Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT


FALCON REFINERY
INGLESIDE, SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, TEXAS


SUMMARY AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The Falcon Refinery site is located at the intersection of Farm to Market Road 2725 andBishop Road, Ingleside, San Patricio County, Texas. The site, which is an abandoned refinerythat has operated intermittently since 1980, encompasses 104 acres and is approximately 18miles northeast of the city of Corpus Christi. The refinery used crude oil to produce naphtha,kerosene, jet fuel, diesel, and fuel oil. Peak operating capacity was approximately 40,000barrels of product a day.

In November 2000, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), formerly theTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), completed an Expanded SiteInspection (ESI) report of the site. The ESI findings indicated that chemical releases from thefacility have affected sediments in Redfish Bay, sediments in the on-site wetlands, and the on-site soils. The Falcon Refinery site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) onSeptember 5, 2002. The NPL is used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) todetermine which sites justify further investigation in order to assess the nature and extent ofhealth and environmental risks associated with the release of hazardous substances.

The Texas Department of Health (TDH) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR) reviewed the environmental information available for the site. Exposurepathways through which the public might possibly come into contact with contaminants fromthe site were evaluated. These exposure pathways included air, groundwater, surface water,soil, sediment, and biota (food chain). Based on the available information, the Falcon Refinerysite poses an indeterminate public health hazard. If in the future, site conditions change, a re-evaluation of the public health significance of this site would be necessary.


INTRODUCTION

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 the public health. This list is termed the National Priorities List (NPL). The 1986 Superfund Amendments andReauthorization 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.)

In conducting the PHA, three types of information are used: environmental data, communityhealth concerns and health outcome data. The environmental data are reviewed to determinewhether people in the community might be exposed to hazardous materials from the NPLfacility. If people are being exposed to these chemicals, ATSDR will determine whether theexposure is at levels that might cause harm. Community health concerns are collected todetermine whether health concerns expressed by community members could be related toexposure to chemicals released from the facility. If the community raises concerns aboutspecific diseases in the community, health outcome data (information from state and localdatabases or health care providers) can be used to address the community concerns. Also, ifATSDR finds that harmful exposures have occurred, health outcome data can be used todetermine if illnesses are occurring which could be associated with the hazardous chemicalsreleased from the NPL facility.

In accordance with the Interagency Cooperative Agreement between ATSDR and the TexasDepartment of Health (TDH), this PHA was prepared for the Falcon Refinery site. This PHApresents conclusions about whether exposures are occurring, and whether a health threat ispresent. In some cases, it is possible to determine whether exposures occurred in the past;however, often a lack of appropriate historical data makes it difficult to quantify pastexposures. If it is found that a threat to public health exists, recommendations are made tostop or reduce the threat to public health.


BACKGROUND

Site Description

The Falcon Refinery is an approximately 104-acre site located at the intersection of Farm to MarketRoad 2725 and Bishop Road in Ingleside, San Patricio County, Texas. The site is approximately 18miles northeast of the city of Corpus Christi [1]. Wetlands lie to the northeast and southeast of thesite. Commercial businesses are adjacent to the site and the nearest residential area is approximately0.2 mile northwest of the site. The Gulf of Mexico is approximately 8 miles east of the site.

Site History

Falcon Refinery operated intermittently beginning in 1980 and is currently inactive. The facilityrefined crude oil into naphtha, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel, and fuel oil. During peak operatingcapacity, the facility could produce up to 40,000 barrels of product per day. At a nearby dock locatedon the Intracoastal Waterway, crude oil and refined product were transferred between barges and thefacility's storage tanks.

