presence of organic matter, carbonates, and phosphate minerals. It usually accumulates in topsoil due to complexation with organic matter and the transformation of soluble lead compounds to relatively insoluble sulfate or phosphate derivatives. The efficient fixation of lead by most soils greatly limits the transfer of lead to aquatic systems and also inhibits absorption of lead by plants. However, leaching of lead can be relatively rapid from some soils, especially at highly contaminated sites or landfills. Aquatic biota (invertebrate and vertebrate) can bioconcentrate lead at levels greater than in water, and sometimes similar to those in sediments. Concentrations of lead tend to decrease with increasing aquatic trophic levels. However, lead does not appear to bioconcentrate significantly in fish but does in some shellfish such 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 aquatic organisms. Log BCFs of 5.15 (cladoceran) and 3.56 (midge) were reported in the literature. 

Manganese

Manganese transport and partitioning is controlled by the solubility of the chemical form present, which is determined by pH, oxidation-reduction potential, and the characteristics of available anions. Manganese may exist in water in any of four oxidation states (2+, 3+, 4+, or 7+). Mn 24 is most common in waters (pH 4-7) but may become oxidized at pH greater than 8 or 9. Adsorption to soil and sediment may be highly variable because 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 to microbial activity. 

Schaaal., 191953; PendKipph

Mercury

In soil, mercury exists in the mercuric (Hg+2) and mercurous (Hg+1) states. Mercury adsorbs to soil or is 

converted to volatile forms. Mercury can migrate by volatilization from aquatic and terrestrial sources through the reduction of metallic mercury to complex species. Atmospheric transport is a major environmental distribution pathway. Mercury 2+ is the predominant form of mercury in surface waters. Nonvolatile mercury in surface water binds to organic matter and sediment particles.

KrabbCallah1994aSRC, 1969; HarrisScoulMcKinBenes 1985; et al. 2000; WoodTimm

39 of 104

005658
Table 21

Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Environmental Fate 

Where mercury is found in soil, water and sediment methylmercury may also be found since it is both produced and destroyed by microbial processes involving mercury compounds. Fish and other aquatic orgamanisms readily 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 observed levels 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 of various avian species. Among mammals, mercury burdens are higher in fish-eating species than in herbivorous ones. Bioconcentration factors for methylmercury are highly variable. Log BCFs for methylmercury in brook trout range from 4.84 to 5.80. Bioaccumulation factors increased with higher levels in both the pelagic and benthic components of aquatic food webs. Fish bioconcentrate methylmercury directly from water by uptake across the gills and piscivores readily accumulate mercury from dietary sources. Mercury is accumulated by all trophic levels with biomagnification occurring up the food web. The transfer of mercury through the food web is affected by the form of mercury. Although inorganic mercury is the dominant form in the environment and easily accumulated, it is also depurated quickly. Methylmercury accumulates quickly, depurates very slowly, and therefore has a greater potential to biomagnify in higher trophic-level species.

Nickel

Most nickel released into waterways is associated with particulate matter. Nickel is strongly adsorbed at mineral surfaces 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 to moderate. Although aquatic organisms may accumulate nickel from their surroundings, there is little evidence for significant biomagnification along the food chain. Water-soluble nickel compounds, such as the chloride and sulfate compounds, are poorly absorbed by most living organisms. The uptake of nickel by plants depends upon the extractable nickel content of a soil which is a function of physical, chemical and biological factors of the 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 with SEM/AVS ratios >1 were approximately 2- to 10-fold greater than nickel concentrations in benthic organisms from sediments with SEM/AVS <1, nickel uptake (tissue concentration) was proportional to the concentration in sediment. 

Selenium

In nature, selenium exists as six stable isotopes. Changes in the valence state of selenium are associated with its geologic distribution, redistribution, and use. Soluble selenates occur in alkaline soils and are slowly reduced to selenites, which are then readily taken up by plants. Selenium volatilizes from soils and sediments. 

CappoSandi1995 1992; Rodgeet al., MatheWiene2000BowmRai anand CSundeSRC, Councal., 19

40 of 104

005659
Table 21

Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Environmental Fate 

BCFs ranging from 200 to 3,600 for selenite and 65 to 500 for selenate suggest bioconcentration in aquatic organisms will be moderate to very high. In sediments, reduced and tightly bound selenium will remain relatively immobile unless the sediments are chemically or biologically oxidized. Selenium is normally found at low levels in aquatic ecosystems. Female fish have been shown to transfer selenium to their progeny and embryos showed an increased incidence of edema and lordosis. Selenium can biomagnify sufficiently to cause acute toxicity to fishes. 

Silver

Transport and partitioning is influenced by the particular form of the compound. Under oxidizing conditions, the primary silver compounds would be bromides, chlorides, and iodides, while under reducing conditions the free metal and silver sulfide would predominate. Mobility in soils is affected by oxidation-reduction potential, pH, and the presence of organic matter. In fresh water, silver often forms complex ions with chlorides, ammonium, and sulfates; 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. 

Linds1968

Thallium

In soil, thallium exists in either the monovalent (thallous) or trivalent (thallic) form. The monovalent form is more common 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 in water.

HamCalla1976Carls

Vanadium

Transport and partitioning in water and soil is influenced by pH, redox potential, and the presence of particulates. 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 its mobility decreases in acidic soils. Under oxidizing, unsaturated conditions some mobility is observed, but under reducing, saturated conditions vanadium is immobile. Vanadium entering water is generally converted from the less soluble trivalent state to the more soluble pentavalent state. 

WehrZinde1980

Zinc

Zinc occurs naturally in the 2+ oxidation state. Sorption to suspended and bed sediments is the dominant reaction involving zinc. The relative mobility of zinc in soil and aquatic systems is determined by factors such as the solubility of the compound, pH, redox potential, and salinity. Zinc generally remains as a free ion at low pH conc.s. It partitions to sediments or suspended solids in surface water through sorption onto hydrous iron and manganese 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 the speciated forms of the element and on soil properties such as cation exchange capacity, pH, redox potential, and the chemical species present in soil. 

Calla1985USE19782000

Zinc compounds have low mobility in soils and are absorbed by plants and vegetables. Adsorbtion to suspended solids and sediments is expected. Studies indicate that zinc is not a highly mobile element in most aquatic habitats. In fish, zinc tends to accumulates in the gills, liver, kidney and opercular bone, but not the muscle. A log BCF of 2.90 was determined for the midge Chironomus riparius. 

41 of 104

005660
Table 21

Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Environmental Fate 

Pesticides

Pesticides can be transferred by volatilization, runoff, leaching, absorption and physical removal. Increasing temperature, movement, and low relative humidity increase the chances of volatilization. A higher vapor pressure 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 the same pesticide is repeatedly used at the same site because of therapid build up of the microorganisms. The most significant reaction is hydrolysis. Chemical reactivity increases with temperature.

Brow

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are a diverse group of organic molecules composed of two or more fused aromatic (benzene) rings. They are moderately persistent in the environment. In general, as the number of rings increases, mobility and volatility decrease. Because of these physical-chemical properties, PAHs have low solubility, low volatility, and a high tendency to sorb to organic matter. In water, PAHs have high boiling points and are insoluble. When oil is spilled in water, PAH in the oil can enter the water column in dispersed form or be absorbed on organic and inorganic compounds. In the terrestrial environment, PAHs tend to be associated with soil particulates and have low mobility in soil.

Eisler1985

PAHs generally do not biomagnify in food chains despite high lipid solubility, because they are rapidly metabolized. However, some PAHs can be detected in tissues of aquatic organisms and wildlife at high concentrations immediately following exposure. In general, biodegradation rates are inversely related to the number of fused benzene rings and are further slowed by substitutions, including alkylation. Bioaccumulation and metabolism vary greatly among clams, invertebrates, shrimp, and fish. Bioaccumulation was substantially higher for amphipods than for clams, shrimp, or fish. Clams unable to metabolize PAHs had higher concentration levels of PAHs than amphipods, shrimp, and fish.

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate

In the environment, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate undergoes biodegradation in water and soil. It is predicted to react with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere. It has an estimated half-life of 12 hours in the air, 10 - 20 days in soil, and days to weeks in water. The half-life of the molecule, due to evaporation from bodies of water, is about 15 years. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate rapidly degrades in the marine environment by experimental microcosms. This chemical has been found to bind organic acids in the soil and water, resulting in an increase in its solubility and mobility in the environment. It also absorbs to both freshwater and marine sediments. 

Calla1990; 1971; 

Dibenzofuran

In the atmosphere, dibenzofuran exists primarily in the gas-phase and sometimes in the particulate -phase. As a gas, this chemical reacts with photochemically - produced hydroxyl radicals and has a half-life of 4.1 days. As a 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 microorganisms are present. In an aquatic environment, dibenzofuran is expected to strongly absorb to particulates and sediment. Dissolved dibenzofuran may volatilize from water. Adapted microbes supplied with sufficient oxygen can readily biodegrade dibenzofuran. 

Kwok 1991; 2001

42 of 104

005661
Table 21

Environmental Fate and TransportBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Environmental Fate 

Perchlorate

Perchlorate (ClO4) is an anion that originates as a contaminant in ground water and surface waters from the dissolution 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 chemical reduction in the environment is not significant, perchlorate is exceedingly mobile in aqueous systems and can persist for many decades under typical ground and surface water conditions.

USEP(http:erchlo

Notes:Information on the fate and transport of chemicals was researched through TOXNET (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/) in the Hazardous Substances DatFull citations for the primary references listed can be found on the HSDB summary for each chemical listed. 

43 of 104

005662
Table 22

Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Mechanisms of Ecotoxicity 

Aluminum

Aluminum is a cytotoxin that interferes with enzymes associated with adenosine triphosphate and maintenance of neurotransmitters; it disrupts neuromotor activity and cognitive abilities; decreases offspring growth, body weights and neurological development; increases resorption rates; alters calcium and phosphorus metabolism; causes embryo lethality; minor skeletal malformations; decrease in egg shell strength and production.

ATSDLowe

Antimony Mutagenic in bacteria or phage; induces chromosomal aberrations or abnormal cell division; 

antimony combines with sulfhydryl groups in several respiratory enzymes; trivalent antimony induces heme oxygenase, which causes heme degradation in the liver and kidney; causes pulmonary, hepatic and reproductive effects in mammals.

ATSDand KFlesseal., 19

Arsenic Reaction of trivalent form (arsenite) with sulfhydryl groups leads to enzyme (oxidative 

respiration) inhibition. Methylated arsenic is transferred efficiently in food webs, but does not bioacccumulate. Arsenic reduces growth and development in plants and causes inhibition of light activation, wilting, chlorosis, browning, dehydration and death in plants. Arsenic causes malformations and death in toad embryos. It is carcinogenic and mutagenic and causes impaired behavior, reduced growth, lack of appetite, suffocation by gill clogging and vascular collapse in the gills, testicular and ovarian degeneration, liver damage, and failure to metabolize food in fish. Inorganic arsenic destroys the blood vessel lining in the gut and lowers blood pressure in birds. It also causes hepatocyte damage in birds by inhibition of the sodium pump. Behavioral, systemic, growth, systemic and reproductive effects occur as a result of chronic exposures. It is teratogenic, carcinogenic and possibly mutagenic in mammals. Its developmental effects include malformations (exencephaly, eye defects and renal and gonadal a

Sadiq NRCC 1998bin Eis1994; Cama1993aSorenIrwin e

Barium Barium can inhibit intestinal absorption in the winter flounder. Barium accumulates in plants 

and the bones in birds and mammals. It affects affects potassium metabolism in muscles and causes respiratory weakness, muscle paralysis and stimulation, irregular cardiac contractions and lowered pulse rate in mammals. Some reproductive effects (reduced ovary weight) have been observed. 

Amdu1990bcited iCharnBorze

Beryllium Beryllium exerts its effects in amphibians on the physiological processes (ion regulation and 

gas exchange) on the gill surface and skin. Gill abnormalities have been observed in exposed fish. Beryllium is primarily an inhalation stressor in mammals, with exposure resulting in hypersensitivity, pneumonitis and chronic granulomatous pulmonary disease. Phytotoxicity is caused by the inhibition of enzyme activity. 

Amdu1993; (HSD

44 of 104

005663
Table 22

Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Mechanisms of Ecotoxicity 

Cadmium Cadmium causes mutagenesis, teratogenesis, carcinogenesis; It inhibits enzyme reactions by 

replacement 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 II biotransformation 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; accumulates primarily in the kidneys; immunosuppressive effects have been shown in mice, fish, and oysters. Soluble form is highly available for plant uptake and can disturb enzyme activity.

ATSDHammet al., 1994 1997; cited Malincited Bodek 

Chromium Beneficial but not essential for plants; trivalent form essential form in mammals for maintaining 

efficient lipid, glucose and protein metabolism; mutagenic, teratogenic and carcinogenic; hexavalent form associated with inhibition of photosynthesis and interference with transport and mobilization of essential nutrients. Hexavalent form can cause oxidation stress in cells, abnormal enzyme activity, lowered resistance to pathogens, disrupted feeding, disrupted osmoregulation, histopathology, and damage to beta cells of pancreatic islets. Can cause nephron and liver damage. Decreased weight gain, increased oxygen consumption, impaired reproduction, and increased hematocrit have been noted in aquatic organisms. High deposition of trivalent form in fish gills leads to tissue damage including hyperplasia, clubbing of lamellae, and necrosis. 

ATSDMoore Irwin 

Cobalt Cobalt produces adverse systemic and hematological effects and reduction in sperm 

development, fertilization and implantation in mammals. A decrease in testicular size has been noted in exposed rodents. It can cause interstitial fibrosis, enzyme inhibition and effects associated with mixed function monoxygenases. Cobalt chloride has been noted to produce neurotropic effects in rats. 

ATSD

45 of 104

005664
Table 22

Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Mechanisms of Ecotoxicity 

Copper Essential element for animals as a component of metalloenzymes and respiratory pigments, 

iron utilization, function of enzymes in pigmentation, connective tissue formation and energy production; forms stable inhibitory complexes with cytochrome P-450; impairs function of NADPH-cytochrome C reductase; inhibits heme biosynthesis; teratogen and possible carcinogen; accumulates in the liver and reduces liver's ability to excrete copper; decreases growth and food consumption in birds; disrupts internal ion balance in aquatic organisms; alters hematology, respiratory physiology, and cardiac physiology in fish; causes histological changes in 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.

ATSDPetroIrwin 19911997

Iron Essential for the production of proteins in plants and hemoglobin in animals. Toxicity related to 

cellular oxidative stress, dysfunction and toxicity due to peroxide formation.

HSDB

Lead Inhibits growth in plants. Reduces photosynthetic activity by blocking sulfhydril groups and 

inhibiting the conversion of coproporphyrinogen to proporphyrinogen. Reduces mitosis and water absorption. In animals, lead inhibits the formation of heme and reduces amino-levulinate acid dehydratase activity in blood. Toxic effects in animals include reduced growth and reproductive output, accumulation in hematopoietic organs, changes in the central nervous system (at high concentrations near those causing mortality) kidney disfunction, enzyme inhibition, and behavioral changes. In birds, lead decreases egg shell thickness and limits growth, ovulation, and sperm formation. In fish, lead can increase mucous formation and cause death from suffocation.

ATSDFinley Fribe1979cited 

Manganese Manganese is cytotoxic and causes chromosomal aberations in rodents. Reduction in 

testicular growth (weight) and reduced seminal vesicle weight have been noted in rodents exposed to manganese. Can cause dopamine depletion in nerve cells. Adverse behavioral and systemic effects have been noted in birds exposed to manganese above nutrient levels.

ATSD

46 of 104

005665
Table 22

Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Mechanisms of Ecotoxicity 

Mercury Mercury binds strongly with sulfhydryl groups and interferes with thiol metabolism, inhibiting or 

inactivating proteins containing thiol ligands. This leads to mitotic disturbances and inhibition of cell division. Organic mercury compounds are potent inhibitors of cell division. Methylmercury irreversibly destroys central nervous system neurons in mammals and aquatic organisms 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. 

ATSDLeland cited i

Nickel Nickel is nephrotoxic, carcinogenic, and immunotoxic in mammals. Elevated levels of nickel 

cause tremors, edema in joints and reduction in body weight and humerus length in birds; decreased reproductive capacity has been noted. Retarded growth, anemia, and decreased enzyme activity have been observed in rats.

ATSD1986, 1997.

Selenium Selenium causes systemic and reproductive effects in birds and mammals. In birds, there are 

embryo development effects, including an increase in malformed embryos and decreased hatchling and adult weight. Adverse effects on body weight and increases in the death of young animals and the frequency of runts have been observed in mammals. In fish, selenium can cause reproductive failures, including an increase in birth defects. Decreased seed germination and growth have been observed in plants. 

Eisler SorenIrwin eas cite

Silver Silver 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, kidney pathology, enzyme inhibition, growth retardation, and shortened life span in mammals and birds.

ATSD

Thallium Exposure to elevated levels of thallium causes neuromorphological changes and systemic 

effects in mammals (hair loss, increases in skeletal abnormalities and weight loss). No information was located for birds.

ATSD

47 of 104

005666
Table 22

Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Mechanisms of Ecotoxicity 

Vanadium Essential for growth in some fungi and algae; stimulates photosynthesis in higher plants and 

carries oxygen in some invertebrates; toxicity increases with valence (+5 most toxic); the pentavalent form inhibits enzyme systems such as monoamine oxidase, Na-K ATPase, tyrosinase, choline esterase, cholesterol synthetase; In mammals, toxic effects occur in the respiratory tracts as a result of inhalation of fumes and dust; dietary exposure causes adverse effects on blood cell production; embryotoxicity observed in pregnant Sprague-Dawley rates exposed to sodium metavanadate; in chickens, egg production suppressed upon exposure to dietary vanadium; genotoxic in invitro test systems using bacteria, yeast and mouse cells (recombination repair, gene mutation, DNA synthesis).

ATSD1997; 1977

Zinc Zinc is essential for normal reproduction and growth in plants and animals. In animals, it is 

regulated by metallothioneins, which temporarily store zinc, reducing its toxicity. Zincdependent enzymes regulate the rates of biosynthesis and catabolism of RNA and DNA. At high exposures, zinc interferes with the metabolism of calcium and iron and induces copper deficiency. Zinc causes cytoplasmic vacuolation, cellular atrophy and cell death in the pancreas. It accumulates preferentially in bone and induces osteomalacia (softening of the bone) as a result of a deficiency of minerals, including calcium and phosphorous. In fish, zinc causes destruction of gill epithelium and tissue hypoxia. In rainbow trout, disruption of internal ion balance has been noted.

EislerPetroIrwin 

Pesticides Toxicity and mode of action are highly variable and are related to the structure of the 

pesticides. Potent estrogenic and enzyme-inducing properties, which interfered with fertility and reproduction, of the Organoc Chlorine pesticides (OCs) have been demonstrated in wildlife and lab 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 yolk sac of the fry. Gradual accumulation of residues of these compounds and their metabolites in body tissues as well as the slow elimination from the system has been well documented. As many other pesticide, OCs and carbamate pesticides affect the nervous systems. They inhibit anticholinesterase activities, increasing secretions, broncho constriction, miosis, gastrointestinal cramps, urination, bradycardia)

KlaasMcFaLongcet al, 1993)1970)

48 of 104

005667
Table 22

Mechanisms of EcotoxicityBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Analyte Mechanisms of Ecotoxicity 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (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 a variety of animal tissues. Causes narcosis toxicity in aquatic animals. 

Eis

Phthalates Little information is known about the ecotoxicological effects that might be caused by this type 

of chemical. Adverse effects in animals were generally seen only at high doses or with long term exposures. Mildly harmful effects have been seen in the livers and kidneys of some rats and mice given very high doses (e.g., di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-octylphthalate). Longer exposures to high doses might affect the ability of both males and females to reproduce and caused birth defects. 

ATS

Full citations for the primary references listed can be found on the HSDB summary for each chemical listed. 

