Public Health

STATE MARINE OF PORT ARTHUR

PORT ARTHUR, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS CERCLIS NO. TXD099801102

JULY 30,1999

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

142104

001114
THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION

This public health assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing

regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and

community health concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies,

the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate.

In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA

section 104 (i)(6)(H), for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period.

Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as

appropriate. The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this

site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the agency's opinion, indicates a need to revise or append

the conclusions previously issued.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry........................... . David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D., Administrator

Barry L. Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator

Division of Health Assessment and Consultation..... .... . .... . ............... . Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE, Director

Exposure Investigations and Consultation Branch.................................... . John E. Abraham., Ph.D., Chief

Federal Facilities Assessment Branch..........................................................Sandra G. Isaacs, Chief

Petitions Response Branch.... . .... . .... . .... . .... . .... . .... . .... . .... . .... . ............. . Acting Chief

Superfund Site Assessment Branch.... . .... . .... . .......................... . Sharon Williams-Fleetwood, Ph.D., Chief

Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch .... . ................. . Max M. Howie, Jr., M.S., Chief

Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the Public Health Service or the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Additional copies of this report are available from:

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia

(703)487-4650

001115
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

STATE MARINE OF PORT ARTHUR

PORT ARTHUR, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

CERCLIS NO. TXD099801102

Prepared by:

Texas Department of Health

Under Cooperative Agreement with the

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

001116
FOREWORD

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, was established by Congress in 1980

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as

the Superfund law. This law set up a fund to identify and clean up our country's hazardous waste sites.

The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the individual states regulate the investigation and

clean up of the sites.

Since 1986, ATSDR has been required by law to conduct a public health assessment at each of the sites

on the EPA National Priorities List. The aim of these evaluations is to find out if people are being

exposed to hazardous substances and, if so, whether that exposure is harmful and should be stopped or

reduced. (The legal definition of a health assessment is included on the inside front cover.) If

appropriate, ATSDR also conducts public health assessments when petitioned by concerned individuals.

Public health assessments are carried out by environmental and health scientists from ATSDR and from

the states with which ATSDR has cooperative agreements. The public health assessment program

allows the scientists flexibility in the format or structure of then: response to the public health issues at

hazardous waste sites. For example, a public health assessment could be one document or it could be a compilation of several health consultations - the structure may vary from site to site. Nevertheless, the

public health assessment process is not considered complete until the public health issues at the site are

addressed.

Exposure: As the first step hi the evaluation, ATSDR scientists review environmental data to see how

much contamination is at a site, where it is, and how people might come into contact with it.

Generally, ATSDR does not collect its own environmental sampling data but reviews information

provided by EPA, other government agencies, businesses, and the public. When there is not enough

environmental information available, the report will indicate what further sampling data is needed.

Health Effects: If the review of the environmental data shows that people have or could come into

contact with hazardous substances, ATSDR scientists evaluate whether or not these contacts may result

in harmful effects. ATSDR recognizes that children, because of their play activities and their growing

bodies, may be more vulnerable to these effects. As a policy, unless data are available to suggest

otherwise, ATSDR considers children to be more sensitive and vulnerable to hazardous substances.

Thus, the health impact to the children is considered first when evaluating the health threat to a

community. The health impacts to other high risk groups within the community (such as the elderly,

chronically ill, and people engaging in high risk practices) also receive special attention during the

evaluation.

ATSDR uses existing scientific information, which can include the results of medical,

toxicologic and epidemiologic studies and the data collected in disease registries, to determine the health

effects that may result from exposures. The science of environmental health is still developing, and

sometimes scientific information on the health effects of certain substances is not available. When this is

so, the report will suggest what further public health actions are needed.

001117
Conclusions: Hie report presents conclusions about the public health threat, if any, posed by a site. When health threats have been determined for high risk groups (such as children, elderly, chronically ill,

and people engaging in high risk practices), they will be summarized in the conclusion section of the

report. Ways to stop or reduce exposure will then be recommended in the public health action plan.

ATSDR is primarily an advisory agency, so usually these reports identify what actions are

appropriate to be undertaken by EPA, other responsible parties, or the research or education divisions of

ATSDR. However, if there is an urgent health threat, ATSDR can issue a public health advisory warning

people of the danger. ATSDR can also authorize health education or pilot studies of health effects, fullscale epidemiology studies, disease registries, surveillance studies or research on specific hazardous

substances.

Interactive Process: The health assessment is an interactive process. ATSDR solicits and evaluates

information from numerous city, state and federal agencies, the companies responsible for cleaning up

the site, and the community. It then shares its conclusions with them. Agencies are asked to respond

to an early version of the report to make sure mat the data they have provided is accurate and current. When informed of ATSDR's conclusions and recommendations, sometimes the agencies wil begin to

act on them before the final release of the report.

Community: ATSDR also needs to learn what people in the area know about the site and what

concerns they may have about its impact on their health. Consequently, throughout the evaluation

process, ATSDR actively gamers information and comments from the people who live or work near a

site, including residents of the area, civic leaders, health professionals and community groups. To

ensure that the report responds to the community's health concerns, an early version is also distributed

to the public for their comments. All the comments received from the public are responded to in the

final version of the report.

Comments: If, after reading this report, you have questions or comments, we encourage you to send

them to us.

Letters should be addressed as follows:

Attention: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch, Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Road (E-56), Atlanta, GA 30333.

001118
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

INTRODUCTION

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was established under the

mandate of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) of 1980. This act, also known as the "Superfund" law, authorized the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct clean-up activities at hazardous waste sites.

EPA was directed to compile a list of sites considered hazardous to public health. This list is

termed the National Priorities List (NPL). The 1986 Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA) directed ATSDR to prepare a Public Health Assessment (PHA) for

each NPL site. (Note: Appendix A provides a listing of abbreviations and acronyms used in this

report.)

hi conducting the PHA, three types of information are used: environmental data, community

health concerns and health outcome data. The environmental data are reviewed to determine

whether people in the community might be exposed to hazardous materials from the NPL

facility. If people are being exposed to these chemicals, ATSDR will determine whether the

exposure is at levels which might cause harm. Community health concerns are collected to

determine whether health concerns expressed by community members could be related to

exposure to chemicals released from the NPL facility. If the community raises concerns about

specific diseases in the community, health outcome data (information from state and local

databases or health care providers) can be used to address the community concerns. Also, if

ATSDR finds that harmful exposures have occurred, health outcome data can be used to

determine if illnesses are occurring which could be associated with the hazardous chemicals

released from the NPL facility.

In accordance with the Ihteragency Cooperative Agreement between ATSDR and the Texas

Department of Health (TDK), ATSDR and TDH have prepared this PHA for the State Marine of

Port Arthur NPL site. This PHA presents conclusions about whether exposures are occurring,

and whether a health threat is present, hi some cases, it is possible to determine whether

exposures occurred in the past; however, often a lack of appropriate historical data makes it

difficult to quantify past exposures. If it is found that a threat to public health exists,

recommendations are made to stop or reduce the threat to public health.

001119
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY ............................................................... . 1 LA INDETERMINATE PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD ...................... . 1 I.B NO APPARENT PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD ........................ . 1 I.C NO PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD ................................... . 2

H. BACKGROUND .......................................................... . 3

n. A Site Description .................................................. . 3 H.B Site History ..................................................... . 4 ILC Site Visit ....................................................... . 5 H.D Demographics ................................................... . 6

n.E Land Use and Natural Resource Use ................................. . 6

m. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION / PATHWAYS ANALYSIS / PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS ..................................... . 1. 8 EOLA Introduction ..................................................... . 8

in.B Environmental Contamination ...................................... . 9

in.C Pathways Analysis ............................................... . 9 m.C.l INDETERMINATE PUBLIC HEALTHHAZARD ............... . 10

m.C.2 NO APPARENT PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD ................. . 11

ffl.C.3 NO PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD ............................ . 12

m.C.4 PHYSICAL AND OTHER HAZARDS ........................ . 13

IV. COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS/HEALTH OUTCOME DATA ............. . 14

TV. A Community Health Concerns Evaluation ............................. . 14

IV.B Health Outcome Data Evaluation ................................... . 14

IV.C Child Health Initiative ............................................ . 14

V. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... . 15

/

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. . 16

VH. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN ......................................... . 16

Vm.PREPARERS OFTHEREPORT .......................................... . 17

DC CERTIFICATION ....................................................... . 18

X. REFERENCES ........................................................... . 19

APPENDICES ............................................................. . 20 APPENDIX A - Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................. . A-l

APPENDIX B - Explanation of Comparison Values ......................... . B-l

001120
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIXC-Figures ............................................... . C-l

APPENDIX D -Tables ............................................... . D-1

List of Figures

Figure 1. Site Location

Figure 2. Site Map

001121
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

List of Tables

Table 1. State Marine Barge Contents and Discharge from Docking Facility into Sabine

Lake

Table 2. State Marine Samples Collected from the Hold of the Docking Facility into

Sabine Lake August 15,1983 Sampling Event - Liquid Results

Table 3. State Marine Samples Collected from the Hold of the Docking Facility, August

15,1983

Table 4. State Marine Unauthorized Discharge from Source No. 3 Lauren Tank Farm into

Sabine Lake August 15,1983

Table 5. Soil Sampling Data Surface Impoundment Area (Source 1) State Marine January,

1995

Table 6. Soil Sampling Data Contaminated Soil (Source 2) State Marine January, 1995.

