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 downtownCorpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas (Figure 1). The approximately 16-acre property had twopits: the south pit and the north pit. These pits were used to dispose of oil field waste, refinerywaste, 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 BrineService Company site. Sediment samples (0 to 18 inches) were collected from the on-sitedrainage ditch and from the wetland area downstream of Brine Service Company, from TuleLake, and from the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor.
Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in one of five subsurface soil samples. Although the concentrationof benzo(a)pyrene in this sample exceeded its respective health-based screening value, thesample was collected at a depth between 8 and 11 feet below ground surface. Given the lowfrequency of detection and the depth at which the sample was collected, it is improbable thatexposure would occur or could occur frequently enough to cause adverse health effects. Accessto the site by children is unlikely because of the distance from residential areas and the limitedaccessibility to the property. Therefore, TDH classified the Brine Service Company site as posing no apparent public health hazard.
| 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 themandate 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 istermed the National Priorities List (NPL). The 1986 Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act (SARA) directed ATSDR to prepare a public health assessment (PHA) foreach NPL site. In 1990, federal facilities were included on the NPL. (Note: Appendix A providesa listing of abbreviations and acronyms used in this report.)
Three types of information are used to conduct the PHA: environmental data, community healthconcerns, and health outcome data. The environmental data are reviewed to determine whetherpeople in the community might be exposed to hazardous materials from the NPL facility. Ifpeople are being exposed to these chemicals, ATSDR will determine whether the exposure is atlevels that might cause harm. Community health concerns are collected to determine whetherhealth concerns expressed by community members could be related to exposure to chemicalsreleased from the facility. If the community raises concerns about specific diseases in thecommunity, health outcome data (information from state and local databases or health careproviders) can be used to address the community concerns. Also, if ATSDR finds that harmfulexposures have occurred, health outcome data can be used to determine if illnesses are occurringthat could be associated with the hazardous chemicals released from the NPL facility.
In accordance with the interagency cooperative agreement between ATSDR and the TexasDepartment of Health (TDH), ATSDR and TDH prepared this PHA for the Brine ServiceCompany site. This PHA presents conclusions about whether exposures are occurring andwhether a health threat is present. In some cases, it is possible to determine whether exposuresoccurred in the past; however, a lack of appropriate historical data often makes it difficult toquantify past exposures. If a threat to public health is found, recommendations are made to stopor reduce the threat to public health.
The Brine Service Company (BSC) site is a former waste disposal area 6.5 miles west ofdowntown Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas (Figure 1). The approximately 16-acre propertyis bounded on the west by Goldston Road, on the east by an industrial area, on the south by thefrontage road to Interstate Highway 37, and on the north by a parking area for the NuecesOccupational Medical Clinic on Up River Road. A drainage ditch cuts across the site from southto 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 ofthe 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 thenorthern part of the property.
Prior to its use for waste disposal, the BSC property was quarried for sand and caliche. From the1940s through the 1960s oil field waste, refinery waste, and drilling fluid were disposed of at thesouth pit. There is no documentation that the north pit received waste; however, it might havereceived runoff from the south pit. The south pit was backfilled in the early 1970s with concreterubble and debris, then topped with 4-6 feet of soil [1]. The north pit was backfilled between1961 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 dugthrough 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 thatgroundwater seeping into the excavation had a hydrocarbon sheen [1]. Samples of the excavatedsoil had benzene concentrations as high as 79 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Approximately1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the trench were disposed of at a permitted hazardouswaste disposal facility.
In February 2000, the TNRCC Superfund Site Discovery and Assessment Program sampled soiland sediment at the BSC site and had them analyzed for volatile and semivolatile organiccompounds (VOCs and SVOCs, respectively), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, andmetals. The results of these analyses are presented in the Environmental Contaminant, PathwaysAnalysis, and Public Health Implications section of this document.
The Brine Service Company site was proposed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency'sNational Priorities List (NPL) in September 2001 because contamination from the site mightpose 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, thearea 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 intoTule Lake. Tule Lake is a brackish, shallow wetland that flows into Corpus Christi Inner Harborand then into Corpus Christi Bay [1]. Access to the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor is restricted bythe U.S. Coast Guard (neither recreational nor fishing vessels are allowed entry) [4]. CorpusChristi Bay is accessible to the public and is used for recreation as well as recreational andcommercial fishing [1].
Surface water downstream of the BSC site is saline and therefore not used for drinking. There areno 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. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) visited the BSC site and surrounding area on January 22, 2002. Theproperty is surrounded by a 6-foot-high chain-link fence topped by three-strand barbed wire. Nowarning signs were posted. Although the gate at the tire warehouse was open, there was noevidence that people frequent the area other than for the business use of the property. Thedrainage ditch had water standing in it; no sheen was observed on the surface. Vegetation on thebanks of the ditch appeared healthy.
