Final Report
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
Prepared for
QUJBRIZOL
June 2000
Prepared by
PARSONS ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC.
9906 Gulf Freeway, Suite 100 • Houston, TX • 77034 • (713) 943-5432
-------
Final Report
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
Preparedfor:
Oxy Vinyls,
Lubrizol Corporation
Shell Oil Company
Prepared by:
RAJ3SONS ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC.
June 2000
-------
m
o
«
o
z
H
m
z
H
»
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS '
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Ui
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
SECTION-1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION 1-3
SECTION - 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION & ANALYSIS 2-1
2.1 QUALIFYING CRITERIA FOR SAMPLING EVENTS 2-1
2.1.1 Process Wastewater Samples 2-1
2.1.2 Stormwater Samples 2-1
2.2 SAMPLE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT 2-2
2.3 CLEAN SAMPLING 2-2
2.4 SAMPLE EVENTS 2-3
2.4.1 First Sampling Round 2-4
2.4.2 Second Sampling Round 2-4
2.4.3 Third Sampling Round 2-4
2.4.4 Fourth Sampling Round 2-5
2.4.5 Fifth Sampling Round 2-6
2.4.6 Sixth Sampling Round 2-6
2.4.7 Stormwater Sampling 2-7
2.5 SAMPLE ANALYSES PROGRAM 2-7
2.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 2-7
SECTION - 3 SAMPLE RESULTS & DISCUSSION 3-1
3.1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 3-1
3.1.1 OxyVinyls 3-1
Intake 3-2
Outfall 001 3-2
Outfall 002 ...3-3
Outfall 003 3-3
Outfall 005 3-3
3.1.2 Lubrizol Corporation 3-4
Outfall 001 3-4
3.1.3 Shell Oil Company 3-5
Outfall R-001 (Shell Refinery) 3-5
Outfall C-004 (Shell Chemical) 3-5
3.1.4 Deer Park Area 3-6
3.2 TEXTOX MODELING 3-6
3.3 COMPARISION OF THE MEASURED DATA WITH TEXTOX LIMITS 3-7
3.3.1 OxyVinyls 3-8
3.3.2 Lubrizol Corporation 3-9
3.3.3 Shell Oil Company 3-9
009/730524-01/02l291m.doc / 06/21/00
-------
3.3.4 City of Deer Park 3-9
3.4 STORMWATER SAMPLE RESULTS 3-10
3.4.1 OxyVinyls 3-10
3.4.2 Lubrizol Corporation 3-10
3.4.3 Shell Oil Company 3-10
3.4.4 City of Deer Park 3-10
3.5 OUTFALL CONCENTRATIONS AND MASS LOADING DATA FOR SELECTED
PARAMETERS 3-11
3.5.1 Historical Data 3-11
OxyVinyls 3-11
Lubrizol Corporation 3-11
Shell Oil Company 3-11
3.5.2 Comparison of Measured Data to Historical Data 3-11
3.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY X. 3-12
SECTION - 4 CONCLUSIONS 4-1
4.1 OXYVINYLS 4-1
Intake 4-1
Outfall 001 4-1
Outfall 002 4-1
Outfall 003 4-1
Outfall 005 4-2
4.2 LUBRIZOL CORPORATION 4-2
Outfall 001 4-2
4.3 SHELL OIL COMPANY 4-2
Outfall R-001 (Shell Refinery) 4-2
Outfall C-001 (Shell Chemical) 4-2
4.4 CITY OF DEER PARK 4-2
APPENDICES
009/730524-01/021291m.doc II 06/21/00
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
1.1 Sample Locations
3.1 Total Recoverable Copper Concentrations
3.2 Total Recoverable Lead Concentrations
3.3 Total Recoverable Mercury Concentrations
3.4 Total Recoverable Nickel Concentrations
3.5 Total Recoverable Zinc Concentrations
3.6 Total CDD/CDF Equivalent Concentrations
3.7 Arochlor 1248 Concentrations
3.8 Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations
TABLES
2.1 List of Analytical Parameters for Process Wastewater and Stormwater Samples
2.2 List of Stormwater Sample Locations
3.1 Statistical Summary of Process Wastewater Sample Results
3.2 Summary of Stormwater Sample Results
3.3 Critical Conditions Used in TEXTOX Modeling
3.4 Comparison of Pollutant Daily Average Concentrations to TEXTOX Calculated
Daily Average Concentration
3.5 Comparison of Pollutant Daily Maximum Concentration to TEXTOX Calculated
Daily Maximum Concentration
3.6 Monthly Average Historical Data for Selected Parameters
3.7 Comparison of Selected Dioxins andFurans Concentrations to March, 1996 Data
3.8 Average Mass Loadings for Selected Parameters
3.9 Comparison of Average Mass Loadings of Selected Parameters to Averaged
Historical Mass Loadings
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
Hi
06/21/00
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oxy Vinyls LP, the Lubrizol Corporation, and Shell Oil Company voluntarily
conducted a study of the largest flow industrial discharges to Patrick Bayou, a tributary to
the Houston Ship Channel in Harris County, Texas. Two previous studies reported data
for toxic substances in water and sediment for Patrick Bayou. Based upon this data,
parameters of concern for the current study were identified. These parameters includes
metals (barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and vanadium),
semivolatile compounds (acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, fluoranthene, fluorene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, 2-
methylnaphthalene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene,
hexachloroethane, Arochlor 1248) and dioxins and fixrans. The objectives for this study
include:
• Compiling historical effluent chemistry data for parameters of concern from each of
the industrial discharges to Patrick Bayou;
• Collecting new effluent data on parameters of concern from designated process
outfalls six times;
• Collect new stormwater data on parameters of concern from one stormwater
sampling event.
For this study, "clean sampling" techniques were used to ensure that low level
analyses will not be compromised by contaminant introduction. In addition, two
laboratories that areexperienced in clean techniques and with proven experience in
successful analyses at very low concentrations were used to analyze the samples. Six
rounds of process wastewater samples and one round of stormwater samples were
collected during this study using the "clean sampling" techniques.
The available data from the participating industries for the parameters of concern.
Based upon requirements outlined in the QAPP, approved by EPA, all information was
compiled as concentration and loading, and the data were statistically analyzed for mean,
minimum, and maximum concentrations and compared to water quality standards and
TEXTOX calculated potential permit limits. Based upon this study of effluent quality, the
following conclusions:
Oxy Vinyls Outfall 001
Source evaluations for mercury and CDD/CDFs
OxyVinyls Outfall 002
Source evaluations for mercury, arochlor 1248, and
CDD/CDFs
OxyVinyls Outfall 003
No further evaluation
OxyVinyls Outfall 005
No further evaluation
Lubrizol Outfall 001
No further evaluation
Shell Outfall R-001
No further evaluation
Shell Outfall C-004
No further evaluation
009/730524-01/02129 lm.doc
iv
06/21/00
-------
(ft
m
O
-------
SECTION-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Three industrial wastewater dischargers into Patrick Bayou, which is a tributary to the
Houston Ship Channel (HSC) in Harris County, Texas conducted a voluntary study. Oxy
Vinyls, LP (OxyVinyls), formerly Occidental Chemical Corporation, the Lubrizol
Corporation (Lubrizol), and Shell Oil Company (Shell) were participants in this voluntary
study. The current voluntary study was initiated at the request of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) based on findings from two previous
investigations. The first investigation, conducted by the City of Houston, reported that
bayou sediments contain elevated concentrations of contaminants, including polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB 1248), and mercury.
Moreover, this study reported that dioxins/furans concentrations in the Patrick Bayou
sediment were elevated compared to other portions of the Houston Ship Channel system.
These findings triggered further studies by TNRCC and EPA to investigate and identify
any contamination of Patrick Bayou. This second study reported potential water column
exceedances of the water quality standards for mercury, copper, lead, and carbon
tetrachloride, and also reported elevated concentrations of PAHs, PCB 1248,
hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, hexachloroethane, mercury, and several other
heavy metals in the sediments.
Since the previous studies reported ambient water and sediment toxicity in the Patrick
Bayou and based on the effluent-dominated nature of the bayou and observed spatial
patterns in chemical concentrations, it was hypothesized that the chemicals may originate
from point sources. To improve the understanding of three of the larger point source
discharges and to improve the ability to manage the water quality, three of the Patrick
Bayou industries volunteered to sponsor another investigation of their discharges into
Patrick Bayou.
1.2 CURRENT STUDY DESCRIPTION
The current study concentrated on compiling historical effluent chemical data for
parameters of concern from each of the industrial discharges to Patrick Bayou and
collection of new effluent data on specified metals, semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), and dioxins and furans over a period of time. The industrial participants
prepared a work plan and a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for approval by EPA.
According to the work plan, three rounds of process outfall data were to be collected. If
no significant pollutant sources were identified, an additional three rounds of process
outfall data were to be collected. Therefore, a total of six rounds of samples were
collected from process outfalls during this study. A single stormwater sampling event was
009/730524-01/02129lm.doc
1-1
06/21/00
-------
also conducted. All samples, process and stormwater, were to be collected under very
specific rainfall conditions. This report presents the findings of the six rounds of process
effluent and intake sampling along with a summary of all the stormwater data collected
during this project.
The process effluent samples were collected on six separate occasions during an
eighteen-month time span. Stormwater discharge samples from qualifying storm events
were also collected in 1999. Analytical methods with low detection limits and clean
sampling protocols were used for all parameters of concern. The first round of process
sampling was conducted from March 4 - 5, 1998 and the last round of sampling was
conducted from August 9-11, 1999. The third sampling round included collection of a
sample downstream of the City of Deer Park wastewater treatment plant outfall, which
discharges into Patrick Bayou, namely from the tributary of Patrick Bayou as it crosses
under the railroad trestle, prior to tidal influence.
The map showing the locations of the industrial dischargers and their outfalls is
presented in Figure 1.1. The outfalls sampled included four process outfalls (001, 002,
003, and 005) at OxyVinyls, one process outfall at Lubrizol (Lubrizol 001), and two
process outfalls at Shell (R-001 and C-004). In addition, the intake of once through
cooling water at OxyVinyls was sampled. The intake sample was collected because HSC
water is used for once through non-contact process cooling and is the largest volume
source of water ultimately discharged at OxyVinyls' Outfalls 001, 002, and 003. Outfall
R-001 at Shell is from the Shell Refinery and Outfall C-001 is from the Shell Chemical
facility.
During this study, the physical sample location for Outfall C-001 was changed. During
the first sampling event, samples were taken from the outfall that discharged through the
weir directly into Patrick Bayou (Outfall C-001). However, beginning May 1, 1998, Shell
Chemical started discharging directly to the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) through a new
Outfall C-004. The new outfall discharges the wastewater (previously discharged through
Outfall C-001) via a pipeline originating at a pump intake sump at the chemical plant's
wastewater treatment facility. Therefore, starting with the second sampling event, the
Shell Chemical discharge (Outfall C-001) sample location was relocated to the pump
intake sump of the new Outfall C-004. The wastewater at both these locations should be
considered the same quality. The sampling point is different, but the effluent from the
same treatment system is sampled.
"Clean sampling" techniques were used during sample collection. A brief description
of the "clean sampling" techniques used in this study are presented in Appendix A. "Clean
sampling" training was provided by Texas A&M and Parsons ES prior to starting the
project. This was done to promote consistency and good techniques for all involved.
Two different laboratories were involved in analyses of the collected samples. The Trace
Element Research Laboratory (TERL), located at Texas A&M University in College
Station, Texas, executed analyses for metals and conventional parameters. Organic
chemicals, including dioxins/furans, were analyzed by the Toxic Contaminant Research
Laboratory (TCRL) of Wright State University, in Dayton, Ohio.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
1-2
06/21/00
-------
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is divided into the following four sections:
• Section 1: Presents a brief summary of the project background and introduces
the report.
• Section 2: Describes the procedures followed in collection and handling of the
process wastewater and stormwater samples and any deviations from the normal
procedures during each of the sample rounds.
• Section 3: Presents the analytical sample results and compares them to the
TEXTOX model calculated levels and the historical concentrations of selected
parameters. A brief discussion of the stormwater sample results is also presented
in this section.
• Section 4: Summarizes the conclusions of this study.
To facilitate review of the text, the tables and figures referenced in the text are
presented at the end of each section. Appendices have also been included to provide
supporting information.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
1-3
06/21/00
-------
(Railroacj
AXAIR
01173
LEGEND
N
t
city
Stations sampled on
7-26-94
Major outfalls entering
Patrick Bayou and nearby
HSC
1 KM
DEER PARK
10519 ^
1000 FT
Figure 1.1 Locations of the industrial dischargers and their outfalls
-------
(ft
in
o
H
10
-------
SECTION-2
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The work plan and QAPP specified sample collection methods, qualifying criteria for
sampling events, and analytical parameters and methods. This section presents an
overview of qualifying criteria for sample events,.|,he sample collection methods, and the
analytical program. This section also discusses any deviations from the plans during each
of the sample rounds. A summary of the quality assurance program is also presented in
this section.
2.1 QUALIFYING CRITERIA FOR SAMPLING EVENTS
As explained earlier, the industrial participants of the study prepared a work plan and a
quality assurance project plan (QAPP). These plans, approved by EPA specified
sampling collection methods, qualifying criteria for sample events, and the analytical
methods. Based on the requirements of the work plan, six rounds of process wastewater
and one round of stormwater samples were collected during this study. A summary of
qualifying criteria for process wastewater and stormwater sample events is presented
below.
2.1.1 Process Wastewater Samples
In accordance with the approved work plan, the following criteria were established for
qualifying the collection of composite process wastewater samples.
1. At least 72 hours (3 days) of dry weather (no rain) conditions preceding a process
wastewater sample event.
2. An event with less than 0.1 inches of precipitation is considered a dry weather
condition.
3. Samples should reach the laboratory for analyses within 24 hours of collection.
4. All the samples will be collected using "clean-sampling" techniques.
2.1.2 Stormwater Samples
In accordance with the approved work plan, the following criteria were established for
qualifying the collection of stormwater samples.
1. Stormwater samples will be first-flush grab samples collected during the first 30
minutes of discharge.
2. Stormwater samples will be collected for an event that occurs after a period of ten
(10) days with no rainfall and the event must be large enough to result in
appreciable flow at the outfall.
3. Events with less than 0.1 inches are considered as no rainfall.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
2-1
06/21/00
-------
4. All the samples will be collected using "clean-sampling" techniques.
5. Samples should reach the laboratory for analyses within 24 hours of collection.
2.2 SAMPLE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
Time-weighted composite samples from individual locations were collected using
automated samplers. Details regarding the samplers used at individual locations and
programming used to collect wastewater samples are presented in Appendix A. Two
samplers were used at each location; one was dedicated to collect samples for organic
chemical analyses, the second was for metals analyses. Four different types of samplers
were used - American Sigma Streamline 800, American Sigma Streamline 1200, N-CON
Scout in, and Masterflex®. One sampler at the Lubrizol location was provided by the
company (American Sigma Streamline 1200) and was used for collection of the sample for
metals analyses. OxyVinyls used some of their own samplers at their facility. The
remaining samplers were rented. All samplers were fitted with pre-cleaned Teflon®
suction tubing to withdraw the samples and pre-cleaned C-flex® tubing for the pump head
because Teflon tubing is too stiff. Samplers were filled with ice packs for proper sample
preservation during the collection period. At the end of the sampling period the collected
samples from the individual locations were aliquoted, transferred into the precleaned and
prelabeled sample containers, then placed into the coolers and shipped to the proper
laboratories for required analyses.
During this study some of the composite samples were collected before the 24-hour
sampling period ended. In order for the samples to arrive at the laboratory within 24
hours of the last sample collection (a QAPP requirement), samples had to be shipped by
the end of sample collection day. Therefore, slightly less than 24-hour composite samples
were collected at some locations, to allow enough time for aliquoting and subsequent
packing and shipping of samples. All the stormwater samples were collected as
instantaneous grab samples.
2.3 CLEAN SAMPLING
EPA Method 1669 was used as guidance during sample collection and handling. Even
though the method was developed for collection of samples for trace metals analysis,
organic samples were also collected using the same "clean sampling techniques". The
term "clean sampling techniques" refer to techniques that reduce or eliminate
contamination in sample collection and handling and enable more accurate and precise
measurement of trace metals or organics.
Dedicated automatic sampling devices were used for metal and organic samples at all
the locations. Automatic samplers used during this study were modified to conform to the
"performance-based" requirements found in EPA Method 1669. All the automatic
samplers used peristaltic pumps to pump the sample into the sample container.
Styrene/ethylene/butylene/silicone (SEBS) tubing (C-flex® tubing) was used as the pump
tubing for the peristaltic pumps and Teflon® tubing was used as the suction tubing. All the
tubing and the tubing connectors were pre-cleaned by TERL and double bagged in a clean
environment before bringing to the field.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
2-2
06/21/00
-------
Wooden or PVC laths were used to position the sample tubing. The sampling points
were selected to ensure no metal structures were within close proximity of the sample.
Also, the sampling points were chosen as close to the center of the outfall as possible and
all tubing was placed at least six inches below the water surface or at mid depth.
The sample team for this study consisted of two two-person teams. The first team was
responsible for sites at OxyVinyls and the second team was responsible for sites at
Lubrizol, Shell, and the Deer Park area when it was sampled. However, during each of
the sample rounds, both the teams worked on sample set-up and collection of outfall 001
at OxyVinyls to establish the standard procedures to be followed by both the teams at all
the other sample locations. The "Clean hand - Dirty hand" technique, as described in EPA
Method 1669, was used in sample set-up and collection.
In this technique, one member of the two-person sampling team is designated as "dirty
hands"; the second member is designated as "clean hands." All activities involving contact
with the sample bottle are handled by the individual designated as "clean hands". "Dirty
hands" is responsible for all the other activities that do not involve direct contact with the
sample.
Automatic samplers were programmed to sample every 15 minutes for 24 hours.
However, as noted earlier due to the sample holding time restrictions some of the samples
were collected before the 24-hour sample period was finished. None of the locations
sampled had less than 21-hour composite samples. Coolers with the composite samples
were brought to the OxyVinyls' wastewater treatment plant laboratory for aliquoting.
Aliquoting was performed in a clean environment at the laboratory. Hair cap and Tyvek®
suit were worn for aliquoting to minimize contamination. Gloves were changed for each
location and also whenever surfaces other than sample containers were touched. All table
surfaces were covered with new plastic to avoid contamination.
2.4 SAMPLE EVENTS
All the sample equipment and the automatic samplers were collected and checked
before the sample events at Parsons ES to ensure their operability in the field. The sample
equipment was also sorted for use by different sample teams based on the team's
responsibilities. Automatic samplers from American Sigma were used at all the locations
except Outfall 001 at OxyVinyls. N-CON Scout HI (NCON) and Masterflex® samplers
owned by OxyVinyls were used for sampling at OxyVinyls' Outfall 001.
During the first two sampling rounds all the samplers were setup on the same day as
the sampling started. Based on the experiences from the first two sample events, it was
clear that the effort needed to setup the Masterflex® and NCON samplers at OxyVinyls'
Outfall 001 was impacting the sample collection times. Therefore, during the first two
rounds of sampling several less than 24-hour composite samples were collected. To
reduce the number of sample locations with less than 24-hour composite samples, starting
with the third sample round NCON and Masterflex® samplers at the OxyVinyls' Outfall
001 were installed the evening before the start of sampling. Care was exercised to ensure
sample integrity and to comply with "clean sampling" techniques. This change in sampler
setup schedule improved the sample start times and helped decrease the number of sample
locations with less than 24-hour composite samples.
009/730524-01/02129 lm-doc
2-3
06/21/00
-------
The following is a brief description of the conditions during each of the sample rounds.
The section also delineates the general procedures followed during these events.
2.4.1 First Sampling Round
The first sample collection round was completed March 4 - 5, 1998. The sampling
process started on March 4, 1998 in the afternoon. The weather was cloudy, windy and
the temperature in upper sixties to low seventies.
The composite samples were collected on March 5, 1998. The composite samples
were transferred from the composite bottles into properly labeled and precleaned
containers, and put in the coolers. The coolers holding the samples for the organic
analyses were shipped overnight by FedEx® to the Wright State University laboratory.
The samples designated for metals analyses, also stored in the coolers, were driven by Dr.
Booth to the TERL.
2.4.2 Second Sampling Round
The second sample collection round was completed May 19-20, 1998. The sampling
process started on May 19, 1998 in the morning. The samplers were assembled at the
Parsons ES office a day before (except the precleaned tubing which remained bagged until
setup at the site) and then installed at the individual locations in the field.
The samples were retrieved on May 20, 1998. The weather was sunny to partly
cloudy, with the wind from the southwest direction (0-10 mph) and temperature around
70 °F. The Parson's team began to collect the samples from samplers at individual
locations; however, because the metals sampler at the Lubrizol outfall 001 collected only
approximately 500 mL of sample the device was reprogrammed to collect a sample every
two minutes until the desired amount of sample was retrieved. During the sample
collection at the OxyVinyls' Intake location, the organic sampling bottle was filled only
half full and, therefore, continuous pumping was initiated for about one minute to get the
desired sample volume. A similar situation was encountered at the OxyVinyls' Outfall 005
where the organics sample container was only 75% full. The sampler was therefore set for
continuous pumping and the bottle filled to the desired level. Composite samples retrieved
from individual locations were subsequently aliquoted and transferred into precleaned and
prelabeled containers. The pH of the samples was also measured at the time of transfer
into the individual bottles. Prepared bottles were then placed into coolers and shipped to
the appropriate laboratories.
2.4.3 Third Sampling Round
The third sampling event was completed August 11 - 13, 1998. The samplers were
again assembled at the Parsons ES office before the planned sampling round (except the
precleaned tubing) and installed at the individual locations in the field the next day.
Starting with this sample round, the NCON and Masterflex® samplers at OxyVinyls'
Outfall 001 were installed the evening before the start of sampling. Because of this
additional day of automatic sampler setup, each sample event now spans a three-day
period. During this sampling event one additional location was sampled - downstream
from the City of Deer Park wastewater treatment plant outfall on the above tidal portion
of Patrick Bayou.
009/730524-01/02129 lm.doc
2-4
06/21/00
-------
The samples were retrieved on August 13, 1998. Some problems were encountered at
the City of Deer Park site location. The suction lines of both the samplers were blocked
by a floating plastic bag and the organics sampler did not collect enough sample.
Therefore, the program was changed to collect a sample every 10 minutes and the sampler
was left running to collect the desired amount of wastewater. However, after returning to
the location in the afternoon to collect the sample it was discovered that the sampler
container contained only about 3.0 L of sample. Therefore, about 400-500 mL of sample
was added to the organics sample and about 250 mL to the metals sample via the
automated unit. It was noted that the effluent from the City of Deer Park wastewater
treatment plant looked clear and was flowing more on the day of sample collection than
the previous two days.
The metals sampler at the Shell Refinery location (R001) stopped working after
collecting only approximately 200 mL of sample. The situation was solved by collecting
six 1L grab samples along the circumference of the pond using clean lake sampling
techniques. In this technique, care is taken to minimize the sample container's exposure to
the atmosphere and to ensure all the sample volume is collected at least 6 inches below the
water surface. A pre-cleaned, 1L I-Chem® amber glass bottle was triple rinsed and used
to collect six grab samples to make-up the composite sample. One of the samples was
collected at the "V" notch weir of the outfall. The remaining five samples were collected
at equidistant locations along the circumference of the pond. Due to the volume of the
pond, Parsons believes this sample is representative of what is discharged over a 24 hour
period.
The pH of the samples was measured during the time of transfer into precleaned
bottles. The collected samples were then aliquoted, transferred into precleaned and
prelabeled bottles, placed into the coolers at 4°C and subsequently transported to the
designated laboratories for required analyses.
2.4.4 Fourth Sampling Round
The fourth sampling event was initiated on the afternoon of January 12, 1999 by
installing the automatic samplers at OxyVinyls' Outfall 001. During installation of
samplers on Wednesday January 13, 1999, it started raining hard around 1530 hrs. The
installation of samplers and initiation of sample collection continued at all the outfalls
despite the rain. It rained approximately 0.6 inches by 1850 hrs. The sample event was
aborted on January 14, 1999 due to the continued precipitation overnight.
The fourth sample round was reinitiated on January 19, 1999 and successfully
concluded on January 21, 1999. The samplers were again assembled at the Parsons ES
office on January 19, 1999 (except the precleaned tubing) for installation at the individual
locations in the field the next day. As planned, the samplers at Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001
were installed on the afternoon of January 19, 1999. All the composite samples were
retrieved from individual locations on January 21, 1999 and were subsequently transferred
into precleaned and prelabeled containers. The pH of the samples was also measured
during their transfer into the individual bottles. Prepared bottles were then placed into
coolers and shipped to the appropriate laboratories at 4°C.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
2-5
06/21/00
-------
2.4.5 Fifth Sampling Round
The fifth sampling event was originally initiated on February 16, 1999. However, the
sampling effort was aborted following approximately 1.01 inches of rainfall registered at
OxyVinyls overnight. The sampling event was reinitiated a week later on February 23,
1999 and successfully finished on February 25, 1999. There were no significant deviations
from the normal procedures during this sample round. The composite samples procured
from different outfalls were aliquoted and transferred into precleaned and prelabeled
containers. The pH of the samples was measured during aliquoting into the individual
sample containers. Prepared bottles were then placed into coolers and shipped to the
appropriate laboratories.
The organic samplers at Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001 did not collect enough sample during
the 24-hour sample period. Therefore, approximately a liter of sample was pumped into
the original and the field duplicate samples collected from this outfall. During this sample
event, the sample collected at Shell's Outfall R-001 had a light yellowish tint.
2.4.6 Sixth Sampling Round
The sixth sampling round was also aborted during the first attempt due to a storm event
on April 14, 1999. However, OxyVinyls utilized this opportunity to collect their
stormwater samples for this study. The first attempt to collect the sixth round of samples
was made on April 13, 1999 with installation of automatic samplers at Outfall 001.
OxyVinyls collected their stormwater runoff samples on April 14, 1999. The second
attempt was initiated on Monday August 9, 1999 with installation of automatic samplers
at OxyVinyls' Outfall 001 and was successfully completed on Wednesday August 11,
1999.
During the early morning check of all the samplers on August 11, 1999, it was
identified that both the samplers collecting the organic samples at OxyVinyls' Outfall 001
were not working because of dead batteries. The batteries were replaced and samplers
were reprogrammed to collect 8 samples/ hour to ensure adequate sample volume. The
MS/MSD sampler at OxyVinyls' Outfall 002 failed and there was no display on the
sampler. Therefore, a new sampler was installed at this location. The sample tubing
entering the metals samplers at Outfall 003 and Intake were disconnected. It looked like
someone had stepped on the tubing causing it to disconnect from the sampler's pump
tubing. These two samplers were reprogrammed to extend their program end times to
ensure 24 hours of sampling. The Outfall 003 and Intake samplers were originally
programmed to finish sampling at 1445 hrs and 1210 hrs respectively.
An optional sampling at City of Deer Park sample location was attempted during this
sample round. However, the integrity of these samples was questionable, as the automatic
samplers seemed to have been tampered with. The samplers may have been vandalized
overnight. Therefore, these samples were deemed to not meet the "clean sampling"
requirements of this study and were rejected and not analyzed.
2.4.7 Stormwater Sampling
All the stormwater samples were collected by the individual facility personnel at their
stormwater outfalls. Lubrizol also collected the stormwater samples at the City of Deer
009/730524-01/02129 lm.doc
2-6
06/21/00
-------
Park sample location on September 1, 1999. As explained earlier in section 2.2.6,
OxyVinyls collected their stormwater samples on April 14, 1999 during one of the
attempts for the sixth round of process wastewater samples which failed to meet the
rainfall criteria for a process wastewater sampling event. All the sample locations at
OxyVinyls were sampled during this storm event. Table 2.2 presents the list of all the
stormwater sample locations to be sampled at the different outfalls.
Lubrizol sampled Outfalls 002 and 007 on September 1 and 2, 1999 respectively,
following the storm event on September 1, 1999. Outfall 007 was sampled from the
stormwater holding tank at Outfall 007 that held all the runoff generated by the previous
day's storm event. A variance to the stormwater sample collection criterion was obtained
for this outfall from EPA to sample from the tank. This outfall was not sampled on
September 1, 1999, as there was not enough time to collect the samples from this location
and ship to laboratories before close of business. Because of insufficient runoff flow at
Outfalls 003, 004 and 006, these outfalls were not sampled during this storm event.
Therefore, no stormwater sample data is available for these three outfalls.
Shell collected stormwater samples from their Outfall R-004 during the April 19, 1999
storm event. None of the other outfalls at Shell had sufficient flows for sample collection
during this event. Shell sampled Outfalls R-003 and R-009 during a storm event on May
10, 1999. Outfalls R-002, C-002, and C-003 did not receive sufficient flows during either
of the storm events and therefore were not sampled. Therefore, no stormwater sample
data is available for these three outfalls.
2.5 SAMPLE ANALYSES PROGRAM
Both organic chemicals and metal samples were collected from all the sample locations
during all the six process wastewater sample events. Table 2.1 presents a list of analytical
parameters and the laboratories performing the analyses. All the parameters were
analyzed for in all the locations during all the sample events. All the stormwater samples
were also analyzed for the same parameters by the same laboratories identified in Table
2.1.
2.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
Quality assurance (QA) procedures were implemented for field sampling, chain of
custody, and laboratory analyses and reporting.
To ensure proper sampling procedures a field duplicate (FD) sample was collected on
each of the sampling events. These field duplicate samples for organics and metals were
collected from the OxyVinyls' Outfall 001 sample location. To assure the quality of data
resulting from the analysis, one matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) was
collected for each sampling event for analysis of organics and metals. On each sampling
occasion, a time weighted composite sample dedicated to serve this purpose was collected
at OxyVinyls' Outfall 002 sampling location. The data validation reports are provided in
Appendix B.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
2-7
06/21/00
-------
Table 2.1
List of Analytical Parameters for Process and Stormwater Samples
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
Toxic Contaminant Research Laboratory,
Wright State Univeristy
Trace Elements Research Laboratory,
Texas A&M University
ORGANICS & PCBs
DIOXINS
FURANS
CONVENTIONAL / METALS
Acenaphthene
Total CDDs
Total CDFs
Barium, total recoverable
Acenaphthylene
Total CDDs/CDFs
Tetra CDFs
Chromium, total recoverable
Anthracene
Total CDD/CDF equivalents#
Penta CDFs
Chromium, hexavalent **
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Tetra CDDs
Hexa CDFs
Copper, total recoverable
Fluoranthene
Penta CDDs
Hepta CDFs
Lead, total recoverable
Fluorene
Hexa CDDs
Octa CDF
Mercury, total recoverable
Naphthalene
Hepta CDDs
2378 TCDF (equiv factor = 0.1)*
Nickel, total recoverable
Phenanthrene
Octa CDD
12378 PeCDF (equiv factor = 0.05)*
Selenium, total recoverable
Pyrene
2378 TCDD (equiv factor = 1 )*
23478 PeCDF (equiv factor = 0.5)*
Vanadium, total recoverable
2-Methylnaphthalene
12378 PeCDD (equiv factor = 0.5)*
123478 HxCDF (equiv factor = 0.1)*
Zinc, total recoverable
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
123478 HxCDD (equiv factor = 0.1)*
123678 HxCDF (equiv factor = 0.1)*
pH
Hexachlorobenzene
123678 HxCDD (equiv factor = 0.1)*
234678 HxCDF (equiv factor = 0.1)*
Hardness (as CaC03)
Hexachlorobutadiene
123789 HxCDD (equiv factor = 0.1)*
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor = 0.1)*
Total Dissolved Solids
Hexachloroethane
1234678 HpCDD
1234678 HpCDF
Total Organic Carbon
Arochlor 1248
1234789 HpCDF
Total Suspended Solids
Notes:
* Equivalency factors from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards for calculation of total CDD/CDF equivalents
** Analyzed only when the total recoverable chromium concentration is greater than SO ug/L
009/730524-01000/021291 m.xls/Table 2.1
6/21/2000
-------
Table 2.2
List of Stormwater Sample Locations
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
QA/AC
Facility
Sample Location
Samples Collected
Comments
Lubrizol
002
004
Sample Not Collected
007
Field Duplicate & MS/MSD
003 f
Sample Not Collected
006 f
Sample Not Collected
City of Deer Park
Deer Park
Collected by Lubrizol
Oxy Vinyls
001
Field Duplicate & MS/MSD
002
003
005
Intake
Shell
C-002
Sample Not Collected
R-002
Sample Not Collected
R-003
Field Duplicate & MS/MSD
R-004
Field Duplicate & MS/MSD
R-009 t
C-003 t
Sample Not Collected
Notes:
t These outfalls discharge very infrequently, typically in association with a high intensity or long duration rainfall event
Sufficient qualities of runoff was not observed at the locations where samples were not collected.