Table 7. Soil Sampling Data Contaminated Soil (Source 3) State Marine January, 1995.

Table 8. Sediment Sampling Data State Marine January 11-12,1995.

Table 9. Exposure Pathway Elements

ATSDR Public Health Conclusion Categories.

11

001122
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

I. SUMMARY

The State Marine of Port Arthur National Priorities List site, is a 17.197-acre former barge

cleaning facility on a small peninsula in the northeastern part of Port Arthur, Jefferson County,

Texas. The facility operated from 1974 until 1988. Barge cleaning operations at the site have

resulted in the contamination of surface soil and sediment with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

and metals. Discharges of contaminants into surface water has been documented in the past.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reviewed available

environmental information for the site and evaluated several potential exposure situations. These

exposure situations include potential contact with site contaminants in surface water, sediment,

surface soil, and groundwater. Although site-related contaminants have been found in several of

these media, currently the contaminants on or off the site do not pose a public health threat.

Based on available information, we have concluded that, overall, the State Marine site poses an

indeterminate public health hazard. Because of insufficient data we identified one exposure

pathway as a past indeterminate public health hazard; however, this pathway poses no current

public health hazard. Because of insufficient data, we also identified another exposure situation

as an indeterminate public health hazard. The conclusion category for the overall site could

change if additional data indicate that this indeterminate public health hazard situation poses a threat to public health. A brief review of the exposure situations that were considered is

presented below.

LA INDETERMINATE PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

TDH and ATSDR concluded that the following exposure situations pose an indeterminate public

health hazard. In these situations, more information is required to adequately define the potential

health hazard.

1. Exposure to site contaminants through the food chain is considered to be an

indeterminate public health hazard. Although discharges of bioconcentrating

contaminants into surface water have been documented, seafood sampling has not yet

been conducted in the vicinity of the site.

2. Past exposure to contaminants in the air is considered to be an indeterminate public

health hazard. Although there is some evidence that, in the past, local residents may have

been exposed to sulfur compounds in the air, there were no historical ambient air data and

no community-specific health outcome data available to indicate whether the site could

have had an adverse impact on human health. We did not identify any current air

emissions from the site.

001123
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

LB NO APPARENT PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

ATSDR concluded that the following identified exposure situations present no apparent public

health hazard under current conditions either because there is no evidence that people are coming

into contact with contaminated media or it is unlikely that they are coming into contact with

contaminated media often enough to present a threat to public health.

1. Exposure to site contaminants in surface water at the State Marine Site presents no

apparent public health hazard because it is unlikely that people would be exposed to

contaminants at levels that would be of health concern since: 1) the probability of

ingesting surface water is very low, 2) the frequency and duration of any contact with

surface water would be very low, and 3) the surface area of skin that potentially could

come into contact with contaminated water would be small.

2. Exposure to contaminants in soil at this site presents no apparent public health hazard.

Although access onto the site is not entirely restricted, we do not consider exposure to site

contaminants either by ingesting or contacting soil to be a significant exposure pathway

since: 1) the number of people accessing the site is limited, 2) the probability of ingesting

contaminated soil is very low, 3) the frequency and duration of any contact with

contaminated soil would be very low, and 4) the surface area of skin that potentially could

come into contact with contaminated soil would be small.

3. Exposure to contaminants in sediment at this site presents no apparent public health

hazard because it is unlikely that people would be exposed to contaminants at levels that

. would be of health concern. Although access onto the site is not entirely restricted, we

do not consider exposure to site contaminants either by ingesting or contacting sediment

to be a significant exposure pathway since: 1) access to the contaminated areas is limited,

2) the probability of ingesting contaminated sediment is very low, 3) the frequency and

duration of any contact with contaminated sediment would be very low, and 4) the

surface area of skin that potentially could come into contact with contaminated sediment

would be small.

I.C NO PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

ATSDR concluded that the following exposure situations pose no public health hazard either

because people are not likely to come into contact with site contaminants or because institutional

controls are sufficient to protect human health.

1. Although information pertaining to contaminant concentrations in groundwater were not

available for review, contaminants in the groundwater would not pose a public health

hazard since groundwater within one mile of State Marine is not used for drinking or

other potable uses. Businesses and residents on the peninsula get their drinking water

from the City of Port Arthur municipal water supply.

001124
State Marine of Port Arthur

II.A Site Description

Final Release

H. BACKGROUND

The State Marine of Port Arthur National Priorities List site (State Marine) is a former barge

cleaning facility on the small peninsula east of State Highway 87 and Old Ferry Road in the

northeastern part of Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas (Figure 1). This 17.197-acre site is

south of the confluence of the Neches River with Sabine Lake and the Intracoastal Canal. The

address is listed as Yacht Club Road. Other names for this site are State Marine, State Welding

and Marine Works, and Golden Triangle Shipyard, Inc. This site includes parts of Sabine Lake

and the Intracoastal Canal (State Land Tracts 3 and 6). These bodies of water are adjacent to the

east side of State Marine. State Marine was operated from the early 1970s until the late 1980s to

clean barges carrying petroleum and chemical products. Sources of contamination include buried

surface impoundments over a former Port Arthur landfill, an area of contaminated soils adjacent

to the shoreline of Sabine Lake, and a former tank farm area. Soil, sediment, and surface water

contamination has been documented by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

(TNRCC) [1].

The barge cleaning operation at State Marine consisted of a boiler house wash area next to

several docks along Sabine Lake (Figure 2). A steam boiler first heated the wash water which

was then used to rinse out barge contents. Several vacuum tanks and a vacuum pump were used

to remove the wash water and chemicals from the barges. Chemicals were stored in on-site tanks

and the wash water was pumped to on-site lagoons and eventually discharged into the

Intracoastal Canal.

Barge chemical wastes and wash water were discharged into above ground storage tanks as well

as diked surface impoundments. According to the information reviewed, there were between

three and six unlined surface impoundment pits on the north side of the site [1]. One report

indicates that all six surface impoundments were located directly above the old City of Port

Arthur municipal landfill. On the south end of State Marine was the Lauren Tank Farm which

consisted of one 20,000 gallon tank, two 10,000 gallon tanks and a distillation column for

refining waste oils into bunker fuel. These tanks were used to store the oil fractions from barge

cleaning activities.

Currently, the site is overgrown with dense vegetation in both the former surface impoundment

area, as well as in the former tank farm area. In the tank farm area, a tank and several oily barrels

were visible in the tall weeds. There are dilapidated buildings and rusted equipment throughout

the site. Along the shoreline, there are remains of rusted barges which were used as docks.

Glass, plastic, rusted metal, and other debris from the former Port Arthur landfill and the former

barge cleaning operation are being redeposited or exposed along the shoreline of the State Marine

site.

