PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
BRINE SERVICE COMPANY
CORPUS CHRISTI, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
The Brine Service Company site is a former waste disposal area 6.5 miles west of downtown Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas (Figure 1). The approximately 16-acre property had two pits: the south pit and the north pit. These pits were used to dispose of oil field waste, refinery waste, and drilling fluid. By the early 1970s, both pits had been backfilled and covered.
Subsurface soil samples (8 to 15 ½ feet below ground surface) were collected on the Brine Service Company site. Sediment samples (0 to 18 inches) were collected from the on-site drainage ditch and from the wetland area downstream of Brine Service Company, from Tule Lake, and from the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor.
Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in one of five subsurface soil samples. Although the concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in this sample exceeded its respective health-based screening value, the sample was collected at a depth between 8 and 11 feet below ground surface. Given the low frequency of detection and the depth at which the sample was collected, it is improbable that exposure would occur or could occur frequently enough to cause adverse health effects. Access to the site by children is unlikely because of the distance from residential areas and the limited accessibility to the property. Therefore, TDH classified the Brine Service Company site as posing no apparent public health hazard.
ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD CATEGORIES
| Category A. Urgent Public Health Hazard 1 |
Category B. Public Health Hazard 1 |
Category C. Indeterminate Public Health Hazard |
Category D. No Apparent Public Health Hazard 1 |
Category E. No Public Health Hazard |
| This category is used for sites where short-term exposures (<1 year) to hazardous substances or conditions could result in adverse health effects that require rapid intervention. | This category is used for sites that pose a public health hazard due to the existence of long-term exposures (>1 year) to hazardous substances or conditions that could result in adverse health effects. | This category is used for sites in which "critical" data are insufficient with regard to extent of exposure and/or toxicologic properties at estimated exposure levels. | This category is used for sites where human exposure to contaminated media might be occurring, could have occurred in the past, or could occur in the future, but the exposure is not expected to cause any adverse health effects. | This category is used for sites that, because of the absence of exposure, do NOT pose a public health hazard. |
| Criteria: Evaluation of available information2 indicates that site-specific conditions or likely exposures have had, are having, or are likely to have in the future, an adverse impact on human health that requires immediate action or intervention. Such site-specific conditions or exposures might include the presence of serious physical or safety hazards, such as open mine shafts, poorly stored or maintained flammable/explosive substances, or medical devices that, if ruptured, could release radioactive materials. |
Criteria: Evaluation of available relevant information2 suggests that, under site-specific conditions of exposure, long-term exposures to site-specific contaminants (including radionuclides) have had, are having, or are likely to have in the future, an adverse impact on human health that requires one or more public health interventions. Such site-specific exposures might include the presence of serious physical hazards, such as open mine shafts, poorly stored or maintained flammable/explosive substances, or medical devices that, if ruptured, could release radioactive materials. |
Criteria: The health assessor must determine, using professional judgement, the "criticality" of such data and the likelihood that the data can be obtained and will be obtained in a timely manner. Where some data are available, even limited data, the health assessor is encouraged to the extent possible to select other hazard categories and to support his or her decision with clear narrative that explains the limits of the data and the rationale for the decision. |
Criteria: Evaluation of available information2 indicates that, under site-specific conditions of exposure, exposures to site-specific contaminants in the past, present, or future are not likely to result in any adverse impact on human health. |
Criteria: Sufficient evidence indicates that no human exposures to contaminated media have occurred, none are now occurring, and none are likely to occur in the future. |
1 This determination represents
a professional judgment based on critical data that ATSDR has judged sufficient
to support a decision. This does not necessarily imply that the available data
are complete; in some cases additional data might be required to confirm or
further support the decision made.
2 Such as environmental and demographic data; health outcome data;
exposure data; information on community health concerns; and toxicologic, medical,
and epidemiologic data.
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. In 1990, federal facilities were included on the NPL. (Note: Appendix A provides a listing of abbreviations and acronyms used in this report.)
Three types of information are used to conduct the PHA: 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 that 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 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 that could be associated with the hazardous chemicals released from the NPL facility.
In accordance with the interagency cooperative agreement between ATSDR and the Texas Department of Health (TDH), ATSDR and TDH prepared this PHA for the Brine Service Company site. This PHA presents conclusions about whether exposures are occurring and whether a health threat is present. In some cases, it is possible to determine whether exposures occurred in the past; however, a lack of appropriate historical data often makes it difficult to quantify past exposures. If a threat to public health is found, recommendations are made to stop or reduce the threat to public health.