009/730524.01 /021291m.xls\Table 2.2
6/20/2000
-------
(0
m
o
H
U
-------
SECTION-3
SAMPLE RESULTS & DISCUSSION
This section focuses on the presentation of the data collected during the sampling and
characterization of process wastewater and stormwater discharges of three industrial
facilities participating in this study, plus one sample in the tributary above Patrick Bayou
tidal.
The first part of this section describes and discusses the analytical results for each
outfall individually and presents a statistical summary of all the analytical results from the
sample events. The second part of this section focuses on the results obtained from the
TNRCC TEXTOX model for each outfall to calculate discharge requirements for
compliance with water quality standards based on protection of Human Health (HH) and
Aquatic Life (AL) at each outfall. The projected TEXTOX limits are compared with the
data for selected parameters and any exceedances are noted in the summary tables.
These comparisons are based on dilutions obtained after correspondence with the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and additional modeling by
Parsons ES for each outfall. The dilutions have been modified since the interim report.
The last part of the section focuses on loadings for selected parameters using the
historical effluent data for individual outfalls.
3.1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
All outfalls exhibited the presence of various targeted organics and metals; however,
only some of the target analytes were present above detectable concentrations in any
particular outfall. The following section discusses the validated results. Hexavalent
chromium was never analyzed because total chromium concentration never exceeded the
threshold based on Texas State Water Quality Standards (TSWQS) criteria. Figures 3.1
through 3.8 present charts of selected parameters' concentrations at various outfalls.
Analytical results for process wastewater and stormwater samples are summarized for the
individual sample locations and presented in Tables C-l through C-12 in Appendix C.
The Grubbs test was used during the evaluation of the data presented in Appendix C to
check for statistical outliers. A more detailed discussion of outliers at individual outfalls is
presented in the following subsections. Concentrations that were found to be statistical
outliers were omitted from the statistical summary of all the process wastewater sample
results presented in Table 3.1. All the stormwater sample results are summarized into
Table 3.2.
3.1.1 OxyVinyls
Five individual locations were sampled and analyzed at the OxyVinyls facility. These
locations are HSC water intake, 001,002, 003, and 005.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
3-1
06/21/00
-------
Intake
The intake for the once through cooling water, located on the Houston Ship Channel
(HSC) upstream of the Patrick Bayou confluence, is situated approximately 15 feet below
the water surface and was sampled on all the sampling rounds. All the samples at this
location were collected from 15 feet below water surface. Pyrene was found in
measurable concentrations during all the sample events.
Concentrations of all the parameters used for calculation of the total CDD/CDF
equivalent were below the detectable concentrations during the second, fifth, and sixth
sample events. Of the remaining three events, where total CDD/CDF equivalent
concentrations were detected, the third event has the highest equivalent concentration.
This total CDD/CDF equivalent concentration is a statistical outlier based on the Grubbs
test for 95% and 99% confidence levels. In addition, this maximum concentration (4.774
pg/L) is almost eight times the second highest concentration observed at this location.
The concentration of 4.774 pg/L was almost entirely comprised of 2,3,7,8 TCDD (4.34
pg/L). Therefore, this value is directly attributable to a CDD/CFF congener that was
never detected during the other five sampling events. It is also interesting to note that
2,3,7,8 TCDF, one of the isomers contributing to total CDD/CDF equivalent
concentration, was reported at the same concentration of 4.34 pg/L. The coefficient of
variance for the modified total CDD/CDF equivalent data at this location was 75%.
Outfall 001
This outfall discharges once through cooling water, process water from the mercury
cell process, and stormwater. This outfall location was also designated for collection of
the field duplicate samples for the QA/QC assurance.
This Outfall exhibited a concentration (22.63 pg/L) of the total CDD/CDF equivalents.
This concentration, measured during the fourth sampling round, is a statistical outlier
based on the Grubbs test for 95% and 99% confidence levels. In addition, the field
duplicate of this sample, collected side by side, showed only 0.966 pg/L, as shown in
Figure 3.6. Also, this concentration is over nine times higher than the next highest
concentration observed at this outfall. The coefficient of variance of the modified total
CDD/CDF equivalent data was 41%. Octa CDD was the only isomer measured above the
detection limit during each of the six sample rounds.
The total recoverable mercury concentrations measured at this outfall were greater than
the concentrations at the other tested outfalls. The highest concentration of total
recoverable mercury, 2.47 |ig/L was observed during the second sample event. Field
duplicate samples collected from this outfall showed similar trend and concentration of
mercury as shown in Figure 3.3. The highest relative percent difference (RPD) between
the field duplicate and the original sample was 7.56%, well below the acceptable criteria of
24% published in EPA Method 1631 for mercury. The coefficient of variance for mercury
data was 33%.
Concentrations of most of the parameters matched well between the original Outfall
001 sample and the field duplicate collected at this location. However, the total
CDD/CDF equivalent concentrations calculated for the field duplicate samples were lower
than the original Outfall 001 sample during the first and fourth sampling events. A
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
3-2
06/21/00
-------
detectable concentration of the CDD/CDF congener 2378 TCDD observed in Outfall
001's original sample caused this variance.
Outfall 002
Outfall 002 contains mainly once through cooling water and stormwater during rain
events. Analyses of the targeted parameters revealed that a number of organic compounds
and all metals were present at each sampling event in measurable concentrations.
Organics that were always detected include octa CDD, 2378 TCDF, and 123478HxCDF.
The maximum bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate concentration, 5.79 ng/L, was over twenty times
the concentration of the next highest concentration (0.25 ng/L) measured at this outfall.
Therefore, the Grubbs test for outliers was applied to the bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtha!ate data
collected at this outfall. Results of this statistical analysis showed that this concentration
is a statistical outlier for both 95% and 99% confidence limits. The coefficient of variance
for the revised bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate data was 49%. The outlier data does not affect
conclusions regarding this outfall.
Mercury was measured in Outfall 002 on all six sampling events. The observed
concentration in the outfall could not be explained by the mercury concentration in the
Intake sample in all events. Arochlor 1248 was detected in 4 of the six sampling events at
Outfall 002. Arochlor 1248 was also detected in 4 of the six sampling events at the
Intake. In five of the six data pairs the concentration in Outfall 002 was greater than the
concentration measured in the Intake. The Arochlor 1248 concentration measured in
Outfall 002 is certainly partially attributable to the concentration in the Intake. For five of
the six data pairs, the concentration in the outfall was slightly higher than the
concentration in the Intake.
Samples were also analyzed for total recoverable metals during all the six sampling
rounds at this outfall. All the concentrations of total recoverable metals observed at this
outfall were relatively stable through out the study as shown in Figures 3.1 through 3.5.
Copper had the highest coefficient of variance, 64% of all the metals tested at this outfall.
Outfall 003
Outfall 003 contains once through cooling water, process wastewater, and stormwater
during rain events. Analytical results from this outfall showed the presence of octa CDD
and all of the targeted metals in measurable concentrations during each of the process
wastewater sampling rounds.
The selected dioxins and furans that TNRCC uses to calculate the total CDD/CDF
equivalent concentration were present above detectable concentrations only during the
fourth sampling event. This location had only one detectable concentration of total
CDD/CDF equivalent. Arochlor 1248 concentration was measured at 0.048 jig fL
measured at this outfall during the last round of sampling. This concentration is
approximately four times the next highest concentration measured at this outfall.
Outfall 005
Outfall 005 discharges via a ditch into the Houston Ship Channel, downstream of the
confluence between the HSC and Patrick Bayou. Outfall 005 primarily discharges the
effluent from an on-site biological wastewater treatment plant. A number of organic
compounds were present in all the sampling rounds in measurable concentrations. These
009/730524-01/02l291m.doc
3-3
06/21/00
-------
compounds included naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorobutadiene, hexa, hepta, and octa CDFs, and an HpCDF isomer.
This particular wastestream exhibited the highest measured concentrations for a
number of parameters among all outfalls involved, specifically: fluorene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, 2-methylnaphthalene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene,
hexachloroethane, and total recoverable copper and nickel. However, due to its direct
discharge to the HSC, potential concerns are less than compared to discharge to a smaller
water body.
The hexachlorobenzene data collected at this outfall showed a steadily decreasing trend
over the sampling events, as shown in Figure 3.8. The highest hexachlorobenzene
concentration was observed during the first sampling event. However, application of
Grubbs test showed that this elevated concentration, 0.319 |xg/L is a statistical outlier for
95% confidence limit. In addition, this concentration is almost three times the second
highest concentration measured during the second sampling event. Even after discounting
the concentration measured during the first sample event as an outlier, the concentration
measured during the second sample event is the highest concentration of
hexachlorobenzene measured during this study. The sixth final sampling event showed the
lowest concentration at this outfall.
The highest concentration of total recoverable nickel was observed at this outfall
during this study as shown in Figure 3.4. This highest concentration of nickel, 619 \xqJL
was observed during the sixth sample round and is over five times the second highest (142
Hg/L) and twenty five times the third highest (27.4 |ig/L) nickel concentrations measured
at this outfall. Therefore, the Grubbs test was used to analyze the nickel data from this
outfall for statistical outliers. The test showed that the concentration of nickel measured
during the sixth sampling event is an outlier for both 95% and 99% confidence limits.
Even after discounting this elevated nickel concentration from the sixth sampling round as
an outlier, the second highest nickel concentration (142 fig/L) measured during the third
sample round at this outfall would still be the highest nickel concentration measured
during this study as shown in Figure 3.4. The coefficient of variance of the revised nickel
data is 130%.
This outfall also exhibited the highest average concentration of total recoverable copper
measured during this study. The total recoverable copper concentrations at this outfall
were stable through out the study. The coefficient of variance was only 10% for the
copper data. At this outfall, the concentration of arochlor 1248 was never measured
above the detection limit during this study.
3.1.2 Lubrizol Corporation
Outfall 001
This outfall contains process water from the wastewater treatment facility. The outfall
exhibited elevated concentrations of total recoverable zinc during the first four sample
events. Unlike all the other outfalls, concentration of zinc at this location was at its
highest, 538 pg/L during die fourth sample event as shown in Figure 3.5. This
concentration is almost twice the next highest concentration observed at this outfall and
proved to be a statistical outlier for both 95% and 99% confidence limits by Grubbs test.
009/730324-01/021291m.doc
3-4
06/21/00
-------
Except for this concentration, the rest of the data collected during this study showed a
generally decreasing trend in zinc concentrations. Discounting this elevated concentration
as an outlier decreases the average concentration of zinc observed at this outfall 136.6
lig/L. This average concentration is consistent with the historical average concentration
of 123.3 ng/L measured at this outfall. The historical data used for calculation is
presented in Table 3.6 and was reported to TNRCC on DMRs. It should be noted that
prior to the completion of this study, the Lubrizol Corporation had reduced the
concentration of calcium in their discharge. The previous, high calcium levels may have
produced a matrix interference which contributed to the apparent, elevated zinc
concentrations found in the first three sample events. Because of this matrix interference
issue, the outlier data point was not included in the evaluation of the zinc data using
TEXTOX.
Neither hexachlorobenzene or hexachlorobutadiene were analyzed above the detection
limit at this outfall. Total recoverable mercury was below the detection limit for five of
the six sample events and Arochlor-1248 was below the detection limit for four of the
sample events. All the dioxins and furans that are used for the calculation of total
CDD/CDF equivalent were below the detectable limits during this study.
3.1.3 Shell Oil Company
Outfall R-001 (Shell Refinery)
Outfall R-001 contains steam condensate and blowdowns. The highest maximum and
average concentrations of total recoverable lead and vanadium were measured at this
outfall. The highest concentration of lead (9.1 |ig/L) measured during the sixth sampling
event is almost four times the next highest concentration (2.4 |ig/L) during the third
sampling event, as shown in Figure 3.2. Application of Grubbs test to the lead data
collected at this outfall shows this elevated concentration to be a statistical outlier for both
95% and 99% confidence limits. Discounting this outlier concentration, the average
concentration of lead at this outfall decreases to 1.35 ng/L, the third lowest concentration
among all the outfalls monitored during this study. The coefficient of variance for the
revised lead data is 78%.
Concentration of total recoverable copper steadily increased at this outfall except
during the second sampling event to reach the maximum concentration during the sixth
sampling event, as shown in Figure 3.1. This maximum concentration (33.2 ng/L) was
almost 85% greater than the concentration observed during the fifth sampling event, the
next highest concentration at the outfall. The historical average concentration of copper
measured at this outfall is approximately 6.1 ng/L.
At this sample location, measurable concentrations of compounds used for calculation
of total CDD/CDF equivalent were observed only during the first sampling event.
Arochlor-1248 was always observed below the detection limit during this study.
Outfall C-004 (Shell Chemical)
Outfall C-004 contains process wastewater treated in the biological treatment system
for the chemical plant. The physical location for collecting samples at this outfall was
changed after the first sample round. During the first sample round, samples were taken
from the outfall that discharged through the weir directly into the channel of Patrick
009/730524-01/021291 rndoc
3-5
06/21/00
-------
Bayou (Outfall C-001). However, beginning May 1, 1998, the Shell Chemical outfall
started discharging directly to the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) through new Outfall 004.
The new outfall discharges the wastewater via a pipeline originating at a pump intake
sump of the chemical treater. Therefore, starting with the second sampling event, the
sample location was relocated to the pump intake sump of the new Outfall 004. The
wastewater at both these locations should be considered the same quality, since only the
sampling point is different.
This outfall had measurable concentrations of acenaphthylene, anthracene,
acenaphthene, fluoranthene and pyrene during this study. Both hexachlorobenzene and
hexachlorobutadiene were never measured above the detection limit at this outfall.
3.1.4 Deer Park Area
As required in the work plan, a sample was collected once on the third sampling event
(August 11/13, 1998). The sample was collected from a non tidally influenced part of the
Patrick Bayou stream channel, immediately downstream of the Deer Park wastewater
treatment plant outfall. The location was under a railroad crossing and adjacent to Hwy
225 between Center Street and Tidal Road. The chemicals present in measurable
concentrations included: anthracene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, fluoranthene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, pyrene, arochlor 1248, tetra CDDs, octa CDD, barium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc.
A second round of sampling was attempted at this sample location during the sixth
sampling event. The sixth event was conducted between August 9, 1999 and August 11,
1999. The automatic samplers were installed and sampling program was started on
August 10, 1999 at this location. When the sample team arrived on August 11, 1999 to
procure the 24-hr composite organic and metals samples the sample area and the
automatic samplers seemed to have been tampered with. The samplers may have been
vandalized overnight and therefore sample integrity was questionable. These samples
were deemed to have not met the "clean sampling" requirements of this study and were
subsequently rejected and not analyzed.
3.2 TEXTOX PROGRAM
The TNRCC has developed a computerized permitting tool called "TEXTOX" which is
used by staff permit writers in drafting water quality based permit limits. This tool is also
available to permittees and outside consultants to review data prior to submitting a permit
application or to evaluate how potential changes in the facilities flows, discharge locations,
or plant additions would affect permit limits for aquatic life or human health-based values.
The TEXTOX program incorporates the EPA's "Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control" (EPA/505/2-90-001) statistically based procedures,
along with State of Texas specific data such as segment default TSS, hardness, chlorides,
and pH data. In addition, it incorporates both the freshwater and marine dissolved to total
metal partitioning coefficients based on TSS. The freshwater partitioning is based on EPA
studies (EPA-440-14-84-022) while marine values were established by Texas A&M
University in special studies conducted in the tidal portion of each major river basin in
Texas (Benoit G. and Santschi P.H., 1991). The marine ratios were established for
009/730524-01/02129 lmdoc
3-6
06/21/00
-------
copper, lead, silver, and zinc in order to convert a dissolved metal standard into a total
metal permit limit. TEXTOX does not specifically include in stream concentrations.
In this way, the total metals data collected in this study could be directly compared to a
potential permit limit for an individual parameter, outfall, and discharge location. The
following narrative describes briefly the evaluation efforts used to predict the potential
human health (HH) and aquatic life (AL) limits for the outfalls involved in the study.
Table 3.3 summarizes the critical dilution concentrations used in the TNRCC TEXTOX
model. These values were obtained from the TNRCC's Water Quality Assessment section
via letters dated October 19, 1998 and July 8, 1999 for all the outfalls studied during this
Study except for the Outfalls 001 and 002 at Oxy Vinyls. Parsons ES developed the critical
conditions for Outfalls 001 and 002. STREAMIX and CORMIX along with mass balance
approaches were utilized to evaluate these outfalls. These critical dilutions were later
approved by TNRCC for use in this study.
These critical conditions are different from the conditions used in Interim Report
produced during this study. The conditions used in the Interim Report were previously
agreed to by TNRCC; however, these conditions were further evaluated to address the
concerns expressed by EPA. Following EPA's guidance, Parsons ES further evaluated
these conditions using various models to arrive at the conditions used in this report. As
noted in Table 3.3, the City of Deer Park and Lubrizol Corporation's outfalls were also
modeled for an intermittent stream freshwater criterion. The most stringent limits of the
two scenarios were used in comparing measured effluent concentrations to potential limits,
as prescribed by TNRCC. Also, the daily average and daily maximum permit levels at the
City of Deer Park and Lubrizol sample locations were recalculated to allow for advective
dilution by recalculating the long-term averages (LTAs). LTAs were recalculated by
multiplying the TEXTOX calculated waste load allocation from acute criteria (WLAa) by
0.573 and waste load allocation from chronic criteria (WLAc) by 0.77. All the
correspondence related to critical conditions including the Parsons ES letter report on
critical dilutions for OxyVinyls is presented in Appendix D of this report.
3.3 COMPARISION OF THE MEASURED DATA WITH TEXTOX LIMITS
On the basis of known critical conditions at individual outfall locations, the potential
water quality based limits were calculated using TEXTOX and compared to daily average
and daily maximum concentrations for measured parameters. The aquatic life criteria used
by TEXTOX for developing the daily average and duly maximum concentrations is based
on the most stringent of the acute and chronic long term averages (LTA). The LTA
calculated for chronic criteria were the stringent for all the pollutants evaluated during this
study except for total recoverable mercury and zinc which were based on acute criteria.
Selected parameters were summarized and the results are presented in Tables 3.4 and
3.5. These parameters included copper, lead, mercury, zinc, arochlor 1248,
hexachlorobenzene, and total CDD/CDF equivalent. Also other parameters included in
this study did not show any potential concern for any outfall. A summary of all the
analytical results compared to TEXTOX value is presented in Appendix C for each outfall.
It should be noted that the average duly concentrations represent the arithmetic mean
of all the daily analyses. Also, the outlier concentrations identified by the Grubbs test,
009/730524-01/02129 lm.doc
3-7
06/21/00
-------
explained in Section 3.1, are omitted from the calculation of daily averages. For the
discharge outfalls, this approach affected the results of the TEXTOX only for zinc at
Lubrizol. However, as discussed previously, their zinc results may have been subject to
interference from calcium. The TNRCC implementation procedures for wastewater
permits were followed during the calculation of the daly average concentrations. If a
target analyte was detected in any one of the six samples, then the non-detected values
were averaged at one-half the detection limit. If a sample is data flagged as a "UJ" or
"UB", then it also was added at one-half the detection. If the sample has a "J" flag, it is an
estimated value and was averaged at that estimate. If all samples were below the
detection limit, then a non-detected (nd) was placed in the summary table. The data flags
used during this study are discussed in Section 3 .6 of thisireport.
Table 3.4 compares the average daily concentrations of selected parameters obtained
from the results of all the six sampling efforts to the average daily concentrations obtained
from the TEXTOX model. Table 3.5 compares the maximum daily concentration
measured in the course of this study to the maximum daily concentration obtained from
the TEXTOX modeling. In the case of the pollutants with criteria or screening levels
based on human health protection, this is a direct comparison of the maximum measured
24-hour concentration to a value that would be the daily maximum permit limit. For the
pollutants that are regulated to protect aquatic life, the correct comparison of a daily
maximum value is to the acute aquatic life criterion, accounting for dilution at the edge of
the zone of initial dilution (ZID).
The daily average and daily maximum concentrations calculated for copper by
TEXTOX for different outfalls are also presented using the proposed water effect ratio
(WER) of 2.25. This WER is based on the results for the geometric mean of Patrick
Bayou sample results presented in "Copper Water Effect Ratios Study and Trace Metals
Study for the Houston Ship Channel," prepared by Parsons ES for HGAC and TNRCC in
January, 2000. Concentrations of selected parameters measured at OxyVinyls' Intake
sample location are also presented in Tables 3.4 and 3.5. However, concentrations
observed at this location are compared directly to the existing Texas Surface Water
Quality Standards (TSWQS) for human health and acute aquatic life. The TSWQS listed
for all the metals except mercury and selenium are for the dissolved portion only.
Therefore, total concentrations of total recoverable metals other than mercury and
selenium are being compared to the dissolved criteria for the intake only. Thus, for those
metals with a dissolved criterion this comparison is conservative, i.e., the measured total
recoverable concentration overestimates the in-stream concentration. TSWQS criterion
for copper is also presented for a water effect ratio of 2.25. The following sections briefly
describe the results of the comparisons at different facilities.
3.3.1 OxyVinyls
All the outfall locations exceeded the daily maximum and daily average limits calculated
by TEXTOX except the Outfall 005. The Outfall 005 did not exceed the TEXTOX
calculated criteria for any of the selected pollutants. All pollutants with either daily
average or daily maximum concentrations above the TEXTOX limits include mercury,
arochlor 1248, and total CDD/CDF equivalent. Once through cooling water from the
facility is discharged from Outfalls 001, 002, and 003. This water is drawn from the intake
location on the HSC. Therefore, the quality of the effluent at these outfalls is influenced
009/730524-01/02129 lm.doc
3-8
06/21/00
-------
by the quality of water in HSC at the intake location. This influence can be clearly seen in
Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 for total recoverable copper, nickel, and zinc respectively.
The results of comparing the daily average concentrations at different OxyVinyls
outfalls to the TEXTOX calculated human health or aquatic life levels reveal that Outfalls
001 and 002 exhibit the greatest potential number of parameters above the screening
levels. The TEXTOX levels were exceeded for mercury (23.9x), arochlor 1248 (3.2x),
and total CDD/CDF equivalent (1.2x) at Outfall 001 and mercury (1.2x), arochlor 1248
(10.9x), and total CDD/CDF equivalent (6.4x) at Outfall 002. Arochlor 1248 (2.2x) at
Outfall 003 also showed concentrations above the TEXTOX calculated daily average
levels. Concentrations of arochlor 1248 measured at the intake location are above the
TEXTOX levels calculated for Outfalls 001, 002 and 003 in addition to the TSWQS.
Concentration of total CDD/CDF equivalent calculated for the intake location is also
above the CDD/CDF equivalent calculated for Outfall 003.
Comparison of the measured maximum daily concentrations to the TEXTOX
calculated daily maximum concentrations of the human health or aquatic life toxic levels
indicated Outfalls 001 and 002 have potentially the greatest number of parameters above
the screening levels. The TEXTOX daily maximum levels exceeded for mercury (15.9x)
and arochlor 1248 (4.3x) at Outfall 001 and arochlor 1248(13.lx) and total CDD/CDF
equivalent (3.7x) at Outfall 002. Maximum concentration of arochlor 1248 (4.2x) was
also above the TEXTOX level at Outfall 003.
Both the average and maximum concentrations of arochlor 1248 measured at the intake
location exceeded the TSWQS criteria. Maximum concentrations of lead (l.lx) and
mercury (1.4x) observed at the Intake location were also above the TSWQS criteria. The
TSWQS criterion used for comparison of lead concentration is for the dissolved portion
only and therefore is a very conservative quantity.
3.3.2 Lubrizol Corporation
The daily average and maximum concentrations of Arochlor 1248 observed at Outfall
001 was above the TEXTOX calculated daily average and maximum concentrations for
this outfall. Arochlor 1248's daily average concentration was 1.1 times the screening level
and the maximum concentration was 1.9 times the TEXTOX calculated levels. However,
it should be noted that the detection limit for total recoverable Arochlor 1248 was
increased by ten times to 0.02 |ig/L during the sixth sample round due to required sample
dilution in the laboratory. This increase in detection limit skewed the daily average
arochlor 1248 concentration to exceed the TEXTOX calculated limit.
3.3.3 Shell Oil Company
None of the pollutant concentrations measured at Outfalls R-001 and C-004 exceeded
the TEXTOX calculated daily average or daily maximum concentrations.
3.3.4 City of Deer Park Area
Concentration of arochlor 1248 measured at this sample location during the third
sample round is approximately 6.5 times the TEXTOX calculated daily average
concentration and 3.0 times the daily maximum concentration calculated by TEXTOX.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
3-9
06/21/00
-------
3.4 STORMWATER SAMPLE RESULTS
All the stormwater sample data collected during this study are summarized into Table
3.2. As there are no relevant aquatic life and human health criteria available for screening
stormwater samples, the results are compared to the grab sample limits provided in 30
TAC §319.23 for tidal waters as shown in Table 3.2. These wastewater permit limits are
not typically intended for stormwater data. The grab sample limits are maximum values to
be included in permits for process wastewater, if there are no applicable technology-based
or water quality-based limits. A relevant aquatic life or human health criterion for
stormwater could not be developed because of the lack of a methodology that accounts
for the bio-availability of materials and the short exposure periods associated with
stormwater discharge. The following is a brief description of sample results and the
results of the comparison of these data to the hazardous metals §319.23 limits.
3.4.1 Oxy Vinyls
The total recoverable mercury concentration in Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001 (10.8 ng/L) and
its field duplicate (11.1 ng/L) slightly exceeded the levels listed in 30 TAC §319.23 for
mercury (10 ng/L). This is the only outfall with a parameter that exceeded the screening
level. Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 005 had an elevated concentrations of zinc (1,227 |ig/L)
compared to all the other sample locations at OxyVinyls, but was still considerably below
the §319.23 value.
3.4.2 Lubrizol Corporation
All the isomers used for calculation of total CDD/CDF equivalent were below
detectable concentrations at all the Lubrizol sample locations. As discussed earlier in
Section 3.1.2, all the process wastewater samples from Lubrizol also had below detection
level total CDD/CDF equivalent. On average the metals concentrations at Lubrizol
sample locations were less than all the other locations sampled during this study.
3.4.3 Shell Oil Company
Some of the parameters such as lead and zinc were measured above the minimum
detectable concentration in all the sampled outfalls. Shell's Outfall R-003 showed 33.3
Hg/L lead, 29.6 |ig/L nickel, and 4,372 ng/L zinc . These levels are considerably less than
the §319.23 limits. Shell's Outfall R-004 showed 31.3 ng/L copper. None of these metals
concentrations at Shell were above the metals criteria for grab samples listed in 30 TAC
§319.23.
3.4.4 City of Deer Park Area
The City of Deer Park sample showed 0.339 fig/L hexachlorobenzene and 0.296 ng/L
arochlor 1248. No criteria are directly applicable.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
3-10
06/21/00
-------
3.5 OUTFALL CONCENTRATIONS AND MASS LOADING DATA FOR
SELECTED PARAMETERS
3.5.1 Historical Data
Historical monthly average concentrations and mass loadings for selected parameters at
individual outfalls are summarized in Table 3.6. This data was provided to Parsons ES by
the individual facilities. These selected parameters include copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
zinc, arochlor 1248, hexachlorobenzene, and total CDD/CDF equivalent. However, not
all parameters were measured historically at all outfalls of interest.
OxyVinyls,
OxyVinyls' Outfall 001 historical data for mercury mass loadings for individual months
during the Apr-96 to Oct-96 period were retrieved from the reports for internal outfall
101. Since internal Outfall 101 drains to Outfall 001, the concentrations of the given
parameter will be different at these outfalls due to the dilution effect of Outfall 001.
However, the mass loadings will remain constant and are considered applicable to Outfall
001 assuming no other source of mercury in the final outfall. Therefore, only mass
loading is reported for Mercury for this outfall in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 also presents the nickel concentrations and loads from Apr-96 to Oct-96 and
from Oct-97 to Mar-98 for OxyVinyls' Outfall 002. Nickel mass loadings were calculated
from the known concentration data and corresponding flow for the day the parameter was
analyzed. There was no historical data available for the selected parameters at OxyVinyls'
Outfalls 003 and 005.
OxyVinyls collected dioxin and fiiran data in March, 1996 at Outfalls 001 and 002 and
the HSC water intake. During this event, 24-hour composite samples were collected from
Outfalls 001 and 002 and a grab sample was collected from the HSC water intake. Only
OCDD and OCDF were detected at Outfalls 001 and 002 in concentrations of 38 pg/L
and 75 pg/L respectively. These concentrations were much lower than the concentrations
observed during this study. Selected dioxins and fiirans data from the March, 1996 event
is compared to the data from this study in Table 3.7.
Lubrizol Corporation
The Lubrizol Outfall 001 records for the Apr-96 to Sep-96 period contained
information about copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Monthly average concentrations and
mass loadings for this Outfall are presented in Table 3.6.
Shell Oil Company
Monthly average concentrations and mass loadings for copper were also available in
the historical reports for Shell's Outfalls R-001 and C-004. Data from Aug-97 to Jan-98
for Outfall R-001 and from Jan-96 to Sep-96 and Aug-97 to Dec-97 for Outfall C-004 are
presented in Table 3.6.
3.5.2 Comparision of Measured Data to Historical Data
Averages of measured concentrations and calculated mass loadings of the selected
parameters for each individual outfall from this study are presented in Table 3.8. These
009/730324-01/021291m.doc
3-11
06/21/00
-------
results show that during this study the OxyVinyls' Outfall 002 contributed the highest
mass loadings of selected parameters except for mercury. This is not surprising, since this
outfall includes a large flow (70 MMGD) of once through cooling water. The quality of
the intake of the once through cooling water is represented by the intake sample. For
parameters such as copper (Figure 3.1) a significant portion of the discharge concentration
is represented by the intake concentration. The highest average mercury mass loading
during this study was from the OxyVinyls' Outfall 001.