001125
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

ILB Site History

In 1974, State Marine was issued a wastewater discharge permit (No. 01859) from the Texas

Department of Water Resources (TDWR), predecessor to the TNRCC, to operate a barge

cleaning facility for vessels carrying petroleum and other chemical products. In April 1980,

numerous complaints were received from area citizens regarding "noxious odors" being emitted

from State Marine. Investigators confirmed these complaints and traced them to emissions from

the steam boiler which was burning high sulfor fuel oil [1].

hi July 1980, three pits were in use and, as a result of numerous spills, barge chemical waste

covered part of the site [1]. During a site inspection conducted on August 18,1980, TDWR

personnel noted that an area east and south of the treatment pits (approximately two acres) was

covered with waste oils [2]. On the northeast corner of the treatment facility, waste oil and water

had spilled onto the adjacent property from a breach in a badly weathered levee. On the west

side, waste oils covered approximately one acre; the oil was thought to have spilled through

another break in the levee. A small spill covering 200 square feet was documented near the

vacuum tanks which were adjacent to the Jntracoastal Canal. The wastewater treatment facility

was not completed or functional. The surface impoundment pits indicated on treatment facility

flow charts were not in use nor were aerators being used. PVC liners were not present in any of

the pits. Constant bubbling of waste oils and water in the pits was thought to be due to methane

gases escaping from the closed Port Arthur landfill located below the pits.

Following the August 1980 inspection, the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) and

the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) cited State Marine for a number of violations of its

wastewater discharge permit. On June 29,1981, the State of Texas signed an Agreed Order for

Temporary Injunction, which required proper site closure. In 1981, the surface impoundments

were backfilled with surrounding contaminated soil and covered with a clay cap [1]. On

December 9,1982, a Judgement of Contempt and Order of Commitment was signed, which

ordered State Marine to comply with the Agreed Order.

On December 16,1982, TDWR inspectors visited the site to evaluate the wastewater pit closure

and found that the pit had not been properly closed. The clay cap was inadequate, areas of

contaminated soils were still observed around the perimeter of the site, pools of standing water

were observed, and the upper six inches of clay contained municipal landfill debris [3].

On July 25,1983, the TDWR, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and an officer of

the U.S. Coast Guard observed the release of material from a barge. The contents of a barge

were being pumped into the leaking hull of another barge which was used as a dock. Samples

were collected from the source barge and from the leaking hull of the receiving "dock" barge.

Similar organic compounds were detected in both samples verifying the release of chemicals into

Sabine Lake [1].

001126
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

By January 1987, the State Marine site was listed second in the Texas Register of hazardous

waste facilities that pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and safety

or the environment In March 1988, the State of Texas issued a "Superfund" Administrative

Order to State Marine requiring all responsible parties to perform a complete Remedial

Investigation (Ri) and Feasibility Study (FS) at the site.

State Marine was brought to the attention of the U,S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in

1987 for evaluation. Under the 1982 version of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) the site fell

below the cut-off score required for remedial activities under CERCLA at that time. The site was

again referred to EPA in 1992 for consideration under the revised 1990 HRS (40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A, Hazardous Ranking System).

In January 1995, EPA requested that the TNRCC perform an Expanded Site Inspection at State

Marine. During the Expanded Site Inspection, the TNRCC identified three main sources of

contamination on the site.

Source 1: The unlined surface impoundments on the northwest corner of the

property.

Source 2: The contaminated soil at the shoreline, adjacent to the west side of the

northernmost "dock" barge. This barge served as a working dock for site

operations.

Source 3: The contaminated soils area located at the southern end of the State Marine property, approximately 120 feet west of the Intracoastal Canal.

Although no longer present, several large above-ground storage tanks had

been used in this location to store oil fractions from barge cleaning

activities.

Sample results from the 1995 investigation indicated the presence of organics and inorganics in

the buried surface impoundments and the former tank farm area, as well as in the sediments of

Sabine Lake adjacent to the site. The information examined in the Hazard Ranking package did

not indicate that any type of removal had been conducted at State Marine, although the large

above-ground storage tanks have been removed. According to the Hazard Ranking package,

surface water is the major pathway of concern [4]. Chemical analysis of sediment samples in

Sabine Lake indicated the presence of organics and inorganics. Sabine Lake is a fishery and is

used for recreation. In addition, an abundance of wetland areas and a National Wildlife Refuge

lie along the banks of Sabine Lake and downstream waterways. The State Marine site was

proposed to the National Priorities List of Superfund Sites in March of 1998 and finalized to the

List on July 28,1998.

001127
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

H.C Site Visit

Representatives of the TDH visited the State Marine site and vicinity in August arid September

1998 [5]. TDH personnel were accompanied by representatives from the EPA, the United States

Geological Service (USGS), and the TNRCC. Approximately 6 hours were spent examining the

site and the surrounding area.

During the site visit we saw a dilapidated office building, an old shed, sunken barges, cranes,

former above ground storage tanks, and other features obscured by overgrown vegetation at the

site (Figure 2). The site was not surrounded by an intact fence, although a bar blocked the

entrance to the road entering the site. The site is accessible to someone on foot. We did not see

any evidence that children or teenagers were frequenting the area, but we did see evidence that

someone frequented the site. There was a radio, pump hand soap, a trash barrel with soft drink

plastic bottles and paper, a folded bed sheet, a nearly new water hose, an electrical extension

cord, and shotgun shells on the site.

Because of the dry conditions, we did not see any on-site ponding of water; however, written

records indicate that surface water runoff, from rainfall, is to the east into Sabine Lake. During

the August site visit we saw two fishermen to the northeast of the State Marine site.

The adjacent land use is industrial and businesses currently operate on the peninsula. There were

two occupied residences on the peninsula approximately one mile west of State Marine. Two

individuals live in each of these residences [5]. We did not see any evidence that contaminants

from the State Marine site were affecting these residences.

TDH representatives went door to door September 21,1998, to each of the businesses and the

two residences within one mile of State Marine. All reported using water from the City of Port

Arthur municipal supply; however, the water main had broken at the time of our site visit and

businesses and individuals were having to bring in bottled or other potable water (trucked in

water) for domestic and other uses. None of the individuals we spoke with knew of any water

wells on the peninsula.

II.D Demographics

According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, in 1990 the total residential population within a onemile radius of State Marine is estimated to be 9 people [6]. Although few individuals live in this

area, nearly 400 people work on the peninsula [5]. It is not known how many people worked at

the State Marine facility in the past. Currently, the site is not operating and there are no on-site

workers.

The closest residential neighborhood to State Marine is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the

facility along the west side of the Rainbow Bridge on State Highway 87. The other closest

001128
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

residential areas are the City of Port Arthur (approximately 3.5 miles southwest) with a population of 58,724, the City of Groves (4 miles southwest of State Marine) with a population

of 16,513, Bridge City (approximately 5.5 miles north of State Marine) with a population of

8,034, and Port Neches (approximately 8 miles west of State Marine) population 12,974 [7].

II.E Land Use and Natural Resource Use

There are approximately 11 industrial or commercial businesses on the peninsula within 1 mile

of State Marine. Among these are a retail fuel dealer, a ship and boat builder, a boat repair

facility, oil field contractors, industrial building/warehouse contractors, scrap iron and metal

dealers, and chemical product wholesalers [5]. There are no parks, playgrounds, schools,

hospitals, daycares, or nursing homes within 1 mile of State Marine. There are no recreational

beaches in the vicinity of State Marine.

In addition to being used for shipping, Sabine Lake and the Intracoastal Canal both are used for

commercial and recreational fishing. Commercial and sport fishing is very popular along the

Sabine Neches Intracoastal Canal which runs adjacent to State Marine along the east side. This

area is popular because the mixing of freshwater and salt water at the mouth of the Neches River

results in a wide variety of both freshwater and salt water fish. Fishing along the shoreline of

State Marine, on the northern property adjacent to the site was documented by the TNRCC on

May 22,1996 and observed by TDH in August 1998. There is unrestricted access to the east side

of the State Marine site along the shoreline.

The site is in the 100-year floodplain and is influenced by tides. Average rainfall for the area

ranges from 52 to 56 inches per year [1]. Surface water in the vicinity of State Marine is

brackish to salt water and therefore is not potable (good for drinking). There are three surface

water intakes wiflin 15 miles downstream of State Marine which are used for industrial

purposes. No drinking water intakes are downstream of. State Marine. Groundwater within one

mile of State Marine is not used for drinking or other potable uses. Businesses and residents on

the peninsula get drinking water from the City of Port Arthur municipal water supply [5].

001129
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION / PATHWAYS ANALYSIS / PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

III.A Introduction

Exposure to, or contact with chemical contaminants drive the ATSDR public health assessment

process. The release or disposal of chemical contaminants into the environment does not always

result in exposure or contact. Chemicals only have the potential to cause adverse health effects if

people actually come into contact with them. People may be exposed to chemicals by breathing,

eating, or drinking a substance containing the contaminant or by skin (dermal) contact with a substance containing the contaminant.