Complaints by residents began in 1978 with the construction of the facility and in 1985-86 becauseof odors allegedly produced from the processing of impure crude. Regulatory inspections, conductedperiodically in response to complaints, indicate operational problems. In 1980, approximately 3 cubic yards of separator sludge were spread on the ground. In 1985, the refinery's wastewater treatment system was inoperable during the processing of 100,000 barrels of slop oil. In 1986, aninspection by the Texas Water Commission revealed cooling tower sludge had been disposed of on-site and untreated wastewater had been discharged into unlined pits. In 1987, an EPA site inspectionindicated there was a breech in the dike surrounding some source areas and run-off may have flowedinto the wetlands. In 1995, a spill occurred as a result of pipeline testing. In 1996, an inspectionconducted in response to an alleged pipeline spill indicated benzene was dumped. A leak from atank in the naphtha stabilizer unit was observed in January 2000. As a result of that leak, theTNRCC and EPA performed sampling of the site in May 2000 and identified five sources ofcontamination [2].

Source 1: soil (associated with bermed areas around storage tanks #10, 11, 26, and 27)
Source 2: soil (dump area)
Source 3: soil (storage tanks associated with the main facility)
Source 4: soil (land treatment basin)
Source 5: soil (associated with dumped cooling tower sludge)

Containment berms and/or liners were absent in some source areas. Run-on/run-off managementsystems in some source areas were either absent or not maintained. The Falcon Refinery site wasproposed to the National Priorities List on September 5, 2002.

Land Use and Natural Resource Use

The site, located in the San Antonio-Nueces Coastal basin, receives an average rainfall amount of35 inches per year. At approximately 5 feet above sea level, the site is located in a 100-year floodplain [2]. Land usage adjacent to the site is industrial, commercial, and residential. The sitegradually slopes towards the southeast and drains into the facility's on-site wetlands. The southernand eastern portion of the site consists of wetlands and estuarine type land. Drainage from the siteeventually flows into Redfish Bay then into the Gulf of Mexico.

Site Visit

TDH personnel visited the site on April 23, 2003. Approximately four hours were spent examiningthe site and visiting with the surrounding residents and commercial businesses. There was noevidence of recent rainfall, runoff or erosion. All roadways on the site are located near the storagetanks and are composed of concrete, asphalt, and dirt. Berms, which appeared to be intact,surrounded all the storage tanks and were overgrown with grass. TDH noticed past chemical spillagehad stained plant growth around one of the storage tanks. Odors associated with the spillage werenoted. The land not in use is sandy with low lying grasses and some cactus.

The site is fenced, however a section of fence along Bishop Road, was down on the ground. Thefront gate area was open at the time of the visit. Tanker trucks were entering the site to receive fuelfrom storage tanks located near the front gate. "No Trespassing" signs were posted at the front gate. There was no indication of trespassing at the time of the site visit.

Demographics

The 2000 San Patricio County census data reports a total population of 9,388 for the city of Inglesideand a county population of 67,138 residents [3]. The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data reports a totalpopulation of 423 people and 175 housing units within 1 mile of the site [Figure 1]. The nearestoccupied residence is approximately 0.2 mile northwest of the site in the 1200 block of Bishop Road.


COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

Community Concerns

In an attempt to determine community health concerns related to the Falcon Refinery site, TDH wentdoor to door and contacted businesses and residents near the site. No community health concernsspecific to the Falcon Refinery site were identified; however some individuals reported occasionalpetrochemical odors emanating from the storage tanks.

Health Outcome Data

Health outcome data (HOD) record certain health conditions that occur in populations. These datacan 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 ofhealth 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 investigatepatterns of disease in a specific population. TDH and ATSDR look at appropriate and availablehealth outcome data when a completed exposure pathway or community concern exists. Becauseno completed exposure pathways and no identified community health concerns exist, a review ofHOD was not conducted for this site.


DISCUSSION (ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, PATHWAY ANALYSIS, AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS)

Introduction

The presence of chemical contaminants in the environment does not always result in exposure to orcontact with the chemicals. Because chemicals have the potential to cause adverse health effectsonly when people actually come into contact with them, it is exposure (the contact that people havewith the contaminants) that drives the PHA process.