The Brine Service Company (BSC) site is a former waste disposal area 6.5 miles west of downtown Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas (Figure 1). The approximately 16-acre property is bounded on the west by Goldston Road, on the east by an industrial area, on the south by the frontage road to Interstate Highway 37, and on the north by a parking area for the Nueces Occupational Medical Clinic on Up River Road. A drainage ditch cuts across the site from south to north (Figure 2).
Historical aerial photographs showed two pit areas (south and north) on the property; however, both pits have since been backfilled and are level with the surrounding land. On the south end of the property is an adult video store, an equipment repair shop, and a communications tower. Tanker trucks park near the communications tower. A paved area and a tire warehouse are on the northern part of the property.
Prior to its use for waste disposal, the BSC property was quarried for sand and caliche. From the 1940s through the 1960s oil field waste, refinery waste, and drilling fluid were disposed of at the south pit. There is no documentation that the north pit received waste; however, it might have received runoff from the south pit. The south pit was backfilled in the early 1970s with concrete rubble and debris, then topped with 4-6 feet of soil [1]. The north pit was backfilled between 1961 and 1968 [2]. There is no documentation that either of the pits were lined.
The south waste pit was discovered in November 1997 when a pipeline trench was being dug through the area by Koch Refinery. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) (1) documented that the bottom and sides of the trench were visibly stained and that groundwater seeping into the excavation had a hydrocarbon sheen [1]. Samples of the excavated soil had benzene concentrations as high as 79 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Approximately 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the trench were disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility.
In February 2000, the TNRCC Superfund Site Discovery and Assessment Program sampled soil and sediment at the BSC site and had them analyzed for volatile and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs and SVOCs, respectively), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and metals. The results of these analyses are presented in the Environmental Contaminant, Pathways Analysis, and Public Health Implications section of this document.
The Brine Service Company site was proposed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List (NPL) in September 2001 because contamination from the site might pose a threat to downstream fisheries [3].
Land Use and Natural Resource Use
With the exception of the Nueces Occupational Medical Clinic to the north of the property, the area around the site is industrial and commercial. Three petrochemical refineries: Citgo, Valero, and Koch are approximately ½ mile east, 1 mile east, and 1 mile northwest of the BSC site, respectively [1].
Stormwater flows from the property into a drainage ditch that cuts through the site (Figure 2). The ditch drains northward, past the former south and north pit areas into wetlands and then into Tule Lake. Tule Lake is a brackish, shallow wetland that flows into Corpus Christi Inner Harbor and then into Corpus Christi Bay [1]. Access to the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor is restricted by the U.S. Coast Guard (neither recreational nor fishing vessels are allowed entry) [4]. Corpus Christi Bay is accessible to the public and is used for recreation as well as recreational and commercial fishing [1].
Surface water downstream of the BSC site is saline and therefore not used for drinking. There are no domestic or public water supply wells within 1 mile of the BSC site [5,6].
Representatives of the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) visited the BSC site and surrounding area on January 22, 2002. The property is surrounded by a 6-foot-high chain-link fence topped by three-strand barbed wire. No warning signs were posted. Although the gate at the tire warehouse was open, there was no evidence that people frequent the area other than for the business use of the property. The drainage ditch had water standing in it; no sheen was observed on the surface. Vegetation on the banks of the ditch appeared healthy.
The nearest residential area is approximately 0.4 miles west southwest of the Brine Services property. Because of the industrial nature of this area, additional residential development is improbable. The 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census data reports 27 housing units and 71 residents within a ½-mile radius of the BSC site [7]. No schools or day care facilities are within 200 feet of the site. It is not known how many people worked at BSC in the past.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, PATHWAY ANALYSIS, AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
The presence of chemical contaminants in the environment does not always result in exposure to or contact with the chemicals. Because chemicals have the potential to cause adverse health effects only when people actually come into contact with them, it is exposure (the contact that people have with the contaminants) that drives the PHA process.
People can be exposed to contaminants by breathing, eating, drinking, or coming into direct contact with a substance containing the contaminant. This section reviews available information to determine whether people in the community have been, currently are, or could in the future be exposed to contaminants associated with this site.