Table 3.9 compares the calculated average mass loadings of selected parameters at
individual outfalls from this study to the averaged mass loadings obtained from the
historical reports. The comparison reveals that the loadings reported for OxyVinyls'
Outfall 001, Lubrizol's Outfall 001, and both the outfalls at Shell are higher than the
historical averages. The OxyVinyls' Outfall 001 average mercury mass loading during this
study was 4.5 times greater than the historical mass loading averaged over a seven month
period. Lubrizol's Outfall 001 mass loading was 2.4 times and 1.2 times higher than the
averaged historical mass loading for nickel and zinc, respectively. Similarly average mass
loadings for copper at Shell's Outfalls R-001 and C-004 are 2.7 times and 1.2 times
greater than the historical average mass loadings.
3.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY
This section briefly discusses deviations from the QAPP, other laboratory problems,
QC problems leading to rejection or qualification of data, and the overall usability of data.
Samples were analyzed for selected SVOCs, dioxin/furans, selected metals, alkalinity, total
suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), and total organic carbon (TOC).
The organic chemical parameters were analyzed by the Toxic Contaminant Research
Laboratory (TCRL) at Wright State University, in Dayton, Ohio. All the inorganic
analyses was performed by the Trace Elements Research Laboratory (TERL) at Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas. Following is a list of QA/QC flags used in
qualifying the data presented in this report:
UB Contaminant also detected in associated lab blank and therefore should be
considered not detected.
J Contaminant was detected, but because of QA problems the result was qualified
as an estimate.
UJ Contaminant was not detected, but because of QA problems the result was
qualified as an estimate
No major QA/QC problems were found during the validation of the data submitted by
the laboratories. No reported results have been qualified unusable. Minor QA/QC
problems leading to data qualification included: laboratory blank contamination and
surrogate outliers. Surrogate outliers were found only in the organic data from the third
sample event. Laboratory blank contamination with SVOCs occurred during organic
sample analyses of all the six events. Reported detections of the analytes detected in the
organic sample, less than five times the level in the associated blank, have been requalified
as non-detects and flagged 'UB'.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
3-12
06/21/00
-------
The following target furans were detected in the laboratory blanks associated with the
first round of samples: tetra CDF and hexa CDF. Reported detections of these analytes,
less than five times the level in the associated blank, have been requalified as non-detects
and flagged 'UB\ A detailed Quality Assurance Report is presented in Appendix B.
009/730324-01/021291m.doc
3-13
06/21/00
-------
TABLE 3.1
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF PROCESS WASTEWATER SAMPLE RESULTS
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, Texas
Occidental Chemical Corporation
Lubrizol Corporation
Shell Oil Company
Deer Park Area
Intake
001
001-Field Duplicate
002
003
005
001
Refinery, R-001
Chemical, C-001
Parameter
Units
Max
Average
cv
Max
Average
cv
Max
Average
cv
Max
Average
CV
Max
Average
CV
Max
Average
CV
Max
Average
CV
Max
Average
CV
Max
Average
CV
Max
Average
CV
Acenaphlhene
MB*-
0.0423
0.0233
58%
0.0260
0.0109
79%
0.0659
0.0229
97%
0.0767
0.0374
70%
0.0703
0.0271
87%
0.4340
0.1536
123%
0.7760
0.1437
216%
0.0693
0.0325
68%
0318
0.1748
73%
0.047
0.047
_
Aceoaphthylene
Hg/L
-
.
.
.
0.0378
0.0131
97%
0.0065
0.0036
53%
0.0900
0.0307
98%
0.0075
0.0075
-
Anthracene
Mg/L
0.0183
0.0085
79%
0.0082
0.0039
76%
0.0091
0.0050
70%
0.0197
0.0069
97%
0.0435
0.0167
82%
0.0385
0.0112
121%
0.0266
0.0095
100%
0.0671
0.0300
82%
0.0217
0.0217
-
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
(ig/L
0.0372
0.0140
96%
0.0246
0.0112
79%
0.0234
0.0126'*'
a- 62%
0.0322
0.0141
73%
0.0318
0.0150
76%
0.0207
0.0081
96%
0.0789
0.0180
167%
;<0l0680
0.0219
108%
0.0291
0.0123
87%
0.0101
0.0101
Fluotanthene
Mg/L
0.0469
0.0265
55%
0.0277
0.0120
74%
0.0236
0.0164
38%
0.0963
0.0334
95%
0.0618
0.0265
69%
0.0211
0.0067
108%
0.0348
0.0080
166%
0.0120
0.0057
92%
0.1000
0.0233
162%
0.0116
0.0116
Fluoreoe
pg/L
0.0106
0.0039
90%
0.0125
0.0049
82%
0.0489
0.0144
123%
.
0.9800
0.1936
200%
-
-
-
0.2130
0.0606
144%
0.004
0.004
Naphthalene
Mg/L
0.0662
0.0209
109%
0.0529
0.0240
67%
0.0587
0.0317
60%
0.058
0.0261
86%
0.0849
0.0256
120%
0.1620
0.0909
55%
0.0499
0.0198
88%
0.0754
0.0296
81%
0.0496
0.0310
45%
0.0281
0.0281
Phenanthreoe
fig/L
0.0290
0.0150
70%
0.0365
0.0169
67%
0.0182
0.0113
39%
0.0506
0.0192
93%
0.0529
0.0164
115%
03450
0.1672
81%
0.0357
0.0119
98%
0.0115
0.0068
61%
0.0349
0.0167
67%
0.0225
0.0225
Pyrene
ji&t
0.0777
0.0505
33%
0.0466
0.0247
52%
0.0560
0.0266
61%
0.0837
0.0477
49%
0.074
0.0461
47%
0.0193
0.0077
108%
0.0347
0.0082
158%
-
0.3870
0.1994
68%
0.0074
0.0074
2-Methylnaphthalene
Mg/L
0.0614
0.0153
150%
0.0156
0.0078
79%
0.017
0.0083
65%
0.0456
0.0135
120%
0.014
0.0060
78%
03110
0.1649
65%
0.0939
0.0279
141%
0.0239
0.0099
83%
0.0492
0.0224
86%
0.002
0.002
-
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Mg/L
2.9900
0.9666
119%
1.1200
0.4116
107%
0.594
0.2354833
100%
5.79
1.1910833
189%
3.06
0.787
146%
2.730
0.7095
142%
1.6200
0.4051583
153%
1.790
03052
132%
1.57
0.5689
103%
0.1435
0.1435
Hexachloro benzene
Mg/L
0.0055
0.0026
72%
0.0336
0.0109
103%
0.106
0.0241
167%
0.0095
0.0065
40%
0.008
0.0037
65%
0.3190
0.1029
110%
.
0.0040
0.0017
89%
0.001
0.001
Hexachlorobutadiene
pg/L
0.0070
0.0041
39%
0.0295
0.0097
105%
0.06
0.0150
149%
0.05
0.0135
135%
0.11
0.0342
111%
0.716
0.3460
70%
0.0005
0.0005
Hexachloroethaoe
Hg/L
0.0085
0.0036
97%
0.1040
0.0365
95%
0.0849
0.0447
79%
0.0600
0.0141
163%
0.0750
0.0154
190%
0.1120
0.0801
53%
0.0290
0.0055
208%
0.0165
0.0040
161%
0.0315
0.0059
214%
0.001
0.001
ArocMor 1248
Mg/L
0.0169
0.0062
91%
0.0240
0.0086
107%
0.032
0.0090
128%
0.0393
0.0152
97%
0.048
0.0119
154%
.
0.0176
0.0061
106%
.
0.0166
0.0059
117%
0.0091
0.0091
Total CDD/CDF equivalents#
Pg/L
4.774
1.840
139%
22.63
7.06775
147%
2.04
0.9694
67%
8.509
5.131
51%
0.215
0.215
2.851
1.8735
50%
0.230
0.230
0.577
0.521
15%
-
Barium, total recoverable
Mg/L
140
100
20%
110
83
19%
110
82.8
19%
114
92.5
13%
109
90
12%
128
112.5
12%
1,431
606
74%
260
157
36%
57
45
25%
22.0
22.0
Chromium, total recoverable
|ig/L
5.30
4.27
17%
8.90
6.07
0.32
9.1
6.2
29%
5.2
4.7
10%
4.8
3.5
22%
6.8
4.3
33%
16.1
11.7
32%
32.7
11.033333
97%
9.5
6.3
32%
1.0
1.0
Chromium, hexavalent **
H&l-
.
.
.
.
.
.
Copper, total recoverable
Mg/L
13.90
6.52
58%
11.90
6.75
0.39
13 3
7
46%
193
8J
64%
12.1
6.6
44%
29.5
24.5
10%
3.9
2.1
53%
332
15.0
66%
4.8
2.8
50%
2.5
2.5
Lead, total recoverable
pg/L
4.200
2.627
53%
2.80
1.42
0.70
2.69
1320
68%
3.34
1.64
57%
3.53
1.510
71%
3.45
122
102%
4.77
139
127%
9.10
2.64
125%
4.07
1.11
136%
2.1
2.1
Mercury, total recoverable
Mg/L
0.035
0.019
69%
2.47
1.76
0.33
2.29
1.64
37%
0.081
0.048
53%
0.05
0.024
66%
0.190
0.075
94%
0.005
0.005
0%
0.135
0.046
103%
0.092
0.020
182%
0.011
0.011
Nickel, total recoverable
(ig/L
7300
5.167
36%
9.30
4.98
0.55
10.3
5.5333333
54%
7.9
5.2
47%
6.7
5.0
32%
691
151.0
178%
65
38.5
47%
19.3
15.0
15%
27.4
15283333
41%
3.5
3.5
Selenium, total recoverable
Mg/L
3.430
1.438
71%
2.37
1.06
0.66
2.5
0.972
84%
1.83
1.16
36%
1.66
1.02
38%
0.42
0.31
29%
0.32
0.21
56%
1.70
1.10
43%
0.39
026
48%
0.16
0.16
Vanadium, total recoverable
pg/L
16.50
11.35
28%
11.30
8.25
0.27
12.9
7.8
34%
14.0
9.8
28%
10.4
8.1166667
20%
5.5
33
36%
16.9
8.7
59%
20.8
12.7
64%
13.3
9.3833333
41%
2.8
2.8
Zinc, total recoverable
Mg/L
49.000
26.167
45%
37.00
23.45
0.42
43
25,1
47%
47.0
25.6
46%
36.0
23.8
30%
264
158.5
41%
538
204
90%
183.5
51.6
127%
52.8
19.7
86%
35
35
Hardness as CaCOj
tng/L
2,720
1,619.0
52%
2,160
Uoo
0.58
2,180
1,200
59%
2,660
1,587
53%
2,280
1,410
50%
240
207
13%
7,150
3,088
86%
465
421
9%
1600
502
116%
160
160
-
PH
s.u.
8.24
7.84
3%
8.05
7.72
0.05
8.05
7.856
3%
8.33
7.74
5%
8.24
7.84
3%
8.29
7.85
5%
8.00
7.84
3%
8.62
8258
5%
8.43
8275
2%
7.5
7.5
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
16,400
9387
S8%
18,000
12,902
0.28
17,900
12,952
27%
16,900
9,973
52%
14,000
8,478
55%
6,050
3,973
30%
38,800
25,917
28%
7.240
6,252
13%
14,000
12,667
8%
29
29
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
15.10
8.88
40%
8.81
5.94
0.41
10.8
6.57
46%
11
8.05
34%
10.3
6.0
54%
15.7
9.1
38%
97 2
45.983333
62%
33.1
23.8
21%
57.2
35.5
36%
12.9
12.9
Total Suspended Solids
tng/L
99,00
48.16
75%
43.00
23.60
0.54
43
22.3
61%
60
30.48
56% <
65.3
26.4
84%
15
9.2
49%
208
60.5
123%
104.0
32.6
108%
32.9
20.0
54%
5.7
5.7
"
Notes: Duplicate - Duplicate collected using separate parallel sampler setups, with less than 6 inches separation between intakes,
na not analyzed.
nd all samples were below the detection limit.
|ig micrograms (10^ grams)
pg pico grams (10"12 grams)
# Total CDD/CDF equivalents are calculated using the equivalency factors from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Non-detect results were calculated
as zeros. Compounds used in calculation include 2378 TCDD, 12378 PeCDD, 2378 HxCDD's. 2378 TCDF, 12378 PeCDF, 23478 PeCDF, and 2378 HxCDFs.
009/730524-01000/02129/021291 arable 3.1
6/21/2000 sj
-------
Table 3 J
Summary of Stonawater Sample Results
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
Faculty
"WfAcflMi
Oiy Vinyls
Labrtzol Corporation
Shell OU Company
1
I
Sample Date
Criteria tor
April 14,1999
Sept 2,1999
September 1,1999
May 10,1999
April 19,1999
Sept 1,1999
Sample Location
Grab Samples
001
007
R-003
R-004
CHy of
Para meter
lioits
001
Duplicate
002
003
005
la take
002
007
Duplicate
R-003
Da plkate
R-009
R-004
Duplicate
Deer Park
Acenaphthene
PfA-
« 0.0100
< 0.0080
< 0.0080
< 0.0080
< 0.0060
< 0.0110
< 0.0040
0.0043
< 0.0070
0.324
0.274
0.2640
0.0362
0.0412
0.0486
Acenapfethylene
|!g/L
« aoo3
< 0.003
< 0.003
< 0.003
< 0.003
< 0.007
0.0087
0.0085
< 0.0060
< 0.049
< 0.043
< 0.021
< 0.008
< 1003
0.0397
Anthracene
**n-
0.0816
0.0113
< 0.0030
0.01 II
0.0178
< 0.0040
0.0270
< 0.0100
< 0.0050
0.277
0.234
0.0872
0.0687
10536
12120
Besm(kAnmhaie
(ig/L
0.0433
&033I
a 1730
aoiso
0.0352
< 0.0060
0.0825
< 0.0030
< 0.0040
0.1360
0.2320
0.0657
0.0414
0.0438
3.4000
Flueranthene
pg/L
0.1180 .
0.0678
0.0399
0.0367
0.1460
0.0217
0.1200
< 0.0030
0.0209
0.720
0.553
0.365
0.365
0.597
11400
Fluoreae
t^/L
< 0.0010
< 0.0020
< 0.0010
< 0.0010
0.0084
< 0.0040
0.0080
0.0067
00058
0446
0.348
0.1820
0-0588
0.0462
« 10010
Naphthalene
pg/l
0.0204 UB
0.0201 UB
0.0096 UB
0.0220 UB
0.0167 UB
0.0098 UB
0.0188 UB
0.0381 UB
0.0331 UB
0.425
0.189
0.2190
0.0273 UB
0.0312 UB
10651 UB
PheRsnlimm
Wg/L
0.0419
0.0280
< 0.0020
0.0121
< 10040
< 0.0020
0.0190
0.0122
< 0.0040
1.060
0.704
0.1300
0.0362
10394
17970
Pyrtne
jag/L
0.1250
0.0767
0.0636
0.0581
0.1590
0.5100
0.0831
< 0.0040
< 0.0130
1.290
0.960
0.334
0.429
0.734
1.9500
2-MetbybiapMtalem
0.0105
0.0106 US
0.0049 UB
0.0071 UB
0.0051 UB
0.0171 UB
< 0.0090
0.0164
0.0123
1.300
0.768
0.0990
0.0438 UB
10314 UB
0.0285
Bis(2-ctfaylb«xyl)phthatatB
|ig/L
0.659
0.423
0.326
0.521
0.722
0.691
0.171 UB
0.103 UB
0.170 UB
1440
1.050
0.678
1.170
1.240
1184 UB
Hexadtlorobcazcne
pg/L
0.0105
0.0165
0.0090
0.0191
0.0160
< 0.0040
< 0.0080
< 0.0080
< 0.0012
0.0016
0.0013
< 0.0010
< 0.0030
< 10030
0.0339
Hexedtlorokaadicne
W/L
aoi66
0.0201
0.0251
0.2310
0.0434
0.0161
< 0.0120
< 0.0060
< 0.0070
< 0.001
< 0.003
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.001
0.0442
HexacMoraethane
P$/l
0.1040
0.1460
0.0182
0.0766
0.0207
< a 0020
< 0.0120
< a0060
< 0.0060
< 0.001
< 0.006
< 1001
« 0.002
< 0.001
10489
Anddcr 1248
PfA-
< 0.0220
< aoiw
< 0.0120
< 0.0270
< 0.0020
< 0.0180
< 0.0060
< 0.0120
< 0.0190
0.0065
0.0070
< 0.0010
< a0080
< 0.0030
10296
Total CDDs
nA-
287.00
358.00
33100
54100
265.00
333.00
634.00
127.00
177.00
1289.00
1197.00
1377.00
179100
1536.00
927.00
Total CDDtfCDFs
p$n-
472.00
548.00
49100
5243.00
691.00
383.00
639.00
127.00
117.00
1409.00
1304.00
1461.00
2106.00
179100
944.00
Total CDD/CDF equivalents*
pg/L
S.13
3.39
123
3.86
od
nd
nd
nd
od
0.463
nd
nd
0.949
0.523
od
TetraCDDs
ptfl-
< 0.78
< 1.06
< 0.91
< 1.00
< 0.97
< 1.53
< 1.20
< 1.01
< 1.06
< 113
< 119
< 1.96
< 1.01
< 10.50
< 104
PutaCODs
pg/L
< 3.97
< 182
< 133
< 151
< 159
< 139
< 141
< 162
< 2.81
< 3.19
< 4.97
< 3.76
« 147
< 199
< 4.06
HexaCDDi
Pf/L
< 1.25
< 0.63
< 0.85
117
< 1.37
< 1.67
< 1.50
< 1.46
< 5.71
3170
34.80
15.60
2130
33.20
15.30
KcpuCODs
pan-
39.40
54.30
3130
103.00
80.60
3180
170.00
34.60
3170
338
299
294
403
354
261.00
OctaCDD
Pi/L
248.00
303.00
293.00
430.00
184.00
300.00
464.00
9120
13100
918
863
1066
1366
1148
651.00
2378 TCDD (equiv factor - 1)
Pg/L
< 071
< 1.06
< 0.91
< 1.00
< 0.97
< 1.53
< 1.26
< 1.06
< 1.14
< 113
< 119
< 1.96
< 1.01
< 1150
« 128
12378 PeCDD (equiv factor - 0. J)
Pf/L
« 3.97
< 182
< 133
< 151
< 159
< 139
< 141
< 167
< 191
< 3.19
< 4.97
« 3.76
< 147
< 199
< 4.25
123478 HxCDD (equiv factor-01)
Pffl-
« 1.44
< 0.59
< 0.80
< 1.83
< 1.65
< 131
< 1.49
< 1.82
< 1.49
< 182
< 4.21
< 4.12
< 1.46
< 189
< 4.08
123678 HxCDD (equiv factor » 0.1 )
PS/L
< 1.08
< 0.65
< o.w
< 1.32
< 1.15
< 1.28
« 1.48
« 1.28
< 1.04
< 141
« 3.55
< 3.89
< 1.33
< 1.96
< 4.11
123789 HxCDD (equiv factor - 0.1)
P»A-
< IJ0
< 0.66
< 0.89
< 1.61
< 1.42
< 1.72
< 1.57
< 1.57
< 1-28
< 174
< 6.89
< 4.23
< 5.40
< 145
< 4.29
1234678 HpCDD
Pf/L
13.80
15.30
1170
2180
19.80
11.00
47.90
I2J0
< 13.00
97.20
8170
17.90
111.00
101.00
10100
Total CDFs
Ptfl-
184.00
190.0
161.0
4701.0
426.0
S0.S
5.00
0.00
10.00
120.00
107.00
84.50
315.00
263.00
16.60
Tetra CDFs
nn.
74.20
73.10
6.99
4.96
< 0.49
< 1.28
< 0.69
< 0.67
< 0.52
< 0.97
« 103
« 1.14
6.12
< 165
< 177
PemaCDFs
pt/i
5.07
< 0.94
17.90
40.40
4.87
« 1.05
< 1.19
< 1.06
< 0.97
< 118
< 109
< 1.84
2130
15.00
« 1.42
Heu CDFs
P8/L
1100
< 0.74
2160
209.00
< 0.58
< 0.94
5.00
< 0.92
< 0.83
25.70
15.00
< 123
47.90
2110
1160
HcptaCDFs
Pf/L
« 1.51
15.00
2140
624.00
24.40
< 1.59
< 3.27
« 171
1100
45.80
44.70
4a 60
85.90
77.80
« 4.36
OctaCDF
pgA-
94.90
10100
90.60
3823.00
396.00
50.50
< 9.59
< 5.99
< 124
4160
47.60
4400
154.00
14100
< 23.10
2378 TCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
P$A-
3180
33.90
< 4.81
< 4.34
< 0.49
< 1.28
< 112
< 0.67
« 0.52
« 3.71
< 103
< 3.39
« 1.37
< 108
« 179
12378 PeCDF (equiv (actor - 00))
p»/l
5.07
< 0.89
7.94
« 1.19
< 0.98
< 1.01
« 1.08
« 0.94
< 0.85
< 110
< 100
« 1.76
< 1.24
« 1.14
< 1.25
23478 PeCDF (equiv factor - 0.5)
PSft-
< 1.58
< 1.01
< IJ9
« 1.23
< 1.14
< 1.09
< 1.37
< 1.22
< 1.15
< 127
< 119
< 1.94
< 1.38
< 1.27
< 1.69
123478 HxCDF (equiv factor-11)
ps*.
10.00
< 174
14.60
9.69
< 0.58
< 1.02
< 1.10
< 0.93
« 0.81
< 6.60
< 5.90
< 113
6.45
5.23
< 1.12
123678 HxCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
pg/L
< 0.64
< 161
3.76
1140
< 0.48
« 0.75
< 1.11
< 0.84
< 0.78
< 193
« 1.75
« 104
3.04
< 196
< 1.19
234678 HxCDF (equiv fetor - 0.1)
P*ft-
« 476
< 0.79
< 177
16.50
< 0.62
< 0.98
< 1.26
< 1.10
< 0.87
4.63
< 1.91
« 135
< 4.41
< I II
< 1.40
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
WL
« 0.86
< 0.85
« 0.84
< 0.61
< 1.27
< 1.09
< 1.42
< 1.25
< 1.07
< 0.80
« 100
< 146
< 170
< 0.99
« 1.50
1234678 HpCDF
P*A-
< 14.90
15.00
1120
450.00
24.40
< 1.45
« 6.24
< 3.20
10.00
25.7
25.8
19.3
33.0
26.9
« 1140
1234789 HpCDF
p*n-
< 1.65
< 149
< I.S4
< 1.13
« IJ7
< 1.77
< 3.98
« 3.09
< 147
« 170
< 3.41
< 3.42
< 3.54
< 105
< 5.03
Saturn, total racoverabis
^g/L
4000
72.00
68.00
77.00
67.00
234.00
7100
91.00
194.00
18100
65.00
69.00
61.00
89.00
95.00
67.00
CtuwHpft total ntmnMe
Mt
3000
ISO
150
170
< 100
4.80
100
6.60
< 100
< 100
1170
14.00
13.80
26.30
27.80
190
Chromium, hexavafcnt **
mA.
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
oa
na
oa
oa
na
na
na
Copper, total recoverable
Hg/L
2000
7.20
7.40
6.60
5.50
15.60
3.70
9.20
< 1.00
< 100
23.10
25.00
13.30
3150
31.30
1190
Lead, total recoverable
lign.
1500
1.80
1.80
130
1.80
5.40
1.40
4J0
0.60
0.70
3a 60
33.30
16.80
29.10
29.50
16.70
Men iiry. total luwa^lr
*$/l
10
0.064
0.05
0.18
0.02
0.037
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.080
0.093
0.050
0.113
1144
1068
Nickel. total recoverable
di/l
3000
S.30
6.50
< 5.00
< 5.00
1170
< 5.00
< 5.00
< 5.00
< 5.00
24.60
24,60
< 5.00
190
9.90
« 5.00
Seknhan, total recoverable
pi/i
300
as7
0.61
0.72
0.60
145
0.71
0.41
0.22
0.21
1.41
i;77
0.72
192
0.92
126
Vmadhrm, total recovgafrk
nfi
< 5.00
< 5.00
6.30
5.40
6.60
6.40
9.60
< 5.00
5.90
13.50
14.00
11.00
1120
20.10
< 5.00
Zinc, total recoverable
Ptft-
6000
37.40
46.70
44.30
9140
1227.00
14.80
213.0
15.0
15.8
4206.00
437100
58100
1131.00
1103.00
2110
Hardneas (as CaCOj)
n$TL
4saoo
485.00
620.00
475.00
820.00
6SS.O0
84
156
132
125
125
175
128
208
76
Total Diaaolved Solids
mg/L
8410
7540
3950
2680
3640
3510
500
304
362
213 UB
210 UB
256 UB
302 UB
576 UB
144
Total Organic Csrboc
rag/1.
>8.1 UB
< 3.2
« 3.2
< 3.2
44.0
6.8 UB
6.0
4.2
3J
217 UB
314
5.7 UB
118 UB
14.9 UB
6.9
Total Supended Solids
mg/L
19
40
33
16
12
31
40
10
9
20
26
31
81
75
74
M micrograms <10"* grams) UB Contaminant also detected in associated Moratory blsni. end therefore, should be considered not detected,
pg phaymniff" UJ Contaminant was not detected but because of QA problem the result m qualified at an estimate.
Shaded ma haw uwneiiU Utom greater than the allowable coBceauathms of hazardous metals for discharge of tidal wata» toted In 30 TAC section 319.23. J Contaminant was deteded but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate.
* Indicates (feat the criteria Cor a specific parameter is the diitohed portion in inter. na Not applkablotaalyaed.
*• Not analyzed since f*www|t"w« results were always less than SO pf/L. nd Not detected.
¦ Total CDDCDF equivaients an calculated using the equivalency {actors from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Ncm-detoct result* wwre calculated as tern. Compounds used in calculation Inctude 2378 TCDD, 12378 PeCDD. 2378 HrC'DD1*. 2378 TCDF. 12378 PaCDF. 23478 PeCDF, and 2378 HxCDFs.
-------
Table 3.3
Critical Conditions Used in TEXTOX Modeling
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
Deer Park, Texas
Facility Name
Sample
Location
Modele
Averag
d Daily
eFlow
7Q2
Harmonic
Mean
TEXTOX
Menu
Crit. Dil./ MZ
ZSD
Human
Health
HH Criteria
Comments
(MGD)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Oxy Vinyls, Inc.
001
6.5
10
5
62.6%
77%
46.4%
SWFISH
002
78
121
5
92.3%
96%
87.1%
SWFISH
003
6.5
10
5
23%
92%
11%
SWFISH
005
10
15.5
5
8% *
30%"
4%'
SWFISH
Lubrizol Corp.b
001
1.0
1.5
4.25
5.25
1
100%
N/A
Use Segment 1102 pH, TSS,
Hardness, and Chlorides values
5
36%
69%
28%
SWFISH
Shell Refining
R-001
4.78
5.94
5
27%
59%
20%
SWFISH
Shell Chemical
C-004
5.15
6.52
5
8% *
30% *
4% *
SWFISH
City of Deer Park b
4.5
7
1.36
1.72
1
100%
N/A
Use Segment 1102 pH, TSS,
Hardness, and Chlorides values
5
90%
97%
86%
SWFISH
Notes:
* Evaluated per discharge to Houston Ship Channel.
b Run TEXTOX twice • once using Menu 1 and once using Menu 5 - and use the most stringent results.
The Menu I criteria apply in the upper, intermittent freshwater portion of Patrick Bayou. The Menu 5 criteria apply in the tidal portion.
The aquatic life permit limits in the Menu 5 TEXTOX printout should be recalculated to allow for advective dilution.
This procedure involves recalculating the LTAs by multiplying the WLAa from the TEXTOX printout by 0.573, the WLAc by 0.77, and
then calculating the daily average and daily maximum permit limits as normal, as per TNRCC memo.
009\730524.01\021291m.xls/Table 3.3
6/20/2000
-------
Table 3.4
Comparison of Pollutant Daily Average Concentration to TEXTOX Calculated Daily Average Concentration
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
Pollutant
OUTFALL
DESCRIPTION
Unit
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arochlor
Hexachloro-
Total CDD/CDF
Copper*
1248
benzene
Equivalents*
OXY VINYLS
Daily average concentration
Mg/L
6.5
6.5
2.63
0.019
5.2
26.2
0.0062
0.0026
0.373
INTAKE
TSWQS for human health or acute aquatic life
16.27**
36.61**
3.85**
0.025
119**
98**
0.0009*
0.0086
0.700
Ratio above theTSWQS limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.9x
-
-
Daily average concentration
Hg/L
6.8
6.8
1.42
1.760
5.0
23.5
0.0086
0.0109
1.880
001
TexTox daily average concentration
Hg/L
7.1
15.0
20.83
0.074
18.9
99.2
0.0027
0.2530
1.509
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
23.9x
-
-
3.2x
-
1.2x
Daily average concentration
Hg/L
8.5
8.5
1.64
0.048
5.2
47.0
0.0152
0.0065
5.131
002
TexTox daily average concentration
Hg/L
4.8
10.2
14.13
0.039
12.8
79.6
0.0014
0.0135
0.804
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
1.8x
-
-
1.2x
-
-
10.9x
-
6.4x
Daily average concentration
Hg/L
6.6
6.6
1.51
0.024
5.0
23.8
0.0119
0.0037
0.215
003
TexTox daily average concentration
^g/L
9.4
19.9
59.42
0.149
60.8
83.1
0.0053
0.0511
3.044
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.2x
-
-
Daily average concentration
Hg/L
24.5
24.5
1.22
0.075
42.9
158.5
nd
0.0597
1.874
005
TexTox daily average concentration
Mg/L
28.9
61.2
162.97
0.854
148.0
254.7
0.0308
0.2939
17.500
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LUBRIZOL CORPORATION
Daily average concentration
Mg/L
2.1
2.1
1.59
0.005
38.5
137.0
0.0061
nd
nd
001
TexTox daily average concentration
Hg/L
15.5
32.9
45.72
0.122
41.5
198.3
0.0054
0.0420
2.500
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
l.lx
-
-
SHELL REFINERY & CHEMICAL
Daily average concentration
Mg/L
15.0
15.0
1.35
0.046
15.0
51.6
nd
0.0017
0.230
R-001
TexTox daily average concentration
Hg/L
14.7
31.1
42.29
0.171
43.8
129.5
0.0062
0.0588
3.500
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
1.02x
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Daily average concentration
Hg/L
2.8
2.8
1.11
0.020
15.3
19.7
0.0059
nd
0.521
C-004
TexTox daily average concentration
Hg/L
28.9
61.2
162.97
0.854
148.0
254.7
0.0308
0.2939
17.500
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DEER PARK AREA
DEER
Daily average concentration
Hg/L
2.5
2.5
2.10
0.011
3.5
35.0
0.0091
0.001
nd
PARK
TexTox daily average concentration
l»g/L
6.2
13.2
15.89
0.040
16.6
141.1
0.0014
0.0137
0.814
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.5x
-
-
Notes:
Criteria calculated as the sum of seven PCB cogeners 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016
** Indicates that the criteria for specific parameter is the dissolved portion in water
a . TSWQS and Textox critieria for copper are adjusted by a WER of 2.25
Total CDD/CDF equivalant concentrations are expressed in pg/L & TexTox limit is expressed as annual average.
Average daily concentration = Average from the set of six daily analyses.
TexTox daily average concentration = The lowest daily average concentration of the human or aquatic life toxic limits.
Ratio above the TexTox limit = How many times is the average daily concentration higher than the TEXTOX daily average concentration,
nd Not detected.