49 of 104

005668
Table 23

Assessment and Measurement EndpointsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Assessment Endpoint Guild (Food Web) Representative 

Species

Measurement Endpoints Exposure Routes 

1. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of herbivorous birds that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Herbivorous Bird(Terrestrial)

northern bobwhite quail

Comparison of exposure doses to NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion E

soL

2. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of omnivorous mammals that use the habitat onsite due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Omnivorous Mammal (Terrestrial)

white-footed mouse Comparison of exposure doses to 

NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion E

soL

3. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of carnivorous mammals that use the habitat onsite due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Carnivorous Mammal (Terrestrial)

coyote Comparison of exposure doses to 

NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion E

soL

4. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of benthic invertebrates that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Benthic Invertebrates (Aquatic)

NA Comparison of concentrations of 

chemicals in on-site surface sediment to literature-based screening levels

Direct exposure, ingestion m

es

5. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of insectivorous shore birds that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Insectivorous Shore Bird (Aquatic)

spotted sandpiper Comparison of exposure doses to 

NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion E

soL

6. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of carnivorous shore birds that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Carnivorous Bird (Aquatic)

belted kingfisher Comparison of exposure doses to 

NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion E

soL

Notes:NA = not applicable NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level

50 of 104

005669
Table 23

Assessment and Measurement EndpointsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Assessment Endpoint Guild (Food Web) Representative 

Species

Measurement Endpoints Exposure Routes 

95th UCL = 95th percent upper confidence level LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level

51 of 104

005670
Table 24

Wildlife Exposure Factors for Ecological Receptors Baseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Body Weight Home Range Dietary Composition (%)

Species Feeding Guild kg Referencea kg/kg- bw/d Referencea Valuec Referencea Terrestrial Invertebrates Soil Terrestrial Vertebrates Plants Aquatic Invertebrates Aquatic Vertebrates Sediment Reference fo

Dietary Food Ite

Northern 

Bobwhite Quail Herbivorous Bird 0.157 Guthery et al., 1988 0.111 Nagy,1987 16.8 Yoho and Dimmick, 1972 0.0 9.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Campbell-Kissoc

al., 1985 

White-footed 

Mouse Omnivorous Mammal 0.021

Assumed comparable 

to deer mouse, Millar, 

1989

0.165 Nagy,1987 0.247 Lackey, 1985 50.0 2.4 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Assumed 

Coyote Carnivorous Mammal 10.33

Average of values from 

California and Arizona 

presented in Sample et 

al., 1997

0.04534 Nagy, 1987 3010 Bekoff 1982, Bekoff and Wells 1980 0.0 2.8 99.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ransom, 198

Spotted 

Sandpiper Insectivorous Bird 0.0425

Average of males and 

females from Maxson 

and Oring, 1980

0.42376 Nagy, 1987 12.0 Miller and Miller, 1948 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 18.0 Maxson and Ori

1980 

Belted Kingfisher Piscivorous Bird 0.147

Brooks and Davis, 1987 

in EPA, 1993 average 

of adult values

0.11364 Nagy,1987 2.2 Brooks & Davis, 1987 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Salyer & Lagler, 1

in EPA, 1993 

NOTES: References a) Complete references are available in the references section of the main text. Acronyms Food Ingestion Rate

b) Food ingestion rates were calculated from body weight using Nagy's (1987) allometric equations as presented in Sample et al.,1997 BW = body weight

 Mammals Ifd = ingestion rate food

 Ifd = (0.0687(BW)^0.822)/BW - Placental Mammals (coyote) Iw = ingestion rate water Ifd = (0.0306(BW)^0.564)/BW - Rodents (white-footed mouse) kg = kilogram Avian Species kg/kg-bw/d = kilograms food per kilogram bpodyweight per day Ifd = (0.0582(BW)^0.651)/BW - All Birds (quail, sandpiper, and kingfisher) l/kg-bw/d = liters water per kilogram body weight per day

Home Range

c) the home range values are all area measurements in units of acres except for the belted kingfisher, which is a linear measurement in kilometers

Food Ingestion Rateb 

52 of 104

005671
Table 25

Chemical Specific Biotransfer, Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors from Media to Prey Tissue Baseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Parameter Name

Soil to Plant

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kg-soil)

Source

Soil to 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrate

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kg-soil)

Source

Soil to 

Vertebrates

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kg-soil)

Source Log Kow Source

Sediment to 

Benthic 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kgsediment)

2-METHYLPHENOL (o-CRESOL) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.00 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.00 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 0.757 USEPA, 2000 0.200 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 3.716 TCEQ, 2004 2.09 n

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 1.186 EPA, 2000 28.464 EPA, 2000 0.000 Travis and Arms, 1988 3.210 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 3.265 USEPA, 2000 27.219 USEPA, 2000 0.000 Travis and Arms, 1988 2.068 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 3.3 EPA, 2000 27.2 EPA, 2000 1.0947 EPA, 2000 2.06 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

ACENAPHTHENE 0.515 USEPA, 2000 0.300 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 4.151 TCEQ, 2004 2.04 M

ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.6 USEPA, 2000 0.2 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.0 USEPA, 2005 3.94 TCEQ, 2004 1.62 M

ACETONE 25.146 USEPA, 2000 24.873 USEPA, 2000 0.000 Travis and Arms, 1988 -0.235 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

ACETOPHENONE 4.646 EPA, 2000 26.798 EPA, 2000 0.000 Travis and Arms, 1988 1.670 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

ALDRIN 0.05 USEPA, 2000 32.69 USEPA, 2000 0.17238934 Travis and Arms, 1988 6.75 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.5 EPA, 2000 29.7 EPA, 2000 0.525416 EPA, 2000 4.26 TNRCC, 2002a 5.6 

ALPHA-CHLORDANE 0.04 USEPA, 2000 32.98 USEPA, 2000 0.29 Travis and Arms, 1988 6.97 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

ALUMINUM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.00 

ARSENIC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.00 

ANTHRACENE 0.43 USEPA, 2000 0.32 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 4.35 TCEQ, 2004 0.19 M

ANTIMONY 0.050 ORNL, 2003 1.000 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumed 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

BARIUM 0.100 ORNL, 2003 0.160 Sample et al, 1998a 0.112 Sample et al, 1998b 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

Benzaldehyde 3.788785337 USEPA, 2000 27.04082889 USEPA, 2000 1.68927E-06 Travis and Arms, 1988 1.90 TCEQ, 2004 1.0 

BENZENE 25.14635255 USEPA, 2000 24.87281846 USEPA, 2000 1.05256E-08 Travis and Arms, 1988 -0.24 TCEQ, 2004 1.0 

BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.15 USEPA, 2000 0.27 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 5.52 TCEQ, 2004 0.36 M

BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.091 USEPA, 2000 0.340 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.109 TCEQ, 2004 0.13 M

BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 0.091 USEPA, 2000 0.210 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.109 TCEQ, 2004 0.15 M

BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.054 USEPA, 2000 0.150 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.697 TCEQ, 2004 0.22 M

BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.091 USEPA, 2000 0.210 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.109 TCEQ, 2004 0.21 M

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 0.279 EPA, 2000 30.344 EPA, 2000 0.432 EPA, 2000 4.845 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

BERYLLIUM 0.010 ORNL, 2003 1.182 Sample et al, 1998a 0.410 Beyer and Stafford, 199 0.571 TCEQ, 2004 0.05 Bec

BETA ENDOSULFAN 0.203 EPA, 2000 30.769 EPA, 2000 0.004 Travis and Arms, 1988 5.200 TCEQ, 2004 27.95 en

BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.5 EPA, 2000 1.0 NA/assumed 0.5 EPA, 2000 4.26 TCEQ, 2004 11.18 A

BH

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.76 TCEQ, 2004 NA 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 0.0 EPA, 2000 34.9 EPA, 2000 0.132 EPA, 2000 8.39 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

CADMIUM RM Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b -0.07

TCEQ, 2004

0.12

CAPROLACTAM 12.4 EPA, 2000 25.7 EPA, 2000 0.0 Travis and Arms, 1988 0.6 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

CARBAZOLE 1.2 USEPA, 2000 28.5 USEPA, 2000 0.0 Travis and Arms, 1988 3.23 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.04 ORNL, 2003 3.16 Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b 0.00 TCEQ, 2004 RM 

CHRYSENE 0.2 USEPA, 2000 0.4 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00000000 USEPA, 2005 5.52 TCEQ, 2004 0.20 M

COBALT 0.054 ORNL, 2003 0.291 Sample et al, 1998a 0.100 Sample et al, 1998b 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 0.12 Bec

COPPER RM Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b -0.571 TCEQ, 2004 RM Bec

CYANIDE 1.000 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumed 1.000 NA/assumed NA NA 0.00 

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) 0.589 EPA, 2000 29.358 EPA, 2000 0.000 Travis and Arms, 1988 4.000 TCEQ, 2004 11.18 

DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.054 USEPA, 2000 0.490 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 6.697 TCEQ, 2004 0.21 M

53 of 104

005672
Table 25

Chemical Specific Biotransfer, Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors from Media to Prey Tissue Baseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Parameter Name

Soil to Plant

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kg-soil)

Source

Soil to 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrate

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kg-soil)

Source

Soil to 

Vertebrates

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kg-soil)

Source Log Kow Source

Sediment to 

Benthic 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kgsediment)

DIBENZOFURAN 0.590715048 USEPA, 2000 29.35344995 USEPA, 2000 0.000247345 Travis and Arms, 1988 4.00 TCEQ, 2004 1.0 

DIELDRIN 0.2 USEPA, 2000 3.9 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.0078 Travis and Arms, 1988 5.45 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.591 USEPA, 2000 29.353 USEPA, 2000 0.000 thalene used as a surro 3.996 TCEQ, 2004 2.09 hal

ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.81 EPA, 2000 1.00 NA/assumed 1.0000 NA/assumed 6.01 TCEQ, 2004 27.95 ghe

ENDRIN 0.08 ORNL, 2003 0.36 USEPA, 2000 0.00 Travis and Arms, 1988 4.56 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 0.068 USEPA, 2000 32.300 USEPA, 2000 0.083 Travis and Arms, 1988 6.440 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

ENDRIN KETONE 0.2 USEPA, 2000 30.92644495 USEPA, 2000 0.005900516 Travis and Arms, 1988 5.33 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

FLUORANTHENE 0.26 USEPA, 2000 0.37 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.000 USEPA, 2005 4.93 TCEQ, 2004 0.21 M

FLUORENE 0.58 USEPA, 2000 0.20 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 Travis and Arms, 1988 4.02 TCEQ, 2004 776.44 Bea

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 0.47 EPA, 2000 29.66 EPA, 2000 0.00 Travis and Arms, 1988 4.26 TCEQ, 2004 5.59 ghe

GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.042 USEPA, 2000 32.972 USEPA, 2000 0.289 Travis and Arms, 1988 6.966 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

HEPTACHLOR 0.08 USEPA, 2000 8.40 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.0475 Travis and Arms, 1988 6.21 TCEQ, 2004 21281.13 

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.3 USEPA, 2000 8.4 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.0021 Travis and Arms, 1988 4.91 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 0.03 USEPA, 2000 33.56 EPA, 2000 0.85 Travis and Arms, 1988 7.42 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE 0.05 USEPA, 2000 0.21 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.15 Travis and Arms, 1988 6.70 TCEQ, 2004 0.17 M

IRON NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.00 

LEAD RM Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a 1.5 Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b 0.729 TCEQ, 2004 RM 

MANGANESE 0.680 ORNL, 2003 RM Sample et al, 1998a 0.06 Sample et al, 1998b 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

MERCURY RM Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a 0.192 Sample et al, 1998b -0.471 TCEQ, 2004 RM 

METHOXYCHLOR 0.134 USEPA, 2000 31.337 USEPA, 2000 0.013 Travis and Arms, 1988 5.667 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

NAPHTHALENE 1.23 USEPA, 2000 0.21 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 Travis and Arms, 1988 3.17 TCEQ, 2004 157.33

BS

NICKEL RM Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a 4.73 Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b -0.57 TCEQ, 2004 RM Bec

NITROBENZENE 1.23 USEPA, 2000 0.21 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 3.17 TCEQ, 2004 2.09 M

PENTACHLOROPHENOL 0.31 EPA, 2000 37.13 EPA, 2000 0.07727 EPA, 2000 4.74 TNRCC, 2002a 1.00 

P,P'-DDD 0.112 USEPA, 2000 0.270 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.021 Travis and Arms, 1988 5.873 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

p,p'-DDE 0.100 USEPA, 2000 6.000 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.029 Travis and Arms, 1988 5.996 TCEQ, 2004 66688.70 

P,P'-DDT

0.0 USEPA, 2000 0.6 Beyer and Gish, 1980 0.2

Travis and Arms, 

1988 6.79 TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

PHENANTHRENE 0.43 USEPA, 2000 0.28 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 Travis and Arms, 1988 4.35 TCEQ, 2004 1445.33

BS

PHENOL 0.43 USEPA, 2000 0.28 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 4.35 TCEQ, 2004 0.29 M

PYRENE 0.26 USEPA, 2000 0.39 Beyer and Stafford, 1993 0.00 USEPA, 2005 4.93 TCEQ, 2004 0.44 M

54 of 104

005673
Table 25

Chemical Specific Biotransfer, Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors from Media to Prey Tissue Baseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Parameter Name

Soil to Plant

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kg-soil)

Source

Soil to 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrate

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kg-soil)

Source

Soil to 

Vertebrates

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kg-soil)

Source Log Kow Source

Sediment to 

Benthic 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg-dry)/

(mg/kgsediment)

SELENIUM RM Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a 0.24 TCEQ, 2004 1.17 

SILVER 1.000 NA/assumed 1.710 SWDIV, 1996 0.810 Sample et al, 1998b 0.000 TCEQ, 2004 1.71 Bec

THALLIUM 0.004 ORNL, 2003 1.000 NA/assumed 0.120 Sample et al, 1998b NA TCEQ, 2004 1.00 

TRIBUTYLTIN NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.97 ghe

VANADIUM 0.0055 ORNL, 2003 0.088 Sample et al, 1998a 0.019 Sample et al, 1998b 0.00 TCEQ, 2004 0.04 

ZINC RM Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998a RM Sample et al, 1998b -0.47 TCEQ, 2004 RM 

Notes: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 104

005674
Table 26

Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter Name Receptor

Soil/Sediment 

Conc B0 B1 Prey Conc. (

Plants in Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsCOPPER General 1.4E+02 6.7E-01 3.9E-01 1.3E+01

LEAD General 2.2E+02 -1.3E+00 5.6E-01 5.4E+00CADMIUM General 1.2E+00 -0.476 0.546 7.0E-01

ZINC General 2.8E+02 1.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.1E+02

Terrestrial Invertebrates in Former Wastewater ImpoundmentsCOPPER Earthworm 1.4E+02 1.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.0E+01

LEAD Earthworm 2.2E+02 -2.2E-01 8.1E-01 6.2E+01CADMIUM Earthworm 1.2E+00 2.1E+00 8.0E-01 9.9E+00

ZINC Earthworm 2.8E+02 4.4E+00 3.3E-01 5.5E+02

Terrestrial Vertebrates in Former Wastewater Impoundments

COPPER General 1.4E+02 2.0E+00 1.4E-01 1.6E+01

LEAD General 2.2E+02 7.6E-02 4.4E-01 1.2E+01CADMIUM General 1.2E+00 -0.4306 0.4865 7.2E-01

ZINC General 2.8E+02 4.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.3E+02

Plants in Waste Treatment FacilityCOPPER General 2.6E+02 6.7E-01 3.9E-01 1.7E+01LEAD General 1.3E+02 -1.3E+00 5.6E-01 4.1E+00

MERCURY General 6.5E-01 -1.0E+00 5.4E-01 2.9E-01

CADMIUM General 8.3E-01 -0.476 0.546 5.6E-01

ZINC General 6.0E+02 1.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.7E+02

Terrestrial Invertebrates in Waste Treatment FacilityCOPPER Earthworm 2.6E+02 1.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.3E+01

LEAD Earthworm 1.3E+02 -2.2E-01 8.1E-01 4.1E+01MERCURY Earthworm 6.5E-01 -6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.8E-01

CADMIUM Earthworm 8.3E-01 2.1E+00 8.0E-01 7.2E+00ZINC Earthworm 6.0E+02 4.4E+00 3.3E-01 7.0E+02

56 of 104

005675
Table 26

Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter Name Receptor

Soil/Sediment 

Conc B0 B1 Prey Conc. (

Terrestrial Vertebrates in Waste Treatment FacilityCOPPER General 2.6E+02 2.0E+00 1.4E-01 1.7E+01

LEAD General 1.3E+02 7.6E-02 4.4E-01 9.3E+00CADMIUM General 8.3E-01 -0.4306 0.4865 6.0E-01

ZINC General 6.0E+02 4.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02

Plants in Current Aboveground Storage TanksLEAD General 5.6E+02 -1.3E+00 5.6E-01 9.2E+00PENTACHLOROPHENOL General 2.8E-01 0.0E+00 5.9E+00 5.3E-04

MERCURY General 1.3E-01 -1.0E+00 5.4E-01 1.2E-01

CADMIUM General 4.8E-01 -0.476 0.546 4.2E-01

ZINC General 4.8E+02 1.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.5E+02

Terrestrial Invertebrates in Current Aboveground Storage TanksLEAD Earthworm 5.6E+02 -2.2E-01 8.1E-01 1.3E+02PENTACHLOROPHENOL Earthworm 2.8E-01 5.5E+00 3.3E-01 1.7E+02

MANGANESE Earthworm 3.8E+02 -8.1E-01 6.8E-01 2.6E+01MERCURY Earthworm 1.3E-01 -6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.0E-01

CADMIUM Earthworm 4.8E-01 2.1E+00 8.0E-01 4.6E+00

ZINC Earthworm 4.8E+02 4.4E+00 3.3E-01 6.5E+02

Terrestrial Vertebrates in Current Aboveground Storage Tanks

CHROMIUM, TOTAL General 1.3E+02 -1.5E+00 7.3E-01 8.1E+00LEAD General 5.6E+02 7.6E-02 4.4E-01 1.8E+01PENTACHLOROPHENOL Chicken 2.8E-01 2.0E-01 4.5E-03 1.2E+00

CADMIUM General 4.8E-01 -0.4306 0.4865 4.5E-01

ZINC General 4.8E+02 4.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02

Plants in Maintenance Shed AreaCADMIUM General 4.2E-01 -0.476 0.546 3.9E-01

57 of 104

005676
Table 26

Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter Name Receptor

Soil/Sediment 

Conc B0 B1 Prey Conc. (

ZINC General 1.1E+03 1.6E+00 5.6E-01 2.3E+02

Terrestrial Invertebrates in Maintenance Shed AreaCADMIUM Earthworm 4.2E-01 2.1E+00 8.0E-01 4.2E+00

ZINC Earthworm 1.1E+03 4.4E+00 3.3E-01 8.4E+02

Terrestrial Vertebrates in Maintenance Shed Area

CADMIUM General 4.2E-01 -0.4306 0.4865 4.3E-01ZINC General 1.1E+03 4.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.5E+02

Plants in Tar Burn Area COPPER General 1.6E+02 6.7E-01 3.9E-01 1.4E+01MERCURY General 3.1E-01 -1.0E+00 5.4E-01 2.0E-01

CADMIUM General 1.1E+00 -0.476 0.546 6.5E-01

ZINC General 4.2E+02 1.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.4E+02

Terrestrial Invertebrates in Tar Burn Area COPPER Earthworm 1.6E+02 1.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.0E+01

MERCURY Earthworm 3.1E-01 -6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.4E-01CADMIUM Earthworm 1.1E+00 2.1E+00 8.0E-01 8.9E+00

ZINC Earthworm 4.2E+02 4.4E+00 3.3E-01 6.2E+02

Terrestrial Vertebrates in Tar Burn Area 

CADMIUM General 1.1E+00 -0.4306 0.4865 6.8E-01ZINC General 4.2E+02 4.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02Plants in Lauren Tank FarmCOPPER General 1.3E+03 6.7E-01 3.9E-01 3.3E+01LEAD General 1.0E+03 -1.3E+00 5.6E-01 1.3E+01CADMIUM General 1.7E+00 -0.476 0.546 8.3E-01

58 of 104

005677
Table 26

Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter Name Receptor

Soil/Sediment 

Conc B0 B1 Prey Conc. (

ZINC General 4.4E+02 1.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.4E+02

Terrestrial Invertebrates in Lauren Tank FarmCOPPER Earthworm 1.3E+03 1.7E+00 2.6E-01 3.6E+01

LEAD Earthworm 1.0E+03 -2.2E-01 8.1E-01 2.2E+02CADMIUM Earthworm 1.7E+00 2.1E+00 8.0E-01 1.3E+01

ZINC Earthworm 4.4E+02 4.4E+00 3.3E-01 6.3E+02

Terrestrial Vertebrates in Lauren Tank Farm

COPPER General 1.3E+03 2.0E+00 1.4E-01 2.2E+01

LEAD General 1.0E+03 7.6E-02 4.4E-01 2.3E+01CADMIUM General 1.7E+00 -0.4306 0.4865 8.4E-01

ZINC General 4.4E+02 4.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02

Plants in Non-source AreaCOPPER General 5.5E+03 6.7E-01 3.9E-01 5.8E+01LEAD General 4.1E+03 -1.3E+00 5.6E-01 2.8E+01