When people are exposed to chemicals, the exposure does not always result in adverse health

effects. The type and severity of health effects that may occur in an individual from contact with

contaminants depend on the toxicologic properties of the contaminants, how much of the

contaminant to which the individual is exposed, how often and/or how long exposure is allowed

to occur, the manner in which the contaminant enters or contacts the body (breathing, eating,

drinking, or skin/eye contact), and the number of contaminants to which an individual is exposed

(combinations of contaminants). Once exposure occurs, characteristics such as age, sex,

nutritional status, genetics, life style, and health status of the exposed individual influence how

the individual absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and excretes the contaminant. These factors and

characteristics influence whether exposure to a contaminant could or would result in adverse

health effects.

To assess the potential health risks associated with contaminants at this site we compared

contaminant concentrations to health assessment comparison (HAC) values. HAC values are

media specific contaminant concentrations that are used to screen contaminants for further

evaluation. Non-cancer HAC values are called environmental media evaluation guides (EMEGs)

or reference dose media evaluation guides (RMEGs) and are respectively based on ATSDR's

minimal risk levels (MRLs) or EPA's reference doses (RfDs). MRLs and RfDs are estimates of

a daily human exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause adverse non-cancer health

effects. Cancer risk evaluation guides (CREGs) are based on EPA's chemical specific cancer

slope factors and an estimated excess lifetime cancer risk of one-in-one-million persons exposed

for a lifetime. We used standard assumptions to calculate appropriate HAC values [8].

In some instances, we compare contaminant concentrations in water to EPA's maximum

contaminant levels (MCLs). MCLs are chemical specific maximum concentrations allowed in

water delivered to the users of a public water system; they are considered protective of public

health over a lifetime (70 years) of exposure at an ingestion rate of two liters per day. MCLs may

be based on available technology and economic feasibility. Although MCLs only apply to public

water supply systems, we often use them to help assess the public health implications of

contaminants found in water from other sources.

8

001130
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

While exceeding a HAC value does not necessarily mean that a contaminant represents a public

health threat, it does suggest that the contaminant warrants further consideration. The public

health significance of contaminants that exceed HAC values may be assessed by reviewing and

integrating relevant toxicologjcal information with plausible exposure scenarios. Estimated

exposures maybe compared to reported "No Observable" and "Lowest Observable" Adverse

Effects Levels (NOAELs and LOAELs) and to known effect levels in humans, when available.

III.B Environmental Contamination

Soil, surface water, and sediment data included in our evaluation of State Marine were collected

during the 1983 site investigations and during the TNRCC's January 1995 Expanded Site

Inspection (ESI). In reviewing these data we relied on the information provided in me referenced

documents and assumed that adequate Quality Assurance/Quality Control measures were

followed with regard to chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The

analyses and conclusions in this Health Assessment are valid only if the referenced information is

valid and complete. QA/QC and chain of custody requirements were followed for the sampling

data collected in 1983. The data for the 1995 ESI were collected according to the State's QA/QC Work Plan which was approved by the EPA prior to sampling. All samples were analyzed

following EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) analytical methods [1].

The maximum detected concentrations for each contaminant found in the different environmental

media are presented hi Tables 1-8 hi Appendix D. ATSDR comparison values for each of the

contaminants also are listed in the tables. Contaminants whose concentrations were below

ATSDR's comparison values were excluded from further consideration. Inclusion of a

contaminant in the tables or the fact that a contaminant exceeds a comparison value does not

imply that a contaminant represents a threat to public health but that it warrants further

consideration.

III.C Pathways Analysis

In this section we evaluated the possible pathways for exposure to contamination at State Marine. We examined these possible exposure pathways to determine whether people near the site can be

exposed to (or come into contact with) contaminants from the site. Exposure pathways consist of

five elements: 1) a source of contamination, 2) transport through an environmental medium, 3) a

point of exposure, 4) a plausible manner (route) for the contaminant to get into the body, and 5)

an identifiable exposed population. Exposure pathways can be completed, potential, or

eliminated. For a person to be exposed to a contaminant, the exposure pathway must be

completed. An exposure pathway is considered completed when all five elements in the pathway

are present and exposure has occurred, is occurring, or will plausibly occur in the future. A

potential pathway is missing at least one of the five elements but possibly may be completed in

the future as more data become available or site conditions change. Eliminated pathways are

missing one or more of the five elements and wil never be completed. Table 9 summarizes the

001131
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

exposure pathways considered in our evaluation of this site. Contaminants whose concentrations

did not exceed ATSDR comparison values were excluded from the pathways analysis.

III.C.1 INDETERMINATE PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

TDH and ATSDR concluded that the following exposure situations pose an indeterminate public

health hazard. In these situations, more information is required to adequately define the potential

health hazard.

HLC.l.a Evaluation of Possible Foodchain Exposure Pathways

Summary: Exposure to site contaminants through the ingestion of seafood is considered to be an indeterminate public health hazard. Although discharges ofbioconcentrating contaminants into surface water have been documented, seafood sampling has not yet been conducted in the

vicinity of the site.

There have been documented releases of contaminants (primarily polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons [PAHs]) into surface water and sediment samples have been found to be

contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene and other PAHs. These compounds are known to

bioaccumulate in fish and other seafood. Fishing along the shoreline of State Marine was

documented by the TNRCC on May 22,1996, and we observed people fishing in August 1998.

Benzo(a)pyrene is considered to be a probable human carcinogen. Chronic ingestion offish

contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene theoretically could result in an increase in the lifetime risk for

developing cancer.

IILC.l.b Evaluation of Possible Air Exposure Pathways

Summary: Past exposure to contaminants in the air is considered to be an indeterminate public health hazard. Although there is some evidence that, in the past, local residents may have been exposed to sulfur compounds in the air, there were no historical ambient air data and no community-specific health outcome data available to indicate whether the site could have had an adverse impact on human health. We did not identify any current air emissions from the site.

hi the past, the Texas Department of Water Resources (TWDR) received complaints from area

residents regarding "noxious odors" being emitted from State Marine. TDWR investigators

confirmed the complaints and traced the odors to emissions from a steam boiler which was

burning a high sulfur content fuel oil. Sulfur compounds such as SO2 can be highly irritating to

the eyes and upper respiratory tract. Symptoms such as eye irritation, tearing, rhinorrhea, cough,

shortness of breath, chest tightness or discomfort, and choking sensation are common.

Controlled laboratory studies on humans have established that people with asthma are

particularly sensitive to the respiratory effects. Because of insufficient data, we could not

determine whether past exposure to sulfur compounds posed a public health hazard. Based on

10

001132
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

available information, exposure to site related contaminants through the air does not pose-a

public health hazard.

IH.C.2 NO APPARENT PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

ATSDR concluded that the following identified exposure situations present no apparent public

health hazard under current conditions because either there is no evidence that people are coming

into contact with contaminated media or it is unlikely that they are coming into contact with

contaminated media often enough to present a threat to public health.

IILC.2.a Evaluation of Possible Surface Water Exposure Pathways

Summary: Surface water contamination at the State Marine Site presents no apparent public health hazard because it is unlikely that people would be exposed to contaminants at levels that would be of health concern since: 1) the probability of ingesting surf ace water is very low, 2) the frequency and duration of any contact with surface water would be very low, and 3) the surface

area of skin that potentially could come into contact with contaminated water would be small.

Currently there are no on-site ponds or other surface water bodies since the impoundments were

filled in. Other surface water associated with the State Marine site consists of Sabine Lake and

the Intracoastal Canal along the east side (Figure 1). In August 1983, TDWR inspectors

observed two unauthorized discharges of waste material into the Sabine Neches canal. They

observed one discharge flowing from the Lauren Tank Farm into the Sabine Neches canal and

another leaking from a dock facility hold (a partially submerged leaking barge used to store waste

material). Samples were taken from these areas to confirm the discharges into the surface water.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found in the samples (Appendix D, Tables 1,2,

3, and 4). Several of the constituents hi the barge material and in the discharge material were

detected at concentrations above their respective HAC values (Appendix D, Tables 1,2,3, and

4).