009/730524-01/02129/02129 In.xls/Daily Avg - TexTox
6/22/2000
-------
Table 3.5
Comparison of Pollutant Daily Maximum Concentration to TEXTOX Calculated Daily Maximum Concentration
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
Pollutant
OUTFALL
DESCRIPTION
Unit
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arochlor
Hexachloro-
Total CDD/CDF
Copper*
1248
benzene
Equivalents*
OXY VINYLS
Daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
13.9
13.9
4.20
0.035
7.3
49
0.0169
0.0055
0.571
INTAKE
TSWQS for human health or acute aquatic life
Hg/L
16.27**
36.61**
3.85**
0.025
119**
98**
0.0009*
0.0086
0.70
Ratio above theTSWQS limit
-
-
1.1X
1.4x
-
-
18.8x
-
-
Daily maximum concentration
Mg/L
11.9
11.9
2.80
2.470
9.3
37
0.0240
0.0336
2.442
001
TexTox daily maximum concentration
Mg/L
15.0
33.7
44.06
0.156
40.0
210
0.0056
0.0536
4.363
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
15.9x
-
-
4.3x
-
-
Daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
19.3
19.3
3.34
0.081
7.9
47
0.0393
0.0095
8.509
002
TexTox daily maximum concentration
Mg/L
10.2
22.9
29.88
0.083
27.1
168
0.0030
0.0286
2.325
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
1.9
-
-
-
-
-
13. lx
-
3.7x
Daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
12.1
12.1
3.53
0.050
6.7
36
0.0480
0.0080
0.215
003
TexTox daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
19.9
44.8
125.70
0.314
128.7
176
0.0113
0.1080
8.803
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.2x
-
-
Daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
29.5
29.5
3.45
0.190
142.0
264
nd
0.1130
2.851
005
TexTox daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
61.0
137.3
344.79
1.808
313.0
539
0.0651
0.6218
50.615
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LUBRIZOL CORPORATION
Daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
3.9
3.9
4.77
0.005
65.0
251
0.0176
nd
nd
001
TexTox daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
32.9
74.0
96.72
0.258
87.8
420
0.0093
0.0888
7.231
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.9x
-
-
SHELL REFINERY & CHEMICAL
Daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
33.2
33.2
2.40
0.135
19.3
184
nd
0.0040
0.230
R001
TexTox daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
31.0
69.8
102.16
0.362
92.7
274
0.0130
0.1244
10.123
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Daily maximum concentration
^g/L
4.8
4.8
4.07
0.092
27.4
528
0.0166
nd
0.577
C-004
TexTox daily maximum concentration
Mg/L
61.0
137.3
344.79
1.808
313.0
539
0.0651
0.6218
50.615
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
DEER PARK AREA
DEER
Daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
2.5
2.5
2.10
0.011
3.5
35
0.0091
0.001
nd
PARK
TexTox daily maximum concentration
Hg/L
13.2
29.6
33.62
0.084
35.1
298
0.0030
0.0289
2.354
Ratio above the TEXTOX limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.Ox
-
-
Notes:
Maximum daily concentration =
TEXTOX maximum daily concentration -
Ratio above the TexTox limit —
nd
Criteria calculated as the sum of seven PCB congeners 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016
Indicates that the criteria for specific parameter is the dissolved portion in water
. TSWQS and Textox critieria for copper are adjusted by a WER of 2.25
Total CDD/CDF equivalant concentrations are expressed in pg/L.
Maximum concentration from the set of six daily analyses.
The lowest daily maximum concentration of the human health or aquatic life toxic limits calculated by TEXTOX
How many times is the daily maximum concentration higher than the TEXTOX daily maximum concentration.
Not detected.
009/730524-01/02129/021291n.xls/Max conc. vs. TexTox
6/22/2000
-------
Table 3.6
Monthly Average Historical Data for Selected Parameters
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, Texas
PARAMETER
Location
Outfall
Month
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arochlor 1248
Hexachlorobenzene
Total CdIVCdF
equivalents
mg'L
lb/day
mg/L
lb/day
mg/L
lb/day
mg/L
ib/day
rag/L
lb/day
mg/L
ib/day
mg/i.
lb/day
mg/L
Ib/day
Occidental
001*
Apr-96
na
na
na
na
-
0.011
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Chemical
May-96
na
na
na
na
-
0.011
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Corporation
Jun-96
na
na
na
na
-
0.016
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jul-96
na
na
na
na
-
0.018
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Aug-96
na
na
na
na
-
0.015
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Sq>-96
na
na
na
na
-
0.017
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Oct-96
na
na
na
na
-
0.009
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Average
-
-
-
-
-
0.014
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
.
002
Apr-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
0.015
9.41
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
May-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
0.017
10.53
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jun-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
0.010
6.28
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jul-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
0.006
3.62
na
na
na
•Hr-
na
na
na
na
Aug-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
0.004
2.65
na
na
na
ua
na
na
na
na
Sep-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Oct-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Oct-97
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Nov-97
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Dec-97
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jan-98
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Feb-98
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Mar-98
na
na
na
na
na
na
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Average
0.004
2.50
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
.
003
Apr-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
May-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jun-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jul-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Aug-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Sep-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Average
.
005
Apr-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
May-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jun-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jul-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Aug-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Sep-96
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Average
Lubrizol
001
Apr-96
0.007
0.05
0.009
0.06
na
na
0.022
0.15
0.126
0.84
na
na
na
na
na
na
Corporation
May-96
0.001
0.01
0.005
0.04
na
na
0.012
0.09
0.144
1.08
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jun-96
0.002
0.02
0.003
0.03
na
na
0.016
0.15
0.087
0.8
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jul-96
0.002
0.01
0.005
0.03
na
na
0.023
0.15
0.143
0.94
na
na
na
na
na
na
Aug-96
0.004
0.03
0.013
0.1
na
na
0.017
0.13
0.108
0.8
na
na
na
na
na
na
Sep-96
0.002
0.02
0.005
0.04
na
na
0.016
0.13
0.155
1.27
na
na
0.009
0.07
na
na
Average
0.003
0.02
0.007
0.05
-
-
0.018
0.13
0.127
0.96
-
-
0.009
0.07
-
-
Shell Oil Company
Shell Refinery
R00I
Aug-97
0.005
0.025
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Sep-97
0.006
0.040
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Oct-97
0.005
0.027
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Nov-97
0.006
0.030
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Dec-97
0.008
0.058
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jan-98
0.008
0.058
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Average
0.006
0.040
.
Shell Chemical
C001
Jan-96
0.005
0.18
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Company
Feb-96
0.003
0.12
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Mar-96
0.001
0.04
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Apr-96
0.003
0.11
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
May-96
0.003
0.14
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jun-96
0.003
0.17
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Jul-96
0.003
0.15
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Aug-96
0.004
0.18
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Sep-96
0.002
0.12
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Aug-97
0.002
0.11
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Sep-97
0.002
0.09
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
oa
na
na
na
na
Oct-97
0
0
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Nov-97
0.002
0.08
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Dbc-"97
0.003
0.13
0
0
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Average
0.003
0.116
0
0
Note: * Mercury data for the Occidental Chemical Corporation outfall 001 taken from the internal 101 outfall measurements,
na = Not analyzed.
Dash indicates that the parameter was not calculable or was not reported.
00OT30524'01000A)2129Attl290v/Histaocal loadings
020/2000
-------
Table 3.7
Comparison of Selected Dioxins and Furans Data to March, 1996 Data
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, Texas
Parameter
Units
Sample Dates
3/8/1996 | 3/5/1998 5/20/1998 8/13/1998 1/23/1999 2/25/1999
8/11/1999
Oxy Vinyls - Outfall 001*
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Pg/L
0
13.2
7.76
5.15
8.94
6.37
<7.24
octaCDD
Pg/L
38
420
129
94.4
146
135
67.8
octa CDF
Pfi/L
0
33.5
44.7
20.9
87.8
27.6
<23.3
Oxy Vinyls - Outfall 002
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
pr/l
0
18.2
<6.31
5.21
10.2
9.68
<5.41
octaCDD
Pg/L
75
582
127
105
199
159
85.7
octa CDF
Pfi/L
0
39.9
48.1
<0.93
34.8
46.2
<7.33
Oxy Vinyls - HSC Water Intake**
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
pk/l
69
17.4
6.81
10.7
7.14
7.97
<8.08
octaCDD
Pg/L
160
428
157
242
147
175
<20.4
octa CDF
Pg/L
33
29.9
39.2
51.9
14.6
38.2
< 12.1
Notes:
* Results reported for the outfall are the highest of the orignal sample and the field duplicate
during each sample event
** March, 1996 sample was collected as a grab sample.
009Y730524.01\021291 ojds/Table 3.7
-------
Table 3.8
Average Mass Loadings for Selected Parameters
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, Texas
PARAMETER
Location
Outfall
Flow
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arochlor 1248
Hexachlorobenzene
Total CDD/CDF
equivalents
MGD
Hg/L
lb/day
lb/day
Hg/L
lb/day
Hg/L
lb/day
Hg/L
lb/day
Hg/L
lb/day
Hg/L
lb/day
pg/L
lb/day
Oxy Vinyls
001
4.295
6.8
0.242
1.42
0.051
1.76
0.0630
4.98
0.1784
23.45
0.840
0.0086
A
0.0003
0.0109
0.0004
1.880
6.7E-08
002
59.75
8.5
4.236
1.64
0.817
0.048
0.0239
5.2
2.5912
47
23.421
0.0152
0.0076
0.0065
0.0032
5.131
2.6E-06
003
5.105
6.6
0.281
1.51
0.064
0.024
0.0010
5
0.2129
23.8
1.013
0.0119
0.0005
0.0037
0.0002
0.215
9.2E-09
005
0.529
24.5
0.108
1.22
0.005
0.075
0.0003
42.9
0.1893
158.5
0.699
nd
-
0.0597
0.0003
1.874
8.3E-09
Lubrizol Corporation
001
0.951
2.1
0.017
1.59
0.013
0.005
0.0000
38.5
0.3053
137
1.086
0.0061
0.00005
nd
nd
.
Shell Oil Company
Shell Refinery
R-001
0.854
15.0
0.107
1.35
0.010
0.046
0.0003
15
0.1068
51.6
0.367
nd
0.002
1.2E-11
0.230
1.6E-09
Shell Chemical
C-004
6.042
2.8
0.141
1.11
0.056
0.02
0.0010
15.28
0.7702
19.7
0.993
0.0059
0.0003
nd
-
0.520
0.0262
Note: nd Not detected.
Dash indicates that the parameter was incalculable.
Average mass loadings are calculated using the average concentrations measured during the study
009/730524-01000/02129/021291o.xls\Study Loadings
6/20/2000
-------
Table 3.9
Comparison of Average Mass Loadings of Selected Parameters to Averaged Historical Mass Loadings
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, Texas
Pollutant
OUTFALL
Unit
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Oxy Vinyls - Outfall 001
Average mass loading during this study
lb/day
0.24
0.05
0.06
0.18
0.84
Averaged historical mass loading
lb/day
na
na
0.01
na
na
Ratio above the historical mass loading
-
-
4.5x
-
-
Oxy Vinyls - Outfall 002
Average mass loading during this study
lb/day
4.24
0.82
0.02
2.59
23.42
Averaged historical mass loading
lb/day
na
na
na
2.50
na
Ratio above the historical mass loading
-
-
-
l.Ox
-
Oxy Vinyls - Outfall 003
Average mass loading during this study
lb/day
0.28
0.06
0.001
0.21
1.01
Averaged historical mass loading
lb/day
na
na
na
na
na
Ratio above the historical mass loading
-
-
-
-
-
Oxy Vinyls - Outfall 005
Average mass loading during this study
lb/day
0.11
0.005
0.0003
0.19
0.70
Averaged historical mass loading
lb/day
na
na
na
na
na
Ratio above the historical mass loading
-
-
-
-
-
Lubrizol - Outfall 001
Average mass loading during this study
lb/day
0.02
0.01
0.00004
0.31
1.09
Averaged historical mass loading
lb/day
0.02
0.05
na
0.13
0.89
Ratio above the historical mass loading
-
-
-
2.4x
1.2x
Shell - Outfall R-001
Average mass loading during this study
lb/day
0.11
0.01
0.0003
0.11
0.37
Averaged historical mass loading
lb/day
0.04
na
na
na
na
Ratio above the historical mass loading
2.7x
-
-
-
-
Shell - Outfall C-004
Average mass loading during this study
lb/day
0.14
0.06
0.001
0.77
0.99
Averaged historical mass loading
lb/day
0.12
na
na
na
na
Ratio above the historical mass loading
1.2x
-
-
-
-
Note: Dash indicates that the parameter was incalculable.
No historical data available for hexachlorobenzene, arochlorl248, and total CDD/CDF equivalents
for any of the locations sampled during this study,
na = Not analyzed
009/730524-01/02129 lo.xls\Comparison to Hist.
6/20/2000
-------
Figure 3.1
Total Recoverable Copper Concentrations
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
—O Oxy Intake
-X— Oxy 002
-O — Lubrizol
O- - Deer Park
¦Oxy 001
• Oxy 003
-Oxy 001FD
¦Oxy 005
- A- ¦ - Shell Refinery - - O - - Shell Chemical
0
05-Mar-98
20-May-98
13-Aug-98
23-Jan-99
25-Feb-99
11 -Aug-99
Sample Dates
Notes: Oxy 001FD is a field duplicate sample collected from the Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001.
009\730524-01000\021291e.xls\Cu-graph Chart 4 6/20/2000 LDE
-------
t
0
05-Mar-98
20-May-98
13-Aug-98
23-Jan-99
25-Feb-99
11 -Aug-99
Figure 3.2
Total Recoverable Lead Concentrations
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
—O Oxy Intake
—A—Oxy 001
—*—Oxy 001FD
X— Oxy 002
—~— Oxy 003
—O—Oxy 005
— -O — Lubrizol
Shell Refinery
— - O - - Shell Chemical
— -O- - Deer Park
Sample Dates
Notes: Oxy 001FD is a field duplicate sample collected from the Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001.
009\730524-01000\021291 e.xls\Pb-graph Chart 2
6/20/2000 LDE
-------
Oxy Intake
Oxy 001FD
¦O — Lubrizol
¦Cc ¦ -Shell Refinery
O - - Shell Chemical
1 l-Aug-99
Figure 3.3
Total Recoverable Mercury Concentrations
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
05-Mar-98
Sample Dates
Notes: Oxy 001FD is a field duplicate sample collected from the Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001.
009Y730524-01000\021291 e.xls\Hg-graph Chart 5
6/20/2000 LDE
-------
c
o
•G
«8
b
e
v
u
S
o
u
w
_0J
3
os
i-
V
>
©
u
Qi
s-
o
H
£
n.
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Figure 3.4
Total Recoverable Nickel Concentrations
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
-0 Oxy Intake
-a— Oxy 001
-4—Oxy 001FD
—X— Oxy 002
—CI Oxy 003
—O—Oxy 005
— -O — Lubrizol
- - ¦& - - Shell Refinery
- • O - - Shell Chemical
— -O- - Deer Park
05-Mar-98
20-May-98
13-Aug-98
23-Jan-99
25-Feb-99
1 l-Aug-99
Sample Dates
Notes: Oxy 001FD is a field duplicate sample collected from the Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001.
009\730524-01000\021291 e.xls\Ni-graph Chart 3
6/20/2000 LDE
-------
s
o
•c
S5
b
s
cu
o
s
©
w
o
'—V
a
M
en
2
C8
t.
>
o
u
V
u
¦¦
o
H
600
500
400
Figure 3.5
Total Recoverable Zinc Concentrations
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
200
100
Oxy Intake
Oxy 001FD
Oxy 003
¦O — Lubrizol
O - - Shell Chemical
Oxy 001
—x— Oxy 002
Oxy 005
- - ir - ¦ Shell Refinery
— O- - Deer Park
===== 0^—
05-Mar-98 20-May-98 13-Aug-98 23-Jan-99
Sample Dates
Notes: Oxy 001 FD is a field duplicate sample collected from the Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001.
25-Feb-99
11 -Aug-99
009\730524-01000\021291 e.xls\Zn-graph Chart 3
6/20/2000 LDE
-------
—3
"©3d
3
s
o
u
1-
S
—
P
>•
W
W
fa-
Q
U
«
Q
U
"c3
o
H
25
20
15
10
05-Mar-98
Figure 3.6
Total CDD/CDF Equivalent Concentrations
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
- Oxy Intake
-Oxy 001
-Oxy 001FD
—X— Oxy 002
—~—Oxy 003
—O—Oxy 005
O — Lubrizol
Shell Refinery
- - O - - Shell Chemical
— -O— • Deer Park
20-May-98
13-Aug-98 23-Jan-99
Sample Dates
25-Feb-99
11 -Aug-99
Notes: Oxy 001FD is a field duplicate sample collected from the Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001.
009\730524.01000\021291 e.xls/Figure 3.6
6/20/2000, sj
-------
-J
°OJD
=1
fl
©
•e
73
s
V
(J
s
o
u
00
Tt
-------
—0 Oxy Intake
—a— Oxy 001
—*—Oxy 001FD
—X— Oxy 002
—O—Oxy 003
—O— Oxy 005
— -o — Lubrizol
— • -A- - - Shell Refinery
• - O - - Shell Chemical
— -O— Deer Park
©
•a
Is
t
a
B
©
u
o
(J
w
a>
X
0.350
Figure 3.8
Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study - Deer Park, TX
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.100
0.050
0.000 ¥
05-Mar-98
0
20-May-98
13-Aug-98
23-Jan-99
25-Feb-99
11 -Aug-99
Sample Dates
Notes: Oxy 001FD is a field duplicate sample collected from the Oxy Vinyls' Outfall 001.
009Y730524.01 \021291 e.xIs/Figure 3.8
6/20/2000, sj
-------
(0
m
O
-------
SECTION - 4
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the data collected during this study, the overall assessment of each outfall
is presented below.
4.1 OXYVINYLS
Concentrations of arochlor 1248 measured at the HSC Water Intake location were
above the TEXTOX calculated levels for Outfalls 001, 002, and 003. The HSC water
intake location is the source of the once through cooling water discharged at Outfalls 001,
002, and 003. Therefore, the elevated concentrations of arochlor 1248 observed at these
three outfalls can be partly attributed to the concentrations of this compound in the source
water.
HSC Water Intake
Daily average and maximum concentrations of arochlor 1248 and daily maximum
concentrations of lead and mercury were above the TSWQS as shown in tables 3.4 and
3.5. TSWQS criterion for lead used for screening in these tables is for the dissolved
portion only.
Outfall 001
Mercury, arochlor 1248, and total CDD/CDF equivalent concentrations were elevated
compared to the TEXTOX calculated levels. However, the source of once through
cooling water discharged at this outfall also showed concentrations of arochlor 1248
greater than the TEXTOX calculated levels for this outfall. The presence of these organic
chemicals in the intake water indicates that their principal source may be the intake water.
However, the concentration of mercury is a potential issue for a source evaluation. The
stormwater samples collected at this outfall also showed elevated levels of mercury
concentration. These values exceeded the metals criteria for grab samples listed in 30
TAC §319.23. OxyVinyls has begun source evaluation studies for mercury and
CDD/CDFs.
Outfall 002
Mercury is elevated compared to TEXTOX calculated daily average concentration and
thus is a potential issue. Concentrations of arochlor 1248 and total CDD/CDF equivalent
at the intake location appear to be paralleling the trends observed at the outfall. However,
the concentrations observed at this outfall are higher than concentrations seen at the HSC
water intake and the TEXTOX calculated daily average and maximum concentrations.
Source evaluation for mercury, arochlor 1248 and CDD/CDFs should be conducted.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
4-1
06/21/00
-------
Outfall 003
Arochlor 1248 concentrations at this outfall exceed the TEXTOX levels for daily
average and maximum concentrations. The daily average and maximum concentrations of
arochlor 1248 measured at the HSC water intake, source of the once through cooling
water discharged from this outfall are also above the TEXTOX calculated levels for this
outfall. Since incremental loading from the facility was not observed, no evlaution of
sources contributing to Outfall 003 is recommended.
Outfall 005
None of the pollutants monitored at this outfall exceeded the daily average or daily
maximum concentrations predicted by the TEXTOX model. No further evaluation is
recommended.
4.2 LUBRIZOL CORPORATION
Outfall 001
Arochlor 1248 concentrations measured at this outfall were above the TEXTOX
calculated daily average and maximum concentrations. As explained in sections 3.1.2 and
3.3.2, the sample dilution during the analyses of the sixth round of process wastewater
samples resulted in degraded detection levels and resulted in an elevated daily average
concentration. In the absence of this elevated detection limit, the daily average
concentration of Arochlor 1248 would be below the TEXTOX level.
Based upon the finding of the Patrick Bayou study, there are no recommended actions
required as the effluent appears to be in compliance with Texas water quality standards.
4.3 SHELL OIL COMPANY
Shell Refinery R-001
None of the pollutants monitored at this outfall exceeded the daily average or daily
maximum concentrations predicted by the TEXTOX model. No further evaluation of
sources is recommended.
Shell Chemical C-004
None of the pollutants monitored at this outfall exceeded the daily average or daily
maximum concentrations calculated by the TEXTOX model. The chemical plant
discharge from this facility no longer discharges to Patrick Bayou. It now discharges
directly to the Houston Ship Channel upstream of Patrick Bayou. No further evaluation of
sources is recommended.
4.4 CITY OF DEER PARK
Only one round of samples was collected from this location. The one sample of
arochlor 1248 measured at this location exceeded the TEXTOX calculated average and
maximum values by 6.5x and 3.Ox, respectively.
009/730524-01/021291m.doc
4-2
06/21/00
-------
>
u
n
m
o
m
(0
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
SAMPLE COLLECTION & HANDLING
EPA Method 1669 was used as guidance during sample collection and handling. Even
though the method was developed for collection of samples for trace metals analysis,
organic samples were also collected using the same "clean sampling techniques". The
term "clean sampling techniques" refer to techniques that reduce or eliminate
contamination in sample collection and handling and enable more accurate and precise
measurement of trace metals. Following is a brief description of the sample set-up and
collection procedures and the clean sampling techniques used during this study along with
the list of apparatus and material used.
The sample team for this study consisted of two two-person teams. The first team was
responsible for sites at OxyChem and the second team was responsible for sites at Lubrizol
and Shell. However, during each of the sample rounds, both the teams worked on sample
set-up and collection at outfall 001 at OxyChem to establish the standard procedures to be
followed by both the teams at all the other sample locations. The "clean hands" and "dirty
hands" technique, as described in EPA Method 1669, was used during sample set-up,
collection, and aliquoting.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
Sampling Apparatus and Materials
Following is a brief list of apparatus and materials used for sampling during this study:
• Sample bottles - Pre cleaned glass amber bottles from I-CHEM were used for
organic sample collection. Pre-cleaned composite sample container was provided
by TERL for metals sample collection.
• Automatic samplers - American sigma 800, American Sigma 1200, NCON
Scout-III, and Master Flex composite samplers were used during this study. All
these samplers used peristaltic pumps to pump the sample. These pumps do not
require cleaning as the sample never touches the pump. However, some of these
samplers contain metal heads and surfaces. Touching these metal heads or
surfaces necessiates changing of gloves before handling the sample apparatus.
• Tubing - Styrene/ethylene/butylene/silicone (SEBS) tubing and Teflon® tubing
pre-cleaned by TERL.
• Tubing connectors - Appropriately sized PVC or fluoropolymer barbed straight
connectors pre-cleaned by TERL and nylon cable ties. Used to connect multiple
lengths of tubing.
• Gloves - Various lengths of clean, powder free polyethylene or latex gloves
• Storage bags - Clean, colorless polyethylene (various sizes) and zip-lock bags.
1
009\730524.01\021290W.DOC
06/21/00 sj
-------
• Plastic Sheeting - Clean and color less polyethylene
• Coolers - Clean, non-metallic, white interior coolers with plastic thermometers
(by DigiTemp®) for shipment. White interior water coolers to hold composite
sample containers on ice during the sampling event.
• Ice - Blue ice® packs to keep samples chilled during shipment
Sample Set-up
Dedicated automatic sampling devices were used for metals and organics samples at all
the locations. Automatic samplers used during this study were modified to conform with
the "performance-based" requirements found in EPA Method 1669. All the automatic
samplers used peristaltic pumps to pump sample into the sample container.
Styrene/ethylene/butylene/silicone (SEBS) tubing was used as the pump tubing for the
peristaltic pumps and teflon® tubing was used as the suction tubing. All the tubing and the
tubing connectors were pre-cleaned by TERL and was double bagged in clean
environment before bringing to the field.
Wooden or PVC laths were used to position the sample tubing. The sampling points
were selected to ensure no metal structures were within close proximity of the sample.
Also, the sampling points were chosen as close to the center of the outfall as possible.
Following section discusses the "clean hands" and "dirty hands" technique used during the
sample set-up in detail.
"Clean hands" and "Dirty hands" Procedure for Sample Set-up
In this technique, one member of the two-person sampling team is designated as "dirty
hands", the second member is designated as "clean hands." All activities involving contact
with the sample bottle are handled by the individual designated as "clean hands". "Dirty
hands" is responsible for all the other activities that do not involve direct contact with the
sample. Following is brief description of the procedure followed during this study:
• The sampling team brings the cooler with the pre-cleaned SEBS-resin tubing,
gloves, plastic wrap, zip-lock bags, and empty clear polyethylene bag for trash.
• "Clean hands" and "dirty hands" put on two sets of gloves each
"Dirty hand" removes the bag with the tubing from the cooler
• "Clean hand" installs quart size zip-lock bags on both ends of the tubing while
working in side the tubing storage bag to minimize exposure to atmosphere.
• "Dirty hands" will assist "clean hands" put the suction end of the tubing through
the lath.
• "Clean hands" removes the zip-lock bag from the suction end of the tubing right
before "dirty hand" lowers the lath into the outfall and secures to hold the sample
tubing in place. Suction tubing is installed to sample from the upstream side of
the lath.
• "Dirty hands" removes the pump head cover on the sampler.
• "Clean hands" holds the pump tubing in place and "dirty hands" installs the cover
back on the pump head.
009\730J24.0I\021290W.DOC
2
06/21/00 sj
-------
• Both "clean hands" and "dirty hands" change gloves.
• "Dirty hands" program the sampler while "clean hands" collects the sample into a
graduated cylinder. "Clean hands" makes a small hole at the end of the zip lock
bag to collect the sample into the graduated cylinder there by minimizing the
exposure to the atmosphere.
• "Dirty hands" places the composite sample container (along with the storage bag)
inside the cooler.
• "Clean hands" removes the lid on the composite sample container and places in a
zip-lock bag then secures discharge end of the tubing in the composite sample
container. All this work is done inside the sample container's storage bag to
minimize sample containers exposure to air-borne contaminants. Zip-lock bags
at the discharge end of the tubing is removed at this time and zip-lock bag with
sample container's lid will be left in the storage bag. The discharge end is
secured approximately within an inch to two inches from the top of the container
to avoid sample tubing from contaminating the sample, if sample overflows the
container.
. "Dirty hands" will assist the "clean hands" in closing the storage bag.
Both "dirty hands" and "clean hands" places ice in the cooler before placing the
lid.
. "Dirty hands" will start the sampler.
Collection
Automatic samplers were programmed to sample every 15 minutes for 24 hours.
However, due to the sample holding time restrictions some of the samples were collected
before the 24-hour sample period was finished. "Clean hands" and "dirty hands"
techniques were followed during the sample collection and aliquoting. Following is a brief
description of these procedures:
"Clean hands" and "Dirty hands" Procedure for Sample
Collection
• Sample team brings a cooler with ice for the composite sample containers to each
location.
Both "Clean hands" and "dirty hands" put on two pairs of gloves each.
o "Dirty hands" removes the lid on cooler with the composite sampler and opens
the sample containers storage bag.
• "Clean hands" reaches into the storage bag and removes the tubing and firmly
secures the cap on the sample container and closes the storage bag.
. "Dirty hands" opens the cooler with ice while "clean hands" places the sample
container along with the storage bag on ice in the cooler.
Both "clean hands" and "dirty hands" now remove all the sample equipment from
site and leave for the next location.
009Y730524.01V021290W.DOC
3
06/21/00 sj
-------
Aliquoting
Coolers with the composite samples were brought to the OxyChem's wastewater
treatment plant laboratory for aliquoting. Aliquoting was performed in a clean
environment at the laboratory.
Work surface in the lab was covered with clean and clear plastic sheeting before
beginning the aliquoting. Dr. Paul Booth from TERL performed the aliquoting. Hair cap,
dust mask, and tyvek® suit were worn for aliquoting to minimize contamination. Gloves
were changed for each locations and also when ever surfaces other than sample containers
were touched. "Clean hands" placed the sample containers in bubble bags and sealed the
bags. "Dirty hands" placed the samples in coolers along Stfith blue ice® packs in
preparation for shipment to the laboratory.
The Organics sample from each location was aliquoted into pre-cleaned lL-glass amber
bottles from I-CHEM. Four sample containers were submitted to the organics laboratory
per each location in addition to the required QA/QC samples. Metals sample was
aliquoted into pre-cleaned and preserved sample containers provided by TERL.
SUMMARY
EPA Method 1669 was used as guidance during sample collection and handling. Even
though the method was developed for collection of samples for trace metals analysis,
organic samples were also collected using the same "clean sampling techniques". The
term "clean sampling techniques" refer to techniques that reduce or eliminate
contamination in sample collection and handling and enable more accurate and precise
measurement of trace metals.
Dedicated automatic sampling devices were used for metals and organics samples at all
the locations. Automatic samplers used during this study were modified to conform with
the "performance-based" requirements found in EPA Method 1669. All the automatic
samplers used peristaltic pumps to pump sample into the sample container.
Styrene/ethylene/butylene/silicone (SEBS) tubing was used as the pump tubing for the
peristaltic pumps and tygon® tubing was used as the suction tubing, All the tubing and the
tubing connectors were pre-cleaned by TERL and was double bagged in clean
environment before bringing to the field.
Wooden or PVC laths were used to position the sample tubing. The sampling points
were selected to ensure no metal structures were within close proximity of the sample.
Also, the sampling points were chosen as close to the center of the outfall as possible.
The sample team for this study consisted of two two-person teams. The first team was
responsible for sites at OxyChem and the second team was responsible for sites at Lubrizol
and Shell. However, during each of the sample rounds, both the teams worked on sample
set-up and collection at outfall 001 at OxyChem to establish the standard procedures to be
followed by both the teams at all the other sample locations. The "clean hand - Dirty
009\730524.0I\021290W.DOC
4
06/21/00 sj
-------
hand" technique, as described in EPA Method 1669, was used in sample set-up and
collection.
In this technique, one member of the two-person sampling team is designated as "dirty
hands", the second member is designated as "clean hands." All activities involving contact
with the sample bottle are handled by the individual designated as "clean hands". "Dirty
hands" is responsible for all the other activities that do not involve direct contact with the
sample.
Automatic samplers were programmed to sample every IS minutes for 24 hours.
However, due to the sample holding time restrictions some of the samples were collected
before the 24-hour sample-period was finished. Coolers with the composite samples were
brought to the OxyChem's wastewater treatment plant laboratory for aliquoting.
Aliquoting was performed in a clean environment at the laboratory. Dr. Paul Booth from
TERL performed the aliquoting. Hair cap, dust mask, and tyvek® suit were worn for
aliquoting to minimize contamination. Gloves were changed for each locations and also
when ever surfaces other than sample containers were touched.