MERCURY General 5.4E-01 -1.0E+00 5.4E-01 2.6E-01

CADMIUM General 1.2E+01 -0.476 0.546 2.4E+00

ZINC General 5.1E+01 1.6E+00 5.6E-01 4.3E+01

Terrestrial Invertebrates in Non-source AreaCOPPER Earthworm 5.5E+03 1.7E+00 2.6E-01 5.2E+01

LEAD Earthworm 4.1E+03 -2.2E-01 8.1E-01 6.6E+02MANGANESE Earthworm 1.4E+03 -8.1E-01 6.8E-01 6.1E+01MERCURY Earthworm 5.4E-01 -6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.7E-01

CADMIUM Earthworm 1.2E+01 2.1E+00 8.0E-01 5.8E+01ZINC Earthworm 5.1E+01 4.4E+00 3.3E-01 3.1E+02

Terrestrial Vertebrates in Non-source Area

59 of 104

005678
Table 26

Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter Name Receptor

Soil/Sediment 

Conc B0 B1 Prey Conc. (

COPPER General 5.5E+03 2.0E+00 1.4E-01 2.7E+01LEAD General 4.1E+03 7.6E-02 4.4E-01 4.3E+01

CADMIUM General 1.2E+01 -0.4306 0.4865 2.1E+00

ZINC General 5.1E+01 4.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.2E+02

Plants in All Upland Area SoilCOPPER General 3.0E+02 6.7E-01 3.9E-01 1.8E+01LEAD General 4.7E+02 -1.3E+00 5.6E-01 8.3E+00PENTACHLOROPHENOL General 2.8E-01 0.0E+00 5.9E+00 5.3E-04

MERCURY General 1.3E-01 -1.0E+00 5.4E-01 1.2E-01

CADMIUM General 1.2E+01 -0.476 0.546 2.4E+00

ZINC General 4.8E+02 1.6E+00 5.6E-01 1.5E+02

Terrestrial Invertebrates in All Upland Area SoilCOPPER Earthworm 3.0E+02 1.7E+00 2.6E-01 2.4E+01

LEAD Earthworm 4.7E+02 -2.2E-01 8.1E-01 1.1E+02PENTACHLOROPHENOL Earthworm 2.8E-01 5.5E+00 3.3E-01 1.7E+02

MANGANESE Earthworm 3.8E+02 -8.1E-01 6.8E-01 2.6E+01MERCURY Earthworm 1.3E-01 -6.8E-01 1.2E-01 4.0E-01CADMIUM Earthworm 1.2E+01 2.1E+00 8.0E-01 5.8E+01

ZINC Earthworm 4.8E+02 4.4E+00 3.3E-01 6.5E+02

Terrestrial Vertebrates in All Upland Area Soil

CHROMIUM, TOTAL General 1.3E+02 -1.5E+00 7.3E-01 8.1E+00COPPER General 3.0E+02 2.0E+00 1.4E-01 1.8E+01

LEAD General 4.7E+02 7.6E-02 4.4E-01 1.6E+01PENTACHLOROPHENOL Chicken 2.8E-01 2.0E-01 4.5E-03 1.2E+00

CADMIUM General 1.2E+01 -0.4306 0.4865 2.1E+00

ZINC General 4.8E+02 4.5E+00 7.4E-02 1.4E+02

Aquatic Invertebrates in Lake Sabine - Intertidal

60 of 104

005679
Table 26

Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter Name Receptor

Soil/Sediment 

Conc B0 B1 Prey Conc. (d

CHROMIUM, TOTAL depurated 1.3E+02 0.0445 0.448 5.78E+00

COPPER depurated 2.1E+01 1.2E+00 7.9E-02 4.4E+00

LEAD depurated 2.0E+02 -5.2E-01 6.5E-01 1.9E+01MERCURY depurated 1.8E-01 -6.7E-01 3.3E-01 2.9E-01

NICKEL depurated 8.5E+01 -4.4E-01 7.0E-01 1.4E+01ZINC depurated 5.9E+02 1.9E+00 1.3E-01 1.5E+01

Aquatic Invertebrates in Lake Sabine - NearshoreCOPPER depurated 2.1E+01 1.2E+00 7.9E-02 4.4E+00

LEAD depurated 2.0E+02 -5.2E-01 6.5E-01 1.9E+01MERCURY depurated 1.8E-01 -6.7E-01 3.3E-01 2.9E-01NICKEL depurated 8.5E+01 -4.4E-01 7.0E-01 1.4E+01ZINC depurated 5.9E+02 1.9E+00 1.3E-01 1.5E+01

Aquatic Invertebrates in Lake Sabine - All SedimentCOPPER depurated 2.1E+01 1.2E+00 7.9E-02 4.4E+00

LEAD depurated 2.0E+02 -5.2E-01 6.5E-01 1.9E+01MERCURY depurated 1.8E-01 -6.7E-01 3.3E-01 2.9E-01NICKEL depurated 8.5E+01 -4.4E-01 7.0E-01 1.4E+01ZINC depurated 5.9E+02 1.9E+00 1.3E-01 1.5E+01

Notes:All values are reported as dry weight.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. Equations: ln (Prey Conc) = B1*(ln[Site Specific Soil/Sediment Concentration]) + B0 where: B0 = Slope. B1 = Intercept. References: Bechtel Jacobs, 1998a. Empirical Model for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. Pr

 the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. BJC/OR-133. September, 1998 Bechtel Jacobs, 1998. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recomme Reservation. Prepared for the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. BJC/ Sample et al., 1998a. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Prepa

61 of 104

005680
Table 26

Log-linear Regression Models for Estimating Tissue ConcentrationsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TXParameter Name Receptor

Soil/Sediment 

Conc B0 B1 Prey Conc. (

 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. Pr

 the 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 So Level (Eco-SSLs). Revised February 2005.

62 of 104

005681
Table 27

Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Parameter Name Units Former Wastewater Impoundments Wastwater Treatment Facility Current Aboveground Storage Tanks Maintenance Shed Area Tar Burn Area Former Lauren Tank Farm 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE mg/Kg 7.00E-01 2.20E-01 1.10E-01 1.80E-01 4.20E-02 1.60E+00 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) mg/Kg NA NA 4.60E-02 NA NA 1.10E-01 

ACENAPHTHENE mg/Kg 3.90E-01 8.50E-02 4.60E-01 3.30E-02 3.50E-02 6.40E-02 

ACENAPHTHYLENE mg/Kg 2.90E+00 3.50E-01 1.80E-01 2.90E-01 4.50E-01 9.10E-01 ALPHA-CHLORDANE mg/Kg 3.00E-03 NA NA NA NA 2.16E+00 

ALDRIN mg/Kg NA NA NA 1.10E-02 NA NA ANTHRACENE mg/Kg 2.90E+00 4.50E-01 1.50E+00 2.90E-01 3.90E-01 1.10E+00 ANTIMONY mg/Kg 4.47E+01 5.70E+00 2.50E+00 NA 6.00E+00 NA 

BENZALDEHYDE mg/Kg NA 5.10E-02 3.20E-02 1.10E-02 6.30E+00 9.70E-02 BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE mg/Kg 1.30E+00 8.30E-01 3.00E+00 9.70E-01 9.20E-01 3.99E+00 BENZO(A)PYRENE mg/Kg 2.60E+00 6.50E-01 2.70E+00 1.30E+00 1.20E+00 4.68E+00 BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE mg/Kg 3.60E+00 1.10E+00 4.40E+00 3.40E+00 1.20E+00 6.02E+00 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE mg/Kg 6.50E-01 3.40E-01 1.80E+00 2.40E+00 1.40E+00 2.50E+00 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE mg/Kg 8.80E+00 2.40E-01 9.70E-01 1.20E+00 4.60E-01 2.10E+00 BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE mg/Kg 1.60E-01 NA 3.00E-02 1.30E-01 5.20E-01 2.40E-02 BETA ENDOSULFAN mg/Kg 8.10E-03 NA NA 1.00E-01 NA NA 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE mg/Kg 4.90E+00 NA NA NA 4.70E+00 1.90E+00 

CADMIUM mg/Kg 1.25E+00 8.34E-01 4.80E-01 4.20E-01 1.10E+00 1.70E+00 

CARBAZOLE mg/Kg 7.70E-01 1.30E-01 2.30E-01 3.00E-01 2.90E-01 5.20E-01 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL mg/Kg NA NA 1.26E+02 NA NA NA 

CHRYSENE mg/Kg 3.40E+00 1.30E+00 2.80E+00 1.70E+00 1.10E+00 4.91E+00 

COPPER mg/Kg 1.35E+02 2.55E+02 NA NA 1.55E+02 1.33E+03 

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) mg/Kg NA NA NA 2.30E-02 NA NA 

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE mg/Kg 4.60E-01 1.00E-01 3.30E-01 4.90E-01 2.30E-01 9.40E-01 

DIBENZOFURAN mg/Kg 2.10E-01 3.30E-02 1.80E-01 8.20E-02 4.40E-02 1.30E-01 

DIELDRIN mg/Kg NA NA NA 5.40E-02 NA 5.30E-03 ENDOSULFAN SULFATE mg/Kg 9.20E-03 NA NA 3.90E-02 NA NA 

ENDRIN mg/Kg 1.40E-02 NA NA 1.65E-03 NA NA 

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE mg/Kg 1.00E-02 NA NA 5.20E-02 NA 1.83E+00 

ENDRIN KETONE mg/Kg 9.90E-03 NA NA NA NA NA 

FLUORENE mg/Kg 3.40E-01 9.70E-02 4.70E-01 9.80E-02 1.20E-01 1.80E-01 

FLUORANTHENE mg/Kg 2.50E+00 2.20E+00 1.00E+01 3.50E+00 1.90E+00 6.44E+00 

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) mg/Kg NA NA NA 5.90E-03 NA NA GAMMA-CHLORDANE mg/Kg 5.60E-03 NA NA 3.60E-02 NA 7.80E-03 

HEPTACHLOR mg/Kg NA NA NA 7.90E-03 NA 3.10E-03 

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE mg/Kg 5.10E-03 NA NA 4.10E-02 NA NA 

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE mg/Kg 3.00E+00 4.20E-01 1.10E+00 1.00E+00 7.40E-01 6.30E-01 

LEAD mg/Kg 2.17E+02 1.29E+02 5.58E+02 NA NA 1.03E+03 MANGANESE mg/Kg NA NA 3.79E+02 NA NA NA 

MERCURY mg/Kg NA 6.48E-01 1.30E-01 NA 3.10E-01 NA 

NAPHTHALENE mg/Kg 8.60E-01 1.20E-01 7.80E-02 1.80E-01 5.20E-02 1.40E+00 

PENTACHLOROPHENOL mg/Kg NA NA 2.80E-01 NA NA NA P,P'-DDD mg/Kg NA NA NA 1.50E+01 NA 9.10E-03 

P,P'-DDE mg/Kg NA NA NA 5.00E-02 NA NA 

P,P'-DDT mg/Kg 9.10E-03 NA NA 5.70E-02 NA 7.60E-03 

PHENANTHRENE mg/Kg 2.50E+00 1.10E+00 3.80E+00 1.20E+00 9.30E-01 2.00E+00 

PYRENE mg/Kg 1.00E+01 1.60E+00 8.40E+00 4.00E+00 1.50E+00 6.32E+00 

SILVER mg/Kg 2.60E+00 1.40E+00 9.60E-01 NA NA NA 

VANADIUM mg/Kg NA NA 3.10E+01 NA NA NA 

ZINC mg/Kg 2.83E+02 5.96E+02 4.84E+02 1.06E+03 4.24E+02 4.44E+02 

Notes:

63 of 104

005682
Table 27

Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in SoilBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Parameter Name Units Former Wastewater Impoundments Wastwater Treatment Facility Current Aboveground Storage Tanks Maintenance Shed Area Tar Burn Area Former Lauren Tank Farm 

NA - Eliminated during COPC selection or were not analyzed in the AOCConcentrations in Bold = 95% UCLConcentrations in Italics = Max concentration used in lieu of UCL because UCL is greater than max. concentrationConcetrations in shaded cells = average concentration across exposure area

64 of 104

005683
Table 28

Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in SedimentBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Parameter Name Units Lake Sabine - Intertidal Lake Sabine - Nearshore Lake Sabine - Offshore A

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE mg/Kg 9.10E-02 1.10E-02 NA 2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) NA 1.70E-01 NA 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL mg/Kg 3.50E-02 1.70E-01 NA 3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE mg/Kg NA 7.50E-02 4.90E-02 

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) mg/Kg NA NA NA ACENAPHTHENE mg/Kg 9.80E-02 5.80E-01 NA ACENAPHTHYLENE mg/Kg 3.50E-02 1.20E-01 NA ACETOPHENONE mg/Kg 4.30E-02 5.70E-03 NA 

ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLORO mg/Kg NA 1.70E-03 NA 

ALUMINUM mg/Kg NA NA NA ANTHRACENE mg/Kg 1.00E-01 2.00E+00 NA 

ANTIMONY mg/Kg 1.61E+01 NA NA 

ARSENIC mg/Kg 1.37E+01 1.17E+01 8.90E+00 

BARIUM mg/Kg 4.59E+01 6.40E+01 1.15E+02 

BENZALDEHYDE mg/Kg 1.10E-01 3.70E-02 3.90E-02 

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE mg/Kg NA 4.10E+00 NA 

BENZO(A)PYRENE mg/Kg NA 2.30E+00 NA 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE mg/Kg NA 3.60E+00 NA 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE mg/Kg NA 2.40E-01 NA BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE mg/Kg NA 1.90E+00 NA 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE mg/Kg 1.70E-01 6.40E-02 NA BERYLLIUM mg/Kg 3.30E-01 2.70E+00 8.90E-01 

BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCY mg/Kg NA 1.70E-03 NA 

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) mg/Kg NA NA NA BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE mg/Kg 3.00E+00 2.60E-01 NA 

CADMIUM mg/Kg 1.49E+00 NA NA 

CALCIUM mg/Kg 1.72E+05 NA 5.58E+03 

CAPROLACTAM mg/Kg 1.10E-01 5.10E-02 3.90E-02 

CARBAZOLE mg/Kg 2.00E-01 3.10E-01 NA 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL mg/Kg 8.72E+01 NA NA 

CHRYSENE mg/Kg NA 3.90E+00 NA 

COBALT mg/Kg NA 8.46E+00 NA 

COPPER mg/Kg 2.14E+01 1.56E+01 NA 

65 of 104

005684
Table 28

Exposure Point Concentrations for Wildlife COPECs in SedimentBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Parameter Name Units Lake Sabine - Intertidal Lake Sabine - Nearshore Lake Sabine - Offshore A

CYANIDE mg/Kg 5.50E-01 NA NA DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLORO mg/Kg NA 1.70E-03 NA 

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE mg/Kg NA 2.30E-01 NA DIBENZOFURAN mg/Kg NA 3.60E-01 NA FLUORANTHENE mg/Kg NA 9.10E+00 NA 

FLUORENE mg/Kg 1.10E-01 7.90E-01 NA GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) mg/Kg NA 3.40E-03 NA HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE mg/Kg NA 1.70E-01 NA INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE mg/Kg NA 3.40E-01 NA IRON mg/Kg NA NA NA LEAD mg/Kg 2.04E+02 2.22E+01 NA 

MAGNESIUM mg/Kg 3.62E+03 NA 4.30E+03 

MANGANESE mg/Kg 1.50E+03 1.27E+03 7.45E+02 

MERCURY mg/Kg 1.80E-01 4.50E-02 NA NICKEL mg/Kg 8.50E+01 2.64E+01 4.41E+01 

NAPHTHALENE mg/Kg 4.00E-01 1.40E-02 NA NITROBENZENE mg/Kg NA 1.70E-01 NA PENTACHLOROPHENOL mg/Kg 1.60E-01 NA NA PHENANTHRENE mg/Kg 3.20E-01 2.37E-01 NA 

POTASSIUM mg/Kg 1.23E+03 NA 2.46E+03 

PYRENE mg/Kg NA 8.80E+00 NA 

SELENIUM mg/Kg 2.97E+00 3.71E-01 5.90E-01 

THALLIUM mg/Kg NA 5.42E-01 NA 

TRIBUTYLTIN mg/Kg NA NA NA VANADIUM mg/Kg NA NA NA ZINC mg/Kg 5.94E+02 1.54E+02 NA 

Notes:NA - Eliminated during COPC selection or were not analyzed in the AOCConcentrations in Bold = 95% UCLConcetrations in shaded cells = average concentration across exposure area

66 of 104

005685
Table 29

Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Avian Wildlife ReceptorsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Study 

Selection Chemical Form Primary Reference Test species Endpoint Measured Effect Duration

NOAEL

Dose 

(mg/kgbw-d)

LOAEL

Dose 

(mg/kgbw-d)

Unce

Fa

(for nor

NOA

>

2-METHYLPHENOL (o-CRESOL)

4-METHYLPHENOL (p-CRESOL) Hancock, 1993 northern bobwhite mortality, growth

mortality, growth, and feed 

consumption (acute) 125 NA 0.0

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

> 4-METHYLPHENOL (p-CRESOL) NA Hancock, 1993 northern bobwhite mortality, growth mortality, growth, and feed 

consumption

(acute) 1.25E+02 NA 0.

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

ACETOPHENONE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

>+ ALDRIN NA USFWS, 1984 northern bobwhite survivorship LD50 acute NA 7.30E-01 0.

>+ ALPHA BHC (ALPHA 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

gamma BHC used as surrogate Chakravarty and Lahiri 1986; 

Charkravarty et al. 1986

mallard duck reproduction LOAEL 8 weeks (during a critical life 

stage) (chronic)

NA 2.00E+01 0

>+ ALPHA-CHLORDANE chlordane used as surrogate Stickel et al. 1983 red-winged blackbird mortality % survival 84 days (chronic) 2.14E+00 1.07E+01 

> ALUMINUM Al2(SO4)3 Carriere et al., 1986 ringed dove reproduction egg production, fertility, 

hatchability, egg shell thickness

4 months (critical life stage) 

(chronic)

1.10E+02 NA 

ANTIMONY NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

>+ ARSENIC sodium arsenate Stanley et al., 1994 mallard duck reproduction

number of ducklings per 

successful nest

10 weeks (critical life stage) 

(chronic) 9.30E+00 4.03E+01 

>+ BARIUM Barium hydroxide Johnson et al. 1960 one day old chick survivorship % survival 4 weeks (not a critical life 

stage) (subchronic)

2.08E+02 4.17E+02 0

BENZALDEHYDE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

BERYLLIUM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

>+ BETA BHC (BETA 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

gamma BHC used as surrogate Chakravarty and Lahiri 1986; 

Charkravarty et al. 1986

mallard duck reproduction LOAEL 8 weeks (during a critical life 

stage) (chronic)

NA 2.00E+01 0

> BETA ENDOSULFAN endosulfan used as a surrogate Abiola 1992 gray partridge reproduction NOAEL 4 weeks(during critical 

lifestyle) (chronic)

1.00E+01 NA 

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) Arochlor 1242 used as a surrogate Britton and Huston 1973 chicken reproduction NA 6 weeks (subchronic) 5 10 0

> bis(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE NA Peakall 1974 ringed dove reproduction egg shell thickness, water 

absorbed into shell, breaking 

strength

4 weeks (critical life-stage) 

(chronic)

1.11E+00 NA 

>+ CADMIUM cadmium sulfate Leach et al., 1979 chicken reproduction egg production 1 year (chronic) 6.10E-01 2.40E+00 

CAPROLACTAM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

CARBAZOLE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

>+ CHROMIUM, TOTAL CrK(SO4) Haseltine et al., 1985 black duck reproduction duckling survival 10 months (chronic) 1.00E+00 5.00E+00 

> COBALT NA Eco-SSL (EPA, 2000) NA NA NA (chronic) 1.30E+00 NA 

+ COBALT NA Diaz et al., 1994 broiler chicken growth weight 14 days (during critical life 

stage) (chronic)

1.24E+01 2.47E+01 N

>+ COPPER copper oxide Mehring et al. 1960 chicken survivorship, growth % survival, weight 10 weeks (subchronic) 4.70E+01 6.17E+01 0

>+ CYANIDE NA Wiemeyer et al 1986 American kestrel Mortality LD50 (acute) NA 4.00E+00 0.