Surface water data reflecting current contaminant concentrations were not available; however,

since the previous samples were obtained during observed discharges, we would anticipate that

current contaminant concentrations in surface water would be lower. Swimming and other

recreational water contact activities in the vicinity of State Marine are not likely; although fishing

from boats does occur near the site, actual exposure to contaminants through dermal contact or

incidental ingestion during these activities would be limited.

III.C.2.b Evaluation of Possible Soil Exposure Pathways

Summary: Contaminants found in soil at this site present no apparent public health hazard. Although access onto the site is not entirely restricted, we do not consider exposure to site

contaminants either by ingesting or contacting soil to be a significant exposure pathway since:

11

001133
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

1) the number of people accessing the site is limited, 2) the probability of ingesting contaminated soil is very low, 3) the frequency and duration of any contact with contaminated soil would be

very low, and 4) the surface area of skin that potentially could come into contact with contaminated soil would be small.

Fifty-six surface soil samples (from 0 to 5 inches deep) were collected by the TNRCC during the

1995 ESI. Samples were collected in the three identified source areas: the surface impoundment

area (Source 1), the contaminated soils area (Source 2), and the on-site tank farm area (Source 3).

Samples were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), and metals.

Surface soil from two of the source areas (1 & 2) at State Marine contain contaminants at

concentrations above health-based screening values (Table 5, 6, & 7). At Source 1.

benzo(a)pyrene exceeded its carcinogenic risk screening value (Table 5). Antimony and lead

exceeded their respective non-cancer screening values for children but not for adults (Table 5).

At Source 2. benzo(a)pyrene and beryllium exceeded their respective carcinogenic risk screening

values. Lead exceeded its non-cancer screening values and zinc exceeded its non-cancer

screening value for children but not for adults (Table 6). At Source 3. PAHs, chlordane, and

mercury were detected but were not measured at concentrations above their respective healthbased screening values (Table 7).

\

Although workers and trespassers could come into contact with contaminated soil, chronic

exposure to benzo(a)pyrene or beryllium (maximum concentrations) by ingesting 100 mg of this

soil every day for 30 years would result in no apparent increase in the excess lifetime risk for

developing cancer. Children are not likely to access the site and therefore are not likely to be

exposed to site contaminants.

HI.C.2.C Evaluation of Possible Sediment Exposure Pathways

Summary: Contaminants found in sediment at this site present no apparent public health hazard because it is unlikely that people would be exposed to contaminants at levels that would be of health concern. Although access onto the site is not entirely restricted, we do not consider

exposure to site contaminants either by ingesting or contacting sediment to be a significant

exposure pathway since: 1) access to the contaminated areas is limited, 2) the probability of

ingesting contaminated sediment is very low, 3) the frequency and duration of any contact with contaminated sediment would be very low, and 4) the surface area of skin that potentially could

come into contact with contaminated sediment would be small.

Nine sediment samples were collected by the TNRCC in January 1995 as part of the ESI.

Sediment samples were collected from 0 to 24 inches deep from locations along the east side of

the State Marine site in Sabine Lake and the rntracoastal Canal (SE-7, SE-9, SE-8, SE-10, and

SE-11). Constituents found in these sediment samples were consistent with those detected in the

12

001134
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

on-site soil samples. Only benzo(a)pyrene exceeded its health-based cancer risk screening value

(Appendix D; Table 8). Chronic exposure (every day for 30 years) to this contaminant in the

sediment would result in no apparent increase in the lifetime risk for the developing cancer.

HI.C.3 NO PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

ATSDR concluded that the following exposure situations pose no public health hazard either

because people are not likely to come into contact with site contaminants or because institutional

controls are sufficient to protect human health.

HI.C.3.a Evaluation of Possible Groundwater Exposure Pathways

Summary: Although information pertaining to contaminant concentrations in groundwater were

not available for review, contaminants in the groundwater would not pose a public health hazard

since groundwater -within one mile of State Marine is not used for drinking or other potable uses. Businesses and residents on the peninsula get their drinking water from the City of Port Arthur municipal water supply.

Groundwater within one mile of State Marine is not used for drinking or other potable uses.

Businesses and residents on the peninsula get drinking water from the City of Port Arthur

municipal water supply [5]. On September 21,1998, Texas Department of Health staff

conducted a door-to-door survey of the two households and the 11 businesses on the peninsula in

the vicinity of the State Marine site. All reported using municipal water or bottled water for

drinking and other potable uses. No one reported using or having a water well [5]. There are

three surface water intakes within 15 miles downstream of State Marine which are used for

industrial purposes. No drinking water intakes are downstream of State Marine.

ffl.C.4 PHYSICAL AND OTHER HAZARDS

We saw physical hazards throughout the site and in the shallow water along the east side of the

site. These hazards include rusted equipment, metal parts from on-site activities, broken glass,

and debris from the former municipal landfill. The office building on the site is leaning and did

not appear to be safe to enter. Tal vegetation may have obscured other on-site hazards.

Currently, physical hazards could pose a hazard to people who trespass on the site.

13

001135
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

IV. COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS/HEALTH OUTCOME DATA

IV.A Community Health Concerns Evaluation

As part of the public health assessment process, ATSDR and TDK try to learn what concerns

people in the area may have about the impact of the site on then: health. Consequently, attempts

are made to actively gather information and comments from people who live or work near the

site. To obtain community health concerns related to the State Marine site, we contacted several

different agencies and individuals by telephone. We contacted the TDH Region 5 South office,

the TNRCC Beaumont office, local health departments, and citizens living and working near

the site. We did not identify any health concerns pertaining to the State Marine site.

IV.B Health Outcome Data Evaluation

Health outcome data (HOD) record certain health conditions that occur in populations. These

data can provide information on the general health of communities living near a hazardous waste

site. They also can provide information on patterns of specified health conditions. Some

examples of health outcome databases are tumor registries, birth defects registries, and vital

statistics. Information from local hospitals and other health care providers also may be used to

investigate patterns of disease in a specific population. TDH and ATSDR look at appropriate

and available health outcome data when there is a completed exposure pathway or community

concern. Due to a lack of completed exposure pathways and no identified community health

concerns associated with State Marine, we did not review health outcome data.

IV.C Child Health Initiative

ATSDR's Child Health Initiative recognizes that the unique vulnerabilities of infants and

children demand special emphasis in communities faced with contamination of their water, soil,

ah-, or food. Children are at greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposures to hazardous

substances emitted from waste sites and emergency events. They are more likely to be exposed

because they play outdoors and they often bring food into contaminated areas. They are shorter

than adults, which means they breathe dust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground. Children

are also smaller, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight. The

developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures occur

during critical growth stages. Most importantly, children depend completely on adults for risk

identification and management decisions, housing decision, and access to medical care.

ATSDR evaluated the likelihood for children living in the vicinity of the State Marine site to be

exposed to site contaminants at levels of health concern. ATSDR did not identify situations in

which children were likely to have been exposed to site contaminants. Children are not likely to

be exposed to contaminants in sediments or soils from State Marine. There is no evidence that

children are trespassing on the site; however, if children were to frequently trespass on this site

they could be at risk from chemical contaminants and from physical hazards/debris on the site.

14

001136
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

V. CONCLUSIONS

1. Although site-related contaminants have been detected in surface water, soil, and

sediment, we were not able to identify any current situations where exposure is occurring

at a level associated with adverse health outcomes. This is because either contaminant

concentrations are not great enough to be a public health hazard, or contact with

contaminated media either would be unlikely or limited. Because of a lack of

information, we could not assess the public health significance of exposure to site

contaminants through the foodchain (fish/shellfish). We concluded that this exposure

pathway was an indeterminate public health hazard.

2. hi the past, people may have been exposed to sulfur compounds in the air; however,

because of a general lack of historical ambient air data we could not assess the potential

public health significance of this pathway. We concluded that in the past this pathway

was an indeterminate public health hazard. Currently, this pathway poses no public

health hazard.

3. Available evidence indicates that in the past, site contaminants were discharged into the

Sabine Neches Intracoastal canal; however, recent surface water concentrations were not

available for review. It is unlikely that exposure to contaminants in surface water would

be of health concern since: 1) the probability of ingesting surface water is very low, 2) the

frequency and duration of any contact with surface water would be very low, and 3) the

surface area of skin that potentially could come into contact with contaminated water

would be small.