009\730524.01V021290W.DOC
5
06/21/00 sj
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY REPORT FOR
AQUEOUS SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING THE PATRICK BAYOU
POLLUTANT SOURCE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
As part of the Patrick Bayou pollutant source study, three sampling events were
conducted. The sampling events were conducted between March and August 1998. All
work was performed in accordance with the Water Sampling Protocol. A Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was also prepared and approved to ensure generation of
legally defensible data.
A total of approximately 28 aqueous samples, and associated field quality control
samples were collected during the sampling events. The field quality control samples
collected included the following types: matrix spikes/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD),
and field duplicates. Samples were analyzed for one or more of the following parameters:
semivolatile organics (SVOCs), dioxin/furans, metals, alkalinity, total dissolved solids,
total suspended solids and total organic carbon (TOC), The samples were analyzed by
Wright State University of Dayton, Ohio and the Trace Element Research Center at
Texas A&M University using the USEPA-approved analytical methods specified in the
QAPP.
This Quality Assurance (QA) summary report presents a summary and
assessment of the analytical data generated for the sampling event All data submitted by
the laboratory have been evaluated using the quality assurance objectives and the data
validation procedures described in the QAPP.
This report addresses only those problems affecting the usability of the data. A
discussion of data validation qualifiers (flags) applied to the data and reasons for the
qualifier are also presented. A glossary of the data validation qualifiers is presented in
Attachment 1.
-------
This report is organized by sampling event and analytical parameter. Details
concerning the samples, and quality control problems leading to rejection or qualification
of data for each parameter are presented below.
Deviations from the QAPP or the analytical methods and a discussion of the
overall usability of the data are also presented in the Summary section of this report
Based on a review of the data submitted by the laboratories, ^no major QA/QC
problems were found during validation of the data. No reported results have been
*
qualified as unusable. Minor problems leading to qualifying of data as estimated or
not-detected due to blank contamination were found. Details concerning samples
and target analytes affected by these minor problems are also presented below.
SUMMARY
This section of this report discusses deviations from the QAPP, other laboratory
problems, QC problems leading to rejection or qualification of data, and the overall
usability of the data.
Except as indicated in this report, the samples were collected, prepared and
analyzed following the procedures described in the QAPP. Except as indicated in this
report, all samples were prepared and analyzed within the specified holding times using
the EPA-approved analytical procedures. The types and number of field and laboratory
QC samples collected and analyzed met the QA objectives specified in the QAPP. Also,
except as indicated below ail criteria for precision, accuracy, representativeness,
completeness and comparability (PARCC) were met for all analyses.
March 1998 Sampling Event
Nine aqueous samples and associated field quality control samples were collected
during the March 1998 sampling event. The samples were analyzed for selected SVOCs,
dioxin/fiirans, selected metals, alkalinity, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved
solids (TDS) and total organic carbon (TOC).
Analyses for SVOCs were performed using modified EPA method SW8270,
analyses for dioxin/fiirans were performed using EPA method 1613, analyses for metals
-------
were performed using EPA method SW6010/7000 series and the wet chemistry
parameters were analyzed using the EPA approved methods described in the QAPjP.
No major QA/QC problems were found during validation of the data submitted
by the laboratory. No reported results have been qualified as unusable. Minor QA/QC
problems leading to qualification of data included: laboratory blank contamination.
Specifically, the laboratory blanks associated with the SVOC and dioxin/furan analyses
contained target analytes at levels above the detection limits. Details regarding the
samples and analytes affected are provided below.
Semivolatile Organics (Syces')
• The following target SVOCs were detected in the laboratory blanks associated
with the samples: anthracene, arochlor 1248, benzo(k)fluoranthene, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, fluoranthene, fluorene, naphthalene, phenanthrene and
pyrene. Reported detections of these analytes less than five times (ten times
for phthalate) the level in the associated blank have been requalified as
nondetects and flagged 'UB'.
Dioxin/Furans
• The following target furans were detected in the laboratory blanks associated
with the samples: tetra CDF and hexa CDF. Reported detections of these
analytes less than five times the level in the associated blank have been
requalified as nondetects and flagged 'UB'.
May 1998 Sampling Event
Nine aqueous samples and associated field quality control samples were collected
during the May 1998 sampling event. The samples were analyzed for selected SVOCs,
dioxin/fiirans, selected metals, alkalinity, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved
solids (TDS) and total organic carbon (TOC).
Analyses for SVOCs were performed using modified EPA method SW8270,
analyses for dioxin/fiirans were performed using EPA method 1613, analyses for metals
-------
were performed using EPA method SW6010/7000 series and the wet chemistry
parameters were analyzed using the EPA approved methods described in the QAPjP.
No major QA/QC problems were found during validation of the data submitted
by the laboratory. No reported results have been qualified as unusable. Minor QA/QC
problems leading to qualification of data included: laboratory blank contamination.
Specifically, the laboratory blanks associated with the SVOC analysis contained target
analytes at levels above the detection limits. Details regarding the samples and analytes
affected are provided below.
Semivolatile Organics (SVOCs)
• The following SVOCs were detected in the laboratory blanks associated with
the samples: naphthalene, fluorene, fluoranthene, pyrene, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate and benzo(k)fluoranthene. Reported detections of these
analytes in the associated samples, less than five (ten for the phthalate) times
the level in the blank, have been requalified as nondetects and flagged 'UB'.
August 1998 Sampling Event
Ten aqueous samples and associated field quality control samples were collected
during the May 1998 sampling event. The samples were analyzed for selected SVOCs,
dioxin/furans, selected metals, alkalinity, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved
solids (TDS) and total organic carbon (TOC).
Analyses for SVOCs were performed using modified EPA method SW8270,
analyses for dioxin/furans were performed using EPA method 1613, analyses for metals
were performed using EPA method SW6010/7000 series and the wet chemistry
parameters were analyzed using the EPA approved methods described in the QAPjP.
No major QA/QC problems were found during validation of the data submitted
by the laboratory. No reported results have been qualified as unusable. Minor QA/QC
problems leading to qualification of data included: laboratory blank contamination and
surrogate outliers. Specifically, the laboratory blanks associated with the SVOC- analysis
-------
contained target analytes at levels above the detection limits. Details regarding the
samples and analytes affected are provided below.
Semivolatile Organics (SVOCs^
• SVOC target analytes bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and hexachloroethane were
detected in the laboratory blanks associated with the samples. Reported
detections of these analytes in the samples, less than five (ten for the
phthalate) times the level in the blanks have been requalified as nondetects
and flagged 'UB\
• SVOC surrogate outliers were reported for samples 001 and 001DUP.
Reported results for these samples have been qualified as estimated and
flagged 'JV'UJ'.
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY REPORT FOR
AQUEOUS SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING THE PATRICK BAYOU
POLLUTANT SOURCE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
As part of the Patrick Bayou pollutant source study, three sampling events were
conducted. The sampling events were conducted between January and September 1999.
All work was performed in accordance with the Water Sampling Protocol. A Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was also prepared and approved to ensure generation of
legally defensible data.
Approximately 47 aqueous samples, and associated field quality control samples
were collected during the sampling events. The field quality control samples collected
included the following types: equipment blanks, trip blanks, matrix spikes/matrix spike
duplicates (MS/MSD), and field duplicates. Samples were analyzed for one or more of
the following parameters: semivolatile organics (SVOCs), dioxin/furans, metals,
alkalinity, pH, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids and total organic carbon
(TOC). The samples were analyzed by Wright State University of Dayton, Ohio and the
Trace Element Research Center at Texas A&M University using the USEPA-approved
analytical methods specified in the QAPP.
This Quality Assurance (QA) summary report presents a summary and assessment
of the analytical data generated for the sampling event. All data submitted by the
laboratory have been evaluated using the quality assurance objectives and the data
validation procedures described in the QAPP.
This report addresses only those problems affecting the usability of the data. A
discussion of data validation qualifiers (flags) applied to the data and reasons for the
qualifier is also presented. Data summary tables are presented in Appendix C of the
report. A glossary of the data validation qualifiers is presented in Attachment 1.
T>1 J ^ J _
1
-------
Deviations from the QAPP or the analytical methods and a discussion of the
overall usability of the data are also presented in the Summary section of this report.
Based on a review of the data submitted by the laboratories, no major QA/QC
problems were found during validation of the data. No reported results have been
qualified as unusable. Minor problems leading to qualifying of data as estimated or
not-detected due to blank contamination, holding time violations and field precision
outliers were found. Details concerning samples and target analytes affected by
these minor problems are-presented below.
SUMMARY
This section of this report discusses deviations from the QAPP, other laboratory
problems, QC problems leading to rejection or qualification of data, and the overall
usability of the data.
Except as indicated in this report, the samples were collected, prepared and
analyzed following the procedures described in the QAPP. Except as indicated in this
report, all samples were prepared and analyzed within the specified holding times using
the EPA-approved analytical procedures. The types and number of field and laboratory
QC samples collected and analyzed met the QA objectives specified in the QAPP. Also,
except as indicated below all criteria for precision, accuracy, representativeness,
completeness and comparability (PARCC) were met for all analyses.
Semi volatile Oreanics (SVOCs^
• SVOC target analytes bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and benzo (k) fluoranthene
were detected in the laboratory blanks associated with the samples. Reported
detections of these analytes in the process water samples, less than five (ten
for the phthalate) times the level in the blanks have been requalified as
nondetects and flagged 'UB'.
• SVOC target analytes bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, naphthalene and 2-
methylnaphthalene were detected in the laboratory blanks associated with L-.e
stormwater samples. Reported detections of these analytes in the stormwater
T»1 i . />
O
-------
samples, less than five times (ten times for the phthalate) the level in the
blanks have been requalified as nondetects and flagged 'UB'.
Metals
• Some of the stormwater samples for mercury analysis were analyzed well
beyond the 28-day holding time specified in the QAPjP. The laboratory
reported that the samples were collected in tightly sealed glass bottles and
preserved with bromochloride upon receipt at the laboratory. The laboratory
referenced EPA method 1631 Revision A as stating that samples collected and
preserved in this way are stable for mercury analysis for at least six months.
Because the samples were to be analyzed within 28 days as specified in the
QAPjP the affected results (analyzed at least 3 months after sampling) have
been qualified as estimated.
• A field duplicate precision outlier was reported for process water sample
Oxychem 001 collected during the fourth sampling event (January 1999) for
target metal nickel. The reported result for this analyte in the sample has been
qualified as estimated.
• The laboratory reported that the process water samples from the fourth
sampling event required dilution for the following analytes: barium,
chromium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc. The reported results have been
flagged 'D\
Wet Chemistry Parameters
• Field duplicate precision outliers were reported for process water samples
Oxychem 001 and Oxychem 002 collected during the fourth sampling event
for TOC. Reported results for this analyte have been qualified as estimated
and flagged 'J'.
• TDS was detected in the laboratory blank associated with some of the
stormwater samples collected during the April and May 1999 sampling events.
Reported results for TDS in the affected samples, less than five times the level
in the blank, have been qualified as nondetects and flagged 'UB'.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
GLOSSARY OF DATA VALIDATION QUALIFIERS
A
-------
GLOSSARY OF DATA VALIDATION QUALIFIERS
U The analyte was analyzed for and is not present above the level of the
associated value. The associated numerical value is at or below the
method detection limit (MDL).
UJ The analyte was analyzed for and was not present above the detection
limit. The reported detection limit has been qualified as estimated due to a
QC outlier, and should be considered estimated.
J The analyte was analyzed for and was positively identified, but the
associated numerical value may be imprecise due to a QC outlier. The
data is considered usable for many purposes.
R the data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the
sample and meet prescribed quality control criteria.
F The analyte was positively identified but the associated numerical value is
below the PQL.
UB The analyte was found in an associated blank as well as in the sample.
M A matrix effect was present.
T Tentatively identified compound (GC/MS analyses only).
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
Process Water Sample Vtayb 001
Patrick Dayou PollnfraRource Study
Deer Park,TX
Parameter
Units
Human Health Toxk Limits
Pally Mai.
Agnatic Lift Toxic Limits
Pally Avg. Dally Mai.
OiyVtayts » OctMOOl
3/5/1998
5/20/1998
Mai | Average 1 CV
Acenapbthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(k)f1uonnthene
FJuorene
Phenanlhrene
Pyrene
2-Methy (naphthalene
pg/L
pg/L
|ig/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
0.0260
< 0.009
0.0100 UB
0.0204
0.0169 LIB
0.0111 UB
0.0188 UB
0.0190 UB
0.0466
< 0.0040
0.0146
< 0.007
0.0082
0.0106 UB
0.0141 UB
0.0021 UB
0.0187 UB
0.0230
0.G252 UB
0.0134
< 0.021
< 0.007
< 0.011
0.0246
0.0277 J
< 0.010 UJ
0.0268 J
< 0.010 UJ
0.0338 J
< 0.022 UJ
< 0.0130
< 0.006
< 0.0010
0.0106
0.0146
< 0.002
0.0205
0.0365
0.0193
< 0.0060
< 0.0110
< 0.007
< 0.0060
0.0072
0.0121
< 0.0050
0.0252
0.0149
0.0208
< 0.0040
< 0.0040
< 0.0020
< 0.0020
< 0.0090
< 0.0040
< 0.0030
0.0529
0.0124
0.0153
0.0156
0.008
0.025
0.028
0.053
0.037
0.047
0.016
0.004
0.011
0.012
0.024
0.017
0.025
0.008
76%
79%
74%
67%
67%
52%
79%
Bis<2-ethylhexyl)phtha!ate
Hexachlorobensene
Hexachtaobutadienc
Hexachloroethane
Arochloc 1248
Total COOs
Total CDDs/CDFs
Total CDD/CDF equivalents#
TetraCDDs
PentaCDDs
HexaCDDs
HeptaCDDs
OctaCDD
2378 TCDD (eqtdv fector - 1)
12378 PeCDD (eqolv fector - 0.5)
123478 HxCDD (equiv factor • 0.1)
123678 HxCDD (eqtdv factor • 0.1)
123789 HxCDD (eqolv (actor • 0.1)
1234678 HpCDD
pg/L
jig/L
pg/L
pg/L
jistL
0.0253
22.0386
184.7353
0.0027***
0.0536
46.6259
390.8345
0.0056***
1.12
0.0048
< 0.009
0.0146
0.311 UB
0.0041
0.0077
0.104
0.0862 UB
0.0061 J
< 0.001 UJ
0.0143 UB
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
JSlL
235
291
3.97
< 2.90
< 1.75
< 2.1
251
1.88
< 2.90
< 2.05
< 1.53
< 1.74
< 6.98
95.7
129
nd
< 2.09
< 2.48
< 1.62
5.89
89.8
< 2.09
< 2.48
< 1.88
< 1.38
< 1.68
5.89
89.7
130
0.999
< 2.00
< 0.31
< 1.37
12.3
77.4
< 2.00
< 0.31
< 1.41
< 1.29
< 1.42
5.15
0.78
0.006
0.0246
< 0.0020
222
380
36.2
< 2J8
20.80
19.20
146.0
20JO
< 2J8
< 1.15
< 1.03
< 1.15
8.94
0.314
0.0094
0.0100
0.0337
141
205
< 1.09
< 2.03
< 0.91
5.58
135
< 1.09
< 2.03
< 0.96
<0.83
< 0.94
5.58
0.1220
< 0.0150
< 0.0590
< 0.0700
79.60
79.60
< 2^
< 4.43
< 2.98
11.80
67.80
< 2.51
< 4.63
< 3.53
< 2.66
< 3.18
< 6.32
1.120
0.034
0.030
0.104
0.024
0.412
0.011
0.010
0.037
0.009
255
380
2.44
36.200
20.800
19.200
251.000
20.300
8.940
107%
103%
105%
95%
107%
147.167
202.433
1.88
7.314
4.186
9.306
127.833
4.338
5.368
5)%
56%
41%
194%
195%
69%
53%
181%
Total CDFs
TetraCDFi
PentaCDFs
HexaCDFs
Hepta CDFt
Oct* CDF
2378TCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
12378 PeCDF (equh fector - 0.05)
23478 PeCDF (equh factor - 0.5)
123478 HxCDF (eqolv factor - 0.1)
123678 HxCDF (equiv fector - 0.1)
234678 HxCDF (equiv fector - 0.1)
123789 HxCDF (equiv fector - 0.1)
1234678 HpCDF
1234789*
9 HpCDF
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
35.9
4.80
3.05
3.70
< 2.01
24J
3.25
< 1.29
< 1.58
2.37
< 1.01
< 1.11
< 1.34
<3.71
<2.25
33.1
< 1.42
< 1.40
< 1.01
< 3.79
33.1
< 1.42
< 1.35
< 1.46
< 0.97
< 0.83
< 1.02
< 1.32
< 3.34
< 4.37
40.4
19.5
< 0.67
<0.37
< 1.86
20.9
9.99
< 0.67
< 0.68
< 0.35
< 0.32
< 0.38
< 0.44
< 1.63
< 2.16
158.0
72.80
< 1.24
< 0.65
5J7
79J
23 JO
<3.11
< 1J2
< 0.61
< 0.59
< 0.68
< 0.73
< 9.42
< 1.60
64.7
37.00
< 1.08
< 0.49
< 1.60
27.6
22.00
< 1.04
< 1.11
< 0.47
< 0.44
< 0.50
< 0.56
< 1.45
< 1.78
< 2.10
< 2.64
< 6.07
< 15.10
< 1.57
< 1.84
< 2.46
< 2.58
< 2.24
< 2.79
< 3.47
< 5.37
< 7.16
158.000
72.800
3.050
5.370
79.300
23.300
66.420
22.188
1.049
2.173
32.12$
10.006
79%
129%
96%
82%
77%
104%
Barium, total recoverable
Chromium, total recoverable
Chromium, hexavaknt **
Copper, total recoverable
Copper, total recoverable (WER)
Lead, total recoverable
Mercury, total recoverable
Nickel, total recoverable
Selenium, total recoverable
Vanadium, total recoverable
Zinc, total recoverable
Pg/L
|ig/L
|ig/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
P8/L
29.4518
0.0737
62.3095
0.1558
71.6214
7.0796
15.9291
20.8271
1.2829
18.9081
194.8102
99.2458
151.5256
14.9779
33.7003
44.0628
2.7142
40.0028
412.1496
209.9690
67
. 7.5
na
5.8
5.8
118
92
8.9
na
5J
5.5
2.80
5.4
0.55
9.5
31.4
9.3
2.37
9.3
26.3
110
8.900
11.900
11.900
2.800
2.470
9.300
2.370
11.300
37
83.000
6.067
6.750
6.750
1.422
1.763
4.983
1.058
8.250
23.450
19%
32%
39%
39%
70%
33%
55%
66%
27%
42%
Hardness (as CaCOj)
pH
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
S.U.
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
160
na
7.510
6.3
43
1020
na
12.100
5.92
12.4
2160
7J
18.000
8.81
8.0
1,220
8.02
10.800
7.4
21
920
7.52
14000
5.60
26
1720
8.1
15000
< 3.20
20.0
2,160
8.050
18,000
8.810
43.000
1.200
7.723
12,902
5.938
23.600
58%
5%
28%
41%
54%
WER
Total CDD/CDF equivalent concentration calculated for the fourth sample event is a statistical outlier based on Grubbs Test
pg micrograms (Iff* grams) pg
* Indicates that the criteria for a specific parameter b the dissolved portion in water. **
nd Not detected. na
UB Contaminant also detected in associated laboratory blank, and therefore, should be considered not detected UJ
J Contaminant was detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate. A
Values In the shaded areas exceeded the TEXTOX modeled criteria for either human health or aquatte life protectkQ. ***
Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 2.25 was used based oo "Copper Water Effect Ratios Study and Trace Metals Study for the Houston Ship Channel," prepared by Parsons Engineering Science. January 2000
Total CDD/CDF equivalents are calculated using the equivalency bctora from Texas Surfece Water Quality Standards. Non-detect results were calculated as zeros. Compounds used in calculation include
2378 TCDD. 12378 PeCDD. 2378 HxCDD1*, 2378 TCDF. 12378 PeCDF. 23478 PeCDF. and 2378 HxCDFs.
picograms(IO' grams)
Not analyzed since chromium results were aQ less than 50 pg/L.
Not applicable/analyzed.
Contaminant was not detected but because ofQA problem the result was qualified as an estimate.
Limit expressed as annual average and daily max.
Criteria calculated as the sum of seven PCB congeners 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248. 1260, and 1016.
009/730524-01000/021291k.xls/0xy-001
-------
Process Water Sample Vinyls 001 FD
Patrick Bayon Pollutant Source Study
Deer Park, TX
TEXTOX
Oxy Vteyts - OutfcflOOl FD
Human Health Toxic Limits
Aquatic Ufa Toxic Limits
Anal
ytfcal
Statistical
Parameter
Units
Dally Avg.
Dally Max.
Dally Avg.
Daily Max.
3/5/1998
5/20/1998
8/13/1998
1/23/1999
2/25/1999
8/11/1999
Max
I Average |
CV
Acenaphthene
pg/L
0.0659
< 0.0140
< 0.052
Ui
< 0.0250
< 0.0170
< 0,0350
0.066
0.023
97%
Acenaphthyiene
pg/L
< 0.005
< 0.002
< 0.021
UJ
<0.008
< 0.006
< 0.0040
.
.
Anthracene
pg/L
0.0116
UB
< 0.0060
< 0.020
UJ
< 0.0090
< 0.0150
< 0.0020
.
.
Bcnzotkjftuoranthene
pg/L
0.0182
0.0100
UB
0.0234
J
0.0166 UB
0.0163
< 0.0090
0.023
0.013
62%
Ftuoranthene
pg/L
0.0236
0.0145
UB
0.0210
J
0.0166
0.0108
< 0.0380
0.024
0.016
38%
Fluorene
pg/L
0.0114
UB
0.0048
UB
< 0.025
UJ
< 0.0040
< 0.0040
< 0.0100
0.013
0.005
82%
Naphthalene
pg/L
0.0293
0.0164
UB
0.0494
J
0.0196
0.0248
0.0587
0.059
0.032
60%
Phenanthrene
pg/L
4.704
9.952
0.0148
UB
0.0182
< 0.019
UJ
0.0153
< 0.0150
0.0100
0.018
0.011
39%
Pyrene
Pg/L
0.0560
0.0212
UB
0.0335
J
0.0212
0.0190
< 0.0390
0.056
0.027
61%
2»Methyinaphthalene
pg/L
0.0111
0.0080
< 0.015
UJ
< 0.0080
< 0.0040
< 0.0340
0.017
0.008
65%
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
pg/L
0.46
UB
0.142
UB
0.0718
UB
0.45
0.594
< 0.0760
0.594
0.235
100%
Hexachlorobenzene
pg/L
0.0253
0.0536
0.0096
0.0038
0.0061
J
0.0074
< 0.0230
0.106
0.024
167%
Hexachkrobutadiene
pg/L
22.0386
46.6259
< 0.009
0.004
0.0014
J
0.0124
0.0078
< 0.1200
0.060
0.015
149%
Hexachkmethane
pg/L
184.7353
390.8345
0.0076
0.0849
0.0091
UB
0.0287
0.0723
< 0.1400
0.085
0.045
79%
Arochlor 1248
Pg/L
0.0027***
0.0056***
0.043***
0.0909***
< 0.0020
0.032
0.009
128%
Total CDDs
pg/L
459
147
112
122
121
54.30
459
169.217
86%
Total CDDs/CDFs
pg/L
498
192
153
231
182
61
498
219.500
67%
Total CDD/CDF equivalents#
pg/L
1.5086*
4.3634A
0.289
nd
0.881
0,966
mBBBBB
0.671
2.040
0.969
67%
TetraCDDs
pg/L
< 0.81
< 2.26
< 1.21
< 0.830
< 1.54
< 2.87
.
-
PentaCODs
pg/L
< 2.47
< 2.04
< 0.39
< 1.19
< 2.14
< 4.27
•
-
HexaCDDs
pg/L
3.29
< 1.81
3.59
< 0.92
< 1.42
< 3.12
3.590
1,753
78%
HeptaCDDs
pg/L
35.6
18.3
14.0
6.25
15.3
< 7.03
35.600
15.494
73%
OctaCDD
pg/L
420
129
94.4
116
106
54J0
420.000
153.283
87%
2378 TCDD(equlv factor- 1)
pg/L
< 1.52
< 2.26
< 1.21
< 0.83
< 1.54
< 3.15
-
-
12378 PeCDD (eqniv factor - 0.5)
pg/L
< 2.47
< 2.04
< 0.39
< 1.19
< 2.14
< 4.48
-
-
123478 HxCDD (equiv factor-0.1)
pg/L
< 2,89
< 2.02
< 1.81
<0.83
< 1.51
< 3.69
-
-
123678 HxCDD (equiv factor-0.1)
pg/L
< 2.28
< 1.59
< 1.53
< 0.99
< 1.3
< 2.76
-
-
123789 HxCDD (equiv factor = 0.1)
1234678 HpCDD
pg/L
PflA-
< 2.54
13.2
< 1.88
7.76
< 1.75
4.40
< 0.96
6.25
< 1.47
6J7
< 3J5
< 7.24
13.200
6.933
49%
Total CDFs
pg/L
38.4
44.7
41.1
108
60.5
6.71
108.000
49.902
67%
Tetra CDFs
Pg/L
3.87
< 1.47
22.0
20.50
36.5
6.71
36.500
15.053
91%
PentaCDFs
P8^
< 0.98
< 1.78
< 0.81
< 0.85
< 1.15
< 2.82
-
•
HexaCDFs
pg/L
1.12
< 0.78
< 0.82
< 0.81
< 0.96
< 3.20
1.600
0.734
69%
Hepta CDFs
pg/L
< 1.77
< 0.96
< 1.80
< 0.87
< 1.29
< 6.61
.
-
OctaCDF
pg/L
33,5
44.7
19.1
87.8
24
< 23.30
87.800
36.792
75%
2378TCDF (equivfactor-0.1)
pg/L
2.89
< 1.79
8.81
9.66
20.40
6.71
20.400
8.228
83%
12378 PeCDF (equiv factor - 0.05)
pg/L
< 0.89
< 1.71
< 0.76
<0.82
< 1.12
< 2.52
-
•
23478 PeCDF (equiv factor - 0.5)
pg/L
< 1.09
< 1.85
< 0.85
< 0.88
< 1.19
< 3.21
-
-
123478 HxCDF (equiv factor -0.1)
pg/L
< 1.34
< 0.74
< 0.79
< 0.91
<0.93
< 3.30
-
-
123678 HxCDF (equiv factor -0.1)
Pg/L
< 0.62
< 0.68
< 0.71
< 0.84
< 0.87
< 2.75
-
234678 HxCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
pg/L
< 0.70
< 0.81
< 0.85
< 0.86
< 0.99
< 3.16
•
•
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
Pg/L
< 0.81
< 0.95
< 1.00
< 0.90
< 1.08
< 4.20
•
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
Pg/L
P8/L
< 5.46
< 1.93
< 3.16
< 1.10
< 1.63
< 2.02
< 0.79
< 0.96
< 4.76
< 1.43
< 5.72
< 8.13
.
Barium, total recoverable
fig/L
66
89
110
74
75
83.00
110
82.833
19%
Chromium, total recoverable
pg/L
7.2
9.1
5.8
4.0
5.2
5.70
9.100
6.167
29%
Chromium, bexavaleot **
pg/L
71.6214
151.5256
na
na
na
na
na
na
•
-
Copper, total recoverable
pg/L
7.0796
14.9779
5.8
5.5
4.8
5.1
13.300
7.000
46%
Copper, total recoverable (WER)
Lead, total recoverable
pg/L
pg/L
29.4518
62.3095
15.9291
20.8271
33.7003
44.0628
5.8
1.82
5.5
2.69
13.3
1.7
4.8
0.40
7.5
0.78
5.1
0.53
13.300
2.690
7.000
IJ20
46%
68%
Mercury, total recoverable
pg/L
0.0737
0.1558
1.2829
2.7142
2.290
1.640
37%
Nickel total recoverable
pg/L
18.9081
40.0028
5.5
10.3
7.3
5.1
< 5 .0
< 5.0
10.300
5.533
54%
Selenium, total recoverable
pg/L
194.8102
412.1496
0.58
2.50
1.21
0.52
0.79
0.23
2.500
0.972
84%
Vanadium, total recoverable
pg/L
7.8
6.4
12.9
5.9
5.8
7.7
12.900
7.750
34%
Zinc, total recoverable
PS/L
99.2458
209.9690
32
28.0
43
10.2
20.4
16.9
43
25.083
47%
Hardness (as CaCOj)
mg/L
160
980
2180
1,220
900
760
2.180
1,200
59%
pH
S.U.
na
7.90
7.7
8.03
7.60
a;V
8.050
7.856
3%
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
7.510
12,100
17.900
11.500
13600
15100
17.900
12,952
27%
Total Organic CaAon
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
mg/L
630
43
6.10
11.7
8.2
8.3
10.8
16
6.40
28
< 3.20
16.0
10.800
43.000
6.567
22.260
46%
61%
fig micrograms (Iff4 grama) pg
* that the criteria for a specific parameter is the dissolved portion in water. **
nd Not detected. ns
UB Contaminant also detected in associated laboratory blank, and therefore, should be considered not detected. UJ
J rariamlmnt tw» detected but became ofQA pmhtem the remh was qualified m an estimate. A
Vfthies in the «***<^ areas exceeded the TEXTOX modeled criteria for either human health or aquatic life protection. ***
WER Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 2.25 was teed based on "Copper Water Effect Ratios Study and Trace Metals Study for the Houston Ship Channel." prepared by Parsons Engineering Science. January 2000
9 Total CDD/CDF equivalents are calculated using the equivalency factors from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Non-detect results were calculated as zeros. Compounds used in calculation include
2378 TCDD. 12378 PeCDD. 2378 HxCDPs. 2378 TCDF. 12378 PeCDF. 23478 PeCDF. and 2378 HxCDFs.
programs (10*
Not analysed since chromium results were all less than SO pg/L.
Not applicable/analyzed.
Contaminant was not detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate.
Limit expressed as annual avenge and dally max.
Criteria calculated as the sum of seven PCD congeners 1242. 1254. 1221. 1232. 1248, 1260. and 1016.
009/730524-01000/021291 Lxls/Oxy-OO I FD
-------
Process Water Sample l^^pOiy Vlnyb 002
Patrick Bayou Polluu^Rource Stady
Deer Park, TX
TEXTOX
Oxy Vinyls -
Ontfhfl002
Unman Health Toiic Limits
Aquatk lift Toxic Limits
Anal
ydd 1
1 Statistical |
Parameter
Units
DaOy Avg*
Dally Max.
Daily Avg.
Dally Max.
3/5/1998
5/20/199B
8/13/1998
1/23/1999
2/25/1999
8/11/1999
_MaJ^_
1 Average |
cv
Acenaphthene
|ig/L
0.0587
0.0767
< 0.026
< 0.0810
< 0.0380
< 0.0330
0.077
0.037
70S
Acenaphthylene
|ig/L
< 0.010
< 0.0150
< 0.008
< 0.018
< 0.018
< 0.0040
.
.
.
