PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
STATE MARINE OF PORT ARTHUR
PORT ARTHUR, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
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.
I.A 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.
I.B 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.
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.
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.
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 sulfur fuel oil [1].
In 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 Intracoastal 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].
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.
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.
Representatives of the TDH visited the State Marine site and vicinity in August and 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.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, in 1990 the total residential population within a one-mile 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 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 within 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].
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION / PATHWAYS ANALYSIS / PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
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.
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 toxicological information with plausible exposure scenarios. Estimated exposures may be 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 the 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 in Tables 1-8 in 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.
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 will never be completed. Table 9 summarizes the 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.
III.C.1.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 of bioconcentrating 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 of fish contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene theoretically could result in an increase in the lifetime risk for developing cancer.
III.C.1.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.
In 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 available information, exposure to site related contaminants through the air does not pose a public health hazard.
III.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.
III.C.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 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.
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 in 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: 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 health-based 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.
III.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 Intracoastal 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 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.
III.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.
III.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.
III.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. Tall vegetation may have obscured other on-site hazards. Currently, physical hazards could pose a hazard to people who trespass on the site.
IV. COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS/HEALTH OUTCOME DATA
IV.A Community Health Concerns Evaluation
As part of the public health assessment process, ATSDR and TDH try to learn what concerns people in the area may have about the impact of the site on their 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.
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 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.
VII. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN
Actions Planned
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
This 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.
William Grenim
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SAB, DHAC
The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this Public Health Assessment and concurs with its findings.
Richard Gillig
Chief, SPC, SAB, DHAC, ATSDR
Next Section Table of Contents