4. Trespassers and other people who gain access to the site could come into contact with

contaminated soil; however, it is unlikely that periodic contact with this soil would pose

an apparent public health hazard.

5. Site related contaminants have been identified hi sediment. We have concluded that

contaminants in the sediment pose no apparent public health hazard because: 1) the

probability of ingesting sediment is very low, 2) the frequency and duration of any contact

with sediment would be very low, and 3) the surface area of skin that potentially could

come into contact with contaminated sediment would be small.

6. We were not able to identify anyone who was using the groundwater beneath the site for

potable purposes. Groundwater poses no public health hazard.

15

001137
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Seafood, including fish and crabs normally caught and eaten by area fishermen, should be

sampled from Sabine Lake and the Intracoastal Canal in the vicinity of State Marine.

Samples should be edible portions and should be analyzed for PAHs to assess the public

health significance of eating fish and other seafood caught in the vicinity of State Marine.

2. TDH/ATSDR should evaluate new data as it becomes available.

3. In the absence of remedial activities, the public health significance of contaminants on the

site should be re-evaluated if site conditions change or if the land is used for residential

purposes.

VII. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

Actions Planned

1. EP A plans to conduct the remedial investigation.

2. TDH/ATSDR will coordinate fish and seafood sampling and testing with EPA and TDH

Seafood Safety Division.

16

001138
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

VIII. PREPARERS OF THE REPORT

Susan L. Prosperie, M.S., R.S.

Environmental Specialist

Health Risk Assessment & Toxicology Program

John F. Villanacci, Ph.D.

Director

Health Risk Assessment and Toxicology Program

Matthew Garabedian, MPH

Epidemiologist

Health Risk Assessment and Toxicology Program

Dixie Davis

Administrative Technician I Health Risk Assessment and Toxicology Program

ATSDR Regional Representative

George Pettigrew

Senior Regional Representative

ATSDR - Region 6

17

001139
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

IX. CERTIFICATION

The State Marine of Port Arthur Public Health Assessment was prepared by the Texas

Department of Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures

existing at the time the Health Assessment was initiated.

Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC

The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this Public Health

Assessment and concurs with its findings.

Chief, SPS, SSABjDHAC,^TSDR

18

001140
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

PREFERENCES

1. Hazard Ranking System Documentation Record for State Marine of Port Arthur.

TXD099801102, Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. November 1997.

2. Texas Department of Water Resources. Interoffice memorandum. Site Inspection of

State Marine. August 29,1980.

3. Texas Department of Water Resources. Interoffice Memorandum to Carl Forrester,

General Counsel from Chip Volz, Solid Waste Compliance Unit. December 31,1982.

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund NPL Assessment Program (SNAP)

Database. March 6,1998.

5. Texas Department of Health. Record of Communication Files for State Marine. Site

Visit Reports. August 4,1998 and September 21,1998.

6. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991. Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape

File 1 [machine-readable data files]. The Bureau, Washington, D.C.

7. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape

File 3 A. The Bureau, Washington, D.C.

8. ATSDR Health Assessment Guidance Manual. U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:

Atlanta, Georgia 1992.

19

001141
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDICES

20

001142
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX A - Acronyms and Abbreviations

ATSDR

TDH

TDWR

TWC

TNRCC

EPA

PHA CERCLA

SARA

NPL

HAC

EMEG

CREG

RfD

RMEG MRL MCL

LTHA MCLG

PMCLG

mg/kg

VOCs

Semi-VOCs

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Texas Department of Health

Texas Department of Water Resources

Texas Water Commission

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Public Health Assessment

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act of 1990

1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

National Priorities List

Health Assessment Comparison Value

Environmental Media Evaluation Guide

Carcinogenic Risk Evaluation Guide

Reference Dose

Reference Dose-based Media Evaluation Guide

Minimal Risk Level

Maximum Contaminant Level

Lifetime Health Advisory

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

Micrograms per Liter

Micrograms per Kilogram (equal to parts per billion)

Miligrams per Kilogram (equal to parts per million)

Volatile Organic Compounds

Semi Volatile Organic Compounds

A-l

001143
State Marine of Port Arthur

APPENDIX B - Explanation of Comparison Values

Final Release

Background

EMEG

CREG

LTHA

MCL

RMEG

Levels reported to exist in an uncontaminated environment.

A subscript child adjacent to the EMEG or RMEG indicate that the comparison value was

determined using a child exposure scenario. Child EMEGs and RMEGs are lower for

children.

Environmental Media Evaluation Guides are based on ATSDR's minimal risk levels (MRLs). An MRL is an estimate of a daily human exposure to a chemical mat is likely to be without an

appreciable risk for noncarcinogenic effects over a specified duration of exposure (acute,

intermediate, chronic).

The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide is an estimated contaminant concentration that would

result in no more than one excess cancer in a milion (10E-6) persons exposed over a lifetime.

CREGs are calculated fromEPA's cancer slope factors (CSFs).

The Lifetime Health Advisory represents a contaminant concentration that EPA considers to

be protective of noncarcinogenic health effects during a lifetime (70 years) of exposure.

The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in a public water system.

Similar to the EMEG but derived from EPA's reference dose. It is the concentration in a specific media at which daily human exposure is unlikely to result in adverse noncancerous

effects.

B-l

001144
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX C - Figures

C-l

001145
State Marine of Port Arthur

Port Arthur, Texas

CERCLIS No. TXD099801102

-... .:.^'^:^&*;-;;, °SE-3CUr'

/' State Marine of Port Arthur

;Tr

 Intracoastal

Canal

Legend

Site Boundary One Mile Buffe

0 0.5 1 Miles

VX///-XX/ .../

Site Location

Jefferson County, Texas

Demographic Statistics Within One Mile of Site

Total Population

White Black American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut Asian or Pacific Islander Other Race

Hispanic Origin

Children Aged 6 and Younger Adults Aged 65 and Older

Females Aged 15-44

Total Housing Units

Base Map Sourca: 1985 TlGEWUne Has Domonraphlc Statistics Sourca: 1990 U.S. Census

•Calculated using an araa-proporton spatial analysis technique

Children 6 Years and Younger

Adults 65 Years and Older

Figure 1: Site Location and Demographics

001146
State Marine of Port Arthur

Figure 2. Site Map

SABINE LAKE

and ft

INTRACOASTAL

1 CANAL

Tuqboat \

1

Former

Port Arthur

LandTTll—-

^—rjto^--^Source #1

SO-26 iBuried Surface

•Impoundment..

 Boi1er

.Source#2 , Contaminated v-',

f t+ r\. SO-20 ( '

submerged)

Source #3

Former Lauren

Tank Farm

Intratoastal Canal

Property Line

Landfil l Boundary

001147
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX D-Tables

D-l

001148
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX D - Table 1 : State Marine Barge Contents and Discharge from Docking Facility into Sabine Lake:

July 25, 1983 Sampling Event

Constituent

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthalene [y Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzq(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)/(k) fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzo(j)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Fluorene

Fluoranthene

Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene

Naphthalene

4-Nitrophenol

Phenanthrene

Phenol

Pyrene

Trichlorobenzene

Barge Contents

Concentration (ug/L)

SS-09168

160

120

80

60

-

-

-

80

-

180

120

-

2,800

220 400

26,400

200

-

-

Surface water from

Sabine Neches Canal

(ug/L) SS-09169

680

3,080

1,040

920

560

440

260

280

920

920

2,440

1,360

240

21,600

520

6,680

12,800

2,360

-

-

Health Based Comparison

Value (ug/L)

600/2000RMEGc/a

None available

3000/10000RMEGc/a

B20.005CREG;0.2MCL

B2

None available

None available

B2

B2

200/700RMEGc/a 400/1000RMEGc/a 400/1000RMEGc/a

B2

20/400 LTHA/CLHA

60/800 LTHA/CLHA

None available

3/10intEMEGc/a

300/1000RMEGc/a 40/600 LTHA/CLHA

Exceeds HAC?