Anthracene
M"-
0.0118
UB
0.0091
0.0083
< 0.0010
< 0.0090
< 0.0030
0.009
0.005
70%
Beezo(k)iluoranthene
|ig/L
0.0322
0.0147
UB
0.0146
0.0185 UB
0.0174
< 0.0070
0.032
0.014
73%
Fluoranthene
|ig/L
0.0228
0.0183
UB
0.0297
0.0269
0.0963
< 0.0310
0.096
0.033
95%
Fluorene
|ig/L
0.0160
UB
0.0978
UB
0.0169
< 0.0060
< 0.0120
< 0.0070
0.049
0.014
123%
Naphthalene
m/L
< 0.0010
0.0363
UB
0.0453
< 0.0120
0.0285
0.0580
0.058
0.026
86%
Phenanthrene
|ig/L
3.7730
7.9823
0.0175
UB
0.0289
0.0147
< 0.0010
0.0506
0.0120
0.051
0.019
93%
Pyrene
|ig/L
0.0635
0.0391
0.0454
0.0383
0.0837
< 0.0320
0.084
0.048
49%
2-Methylnaphthalene
|ig/L
< 0.0060
0.0456
< 0.007
< 0.0290
< 0.0160
< 0.0130
0.046
0.014
120%
Bls<2-ethy[hexyl)phthalate
|ig/L
0.480
"UB
0.369
UB
0.472
UB
0.25
5.790
0.8940 UB
0.894
0.493
49%
Hexachlorobenzene
|ig/L
0.0135
0.0286
0.0094
0.0027
0.0053
0.0060
0.0058
< 0.0190
0.010
0.006
40%
Hexachlorobutadkne
(ig/L
11.7404
24.8386
< 0.0090
0.0046
0.0018
0.0080
0.0121
< 0.1000
0.050
0.014
135%
Hexachlocoethane
Arochior 1248
|ig/L
ub/L
98.4124
0.0014***
208J058
0.003***
0.0291
0.0617***
< 0.0040
si
0.0020
SSBBBg
0.0068
UB
0.0155
0.002
ISHH8SSS&S
< 0.1200
0.060
0.039
0.014
0.015
163%
97%
Total CDDs
pg/L
631
141
110
225
182
85.7
631
229.117
89%
Total CDDs/CDFs
pg/L
781
230
200
399
302
135
781
341.167
69%
Total CDD/CDF equivalents#
Pg/L
0.8037A
2.3245A
ItMlflMMffli
aiBBKiBiiwiasM!
MlMBiBlgBBBS
8.509
5.131
51%
TetraCDDs
pg/L
< 0.67
< 2.03
< 2.080
<0.92
< 1.87
< 1.66
-
•
•
Penta CDDs
pg/L
< 1.67
< 3.97
< 0.490
< 1.97
< 1.96
< 3.98
-
•
•
Hexa CDDs
pg/L
4.92
< 3.65
< 1.760
< 1.37
< 1.93
< 2.53
4.920
1.757
91%
Hepta CDDs
OctaCDD
Pg/L
pg/L
44.1
582
13.9
127
5.210
105
26.2
199
23.4
159
< 5.18
85.70
44.100
582.000
19.233
209.617
80%
89%
2378 TCDD (equiv Actor - 1)
12378 PeCDD (equiv ftetor-0.5)
Pg/L
Pg/L
< 1.02
< 1.67
< 2.03
< 3.97
< 2.08
< 0.49
< 0.95
< 1.97
< 1.87
< 1.96
< 1.95
< 4.14
*
.
*
123478 HxCDD (equiv factor-0.1)
123678 HxCDD (equiv foctor = 0.1)
123789 HxCDD (equiv factor-0.1)
1234678 HpCDD
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pr/l
< 0.94
< 0.79
< 0.86
18.20
< 4.35
< 3.07
< 3.77
< 6J1
< 1.87
< 1.61
< 1.82
5.21
< 1.43
< 1.27
< 1.42
10.2
< 2.1
< 1.73
< 1.99
9.68
< 3.00
< 2.21
< 2.64
< 5.41
18.200
8.192
71%
Total CDFs
pg/L
150.0
88.8
89.6
174
120.0
49,50
174.000
111.983
41%
TctraCDFs
pg/L
14.40
UB
10.90
24.4
16.2
8.89
6.94
24.400
12.422
55%
Penta CDFs
pg/L
43.70
< 4.19
32.1
47.9
21.9
21.00
47.900
28.116
60%
Hexa CDFs
pg/L
52.40
29.80
25.4
46J
19.2
21.50
52.400
32.433
42%
Hepta CDFs
Pg/L
< 1.02
< 3.52
7.71
28.6
24.1
< 4.97
28.600
10.861
114%
OctaCDF
pg/L
39.90
48.10
< 0.93
34.8
46.2
< 7.33
48.100
28.855
74%
2378 TCDF (equiv fitter-0.1)
pg/L
5.62
6.90
6.44
7.21
4.54
6.94
7.210
6.275
16%
12378 PeCDF (equiv fector - 0.05)
23478 PeCDF (equiv factor - 0.5)
123478 HxCDF (equiv ftctor - 0.1)
123678 HxCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
18.10
7.56
25.70
6.62
< 4.24
<4.53
22.0
3.58
17.6
< 1.70
19.1
6.30
18.00
6.01
30.40
8.43
10.30
< 2.29
19.20
< 4.16
15.00
< 4.98
21.50
< 1.87
18.100
7.560
30.400
8.430
13.520
3.387
22.983
4.658
47%
81%
19%
63%
234678 HxCDF (equiv fector-0.1)
Pg/L
< U6
< 0.85
< 2.05
< 0.86
< 1.10
< 2.23
-
•
-
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
p»/L
WL
Pg/L
< 0.95
< 11.20
< 2.27
< 0.98
< 4.53
< 4.09
< 0.67
< 1.68
< 1.99
< 0.95
18.40
< 7.00
< 1.26
14.90
< 2.29
< 2.80
< 5.73
< 5.99
18.400
7.478
98%
Barium, total recoverable
Chromium, total recoverable
(*g/L
|ig/L
78
5.1
97
5.0
114
4.7
87
4.1
91
4.3
88.00
5.20
114
5.200
92.500
4.733
13%
10%
Chromium, hexavalent *•
(ig/L
48.5753
102.7682
na
na
na
na
na
na
19.300
19.300
8.533
8.533
64%
64%
Copper, total recoverable
Copper, total recoverable (WER)
Lead, total recoverable
Hg/L
m/L
m/l
4.8015
10.8034
10.1583
22.8562
3.9
3.9
__
6.1
15.6896
33.1936
14.1254
29.8844
3.34
1.95
1.2
1.35
1.36
0*3
3J40
1.638
57%
Mercury, total recoverable
lig/L
0.0392
0.0830
1.0290
2.1770
0.024
< 5.0
0:513
0.081
0.048
53%
Nickel total recoverable
|ig/L
12.8239
27.1308
4J
7.9
7.7
6.2
< 5.0
7.900
5.183
47%
Selenium, total recoverable
Vanadium, total recoverable
Zinc, total recoverable
|ig/L
|ig/L
bh/L
132.1248
79.6034
279.5294
168.4126
0.73
9.2
24.7
1.83
14.0
28.9
1.40
12.6
47
0.73
7.5
13.4
1.16
7.6
22.8
8.1
16.7
1.830
14.000
47
1.160
9.833
25.583
36%
28%
46%
Hardness (as CaCOj)
mg/L
200
1280
2660
1,820
1460
2100
2,660
1,587
53%
pH
S.U.
na
8.33
7.7
7.75
7.60
13
8.330
7.738
5%
Total Dissolved SoUds
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
1,840
8.6
60
8,500
7.50
19.3
16,900
10.3
19.4
10,600
11.0
28
8300
7.60
27
13700
3.30
18.0
16,900
11.000
60.000
9,973
8.050
30.480
52%
34%
56%
II leu than 30 ^g/L.
les: Bis(2-ethylbexyi)phthal8te measured during the fifth sample event is a statistical outlier based on Gnibbs Tesl
jig micrograms (10-4 grams) pg
* Indicates fliat the criteria for a specific parameter is the dissolved portion in water. **
nd Not detected.
UB Contaminant also detected io associated laboratory blank, and therefore, should be considered not detected. UJ
J Contaminant was detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate. A
Values in the areas exceeded the TEXTOX modeled criteria for either human health or aquatic life protection. *M
WER Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 2^5 was used based on "Copper Water Effect Ratios Study and Trace Metals Study for the Houston Ship Channel," prepared by Parsons Engineering Science, January 2000
if Total CDEVCDF equivalents are cafrv'tft using the equivalency foctors from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Non-dctect results were calculated as zeros. Compounds used In calculation include
2378 TCDD, 12378 PeCDD. 2378 HxCDPs, 2378 TCDF, 12378 PeCDF. 23478 PeCDF. and 2378 HxCDPs.
pkograms(IO*
Not analyzed since chromium results were a
Not applicable/analyzed.
Contaminant was not detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate.
Limit expressed as annua] avenge and daily max.
Crfttrfr ««the mnri nf«gven ptb cswigengw 1242, 1254. 1221,1232, 1248. 1260, and 1016.
009/730524-01000/021291k.xls/Oxy-002
-------
Process Water Sample Vteyb 003
Patrick Bayoo Podata^Roarce Study
Deer Perk, TX
TEXTOX
i
1
OotfUlOOS
Human Health Toxic Limits
Aquatic Lift Toxic Limits
Analytical
Statistical
Parameter
Units
Daily Avg.
Dally Max.
Daily Avg.
Dally Max.
3/5/1998
5/20/1998
8/13/1998
1/23/1999
2/25/1999
8/11/1999
Max |
Average |
CV
Acenapbthene
pg/L
0.0703
< 0.0540
< 0.014
< 0.0680
< 0.0200
0.0142
0.070
0.027
87%
Acenaphthylene
pg/L
< 0.0040
< 0.0150
< 0.006
< 0.016
< 0.010
< 0.0040
.
Anthracene
pg/L
0.0119
UB
0.0197
< 0.009
< 0.0010
< 0.0070
< 0.0070
0.020
0.007
97H
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
|lg/L
0.0318
0.0103
UB
0.0250
0.0138 UB
0.0161
< 0.0050
0.032
0.015
76%
Fluoranthene
pg/L
0.0216
0.0198
UB
0.0264
0.0151
0.0618
< 0.0240
0.062
0.026
69%
Fluorene
pg/L
0.0327
UB
0.0369
UB
< 0.006
< 0.0030
< 0.0080
< 0.0070
.
.
Naphthalene
pg/L
0.0090
UB
0.0285
UB
0.0163
< 0.0070
0.0301
0.0849
0.085
0.026
120%
Phenanthrene
pg/L
3.9370
8.3294
0.0119
UB
0.0190
0.0111
< 0.0010
0.0529
0.0092
0.053
0.016
115%
Pyrene
pg/L
0.0727
0.0397
0.0354
0.0300
0.0740
< 0.0250
0.074
0.046
47S
2'Mcthytaaphthalcne
pg/L
0.0077
0.0074
< 0.003
< 0.0050
< 0.0060
< 0.0140
0.014
0.006
78%
Bis(2-etbylhexyl)phthal8tc
pg/L
0.619
0.138
UB
0.336 UB
0.72
3.060
0.1810 UB
3.060
0.787
146%
Hexachlorobenzene
pg/L
0.0511
0.1081
0.0046
0.0028
0.0026
0.0012
0.0028
< 0.0080
0.008
0.004
65%
Hexachlorobutadiene
pg/L
44.4605
94.0626
0.029
0.0123
0.0087
0.018
0.0274
< 0.1100
0.110
0.034
111%
Hexachloroethane
pg/L
372.6833
788.4661
0.0028
0.0030
< 0.005
0.0038
0.0051
< 0.0750
0.075
0.015
190%
Arechlor 1248
pr/l
0.0053***
0-0113***
0.2446***
0.5174***
0.0044
0.0020
< 0.0010
< 0.0040
0.048
0.012
154%
Total CODs
pg/L
518
148
74.1
172
169
69 JO
518
191.733
87%
Total CDDs/CDFs
pg/L
564
320
109
209
230
69JO
564
250.217
71%
Total CDD/CDF equivalents*
pg/L
3.0435A
8.8027*
nd
nd
nd
0.215
nd
nd
0.215
0.215
•
TetraCDDs
pg/L
< 0.74
< 2.28
< 0.740
< 0.64
< 1.41
< 2.20
-
-
Penta CDDs
Pg/L
< 1.63
< 5.54
< 0.480
< 1J7
< 2.14
< 5.39
•
-
HexaCDDs
pg/L
< 1.79
< 4.53
< l.tlO
3.25
< 1.59
< 2.90
3.250
1.777
66%
HeptaCDDs
pg/L
24.90
11 JO
11.5
6.66
19.4
<6.9
24.900
13.443
54%
OctaCDD
Pg/L
493
137
62.6
162
150
6&3
493.000
178.983
89%
2378 TCDD (equiv factor-1)
pg/L
< 1.14
< 2.28
< 2.57
< 0.64
< 1.41
< 2 27
•
-
12378 PeCDD (equtv factor - 0.5)
pg/L
< 1.63
< 5.54
< 0.48
< 1.37
< 2.14
< 5.59
-
•
123478 HxCDD (equiv (actor - 0.1)
pg/L
< 2.01
< 5.26
< 1.13
< 0.93
< 1.73
< 3.23
-
123678 HxCDD (equiv factor=0.1)
pg/L
< 1.62
< 3.86
< 1.03
< 1.07
< 1.43
< 2.61
-
•
123789 HxCDD (equiv factor -0.1)
pg/L
< 1.79
< 4.68
< 1.15
< 1.05
< 1.65
< 3.07
-
-
1234678 HpCDD
Pg/L
< 13.2
< 4.67
3.76
6.66
7.99
< 7.18
7.990
5.754
38%
Total CDFs
Pg/L
46.2
172.0
34.6
37.1
61.3
nd
172.000
70.240
82%
Tetra CDFs
pg/L
1.58
UB
< 1.10
U5
2.15
< 0.71
< 1.59
2.150
1.131
61%
Penta CDFs
pg/L
< 1.46
< 3.77
< 0.28
< 0.77
< 0.88
< 2.69
-
-
HexaCDFs
pg/L
< 0.56
< 1.30
< 0.28
< 0.61
< 0.98
< 2.31
-
.
Hepta CDFs
pg/L
< 1.56
< 2.49
< 0.70
2.15
7.62
< 6.65
7.620
3.133
101%
OctaCDF
pg/L
44.7
172
33.2
32.8
53.7
< 10.10
172.000
57.750
100%
2378 TCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
pg/L
< 2.14
< 1.10
< 2.41
2.15
< 1.54
< 1.59
2.150
1.223
47%
12378 PeCDF (equiv factor-0.05)
pg/L
< 136
< 3.58
< 0.27
<0.75
< 0.86
< 2.41
-
•
23478 PeCDF (equiv factor » 0.5)
pg/L
< 1.57
< 3.97
< 0.29
< 0.79
< 0.89
< 3.05
-
•
123478 HxCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
pg/L
< 0.95
< 1.23
< 0.28
< 0.60
< 0.95
< 2.80
-
-
123678 HxCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
pg/L
< 0.51
< 1.04
< 0.23
< 0.54
< 0.87
< 2.43
•
-
234678 HxCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
pg/L
< 0.54
< 1.34
< 0.29
< 0.65
< 1.00
< 2.47
•
-
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
pgTL
< 0.64
< 1.77
< 0.33
< 0.66
< 1.13
< 2.93
-
-
1234678 HpCDF
pg/L
< 4.95
< 3.07
< 0.64
< 0.51
7.62
< 5.68
7.620
2.981
101%
1234789 HpCDF
Pf/L
< 1.70
< 4.58
< 0.78
< 0.63
< 1.32
< 8JI
•
-
Barium, total recoverable
Pg/L
79
96
109
85
84
88
109
90.167
12%
Chromium, total recoverable
Pg/L
3.6
3.4
2.7
2.8
3.4
4.8
4.800
3.450
22%
Chromium, hexavatent **
Pg/L
407.5909
862.3182
oa
na
na
na
na
na
•
•
Copper, total recoverable
Pg/L
9.4085
19.9050
4.0
6.6
HBaaaria&Bi
4.9
7.2
5.0
12.100
6.633
44%
Copper, total recoverable (WER)
Pg/L
21.1691
44.7863
4.0
6.6
12.1
4.9
7.2
5.0
12.100
6.633
44%
Lead, total recoverable
Pg/L
59.4157
125.7027
118.5252
250.7575
3.53
1.92
1.0
0.78
1.11
0.72
3.530
1.510
71%
Mercury, total recoverable
Pg/L
0.1486
0.3144
1.0737
2.2717
0.028
0.025
0.026
< 0.10
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.050
0.024
66%
Nickel, total recoverable
Pg/L
60.8452
128.7270
3.9
6.7
5.5
6.4
< 5.0
< 5.0
6.700
5.000
32%
Selenium, total recoverable
pg/L
288.3756
610.1008
0.64
1.66
1.16
0.62
1.03
0.99
1.660
1.017
38%
Vanadium, total recoverable
pg/L
7J
10.4
9.9
6J
7.2
7.6
10.400
8.117
20%
Zinc, total recoverable
pg/L
83.0644
175.7349
21.9
27.2
36
20.7
21.4
15.5
36
23.783
30%
Hardness (as CaCOj)
mg/L
188
1280
2280
1,550
1300
I860
2^80
1.410
50%
PH
s.u.
7.67
7.80
7.7
8.24
7.90
7.8
8.240
7.843
3%
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
490
7.400
14,000
9.080
7900
12000
14,000
8,478
55%
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
8.40
6.60
10J
< 3.2
5.80
< 3.20
10.300
5.983
54%
Total Suspended SoUds
mg/L
65J
16.7
9.9
18
21
18.0
65J00
26.440
84%
P8
UJ
pg micrograms (10** grams)
* Indicates that the criteria for a specific parameter is the dissolved portion in water,
nd Not detected.
UB Contaminant also detected in associated laboratory blank, and therefore, should be considered not detected
J Contaminant was detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate.
Values in the shaded areas exceeded the TEXTOX modeled criteria for either human health or aquatic life protection.
WER Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 2.25 was used based oo "Copper Water Effect Ratios Study and Trace Metals Study for the Houston Strip Channel," prepared by Parsons Engineering Science, Januaiy 2000
# Total CDD/CDF equivalents are collated using the equivalency factors from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Non-detect results were calculated as zeros. Compounds used in calculation Include
2378 TCDD, 1237S PeCDD. 2378 HxCDD*s. 2378 TCDF, 12378 PeCDF, 23478 PeCDF, and 2378 HxCDFs.
pteograms(IO* grams)
Not analyzed since chromium results were all less than SO pg/L.
Not applicable/analyzed.
Contaminant was not detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate.
Limit expressed as annual average and daily max.
Criteria calculated as the sum of seven PCB congeners 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232. 1248.1260. and 1016.
009/730524-01000/021291k.Kls/Oxy-003
-------
Process Water Sample Oxy Vinyls 005
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
Deer Park,TX
TEXTOX
Oxy Vtnyts •
OntfhUOOS
Human Health Toxk Limits
Aquatic Lift
Toxk Umtts
Anal
ytfcal
Statistical
Parameter
Units
Dally Avg.
Dally Max.
Dally Avg.
Daily Max.
3/5/1998
5/20/1998
8/13/1998
1/23/1999
2/25/1999
8/11/1999
Max
1 Average |
CV
Acenaphthene
IIg/L
0.4340
0.3500
< 0.03
< 0.0230
< 0.2000
< 0.0220
0.434
0.154
123%
Acenaphthylene
|lg/L
< 0.0090
< 0.0290
< 0.01
< 0.021
< 0.012
0.0378
0.038
0.013
97%
Anthracene
Pg/L
< 0.0110
< 0.0270
0.0435
< 0.0190
< 0.0310
< 0.0250
0.044
0.017
82%
Benzo(k)fluoranthcne
pg/L
0.0096
UB
0.0053
UB
0.0207
0.0110 UB
0.0145
< 0.0010
0.021
0.008
96%
Fluoranthene
pg/L
0.0096
UB
0.0119
UB
< 0.01
< 0.0020
0.0211
< 0.0050
0.021
0.007
108%
Ftuorene
pg/L
0.0491
UB
0.9800
< 0.01
0.0690
0.0812
< 0.0040
0.980
0.194
200%
Naphthalene
Pg/L
0.0282
0.0802
0.0482
0.1320
0.0950
0.1620
0.162
0.091
55%
Phenanthrene
pg/L
12.0736
25.5435
< 0.0110
0.1090
0.0416
0.3450
0.2550
0.2470
0.345
0.167
81%
Pyrene
|ig/L
0.0193
< 0.0050
< 0.008
< 0.0010
0.0171
< 0.0050
0.019
0.008
108%
2-Methytnaphthalene
pg/L
0.0549
0.1250
0.0805
0.2840
0.1340
0.3110
0.311
0.165
65%
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phlhalate
pg/L
0.609
0.389
UB
0.0739 UB
0.423
2.730
0.5270 UB
2.730
. 0.709
142%
Hexachlorobenzene
(ig/L
0.2939
0.6218
0.1130
0.0833
0.0699
0.0288
0.0033
0.113
0.060
73%
Hexachkaobutadlene
pg/L
255.6477
540.8601
0.716
0.346
0.332
0.491
0.1710
0.0198
0.716
0.346
70%
Hexachhxoethane
pg/L
2142.9292
4533.6802
0.1120
O.UIO
0.0976
0.1020
0.050
< 0.0160
0.112
0.080
53%
Amchlor 1248
pg/L
0.0308***
0.0651*"
0.3363***
0.7114***
0.0078
UB
< 0.0030
< 0.005
< 0.0030
< 0.0040
< 0.0120
•
•
Total CDDs
pg/L
36.7
12.2
18.5
14
12.3
nd
37
18.740
55%
Total CDDs/CDFs
pg/L
6008
3584
3601
2461
1401
3133
6.008
3.365
46%
foul CDD/CDF equivalents#
pg/L
17.5000*
50.6152*
2.152
nd
1.880
2.851
0.611
$
2.851
1.874
50%
TetraCDDs
pg/L
< 1.03
< 1.44
< 1.30
< I II
< 1.82
< 4:89
»
-
Pent* CDDs
pg/L
< 2.98
< 3.61
< 0.52
< 3.11
< 2.95
< 8.84
•
Hexa CDDs
pg/L
< 1.34
< 2.85
< 1.16
< 0.83
< 1.93
< 3.31
-
-
Hepta CDDs
OctaCDD
Pg/L
pg/L
< 1.47
36.7
< 2.59
12.2
3.66
14.8
< 1.35
14
< 0.8
12.3
< 7.23
< 35.90
36.700
17.992
52%
2378 TCDD (equiv ftctor - 1)
Pg/L
< 1.03
< 1.44
< 1.30
< 1.11
< 1.82
< 5.15
~
-
12378 PeCDD (equiv factor - 0.5)
pg/L
< 2.98
< 3.61
< 0.52
< 3.11
< 2.95
< 9.03
-
-
123478 HxCDD(equiv factor" 0.1)
123678 HxCDD (equiv fetor - 0.1)
pg/L
pg/L
< 1.47
< 1.24
< 3.38
< 2.40
00 o
V V
< 0.9
< 0.75
< 2.12
< 1.71
< 3.66
< 3.06
.
123789 HxCDD (equiv fetor-0.1)
1234678 HpCDD
pg/L
Pg/L
< 1.34
< 2.83
< 2.94
< 2.59
< 1.20
< 0.58
< 0.86
< 1.35
< 2
< 0.80
< 3.54
< 7.45
•
Total CDFs
Pg/L
5971
3571
3583
2447
1388
3133
5.971
3,349
46%
Tetra CDFs
pg/L
4.60
UB
< 0.75
3.56
ll.l
3.61
< 2.95
11.10
3.737
102%
Penta CDFs
Pg/L
< 1.17
< 1.64
16.5
4.34
< 1.32
< 4.95
16.50
4.230
146%
Hexa CDFs
pg/L
59.30
23.30
66.8
47.5
12.8
23.20
66.80
38.82
57%
Hepta CDFs
OctaCDF
pg/L
Pg/L
410
5497
162
3386
267
3229
193
2192
90.7
1281
115
2995
410.00
5,497.0
206.28
3,096.7
57%
46%
2378 TCDF (equiv factor=0.1)
Pg/L
3.58
< 0.75
3.56
9.65
3.61
< 3.29
9.650
3.737
85%
12378 PeCDF (equiv factor - 0.05)
pg/L
< 1.08
< 1.58
< 1.22
< 1.26
< 1.26
< 4.39
•
-
23478 PeCDF (equiv fiKtor - 0.5)
123478 HxCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
123678 HxCDF (equiv fetor - 0.1)
234678 HxCDF (equiv fector-0.1)
pg/L
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
< 1.32
10.60
< 3.13
7.34
< 1.71
< 3.00
< 0.71
< 1.70
< 1.33
7.25
< 4.82
7.99
< 1.32
7.78
4.90
6.18
< 1.40
< 4.09
2.50
< 4.04
< 5.67
< 3.42
< 3.19
< 3.69
•ill
5.148
2.221
4.371
76%
69%
72%
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
pg/L
< 1.38
< 1.06
< 0.46
< 0.57
< 1.00
<4.37
•
-
1234678 HpCDF
pg/L
268
109
169
126.00
64.5
115.00
268.00
141.92
50%
1234789 HpCDF
Pg/L
23.1
10.7
13.5
12.30
< 2.56
< 8.73
23.100
10.874
70%
Barium, tots) recoverable
pg/L
99
114
117
122
95
128
128
112.500
12%
Chromium, total recoverable
Hg/L
5.1
4.4
3.2
3.0
3.5
6.8
6.800
4.333
33%
Chromium, hexavaknt **
|ig/L
560.4375
1183.6875
na
na
na
na
na
na
*
-
Copper, total recoverable
Pg/L
28.8527
61.0421
22.9
22.8
23.3
23.8
24.9
29.500
24.533
10%
Copper, total recoverable (WER)
Lead, total recoverable
Pg/L
Pg/L
341.6405
722.7903
64.9186
162.9722
137.3447
344.7915
22.9
0.51
29.5
1.79
22.8
1.0
23.3
3.45
23.8
0.20
24.9
0.35
29.500
3.450
24.533
1.217
10%
102%
Mercury, total recoverable
pg/L
0.8544
1.8077
3.2928
6.9664
0.19
0.13
0.056
0.028
< 0.01
0.041
0.190
0.075
94%
Nickel, total recoverable
pg/L
147.9555
313.0215
27.4
21.8
142
11.2
12.3
mhmmbbmMBMI
142.0
42.9
130%
Selenium, total recoverable
pg/L
884.3520
1870.9760
0.30
0.4 i
0.42
0.19
0.24
0.32
0.420
0.313
29%
Vanadium, total recoverable
Pg/L
< 5.0
S.5
3.5
3.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
s.soo
3.250
36%
Zinc, total recoverable
IM/L
254.7308
538.9203
204
155
100
125
103
264
158.500
41%
Hardness (as CaCOj)
mg/L
200
240
230
170
220
184
240
207
13%
PH
S.U.
7.73
7.60
7.3
8.29
8.20
8.0
8.290
7.848
5%
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
4.380
3.650
2,560
3,300
3900
6050
6,050
3,973
30%
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
mg/L
7.30
12
6.00
6
15.7
2.3
7.7
II
9.10
9
8.50
15.0
15.700
15.000
9.050
9.217
38%
49%
Notes: g^ncCTtrn!^" measured during the first round end the total reocoverable nickel concentration measured during the sixth sample event is a statistical outlier based on Gnibbs Test
jig micrograms (10* grams) pg
* twrftraHwi that the criteria for a specific parameter b the dissolved portion in water. **
nd Not detected. na
UB Contaminant also detected In associated laboratory blank, and therefore, should be considered not detected. UJ
J Contaminant was detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate. A
Values in the shaded areas exceeded the TEXTOX modeled criteria for either human health or aquatic life protection. ***
WER Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 2^5 was used based on "Copper Water Effect Ratk* Study and Trace Metab Study for the Houston Ship Channel" prepared by Parsons Engineering Science. January 2000
0 Total CDD/CDF equivalents are calculated using the equivalency factors from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Noo-detect results were calculated as zeros. Compounds used In calculation include
2378 TCDD, 12378 PeCDD. 2378 HxCDCs, 2378 TCDF. 12378 PeCDF. 23478 PeCDF. and 2378 HxCDFs.
pfcograms(!0*'
Not analyzed since chromium results were all less than SO pg/L.
Not applicable/analyzed.
Contaminant was not detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate.
Limit expressed as annual average and daily max.
Criteria calculated as the sum of seven PCB congeners 1242, 1254, 1221. 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016.
009/730524-01000/021291 k.xls/Oxy-005
-------
Proces^^^VSample Results - Oxy Vinyb Intake
nMTBayou Pollutant Source Study
Deer Park,TX
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Fhmanthene
Fluorene
Pyrene
2-Mcthyhaphthalene
Bis(2
-------
Process Water Sam. ts - Lubrizol
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
Deer Park, TX
TEXTOX
Lubrizol Corporatfcm
Human Health Toxk Limits
Aqua tk lift
Toxk Limits
Ana
ytkal
Statistical
Parameter
Units
DaOy Arg.
DaDy Max.
DaQy Ava-
Daily Max.
3/5/1998
5/20/1998
8/13/1998
1/23/1999
2/25/1999
8/11/1999
Mas
I Average |
CV
Acenaphthene
lig/L
0.7760
< 0.0410
< 0.088
< 0.0240
< 0.0150
< 0.0040
0.776
0.144
216%
Acenaphthylene
ms/l
< 0.0410
< 0.017
< 0.034
< 0.003
< 0.006
0.0062
.
.
Anthracene
|ig/L
< 0.0120
0.0385
< 0.017
< 0.0130
< 0.0100
< 0.0050
0.039
0.011
121%
Benzo(k)fluorantbene
lig/L
0.0028
UB
0.0069
UB
0.0789
0.0199 UB
0.0110
< 0.0070
0.079
0.018
167%
Fluorantbene
|ig/L
< 0.0020
< 0.0070
0.0348
< 0.0030
< 0.0040
< 0.0100
0.035
0.008
166%
Ftuorene
Hg/L
0.0896
UB
< 0.0110
< 0.036
< 0.0090
< 0.0150
< 0.0040
.
.
.
Naphthalene
Kg/L
< 0.0050
0.0293
UB
0.0279
< 0.0100
0.0188
0.0499
0.050
0.020
88%
Phenanthrene
|ig/L
9.399
19.886
< 0.0120
0.0357
< 0.016
< 0.0150
< 0.0100
0.0094
0.036
0.012
98%
Pyrene
|igt
0.0075
UB
< 0.0060
0.0347
< 0.0030
< 0.0030
< 0.0100
0.035
0.008
158%
2-Methyinaphtha)ene
|ig/L
0.0591
< 0.0140
0.0939
< 0.0020
< 0.0020
< 0.0110
0.094
0.028
141%
Ba(2-cthylhexyl)phthalate
|ig/L
0.207
UB
0.133
UB
0.196 UB
0.51
1.620
0.0719 UB
1.620
0.405
153%
Hcxachkaobenzenc
Mg/L
0.0420
0.0888
< 0.0050
nd
< 0.005
< 0.0010
< 0.0020
< 0.0050
-
.