>+ DELTA BHC (DELTA 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

gamma BHC used as surrogate Chakravarty and Lahiri 1986; 

Charkravarty et al. 1986

mallard duck reproduction LOAEL 8 weeks (during a critical life 

stage) (chronic)

NA 2.00E+01 0

>+ Dibenzofuran aromatic hydrocarbon mixture Patton and Dieter 1980 mallard growth body weight 7 months (chronic) NA 3.25E+02 0

> DIELDRIN NA Mendenhall et al., 1983 barn owl reproduction reproductive success 2 years (chronic) 7.70E-02 NA 

> ENDOSULFAN SULFATE endosulfan used as a surrogate Abiola 1992 gray partridge reproduction NOAEL 4 weeks(during critical 

lifestyle) (chronic)

1.00E+01 NA 

> ENDRIN NA Spann et al. 1986 mallard duck reproduction NOAEL >200 days (chronic) 3.00E-01 NA > ENDRIN ALDEHYDE endrin used as surrogate Spann et al. 1986 mallard duck reproduction NOAEL >200 days (chronic) 3.00E-01 NA > ENDRIN KETONE endrin used as surrogate Spann et al. 1986 mallard duck reproduction NOAEL >200 days (chronic) 3.00E-01 NA 

>+ GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) NA Chakravarty and Lahiri 1986; 

Charkravarty et al. 1986

mallard duck reproduction LOAEL 8 weeks (during a critical life 

stage) (chronic)

NA 2.00E+01 0

>+ GAMMA-CHLORDANE chlordane used as surrogate Stickel et al. 1983 red-winged blackbird mortality % survival 84 days (chronic) 2.14E+00 1.07E+01 >+ HEPTACHLOR NA Hill and Camardese 1986 quail mortality % survival 5 day (acute) NA 6.50E+00 0.

>+ HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE heptachlor used as surrogate Hill and Camardese 1986 quail mortality LOAEL 5 day (acute) NA 6.50E+00 0.

> HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE NA Coulston and Kolbye 1994; 

TERRETOX 2002

Japanese quail reproduction reproduction 90 days 3.39E+00 NA 

>+ HPAH crude oil Stubblefield et al. 1995 mallard reproduction egg shell thickness 7 months (chronic) 1.96E+01 NA 

HPAH benzo(a)pyrene Rigdon and Neal, 1963 white leghorn chicken reproduction fertility and malformations Subchronic 3.95E+01 NA 0

> IRON NA National Academy of Science , 1980 poultry general impaired performance, faet of 

residue for human consumption

unknown 7.03E+01 NA 0

> LEAD metallic lead Pattee 1984 American kestrel reproduction NA 7 months (critical life stage) 

(chronic)

3.85E+00 NA 

+ LEAD metallic lead Hoffman et al. 1985 American kestrel survivorship % survival 10 days (subacute) 1.25E+02 6.25E+02 N

>+ LPAH aromatic hydrocarbon mixture Patton and Dieter 1980 mallard growth body weight 7 months (chronic) NA 3.25E+02 0

>+ MANGANESE manganese oxide Laskey and Edens, 1985 Coturnix japonica growth, behavior wight gain, aggressive behavior 75 days (chronic) 9.80E+01 9.77E+02 

>+ MERCURY MeHgCl Heinz, 1976; Heinz and Hoffman, 

1998

mallard duck reproduction duckling 7 day survival 2.5 mo. to 2 generations 

(chronic)

6.80E-02 3.70E-01 

>+ METHOXYCHLOR NA NA mallard duck mortality LD50 unknown NA 1.15E+02 0.>+ NICKEL nickel sulfate Cain and Pafford, 1981 mallard duck growth, survivorship % survival , weight gain 90 days (chronic) 7.74E+01 1.07E+02 

NITROBENZENE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

>+ p,p'-DDD DDT used as a surrogate USEPA, 1995 mallard reproduction LOAEL 2 years (chronic) NA 6.00E-01 0

>+ p,p'-DDE DDT used as a surrogate USEPA, 1995 mallard reproduction LOAEL 2 years (chronic) NA 6.00E-01 0

>+ p,p'-DDT NA USEPA, 1995 mallard reproduction LOAEL 2 years (chronic) NA 6.00E-01 0

>+ PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260) arochlor 1254 used as a surrogate Platonow and Reinhart, 1973 chicken reproduction decreased egg production, 

concentration passed to the egg

39 weeks (chronic) NA 8.80E-01 0

67 of 104

005686
Table 29

Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Avian Wildlife ReceptorsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Study 

Selection Chemical Form Primary Reference Test species Endpoint Measured Effect Duration

NOAEL

Dose 

(mg/kgbw-d)

LOAEL

Dose 

(mg/kgbw-d)

Unce

Fa

(for nor

NOA

>+ PENTACHLOROPHENOL NA Campbell and Jaber, 1993 northern bobwhite survivorship % survival Subacute 292 486 0.>+ SELENIUM selenomethionine Heinz et al., 1989 mallard duck reproduction impaired reproduction 100 days (chronic) 4.00E-01 8.00E-01 

> SILVER NA USEPA 1997 mallard duck NA NOAEL 14 days (acute) 1.78E+03 NA 0.

+ SILVER NA OPP, 2000 northern bobwhite survivorship LD50 14 days (acute) NA 2.25E+03 N

>+ THALLIUM NA Schafer 1972 starling survivorship % survival (acute) NA 5.30E+00 0.

>+ TRIBUTYLTIN bis tributyltin oxide Schlatterer et al., 1993 Coturnix japonica reproduction hatchability 6 weeks (critical life stage) 

(chronic)

6.76E+00 1.69E+01 

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

TRICHLOROETHANE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N

> VANADIUM vanadyl sulfate White and Dieter, 1978 mallard duck survivorship, growth, 

systemic

mortality, body weight, blood 

chemistry

12 weeks (chronic) 1.14E+01 NA 

>+ ZINC zinc sulfate Stahl et al. 1990 chicken reproduction egg hatchability 44 weeks (chronic) 1.45E+01 1.31E+02 

Notes:

NOAEL = no observed adverse effect levelLOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level1) Selections of TRVs and application of Uncertainty Factors was performed in accordance with Ecological 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 = 0.1 subchronic NOAELS to chronic NOAELs = 0.1 subchronic LOAELs to chronic LOAELs = 0.1 acute NOAELs to chronic NOAELs = .01 acute LOAELs to chronic LOAELs = .015) Definitions of study duration for birds chronic = >10 weeks or during critical lifestage subchronic = 4-10 weeks subacute = <4 weeks, multiple doses acute = 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 ERA

68 of 104

005687
Table 30

Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Mammalian Wildlife ReceptorsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Study 

Selection Chemical Form Reference Test species Endpoint Measured Effect Duration

NOAEL

Dose 

(mg/kgbw-d)

LOAEL

Dose 

(mg/kgbw-d)

Uncertainty Factor 

(for normalized 

NOAEL)

> 4-METHYLPHENOL (p-CRESOL) 0-cresol used as a surrogate Hornshaw et al., 1986 mink reproduction NA 6 months (chronic) 2.19E+02 NA 1 

>+ ALDRIN NA Treon and Cleveland, 1955 rat reproduction NOAEL and LOAEL 3 generations (chronic) 2.00E-01 1.00E+00 1 

>+ ALPHA BHC (ALPHA 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

BHC mixed isomers Grant et al .1977 rat reproduction decreases litter size, reduced 

birth weight, maternal mortality

3 generations (>1 yr and critical 

lifestage)/ chronic

5.63E-01 2.25E+00 1 

>+ ALPHA-CHLORDANE chlordane used as surrogate WHO 1984 from Keplingeret 

al., 1968

mouse reproduction NA 6 generations (chronic) 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1 

+ ANTIMONY antimony potassium tartrate Poon et al., 1998 rat growth body weight 13 weeks (chronic) 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 1 > BARIUM barium chloride Perry et al., 1983 rat growth growth and cardiovascular 

hypertension

16 months (chronic) 5.06E+00 NA 1 

BENZALDEHYDE NA Kluwe et al., 1983 mouse systemic forestomach lesions, kidney 

toxicity

13 weeks (chronic) 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 1 

> BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE NA NTP, 1997 rat systemic alterred liver weight chronic 2.40E+02 NA 1 

>+ BETA BHC (BETA 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

BHC mixed isomers Grant et al .1977 rat reproduction decreases litter size, reduced 

birth weight, maternal mortality

3 generations (>1 yr and critical 

lifestage)/ chronic

5.63E-01 2.25E+00 1 

> BETA ENDOSULFAN endosulfan used as a surrogate Dikshith et al., 1984 rat reproduction, blood 

chemistry

30 days (subchronic) 1.50E+00 NA 0.1 

>+ bis(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE NA Lamb et al., 1987 mouse reproduction reproductive effects 105 days (critical life stage) 

(chronic)

1.83E+01 1.83E+02 1 

>+ CADMIUM cadmium chloride Sutou et al., 1980 rat reproduction no. live fetuses/female 6 weeks through reproduction 

(critical life stage) (chronic)

1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1 

>+ CARBAZOLE NA Tsuda et al. 1982 mouse survivorship mortality 104 weeks (chronic) 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 1 

> CHROMIUM, TOTAL NA Eco-SSL (USEPA, 2000) NA NA NA (chronic) 2.45E+01 NA 1 

+ CHROMIUM, TOTAL K2Cr2O4 Steven et al., 1976 rat mortality 3 months (chronic) NA 1.31E+02 NA 

>+ COPPER CuSO4*5H20 Aulerich et al., 1982 mink reproduction % kit survival 357 days (chronic) 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 1 

>+ DELTA BHC (DELTA 

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

BHC mixed isomers Grant et al .1977 rat reproduction decreases litter size, reduced 

birth weight, maternal mortality

3 generations (>1 yr and critical 

lifestage)/ chronic

5.63E-01 2.25E+00 1 

>+ DIELDRIN NA Treon and Cleveland, 1955 rat reproduction number of pregnancies 3 generations (chronic) NA 2.00E-01 0.1 

> ENDOSULFAN SULFATE endosulfan used as a surrogate Dikshith et al., 1984 rat reproduction, blood 

chemistry

30 days (subchronic) 1.50E+00 NA 0.1 

>+ ENDRIN NA Good and Waer 1969 mouse reproduction LOAEL 120 days (during a critical lifestage

(chronic)

NA 9.20E-01 0.1 

>+ ENDRIN ALDEHYDE endrin used as surrogate Good and Waer 1969 mouse reproduction LOAEL 120 days (during a critical lifestage

(chronic)

NA 9.20E-01 0.1 

>+ ENDRIN KETONE endrin used as surrogate Good and Waer 1969 mouse reproduction LOAEL 120 days (during a critical lifestage

(chronic)

NA 9.20E-01 0.1 

>+ GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) BHC mixed isomers Grant et al .1977 rat reproduction decreases litter size, reduced 

birth weight, maternal mortality

3 generations (>1 yr and critical 

lifestage)/ chronic

5.63E-01 2.25E+00 1 

>+ GAMMA-CHLORDANE chlordane used as surrogate WHO 1984 from Keplingeret 

al., 1968

mouse reproduction NA 6 generations (chronic) 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1 

>+ HEPTACHLOR NA Crum et al.. 1993 mink reproduction LOAEL 181 days (chronic) NA 1.00E+00 0.1 

>+ HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE heptachlor used as surrogate Crum et al.. 1993 mink reproduction LOAEL 181 days (chronic) NA 1.00E+00 0.1 

>+ HPAH benzo(a)pyrene Mackenzie and Angevine, 

1981

mouse reproduction reduced fertility in offspring 10 days (critical life-stage) 

(chronic)

NA 1.00E+01 0.1 

>+ LEAD lead acetate Ronis et al., 1998 rat reproduction pup mortality gestation through parturition 

(critical life stage) (chronic)

3.20E+01 9.60E+01 1 

>+ LPAH naphthalene Navarro et al., 1991 rat reproduction maternal weight gain, litter size, 

fetal weight

d 6-15 of gestation (critical lifestage) (chronic) 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1 

>+ MANGANESE manganese oxide Laskey et al., 1982 rat reproduction fertility 224 days (critical life stage) 

(chronic)

8.80E+01 2.84E+02 1 

>+ MERCURY MeHgCl Aulerich, 1974, Wobeser, 

1976, Wren et al., 1987, 

Dansereau et al., 1999

mink survivorship % survival up to 2 generations (chronic) 7.70E-02 1.10E-01 1 

>+ METHOXYCHLOR NA Grey et al. 1988 rat reproduction NOAEL and LOAEL 11 months (during critical lifestage)

(chronic)

4.00E+00 8.00E+00 1 

>+ NICKEL nickel sulfate hexahydrate Ambrose et al., 1976 rat reproduction reduced offspring body weight 

and kidney damage in young

3 generations; 1 year (critical life 

stage) (chronic)

4.00E+01 8.00E+01 1 

>+ PENTACHLOROPHENOL NA Exon and Koller 1982 rat reproduction

significantly decreased litter size

at 500 ppm, no significant change number of kits, lit survival at 50 ppm (PCP was 85.5% pure) 90 days (critical life stage) (chrenic) 42.75 427.5 1 

>+ p,p'-DDD DDT used as surrogate Fitzhugh 1948 rat reproduction NOAEL and LOAEL 2 years (chronic) 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 1 

>+ p,p'-DDE DDT used as surrogate Fitzhugh 1948 rat reproduction NOAEL and LOAEL 2 years (chronic) 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 1 

>+ p,p'-DDT NA Fitzhugh 1948 rat reproduction NOAEL and LOAEL 2 years (chronic) 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 1 

>+ SILVER Silver nitrate ACGIH, 1991 rat growth weight gain reduction,elevated 

mortality

37 weeks (chronic) NA 2.22E+02 0.1 

>+ THALLIUM NA Formigli et al. 1986 rat reproduction male testicular function 60 days prior to gestation (delivery 

and lactation) (subchronic)

NA 7.40E-01 0.01 

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE(PCE) NA Buben & O'Flaherty, 1985 mouse systemic hepatotoxicity subchronic 1.43E+01 7.14E+01 0.1 

TRICHLOROETHANE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

> VANADIUM vanadyl sulfate Schroeder et al., 1970 rat growth, survivorship growth rate, survival and 

longevity, blood levels, heart 

weight and accumulation

540 days (chronic) 1.34E+00 NA 1 

+ VANADIUM sodium metavanadate Domingo et al., 1986b rat reproduction number of dead pups per litter 60 days prior to gestation (delivery 

and lactation) (chronic)

NA 2.10E+00 NA 

>+ ZINC zinc oxide Straube et al. 1980 ferret survivorship mortality ~197 days (chronic) 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1 

Notes:

NOAEL = no observed adverse effect levelLOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level

1) Selections of TRVs and application of Uncertainty Factors was performed in accordance with Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (EPA, 1997)

69 of 104

005688
Table 30

Toxicity Reference Values Considered for Mammalian Wildlife ReceptorsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Study 

Selection Chemical Form Reference Test species Endpoint Measured Effect Duration

NOAEL

Dose 

(mg/kgbw-d)

LOAEL

Dose 

(mg/kgbw-d)

Uncertainty Factor 

(for normalized 

NOAEL)

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 = 0.1 subchronic NOAELS to chronic NOAELs = 0.1 subchronic LOAELs to chronic LOAELs = 0.1 acute NOAELs to chronic NOAELs = .01 acute LOAELs to chronic LOAELs = .015) Definitions of study duration for mammals. chronic = >12 weeks or during critical lifestage subchronic = 4-12 weeks subacute = <4 weeks, multiple doses acute = only one dose6) the weight of the ferret for the zinc TRV comes from http://www.ferrets-ferrets.com/

70 of 104

005689
Table 31 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Equation

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Former Wastewater Impoundments Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRV

Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed Mouse WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in sAUF - area use factor (exposure area 1.00E+00 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP 

PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 2.40E-02 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface Soil 

Exposure Point 

Concentration 

(mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total D

(summa

med

intak

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 7.00E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.37E-02 1.15E-02 5.52E-02 2.77E-03 5.80EACENAPHTHENE 3.90E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.66E-02 9.65E-03 2.62E-02 1.54E-03 2.78EACENAPHTHYLENE 2.90E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.49E-01 5.26E-02 2.02E-01 1.15E-02 2.13EALPHA-CHLORDANE 3.00E-03 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1.05E-05 8.16E-03 8.17E-03 1.19E-05 8.18EANTHRACENE 2.90E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.04E-01 7.65E-02 1.80E-01 1.15E-02 1.92EANTIMONY 4.47E+01 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 1.84E-01 3.69E+00 3.87E+00 1.77E-01 4.05EBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 1.30E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.64E-02 2.89E-02 4.53E-02 5.15E-03 5.05EBENZO(A)PYRENE 2.60E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.95E-02 7.29E-02 9.24E-02 1.03E-02 1.03EBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 3.60E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.69E-02 6.23E-02 8.93E-02 1.42E-02 1.04EBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 6.50E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.87E-03 1.13E-02 1.61E-02 2.57E-03 1.87EBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 8.80E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.91E-02 1.09E-01 1.48E-01 3.48E-02 1.83EBETA ENDOSULFAN 8.10E-03 1.50E-01 NA 1.36E-04 2.05E-02 2.07E-02 3.21E-05 2.07EBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 4.90E+00 1.83E+01 1.83E+02 4.85E-03 1.41E+01 1.41E+01 1.94E-02 1.41ECADMIUM 1.25E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.78E-02 8.13E-01 8.71E-01 4.93E-03 8.76ECARBAZOLE 7.70E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 7.39E-02 1.81E+00 1.88E+00 3.05E-03 1.89ECHRYSENE 3.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.29E-02 1.23E-01 1.66E-01 1.35E-02 1.80ECOPPER 1.35E+02 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 1.11E+00 1.61E+00 2.72E+00 5.36E-01 3.26EDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 4.60E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.04E-03 1.86E-02 2.06E-02 1.82E-03 2.24EDIBENZOFURAN 2.10E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.02E-02 5.08E-01 5.18E-01 8.31E-04 5.19EENDOSULFAN SULFATE 9.20E-03 1.50E-01 NA 6.15E-04 7.59E-04 1.37E-03 3.64E-05 1.41EENDRIN 1.40E-02 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 9.47E-05 4.14E-04 5.08E-04 5.54E-05 5.64EENDRIN ALDEHYDE 1.00E-02 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 5.58E-05 2.66E-02 2.67E-02 3.96E-05 2.67EENDRIN KETONE 9.90E-03 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.48E-04 2.52E-02 2.54E-02 3.92E-05 2.54EFLUORENE 3.40E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.63E-02 5.61E-03 2.19E-02 1.35E-03 2.32EFLUORANTHENE 2.50E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.31E-02 7.63E-02 1.29E-01 9.89E-03 1.39EGAMMA-CHLORDANE 5.60E-03 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1.96E-05 1.52E-02 1.52E-02 2.22E-05 1.53EHEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 5.10E-03 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.11E-04 3.53E-03 3.64E-03 2.02E-05 3.66E

71 of 104

005690
Table 31 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Equation

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Former Wastewater Impoundments Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRV

Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed Mouse WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in sAUF - area use factor (exposure area 1.00E+00 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP 

PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 2.40E-02 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface Soil 

Exposure Point 

Concentration 

(mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total D

(summa

med

intak

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 3.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.33E-02 5.19E-02 6.53E-02 1.19E-02 7.72ELEAD 2.17E+02 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 4.46E-01 5.09E+00 5.53E+00 8.57E-01 6.39ENAPHTHALENE 8.60E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.72E-02 1.49E-02 1.02E-01 3.40E-03 1.06EP,P'-DDT 9.10E-03 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 3.71E-05 4.20E-04 4.57E-04 3.60E-05 4.93EPHENANTHRENE 2.50E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.94E-02 5.77E-02 1.47E-01 9.89E-03 1.57EPYRENE 1.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.12E-01 3.22E-01 5.34E-01 3.96E-02 5.73ESILVER 2.60E+00 2.22E+01 2.22E+02 2.14E-01 3.67E-01 5.81E-01 1.03E-02 5.91EZINC 2.83E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 9.15E+00 4.50E+01 5.41E+01 1.12E+00 5.52E

Hazard Index for LPAHs 5.16E-01 7.37E-01 1.25E+00 4.27E-02 1.30E

Hazard Index for HPAHs 4.30E-01 8.76E-01 1.31E+00 1.44E-01 1.45E

Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) body weight of receptor per 

72 of 104

005691
Table 32 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Equation

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Wastwater Treatment Facility Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed Mouse Where

FIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in so

AUF - area use factor 1.00E+00 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Where

TIF - terrestrial invertebrate 5.00E-01 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

ISF - incidental soil ingestion 2.40E-02 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential 

Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Do

(summar

media 

intake

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 2.20E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.37E-02 3.63E-03 1.74E-02 8.71E-04 1.82E-0ACENAPHTHENE 8.50E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.61E-03 2.10E-03 5.71E-03 3.36E-04 6.05E-0ACENAPHTHYLENE 3.50E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.80E-02 6.35E-03 2.43E-02 1.39E-03 2.57E-0ANTHRACENE 4.50E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.61E-02 1.19E-02 2.80E-02 1.78E-03 2.97E-0ANTIMONY 5.70E+00 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 2.35E-02 4.70E-01 4.93E-01 2.26E-02 5.16E-0BENZALDEHYDE 5.10E-02 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 1.59E-02 1.14E-01 1.30E-01 2.02E-04 1.30E-0BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 8.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.05E-02 1.85E-02 2.89E-02 3.28E-03 3.22E-0BENZO(A)PYRENE 6.50E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.87E-03 1.82E-02 2.31E-02 2.57E-03 2.57E-0BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 1.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.23E-03 1.90E-02 2.73E-02 4.35E-03 3.16E-0BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 2.40E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.07E-03 2.97E-03 4.04E-03 9.50E-04 4.98E-0BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 3.40E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.55E-03 5.89E-03 8.43E-03 1.35E-03 9.78E-0CADMIUM 8.34E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.64E-02 5.91E-01 6.37E-01 3.30E-03 6.41E-0CARBAZOLE 1.30E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 1.25E-02 3.05E-01 3.18E-01 5.15E-04 3.18E-0CHRYSENE 1.30E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.64E-02 4.72E-02 6.36E-02 5.15E-03 6.87E-0COPPER 2.55E+02 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 1.43E+00 1.90E+00 3.33E+00 1.01E+00 4.34E+DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.44E-04 4.04E-03 4.48E-03 3.96E-04 4.88E-0DIBENZOFURAN 3.30E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.61E-03 7.99E-02 8.15E-02 1.31E-04 8.16E-0FLUORANTHENE 2.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.67E-02 6.71E-02 1.14E-01 8.71E-03 1.23E-0FLUORENE 9.70E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.65E-03 1.60E-03 6.24E-03 3.84E-04 6.63E-0INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 4.20E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.87E-03 7.27E-03 9.14E-03 1.66E-03 1.08E-0LEAD 1.29E+02 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 3.34E-01 1.62E+01 1.66E+01 5.12E-01 1.71E+MERCURY 6.48E-01 7.70E-02 1.10E-01 2.40E-02 3.95E-02 6.36E-02 2.56E-03 6.61E-0NAPHTHALENE 1.20E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.22E-02 2.08E-03 1.42E-02 4.75E-04 1.47E-0PHENANTHRENE 1.10E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.93E-02 2.54E-02 6.47E-02 4.35E-03 6.91E-0PYRENE 1.60E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.40E-02 5.15E-02 8.54E-02 6.33E-03 9.18E-0SILVER 1.40E+00 2.22E+01 2.22E+02 1.15E-01 1.97E-01 3.13E-01 5.54E-03 3.18E-0

73 of 104

005692
Table 32 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Equation

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Wastwater Treatment Facility Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed Mouse Where

FIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in so

AUF - area use factor 1.00E+00 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Where

TIF - terrestrial invertebrate 5.00E-01 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

ISF - incidental soil ingestion 2.40E-02 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential 

Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Do

(summar

media 

intake

ZINC 5.96E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.38E+01 5.74E+01 7.12E+01 2.36E+00 7.35E+

Hazard Index for LPAHs 1.09E-01 1.33E-01 2.42E-01 9.72E-03 2.52E-0

Hazard Index for HPAHs 1.27E-01 2.42E-01 3.68E-01 3.47E-02 4.03E-0

Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogram HPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydro body weight of receptor per day

74 of 104

005693
Table 33 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Equation

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Current Aboveground Storage Tanks Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed Mouse WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soiAUF - area use factor (exposure 9.31E-01 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) 

PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Where

TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

ISF - incidental soil ingestion 2.40E-02 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Do

(summary 

media 

intake)

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 1.10E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 6.40E-03 1.69E-03 8.08E-03 4.05E-04 8.49E-04-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 4.60E-02 2.19E+02 NA 1.16E-02 9.61E-02 1.08E-01 1.70E-04 1.08E-0ACENAPHTHENE 4.60E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.82E-02 1.06E-02 2.88E-02 1.70E-03 3.05E-0ACENAPHTHYLENE 1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.61E-03 3.04E-03 1.17E-02 6.63E-04 1.23E-0ANTHRACENE 1.50E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.99E-02 3.69E-02 8.68E-02 5.53E-03 9.23E-0ANTIMONY 2.50E+00 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 9.60E-03 1.92E-01 2.02E-01 9.21E-03 2.11E-0BENZALDEHYDE 3.20E-02 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 9.31E-03 6.64E-02 7.57E-02 1.18E-04 7.59E-0BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 3.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.52E-02 6.22E-02 9.74E-02 1.11E-02 1.08E-0BENZO(A)PYRENE 2.70E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.88E-02 7.05E-02 8.93E-02 9.95E-03 9.93E-0BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 4.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.07E-02 7.09E-02 1.02E-01 1.62E-02 1.18E-0BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 9.70E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.01E-03 1.12E-02 1.52E-02 3.57E-03 1.88E-0BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 1.80E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.25E-02 2.90E-02 4.16E-02 6.63E-03 4.82E-0BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 3.00E-02 2.40E+02 NA 6.42E-04 6.99E-02 7.05E-02 1.11E-04 7.06E-0CADMIUM 4.80E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.19E-02 3.55E-01 3.87E-01 1.77E-03 3.88E-0CARBAZOLE 2.30E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 2.06E-02 5.03E-01 5.24E-01 8.48E-04 5.24E-0CHROMIUM, TOTAL 1.26E+02 2.45E+01 1.31E+02 3.87E-01 3.06E+01 3.10E+01 4.64E-01 3.14E+0CHRYSENE 2.80E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.29E-02 9.46E-02 1.27E-01 1.03E-02 1.38E-0DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 3.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.37E-03 1.24E-02 1.38E-02 1.22E-03 1.50E-0DIBENZOFURAN 1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.16E-03 4.06E-01 4.14E-01 6.63E-04 4.14E-0FLUORANTHENE 1.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.98E-01 2.84E-01 4.82E-01 3.69E-02 5.19E-0FLUORENE 4.70E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.10E-02 7.22E-03 2.82E-02 1.73E-03 2.99E-0INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 1.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.55E-03 1.77E-02 2.23E-02 4.05E-03 2.63E-0LEAD 5.58E+02 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 7.07E-01 6.52E+01 6.59E+01 2.06E+00 6.80E+0MANGANESE 3.79E+02 8.80E+01 2.84E+02 1.98E+01 1.96E+00 2.17E+01 1.40E+00 2.31E+0MERCURY 1.30E-01 7.70E-02 1.10E-01 9.35E-03 3.05E-02 3.98E-02 4.79E-04 4.03E-0NAPHTHALENE 7.80E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 7.37E-03 1.26E-03 8.62E-03 2.87E-04 8.91E-0PENTACHLOROPHENOL 2.80E-01 4.28E+01 4.28E+02 4.04E-05 1.29E+01 1.29E+01 1.03E-03 1.29E+0PHENANTHRENE 3.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.27E-01 8.17E-02 2.08E-01 1.40E-02 2.22E-0

75 of 104

005694
Table 33 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Equation

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Current Aboveground Storage Tanks Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed Mouse WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soiAUF - area use factor (exposure 9.31E-01 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) 

PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Where

TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

ISF - incidental soil ingestion 2.40E-02 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Do

(summary 

media 

intake)

PYRENE 8.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.66E-01 2.52E-01 4.18E-01 3.10E-02 4.49E-0SILVER 9.60E-01 2.22E+01 2.22E+02 7.37E-02 1.26E-01 2.00E-01 3.54E-03 2.03E-0VANADIUM 3.10E+01 1.34E+00 2.10E+00 1.31E-02 2.09E-01 2.23E-01 1.14E-01 3.37E-0ZINC 4.84E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.15E+01 4.99E+01 6.14E+01 1.78E+00 6.31E+0

Hazard Index for LPAHs 2.46E-01 5.48E-01 7.94E-01 2.50E-02 8.19E-0

Hazard Index for HPAHs 5.04E-01 9.04E-01 1.41E+00 1.31E-01 1.54E+0

Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) body weight of receptor per d

76 of 104

005695
Table 34

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Maintenance Shed Area Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil Intake

Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed Mouse WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soAUF - area use factor (exposure area divided by home range) 1.00E+00 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Where

TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 2.40E-02 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Do

(summar

media 

intake

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.12E-02 2.97E-03 1.42E-02 7.12E-04 1.49E-0ACENAPHTHENE 3.30E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.40E-03 8.16E-04 2.22E-03 1.31E-04 2.35E-0ACENAPHTHYLENE 2.90E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.49E-02 5.26E-03 2.02E-02 1.15E-03 2.13E-0ALDRIN 1.10E-02 2.00E-01 1.00E+00 4.67E-05 2.97E-02 2.97E-02 4.35E-05 2.97E-0ANTHRACENE 2.90E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.04E-02 7.65E-03 1.80E-02 1.15E-03 1.92E-0BENZALDEHYDE 1.10E-02 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 3.44E-03 2.45E-02 2.80E-02 4.35E-05 2.80E-0BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 9.70E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.22E-02 2.16E-02 3.38E-02 3.84E-03 3.77E-0BENZO(A)PYRENE 1.30E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 9.73E-03 3.64E-02 4.62E-02 5.15E-03 5.13E-0BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 3.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.55E-02 5.89E-02 8.43E-02 1.35E-02 9.78E-0BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 1.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.33E-03 1.48E-02 2.02E-02 4.75E-03 2.49E-0BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 2.40E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.80E-02 4.16E-02 5.95E-02 9.50E-03 6.90E-0BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 1.30E-01 2.40E+02 NA 2.99E-03 3.25E-01 3.28E-01 5.15E-04 3.29E-0BETA ENDOSULFAN 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 NA 1.68E-03 2.54E-01 2.55E-01 3.96E-04 2.56E-0CADMIUM 4.20E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.19E-02 3.43E-01 3.74E-01 1.66E-03 3.76E-0CARBAZOLE 3.00E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 2.88E-02 7.05E-01 7.33E-01 1.19E-03 7.35E-0CHRYSENE 1.70E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.14E-02 6.17E-02 8.31E-02 6.73E-03 8.98E-0DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

2.30E-02 5.63E-01 2.25E+00 1.12E-03 5.57E-02 5.68E-02 9.10E-05 5.69E-0

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 4.90E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.18E-03 1.98E-02 2.20E-02 1.94E-03 2.39E-0DIBENZOFURAN 8.20E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.99E-03 1.98E-01 2.02E-01 3.25E-04 2.03E-0DIELDRIN 5.40E-02 2.00E-02 2.00E-01 7.26E-04 1.74E-02 1.81E-02 2.14E-04 1.83E-0ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 3.90E-02 1.50E-01 NA 2.61E-03 3.22E-03 5.82E-03 1.54E-04 5.98E-0ENDRIN 1.65E-03 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.12E-05 4.88E-05 5.99E-05 6.53E-06 6.64E-0ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 5.20E-02 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 2.90E-04 1.38E-01 1.39E-01 2.06E-04 1.39E-0

77 of 104

005696
Table 34

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Maintenance Shed Area Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil Intake

Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions used in Risk Calculation for the White-footed Mouse WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.65E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soAUF - area use factor (exposure area divided by home range) 1.00E+00 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Where

TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 2.40E-02 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesContaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Do

(summar

media 

intake

FLUORANTHENE 3.50E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 7.43E-02 1.07E-01 1.81E-01 1.39E-02 1.95E-0FLUORENE 9.80E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.69E-03 1.62E-03 6.31E-03 3.88E-04 6.70E-0GAMMA 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-0GAMMA-CHLORDANE 3.60E-02 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1.26E-04 9.79E-02 9.80E-02 1.42E-04 9.81E-0HEPTACHLOR 7.90E-03 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 5.42E-05 5.47E-03 5.53E-03 3.13E-05 5.56E-0HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 4.10E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 8.92E-04 2.84E-02 2.93E-02 1.62E-04 2.95E-0INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.44E-03 1.73E-02 2.18E-02 3.96E-03 2.57E-0NAPHTHALENE 1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.83E-02 3.12E-03 2.14E-02 7.12E-04 2.21E-0P,P'-DDD 1.50E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 1.38E-01 3.34E-01 4.72E-01 5.94E-02 5.32E-0P,P'-DDE 5.00E-02 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 4.14E-04 2.47E-02 2.51E-02 1.98E-04 2.53E-0P,P'-DDT 5.70E-02 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 2.32E-04 2.63E-03 2.86E-03 2.26E-04 3.09E-0PHENANTHRENE 1.20E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.29E-02 2.77E-02 7.06E-02 4.75E-03 7.54E-0PYRENE 4.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.49E-02 1.29E-01 2.14E-01 1.58E-02 2.29E-0ZINC 1.06E+03 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.90E+01 6.93E+01 8.84E+01 4.20E+00 9.26E+0Hazard Index for LPAHs 1.08E-01 2.48E-01 3.55E-01 9.31E-03 3.65E-0Hazard Index for HPAHs 1.73E-01 3.79E-01 5.52E-01 6.32E-02 6.15E-0Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kiloHPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) body weight of receptor per d

78 of 104

005697
Table 35

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Tar Burn Area Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil Intake

Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions 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 home range) 1.00E+00 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAF

TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebrates

ISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 2.40E-02 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total 

(summ

med

inta

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 4.20E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.62E-03 6.93E-04 3.31E-03 1.66E-04 3.48E

ACENAPHTHENE 3.50E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.49E-03 8.66E-04 2.35E-03 1.39E-04 2.49E

ACENAPHTHYLENE 4.50E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.31E-02 8.16E-03 3.13E-02 1.78E-03 3.31E

ANTHRACENE 3.90E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.39E-02 1.03E-02 2.42E-02 1.54E-03 2.58E

ANTIMONY 6.00E+00 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 2.47E-02 4.95E-01 5.19E-01 2.37E-02 5.43E

BENZALDEHYDE 6.30E+00 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 1.97E+00 1.40E+01 1.60E+01 2.49E-02 1.60E

BENZO(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

BENZO(A)PYRENE 1.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.98E-03 3.36E-02 4.26E-02 4.75E-03 4.74E

BENZO(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

BENZO(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

BENZO(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

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 5.20E-01 2.40E+02 NA 1.19E-02 1.30E+00 1.31E+00 2.06E-03 1.32E

BIS(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

CADMIUM 1.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.40E-02 7.37E-01 7.91E-01 4.35E-03 7.95E

CARBAZOLE 2.90E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 2.78E-02 6.81E-01 7.09E-01 1.15E-03 7.10E

CHRYSENE 1.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.39E-02 3.99E-02 5.38E-02 4.35E-03 5.81E

COPPER 1.55E+02 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 1.17E+00 1.67E+00 2.84E+00 6.13E-01 3.45E

DIBENZ(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

DIBENZOFURAN 4.40E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.14E-03 1.06E-01 1.09E-01 1.74E-04 1.09E

FLUORANTHENE 1.90E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.03E-02 5.80E-02 9.83E-02 7.52E-03 1.06E

FLUORENE 1.20E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 5.75E-03 1.98E-03 7.73E-03 4.75E-04 8.20E

INDENO(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

MERCURY 3.10E-01 7.70E-02 1.10E-01 1.61E-02 3.62E-02 5.23E-02 1.23E-03 5.36E

NAPHTHALENE 5.20E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 5.27E-03 9.00E-04 6.17E-03 2.06E-04 6.38E

79 of 104

005698
Table 35

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Tar Burn Area Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil Intake

Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions 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 home range) 1.00E+00 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAF

TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebrates

ISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 2.40E-02 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total 

(summ

med

inta

PHENANTHRENE 9.30E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.33E-02 2.15E-02 5.47E-02 3.68E-03 5.84E

PYRENE 1.50E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.18E-02 4.82E-02 8.01E-02 5.94E-03 8.60E

ZINC 4.24E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.14E+01 5.13E+01 6.27E+01 1.68E+00 6.44E

Hazard Index for LPAHs 8.76E-02 1.51E-01 2.38E-01 8.16E-03 2.47E

Hazard Index for HPAHs 1.32E-01 2.73E-01 4.06E-01 4.21E-02 4.48E

Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH 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 day

80 of 104

005699
Table 36

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Lauren Tank Farm Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil Intake

Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions 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 home range) 1.00E+00 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BATIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 2.40E-02 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total 

(summ

me

inta

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 1.60E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 9.99E-02 2.64E-02 1.26E-01 6.33E-03 1.33

4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 1.10E-01 2.19E+02 NA 2.98E-02 2.47E-01 2.77E-01 4.35E-04 2.77

ACENAPHTHENE 6.40E-02 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.72E-03 1.58E-03 4.30E-03 2.53E-04 4.55

ACENAPHTHYLENE 9.10E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.68E-02 1.65E-02 6.33E-02 3.60E-03 6.69

ALPHA-CHLORDANE 2.16E+00 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 7.54E-03 5.87E+00 5.88E+00 8.55E-03 5.89

ANTHRACENE 1.10E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.93E-02 2.90E-02 6.84E-02 4.35E-03 7.27

BENZALDEHYDE 9.70E-02 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 3.03E-02 2.16E-01 2.47E-01 3.84E-04 2.47

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 3.99E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.03E-02 8.87E-02 1.39E-01 1.58E-02 1.55

BENZO(A)PYRENE 4.68E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.50E-02 1.31E-01 1.66E-01 1.85E-02 1.85

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 6.02E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.51E-02 1.04E-01 1.49E-01 2.38E-02 1.73

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 2.10E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 9.33E-03 2.60E-02 3.53E-02 8.31E-03 4.36

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 2.50E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.87E-02 4.33E-02 6.20E-02 9.89E-03 7.19

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 2.40E-02 2.40E+02 NA 5.51E-04 6.00E-02 6.06E-02 9.50E-05 6.07

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 1.90E+00 1.83E+01 1.83E+02 1.88E-03 5.46E+00 5.46E+00 7.52E-03 5.47

CADMIUM 1.70E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 6.84E-02 1.04E+00 1.11E+00 6.73E-03 1.12

CARBAZOLE 5.20E-01 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 4.99E-02 1.22E+00 1.27E+00 2.06E-03 1.27

CHRYSENE 4.91E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 6.19E-02 1.78E-01 2.40E-01 1.94E-02 2.60

COPPER 1.33E+03 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 2.74E+00 2.94E+00 5.68E+00 5.27E+00 1.09

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 9.40E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.18E-03 3.80E-02 4.22E-02 3.72E-03 4.59

DIBENZOFURAN 1.30E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 6.33E-03 3.15E-01 3.21E-01 5.15E-04 3.21

DIELDRIN 5.30E-03 2.00E-02 2.00E-01 7.13E-05 1.70E-03 1.78E-03 2.10E-05 1.80

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 1.83E+00 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.02E-02 4.87E+00 4.88E+00 7.24E-03 4.89

FLUORANTHENE 6.44E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.37E-01 1.96E-01 3.33E-01 2.55E-02 3.58

FLUORENE 1.80E-01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 8.62E-03 2.97E-03 1.16E-02 7.12E-04 1.23

GAMMA-CHLORDANE 7.80E-03 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 2.73E-05 2.12E-02 2.12E-02 3.09E-05 2.13

HEPTACHLOR 3.10E-03 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 2.13E-05 2.15E-03 2.17E-03 1.23E-05 2.18

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 6.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.80E-03 1.09E-02 1.37E-02 2.49E-03 1.62

LEAD 1.03E+03 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 1.07E+00 1.79E+01 1.90E+01 4.08E+00 2.30

NAPHTHALENE 1.40E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.42E-01 2.42E-02 1.66E-01 5.54E-03 1.72

81 of 104

005700
Table 36

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Lauren Tank Farm Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil Intake

Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions 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 home range) 1.00E+00 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in PF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BATIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 2.40E-02 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total 

(summ

me

inta

P,P'-DDD 9.10E-03 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 8.39E-05 2.03E-04 2.87E-04 3.60E-05 3.23

P,P'-DDT 7.60E-03 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 3.10E-05 3.51E-04 3.82E-04 3.01E-05 4.12

PHENANTHRENE 2.00E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 7.15E-02 4.62E-02 1.18E-01 7.92E-03 1.26

PYRENE 6.32E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.34E-01 2.03E-01 3.37E-01 2.50E-02 3.62

ZINC 4.44E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 1.17E+01 5.21E+01 6.38E+01 1.76E+00 6.56

Hazard Index for LPAHs 4.17E-01 4.62E-01 8.79E-01 2.92E-02 9.08

Hazard Index for HPAHs 4.98E-01 1.02E+00 1.52E+00 1.52E-01 1.67

Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH 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 day

82 of 104

005701
Table 37

HQs for the White-footed Mouse in the Non-source Area Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil Intake

Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions 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 home range) 1.00E+00 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in soil at the sitPF - plant fraction 5.00E-01 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( TIF * BAFTI ) + ( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 5.00E-01 WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFTI = bioaccumulation factor for terrestrial invertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 2.40E-02 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebrates

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Tota

(sum

m

in

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 1.90E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.19E-01 3.13E-02 1.50E-01 7.52E-03 1.5