The nearest residential area is approximately 0.4 miles west southwest of the Brine Servicesproperty. Because of the industrial nature of this area, additional residential development isimprobable. The 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census data reports 27 housing units and 71 residentswithin 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 toor contact with the chemicals. Because chemicals have the potential to cause adverse healtheffects only when people actually come into contact with them, it is exposure (the contact thatpeople have with the contaminants) that drives the PHA process.
People can be exposed to contaminants by breathing, eating, drinking, or coming into directcontact with a substance containing the contaminant. This section reviews available informationto determine whether people in the community have been, currently are, or could in the future beexposed to contaminants associated with this site.
To determine whether people are exposed to site-related contaminants, investigators evaluate theenvironmental and human components leading to human exposure. This analysis consists ofevaluating the five elements of an exposure pathway:
- a source of contamination,
- transport through an environmental medium,
- a point of exposure,
- a route through which the contaminant can enter the body, and
- an exposed population.
Exposure pathways can be complete, potential, or eliminated. For a person to be exposed to acontaminant, the exposure pathway must be complete. An exposure pathway is consideredcomplete when all five elements in the pathway are present and exposure has occurred, isoccurring, or will occur in the future. A potential pathway is missing at least one of the fiveelements but could be complete in the future. An eliminated pathway is missing one or moreelements and will never be completed. Table 1 identifies pathways important to this site. Thefollowing 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 theexposure could be sufficient to pose a hazard to people in the community is also done. Thefactors that influence whether exposure to a contaminant or contaminants could or would result in adverse health effects include
- the toxicologic properties of the contaminant;
- how much of the contaminant the individual is exposed to;
- how often or how long, or both, the exposure occurs;
- 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 ofcontaminants).
Once exposure occurs, characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status, genetics, lifestyle, andhealth 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 potentialpublic health significance of the exposure. This is done by comparing contaminantconcentrations to health assessment comparison (HAC) values for both noncarcinogenic andcarcinogenic end points. HAC values are media-specific contaminant concentrations used toscreen contaminants for further evaluation. Although exceeding a HAC value does notnecessarily mean that a contaminant represents a public health threat, it does suggest that thecontaminant 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'sminimal risk levels (MRLs) and EPA's reference doses (RfDs), respectively. MRLs and RfDs areestimates of daily human exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause adverse noncancerhealth effects over a lifetime. Cancer risk comparison values are also known as carcinogenic riskevaluation guides (CREGs) and are based on EPA's chemical-specific cancer slope factors andan 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 samplingconducted in February 2000 by TNRCC for the site screening inspection report [1]. The sampleswere analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. In preparing this PHA, werelied 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 validand complete.
To assess the public health significance of this site, potential exposure to site contaminants insoil, sediment, surface water, air, seafood and groundwater were considered. Because it is notlikely that people could come into contact with contaminants in air from the BSC site, thispathway was eliminated from further analysis. The exposure pathways important to this site arepresented in Table 1.
Subsurface soil samples from the south and north pit areas were collected at depths rangingbetween 8 and 15.5 feet below ground surface. Surface soil samples were not collected since thepit areas had been covered with clean fill dirt [1]. Two sediment samples were collected from theon-site drainage ditch to depths of 18 inches. Six sediment samples were collected from thewetland area downstream of BSC and from Tule Lake. Three sediment samples, furtherdownstream of Tule Lake, were collected from the Inner Harbor.
Arsenic was detected in on-site subsurface soil and in sediments collected from the drainageditch and Tule Lake and the wetland (Tables 2 and 3). Although the reported concentrationswere above the cancer screening value specific for this contaminant, they were similar to thosefound in the background samples as well as to the concentrations reported to be background inthe western United States [8].
Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in one of the five subsurface soil samples; the other four sampleswere 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 theground surface. Given the low frequency of detection and the depth at which the sample wastaken, it is improbable that exposure would occur and/or could occur frequently enough to pose apublic health hazard. Based on the above considerations we classified exposure to soil andsediment as posing no apparent public health hazard.
On-site surface water data were not available for evaluation; however, we concluded on the basisof sediment sample results from the drainage ditch that other than as mosquito habitat, thesurface water is not likely to pose a public health hazard. Additionally, because the ditch isbordered by dense vegetation, it is not readily accessible.
Downstream of the BSC site are wetlands that connect with Tule Lake and the Inner Harbor ofthe Port of Corpus Christi. Fish and crabs near the Tule Lake Turning Basin of the Inner Harborwere 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 acontaminant of particular concern in fish and crab tissues, ranged from 0.100 mg/kg in StoneCrab 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 hasdeclared the Inner Harbor a security zone and no vessels may enter without permission. Thissecurity 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 commercialand recreational fishing are restricted.