•
Hexachkvobutadkne
(ig/L
36.5211
77.2657
< 0.009
nd
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.0030
< 0.0490
-
-
-
Hexachloroethane
|ig/L
306.1328
647.6686
< 0.0030
< 0.0010
< 0.003
< 0.0010
0.0002
< 0.0580
0.029
0.006
208%
Arochlor 1248
m/L
0.0044***
0.0093***
0.094***
0.1988***
< 0.0020
< 0.005
0.0041
< 0.0030
< 0.0200
0.018
0.006
106%
Total CDDs
pg/L
nd
nd
nd
nd
9.55
nd
10
9.550
-
Total CDDs/CDFs
pg/L
nd
nd
9.07
nd
9.55
nd
9.55
9.310
4%
Total CDD/CDF equivalents#
Pg'L
2.5000A
7.2308A
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
•
TetraCDDs
Pgt
< 0.79
< 1.22
< 1.45
< 0.75
< 1.79
< 1.91
-
-
-
Penta CDDs
pg/L
< 1.82
< 2.80
< 0.86
< 1.47
< 2.69
< 4.06
-
-
-
HexaCDDs
pg/L
< 1.23
< 2.23
< 1.41
< 0.97
< 1.72
< 2.81
-
.
HeptaCDDs
pg/L
< 1.00
< 1.13
< 0.97
< 0.98
< 1.43
< 5.88
•
OctaCDD
Pg'L
< 4.94
< 3.34
< 0.95
< 2.49
9.55
< 7.20
9.550
3.168
104%
2378 TCDD (equiv factor-1)
12378 PeCDD (equiv factor « 0.5)
pg/L
Pg'L
< 0.79
< 1.82
< 1.22
< 2.80
< 1.45
< 0.86
< 0.75
< 1.47
< 1.79
< 2.69
< 2.19
< 4.25
•
123478 HxCDD (equiv factor-0.1)
123678 HxCDD (equiv factor - 0.1)
pg/L
pg/L
< 1.29
< 1.18
< 2.65
< 1.87
< 1.50
< 1.29
< 0.95
< 0.94
< 1.85
< 1.55
< 3.30
< 2.48
*
.
123789 HxCDD (equiv factor - 0.1)
pg/L
< 1.24
< 2.30
< 1.46
< 1
< 1.78
< 2.94
-
1234678 HpCDD
pg/L
< 1.00
< 1.13
< 0.97
< 0.98
< 1.43
< 6.10
•
•
Total CDF's
pg/L
nd
nd
9.07
nd
nd
nd
9.070
9.070
•
Tetra CDFs
Pg'L
< 0.21
< 0.62
< 0.75
< 0.35
< 1.21
< 1.35
-
~
•
Penta CDFs
Pg/L
< 0.65
< 2.02
< 0.96
< 0.77
< 1.46
< 1.84
-
•
Hexa CDFs
pg/L
< 0.59
< 0.56
< 0.35
< 0.54
< 0.85
< 2.53
-
-
Hepta CDFs
Octa CDF
pg/L
pg/L
< 1.04
< 2.22
< 1.77
< 3.26
< 1.14
9.07
< 0.95
< 2.37
< 2.02
< 2.12
< 7.20
< 3.09
9.070
2.600
122%
2378 TCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
pg/L
< 0.35
< 0.62
< 0.75
<0.35
< 1.21
< 1.35
-
-
12378 PeCDF (equiv factor - 0.0S)
23478 PeCDF (equiv factor* 0.5)
pg/L
pg/L
< 0.60
< 0.72
< 1.95
< 2.09
< 0.94
< 0.99
< 0.73
< 0.80
< 1.41
< 1.51
< 1.61
< 2.16
•
*
123478 HxCDF (eqtdv factor - 0.1)
123678 HxCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
234678 HxCDF (equiv factor -0.1)
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor « 0.1)
pg/L
Pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
< 0.59
< 0.54
< 0.58
< 0.74
<0.55
< 0.48
< 0.57
< 0.68
< 2.61
< 0.29
< 0.36
< 0.42
< 0.52
< 0.49
<0.57
< 0.60
< 0.81
< 0.78
< 0.88
< 0.95
< 2.45
< 2J9
< 2.71
< 3.53
-
-
"
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
pg/L
Pg'L
< 0.96
< 1.12
< 1.61
< 1.96
< 14.5
< 1.27
< 0.86
< 1.06
< 1.80
< 2.30
< 6.45
< 8.29
*
*
Barium, total recoverable
(ig/L
736
1431
618
340
204
308
1.431
606.167
74%
Chromium, total recoverable
|ig/L
6.3
15.6
12.0
16.1
10.3
9.9
16.100
11.700
32%
Chromium, hexavalent **
Hg/L
13.4770
28.5125
na
na
oa
na
na
na
-
-
Copper, total recoverable
Hg/L
15.5400
32.8770
< 2.0
1.2
1.5
2.7
3.9
2.2
3.900
2.083
53%
Copper, total recoverable (WER)
|ig/L
34.9650
73.9733
< 2.0
1.2
1.5
2.7
3.9
¦\&
3.900
2.083
53%
Lead, total recoverable
Hg/L
48.8058
103.2558
45.7150
96.7170
< 2.0
4.77
3.4
0.19
< 0.10
Oil
4.770
1.585
127%
Mercury, total recoverable
fg/L
0.1221
0.2582
2.0215
4.2769
< 0.01
0.012
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.005
0.005
0%
Nickel, total recoverable
lig/L
41.5030
87.8060
42.9
48.9
24.4
65.0
13.6
36.2
65.000
38.500
47%
Selenium, total recoverable
«/L
16.8462
35.6406
0.27
0.22
0.30
0.07
0.06
0J2
0.320
0.207
56%
Vanadium, total recoverable
(ig/L
12.7
6.8
3.4
4.9
7.5
16.9
16.900
8.700
59%
Zinc, total recoverable
im/l
198.3160
419.5660
127
HMIHMHIImnHBIM
70.4
28.8
251.0
136.6
67%
Hardness (as CaCOj)
mg/L
5750
7150
1200
1,540
1590
1300
7,150
3,088
86%
pH
S.U.
7.40
7.75
8.0
7.95
8.00
7.9
8.00
7.838
3%
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
23,800
38,800
29,200
23.700
21000
19000
38,800
25,917
28%
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
10.6
46.7
97.2
49.7
36.10
35.60
97.200
45.983
62%
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
36
208
7.9
60
27
24.0
208
60.483
123%
WER
0
Total reocoverable zinc concentration measured during the fourth sample event is a statistical outlkr based on Grubbs Test
|tg micrograms (10** grams) pg
* Indicates that the criteria for a specific parameter ts the dissolved portion in water. **
nd Not detected. oa
UB Contaminant also detected ia associated laboratory blank, and therefore, should be considered not detected. UJ
J Contaminant was detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate. A
Values in the areas exceeded the TEXTOX modeled criteria for either human health or aquatic life protection. ***
Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 2.25 was used based on "Copper Water Effect Ratios Study and Trace Metals Study for the Houston Ship Channel* prepared by Parsons Engineering Science. January 2000
Total CDD/CDF equivalents are calculated using the equivalency factors from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Non-detect results were calculated as zeros. Compounds used in calculation include
2378 TCDD, 12378 PeCDD. 2378 HxCDD-a. 2378 TCDF, 12378 PeCDF, 23478 PeCDF, and 2378 HxCDFs.
picograms (10'" grams)
Not analyzed since chromium results were all less than 50 pg/L.
Not applicable/analyzed.
Contaminant was not detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate.
t hwh expressed as annual average and daily max.
Criteria calculated as the sum of seven PCB congeners 1242, 1294, 1221. 1232. 1248. 1260, and 1016.
009/730524-01000/02129lk.xls/Lubrizol
-------
Process Water Sample Rest^^HfeD Refinery (R-001)
Patrick Bayou PollutaRSource Study
Deer Park, TX
TEXTOX
Shell Raflnery Complex - R-001
Hainan Health Toxle Limlti
Aquatic Lift Toxic Limits
Ana
ytteal
Statistical
Parameter
Unto
Dally Avg.
Daily Max.
Dally Avg.
Daily Max.
3/5/1998
5/20/1998
8/13/1998
1/23/1999
2/25/1999
8/11/1999
Max
Average |
CV
Acenaphthene
pg/L
0.0693
0.0310
< 0.089
< 0.0540
< 0.0240
< 0.0220
0.069
0.032
68*
Acenaphthylene
pg/L
<
0.0070
0.0050
< 0.013
< 0.006
< 0.004
< 0.0030
0.007
0.004
53S
Anthracene
pg/L
0.0188
UB
0.0124
0.0266
< 0.0010
< 0.0040
0.0060
0.027
0.009
100%
BenzoOOfluonmthene
pg/L
0.0172
0.0117
UB
0.0193
0.0680
0.0184
< 0.0050
0.068
0.022
108%
Fhmanthene
pg/L
0.0131
UB
0.0058
UB
0.0115
< 0.0010
* 0.001
< 0.0240
0.012
0.006
92H
Fhmene
pg/L
0.0103
UB
<
0.0020
< 0.011
< 0.0030
< 0.0030
< 0.0080
.
.
Naphthalene
pg/L
0.0213
UB
0.0251
UB
0.0203
0.0343
0.0246
0.0754
0.075
0.030
81%
Pbenanthrene
pg/L
6.1391
12.9882
0.0142
UB
0.0115
< 0.008
< 0.0010
< 0.0140
0.0107
0.012
0.007
61%
Pyrene
pg/L
0.0164
UB
0.0059
UB
< 0.008
< 0.0010
< 0.0010
< 0.0250
.
.
2-Methytnaphlhaiene
pg/L
0.0131
0.0090
< 0.020
< 0.0050
< 0.0020
0.0239
0.024
0.010
83%
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
pg/L
0.3920
UB
0.0885
UB
0.632
0.317
1.79
0.1040 UB
1.790
0.505
132%
Hexachlorobenzene
tigft
0.0588
0.1244
<
0.0060
<
0.001
0.0016
< 0.0010
< 0.0010
<0.0080
0.004
0.002
89%
Hexachlorobutadiene
(tg/L
51.1295
108.1720
<
0.007
<
0.001
< 0.013
< 0.001
< 0.003
< 0.0250
-
»
Hexachloroethane
pg/L
428.5858
906.7360
<
0.0030
<
0.001
< 0.009
0.0002
< 0.0010
< 0.0330
0.017
0.004
161%
Arochlor 1248
Hg/L
0.0062***
0.013***
0.0996***
0.2108***
0.0058
UB
<
0.001
< 0.003
< 0.0020
< 0.0030
< 0.0150
-
-
Total CDDs
pg/L
317
149
127
37.4
51.7
nd
317
136.420
82%
Total CDDs/CDFs
pg/L
322
163
135
37.4
63
nd
322
144.100
78%
Total CDD/CDF equivalents#
pg/L
3.500*
10.123A
0.230
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.230
0.230
-
TetraCODs
pg/L
<
1.08
<
1.20
< 0.77
< 0.79
< 1.24
< 3.02
-
•
PentaCODs
pg/L
<
4.41
<
2.59
< 0.58
< 0.70
< 4.04
< 5J5
-
-
HexaCDDs
pg/L
3.34
<
1.01
< 1.40
< 0.72
< 1.82
< 3.77
3J40
1.283
89%
HeptaCDDs
pg/L
48.40
34.60
36.8
3.9
5.6
< *71
48.400
22.278
89%
OctaCDD
pg/L
266
115
89.7
33.4
46.1
< 14110
266.000
92.875
101%
2378 TCDD (equlv factor - 1)
pg/L
<
1.08
<
1.20
< 0.77
< 0.79
< 1.24
< 3.06
-
-
12378 PeCDD (eqtdv bctor - 0.5)
pg/L
<
4.41
<
2.59
< 0.58
< 0.70
< 4.04
< 5.58
-
•
123478 HxCDD (equiv Actor - 0.1)
pg/L
<
2.68
<
1.15
< 1.51
< 0.78
< 1.91
< 4.21
-
-
123678 HxCDD (equiv factor - 0.1)
pg/L
<
2.01
<
0.87
< 1.26
< 0.65
< 1.69
< 3.29
-
-
123789 HxCDD (equlv factor-0.1)
pg/L
<
2.29
<
1.04
< 1.45
<0.75
< 1.89
< 3.94
•
•
1234678 HpCDD
Pfi/L
<
16.60
11.10
9.82
< 3.09
5.57
< 8.91
11.100
6.798
53%
Total CDFs
pg/L
4.10
13.40
8.47
nd
11.4
0.00
13.400
7.474
73%
TetreCDFs
pg/L
1.80
UB
<
0.55
< 0J5
< 1.03
< 1.17
< 2.07
•
•
PentaCDFs
pg/L
<
1.88
<
1.83
< 0.33
< 0.97
< 1.38
<2.82
.
-
HexaCDFs
pg/L
2.30
UB
<
0.38
< 0.56
< 0.44
< 1.52
< 4.26
•
-
Hepta CDFs
pg/L
<
1.50
<
2.07
< 1.90
< 1.07
< 1.43
< 10.10
•
•
OctaCDF
pg/L
<
17.60
13.40
8.47
< 1.77
11.4
< 10.50
13.400
8.034
56%
2378 TCDF (equiv fector-0.1)
pg/L
<
I.t9
<
0.55
< 0.35
< 1.03
< 1.17
< 2.08
-
-
12378 PeCDF (equiv factor « 0.05)
pg/L
<
1.72
<
1.76
< 0.31
< 0.95
< 1.33
< 2.49
•
-
23478 PeCDF (equlv fitter = 0.5)
pg/L
<
2.08
<
1.90
< 0.36
< 1.00
< 1.42
< 3.85
•
•
123478 HxCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
pg/L
2.30
<
0.37
< 0.56
< 0.46
< 1.44
< 4.10
2.300
0.961
100%
123678 HxCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
Pg/L
<
1.67
<
0.33
< 0.45
< 0.44
< 1.37
< 3.59
-
-
234678 HxCDF (equiv fetor - 0.1)
pg/L
<
1.85
<
0.38
< 0.58
< 0.47
< 1.58
< 4.36
-
•
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor » 0.1)
pg/L
<
2.16
<
0.47
< 0.70
< 0.49
< 1.71
< 5.36
-
-
1234678 HpCDF
pg/L
<
7.76
<
2.91
< 3.35
< 0.98
< 1.3
< 9.04
-
-
1234789 HpCDF
PS^
<
1.64
<
2.38
< 2.22
< 1.18
< 1.6
< 14.70
•
•
Barium, total recoverable
pg/L
131
94
142
148
165
260
260
156.667
36%
Chromium, total recoverable
m/l
9.4
7.0
7.0
4.4
5.7
32.7
32.700
11.033
97%
Chromium, hexavalem **
pg/L
166.0556
351.3148
na
na
na
na
na
na
•
-
Copper, total recoverable
pg/L
14.6709
31.0384
9.6
7.3
7.2
14.5
33.200
14.950
66%
Copper, total recoverable (WER)
pg/L
- 33.0095
69.8364
9.6
7.3
7.2
14.5
17.9
mSBSBSm.
33.200
14.950
66%
Lead, total recoverable
pg/L
68.3281
144.5581
42.2881
102.1604
1.99
1.95
2.4
0.19
0.23
9.1
2.400
1.352
78%
Mercury, total recoverable
pg/L
0.1709
0.3615
1.6743
3.5422
0.044
0.054
0.035
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.135
0.135
0.046
103%
Nickel total recoverable
pg/L
43.8387
92.7471
13.9
14.6
15.2
14.8
12.4
19.3
19.300
15.033
15%
Selenium, total recoverable
pg/L
449.6705
951.3437
0.85
1.33
1.70
0.57
0.64
1.51
1.700
1.100
43%
Vanadium, total recoverable
pg/L
12.4
18.6
18.4
3.2
< 5.0
20.8
20.800
12.650
64%
Zhtc, total recoverable
ms/l
129.5242
274.0273
32.4
20.8
40
14.2
18.7
184
51.600
127%
Hardness (as CaCOj)
mg/L
454
400
410
435
465
360
465
421
9%
pH
s.u.
na
8.62
7.9
8J5
7.80
8.6
8.620
8.258
5%
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
4.910
6.300
6.500
6.780
5784
7240
7.240
6.252
13%
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
22.4
25
20.9
18.8
33.10
22.30
33.100
23.750
21%
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
27
12.8
21.0
14
17
104.0
104.000
32.633
108%
les: Total reocoverable lead ctmcentrwtifm measured during the sixth sample event Is a statistical outlier based on Grubbs Test
pg micrograms (10** grams) pg
* Indicates thai the criteria for a specific parameter is the dissolved portion in water. **
nd Not detected. na
UB Contaminant also detected in associated laboratory blank, and therefore, should be considered not detected. UJ
J Contaminant was detected but because ofQA problem the result was qualified as an estimate. A
Values in the shaded areas exceeded the TEXTOX modeled criteria for either human health or aquatic life protection. ***
WER Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 2.25 was used based on "Copper Water Effect Ratios Study and Trace Metals Study for the Houston SI# Channel" prepared by Parsons Engineering Science, January 2000
« Total COO/CDF equivalents are calculated using the equivalency &cton from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Non-detect results were calculated as zeros. Compounds used in calculation include
2378 TCDD. 12378 PeCDD. 2378 HxCDCVs. 2378 TCDF, J2378 PeCDF, 23478 PeCDF, and 2378 HxCDFs.
picograms (10U grams)
Not analyzed since chromium results were all less than 50 pg/L.
Not applicable/analyzed.
Contaminant was not detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate.
Limit expressed as annual average and daily max.
Criteria calculated as the sum of seven PCB congeners 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016.
009/730524-01000/021291 k.xIs/Sheli R-001
-------
Process Water Sample Resd^^^BIl Chemical (C-004)
Patrick Bayou Poliat^Oource Study
Deer Park, TX
TEXTOX
SbeO Cbemkal Complex - C-004
Human Health Toxk Limits
Aqua tk Lift
Toxk Limits
Analytical
Statistical
Parameter
Units
Daily Avg.
Dally Max.
Dally Avg.
Daily Max.
3/5/1998
5/20/1998
8/13/1998
1/23/1999
2/25/1999
8/11/1999
Max
Areragel
CV
Acenaphthene
pg/L
0.242
0.113
< 0.029
< 0.5900
0.3180
0.0665
0J18
0.175
73*
Acenaphthylene
pg/L
<
0.042
<
0.031
< 0.033
< 0.063
< 0.019
0.090
0.090
0.031
98%
Anthracene
|ig/L
<
0.0110
0.0226
< 0.026
0.0671
0.0179
0.0538
0.067
0.030
82*
Bcnzo(k)fluoranthenc
PtfL
0.0108
UB
0.0049
UB
0.0144
0.0582 UB
0.0194
< 0.0060
0.029
0.012
87*
Fluoranthene
Jig/L
<
0.0080
<
0.013
< 0.018
0.10
< 0.0060
< 0.0350
0.100
0.023
162%
Fluorene
ItgfL
0.1190
<
0.007
< 0.031
0.2130
< 0.0190
< 0.0060
0.213
0.06)
J44*
Naphthalene
pg/L
0.0258
UB
0.0445
UB
0.0496
0.0372
0.0220
0.0422
0.050
0.031
45*
Phenanthrene
Mgt
12.0736
25.5435
<
0.0110
0.0245
< 0.024
< 0.0160
0.0349
< 0.0300
0.035
0.017
67*
Pyrene
Mg/L
0.304
0.0946
0.0886
0.3870
0.0639
0.2580
0.387
0.199
68*
2-Mcthy {naphthalene
pg/L
0.0492
<
0.019
< 0.018
0.0450
< 0.0170
0.0130
0.049
0.022
86*
Bis(2-ethyihexyi)phthalate
pg/L
1.57
0.0842
UB
0.397 UB
0.91
0.573
0.2490 UB
1.570
0.569
103*
Hexachlorobenzene
pgl.
0.2939
0.6218
<
0.0050
<
0.001
< 0.006
< 0.0010
< 0.0020
< 0.0090
-
Hexachlorobutadiene
pg/L
255.6477
540.8601
<
0.008
<
0.000
< 0.001
< 0.002
< 0.004
< 0.0530
-
-
Hexachkroethane
pg/L
2142.9292
4533.6802
<
0.0030
<
0.001
< 0.002
< 0.0010
0.0002
< 0.0630
0.032
0.006
214*
Arochlor 1248
M/L
0.0308***
0.0651***
0.3363***
0.7114***
0.0166
<
0.002
< 0.003
< 0.0030
< 0.0040
< 0.0250
0.017
0.006
117*
Total CDOs
pg/L
2.49
22.7
nd
38.8
15
nd
39
19.748
77*
Total CDDs/CDFs
pg/L
51.30
165
11.5
230
63.6
nd
230
104.280
87*
Total CDD/CDF equivalents#
pg/L
17.5000*
50.6152A
nd
nd
nd
0.577
nd
01465
0.577
0.521
15*
TetraCDDs
pg/L
2.49
<
1.41
< 0.60
< 0.65
< 1.66
< 3.58
2.490
1.073
82*
PentaCDDs
pg/L
<
2.07
<
3.29
< 1.38
< 1.64
< 3.60
< 5.50
2.750
2.750
-
Hexa CDDs
pg/L
<
1.06
<
2.68
< 1.32
< 1.49
< 1.95
< 4.38
2.190
2.190
-
HeptaCDDs
P0/L
<
0.97
<
2.39
< 0.99
5.2
< 1.6
< 8.41
5.230
2.067
101*
OctaCDD
pg/L
<
12.40
22.7
< IJ7
33.5
15
< 35.3
33.500
15.956
73*
2378 TCDD (equiv factor - 1)
pg/L
<
0.58
<
1.41
< 1.92
< 2.15
< 1.66
< 3.63
•
12378 PeCDD (equlv factor » 0.5)
pg/L
<
2.07
<
3.29
< 1.38
< 1.64
< 3.60
< 5.67
•
123478 HxCDD (equiv factor *0.1)
Pg/L
<
1.15
<
3.04
< 1.52
< 1.37
< 2.04
< 5.19
-
123678 HxCDD (eqniv factor - 0.1)
pg/L
<
0.98
<
2.33
< 1.13
< 1.56
< 1.8
< 3.87
-
123789 HxCDD (eqniv factor - 0.1)
Pg/L
<
1.06
<
2.77
< 1J6
< 1.55
< 2.02
< 4.65
-
1234678 HdCDD
Pfc'L
<
2.58
<
2.39
< 0.99
< 6.29
< 1.58
< 8.65
-
Total CDFs
pg/L
48.8
142
11.5
191.0
48.5
nd
191.000
88.360
85*
Tetra CDFs
pg/L
<
0.30
<
0.68
< OJl
4.33
< 1.44
< 2.72
4J30
1.176
137*
PentaCDFs
pg/L
<
0.96
<
2.30
< 0.41
3.32
< 1.37
< 4.84
3.320
1.377
89*
Hexa CDFs
pg/L
3.91
UB
12.4
< 0.51
5.77
4.17
< 4.65
12.400
4.479
96*
Hepta CDFs
pg/L
<
1.84
43.0
< 0.94
31.9
15.2
< 9.78
43.000
16.063
110*
OctaCDF
pg/L
44.9
86.9
11.5
146
29.1
< 21.20
146.000
54.833
96*
2378 TCDF (equiv factor ° 0.1)
P8/L
<
0.55
<
0.68
< 0.31
< 3.78
< 1.44
< 2.72
•
•
12378 PeCDF (equiv factor - 0.05)
pg/L
<
0.86
<
2.22
< 0.40
< 1.02
< 1.31
< 4.18
-
•
23478 PeCDF (equiv factor - 0.5)
pg/L
<
1.07
<
2.39
< 0.42
< 1.13
< 1.44
< 5.74
•
-
123478 HxCDF (equiv factor « 0.1)
pg/L
<
1.85
<
2.47
< 0.50
5.77
< 1.08
< 4.70
5.770
1.845
Ill*
123678 HxCDF (equiv factor «= 0.1)
pg/L
<
0.73
<
0.70
< 0.44
< 2.58
< 0.99
< 4.14
-
•
234678 HxCDF (equiv factor - 0.1)
pg/L
<
0.76
<
1.24
< 0.53
< 0.71
< 1.18
< 4.84
-
-
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor = 0.1)
re'L
<
0.87
<
1.03
< 0.60
< 0.71
< 1.26
< 5.58
-
-
1234678 HpCDF
pg/L
<
20.20
32.2
< 8.95
< 37.3
15.20
< 9.45
32.200
14.225
73*
1234789 HpCDF
Pg/L
<
3.47
<
4.39
< 1.06
9.8
< 1.80
< 12.00
9.800
3.527
103*
Barium, total recoverable
pg/L
28
55
57
40
39
50
57
44.833
25*
Chromium, total recoverable
pg/L
5.4
7.9
4.6
5.1
5.0
9.5
9.500
6.250
32*
Chromium, hexavalent **
pgfL
560.4375
1185.6875
na
na
na
na
na
na
-
Copper, total recoverable
pg1L
28.8527
61.0421
2.2
1.3
1.5
3.2
4.0
4.8
4.800
2.833
50*
Copper, total recoverable (WER)
pg/L
64.9186
137.3447
2.2
1.3
1.5
3.2
4.0
4.8
4.800
2.833
50*
Lead, total recoverable
pgl.
341.6405
722.7903
162.9722
344.791S
<
1.0
4.07
1.2
0.12
< 0.10
0.73
4.070
1.112
136*
Mercury, total recoverable
ptfL
0.8S44
1.8077
3.2928
6.9664
0.092
<
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.092
0.020
182*
Nickel, total recoverable
pg/L
147.9555
313.0215
12.2
16.7
13.7
27.4
10.5
11.2
27.400
15.283
41*
Selenium, total recoverable
pg/L
884.3520
1870.9760
0.24
0.29
0.38
0.13
0.10
0.39
0.390
0.255
48*
Vanadium, total recoverable
ptfL
< 5 .0
12.5
10.2
13.3
7.9
9.9
13.300
9.383
41*
Zinc, total recoverable
Wt/L
254.7308
538.9203
12.6
21.7
14
9.3
7.8
52.8
53
19.700
86*
Hardness (as CaCOj)
mg/L
168
172
166
740
1600
168
1,600
502
116*
pH
s.n.
8.02
8.24
8.43
8.34
8.31
8.3
8.430
8.275
2*
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
12,500
13.200
14.000
10.900
13000
12400
14.000
12,667
8*
Total Organic Carbon
mg/L
37.8
18.2
57.2
32.4
35.70
31.60
57.200
35.483
36*
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
8.8
32.9
5.0
24
27
22.0
32.900
19.950
54*
fig micrograms
-------
Process Water Sample R^pClty of Deer Park
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
Deer Park, TX
TEXTOX
City of Dew Park
Hitman Health Toxfc Limits
Aquatk Lift
Toxic Limits
Analytical
Statistical
Parameter
Units
Dally Ave.
Daily Max.
Dally Avs.
Dally Mas.
3/5/1998
5/20/1998
8/13/1998
Mas
Average | CV
Acenaphthene
Jig/L
na
na
< 0.094
0.047
0.047
Acenaphthylene
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.01S
0.008
0.008
Anthracene
Pg/L
na
na
0.0217
0.022
0.022
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Hg/L
na
na
0.0101
0.010
0.010
Fluoranthene
pg/L
na
na
0.0116
0.012
0.012
Fhmteue
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.008
0.004
0.004
Naphthalene
Hg/L
na
na
0.0291
0.028
0.028
Phenauthrene
pg/L
5.785
12.239
na
na
0.0225
0.023
0.023
Pyrene
Hg/L
na
na
0.0074
0.007
0.007
2-Methyhutphthalene
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.004
0.002
0.002
Bis(2-ethylhexyi)phthalate
Pg/L
na
na
0.287 UB
0.144
0.144
Hexachlorobenzene
Hg/L
0.0137
0.0289
na
na
< 0.002
0.001
0.001
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hg/L
11.8906
25.1563
na
na
< 0.001
0.001
0.001
Hexachloroethanc
|ig/L
99.6711
210.8689
na
na
< 0.002
0.001
0.001
Arochlor 1248
Pg/L
0.0014***
0.003***
0.0374***
0.079***
na
na
0.009
0.009
Total CDDs
Pg/L
na
na
13.4
13
13.400
Total CDDs/CDFs
pg/L
na
na
15.1
15.10
15.100
Total CDD/CDF equivalents#
pg/L
0.8I4A
2.3542A
na
na
nd
-
TetraCDDs
Pg/L
na
na
4.25
4.250
4.250
Penta CDDs
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.56
0.280
0.280
Hexa CDDs
Pg/L
na
na
< 1.21
0.605
0.605
HeptaCDDs
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.75
0.375
0.375
OctaCDD
p&L
na
na
9.13
9.!30
9.130
2378 TCDD (equiv factor - 1)
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.74
0.370
0.370
12378 PeCDD (equiv factor » 0.5)
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.56
0.280
0.280
123478 HxCDD (equiv fector - 0.1)
pg/L
na
na
< 1.30
0.650
0.650
123678 HxCDD (equiv facto- - 0.1)
pg/L
na
na
< 1.10
0.550
0.550
123789 HxCDD (equiv factor-0.1)
Pg/L
na
na
< 1.26
0.630
0.630
1234678 HpCDD
Pg/L
na
na
< 1.77
0.885
0.885
Total CDFs
Pg/L
na
na
1.76
1.760
1.760
Tetra CDFs
Pg/L
na
na
1.76
1.760
1.760
Penta CDFs
Pg/L
na
na
<0.97
0.485
0.485
Hexa CDFs
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.42
0.210
0.210
Hepta CDFs
Pg/L
na
na
< 1.16
0.580
0.580
OctaCDF
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.74
0.370
0.370
2378 TCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
pg/L
na
na
< 0.42
0.210
0.210
12378 PeCDF (equiv (actor - 0.05)
pg/L
na
na
< 0.97
0.485
0.485
23478 PeCDF (equiv fector - 0.5)
pg/L
na
na
< 0.97
0.485
0.485
123478 HxCDF (equiv factor = 0.1)
pg/L
na
na
< 0.43
0.215
0.215
123678 HxCDF (equiv factor ° 0.1)
Pg/L
na
na
< 0J5
0.175
0.175
234678 HxCDF (equiv factor = 0.1)
pg/L
na
na
< 0.43
0.215
0.215
123789 HxCDF (equiv factor-0.1)
Pg/L
na
na
< 0.51
0.255
0.255
1234678 HpCDF
pg/L
na
na
< 1.05
0.525
0.525
1234789 HpCDF
Pg/L
na
na
< 1.30
0.650
0.650
Barium, total recoverable
Pg/L
na
na
22
22
22.000
Chromium, total recoverable
Pg/L
na
na
< 2.0
1.000
1.000
Chromium, bexavakot **
Pg/L
13.4770
28.5125
na
na
na
•
-
Copper, total recoverable
Pg/L
6.2160
13.1520
na
na
2.5
2.500
2.500
Copper, total recoverable (WER)
Pg/L
13.9860
29.5920
na
na
2.5
2.500
2.500
Lead, total recoverable
Pg/L
15.8903
33.6182
18.2860
38.6860
na
na
2.1
2.100
2.100
Mercury, total recoverable
Pg/L
0.0397
0.0841
1.3830
2.9260
na
na
0.011
0.011
0.011
Nickel, total recoverable
Pg/L
16.6020
35.1230
na
na
3.5
3.500
3.500
Selenium, total recoverable
Pg/L
16.8462
35.6406
na
na
0.16
0.160
0.160
Vanadium, total recoverable
Pg/L
na
na
2.8
2.800
2.800
Zinc, total recoverable
pr/l
141.0700
298.4540
na
na
35
35 f"
35.000
Hardness (as CaCO})
mg/L
na
na
160
160
160
pH
S.U.
na
na
7.5
7.500
7.500
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
na
na
29
29
29
Total Organic Carton
mg/L
na
na
12.9
12.900
12.900
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
na
na
5.7
5.700
5.700
fig micrograms (10*4 grams) pg picograms(lO" grans)
* Hkirtw that the criteria for a specific parameter is the dissolved portion in water. ** Not analyzed since chromium results were atl lets than S
nd Not detected. na Not applicable/analyzed.