SS-09168

-

No

-

Yes

-

-

-

-

-

No

No

-

Yes

Yes

-

Yes

No

-

-

SS-09169

Yes

-

No

-

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

Yes

Yes

-

Yes

Yes

-

D-2

001149
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX D - Table 2 State Marine Barge Contents and Discharge from Docking Facility into Sabine Lake

August 15, 1983 Sampling Event - Liquid Results

Constituent

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthalene [y Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)/(k) fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzo(j)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Fluorene

Fluoranthene

Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene

Naphthalene

4-Nitrophenol

Phenanthrene

Phenol

Pyrene

Trichlorobenzene

Contents of discharge

from hold of docking

facility (ug/L)

SS-09159

78

-

18

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

103

-

-

62

-

212

-

33

-

-

Contents of hold of

docking facility

(ug/L)

SS-09162

189

882 403

18281

80

-

-

185

-

705 356

-

666

-

2,390

-

824

-

-

Health Based

Comparison

Value (ug/L)

600/2000RMEGc/a

None available

3000/10000RMEGc/a

B20.005CREG;0.2MCL

B2

None available

None available

B2

B2

200/700RMEGc/a 400/1000RMEGc/a 400/1000RMEGc/a

B2

20/400 LTHA/CLHA

60/800 LTHA/CLHA

None available

3/10 intEMEGc/a

300/1000RMEGc/a 40/600 LTHA/CLHA

Exceeds HAC?

SS-09159

No

-

No

-

No

-

-

-

-

No

No

No

.

Yes, child

No

-

No

No

-

-

SS-09162

No

-

No

-

Yes

-

-

-

-

-

Yes, child

No

.

Yes

-

-

-

Yes,child

-

-

D-3

001150
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX D- Table 3 State Marine

Samples Collected from the Hold of the Docking Facility

August 15, 1983

Constituent

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthalene [y Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)/(k) fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

BenzoG")fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chtysene

2,4-Dimethylphenol

Fluorene

Fluoranthene

Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene

Naphthalene

4-NitrophenoI

Phenanthrene

Phenol

Pyrene

Trichlorobenzene

(mg/kg)

SS-09160

.

117.0

176.0

171.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

220.0

83.0

-

406.0

-

605.0

-

183.0

-

(mg/kg)

SW-04140

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.027

-

-

0.027

-

0.037

-

0.013 0.013

Health Based Comparison Value

(soil/sediment) (mg/kg)

3000/40000RMEGc/a None available

20000/200000RMEGc/a

B20.1CREG

B2

None available

None available

B2

B2

1000/10000RMEGc/a

2000/30000RMEGc/a

2000/30000RMEGc/a

B2

1000/lOOOORMEGc/a None available

None available

20/200intEMEGc/a

2000/20000RMEGc/a

None available

Exceeds HAC?

SS-09160

.

-

No

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

No

No

-

No

-

-

-

-

-

SW-04140

.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

No

-

-

No

-

-

-

-

-

D-4

001151
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX D- Table 4 State Marine

Unauthorized Discharge from Source No 3 Lauren Tank Farm into Sabine Lake

August 15, 1983

Constituent

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Fluorene

Fluoranthene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b.k) fluoranthene

Chrysene

Pyrene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Sample ID

SS09251

Concentration

<ug/L)

639

6,210

1,870 4,050

2,120

1,120

919

652 914

4,250

28,800

12,300

Health Based Comparison Value

(water) (ug/L)

600/2000RMEGc/a

None available

3000/10000RMEGc/a 400/1000RMEGc/a 400/1000RMEGc/a

B2.

0.005CREG; 0.2MCL

B2

B2

300/1000RMEGc/a

20/400 LTHA/CLHA

None available

Exceeds HAC (water)?

Yes, child

-

No

Yes

Yes

-

Yes (Cancer &MCL)

-

-

Yes

Yes

-

These were observed flowing from a containment area surrounding the former tank farm. The discharge was flowing through a narrow channel

which had been cut in the northeast comer of the east levee of the containment area. The discharge continued for a distance of approximately 50

feet then into the Sabine Neches Canal. The same constituents were found in soil samples collected during the 1995 ESI conducted by the TNRCC

in the area of the former tank farm.

D-5

001152
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX D- Table 5 Soil Sampling Data Surface Impoundment Area (Source 1)

State Marine

January, 1995 [1

Constituent Sample ID Max.Conc.

(mg/kg)

Semivolatile Organic Compound Concentrations in mg/kg

Anthracene

Phenanthrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Pyrene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

, SM95-SO-25 FBN 90 MFB-Q66

SM95-SO-25 FBN 90 MFB-Q66

SM95-SO-25 FBN 90 MFB-Q66

SM95-SO-25 FBN 90 MFB-Q66

SM95-SO-25 FBN 90 MFB-Q66

SM95-SO-25 FBN 90 MFB-Q66

SM95-SO-25 FBN 90 MFB-Q66

SM95-SO-25 FBN 90 MFB-Q66

3.4

3.0

7.9J

3.9J 7.6

6.04.6 0.460

Background Cone,

(mg/kg)

ND

0.86 0.50

1.30

1.60

1.20

1.60

ND

Pesticides/PCBs Concentrations in mg/kg

gamma-chlordane SM95-SO-21 FBN 92 MFB-Q68 0.0056 ND

Metals Concentrations in mg/kg

Antimony

Copper

Lead

SM95-SO-22 FBN91 MFB-Q67

SM95-SO-26 FBN89 MFB-Q65

SM95-SO-19 FBN 86 MFB-Q59

44.7

298 435

12J 64.6

129

HAC Values

(mg/kg)

20000/200000RMEGc/a

None available

B2

0.1 CREG

2000/20000RMEGc/a

B2

2000/30000RMEG c/a

2000/30000RMEGc/a

0.5 CREG; 3/40 RMEG c/a

20/300 RMEG c/a

None available

400 EPA screening level

Exceeds

HAC?

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

J The value is an estimated concentration because one or more quality control criteria have not been met but the substance has been qualitatively

identified in the sample.

J The value is estimated (biased high) because one or more quality control criteria have not been met but the substance has been qualitatively

identified in the sample.

ND-Not detected

D-6

001153
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX D- Table 6 Soil Sampling Data Contaminated Soil (Source 2)

State Marine

January, 1995 [1

Constituent Sample ID Max.Conc.

(mg/kg)

Semtvolatile Organic Compound Concentrations in mg/kg

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

SM95-SO-20 FBN 78 MFB-Q62

1.9

3.8

2.84.04.0

5.6

1.2

0.79 4.8

5.0

Background

Cone, (mg/kg)

ND

1.3

1.3

0.5

1.2

1.6

ND

0.18J 0.86

1.6

Metals Concentrations in mg/kg

Beryllium

Copper

Lead

Nickel

Zinc

SM95-SO-13 FBN79 MFB-Q64

SM95-SO-13 FBN79 MFB-Q64

SM95-SO-13 FBN79 MFB-Q64

SM95-SO-13 FBN79MFB-Q64

SM95-SO-13 FBN79 MFB-Q64

27

1,670 4,090

243

38,700

1.4

64.6

43.5 47.7

351

HAC Value

(mg/kg)

20000/200000/RMEGc/a

B2

0.1 CREG

B2

B2

2000/30000RMEGc/a

2000/30000RMEGc/a

1000/10000RMEGc/a

None available

2000/20000RMEGc/a

0.2CREG^OO/4000RMEGc/a

None available

400 EPA screening level

IOOO/10000RMEGc/a

20000/200000chrEMEGc/a

Exceeds HAC?

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes, canccr.No None

Yes

No

Yes, child only

J The value is an estimated concentration because one or more quality control criteria have not been met but the substance has been qualitatively

identified in the sample.

ND-Not detected

D-7

001154
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX D- Table 7 Soil Sampling Data Contaminated Soil (Source 3)

State Marine

January, 1995 [1

Constituent Sample ID Max.Conc.

(mg/kg)

Background

Cone, (mg/kg)

Semivolatile Organic Compound Concentrations in mg/kg

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Pyrene

Fluoranthene

Chrysene

SM95-SO-27 FBN 75 MFB-Q73

SM95-SO-27 FBN 75 MFB-Q73

SM95-SO-27 FBN 75 MFB-Q73

SM95-SO-27 FBN 75 MFB-Q73

5.9

25.0

7.90

8.40

0.50

1.60

1.60

1.20

Pesticides/PCBs Concentration in mg/kg

alpha-chlordane

gamma-chlordane

SM95-SO-27-FBN 75 MFE-Q73

SM95-SO-27-FBN 75 MFE-Q73

0.029 0.030JND

ND

Metals Concentrations in mg/kg

Mercury SM95-SO-27 FBN 75 MFE-Q73 0.30 0.16

HAC

Value (mg/kg)

B2

2000/20000RMEGc/a 2000/30000RMEGc/a

B2

0.5CREG;3/40RMEGc/a 0.5CREG;3/40RMEGc/a

20/200RMEGc/a

Exceeds HAC?