People can be exposed to contaminants by breathing, eating, drinking, or coming into direct contactwith a substance containing the contaminant. This section reviews available information todetermine 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
  • a receptor 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, is occurring,or will occur in the future. A potential pathway is missing at least one of the five elements butcould be complete in the future. An eliminated pathway is missing one or more elements and willnever be completed. Table 1 identifies pathways important to this site. The following discussionincorporates 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 also is done. The factors that influence whether exposure to a contaminant or contaminants could or would result in adverse health effects include:
(1) the toxicological properties of the contaminant; (2) how much of the contaminant the individual is exposed to; (3) how often and/or how long the exposure occurs; (4) the manner in which the contaminant enters or contacts the body (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin/eye contact); and (5) the number of contaminants to which an individual is exposed (combinations of contaminants).

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, andexcretes 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 contaminant concentrationsto health assessment comparison (HAC) values for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic endpoints. HAC values are media-specific contaminant concentrations used to screen contaminants forfurther evaluation. Although exceeding a HAC value does not necessarily mean that a contaminantrepresents 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 dailyhuman exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause adverse noncancer health effects over alifetime. 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 excesslifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1-million persons exposed for a lifetime. Standard assumptions are usedto calculate appropriate HAC values [4].

The environmental data used in this PHA were obtained from soil and sediment sampling conductedby the TNRCC in May 2000 for their Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) Report [5]. The samples wereanalyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs),polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and metals. In reviewing the sampling data, theinformation provided in the referenced documents was relied upon and it was assumed that adequateQuality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) measures were followed with regard to chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting.

Exposure Pathways

Air

Summary: Air sampling data and historical air releases from the Falcon Refinery site were notavailable for review. Because of the lack of information available for this pathway, we haveconcluded that past and current exposure to contaminants in the air at this site pose anindeterminate public health hazard.

Air sampling data from historical air releases from the Falcon Refinery site were not available forreview. Volatilization of chemicals at the site from storage tanks, chemical overflows and spillslikely occurred during operations. The potentially exposed population would have consisted of on-site workers and people working in the surrounding businesses and living in the neighborhood. TheEPA Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, planned for a future date, will determine thevolume of wastes remaining on-site [1]. During the site visit, chemical odors were noted.

Until further sampling or removal of the remaining chemical wastes, current exposure tocontaminants in the air cannot be assessed. Because of the lack of historical and current air samplingdata, we have concluded that exposure to contaminants in the air pose an indeterminate public healthhazard.

Groundwater

Summary: Groundwater in the vicinity of the site is not currently used as drinking water. Potablewater is supplied to area residents and businesses from an approved surface water source. Groundwater sampling data from the site and surrounding areas were not available for review. Past and current exposures to contaminants in the groundwater at this site pose an indeterminatepublic health hazard.

Groundwater in the vicinity of the site has been used for drinking, food preparation, and bathing. Since 1999, the City of Aransas Pass has supplied potable water from the Nueces River to theresidents and businesses surrounding the site. The raw water intakes for the water supply system arelocated approximately 30 miles west of the Falcon Refinery site [6].

The nearest residential population is northwest of the Falcon Refinery site on Bishop Road. Theresidential water wells on Bishop Road vary from approximately 45 to 65 feet in depth. All residentscontacted by TDH, with one exception, currently use their water wells for landscaping purposes only. One family uses its well for household cleaning purposes, not for food preparation or ingestion. Itis not known if the well water is used for showering or bathing. According to the homeowner, thewell has been in use since 1959 and the family purchases bottled water. The homeowner stated hisfamily is not financially able to connect with the city water supply.

Groundwater sampling data from the Falcon Refinery site and surrounding areas were not available for review. The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record states, " groundwater was impacted by the January 4, 2000 spill from the naphtha stabilizer unit " [2]. The public health significance of past exposure through the groundwater could not be assessed. Because of the lack of historical and current sampling data, we have concluded that past and present exposure to the groundwater poses an indeterminate public health hazard.

Surface Water

Summary: Sediment sampling results indicate that hazardous substances identified at the FalconRefinery site have migrated from the site via the surface water pathway. Surface water samplingdata were not available for review. Past and current exposures to contaminants in the surface waterat this site pose an indeterminate public health hazard.