ACENAPHTHENE 9.60E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.08E-01 2.37E-01 6.45E-01 3.80E-02 6.8

ACENAPHTHYLENE 5.00E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.57E-01 9.07E-02 3.48E-01 1.98E-02 3.6

ANTHRACENE 1.30E+01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 4.65E-01 3.43E-01 8.08E-01 5.15E-02 8.5

BENZALDEHYDE 1.50E-01 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 4.69E-02 3.34E-01 3.81E-01 5.94E-04 3.8

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 2.40E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.03E-01 5.34E-01 8.37E-01 9.50E-02 9.3

BENZO(A)PYRENE 1.90E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.42E-01 5.33E-01 6.75E-01 7.52E-02 7.5

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 2.50E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.87E-01 4.33E-01 6.20E-01 9.89E-02 7.1

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 4.30E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.91E-02 5.32E-02 7.23E-02 1.70E-02 8.9

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 1.20E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.98E-02 2.08E-01 2.98E-01 4.75E-02 3.4

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 2.60E-01 2.40E+02 NA 5.97E-03 6.51E-01 6.56E-01 1.03E-03 6.5

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 3.20E+00 1.83E+01 1.83E+02 3.17E-03 9.20E+00 9.20E+00 1.27E-02 9.2

CADMIUM 1.15E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.94E-01 4.76E+00 4.95E+00 4.55E-02 5.0

CARBAZOLE 1.29E+00 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 1.24E-01 3.02E+00 3.15E+00 5.10E-03 3.1

CHRYSENE 2.10E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.65E-01 7.62E-01 1.03E+00 8.31E-02 1.1

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 2.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 9.78E-03 8.89E-02 9.87E-02 8.71E-03 1.0

DIBENZOFURAN 3.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.85E-01 9.20E+00 9.38E+00 1.50E-02 9.4

DIELDRIN 6.75E+00 2.00E-02 2.00E-01 9.08E-02 2.17E+00 2.26E+00 2.67E-02 2.2

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 1.30E+01 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 7.26E-02 3.46E+01 3.47E+01 5.15E-02 3.4

FLUORANTHENE 6.20E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.32E+00 1.89E+00 3.21E+00 2.45E-01 3.4

FLUORENE 8.10E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.88E-01 1.34E-01 5.21E-01 3.21E-02 5.5

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 6.00E+00 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.31E-01 4.16E+00 4.29E+00 2.37E-02 4.3

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 6.90E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.07E-02 1.19E-01 1.50E-01 2.73E-02 1.7

NAPHTHALENE 6.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 6.90E-01 1.18E-01 8.07E-01 2.69E-02 8.3

P,P'-DDD 1.10E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 1.01E-01 2.45E-01 3.46E-01 4.35E-02 3.9

P,P'-DDE 2.50E+00 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 2.07E-02 1.24E+00 1.26E+00 9.89E-03 1.2

PHENANTHRENE 5.30E+01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.90E+00 1.22E+00 3.12E+00 2.10E-01 3.3

PYRENE 4.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.49E-01 1.29E+00 2.14E+00 1.58E-01 2.2

ZINC 5.05E+01 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 3.51E+00 2.55E+01 2.90E+01 2.00E-01 2.9

Hazard Index for LPAHs 4.41E+00 1.14E+01 1.58E+01 4.01E-01 1.6

83 of 104

005702
Hazard Index for HPAHs 3.21E+00 5.91E+00 9.12E+00 8.56E-01 9.9

Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH 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 day

84 of 104

005703
Table 38 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Eq

HQs for the Northern Bobwhite Quail in the Upland Area Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Northern Bobwhite Quail WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.11E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concAUF - area use factor (exposure area 9.54E-01 in soil at the site (mg/kg)

PF - plant fraction 1.00E+00 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * ( PF TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00 WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

ISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 9.30E-02

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentra

tion 

(mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Dose

(summary of 

media intake

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 1.90E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 1.52E-01 1.52E-01 1.87E-02 1.71E-01 4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 1.10E-01 1.25E+00 NA 3.83E-02 3.83E-02 1.08E-03 3.94E-02 ACENAPHTHENE 9.60E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.523269365 5.23E-01 9.45E-02 6.18E-01 ACENAPHTHYLENE 5.00E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.30E-01 3.30E-01 4.92E-02 3.79E-01 ALPHA-CHLORDANE 1.30E+01 2.14E+00 1.07E+01 5.82E-02 5.82E-02 1.28E-01 1.86E-01 ALDRIN 1.10E-02 7.30E-03 7.30E-02 5.99E-05 5.99E-05 1.08E-04 1.68E-04 ANTHRACENE 1.30E+01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 5.97E-01 5.97E-01 1.28E-01 7.25E-01 ANTIMONY 4.47E+01 NA NA 2.37E-01 2.37E-01 4.40E-01 6.77E-01 BENZALDEHYDE 6.30E+00 NA NA 2.53E+00 2.53E+00 6.20E-02 2.59E+00 BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 2.40E+01 1.96E+01 NA 3.88E-01 3.88E-01 2.36E-01 6.25E-01 BENZO(A)PYRENE 1.90E+01 1.96E+01 NA 1.83E-01 1.83E-01 1.87E-01 3.70E-01 BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 2.50E+01 1.96E+01 NA 2.40E-01 2.40E-01 2.46E-01 4.86E-01 BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 1.20E+01 1.96E+01 NA 1.15E-01 1.15E-01 1.18E-01 2.33E-01 BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 8.80E+00 1.96E+01 NA 5.02E-02 5.02E-02 8.66E-02 1.37E-01 BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 5.20E-01 NA NA 1.53E-02 1.53E-02 5.12E-03 2.04E-02 BETA ENDOSULFAN 1.30E+01 1.00E+01 NA 2.80E-01 2.80E-01 1.28E-01 4.08E-01 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 4.90E+00 1.11E+00 NA 6.22E-03 6.22E-03 4.82E-02 5.45E-02 CADMIUM 1.15E+01 6.10E-01 2.40E+00 2.50E-01 2.50E-01 1.13E-01 3.63E-01 CARBAZOLE 7.50E+00 NA NA 9.24E-01 9.24E-01 7.38E-02 9.98E-01 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 1.26E+02 1.00E+00 5.00E+00 5.33E-01 5.33E-01 1.24E+00 1.77E+00 CHRYSENE 2.10E+01 1.96E+01 NA 3.40E-01 3.40E-01 2.07E-01 5.47E-01 COPPER 2.98E+02 4.70E+00 6.17E+00 1.95E+00 1.95E+00 2.93E+00 4.88E+00 

85 of 104

005704
Table 38 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Eq

HQs for the Northern Bobwhite Quail in the Upland Area Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Northern Bobwhite Quail WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.11E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concAUF - area use factor (exposure area 9.54E-01 in soil at the site (mg/kg)

PF - plant fraction 1.00E+00 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * ( PF TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00 WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

ISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 9.30E-02

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentra

tion 

(mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Dose

(summary of 

media intake

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

2.30E-02 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 1.43E-03 1.43E-03 2.26E-04 1.66E-03 

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 2.20E+00 1.96E+01 NA 1.26E-02 1.26E-02 2.17E-02 3.42E-02 DIBENZOFURAN 3.80E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.38E-01 2.38E-01 3.74E-02 2.75E-01 DIELDRIN 1.09E+01 7.70E-02 NA 1.89E-01 1.89E-01 1.08E-01 2.96E-01 ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 3.90E-02 1.00E+01 NA 3.34E-03 3.34E-03 3.84E-04 3.73E-03 ENDRIN 9.86E+00 3.00E-01 NA 8.55E-02 8.55E-02 9.70E-02 1.83E-01 ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 7.74E+00 3.00E-01 NA 5.55E-02 5.55E-02 7.62E-02 1.32E-01 ENDRIN KETONE 9.90E-03 3.00E-01 NA 1.90E-04 1.90E-04 9.75E-05 2.87E-04 FLUORENE 8.10E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 4.98E-01 4.98E-01 7.97E-02 5.78E-01 FLUORANTHENE 6.20E+01 1.96E+01 NA 1.69E+00 1.69E+00 6.10E-01 2.30E+00 GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 5.90E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 2.92E-04 2.92E-04 5.81E-05 3.50E-04 GAMMA-CHLORDANE 3.60E-02 2.14E+00 1.07E+01 1.62E-04 1.62E-04 3.54E-04 5.16E-04 HEPTACHLOR 7.90E-03 6.50E-02 6.50E-01 6.96E-05 6.96E-05 7.78E-05 1.47E-04 HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 1.31E+01 6.50E-02 6.50E-01 3.67E-01 3.67E-01 1.29E-01 4.96E-01 INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 6.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 3.94E-02 3.94E-02 6.79E-02 1.07E-01 LEAD 4.67E+02 3.85E+00 6.25E+00 8.82E-01 8.82E-01 4.60E+00 5.48E+00 MANGANESE 3.79E+02 9.80E+01 9.77E+02 2.73E+01 2.73E+01 3.73E+00 3.10E+01 MERCURY 1.30E-01 6.80E-02 3.70E-01 1.29E-02 1.29E-02 1.28E-03 1.42E-02 NAPHTHALENE 6.80E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 8.85E-01 8.85E-01 6.69E-02 9.52E-01 PENTACHLOROPHENOL 2.80E-01 2.92E+00 4.86E+00 5.58E-05 5.58E-05 2.76E-03 2.81E-03 P,P'-DDD 1.50E+01 6.00E-02 6.00E-01 1.78E-01 1.78E-01 1.48E-01 3.25E-01 

86 of 104

005705
Table 38 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Eq

HQs for the Northern Bobwhite Quail in the Upland Area Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Northern Bobwhite Quail WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.11E-01 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concAUF - area use factor (exposure area 9.54E-01 in soil at the site (mg/kg)

PF - plant fraction 1.00E+00 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * ( PF TIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00 WhereVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plants

ISF - incidental soil ingestion fraction 9.30E-02

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentra

tion 

(mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg 

bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Dose

(summary of 

media intake

P,P'-DDE 1.00E+01 6.00E-02 6.00E-01 1.06E-01 1.06E-01 9.84E-02 2.05E-01 P,P'-DDT 1.80E+01 6.00E-02 6.00E-01 9.42E-02 9.42E-02 1.77E-01 2.71E-01 PHENANTHRENE 5.30E+01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.43E+00 2.43E+00 5.22E-01 2.95E+00 PYRENE 4.00E+01 1.96E+01 NA 1.09E+00 1.09E+00 3.94E-01 1.48E+00 SILVER 2.60E+00 1.78E+01 NA 2.75E-01 2.75E-01 2.56E-02 3.01E-01 VANADIUM 3.10E+01 1.14E+01 NA 1.80E-02 1.80E-02 3.05E-01 3.23E-01 ZINC 4.76E+02 1.45E+01 1.31E+02 1.57E+01 1.57E+01 4.69E+00 2.04E+01 

Hazard Index for LPAHs 2.34E+00 2.34E+00 4.08E-01 2.75E+00 

Hazard Index for HPAHs 3.02E+00 3.02E+00 1.71E+00 4.73E+00 

Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogram HPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon body weight of receptor per day

87 of 104

005706
Table 39 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Equation

HQs for the Coyote in the Upland Area Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Coyote WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.53E-02 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in AUF - area use factor (exposure 5.32E-03 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFVPF - plant fraction 1.00E-02 WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 9.90E-01 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion 2.80E-02

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Vertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total D

(summ

med

intak

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 1.90E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 3.47E-06 0.00E+00 3.47E-06 1.28E-05 1.63E4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) 1.10E-01 2.19E+02 NA 8.73E-07 2.88E-05 2.96E-05 7.43E-07 3.04EACENAPHTHENE 9.60E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.19E-05 0.00E+00 1.19E-05 6.49E-05 7.68EACENAPHTHYLENE 5.00E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 7.52E-06 0.00E+00 7.52E-06 3.38E-05 4.13EALPHA-CHLORDANE 1.30E+01 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 1.33E-06 9.06E-04 9.07E-04 8.78E-05 9.95EALDRIN 1.10E-02 2.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.37E-09 4.53E-07 4.54E-07 7.43E-08 5.29EANTHRACENE 1.30E+01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.36E-05 0.00E+00 1.36E-05 8.78E-05 1.01EANTIMONY 4.47E+01 6.10E+00 4.60E+01 5.39E-06 1.07E-02 1.07E-02 3.02E-04 1.10EBENZALDEHYDE 6.30E+00 1.43E+02 2.86E+02 5.76E-05 2.54E-09 5.76E-05 4.26E-05 1.00EBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 2.40E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.85E-06 0.00E+00 8.85E-06 1.62E-04 1.71EBENZO(A)PYRENE 1.90E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 4.16E-06 0.00E+00 4.16E-06 1.28E-04 1.33EBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 2.50E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.48E-06 0.00E+00 5.48E-06 1.69E-04 1.74EBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 1.20E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.63E-06 0.00E+00 2.63E-06 8.11E-05 8.37EBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 8.80E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.14E-06 0.00E+00 1.14E-06 5.95E-05 6.06EBENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 5.20E-01 2.40E+02 NA 3.49E-07 5.37E-05 5.40E-05 3.51E-06 5.75EBETA ENDOSULFAN 1.30E+01 1.50E-01 NA 6.38E-06 1.34E-05 1.98E-05 8.78E-05 1.08EBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 4.90E+00 1.83E+01 1.83E+02 1.42E-07 1.55E-04 1.55E-04 3.31E-05 1.88ECADMIUM 1.15E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 5.69E-06 5.10E-04 5.15E-04 7.77E-05 5.93ECARBAZOLE 7.50E+00 2.71E+00 5.42E+00 2.11E-05 7.17E-08 2.11E-05 5.07E-05 7.18ECHROMIUM, TOTAL 1.26E+02 2.45E+01 1.31E+02 1.22E-05 1.93E-03 1.94E-03 8.51E-04 2.79ECHRYSENE 2.10E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 7.75E-06 0.00E+00 7.75E-06 1.42E-04 1.50ECOPPER 2.98E+02 1.17E+01 1.51E+01 4.45E-05 4.19E-03 4.24E-03 2.01E-03 6.25EDELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

2.30E-02 5.63E-01 2.25E+00 3.27E-08 1.37E-09 3.40E-08 1.55E-07 1.89E

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 2.20E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.86E-07 0.00E+00 2.86E-07 1.49E-05 1.51EDIBENZOFURAN 3.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 5.42E-06 2.25E-07 5.64E-06 2.57E-05 3.13E

88 of 104

005707
Table 39 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Equation

HQs for the Coyote in the Upland Area Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Coyote WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.53E-02 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in AUF - area use factor (exposure 5.32E-03 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFVPF - plant fraction 1.00E-02 WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 9.90E-01 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion 2.80E-02

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Vertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total D

(summ

med

intak

DIELDRIN 1.09E+01 2.00E-02 2.00E-01 4.30E-06 2.04E-05 2.47E-05 7.38E-05 9.85EENDOSULFAN SULFATE 3.90E-02 1.50E-01 NA 7.62E-08 9.32E-06 9.39E-06 2.63E-07 9.66EENDRIN 9.86E+00 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.95E-06 2.23E-06 4.18E-06 6.66E-05 7.08EENDRIN ALDEHYDE 7.74E+00 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 1.26E-06 1.53E-04 1.54E-04 5.23E-05 2.06EENDRIN KETONE 9.90E-03 9.20E-02 9.20E-01 4.33E-09 1.40E-08 1.83E-08 6.69E-08 8.52EFLUORENE 8.10E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 1.14E-05 5.01E-07 1.19E-05 5.47E-05 6.66EFLUORANTHENE 6.20E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 3.85E-05 0.00E+00 3.85E-05 4.19E-04 4.57EGAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 5.90E-03 5.63E-01 2.25E+00 6.67E-09 6.53E-10 7.32E-09 3.99E-08 4.72EGAMMA-CHLORDANE 3.60E-02 4.58E+00 9.16E+00 3.69E-09 2.49E-06 2.49E-06 2.43E-07 2.73EHEPTACHLOR 7.90E-03 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.59E-09 8.96E-08 9.11E-08 5.34E-08 1.45EHEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 1.31E+01 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 8.37E-06 6.75E-06 1.51E-05 8.88E-05 1.04EINDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 6.90E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 8.98E-07 2.51E-04 2.52E-04 4.66E-05 2.99ELEAD 4.67E+02 3.20E+01 9.60E+01 2.01E-05 3.91E-03 3.93E-03 3.16E-03 7.08EMANGANESE 3.79E+02 8.80E+01 2.84E+02 6.22E-04 5.31E-03 5.94E-03 2.56E-03 8.50EMERCURY 1.30E-01 7.70E-02 1.10E-01 2.94E-07 5.96E-06 6.26E-06 8.78E-07 7.13ENAPHTHALENE 6.80E+00 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 2.02E-05 5.61E-08 2.02E-05 4.59E-05 6.62EPENTACHLOROPHENOL 2.80E-01 4.28E+01 4.28E+02 1.27E-09 2.90E-04 2.90E-04 1.89E-06 2.91EP,P'-DDD 1.50E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 4.05E-06 7.70E-05 8.10E-05 1.01E-04 1.82EP,P'-DDE 1.00E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 2.42E-06 6.86E-05 7.11E-05 6.76E-05 1.39EP,P'-DDT 1.80E+01 8.00E-01 4.00E+00 2.15E-06 8.26E-04 8.29E-04 1.22E-04 9.50EPHENANTHRENE 5.30E+01 5.00E+01 1.50E+02 5.55E-05 7.18E-06 6.26E-05 3.58E-04 4.21EPYRENE 4.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 2.49E-05 0.00E+00 2.49E-05 2.70E-04 2.95ESILVER 2.60E+00 2.22E+01 2.22E+02 6.27E-06 5.03E-04 5.09E-04 1.76E-05 5.27EVANADIUM 3.10E+01 1.34E+00 2.10E+00 4.11E-07 1.41E-04 1.41E-04 2.09E-04 3.51EZINC 4.76E+02 3.80E+01 1.10E+02 3.57E-04 3.29E-02 3.33E-02 3.22E-03 3.65E

Hazard Index for LPAHs 5.33E-05 7.25E-07 5.40E-05 2.80E-04 3.34E

89 of 104

005708
Table 39 Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations Equation

HQs for the Coyote in the Upland Area Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Soil IntakeState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Incidental Soil Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISFAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Coyote WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.53E-02 Conc COC = the estimated exposure concentration of the COC in AUF - area use factor (exposure 5.32E-03 Food Intake = Conc. COC * FIR * AUF * (( PF * BAFP ) + (VPF* BAFVPF - plant fraction 1.00E-02 WhereTIF - terrestrial invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00 BAFP = bioaccumulation factor for plantsVPF - vertebrate prey fraction 9.90E-01 BAFV = bioaccumulation factor for vertebratesISF - incidental soil ingestion 2.80E-02

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Surface 

Soil 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Terrestrial 

Plant

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Vertebrates

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Soil Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total D

(summ

med

intak

Hazard Index for HPAHs 6.88E-05 0.00E+00 6.88E-05 1.18E-03 1.24E

Notes:LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chemical per kilogram HPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hy body weight of receptor per day

90 of 104

005709
Table 40

Analysis of Risk to Benthic Invertebrates in the Lake Sabine - IntertidalBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

COPC Units

# 

Samples

# 

Detects FOD

Minimum 

Detect

Maximu 

Detect

Primary 

Effect 

Screening 

Level

Maximum HQ - 

Primary Effect 

Level

# Nondetects > 

Primary 

Effect Level

# Detects > 

Primary 

Effect 

Level

Secondary 

Effect 

Screening 

Level

Maximum 

HQ - 

Secondary 

Effect Level

# Nondetects > 

Secondary 

Effect Level

# Detects > 

Secondary 

Effect Level

Magnitude 

Primary 

Effect 

Exceedan

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL MG/KG 9 0 0.00% -- -- 0.029 -- 1 0 -- -- -- -- <10 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE MG/KG 9 7 77.78% 0.0034 0.091 0.07 1.3 0 1 0.67 0.1358 0 0 <10 

ACENAPHTHENE MG/KG 9 8 88.89% 0.0014 0.098 0.016 6.125 1 2 0.5 0.196 0 0 <10 

ACENAPHTHYLENE MG/KG 9 7 77.78% 0.0045 0.035 0.044 0.7955 0 0 0.64 0.05469 0 0 <10 

ACETOPHENONE MG/KG 9 2 22.22% 0.0033 0.043 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

ANTHRACENE MG/KG 9 5 55.56% 0.0052 0.1 0.0853 1.172 0 1 1.1 0.09091 0 0 <10 ANTIMONY MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 0.2 16.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

ARSENIC MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 1.8 13.7 8.2 1.671 0 3 70 0.1957 0 0 <10 