(JB Contaminant also detected to associated laboratory blank, and therefore, should be considered not detected. UJ Contaminant was not detected but because of QA profafe
J fnwtMwtnwni wan detected but because of QA problem the result was qualified as an estimate. A Limit expressed as annual average and daily ma*.
Values in the shaded areas exceeded the TEXTOX modeled criteria for either human heahh or aquatic life protection. *** Criteria calculated as the sum of seven PCB congeners I
WER Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 2.25 was used based on "Copper Water Effect Ratios Study and Trace Metals Study for the Houston Ship Channel," prepared by Parsons Engineering Science. January 2
# Total CDD/CDF equivalents are calculated using the equivalency factors from Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Norvdetect results were calculated as zeros. Compounds used in calculation I
2378 TCDD, 12378 PeCDD, 2378 HxCDPs. 2378 TCDF. 12378 PeCDF, 23478 PeCDF. and 2378 HxCDFs.
009/730524-01000/021291 k.xts/Deer Park
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
I::
Barry R- McBee, Chairman
"Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner
|Rm M. Baker, Commissioner
Jeffrey A. Saitas, Executive Director
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution
October 19,1998
Randy M. Palachek
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
8000 Centre Park Drive, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78754-5140
R£; Patrick Bayou
Mr. Palachek:
This letter is re$pbnse;to your request for information about Patrick"Bayou. Attached are Critical
Conditions of-permitted dischargers into Patrick Bayou. These conditions axe current as of today.
If you need further assistance, you can contact Robert Ozment at 239-4588.
Sincerely,
Faith Hambleton
Team Leader, Water Quality Assessments (MC-150)
FAH/rco
Enclosure
on Ro* 1^087 • Austin. Texas 78711-3087 • 512/239-1000 • Internet address: www.tnrccjtate.tx.U5
-------
jtBa
a
KZ'-^rT. KUiI IN
TNRCC No Out/a Parmittea
702 HM
Men cfs cfs CrIMII ZiD
HH_pcn
Comments
10518-002 001 DEER PARK, CITY OF
Q03QS-000 001 OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP.
00305-000 002 OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP.
00305-000 003 OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP.
C0305-000 0C5 OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP.
004Q2-COQ 001 SHELL CHEMICAL CO.
00402-000 0C4 SHELL CHEMICAL CO.
00403-000 001 SHELL OIL CO.
00403-000 007 SHELL OIL CO.
00639-000 001 LUBR1ZOL CORP.
**5 1.36 1.72 81 % 95 % 76 % 4.5 MGD
-5
-5
•5
5
8 % 30 % A % 6.5 MGD, MZ =.120"
92 % 92 "A 32 % 76 MGD
23 % 92 % 11% &6MCO.MZ«es'
6 % 30 % A % < 10.0 MG0. > 400' WIDTH
-S 5.15 6J2 69 % SO % 60 % BACKUP FOR 004
5 8 % 30 % 4 %.
"S 4.78 5.94 1$ % +4 % 9 %
5 8 % 30 *.i A %
-5 4.2S 5.25 31 % 65 % 23 % 1.Q MGD(a*6rage of monthly
and 1.25 MGD(max of averac
CALCULATIONS
00403-001
TQ2 = 3.067
HM=18257
nui flow -aaOMCD
MZ
ZID
0.603 MGD x 100%
HH
0.603 MGD+ 3.087 MGD
0.603 MGD x 100% X4
0.603 MGD ¦+• 3,087 MGD
0.391 MGD x 100%
0.391 MGD + 3.6367 MGD
16% 00402-001 MZ
702 « S.22SUG0
44% HMC421MG0 ZID
»fl«ow=e«MG&
nut (tow'7,251100
9% HH
7.25 MGD x 100%
7.25 MGD + 3.328 MG
7.25 MGD x 100% X
7.25 MGD + 3.328 MG
6.29 MGD x 100%
6.29 MGD + 4.2113 MG
00639-001 MZ 1.25X100% 31%
loi'zwsusa 2.75 + 1.25
KM«2.8SMC0
avg
-------
Author: Phyllis Prank at parhoul
Dates 12/8/1999 11:10 AM
Priority: Normal
Srinivasulu Jalla at PARREMOTE
abject: Re: new dilutions
Jalla the attached file is good (see below)
except for the 2 Oxy outfalls. Phyllis
Forward Header
Subject: Re: new dilutions
Author: Randy M. Palachek at PARAUSTIN
Date: 8/11/99 11:05 AM
Phyllis,
As stated below, Karen didnt revise the memos for lubrizol or the city
of deer park, (EPA is writting the lubrizol one - why I dont know) and
the state will be writting the deer park one soon.
The last document attached - patric-3 has the revised numbers for
everyone, including the lubrizol and deer park.
The lubrizol numbers changed to 36% mz, 69% zid, and 28% HH from 31%,
65%, and 23% respectively. Therefore, they went up slightly. Enough
where it may be a problem based on Wes comments the other day.
Randy
Forward Header
Subject: Re: Oxy Vinyls, Inc. - revised critical dilutions -Reply
Author: "Karen Visnovsky" at NetTalk
Date: 7/9/1999 3:18 PM
Randy,
The new memos and the models are attached as
well as the table I FAXed to Phil. I did not write new
memos for either Lubrizol (EPA is writing this one)
or Deer Park Refining (in house but not yet Admin
Complete so not reviewed yet).
Karen
-------
Critical Conditions for Permits on Patrick Bayou
Permit
Number
EPA Permit
Number
Permittee Name
Menu
Crit.
Dil./ MZ
ZID
S/F
C/A
HH
HH
Criteria
Comments
10519-002*
TX0025321
City of Deer Park
1
100 %
F
A
N/A
Use Segment 1102 pH, TSS,
Hardness, and Chlorides
values
5
90 %
97 %
S
C
86 %
SW FISH
00639-001*
TX0007048
Lubrizol Corp.
1
100 %
F
A
N/A
Use Segment 1102 pH, TSS,
Hardness, and Chlorides
values
5
36 %
69 %
S
C
28 %
SW FISH
00403-001
TX0004871
Deer Park Refining
5
27 %
59 %
S
C
20 %
SW FISH
00305-001
TX0007412
Oxy Vinyls, Inc.
5
79 %
100 %
S
C
79 %
SW FISH
00305-002
TX0007412
Oxv Vinvls. Inc.
5
100 %
100 %
S
C
94 %
SW FISH
Run TEXTOX twice - once using Menu 1 and once using Menu 5 - and use the most stringent results. The Menu 1 criteria
apply in the upper, intermittent freshwater portion of Patrick Bayou. The Menu 5 criteria apply in the tidal portion. The
aquatic life permit limits in the Menu 5 TEXTOX printout should be recalculated to allow for advective dilution. This
procedure involves recalculating the LTAs by multiplying the WLAa from the TEXTOX printout by 0.573, the WLAc by 0.77,
and then calculating the daily average and daily maximum permit limits as normal.
-------
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Municipal Permits Team Date: July 8, 1999
Wastewater Permits Section
From: Karen L. Visnovsky, Water Quality Assessment Team
Standards & Assessment Section
Subject: City of Deer Park Wastewater Permit No. 10519-002
NOTE: This memo replaces the previous TEXTOX memo dated August 7,1998.
TEXTOX AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS
The following information applies to Outfall 001 entering Segment 1006. The TEXTOX menu
number is 5. The percentage of effluent at the edge of the mixing zone is 90%. The percentage
of effluent at the edge of the ZED is 97 %. Human Health criteria apply for Saltwater Fish Tissue
using 86% effluent. These percentages are based on the permitted effluent flow of 6.0 MGD.
Also check Menu 1 for the intermittent freshwater portion of Patrick Bayou using Segment 1102
pH, TSS, Hardness, and Chlorides values.
There is no mixing zone for this discharge to an intermittent stream. Acute freshwater toxic
criteria apply at the point of discharge. Chronic and acute saltwater criteria apply in the tidal
portion of Patrick Bayou.
The permit limits in the TEXTOX printout should be recalculated to allow for advective dilution. This
procedure involves recalculating the LTAs by multiplying the WLAa from the TEXTOX printout by
0.573, the WLAc by 0.77, and then calculating the daily average and daily maximum permit limits as
normal.
-------
FR$i/Ai* uu0N\£Ni*» SCI WSfi (SSD._2._jr 00 14.-41/ST. 14.-40/NO. 4862904637 P 2
Kexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Industrial Permits Team Date: January 5,2000
Wastewater Permitting Section
From: M\j Karen L. Visnovsky, Water Quality Assessment Team
Water Quality Assessment Section
Subject: Oxy Vinyls, LP. Wastewater Pennit No. 00305, Outfall 001
This memo replaces the memo dated July 8,1999.
TEXTOX AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS
The following information applies to Outfall 001 entering Segment 1006. The TEXTOX menu
number is 5. The percentage of effluent ai the edge of the mixing 2one is 63%. The percentage of
effluent at the edge of the ZID is 77%. These percentages are based on the two-year maximum
monthly average effluent flow of 5.9 MGD. Human Health criteria apply for Saltwater Fish Tissue
using 46% effluent This percentage is based on the two-year average effluent flow of435 MGD.
Chronic toxic criteria apply at the edge of the mixing zone. The mixing zone is dejmed as 300 feet
downstream and 100 feet upstream from the point of discharge.
-------
FH°]/j^$§0NS*£N& SCI§^£jL ,w 00 14; 41/ST. 14: 40/NO. 4862904637 P 2
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Industrial Permits Team Date: Januarys, 2000
Wastewater Permitting Section
From: l/\J Karen L. Visnovsky, Water Quality Assessment Team
Water Quality Assessment Section
Subject: Oxy Vinyls, LP. Wastewater Pennit No. 00305, Outfall 001
This memo replaces die memo dated July 8,1999.
TEXTOX AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS
The following information applies to Outfall 001 entering Segment 1006. The TEXTOX menu
number is 5. The percentage of effluent at the edge of the mixing zone is 63%. The percentage of
effluent at the edge of the ZID is 77%. These percentages are based on the two-year maximum
monthly average effluent flow of 5.9 MGD. Human Health criteria apply for Saltwater Fish Tissue
using 46% effluent This percentage is based on the two-year average effluent flow of435 MGD.
Chrome toxic criteria apply at the edge of the mixing zone. The mixing zone is dejSned as 300 feet
downstream and 100 feet upstream from the point of discharge.
-------
R0&/PAWS EF& SS 1 ENC|*»J.- *»» (fMUMA' £&>i4 -42/ST" » < ' 40/WO. 46629046^2 .C-. 5
#Teras Natural Resource Conservation Commission
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Industrial Permits Team Date: January 5,2000
Wastewater PennittmgSection
From: yM Karon L. Visnovsky, Water Quality Assessment Team
Water Quality Assessment Section
Subject: Oxy Vinyls, L.P. Wastewater Permit No. 00305, Outfall 002
This memo replaces the memo dated July 8,1999.
TEXTOX AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS
The following information applies to Outfall 002 entering Segment 1006. The TEXTOX menu
number is 5. The percentage of effluent at the edge of the mixing zone is 92%. The percentage of
effluent at the edge of the ZIP is 96%. These percentages are based on the two-year maximum
monthly average effluent flow- of 7? MOD. Human Health, criteria apply for Saltwater Fish Tissue
using 87% effluent. This percentage is based on the two-year average effluent flow of 63.3 MGD.
Chronic toxic criteria apply at the edge of the mixing zone. The mixing zone is defined as 300 feet
downstream and 100 feet upstream of the point of discharge.
-------
October 5,2000
SUBJECT: Final Report, Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
FROM: Philip Crocker
EPA, Watershed Management Section (6WQ-EW)
TO: Jack Ferguson, 6WQ-P
Phillip Jennings, 6WQ-PP
Linda Broach, TNRCC-Houston
Mel Vargas, TNRCC-Houston
Mike Sunderlin, TNRCC-Austin
Bill Rhotenberry, 6SF-RA
The purpose of this memo is to inform you that the Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
has been concluded, and to transmit a copy of the final report. Also enclosed are copies of
correspondence concerning the final report. You have previously received interim and/or draft
final reports for this project. This final report supercedes all previous data submittals and
reports.
This project was initiated to specifically address both water and sediment quality
concerns within Patrick Bayou, an effluent dominated, tidal tributary of the Houston Ship
Channel. The project included six sampling events of the process wastewater discharges, as well
as a single sampling event for storm water discharges. Note that low detection, ultra-clean
techniques were utilized and QA/QC was an emphasis throughout the process. The quality of
the data is excellent.
I very much appreciate the assistance of Linda Broach (TNRCC) and Philip Jennings
(EPA Permits Branch), who participated on the work group to oversee this study. This project
represents a significant effort, both from the standpoint of EPA/TNRCC oversight and
involvement, and from the industries which funded and carried out the study,
..:o.e >' "^s \o .V.ycn; AT .SPA'? 0 :/ . * -¦
. 3rhe findl-*q*M*.pttov|detiBiportant:dite whififcidentify the source(e> of mercury, dioxins
• and PGBs to Patrick Bayou. At EPA's request, Oxy Vinyls is presently assessing its internal
waste streams, and wastewater process as a whole, to identify sources of these pollutants and
implementeonlrQls^., counter aw* •yvv.v.-r'f - r .<•» --<-r
I request that you consider the attached information and data in your respective
programs. If you have any questions, please contact me at 214/665-6644.
Attachments
-------
MAY 2 5 2000
Mr. Ted Brenneman, Environmental Manager
Oxy Vinyls, LP
P.O. Box 500
Deer Park, TX 77536
Re: Draft Final Report, Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
Dear Mr. Brenneman:
Thank you for your April 28 letter transmitting the draft final report for the Patrick Bayou
pollutant source study. The report does a very good job to document the sampling activities and
the resultant data. The data are of high quality and serve to shed a much clearer light the sources
of pollutants of concern in the water column and bottom sediments of Patrick Bayou. We
appreciate the consistent effort that went into generating high quality data and for your present
pursuits in identifying and controlling internal waste stream sources of these pollutants. We also
appreciate you and the other industry participants coming to Dallas May 16, 2000 to meet and
discuss the final report. Our review comments, which we request that you address when finalizing
the report, are as follows:
Please include an executive summary which provides a synopsis of the study and its findings.
Sections 1.2, 3.1.1 and 4.1 - The location of the intake structure should be shown on maps or
otherwise described. Note that it is highly likely that the intake water quality is influenced by
Patrick Bayou. The intake structure is relatively close to the mouth of the bayou and the degree
of influence may be most extreme during certain tidal and wind conditions.
Figure 3.1- Are there any reasons why the copper concentration at Shell Refinery discharge is
increasing with time?
Section 3.1.1 (page 3-3) - Please discuss mercury and Aroclor 1248 in the section on outfall 002.
Section 3.3 - The use of TEXTOX modeling does not take into account the cumulative effect of
discharges on the pollutants of concern. The modeling did not take into account upstream
concentrations of pollutants. This comment was also made in EPA's (Richard Hoppers') April
19,1999 letter to you on the Interim Report. The TEXTOX results should be qualified to state
this limitation.
-------
2
Section 3.3 - Application of the Grubbs outlier test for discarding elevated concentrations in the
averaging of data is technically questionable. This type of statistical test is applied when the data
values are suspect or erroneous. However, in the case of the study data, very stringent QA/QC
requirements were met and the data should be of high quality. There is a fundamental difference
between high values and erroneous values. Data should not be discarded unless justified within
the document by evidence that the data are of poor or suspect quality. Note that Section 3.6
indicates that "No major QA/QC problems were found during the validation of the data submitted
by the laboratories. No reported results have been qualified unusable."
Section 3.4.3 - What is Shell's interpretation of elevated metals concentrations in the R-003
discharge (e.g., 4,372 ug/1 of zinc)? What is the projected loading and might these levels lead to
water quality problems? Source evaluation is recommended to address the high storm water
concentrations.
Section 4.1- OxyVinyls had relatively high concentrations of some pollutants (e.g., nickel and
zinc) although these pollutants were not flagged as a potential problem using TEXTOX.
However, some evaluation to address these pollutants would seem appropriate because of the
cumulative loading to the water body.
Mercury increased five-fold in the OxyVinyls 001 discharge during storm water conditions.
Higher loading under storm water conditions should be factored into the existing source
evaluation for this outfall.
A couple of typos were found: Section 3.3 - The last sentence of the first paragraph seems to
have a typo (needs clarification). Also, in this section (page 3-8), in the 2nd full paragraph, the
second sentence should read "...sample results...".
If possible, we would appreciate a total of seven copies of the final report for EPA and TNRCC
use.
Please continue to keep us apprized of activities related to identifying and controlling
pollutants of concern, such as mercury (OxyVinyls outfall 001) and dioxins/furans (OxyVinyls
outall 002), which are already underway. According to the presentation at the May 16 meeting,
further analyses are planned on dioxins/furans for OxyVinyls outfall 001, and mercury and aroclor
1248 and for OxyVinyls outfall 002. We also recommend investigation on OxyVinyls outfall 005
and Shell outfall R-003 (see comments above).
-------
3
Thanks for considering these comments in finalizing the report. Again, we have
appreciated all the hard work that has gone into this project by the industry representatives and
the consultant. Please contact me at (214) 665-6644 if you have any questions.
cc: Janice Wendel, Shell Chemical Co.
Norman Mollard, Lubrizol Corp.
Phyllis Frank, Parsons Engineering Science
bcc: Phillip Jennings, 6WQ-P
Linda Broach, TNRCC-Houston
Larry Loenig, TNRCC-Austin
6WQ-EW:CROCKER:pc:5-6644:MAY 25, 2000:CROCKER.WPD
Sincerely yours,
Philip A. Crocker
Watershed Management Section
-------
DXYVINYLS
Oxy Vinyls, LP
HOUSTON OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATION
P.O. BOX 500
DEER PARK, TX 77536
281/476-2000
Mr. Philip Crocker
Water Management Division (6W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Re: Final Report - Patrick Bayou Polli
Dear Mr. Crocker:
In accordance with the request in
copies of the Final Report for the Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study. Responses to each
of your comments in the letter of May 25,2000 are provided below.
An Executive Summary which provides a synopsis of the study and its findings has been
incorporated into the final report.
Figure 1.1 of the final report was revised to show the location of the intake. As noted in
the figure, the intake structure is located upstream of the mouth of Patrick Bayou.
The copper concentration in the Shell R001 discharge is discussed in Attachment A to
this letter.
A discussion of the mercury and Arochlor 1248 results has been added to the text of the
final report. Mercury was measured in Outfall 002 on all six sampling events. The observed
concentration in the outfall could not be explained by the mercury concentration in the Intake
sample in all events. Arochlor 1248 was detected in 4 of the six sampling events at Outfall
002. Arolchlor 1248 was also detected in 4 of the six sampling events at the Intake. In five of
the six data pairs the concentration in Outfall 002 was greater than the concentration measured
in the Intake. The Arochlor 1248 concentration measured in Outfall 002 is certainly partially
attributable to the concentration in the Intake. For five of the six data pairs, the concentration
in the outfall was slightly higher than the concentration in the Intake.
As discussed in the report, TEXTOX is the modeling tool used by the TNRCC in
permitting wastewater discharges. As such, it is an appropriate tool to use in evaluating the
discharge data collected in this study. The description of TEXTOX modeling in the report has
been amended to state that the modeling performed does not take into account the upstream
concentration of a particular parameter.
July 24, 2000
C"
c-
cS
cr:
r~
¦ za
•v •
m
V:
' o
/¦ 'i-P'i
c:
r-
c:
f\5
c::
ro
'C.':"}
itant Source Study
your letter dated May 25, 2000, attached are seven
02154/P ATB AOIACROCK8
-------
Phil Crocker
July 24, 2000
Page 2
As discussed in the section on the data validation, the data validation process did not
invalidate any of the individual samples based upon analytical issues. However, the
discussion of outliers included in the report is intended to address the issue of the effect of a
single data point out of a set of six on the average and maximum statistics generated from that
data set. For example, as discussed in Section 3.1.1 of the report, one of the samples from
Outfall 001 for total CDD/CDF had a much higher concentration than did the duplicate
sample from the same event. This data point also was a statistical outlier based upon the
Grubb test. Based upon the duplicate sample result and the statistical test, the summary
statistics for that outfall did not include that particular data point. Outliers are noted in the
data sets for each of the outfalls.
The zinc concentration in the Shell R003 discharge is discussed in Attachment A to this
letter.
The highest observed nickel and zinc concentrations from the OxyVinyl oufalls were
from Outfall 005. This outfall discharges to the Houston Ship Channel downstream of the
mouth of Patrick Bayou. See Attachment B to this letter for additional discussion of nickel
and zinc discharge.
Please see attachment B to this letter for additional discussion of mercury in the
OxyVinyl discharge during stormwater conditions.
The referenced sentences in Section 3.3 and on page 3-8 have been amended.
Seven copies of the final report have been sent in a separate shipment.
This submittal concludes the Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study. Any future
correspondence regarding the characterization of a discharge or any continuing studies that
one of the participants is conducting should be addressed to that individual discharger.
Sincerely,
Ted Brenneman
Attachments
02154/ISK/CROCK8
07/24/00 pcf
-------
ATTACHMENT A
02154/PATB AOUNCROCK8 07/24/00 pcf
-------
Shell Deer Park Refining Company
A Division of Shell Oil Products Company
June 14, 2000
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Philip A. Crocker
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Watershed Management Section
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Subject: Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study
Shell Deer Park Refining Company
Outfalls R-001 and R-003
Dear Mr. Crocker,
Your letter dated May 25, 2000 provided comments on the Final Report of the Patrick
Bayou Pollutant Source Study. Two of those comments were specific to Shell Deer Park
Refining Company's outfalls R-001 and R-003. Shell's response to those comments
(comments on Figure 3.1 and Section 3.4.3) are found in Attachment 1.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please call Janice Wendel at
713-246-1068.
Very truly yours,
Susan L. Smith, Manager
Environmental and Compliance Assurance
Deer Park Refining Services
Agent for
Shell Deer Park Refining Company
P. O. Box 100
Deer Park, TX 77536
Attachments
-------
Attachment 1
Figure 3.1 - Are there any reasons why the copper concentration at Shell Refinery
dicharge is increasing with time?
There are no process reasons for the copper concentration to have varied over the course
of the study. The discharge from R-001 is analyzed for total copper once per week as a
condition of the discharge permit (TNRCC permit 00403). Attachment 2 is a tabulation of
the copper concentrations reported to TNRCC for the years 1998, 1999 and year-to-date
2000. Variation in copper concentration can also be seen in the self-reported data.
Section 3.4.3 - What is Shell's interpretation of elevated metals concentrations in
the R-003 discharge (e.g., 4,372 ug/1 of zinc)? What is the projected loading and
might these levels lead to water quality problems? Source evaluation is
recommended to address the high storm water concentrations.
Storm water samples for the Patrick Bayou study were collected under very specific
rainfall conditions. First flush samples were collected during the first 30 minutes of
discharge during an event which occurred after a period of 10 days with no rainfall.
As discussed in the Patrick Bayou report, there are no relevant aquatic life and human
health criteria available for screening storm water samples. In the absence of storm water
specific criteria, the results were compared to the grab sample limits for tidal waters
found in 30TAC319.23. The zinc value for the grab sample of R-003 does not exceed the
appropriate grab limit.
The design of the storm water sampling for the Patrick Bayou study causes the results of
the storm water analyses to be inappropriate for calculation of load. The study was
designed to evaluate only the first flush discharge. In order to project loading it will be
necessary to collect samples periodically throughout the discharge event and to estimate
the flow amount.
Evaluation of the discharge effect on water quality will also require consideration of the
magnitude of discharges, frequency of discharge, and duration of discharge. Ambient
water quality criteria are derived from acute and chronic toxicity testing data. Equating a
single short-term discharge event with an accompanying grab sample would not be
appropriate for determining compliance to ambient criteria, especially at point of
discharge without consideration for mixing and dilution.
Shell will collect additional samples for zinc at R-003 during 3 rainfall events so that the
zinc loading can be estimated. Samples will be collected periodically during the outfall
event. When results of this additional sampling are available, Shell will meet with you to
discuss a forward path.
-------
OUTFALL R-001 COPPER Attachment 2
1998 (Page 1)
Copper ug/l
Date
Copper, ug/l
Date
Copper, ug/l
January 5,1998
7.2
July 1,1998
6.4
January 12,1998
<5.0
July 14, 1998
6.5
January 19, 1998
13.2
July 20,1998
7.7
January 26,1998
5.3
July 27,1998
<5.0
February 2, 1998
7.8
August 3, 1998
<5.0
February 9,1998
12.6
August 10,1998
<5.0
February 16,1998
7.1
August 17, 1998
<5.0
February 23,1998
8.2
August 24, 1998
10.7
August 31, 1998
5.5
March 2, 1998
6
September 7,1998
<5.0
March 9,1998
17.7
September 14,1998
8.6
March 16,1998
9.8
September 21,1998
9
March 23,1998
8.5
September 28,1998
9.2
March 30, 1998
<5.0
April 6, 1998
<5.0
October 5, 1998
11.4
April 13, 1998
21.5
October 12, 1998
9
April 20, 1998
<5.0
October 19,1998
<5.0
April 27, 1998
7.2
October 26,1998
5
May 4, 1998
<5.0
November 2,1998
<5
May 11,1998
7.1
November 9,1998
<5
May 18, 1998
9.8
November 16,1998
<5
May 25,1998
5.3
November 23,1998
<5
November 30,1998
<5
June 1,1998
<5.0
December 7,1998
<5
June 8,1998
8.3
December 14,1998
<5
June 15, 1998
8
December 21,1998
10.3
June 22,1998
<5.0
December 28,1998
13.7
June 29,1998
9.5
-------
OUTFALL R-001 COPPER Attachment 2
1999 (Page 2)
Copper ug/l
Date
Copper, ug/l
Date
Copper, ug/l
January 4, 1999
6.2
July 5, 1999
<5
January 11,1999
5.2
July 12, 1999
8.1
January 18,1999
5.6
July 19, 1999
<5
January 25,1999
5.4
July 26, 1999
<5
February 1,1999
<5
August 2, 1999
<5
February 8,1999
11.5
August 9. 1999
<5
February 15,1999
<5
August 16, 1999
<5
February 22,1999
5.8
August 23, 1999
<5
August 30, 1999
<5
March 1, 1999
10
September 6,1999
<5
March 8,1999
<5
September 13,1999
16
March 15,1999
7.1
September 20,1999
<5
March 22, 1999
29
September 27,1999
<5
March 29,1999
<5
April 5, 1999
18.3
October 4,1999
<5
April 12, 1999
8.5
October 11,1999
<5
April 19, 1999
7.1
October 18,1999
>5
April 26, 1999
7.4
October 25, 1999
<5
May 3,1999
7
November 1,1999
<5
May 10,1999
7.7
November 8,1999
<5
May 17,1999
<5
November 15.1999
<5
May 24, 1999
<5
November 22,1999
6.5
May 31,1999
7.2
November 29,1999
<5
June 7,1999
7.3
December 6,1999
5.4
June 14,1999
<5
December 13,1999
6
June 21,1999
<5
December 20,1999
<5
June 28,1999
<5
December 27, 1999
<5
-------
OUTFALL R-001 COPPER Attachment 2
2000 Year-To-Date
-------
ATTACHMENT B
O2154/PATBAOU\CROCKC~7 06/20/00 pcf
-------
ATTACHMENT B
02154/PATB AOIACROCK8 07/24/00 pcf
-------
HOUSTON OPERATIONS
Oxy Vinyls, LP
OMY 'Vi NYLS
ADMINISTRATION
P.O. BOX 500
DEER PARK, TX 77536
281/476-2000
July 24, 2000
Mr. Philip Crocker
Water Management Division (6WQ-EW)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
14 45 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Re: Patrick Bayou Study
NPDES No. TX0007412, TNRCC No. 00305
Dear Sir:
In your letter to Oxy Vinyls, LP (OxyVinyls) dated May
25, 2000 you requested additional information to
supplement what was submitted in the Final Report,
Patrick Bayou Pollutant Source Study. Those requests
are answered in this letter (which is attached to a
letter written by our contractor) or in a separate
attached letter from Shell Chemical. This letter will
address those questions which are specific to OxyVinyls
outfalls.
The first question that is specific to OxyVinyls
references Section 3.1.1. You requested a discussion
of the concentrations of Mercury and Aroclor 1248 found
in wastewater discharged via Outfall 002. Data
contained in the report shows that concentrations of
mercury and Aroclor 1248 are elevated when compared to
concentrations of those two chemical substances found
in Houston Ship Channel (HSC) water. Water from the
HSC is the source of the vast majority of the water
discharged to Outfall 002. Since the completion of
sampling for this study, OxyVinyls has collected
additional samples from wastewater streams that combine
inside the plant to make up wastewater which is
discharged via Outfall 002. In doing so we believe we
have identified a source of mercury. At present, we
are conducting additional studies to ensure the
identification and to quantify the amount of mercury
being discharged. We are also developing the scope of
work required to collect the mercury containing
wastewater source and return it to the mercury cell
waste water treatment process. The wastewater
treatment process will remove mercury prior to its
Responsible Care*
A Public Commitment ¦¦
-------
July 24 , 2000
Page 2
discharge through Outfall 001. We have also collected
samples of water and analyzed them for PCB congeners.
In the samples collected from streams that combine to
form Outfall 002 we have not found a source of the PCB
congener pattern identified in the previous samples
from outfall 002. We plan to continue to sample to
locate the source(s) of the previously identified PCBs
at outfall 002. We will update you with our findings
and Source Reduction Plan when they are available.
The second question concerns Section 4.1. A discussion
of the elevated concentrations of nickel and zinc in
water discharged at outfall 005 was requested. -As you
pointed out, the concentrations do not exceed water
quality based effluent standards for discharge to the
HSC. Regardless the levels may be of future concern,
and we have initiated a search for the sources.
Sampling of the streams that combine to form what
becomes outfall 005 has identified a stream that
appears to contain these two metals. We will continue
to sample to confirm their presence. Zinc is not used
in the plant manufacturing processes. Zinc is present
in some metallic structural components and may be the
reason for its presence in water streams. Nickel is
also present in metallic structural components and in
some process waters. Sampling has not shown that the
stream that contains the process water is a significant
contributing source. We do, however, plan to continue
to sample this intermittent process stream.
The third question that was directed to OxyVinyls
concerned mercury concentrations in storm water samples
at Outfall 001. Sampling confirms a difference in
mercury concentrations between water samples taken
inside the plant and at outfall 001. The cause of this
difference has not yet been identified. We are working
to identify the cause of this difference and to develop
effective resolutions.
S:\ENVIR\PATBAYOU\June_2000_resp_final_rp_ques.doc
-------
July 24 , 2000
Page 3
Please contact me at (281) 476-2692 should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Ted Brenneman
Oxy Vinyls, LP - Houston Operations
Environmental Manager
cc: Mike James - Dallas Legal
John Westendorf - Dallas Environmental
Janice Wendel
Shell Chemical Company
P. 0. Box 100
Deer Park, Tx. 77536
Norman W. Mollard
Lubrizol Petroleum Chemicals Company
P. 0. Box 158
Deer Park, Tx. 77536
File: 08. 07. 002.
S:\ENVIR\PATBAYOU\June_2000_resp_final_rp_ques.doc
------- |