To determine whether people are exposed to site-related contaminants, investigators evaluate the environmental and human components leading to human exposure. This analysis consists of evaluating the five elements of an exposure pathway:
Exposure pathways can be complete, potential, or eliminated. For a person to be exposed to a contaminant, the exposure pathway must be complete. An exposure pathway is considered complete when all five elements in the pathway are present and exposure has occurred, is occurring, or will occur in the future. A potential pathway is missing at least one of the five elements but could be complete in the future. An eliminated pathway is missing one or more elements and will never be completed. Table 1 identifies pathways important to this site. The following discussion incorporates only those pathways relevant and important to the site.
Because exposure does not always result in adverse health effects, an evaluation of whether the exposure could be sufficient to pose a hazard to people in the community is also done. The factors that influence whether exposure to a contaminant or contaminants could or would result in adverse health effects include
Once exposure occurs, characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status, genetics, lifestyle, and health status of the exposed person influence how that person absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and excretes the contaminant.
When identifying plausible potential exposure scenarios, the first step is assessing the potential public health significance of the exposure. This is done by comparing contaminant concentrations to health assessment comparison (HAC) values for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic end points. HAC values are media-specific contaminant concentrations used to screen contaminants for further evaluation. Although 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.
Noncancer comparison values are also known as environmental media evaluation guides (EMEGs) or reference dose media evaluation guides (RMEGs) and are based on ATSDR's minimal risk levels (MRLs) and EPA's reference doses (RfDs), respectively. MRLs and RfDs are estimates of daily human exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause adverse noncancer health effects over a lifetime. Cancer risk comparison values are also known as carcinogenic risk evaluation guides (CREGs) and are based on EPA's chemical-specific cancer slope factors and an estimated excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1-million persons exposed for a lifetime. Here, standard assumptions are used to calculate appropriate HAC values [8].
The environmental data used in this PHA were obtained from soil and sediment sampling conducted in February 2000 by TNRCC for the site screening inspection report [1]. The samples were analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. In preparing this PHA, we relied on the validity of the quality assurance information provided in the referenced documents. The analysis and conclusions in this report are valid only if the referenced information is valid and complete.
To assess the public health significance of this site, potential exposure to site contaminants in soil, sediment, surface water, air, seafood and groundwater were considered. Because it is not likely that people could come into contact with contaminants in air from the BSC site, this pathway was eliminated from further analysis. The exposure pathways important to this site are presented in Table 1.
Subsurface soil samples from the south and north pit areas were collected at depths ranging between 8 and 15.5 feet below ground surface. Surface soil samples were not collected since the pit areas had been covered with clean fill dirt [1]. Two sediment samples were collected from the on-site drainage ditch to depths of 18 inches. Six sediment samples were collected from the wetland area downstream of BSC and from Tule Lake. Three sediment samples, further downstream of Tule Lake, were collected from the Inner Harbor.
Arsenic was detected in on-site subsurface soil and in sediments collected from the drainage ditch and Tule Lake and the wetland (Tables 2 and 3). Although the reported concentrations were above the cancer screening value specific for this contaminant, they were similar to those found in the background samples as well as to the concentrations reported to be background in the western United States [8].
Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in one of the five subsurface soil samples; the other four samples were reported as "not detected." Although benzo(a)pyrene in this sample exceeded its health-based screening value, the sample was collected at a depth between 8 and 11 feet below the ground surface. Given the low frequency of detection and the depth at which the sample was taken, it is improbable that exposure would occur and/or could occur frequently enough to pose a public health hazard. Based on the above considerations we classified exposure to soil and sediment as posing no apparent public health hazard.
On-site surface water data were not available for evaluation; however, we concluded on the basis of sediment sample results from the drainage ditch that other than as mosquito habitat, the surface water is not likely to pose a public health hazard. Additionally, because the ditch is bordered by dense vegetation, it is not readily accessible.
Downstream of the BSC site are wetlands that connect with Tule Lake and the Inner Harbor of the Port of Corpus Christi. Fish and crabs near the Tule Lake Turning Basin of the Inner Harbor were sampled by the TDH Seafood Safety Division August 1994 and analyzed for metals. Concentrations of metals in the fish and crab tissue were generally low. Mercury, which is a contaminant of particular concern in fish and crab tissues, ranged from 0.100 mg/kg in Stone Crab claws to 0.352 mg/kg in Speckled Trout [9].