The HRS report indicates sediment samples collected from Redfish Bay and the on-site wetlandsreveal hazardous substances have migrated from the site via the surface water pathway. Surfacewater drainage enters the site along the southeastern section of the site and enters the on-site wetlands. A culvert connects the on-site wetlands, travels to off-site wetlands, and then into RedfishBay (Intracoastal Waterway).

Access to the site and surrounding wetlands is limited. While fishing does occur in Redfish Bay,actual exposure to surface water contaminants through dermal contact or incidental ingestion duringthis activity would be limited. It is unlikely that people would be exposed to contaminants oftenenough to be a health concern. Because of the lack of sampling data, we have concluded that pastand present exposure to contaminants in the surface water pose an indeterminate public healthhazard.

Surface Soil

Summary: Exposure to contaminants in the surface soil at this site would not be expected to resultin adverse health effects. Although access to the site is somewhat restricted, we do not considerexposure to contaminants in the soil either through ingestion or dermal contact to be a significantexposure pathway since: 1) the probability of regularly ingesting contaminated soil is low; 2) thefrequency and duration of any contact with contaminated soil would likely be low, and; 3) thesurface area of skin likely to come into regular contact with the contaminated soil is likely to besmall. The surface soil pathway is expected to pose no apparent public health hazard.

Soil samples were collected from 0 to 6 inches in depth during the May 2000 sampling event. Analysis indicated arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene exceeded their respective HAC values (Table 2). Arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene levels were highest in sample SO-28. This sample was collected froma mound located near the southwest corner of the main facility.

Arsenic exceeded its CREG value of 0.5 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram) in eighteen samples. Onlyone sample exceeded the non-cancer HAC value for children. The highest arsenic level was 23.3mg/kg. It is important to point out, with the exception of sample SO-28, the concentration of arseniccollected from the site is similar to or less than the average concentration of 5.5 mg/kg reported forthe western United States [7]. Benzo(a)pyrene exceeded its CREG value of 0.1 mg/kg in threesamples. The highest result was 1.6 mg/kg.

Access to the site is somewhat restricted and the exposed population would consist of on-siteworkers and trespassers. Actual exposure to contaminants through dermal contact or incidentalingestion during these activities would be limited. Since it is unlikely that people would be exposedto contaminants often enough at sufficient concentrations to be a health concern, exposure to thesurface soil at the Falcon Refinery site would be expected to pose no apparent public health hazard.

Sediment

Summary: Exposure to contaminants in the sediment at this site would not be expected to result inadverse health effects. Although access to the site is somewhat restricted, we do not consider exposure to contaminants in the sediment either through ingestion or dermal contact to be asignificant exposure pathway since: 1) the probability of regularly ingesting contaminated sedimentis low; 2) the frequency and duration of any contact with contaminated sediment would likely be low,and; 3) the surface area of skin likely to come into regular contact with the contaminated sedimentis likely to be small. The sediment pathway is expected to pose no apparent public health hazard.

Sediment samples were collected from on-site/off-site wetlands and in the Intracoastal Waterway(Redfish Bay). Sample depths ranged from 0 to 30 inches.

Arsenic exceeded its CREG value of 0.5 mg/kg in twenty-five samples. The highest result was 4.4mg/kg (Table 3). This sample, SE-12, was collected from off-site wetlands located north of SunrayRoad. Benzo(a)pyrene exceeded its CREG value of 0.1 mg/kg in three samples. Sample SE-30contained the highest level at 3.7 mg/kg. This sample was collected near the site's loading dockfacility on Redfish Bay.

The loading dock facility is an industrial area with restricted access. The exposed population wouldbe limited to on-site workers and trespassers that may come into contact with sediments. Actualexposure to the contaminant through dermal contact or incidental ingestion would be limited. Sinceit is unlikely that people would be exposed to contaminants often enough at sufficient concentrationsto be a health concern, exposure to sediment at the Falcon Refinery site would be expected to poseno apparent public health hazard.