BARIUM MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 10.8 83.6 48 1.742 0 4 -- -- -- -- <10 

BENZALDEHYDE MG/KG 9 3 33.33% 0.0085 0.11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE MG/KG 9 0 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

BERYLLIUM MG/KG 9 2 22.22% 0.24 0.33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHA MG/KG 9 0 0.00% -- -- 0.182 -- 3 0 2.647 -- 1 0 <10 CADMIUM MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 0.08 1.49 1.2 1.242 0 3 9.6 0.1552 0 0 <10 

CALCIUM MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 250 172000 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

CAPROLACTAM MG/KG 9 1 11.11% 0.11 0.11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

CARBAZOLE MG/KG 9 4 44.44% 0.011 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

CHROMIUM, TOTAL MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 2.2 87.2 81 1.077 0 1 370 0.2357 0 0 <10 

COPPER MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 5 313 34 9.206 0 5 270 1.159 0 1 <10 

CYANIDE MG/KG 9 4 44.44% 0.27 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

FLUORENE MG/KG 9 4 44.44% 0.012 0.11 0.019 5.789 0 2 0.54 0.2037 0 0 <10 

LEAD MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 14.1 942 46.7 20.17 0 5 218 4.321 0 2 <10 

MAGNESIUM MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 189 3620 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

MANGANESE MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 66.3 1500 260 5.769 0 5 -- -- -- -- <10 

MERCURY MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 0.016 0.18 0.15 1.2 0 1 0.71 0.2535 0 0 <10 NAPHTHALENE MG/KG 9 7 77.78% 0.014 0.4 0.16 2.5 0 5 2.1 0.1905 0 0 <10 

NICKEL MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 2.82 85 20.9 4.067 0 2 51.6 1.647 0 1 <10 

PENTACHLOROPHENOL MG/KG 9 2 22.22% 0.082 0.16 0.36 0.4444 0 0 -- -- -- -- <10 

PHENANTHRENE MG/KG 9 7 77.78% 0.0049 0.32 0.24 1.333 0 2 1.5 0.2133 0 0 <10 

POTASSIUM MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 76.4 1230 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

SELENIUM MG/KG 9 8 88.89% 0.18 5.9 1 5.9 1 3 -- -- -- -- <10 

SODIUM MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 584 1560 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <10 

ZINC MG/KG 9 9 100.00% 25.5 594 150 3.96 0 5 410 1.449 0 1 <10 Notes:-- = 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 / Benchmark

91 of 104

005710
Table 41

Analysis of Risk to Benthic Invertebrates in the Lake Sabine - NearshoreBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

COPC Units

# 

Samples

# 

Detects FOD

Minimum 

Detect

Maximu 

Detect

Primary 

Effect 

Screening 

Level

Maximum 

HQ - 

Primary 

Effect 

Level

# Non-detects 

> Primary 

Effect Level

# Detects > 

Primary 

Effect Level

Secondary 

Effect 

Screening 

Level

Maximum 

HQ - 

Secondary 

Effect Level

# Nondetects > 

Secondary 

Effect Level

# Detects 

Seconda

Effect Lev

ACENAPHTHENE MG/KG 41 6 14.63% 0.0042 0.58 0.016 36.25 4 3 0.5 1.16 0 1 

ACENAPHTHYLENE MG/KG 41 6 14.63% 0.0037 0.12 0.044 2.727 6 1 0.64 0.1875 0 0 

ACETOPHENONE MG/KG 41 1 2.44% 0.0057 0.0057 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ANTHRACENE MG/KG 41 15 36.59% 0.002 2 0.0853 23.45 4 2 1.1 1.818 0 1 

ARSENIC MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 1.6 11.7 8.2 1.427 0 2 70 0.1671 0 0 BARIUM MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 12.2 220 48 4.583 0 20 -- -- -- -- 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE MG/KG 41 14 34.15% 0.024 0.064 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BERYLLIUM MG/KG 45 35 77.78% 0.1 2.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) MG/KG 6 0 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) MG/KG 6 0 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) MG/KG 6 0 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) MG/KG 6 1 16.67% 0.0034 0.0034 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MG/KG 41 3 7.32% 0.047 0.26 0.182 1.429 1 1 2.647 0.09822 0 0 BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE MG/KG 41 19 46.34% 0.006 4.1 0.26 15.77 0 3 1.6 2.562 0 1 

BENZALDEHYDE MG/KG 41 1 2.44% 0.037 0.037 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BENZO(A)PYRENE MG/KG 41 22 53.66% 0.026 2.3 0.43 5.349 0 2 1.6 1.437 0 1 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE MG/KG 41 25 60.98% 0.017 3.6 1.7 2.118 0 1 9.6 0.375 0 0 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE MG/KG 41 19 46.34% 0.021 1.9 1.7 1.118 0 1 9.6 0.1979 0 0 

CALCIUM MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 227 30500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CAPROLACTAM MG/KG 41 2 4.88% 0.037 0.051 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CARBAZOLE MG/KG 41 10 24.39% 0.0068 0.31 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CHRYSENE MG/KG 41 19 46.34% 0.01 3.9 0.384 10.16 0 3 2.8 1.393 0 1 

COBALT MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 1.5 21.2 10 2.12 0 3 -- -- -- -- 

COPPER MG/KG 45 44 97.78% 1.4 312 34 9.176 0 3 270 1.156 0 1 

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE MG/KG 41 8 19.51% 0.019 0.23 0.0634 3.628 4 1 0.26 0.8846 0 0 DIBENZOFURAN MG/KG 41 5 12.20% 0.0028 0.36 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE MG/KG 41 2 4.88% 0.046 0.075 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL MG/KG 41 0 0.00% -- -- 0.029 -- 6 0 -- -- -- -- 

FLUORENE MG/KG 41 6 14.63% 0.0065 0.79 0.019 41.58 4 3 0.54 1.463 0 1 FLUORANTHENE MG/KG 41 25 60.98% 0.0032 9.1 0.6 15.17 0 2 5.1 1.784 0 1 

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE MG/KG 41 0 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MERCURY MG/KG 45 11 24.44% 0.011 0.045 0.15 0.3 7 0 0.71 0.06338 0 0 POTASSIUM MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 127 2340 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

2-METHYLPHENOL (O-CRESOL) MG/KG 41 0 0.00% -- -- 0.063 -- 6 0 -- -- -- -- 

MAGNESIUM MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 236 4240 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MANGANESE MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 35.2 1270 260 4.885 0 10 -- -- -- -- 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE MG/KG 41 5 12.20% 0.0027 0.011 0.07 0.1571 6 0 0.67 0.01642 0 0 SODIUM MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 432 5450 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

NAPHTHALENE MG/KG 41 7 17.07% 0.0046 0.014 0.16 0.0875 6 0 2.1 0.006667 0 0 

NICKEL MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 1.5 26.4 20.9 1.263 0 2 51.6 0.5116 0 0 NITROBENZENE MG/KG 41 0 0.00% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LEAD MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 4.3 362 46.7 7.752 0 2 218 1.661 0 1 PHENANTHRENE MG/KG 41 21 51.22% 0.0027 7.1 0.24 29.58 0 2 1.5 4.733 0 2 

PYRENE MG/KG 41 25 60.98% 0.0023 8.8 0.665 13.23 0 3 2.6 3.385 0 1 

SELENIUM MG/KG 45 21 46.67% 0.13 0.89 1 0.89 3 0 -- -- -- -- 

THALLIUM MG/KG 45 2 4.44% 1 2.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ZINC MG/KG 45 45 100.00% 14.2 3910 150 26.07 0 2 410 9.537 0 2 

Notes:-- = Not available Compounds were identified as COCs if the magnitude of exceedance exceeded 10 or if the frequency of exceedance exceeded 20 %mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram HQ = Hazard Quotient = Maximum Detect / Benchmark

92 of 104

005711
Table 42

Analysis of Risk to Benthic Invertebrates in the Lake Sabine - OffshoreBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

COPC Units

# 

Samples

# 

Detects FOD

Minimum 

Detect

Maximu 

Detect

Primary 

Effect 

Screening 

Level

Maximum 

HQ - 

Primary 

Effect 

Level

# Non-detects 

> Primary 

Effect Level

# Detects > 

Primary 

Effect Level

Secondary 

Effect 

Screening 

Level

Maximum 

HQ - 

Secondary 

Effect Level

# Nondetects > 

Secondary 

Effect Level

# Detects > 

Secondary 

Effect Level

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE MG/KG 11 4 36.36% 0.031 0.049 

ARSENIC MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 2.9 8.9 8.2 1.085 0 1 70 0.1271 0 0 BARIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 24.5 115 48 2.396 0 4 BENZALDEHYDE MG/KG 11 1 9.09% 0.039 0.039 BERYLLIUM MG/KG 11 10 90.91% 0.2 0.89 CALCIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 247 5580 CAPROLACTAM MG/KG 11 1 9.09% 0.039 0.039 MAGNESIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 320 4300 MANGANESE MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 51.8 745 260 2.865 0 8 NICKEL MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 2.23 44.1 20.9 2.11 0 1 51.6 0.8547 0 0 POTASSIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 202 2460 SELENIUM MG/KG 11 3 27.27% 0.27 0.59 1 0.59 0 0 SODIUM MG/KG 11 11 100.00% 705 5200 Notes:-- = 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 / Benchmark

93 of 104

005712
Table 43

HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine - Intertidal Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment Intake

Incidental Sediment Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Spotted Sandpiper WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.24E-01 ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the COCSUF - area use factor X site use factor 1.00E-01 in sediment at the site (mg/kg)PF - plant fraction 0.00E+00 Food Intake = FIR * AUF * ConcSed*( AIF * BAFI )AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction 1.00E+00 WhereFPF - fish prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFI = bioaccumulation factor for invertebratesISF - incidental sediment ingestion fraction 1.80E-01

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Sediment 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Invertebrate

s 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Sediment 

Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total D

(summa

media in

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 9.10E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 8.06E-03 8.06E-03 6.94E-04 8.75E-2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 3.50E-02 NA NA 1.48E-03 1.48E-03 2.67E-04 1.75E-

ACENAPHTHENE 9.80E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 8.47E-03 8.47E-03 7.48E-04 9.22E-ACENAPHTHYLENE 3.50E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.41E-03 2.41E-03 2.67E-04 2.67E-ACETOPHENONE 4.30E-02 NA NA 1.82E-03 1.82E-03 3.28E-04 2.15E-

ANTIMONY 1.61E+01 NA NA 6.82E-01 6.82E-01 1.23E-01 8.05E-ANTHRACENE 1.00E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 8.09E-04 8.09E-04 7.63E-04 1.57E-ARSENIC 1.37E+01 9.30E+00 4.00E+01 5.81E-01 5.81E-01 1.04E-01 6.85E-BARIUM 4.59E+01 2.08E+01 4.17E+01 1.95E+00 1.95E+00 3.50E-01 2.30E+BENZALDEHYDE 1.10E-01 NA NA 4.66E-03 4.66E-03 8.39E-04 5.50E-

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 1.70E-01 NA NA 7.20E-03 7.20E-03 1.30E-03 8.50E-

BERYLLIUM 3.30E-01 NA NA 6.29E-04 6.29E-04 2.52E-03 3.15E-

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 3.00E+00 1.11E+00 NA 1.27E-01 1.27E-01 2.29E-02 1.50E-CADMIUM 1.49E+00 6.10E-01 2.40E+00 7.58E-03 7.58E-03 1.14E-02 1.89E-CAPROLACTAM 1.10E-01 NA NA 4.66E-03 4.66E-03 8.39E-04 5.50E-

CARBAZOLE 2.00E-01 NA NA 8.48E-03 8.48E-03 1.53E-03 1.00E-

CHROMIUM, TOTAL 8.72E+01 1.00E+00 5.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.65E-01 6.65E-COPPER 2.14E+01 4.70E+00 6.17E+00 1.85E-01 1.85E-01 1.64E-01 3.48E-CYANIDE 5.50E-01 4.00E-02 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.20E-03 4.20E-FLUORENE 1.10E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.62E+00 3.62E+00 8.39E-04 3.62E+LEAD 2.04E+02 3.85E+00 6.25E+00 8.16E-01 8.16E-01 1.56E+00 2.37E+MANGANESE 1.50E+03 9.80E+01 9.77E+02 6.36E+01 6.36E+01 1.14E+01 7.50E+MERCURY 1.80E-01 6.80E-02 3.70E-01 1.24E-02 1.24E-02 1.37E-03 1.37E-NAPHTHALENE 4.00E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 3.05E-03 2.67E+NICKEL 8.50E+01 7.74E+01 1.07E+02 5.98E-01 5.98E-01 6.48E-01 1.25E+PENTACHLOROPHENOL 1.60E-01 2.92E+00 4.86E+00 6.78E-03 6.78E-03 1.22E-03 8.00E-SELENIUM 2.97E+00 4.00E-01 8.00E-01 1.47E-01 1.47E-01 2.27E-02 1.70E-ZINC 5.94E+02 1.45E+01 1.31E+02 6.27E-01 6.27E-01 4.53E+00 5.16E+Notes: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 day LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH 

94 of 104

005713
Table 44

HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine - Near Shore Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment Intake

Incidental Sediment Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Spotted Sandpiper Where

FIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.24E-01 ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the SUF - area use factor X site use factor 4.00E-01 in sediment at the site (mg/kg)

PF - plant fraction 0.00E+00 Food Intake = FIR * AUF * ConcSed*( AIF * BAFI )

AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction 1.00E+00 WhereFPF - fish prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFI = bioaccumulation factor for invertebrates

ISF - incidental sediment ingestion 1.80E-01Contaminat of Potential Concern

Sediment 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Invertebrate

s 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Sediment 

Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Dos

(summary 

media intak

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 7.50E-02 NA NA 1.27E-02 1.27E-02 2.29E-03 1.50E-02 

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 1.10E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.90E-03 3.90E-03 3.36E-04 4.23E-03 ACENAPHTHENE 5.80E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 2.01E-01 2.01E-01 1.77E-02 2.18E-01 ACENAPHTHYLENE 1.20E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.30E-02 3.30E-02 3.66E-03 3.67E-02 ACETOPHENONE 5.70E-03 NA NA 9.66E-04 9.66E-04 1.74E-04 1.14E-03 

ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

1.70E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 1.61E-03 1.61E-03 5.19E-05 1.66E-03 

ANTHRACENE 2.00E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 6.47E-02 6.47E-02 6.10E-02 1.26E-01 ARSENIC 1.17E+01 9.30E+00 4.00E+01 1.98E+00 1.98E+00 3.57E-01 2.34E+00 BARIUM 6.40E+01 2.08E+01 4.17E+01 1.08E+01 1.08E+01 1.95E+00 1.28E+01 BENZALDEHYDE 3.70E-02 NA NA 6.27E-03 6.27E-03 1.13E-03 7.40E-03 

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 4.10E+00 1.96E+01 NA 2.49E-01 2.49E-01 1.25E-01 3.74E-01 BENZO(A)PYRENE 2.30E+00 1.96E+01 NA 4.95E-02 4.95E-02 7.02E-02 1.20E-01 BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 3.60E+00 1.96E+01 NA 9.15E-02 9.15E-02 1.10E-01 2.01E-01 BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 2.40E-01 1.96E+01 NA 8.75E-03 8.75E-03 7.32E-03 1.61E-02 BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 1.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 6.76E-02 6.76E-02 5.80E-02 1.26E-01 BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE 6.40E-02 NA NA 1.08E-02 1.08E-02 1.95E-03 1.28E-02 

BERYLLIUM 2.70E+00 NA NA 2.06E-02 2.06E-02 8.24E-02 1.03E-01 BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

1.70E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 3.22E-03 3.22E-03 5.19E-05 3.27E-03 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 2.60E-01 1.11E+00 NA 4.41E-02 4.41E-02 7.93E-03 5.20E-02 CAPROLACTAM 5.10E-02 NA NA 8.64E-03 8.64E-03 1.56E-03 1.02E-02 

CARBAZOLE 3.10E-01 NA NA 5.25E-02 5.25E-02 9.46E-03 6.20E-02 

CHRYSENE 3.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 1.31E-01 1.31E-01 1.19E-01 2.50E-01 COBALT 8.46E+00 1.30E+00 NA 1.75E-01 1.75E-01 2.58E-01 4.33E-01 

95 of 104

005714
Table 44

HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine - Near Shore Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment Intake

Incidental Sediment Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Spotted Sandpiper Where

FIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.24E-01 ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the SUF - area use factor X site use factor 4.00E-01 in sediment at the site (mg/kg)

PF - plant fraction 0.00E+00 Food Intake = FIR * AUF * ConcSed*( AIF * BAFI )

AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction 1.00E+00 WhereFPF - fish prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFI = bioaccumulation factor for invertebrates

ISF - incidental sediment ingestion 1.80E-01Contaminat of Potential Concern

Sediment 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Invertebrate

s 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Sediment 

Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Dos

(summary 

media intak

COPPER 1.56E+01 4.70E+00 6.17E+00 5.37E-01 5.37E-01 4.75E-01 1.01E+00 DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE)

1.70E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 3.22E-03 3.22E-03 5.19E-05 3.27E-03 

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 2.30E-01 1.96E+01 NA 8.15E-03 8.15E-03 7.02E-03 1.52E-02 DIBENZOFURAN 3.60E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 6.10E-02 6.10E-02 1.10E-02 7.20E-02 FLUORANTHENE 9.10E+00 1.96E+01 NA 3.27E-01 3.27E-01 2.78E-01 6.05E-01 FLUORENE 7.90E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 1.04E+02 1.04E+02 2.41E-02 1.04E+02 

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) 3.40E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 3.22E-03 3.22E-03 1.04E-04 3.33E-03 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 1.70E-01 3.39E+00 NA 2.88E-02 2.88E-02 5.19E-03 3.40E-02 INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE 3.40E-01 1.96E+01 NA 9.97E-03 9.97E-03 1.04E-02 2.03E-02 LEAD 2.22E+01 3.85E+00 6.25E+00 3.55E-01 3.55E-01 6.77E-01 1.03E+00 MANGANESE 1.27E+03 9.80E+01 9.77E+02 2.15E+02 2.15E+02 3.87E+01 2.54E+02 MERCURY 4.50E-02 6.80E-02 3.70E-01 1.24E-02 1.24E-02 1.37E-03 1.37E-02 NAPHTHALENE 1.40E-02 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 3.73E-01 3.73E-01 4.27E-04 3.74E-01 NICKEL 2.64E+01 7.74E+01 1.07E+02 7.43E-01 7.43E-01 8.05E-01 1.55E+00 NITROBENZENE 1.70E-01 NA NA 6.02E-02 6.02E-02 5.19E-03 6.54E-02 PHENANTHRENE 2.37E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 5.81E+01 5.81E+01 7.23E-03 5.81E+01 PYRENE 8.80E+00 1.96E+01 NA 6.49E-01 6.49E-01 2.68E-01 9.17E-01 SELENIUM 3.71E-01 4.00E-01 8.00E-01 7.36E-02 7.36E-02 1.13E-02 8.49E-02 THALLIUM 5.42E-01 5.30E-02 5.30E-01 9.19E-02 9.19E-02 1.65E-02 1.08E-01 ZINC 1.54E+02 1.45E+01 1.31E+02 6.50E-01 6.50E-01 4.70E+00 5.35E+00 Hazard Index for LPAHs 1.04E+02 1.04E+02 1.18E-01 1.04E+02 Hazard Index for HPAHs 9.42E-01 9.42E-01 7.84E-01 1.73E+00 

Notes:HPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mg/kg-bw/d: milligrams chem

96 of 104

005715
Table 44

HQs for the Spotted Sandpiper in the Lake Sabine - Near Shore Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment Intake

Incidental Sediment Intake = FIR * AUF * Conc. COC * ISF

Assumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Spotted Sandpiper Where

FIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 4.24E-01 ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the SUF - area use factor X site use factor 4.00E-01 in sediment at the site (mg/kg)

PF - plant fraction 0.00E+00 Food Intake = FIR * AUF * ConcSed*( AIF * BAFI )

AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction 1.00E+00 WhereFPF - fish prey fraction 0.00E+00 BAFI = bioaccumulation factor for invertebrates

ISF - incidental sediment ingestion 1.80E-01Contaminat of Potential Concern

Sediment 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrat

ion (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical 

Intake from 

Invertebrate

s 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Sediment 

Medium 

Intake

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Dos

(summary 

media intak

LPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH body weight of receptor per 

97 of 104

005716
Table 45

HQ Summary for the Spotted SandpiperBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Total Multi-Media

NOAEL 

Hazard Quotient all 

Exposure Areas

Contaminat of Potential Concern Lake Sabine - Intertidal Lake Sabine - Near Shore Lake Sabine - Intertidal Lake Sa