Access points to Tule Lake for fishing or crabbing are not available. The U.S. Coast Guard has declared the Inner Harbor a security zone and no vessels may enter without permission. This security zone specifically excludes recreational and fishing vessels of all types [4].
Seafood from Tule Lake does not pose a public health hazard because it is not readily accessible. Seafood caught from the Inner Harbor does not pose a public health hazard because commercial and recreational fishing are restricted.
No major water-bearing units containing potable water are near the BSC site; however, there is shallow groundwater beneath the site (between 5 and 8 feet below the ground surface). This shallow groundwater generally flows to the north or northeast. Monitoring well information collected in 1996 and 1997 indicate that this shallow groundwater is confined; monitoring well sampling data indicate that it is contaminated with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes presumably from one or more of the five petroleum storage tanks that were removed from the site in 1995 [1].
No private or public water supply wells are within 1 mile of the BSC site. Drinking water for the area is supplied by the city of Corpus Christi and comes from Lake Corpus Christi/the Choke Canyon Reservoir system and Lake Texana [10].
COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS, CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE, AND HEALTH OUTCOME DATA
In an attempt to determine community health concerns related to the BSC site, TDH contacted businesses on and near the site, the Nueces Occupational Medicine Clinic, the TNRCC regional office, and the Corpus Christi-Nueces County Health Department. No community health concerns specific to the Brine Service Company site were identified.
ATSDR's 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, air, or food. Children are at greater risk than are 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 BSC site to be exposed to site contaminants at levels of health concern. Children currently are not likely to be exposed to contaminants from the site. The maximum reported concentration of arsenic in sediment at the BSC site was comparable to that of uncontaminated areas. In addition, access to the site by children is unlikely because of the distance from residential areas and the limited accessibility to the property. The drainage ditch, debris, and other materials hidden by tall vegetation could pose a physical hazard to small children if they were to trespass on the site; however, the plausibility of this occurring seems low.
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 can be used to investigate patterns of disease in a specific population. TDH and ATSDR look at appropriate and available health outcome data when a completed exposure pathway or community concern exists. Because no completed exposure pathways and no identified community health concerns exist, a review of HOD was not required for this site.
Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in one of five subsurface soil samples. Although the concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in this sample exceeded its respective health-based screening value, the sample was collected at a depth between 8 and 11 feet below ground surface. Given the low frequency of detection and the depth at which the sample was collected, it is improbable that exposure would occur or could occur frequently enough to cause adverse health effects.
On the basis of sediment sample results from the drainage ditch and lack of accessibility of the ditch due to its being bordered by dense vegetation, any on-site surface water in the drainage ditch is not likely to pose a public health hazard.
Fishing areas immediately downstream of the BSC are not readily accessible and access to the Inner Harbor is restricted, thus, any potential for exposure to site contaminants in seafood is unlikely.
There are no water wells within one mile of the BSC site. Additionally, there are no major water-bearing unites containing potable water near the site; drinking water for the area comes from Lake Corpus Christi/the Choke Canyon Reservoir system and Lake Texana.
Access to the site by children is unlikely because of the distance from residential areas and the limited accessibility to the property.
Susan L. Prosperie, MS, RS
Environmental Specialist
Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Division
John F. Villanacci, PhD
Director
Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Division
ATSDR Regional Representative
George Pettigrew, PE
Senior Regional Representative
ATSDR Region 6
Robert Knowles, MS, REHS
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
State Programs Section
This 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 public 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.