Biota (Seafood)

Summary: Biota (seafood) sampling data for Redfish Bay were not available for review. Finfish andshellfish sampling has occurred in water bodies adjacent to the bay. Redfish Bay is used by thepublic for recreational fishing; however, with the lack of sampling data, past and current exposureto contaminants in the biota at this site pose an indeterminate public health hazard.

The Texas Department of Health Seafood Safety Division periodically collects fish and shellfishsamples from coastal waters and the Gulf of Mexico. No finfish or shellfish chemical data forRedfish Bay were available for review. The TDH has placed a restriction on the harvesting ofshellfish (oysters, clams, and mussels) from Redfish Bay. The current TDH restriction becameeffective on November 1, 2003 [8]. This restriction is due to the lack of manpower to enforceshellfish regulations, which is provided by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department [9].

Because of the lack of historical and current sampling data for Redfish Bay, we have concluded thatpast and present exposure to contaminants in the biota (seafood) pose an indeterminate public healthhazard.


CHILDREN'S HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS

ATSDR recognizes that the unique vulnerabilities of infants and children demand special emphasisin communities faced with contamination of their water, soil, air, or food. Children are at greaterrisk than are adults from certain kinds of exposures to hazardous substances emitted from waste sitesand emergency events. They are more likely to be exposed because they play outdoors and theyoften bring food into contaminated areas. They are shorter than adults, which means they breathedust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground. Children are also smaller, resulting in higher dosesof chemical exposure per body weight. The developing body systems of children can sustainpermanent damage if toxic exposures occur during critical growth stages. Most importantly, childrendepend completely on adults for risk identification and management decisions, housing decision, andaccess to medical care.

ATSDR evaluated the likelihood for children living in the vicinity of the Falcon Refinery site to beexposed to site contaminants at levels of health concern. Children currently are not likely to beexposed to contaminants from the site. Access to the site by children is unlikely because of thedistance from residential areas and the limited accessibility to the property. Abandoned equipmentand machinery could pose a physical hazard to small children if they were to trespass on the site;however, the plausibility that this will occur is low.


CONCLUSIONS

  • Based on available information, contaminants in the soil and sediment pose no apparentpublic health hazard. This is either because contaminants are at low concentration orexposure would be too infrequent to result in adverse health effects.

  • Due to the lack of data, we were not able to evaluate the air, groundwater, surface water, andseafood consumption pathways. Therefore we have concluded that the Falcon Refinery siteposes an indeterminate public health hazard.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Sample and analyze the chemical wastes remaining on-site.

  • Sample and analyze the on-site groundwater.

  • Sample and analyze the residential well being used for household cleaning purposes. Determine if the residential well is used for showering and bathing.

  • Sample and analyze edible finfish and shellfish in Redfish Bay.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

Actions Taken

  • The public health assessment was released for public comment beginning February 8, 2004and ending March 15, 2004. No additional public comments or concerns were received.

Actions Planned

  • The EPA is currently planning to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. The study is expected to be completed in approximately 1 years from the start date.

  • The TDH and ATSDR will continue to collaborate and review any additional environmentalsampling results as they become available.

AUTHORS, TECHNICAL ADVISORS, AND ORGANIZATIONS

Report Prepared by

Tom Ellerbee
Environmental Specialist
Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Division

Tina Walker, EMT
Information Specialist
Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Division

John F. Villanacci, PhD, EMT
Director
Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Division

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


CERTIFICATION

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 thetime the public health assessment was initiated.

Robert Knowles
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC


The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this PublicHealth Assessment and concurs with its findings.

Roberta Erlwein
Chief, State Programs Section, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR


REFERENCES

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Site Status Summaries - Texas. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf-tx.htm . August 4, 2003.

  2. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazard Ranking System Documentation Report. Falcon Refinery. February 2002.

  3. San Patricio County Economic Development Corporation. Total Population Census San Patricio. http://www.sanpatricioedc.com/pop.htm . August 2003.