Near S

2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 2.69E-04 1.30E-04 4.00E-04 2.69E-05 1.30E

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA 4-METHYLPHENOL (P-CRESOL) NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA ACENAPHTHENE 2.84E-04 6.72E-03 7.00E-03 2.84E-05 6.72E

ACENAPHTHYLENE 8.22E-05 1.13E-03 1.21E-03 8.22E-06 1.13E

ACETOPHENONE NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA ALPHA BHC (ALPHA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE NA 8.31E-04 8.31E-04 NA 8.31E

ANTHRACENE 4.84E-05 3.87E-03 3.92E-03 4.84E-06 3.87E

ANTIMONY NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA BARIUM 1.10E-01 6.15E-01 7.25E-01 5.51E-02 3.07EBENZALDEHYDE NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE NA 1.91E-02 1.91E-02 NA NA 

BENZO(A)PYRENE NA 6.11E-03 6.11E-03 NA NA 

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE NA 1.03E-02 1.03E-02 NA NA 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE NA 8.20E-04 8.20E-04 NA NA 

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE NA 6.41E-03 6.41E-03 NA NA 

BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA BERYLLIUM NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA BERYLLIUM NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA BETA BHC (BETA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) NA 1.64E-03 1.64E-03 NA 1.64E

BIPHENYL (DIPHENYL) NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA 

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 1.35E-01 4.68E-02 1.82E-01 NA NA 

CAPROLACTAM NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA 

CARBAZOLE NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA CHRYSENE NA 1.27E-02 1.27E-02 NA NA 

COBALT NA 3.33E-01 3.33E-01 NA NA 

COPPER 7.41E-02 2.15E-01 2.90E-01 5.64E-02 1.64E

CYANIDE 1.05E-01 NA 1.05E-01 1.05E-02 NA DELTA BHC (DELTA HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE) NA 1.64E-03 1.64E-03 NA 1.64E

DIBENZOFURAN NA 2.22E-03 2.22E-03 NA 2.22EFLUORANTHENE NA 3.08E-02 3.08E-02 NA NA 

FLUORENE 1.11E-01 3.20E+00 3.31E+00 1.11E-02 3.20E

GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) NA 1.66E-03 1.66E-03 NA 1.66E

HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE NA 1.00E-02 1.00E-02 NA NA 

INDENO(1,2,3-C,D)PYRENE NA 1.04E-03 1.04E-03 NA NA IRON NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA LEAD 6.16E-01 2.68E-01 8.84E-01 3.80E-01 1.65E

MANGANESE 7.65E-01 2.59E+00 3.36E+00 7.68E-02 2.60E

MERCURY 2.02E-01 2.02E-01 4.04E-01 3.72E-02 3.72E

Multi-Media NOAEL Hazard Quotients Multi-Media LOAEL Hazard Q

98 of 104

005717
Table 45

HQ Summary for the Spotted SandpiperBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Total Multi-Media

NOAEL 

Hazard Quotient all 

Exposure Areas

Contaminat of Potential Concern Lake Sabine - Intertidal Lake Sabine - Near Shore Lake Sabine - Intertidal Lake Sa

Near S

Multi-Media NOAEL Hazard Quotients Multi-Media LOAEL Hazard Q

NAPHTHALENE 8.22E-02 1.15E-02 9.37E-02 8.22E-03 1.15E

NICKEL 1.61E-02 2.00E-02 3.61E-02 1.17E-02 1.45ENITROBENZENE NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA 

PENTACHLOROPHENOL 2.74E-03 NA 2.74E-03 1.65E-03 NA 

PHENANTHRENE NA 1.79E+00 1.79E+00 NA 1.79EPYRENE NA 4.68E-02 4.68E-02 NA NA 

SELENIUM 4.25E-01 2.12E-01 6.37E-01 2.12E-01 1.06ETHALLIUM NA 2.05E+00 2.05E+00 NA 2.05E

TRIBUTYLTIN NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA 

VANADIUM NA NA 0.00E+00 NA NA 

ZINC 3.56E-01 3.69E-01 7.24E-01 3.94E-02 4.08E

Hazard Index for LPAHs NA 5.01E+00 5.01E+00 NA 5.01EHazard Index for HPAHs NA 1.35E-01 1.35E-01 NA 0.00E

99 of 104

005718
Table 46

HQs for the Kingfisher in Lake Sabine Hazard Quotient Calculation Equations EquationBaseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient = Total Dose / TRVState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX Total Dose = Food Intake + Incidental Sediment IntakeAssumptions used in Risk Calculation for the Belted Kingfisher WhereFIR - food ingestion rate (kg/kg bw/d) 1.14E-01 ConcSed = the estimated exposure concentration of the AUF - area use factor (exposure area 2.05E-01 in sediment at the site (mg/kg)

PF - plant fraction 0.00E+00 Food Intake = FIR * AUF *ConcSed*( BSAF * FPFI )

AIF - aquatic invertebrate fraction 0.00E+00 WhereFPF - fish prey fraction 1.00E+00 BSAF = biota sediment accumulation factorISF - incidental sediment ingestion 0.00E+00

Contaminat of Potential Concern

Chemical 

Group

Sediment

Exposure 

Point 

Concentrati

on (mg/kg)

NOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

LOAEL

RTVwild

(mg/kg bw/d)

Chemical

Intake from 

Fish (using 

BSAF)

(mg/kg bw/d)

Food Medium 

Intake 

(mg/kg bw/d)

Total Dose

(summary o

media intak

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE SVOC 7.50E-02 NA NA 1.74E-03 1.74E-03 1.74E-03 ACENAPHTHENE LPAH 5.80E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ACETOPHENONE SVOC 4.30E-02 NA NA 1.00E-03 1.00E-03 1.00E-03 ANTHRACENE LPAH 2.00E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ANTIMONY MET 1.61E+01 NA NA 1.17E+00 1.17E+00 1.17E+00 

BARIUM MET 1.15E+02 2.08E+01 4.17E+01 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 BENZALDEHYDE SVOC 1.10E-01 NA NA 2.56E-03 2.56E-03 2.56E-03 BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE HPAH 4.10E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BENZO(A)PYRENE HPAH 2.30E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE HPAH 3.60E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE HPAH 1.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE SVOC 1.70E-01 NA NA 3.81E+00 3.81E+00 3.81E+00 BERYLLIUM MET 2.70E+00 NA NA 1.19E+00 1.19E+00 1.19E+00 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE SVOC 2.00E-01 1.11E+00 NA 4.65E-03 4.65E-03 4.65E-03 CAPROLACTAM SVOC 1.10E-01 NA NA 2.56E-03 2.56E-03 2.56E-03 CARBAZOLE SVOC 3.10E-01 NA NA 7.21E-03 7.21E-03 7.21E-03 CHRYSENE HPAH 3.90E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 COBALT MET 8.46E+00 1.30E+00 6.17E+00 1.97E-01 1.97E-01 1.97E-01 COPPER MET 7.05E+01 4.70E+00 6.17E+00 1.85E+00 1.85E+00 1.85E+00 CYANIDE MET 5.50E-01 4.00E-02 4.00E-01 1.28E-02 1.28E-02 1.28E-02 DIBENZOFURAN LPAH 3.60E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FLUORANTHENE HPAH 9.10E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FLUORENE LPAH 7.90E-01 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 GAMMA BHC (LINDANE) PEST 3.40E-03 2.00E+00 2.00E+01 5.78E-04 5.78E-04 5.78E-04 LEAD MET 1.50E+02 3.85E+00 6.25E+00 3.48E+00 3.48E+00 3.48E+00 MERCURY MET 1.80E-01 6.80E-02 3.70E-01 1.35E-02 1.35E-02 1.35E-02 NICKEL MET 8.50E+01 7.74E+01 1.07E+02 9.88E-02 9.88E-02 9.88E-02 

100 of 104

005719
PHENANTHRENE LPAH 7.10E+00 3.25E+01 3.25E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 

PYRENE HPAH 8.80E+00 1.96E+01 NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SELENIUM MET 5.90E+00 4.00E-01 8.00E-01 1.69E-01 1.69E-01 1.69E-01 

THALLIUM MET 5.42E-01 5.30E-02 5.30E-01 1.26E-02 1.26E-02 1.26E-02 ZINC MET 3.91E+03 1.45E+01 1.31E+02 1.04E+02 1.04E+02 1.04E+02 

Hazard Index for LPAHs 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 

Hazard Index for HPAHs 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 

Notes:MET: metal HPAH: high molecular weight (>200 atomic mass units) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) PEST = pestiLPAH: low molecular weight (<200 atomic mass units) PAH SVOC = sem

101 of 104

005720
Table 48

Summary of Chemicals of Potential ConcernBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Assessment Endpoint Guild (Food Web) Representative 

Species

Measurement Endpoints Exposure Routes Null Hypotheses H

A

1. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of herbivorous birds that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Herbivorous Bird(Terrestrial)

northern bobwhite quail

Comparison of exposure doses to NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceed 

survival, growth, reproduction, or other relevant NOAELs or LOAELs

A

2. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of omnivorous mammals that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Omnivorous Mammal (Terrestrial)

white-footed mouse Comparison of exposure doses to 

NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceed 

survival, growth, reproduction, or other relevant NOAELs or LOAELs

R

3. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of carnivorous mammals that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Carnivorous Mammal (Terrestrial)

coyote Comparison of exposure doses to 

NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceed 

survival, growth, reproduction, or other relevant NOAELs or LOAELs

A

4. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of benthic invertebrates that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Benthic Invertebrates (Aquatic)

NA Comparison of concentrations of 

chemicals in on-site surface sediment to literature-based screening levels

Direct exposure, ingestion measured concentrations do not 

exceed literature-based screening levels

R

5. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of insectivorous shore birds that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Insectivorous Shore Bird (Aquatic)

spotted sandpiper Comparison of exposure doses to 

NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceed 

survival, growth, reproduction, or other relevant NOAELs or LOAELs

A

6. Impairment of growth, reproduction, or survival of populations of carnivorous shore birds that use the habitat on-site due to exposure to COCs attributable to the site

Carnivorous Bird (Aquatic)

belted kingfisher Comparison of exposure doses to 

NOAELs or LOAELs based on published values for survival, growth and reproduction 

Direct exposure, ingestion Exposure doses do not exceed 

survival, growth, reproduction, or other relevant NOAELs or LOAELs

A

Notes:NA = not applicableNOAEL = no observed adverse effect levelLOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level95th UCL = 95th percent upper confidence level

102 of 104

005721
Table 49

Preliminary Remediation GoalsBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

Parameter Medium sis of Lower and Upper Ran

Lower 

Range 

PRG

Upper 

Range 

PRG

Final 

PRG

DIELDRIN soil white-footed mouse TRVs 5.90E-02 5.90E-01 3.25E-0

ENDRIN ALDEHYDE soil white-footed mouse TRVs 3.44E-02 3.44E-01 1.89E-0

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE soil white-footed mouse TRVs 1.39E-01 1.39E+00 7.66E-0

LEAD sediment ERLs and ERMs 4.67E+01 2.18E+02 1.32E+0

103 of 104

005722
Table 50

Calculation of Groundwater to Sediment Screening Value for LeadBaseline Ecological Risk AssessmentState Marine Superfund Site, Port Arthur, TX

SedGW = SedRBEL * Ksed-w*SWMF

where:

SedGW = Groundwater-sediment protection PCL (mg COC/L groundwater) 8.25E-0SedRBEL = Risk-based exposure limit for sediment (mg COC/kg sediment) 132

Ksed-w = Sediment-groundwater partition coefficient (mg/L-groundwater/mg/kg-sediment) 4.17E-0

 = ρsed/(Θ+Kdρsed)

ρsed = Sediment bulk density (g-soil/cm3-sediment) as dry weight 1.67

Θ = Total Sediment Porosity (cm3-por space/cm3-sediment) 0.37

Kd = Sediment-water sorption coefficient (g-H2O/g-sediment) 24000

SWMF = Surface water mixing factor (unitless) 0.15

104 of 104

005723
Figures 

005724
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.) 

005725
Primary Release

Primary and Transport Secondary Secondary Release and Exposure Identified Receptors a

Source Mechanisms Source Transport Mechanism Media Exposure Rout

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 - lillies, reeds, sedges, epiphytes, periphytes, 

phytoplankton

Ambient Air DD D D D D

Surface Soil D D/I D/I D/I D/I D/I

Plants I I D/I I I

Prey III I

Surface Water - 

Lake Sabine D/I D/I D

Sediment - Lake 

Sabine D D 

LegendI = Ingestion

Prey Species I 

D = Direct ContactA = InhalationExposure pathways shown in BOLD are complete but were notevaluated due to lack of significance or data for evaluation

 Denotes a complete insignificant pathway Denotes a complete significant pathway

FIGURE 1Conceptual Site Model for Pathways to Ecological ReceptorsState Marine Superfund Site

Terrestrial Plant UptakeTerrestrial Prey Uptake 

Aquatic Prey Uptake 

from Sediments and Water

Suspended 

Solids/ 

Stormwater

Leaching

Groundwater

Overland 

flow

Volatilization and 

Dust Emissions

Historic Releases 

During 

Manufacturing 

Processes, Waste 

Materials, and 

Affected Soil

DRAFT - Discussion Purposes Only 1 of 1

005726
BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT 

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 

005727
Carnivorous Mammals

Coyote*, Red Fox*, Badger, Spotted 

Skunk, Bobcat

Car

Eastern 

Figure 2

Terrestrial Foodweb

State Marine Superfund Site

Omnivorous Mammals

White-footed mouse, Least 

Shrew*, Nine-Banded Armadillo

Omnivorous Amphibians/Reptiles

Various Bufo sp., Omate Box Turtle*

Invertebrates

Arachnids, Gastropods, Oligochaetes, 

Insects, Nematodes

Terrestrial Plants

Bermuda grass, Brazilian Vervain, Common reed, 

Southern Dewberry, Goldenrod, Giant Ragweed, 

Chinese tallow, Black willow

Soil

Nutrients, Detritus

TROPHIC 

LEVEL 1

TROPHIC 

LEVEL 2

TROPHIC 

LEVEL 3 TROPHIC 

LEVEL 4

* receptors with an asterisk are species (or closely related species) found in USEPA's Wildlife Exposure factors Handbook (1993)Receptors in Italics are selected as representative end point species for their respective guild s

005728
BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT 

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 

005729
Carnivorous Birds

Osprey, Brown or White 

Pelican, White Egrets, 

Great blue or Tricolored 

herons, Belted kingfisher*,

Figure 3

Marine Aquatic Foodweb

State Marine Superfund Site

Algae

Phyloplankton, Epiphytes, 

Periphytes

Water and Sediment

Nutrients, Detritus, Bacteria, Fungi

TROPHIC 

LEVEL 1

TROPHIC 

LEVEL 2

TROPHIC 

LEVEL 3

TROPHIC 

LEVEL 4

* receptors with an asterisk are species (or closely related species) found in USEPA's Wildlife Exposure factors Handbook (1993)Receptors in Italics are selected as representative end point species for their respective guild s

Aquatic Vegetation

Smooth cordgrass, Bull rush, Sea 

grasses

Benthic 

Invertebrates

Amphipods, Insect larvae,

 Gastropods, Bivalves, 

Shrimp, Crabs

WaterColumn 

Invertebrates

Copepods, Diatoms, 

Bivalve larvae, Shrimps, 

Larval crabs

Carnivorous Fish

Spotted sea trout, Red drum, 

Black drum

Omnivorous Birds

Gulls, Terns, Willets, 

Blacknecked stilt, Spotted 

Sandpiper

Omnivorous Amphibians/Reptiles

Diamond back, Terrapin

005730
BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT 

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 

005731
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

300 150 0 300

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 4

LEGEND

State Marine

Superfund Site

DATE: 7/13/2005

Note:

Text within labels that is Blue Area of Interest Exceeds the PRG for that Criteria.

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

005732
BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT 

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 

005733
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 50 0 100

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

005734
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 25 0 50

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

005735
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 25 0 50

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

005736
BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT 

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 

005737
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

200 100 0 200

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

005738
BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESMENT 

P:\US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\331756\TASK 7-RA\SM_BERA_VERSION 1.0\BLANK_PAGE.DOC JULY 2005 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 

005739
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 50 0 100

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

005740
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.) 

005741
Attachment 1 

005742
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.) 

005743
Introduction 

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

These included five soil and five sediment 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 nondetects, decisions with 

background comparisons with the organic 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 used 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 uncertainty 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 populations. 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 performed on the concentrations, which makes a 

distributional assumption about the data. 

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

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

an actual elevated shift in one. If this probability 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 groups will be determined to be statistically 

equivalent when they actually are. 

With a background data set of only five samples (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 site 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. 

005744
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 background. These are copper, lead, silver, and zinc. 

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

metals were. For sediment, all metals except 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 that 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 populations than scatter plots, particularly 

when a large number of data points cause individual 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 box 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 concentrations that exceed the whiskers. 

These principles are seen in the example box and whisker plots shown in Figure 4. The 

upper and lower edges of the box and the ends 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 labeled as part of the box. In this plot the 

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

1.5 x IQR from the box. The maximum values (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 examining 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 

005745
opportunity to visualize the comparisons between 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 Value

Concentration

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 individual 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 concentrations. 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 test was used for this). The size of the 

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

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

those accustomed to considering these thresholds. 

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

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

of UTLs depends on a distributional 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 environmental data sets, including background, 

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

005746
assuming normality tends to offer a lower calculated 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 normality 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 (unless 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 95th 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 background 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 n stxUPL 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 exceedances (of the UPL) when the number of 

site results to be compared is large (even more so than the UTL). Being closer to the 

005747
mean, it is often considered a more stable value than the UTL, but it also results in more 

exceedances by results equivalent to those in the background population (false 

indications of individual exceedances 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 the 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 95th percentile with small data sets. (It 

would not estimate the 95th percentile, with 95% confidence, unless about 60 background 

samples were available.) 

As would be expected, the number of exceedances 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 background 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. 

005748
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.) 

005749
5/5 9/9 43/43 11/11 21/63 63/63 5/5 9/9 

5/5 63/63 9/9 43/43 11/11 5/5 63/63 9/9 

Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected Inorganics

NS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship traffic

Bkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;

ALUMINUM

Concentration, mg/kg 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

ANTIMONY

Concentration, mg/kg 024681012141618

Bkgd ALL INT 

ARSENIC

Concentration, mg/kg 02468101214

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

BARIUM

Concentration, mg/kg 0 100 200 300

Bkgd ALL INT 

005750
2/5 2/9 33/43 10/11 55/63 45/63 5/5 9/9 

5/5 63/63 9/9 43/43 11/11 5/5 64/64 9/9 

Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected Inorganics

NS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship traffic

Bkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;

BERYLLIUM

Concentration, mg/kg 0123

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

CADMIUM

Concentration, mg/kg 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Bkgd ALL INT 

CALCIUM

Concentration, mg/kg 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

CHROMIUM, TOTA

Concentration, mg/kg 0102030405060708090

Bkgd ALL INT 

005751
5/5 9/9 44/44 11/11 63/64 64/64 0/5 9/9 

5/5 63/63 9/9 43/43 11/11 5/5 63/63 9/9 

Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected Inorganics

NS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship traffic

Bkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;

COBALT

Concentration, mg/kg 0102030

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

COPPER

Concentration, mg/kg 0 100 200 300 400

Bkgd ALL INT 

IRON

Concentration, mg/kg 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

LEAD

Concentration, mg/kg 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Bkgd ALL INT 

005752
5/5 9/9 43/43 11/11 63/63 63/63 5/5 9/9 

2/5 21/64 9/9 11/44 1/11 5/5 63/63 9/9 

Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected Inorganics

NS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship traffic

Bkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;

MAGNESIUM

Concentration, mg/kg 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

MANGANESE

Concentration, mg/kg 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Bkgd ALL INT 

MERCURY

Concentration, mg/kg 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

NICKEL

Concentration, mg/kg 0102030405060708090

Bkgd ALL INT 

005753
5/5 9/9 43/43 11/11 63/63 63/63 5/5 9/9 

5/5 63/63 9/9 43/43 11/11 5/5 63/63 9/9 

Figure 3: Sediment Box and Whisker Plots for Detected Inorganics

NS=Near shore Sediment (shallow sed to potential upland; OS=Off shore Sediment (parallel to navigation channel, ship traffic

Bkgd=Background; ALL=All Sediment Data; INT=Intertidal Sediment (top of bank to mean lower water mark;

POTASSIUM

Concentration, mg/kg 0 1000 2000 3000

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

SODIUM

Concentration, mg/kg 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Bkgd ALL INT 

VANADIUM

Concentration, mg/kg 0102030

Bkgd ALL INT NS OS

ZINC

Concentration, mg/kg 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Bkgd ALL INT 

005754
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.) 

005755