Roberta Erlwein
Chief, State Programs Section, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
| ATSDR | Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry |
| CERCLA | Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1990 |
| CREG | carcinogenic risk evaluation guide |
| EMEG | environmental media evaluation guide |
| EPA | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
| NPL | National Priorities List |
| HAC | health assessment comparison value |
| MRL | minimal risk level |
| mg/kg | milligrams per kilogram |
| PHA | public health assessment |
| RfD | reference dose |
| RMEG | reference dose media evaluation guide |
| SARA | Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986) |
| SVOCs | semivolatile organic compounds |
| TDH | Texas Department of Health |
| TNRCC | Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission |
| VOCs | volatile organic compounds |
Figure 1. General Site Location and Demographics Information
Figure 2. Brine Service Company Site Map
Table 1. Potential Exposure Pathways for the Brine Service Company Site
| PATHWAY NAME | PRIMARY CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN | EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ELEMENTS | TIME | COMMENTS | ||||
| SOURCE | ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA | POINT OF EXPOSURE | ROUTE OF EXPOSURE | EXPOSED POPULATION | ||||
| Soil | Benzo(a)pyrene Arsenic |
Oil field and refinery waste | Soil | South pit North pit |
Incidental ingestion Inhalation Dermal contact |
On-site workers | Past Present Future |
On the basis of assumptions that on-site workers could somehow be exposed to these concentrations of contaminants, we classified exposure to soil as posing no apparent public health hazard. |
| Sediment | Arsenic | Oil field and refinery waste | Sediment | Drainage ditch Wetland to Tule Lake Tule Lake Inner Harbor downstream of Tule Lake |
Incidental ingestion Inhalation Dermal contact |
On-site workers | Past Present Future |
On the basis of assumptions that on-site workers could somehow be exposed to these concentrations of contaminants, we classified exposure to sediment as posing no apparent public health hazard. |
| Surface water | Not sampled | Runoff from former pit areas | Surface water | Drainage ditch Wetland Tule Lake Inner Harbor |
Incidental ingestion Inhalation Dermal contact |
On-site workers | Past Present Future |
Surface water is not likely to pose a public health hazard. |
| Seafood | Limited sampling | Wetland Tule Lake Inner Harbor |
Fish and crabs | Tule Lake Inner Harbor |
Ingestion | None | Past Present Future |
Because commercial and recreational fishing from the Inner Harbor are restricted, consumption of seafood does not pose a public health hazard. |
| Groundwater | Limited sampling | Oil field and refinery waste | Groundwater | None | None | None | Past Present Future |
Because the shallow groundwater is confined and because no one is using this shallow groundwater for drinking or other potable use, this groundwater poses no public health hazard. |
Table 2. On-Site Soil and Sediment Sampling
Data (February 15-17, 2000)*
| Constituent | Background
Samples (mg/kg) |
South Pit Area (mg/kg) |
North Pit Area |
Drainage Ditch |
Health Assessment Comparison Value (mg/kg) |
|||||
| SO-07 22'-24' |
SE-11 0-18" |
SO-01 11.5'-15.5' |
SO-03 8'-11' |
SO-04 8'-11' |
SO-05 8.0'-12.5' |
SO-06 8'-12' |
SE-12 0-18" |
SE-13 0-18" |
||
| Volatile Organic Compounds | ||||||||||
| Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene o-Xylene m/p-Xylenes |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
1.89 5.93 4.15 5.02 10.2 |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
0.397 ND 0.974 ND 0.398 |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
10 CREG 1,000/10,000 intEMEGc/a 5,000/70,000 RMEGc/a 10,000/100,000 intEMEGc/a 10,000/100,000 intEMEGc/a |
| Semivolatile Organic Compounds | ||||||||||
| Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)perylene 2-Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
8.50 4.38 ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.70 16.7 ND 54.5 8.99 109 8.88 |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.15 ND ND ND ND 1.08 0.95 |
ND 1.14 3.3 3.47 2.19 2.44 2.36 3.11 5.03 ND 1.99 ND ND 4.62 6.78 |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.617 ND ND 1.84 ND 1.82 0.887 |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
3,000/40,000 RMEGc/a 20,000/200,000 RMEGc/a None available 0.1 CREG None available None available None available None available 2,000/30,000 RMEGc/a 2,000/30,000 RMEGc/a None available None available 1,000/10,000 intEMEGc/a None available 2,000/20,000 RMEGc/a |
| Pesticides/PCBs | ||||||||||
| Dieldrin 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD |
ND ND ND |
ND ND ND |
ND ND ND |
ND ND 0.0058 |
ND ND 0.025 |
0.0148 0.0058 0.0062 |
ND ND ND |
ND ND ND |
ND ND ND |
0.04 CREG; 3/40 chrEMEGc/a 2 CREG 3 CREG |
| Metals | ||||||||||
|
Aluminum |
15,400 |
10,500 3.5 272 10.3 6.9 6,590 12.0 ND 9.8J 29.4 |
27,300 |
23,400 |
24,000 |
19,800 |
25,300 |
11,100 4.9 591 14.1 24.5 7,030 88.2 0.21J ND 579 |
8260 5.8 623 17.9 48.1 7,250 108 0.76J 14.8J 852 |
100,000/1,000,000 intEMEGc/a |
*Abbreviations: mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram; ND: not detected; CREG: carcinogenic risk evaluation guide; intEMEG: intermediate environmental media evaluation guide; c/a: child/adult; RMEG: reference dose media evaluation guide; chrEMEG: chronic environmental media evaluation guide; J: estimated.