No major water-bearing units containing potable water are near the BSC site; however, there isshallow groundwater beneath the site (between 5 and 8 feet below the ground surface). Thisshallow groundwater generally flows to the north or northeast. Monitoring well informationcollected in 1996 and 1997 indicate that this shallow groundwater is confined; monitoring wellsampling data indicate that it is contaminated with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenespresumably from one or more of the five petroleum storage tanks that were removed from the sitein 1995 [1].
No private or public water supply wells are within 1 mile of the BSC site. Drinking water for thearea 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 contactedbusinesses on and near the site, the Nueces Occupational Medicine Clinic, the TNRCC regionaloffice, and the Corpus Christi-Nueces County Health Department. No community healthconcerns 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 andchildren 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 tohazardous substances emitted from waste sites and emergency events. They are more likely to beexposed because they play outdoors and they often bring food into contaminated areas. They areshorter 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. Thedeveloping body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures occurduring critical growth stages. Most importantly, children depend completely on adults for riskidentification 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 exposedto site contaminants at levels of health concern. Children currently are not likely to be exposed tocontaminants from the site. The maximum reported concentration of arsenic in sediment at theBSC site was comparable to that of uncontaminated areas. In addition, access to the site bychildren is unlikely because of the distance from residential areas and the limited accessibility tothe property. The drainage ditch, debris, and other materials hidden by tall vegetation could posea physical hazard to small children if they were to trespass on the site; however, the plausibilityof this occurring seems low.
Health outcome data (HOD) record certain health conditions that occur in populations. Thesedata can provide information on the general health of communities living near a hazardous wastesite. They also can provide information on patterns of specified health conditions. Someexamples of health outcome databases are tumor registries, birth defects registries, and vitalstatistics. Information from local hospitals and other health care providers also can be used toinvestigate patterns of disease in a specific population. TDH and ATSDR look at appropriate andavailable 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 concentrationof benzo(a)pyrene in this sample exceeded its respective health-based screening value, thesample was collected at a depth between 8 and 11 feet below ground surface. Given the lowfrequency of detection and the depth at which the sample was collected, it is improbable thatexposure 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 theditch due to its being bordered by dense vegetation, any on-site surface water in the drainageditch is not likely to pose a public health hazard.
Fishing areas immediately downstream of the BSC are not readily accessible and access to theInner Harbor is restricted, thus, any potential for exposure to site contaminants in seafood isunlikely.
There are no water wells within one mile of the BSC site. Additionally, there are no majorwater-bearing unites containing potable water near the site; drinking water for the area comesfrom 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.
- The public health assessment was available for comment by the public betweenDecember 8, 2002 and February 7, 2003. No public comments were received during thepublic comment period.
- None at this time.
- None at this time.
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 acooperative 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
- Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Hazard Ranking Systemdocumentation record. Brine Service Company. Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas.TX0000605264. Austin, TX: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; 2001Apr.
- EMCON. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Treadco Inc., 1638 Goldston Road,Corpus Christi, Texas. Mahwah, NJ: EMCON; 1998 Oct.
- US Environmental Protection Agency. National Priorities List for uncontrolled hazardouswaste sites, proposed rule no. 37. Fed Reg 2001;66(178):47612-8.
- Port of Corpus Christi. E-mail to Susan Prosperie from Tony Alejandro concerningfishing and recreation in the Ship Channel. Port of Corpus Christi, TX: 2002 Jun 11.
- Texas Water Development Board. Ground water data system. Records of wells, springs,and test holes. Nueces County. Austin, TX: Texas Water Development Board; 1998 Dec29.
- US Geological Survey TerraServer. Digital orthophoto quadrangle image Corpus Christi, Texas. United States, 1995. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey; 1995.
- US Census Bureau. US Census data. Population around Brine Service Company fromblock level, 1990. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 1990.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public health assessment guidancemanual. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers; 1993.
- Texas Department of Health. Memorandum to Kirk Wiles from John F. Villanacciconcerning Nueces Bay and Port of Corpus Christi seafood sampling data. Austin, TX:Texas Department of Health; 1995 Jan 12.
- City of Corpus Christi Water Department. Drinking water quality report for 1999. Corpus Christi, TX: City of Corpus Christi Water Department; 2000 Jun.
| 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
| 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. |
| Constituent | Background Samples (mg/kg) | South Pit Area (mg/kg) | North Pit Area (mg/kg) | Drainage Ditch (mg/kg) | 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.
| Constituent | Background Sample (mg/kg) | Tule Lake and Wetland (mg/kg) | 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.
| 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.
1. The name TNRCC has since been changed to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