No

No

No

No

No

J The value is an estimated concentration because one or more quality control criteria have not been met but the substance has been qualitatively

identified in the sample.

ND-Not detected

D-8

001155
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

APPENDIX D- Table 8 Sediment Sampling Data

State Marine

January 11-12, 1995 [1

Constituent Sample ID Max.Conc.

Semivolatile Organic Compound Concentrations in mg/kg

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Chrysene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

SM95-SE-18 FBN 47 MFB-Q38

SM95-SE-09 FBN 57 MFB-Q48

SM95-SE-08 FBN 56 MFB-Q47

SM95-SE-08 FBN 56 MFB-Q47

SM95-SE-08 FBN 56 MFB-Q47

SM95-SE-09 FBN 57 MFB-Q48

SM95-SE-18 FBN 47 MFB-Q38

SM95-SE-09 FBN 57 MFB-Q48

SM95-SE-09 FBN 57 MFB-Q48

0.6304.1

0.680

1.3J

1.1

9.1

0.630

7.1

8.8

Metals Concentrations in mg/kg

Lead

Zinc

SM95-SE-10 FBN58 MFB-Q49

SM95-SE-10 FBN58 MFB-Q49

156

1,380

Health Based Comparison

Value (mg/kg)

20000/200000/RMEGc/a

B2

0.1 CREG

B2

B2

2000/30000RMEGc/a 2000/30000RMEGc/a

None available

2000/20000RMEGc/a

400 EPA screening level

20000/200000chrEMEGc/a

Exceeds HAC?

No

n/a Yes

n/a

n/a

No

No

n/a

No

No

No

n/a - None available

J The value is an estimated concentration because one or more quality control criteria have not been met but the substance has been qualitatively

identified in the sample.

ND-Not detected

 AH PAHs were below detection in background sediment samples collected by the TNRCC in January 1995.

D-9

001156
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

Pathway

Name

TABLE 9 - Exposure Pathway Elements

Contaminants of

Concern

Source Media Point of

Exposure

' • ' • ;••'• ' ' •'- !• • ' •''.:•',:• " '' . '"2 •"'•V-: 1 r, ••••• • i- '••:. '<'-••• ' • - '•"!' '•'•.. ' ,v/ '..:;,:•' •

Route of

Exposure

Exposed

Population Time Comments

'•"" " ' L' v' ' • " ."'''•"'.••' - ' •'• • •^'"'•'•''• :"' ''''-"^ ''*/ ' ' •• *\-.'j y -

 :i

- -'"i -'••'' • ' '' ,•'•''•••' ' ' •' ',-L.-/ 1' i ' '''' . y

1

,;

1

 • '• '"":.. ''' ' i •- !?„„. ''•• ' ' . •' ' ''

Potential Exposure Pathways ' :>1 •'"'• ' ;./' < •

 :

:

;

 «'•-'•'•-, ' 'r ":;;:-:

 : H ;-,'•'< J <: '.'yv;; •:,'••';• • :,;'f":

. : >;]," '••.V:^C V: "-' i ,:-i' !!

;

.-

!

 .;' • '•>'•; 1i;- '-'«j'.i: S^v-; '•>:':'<•':•;• . ,."''' ;"^ -.-' :

 :

' ^..'X£''l'' : .'••<: '.'i: ;.'•' , v-^v ':' ;

!

' •": '•.

Foodchain

Air

Surface Water

Surface Soil

Sediment

Possibly PAHs

Sulfur Compounds

PAHs

Benzo(a)pyrene

Beryllium

Lead

Benzo(a)pyrene

(SE-08)

1,2,3

Steam

Boiler

2,3

1,2,3

1,2,3

Fish/

Shellfish

Air

Surface Water

Surface Soil

Sediment

Sabine Lake and Intracoastal Canal

On- and off-site

Sabine Lake and Intracoastal Canal adjacent to the site

On-site

On-site areas among barges on

east side of State Marine Off-site south of State Marine

and peninsula in Sabine

Lake/Intracoastal Canal

Ingestion

Inhalation

Incidental Ingestion

Dermal Contact

Incidental Ingestion

Dermal contact

Incidental Ingestion

Dermal Contact

People who eat fish

and shellfish caught in

Sabine Lake and

Intracoastal Canal

Residents and workers

People who use Sabine

Lake and the

Intracoastal Canal for

fishing and other

recreational activities

On-site workers

Trespassers

On-site workers

Trespassers

Present

Past

Past

Present

Future

Past

Present

Future

Tool

Present

Future

Indeterminate public health hazard

since fish/shellfish tissue have not

been analyzed. Sediments contain

PAHs.

Indeterminate public health hazard.

In the past citizens complained

about noxious odors that were

traced to high sulfur content fuel oil

used to fire a steam boiler.

No apparent public health hazard. Although contact with the surface

water is possible it would most

likely be minimal. Current

contaminant concentrations are not

known but are probably much lower

that those documented during

observed releases.

No apparent public health hazard. Although people theoretically could

contact contaminated soil, such

contact would be minimal and

infrequent.

No apparent public health hazard.

Although people theoretically could

contact contaminated sediment,

such contact would be minimal and

infreauent.

D-10

001157
State Marine of Port Arthur Final Release

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Public Health Conclusion Categories

CATEGORY A. URGENT PUBLIC HEALTH

HAZARD

This category is used for sites that

pose an urgent public health hazard

as the result of short-term

exposures to hazardous substances.

Criteria;

Evidence exists that exposures have

occurred, are occurring, or are

likely to occur in the future; and

the estimated exposures are to a substance or substances at

concentrations in the environment

that, upon short-term exposures

(less than 1 year), can cause

adverse health effects to any

segment of the receptor population.

The adverse health effect can be the

result of either carcinogenic or

noncarcinogenic toxicity from a chemical exposure. For a

noncarcinogenic toxic effect, the

exposure exceeds an acute or

intermediate minimal risk level

(MRL) established in the ATSDR

Toxicological Profiles or other

comparable value; and /or

community-specific health outcome

data indicate that the site has had an

adverse impact on human health

that requires rapid intervention; and

/or

physical hazards at the site pose an

imminent risk of physical injury.

CATEGORY B.

PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

This category is used for sites that

pose a public health hazard as the

result of long-term exposures to

hazardous substances.

Criteria:

Evidence exists that exposures have

occurred, are occurring, or are

likely to occur in the future; and the

estimated exposures are to a substance or substances at

concentrations in the environment

that, upon long-term exposures

(greater than 1 year), can cause

adverse health effects to any

segment of the receptor population.

The adverse health effect can be the

result of either carcinogenic or

noncarcinogenic toxicity from a chemical exposure. For a

noncarcinogenic toxic effect, the

exposure exceeds a chronic MRL

established in the ATSDR

Toxicological Profiles or other

comparable value; and/or

community-specific health outcome

data indicate that the site has had an

adverse impact on human health

that requires intervention.

CATEGORY C.

INDETERMINATE PUBLIC

HEALTH HAZARD

This category is used for sites with

incomplete information.

Criteria:

The limited available data do not

indicate that humans are being or have

been exposed to levels of contamination

that would be expected to cause adverse

health effects. However, data or

information are not available for all

environmental media to which humans

may be exposed; and there are

insufficient or no community-specific

health outcome data to indicate that the

site has had an adverse impact on

human health.

CATEGORY D. NO APPARENT PUBLIC HEALTH

HAZARD

This category is used for sites where

human exposure to contaminated media

is occurring or has occurred in the past,

but the exposure is below a level of

health hazard.

Criteria:

Exposures do not exceed an ATSDR

chronic MRL or other comparable value;

and data are available for all

environmental media to which humans

are being exposed; and there are no

community-specific health outcome data

to indicate that the site has had an

adverse, impact on human health.

CATEGORY E.

NO PUBLIC HEALTH

HAZARD

This category is used for sites

that do not pose a public

health hazard.

Criteria:

There is no evidence of

current or past human

exposure to contaminated

media; and future exposures

to contaminated media are not

likely to occur; and there are

no community-specific health

outcome data to indicate that

the site has had an adverse

impact on human health.

D-ll

001158