Table 3. Off-Site and Downgradient Sediment
Sampling for Tule Lake and Wetlands (February 15-17, 2000)*
| Constituent | Background Sample (mg/kg) |
Tule Lake and Wetland |
Inner Harbor (mg/kg) |
Health Assessment Comparison Value (mg/kg) |
|||||||
| SE-14 0-18" |
SE-01 0-18" |
SE-02 0-18" |
SE-03 0-18" |
SE-04 0-18" |
SE-06 0-12" |
SE-07 0-12" |
SE-09 0-12" |
SE-22 0-18" |
SE2-3 0-18" |
||
| Volatile Organic Compounds | |||||||||||
| Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene o-Xylene m/p-Xylenes |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND |
10 CREG A 1,000/10,000 intEMEGc/a 5,000/70,000 RMEGc/a 10,000/100,000 intEMEGc/a 10,000/100,000 intEMEGc/a |
| Semivolatile Organic Compounds | |||||||||||
| Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)perylene 2-Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND 0.14 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND 0.21 0.11 ND ND ND ND 0.26 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.17 |
ND ND 0.07 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND |
3,000/40,000 RMEGc/a 20,000/200,000 RMEGc/a None available B2 0.1 CREG B2 None available B2 None available D None available B2 None available B2 2,000/30,000 RMEGc/a 2,000/30,000 RMEGc/a None available B2 None available 1,000/10,000 intEMEGc/a None available D 2,000/20,000 RMEGc/a |
| Pesticides/PCBs | |||||||||||
| Dieldrin 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD Methoxychlor |
ND ND ND 0.039 |
ND ND ND ND |
ND 0.01 ND ND |
ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND |
UR UR UR UR |
ND ND ND ND |
ND ND ND ND |
0.04 CREG B2; 3/40 chrEMEGc/a 2 CREG B2 3 CREG B2 300/4,000 intEMEGc/a |
| Metals | |||||||||||
|
Aluminum |
9,410 |
9,670 |
16,700 5.9 2,140 29.1 18.3 11,400 62.9 0.49J ND 189 |
16,900 6.6 874 24.0 17.8 11,200 54.9 0.28J ND 231 |
20,600 |
6,310J |
5,040J |
1,500J ND ND ND ND 1,530 3.1 ND ND 39 |
1,160J ND ND ND ND 1,580 2.6 ND ND 12.8 |
1,240J |
100,000/1,000,000 intEMEGc/a |
*Abbreviations: mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram; ND: not detected; CREG: carcinogenic risk evaluation guide; intEMEG: intermediate environmental media evaluation guide; c/a: child/adult; RMEG: reference dose media evaluation guide; chrEMEG: chronic environmental media evaluation guide; J: estimated.
Table 4. Seafood Sampling, Port of Corpus
Christi, August 1994
| Metals
|
PCC-1 Black Drum |
PCC-2 Speckled Trout |
PCC-3 Gafftopsail Catfish |
PCC-4 Red Drum |
PCC-5 Southern Flounder |
PCC-6 Mangrove Snapper |
PCC-7 Stone Crab Claws |
PCC-8 Blue Crab |
| Arsenic | 6.453 | ND* | 0.326 | 0.277 | 0.230 | 0.178 | 0.514 | 0.436 |
| Cadmium | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Copper | 0.74 | 4.14 | 1.08 | 0.64 | ND | 0.24 | 16.91 | 12.35 |
| Lead | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Mercury | 0.106 | 0.352 | 0.176 | 0.150 | 0.113 | 0.114 | 0.100 | 0.101 |
| Zinc | 5.82 | 4.52 | 16.24 | 3.94 | 3.59 | 3.49 | 75.78 | 40.57 |
PCC: Port of Corpus Christi; Data from the Texas Department
of Health [9]. Data in milligrams per kilogram.
*ND: not detected.