  4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual. Appendix B. 1993.

  5. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Expanded Site Inspection Report. Falcon Refinery. Volumes I, II, and III. November 2000.

  6. Texas Department of Health. Record of Communication with San Patricio Municipal WaterDistrict. May 7, 2003.

  7. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual. Table 5.1. 1993.

  8. Texas Department of Health. Seafood Safety Division. Classification of Shellfish HarvestingAreas of Copano, Aransas, Mesquite, and Redfish Bays. Order Number: MR-970. November1, 2003.

  9. Texas Department of Health. Record of Communication with Gary Heideman, Texas Departmentof Health Seafood Safety Division. December 5, 2003.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESI Expanded Site Inspection
HAC Health Assessment Comparison Value
HOD Health Outcome Data
HRS Hazard Ranking System
MRL Minimal Risk Level
NPL National Priorities List
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PHA Public Health Assessment
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RfD Reference Dose
RMEG Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SVOCs Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TDH Texas Department of Health
TNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds


APPENDIX B: TABLES

Table 1.

Evaluation of Potential Exposure Pathways for Falcon Refinery
Pathway Name Contaminants of Concern EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS Time Conclusions
    Source Transport Media Point of Exposure Route Of Exposure Exposed Population    
Air
(incomplete)
no data site operations,
spills
air on-site,
off-site
inhalation area residents,
workers,
trespassers
past
present
future
Indeterminate public health hazard;
due to the lack of sampling data.
Groundwater
(incomplete)
no data site operations,
spills
groundwater on-site,
off-site
dermal contact,
incidental ingestion
area residents and workers using well water past
present
future
Indeterminate public health hazard;
due to the lack of sampling data.
Surface Water
(incomplete)
no data site operations,
spills
surface water on-site wetlands,
off-site wetlands,
Redfish Bay
dermal contact,
incidental ingestion
workers,
trespassers,
off-site fishermen
past
present
future
Indeterminate public health hazard;
due to the lack of sampling data.
Surface Soil
(potential)
arsenic,
benzo(a)pyrene
site operations,
spills
soil on-site dermal contact,
incidental ingestion
workers,
trespassers
past
present
future
No apparent public health hazard;
sufficient evidence indicates that people would not be exposed to potential contaminants in the surface soil at sufficient concentrations and often enough to present a health concern.
Sediment
(potential)
arsenic,
benzo(a)pyrene
site operations,
spills,
surface water migration
surface water off-site dermal contact,
incidental ingestion
workers,
trespassers
past
present
future
No apparent public health hazard;
sufficient evidence indicates that people would not be exposed to potential contaminants in the sediment at sufficient concentrations and often enough to present a health concern.
Biota/seafood
(incomplete)
no data surface water migration from site operations,
spills
finfish
shellfish
off-site fishing ingestion off-site fishermen past
present
future
Indeterminate public health hazard;
due to the lack of sampling data.


Table 2.

Soil Samples: Constituents exceeding Health Assessment Comparison (HAC) values
Constituent HAC Value # samples HAC value per total # of samples Range
(mg/kg)
Arsenic 0.5 CREG
20 child / 200adult - chronic EMEG & RMEG
18/33 n.d. - 23.3
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 CREG 3/26 n.d. - 1.6 LJ


Table 3.

Sediment Samples: Constituents exceeding Health Assessment Comparison (HAC) values
Constituent HAC Value # samples HAC value per total # of samples Range
(mg/kg)
Arsenic 0.5 CREG
20 child / 200adult - chronic EMEG & RMEG
25/33 n.d. - 4.4 J^
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 CREG 3/33 n.d. - 3.7

CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide. Based on an excess cancer risk of 1 in 1 million persons exposed over a lifetime.
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
L = reported concentration is between the IDL (instrument detection limit) and the CRDL (contract required detection limit)
J = estimated concentration
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
n.d. = not detected
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
^ = actual concentration may be lower than the concentration reported


APPENDIX C: FIGURE

Intro Map
Figure 1. Intro Map


Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #