Appendix C - Passaic River Public Digital Library

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2-2. Biota Sampling Locations along the Lower 8 Miles of the Passaic River. Draft Focused Feasibility Study Risk Assessment 2-5 June 2007 Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Appendix C
For this biological and sediment data review, the following chemical classes were examined: • Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (dioxins); • Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans); • Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners; • PCB Aroclors; • Pesticides; • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH); and, • Metals. In addition, the following Toxic Equivalency (TEQ) calculations were performed for dioxins/furans (D/F) and coplanar (dioxin-like) PCB congeners: • Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) TEQ for D/F – sum of the products of the congener concentration and congener-specific Toxic Equivalency Factors 1 (TEF) for all D/F congeners (Table 2-2); • TCDD TEQ for PCB coplanar congeners – sum of the products of the congener concentration and their TEFs (Table 2-2) for 12 coplanar PCB compounds (i.e., the World Health Organization [WHO] congeners); and, • Total TCDD TEQ – the sum of the above two results. The tissue data were obtained from the database prepared for the Geochemical Evaluation Biota Plots (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006). Non-detects (data qualifiers including “U” or as “ND”) were reported as onehalf the detection limit value for all database exports including sums and individual parameters. New queries were added to calculate the TEQ values for D/F, PCB congeners, and total chlordane. Table 2-3 provides a summary of the matrices sampled for crab and fish tissue. For crab, all tissue matrices were used in the dataset for the human health and ecological risk assessments. For fish, all tissue matrices listed in Table 2-3 were used to compile the data for both the human health and ecological assessments. Information regarding the specific characteristics of crab and fish samples was missing from the database, including age, length, weight, and sex of the fish. This lack of information could be a potential source of uncertainty when estimating exposure concentrations and determining whether the fish or crab was an appropriate size for human consumption. Sediment data for the various studies were downloaded from PREmis and compiled into a Microsoft Access database. For the purposes of the COPEC screening process (Attachment 2), non-detected sediment data with “U” data qualifiers were assigned a value equal to the reported detection limit, and results reported as a zero value with a “ND” (non-detected) qualifier were excluded from the database query outputs. This approach resulted in the selection of compounds for consideration in the FFS that was both conservative and convenient. However, non-detected values with “U” qualifiers were treated somewhat differently in the human health and ecological risk assessments; non-detect values were set to one-half of the reported detection limits. This methodology was consistent with available risk assessment guidance. However, as discussed further in the uncertainty analysis section of this document (Section 5.4), it is recognized that this method may overestimate the concentration of total PCB Aroclors. 1 A TEF is a measure of the relative potency of a compound to cause a particular toxic or biological effect relative to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). By convention, TCDD is assigned a TEF of 1.0, and the TEFs for other compounds with dioxin-like effects range from 0 to 1. When TEFs are derived based on the relative binding affinity to the aryl hydrocarbon (Ah) receptor or induction of cytochrome P4501A1, it is assumed that these biochemical responses correlate with toxicologically important effects (Van den Berg et al., 1998). Draft Focused Feasibility Study Risk Assessment 2-6 June 2007 Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Appendix C
Page 1 and 2: Appendix C Risk Assessment Draft Co
Page 3 and 4: This page intentionally left blank
Page 5 and 6: 8.2.4 Alternative Risk Reduction Co
Page 7 and 8: Table 8-2. Summary of Risks/Hazards
Page 11 and 12: HPAH High molecular weight PAH HQ H
Page 17 and 18: Table 2-1. Summary of Data Used for
Page 19: Figure 2-1. Sediment Sampling Locat
Page 23 and 24: Table 2-3. Sample Matrices for Crab
Page 25 and 26: concentrations (EPC) derived using
Page 29 and 30: all of these erosional areas are be
Page 31 and 32: Angler/Sportsman: The angler/sports
Page 33 and 34: • AE(4): Protection and maintenan
Page 35 and 36: Draft Focused Feasibility Study Ris
Page 37 and 38: 5.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT -
Page 39 and 40: overabundant quantities. White catf
Page 41 and 42: gland under the gills). The anatomy
Page 43 and 44: State Department of Health [NYSDOH]
Page 45 and 46: through 5-7 for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, total
Page 47 and 48: µg/kg 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
Page 49 and 50: adolescent from 10 to 19 years of a
Page 51 and 52: Crab consumption data were obtained
Page 55 and 56: have shown that mercury concentrati
Page 57 and 58: Toxicity studies with laboratory an
Page 59 and 60: accordance with USEPA’s guideline
Page 61 and 62: The noncancer HIs are summarized in
Page 63 and 64: There is a concern for the potentia
Page 65 and 66: chemical risk drivers, were extensi
Page 71 and 72:
Table 6-1. Exposure Parameters for
Page 73 and 74:
apidly metabolizing PAHs, the etiol
Page 75 and 76:
Table 6-4. Summary of CBRs for Vari
Page 77 and 78:
exposure to inorganic lead (other t
Page 79 and 80:
PAHs, which generally occur as comp
Page 81 and 82:
Table 6-10. Summary of Mammalian TR
Page 83 and 84:
Table 6-13. Summary of Avian Egg Re
Page 85 and 86:
irds), neurological (tremors in sev
Page 87 and 88:
Table 6-16. Summary of Hazard Quoti
Page 89 and 90:
Hazard Indices 100,000 10,000 1,000
Page 91 and 92:
Hazard Ratio 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.
Page 93 and 94:
6.3.4 Summary of Current Risks The
Page 95 and 96:
and that, overall, the risk assessm
Page 97 and 98:
Draft Focused Feasibility Study Ris
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
7.0 DEVELOPMENT OF EPCs FOR FUTURE
Page 103 and 104:
concentrations generated directly f
Page 105 and 106:
Table 7-1. A Ratio of 1995 TSI Surf
Page 107 and 108:
COPC/COPEC Ratio of Sediment Histor
Page 109 and 110:
Ratio of Sediment Historical 95% UC
Page 111 and 112:
COPC/COPEC Table 7-7. Summary of 95
Page 113 and 114:
8.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FUTURE RI
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Table 8-5. Summary of Future Cancer
Page 119 and 120:
physical processes (sedimentation,
Page 121 and 122:
8.1.4 Alternative Risk Reduction Co
Page 123 and 124:
8.1.1.2 Comparison Among Remediatio
Page 125 and 126:
Information supporting the assessme
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
NOAEL- and LOAEL-based HIs for the
Page 131 and 132:
Hazard Ratio Hazard Index 10000 100
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Figure 8-3 presents the current and
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
surveys) for the Lower Passaic Rive
Page 141 and 142:
Table 8-15. Lower Passaic River Hig
Page 143 and 144:
pathway is typically associated wit
Page 145 and 146:
9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Results
Page 147 and 148:
health hazards. Based on body weigh
Page 149 and 150:
Table 9-3. Summary of Estimated Fut
Page 151 and 152:
In general, six sets of future EPCs
Page 153 and 154:
10.0 REFERENCES Agency for Toxic Su
Page 155 and 156:
Brunstom, B. 1989. Toxicity of copl
Page 157 and 158:
Eisler, R., 1988. Lead hazards to f
Page 159 and 160:
Horne, M.T. and W.A. Dunson. 1995.
Page 161 and 162:
McCarty, L.S., and D. Mackay, 1993.
Page 163 and 164:
developing chicken embryo when inje
Page 165 and 166:
United States Environmental Protect
Page 167 and 168:
Organization Re-evaluation of Human
Page 169 and 170:
ATTACHMENT 1 SUPPORTING DATA
Page 171 and 172:
Attachment 1 Table 1-1 Summary of C
Page 173 and 174:
Attachment 1 Table 1-3 Summary of P
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Attachment 1 Table 1-4 Summary of S
Page 183 and 184:
Attachment 1 Table 1-4 Summary of S
Page 185 and 186:
ATTACHMENT 2 SCREENING PROCESS FOR
Page 187 and 188:
Technical Memorandum Technical Appr
Page 189 and 190:
Technical Memorandum February 21, 2
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
CASRN Units Chemical Marine/ Estuar
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
CASRN Chemical Units Min Value Qual
Page 215 and 216:
Attachment A Analytical Data Summar
Page 217 and 218:
Attachment B Derviation of Protecti
Page 219 and 220:
Attachment C Supporting Data for PC
Page 221 and 222:
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 223 and 224:
Type HHRA Medium Crab Chemical Chlo
Page 225 and 226:
Type HHRA Medium Crab Chemical DDD
Page 227 and 228:
Type HHRA Medium Fish Chemical DDE
Page 229 and 230:
Type HHRA Medium Fish Chemical DDT
Page 231 and 232:
Type HHRA Medium Crab Chemical Diel
Page 233 and 234:
Type HHRA Medium Crab Chemical Merc
Page 235 and 236:
Type HHRA Medium Crab Chemical TCDD
Page 237 and 238:
Type HHRA and ERA Medium Fish Chemi
Page 239 and 240:
Type ERA Medium Mummichog Chemical
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Type ERA Medium Crab Chemical Chlor
Page 259 and 260:
Type ERA Medium Crab Chemical DDx -
Page 261 and 262:
Type ERA Medium Crab Chemical Lead
Page 263 and 264:
Type ERA Medium Crab Chemical LPAH
Page 265 and 266:
Type ERA Medium Crab Chemical TCDD
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Type ERA Medium Crab Chemical Total
Page 273 and 274:
Type ERA Medium Crab Chemical Total
Page 275 and 276:
Type ERA Medium Fish Chemical DDx -
Page 277 and 278:
Type ERA Medium Fish (American eel/
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Type ERA and HHRA Medium Fish (Amer
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Type ERA Medium Sediment Chemical C
Page 291 and 292:
Attachment 3 Type ERA Medium Sedime
Page 293 and 294:
Attachment 3 Type HHRA Medium Sedim
Page 295 and 296:
Type ERA Medium Sediment Chemical D
Page 297 and 298:
Type ERA Medium Sediment Chemical M
Page 299 and 300:
Type ERA Medium Sediment Chemical H
Page 301 and 302:
Type ERA Medium Sediment Chemical T
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Type ERA Medium American eel/WhiteP
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Attachment 3 Type ERA Medium Americ
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Attachment 3 Type ERA Medium Mummic
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Attachment 3 Type ERE Medium Mummic
Page 371 and 372:
Type ERE Medium Mummichog Chemical
Page 373 and 374:
Type ERE Medium Mummichog Chemical
Page 375 and 376:
Type ERE Medium Sediment Chemical 1
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Type ERE Medium Sediment Chemical O
Page 391 and 392:
Type ERE Medium Sediment Chemical T
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
ATTACHMENT 4 HUMAN HEALTH RISK - CU
Page 407 and 408:
Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium:
Page 409 and 410:
Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium:
Page 411 and 412:
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Attachment 4 TABLE 4-11 (RAGS PT. D
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
PCB ENHANCEMENT ASSESSMENT 25 of 32
Page 433 and 434:
Attachment 4 and concern for assess
Page 435 and 436:
Attachment 4 that the resulting ris
Page 437 and 438:
Attachment 4 Table 2. Total Aroclor
Page 439 and 440:
ATTACHMENT 5 CRITICAL BODY RESIDUES
Page 441 and 442:
Tissue Concentration (ug/g wet weig
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Species Scientific Name Ictalurus p
Page 459 and 460:
Species Scientific Name Species Com
Page 461 and 462:
Attachment 5 TABLE 5-3 SUMMARY OF A
Page 463 and 464:
COPEC TABLE 5-4 CBR-BASED HAZARD QU
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
ATTACHMENT 6 ECOLOGICAL RISK - CURR
Page 471 and 472:
Hazard Indices Hazard Indices 100,0
Page 473 and 474:
Attachment 6 TABLE 6-1 CBR-BASED HA
Page 475 and 476:
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Attachment 6 TABLE 6-4 SUMMARY OF T
Page 481 and 482:
Attachment 6 TABLE 6-6 CALCULATION
Page 483 and 484:
Page 485 and 486:
Page 487 and 488:
Attachment 6 TABLE 6-12 SUMMARY OF
Page 489 and 490:
Page 491 and 492:
Page 493 and 494:
Page 495 and 496:
Page 497 and 498:
Page 499 and 500:
Page 501 and 502:
Page 503 and 504:
Page 505 and 506:
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 507 and 508:
Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor
Page 509 and 510:
Page 511 and 512:
Page 513 and 514:
Page 515 and 516:
Page 517 and 518:
Page 519 and 520:
Page 521 and 522:
ATTACHMENT 8 ECOLOGICAL RISK - FUTU
Page 523 and 524:
FIGURE 8-1 SUMMARY OF TISSUE RESIDU
Page 525 and 526:
FIGURE 8-3 SUMMARY OF TISSUE RESIDU
Page 527 and 528:
Hazard Ratio Hazard Ratio FIGURE 8-
Page 529 and 530:
CASRN Inorganics/Metals Attachment
Page 531 and 532:
Page 533 and 534:
Page 535 and 536:
References: Attachment 8 TABLE 8-7
Page 537 and 538:
Page 539 and 540:
Page 541 and 542:
Page 543 and 544:
Page 545 and 546:
Page 547 and 548:
Page 549 and 550:
Page 551 and 552:
Page 553 and 554:
Page 555 and 556:
Page 557 and 558:
Page 559 and 560:
Page 561 and 562:
Page 563 and 564:
Page 565 and 566:
Page 567 and 568:
Page 569 and 570:
Page 571 and 572:
TABLE 8-26 CALCULATION OF EXPOSURE
Page 573 and 574:
Page 575 and 576:
Page 577 and 578:
TABLE 8-32 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATH
Page 579 and 580:
Page 581 and 582:
Page 583 and 584:
Page 585 and 586:
Page 587 and 588:
Page 589 and 590:
Page 591 and 592:
Page 593 and 594:
Page 595 and 596:
Page 597 and 598:
Page 599 and 600:
Page 601 and 602:
Page 603 and 604:
Page 605 and 606:
Page 607 and 608:
Page 609 and 610:
Page 611 and 612:
Page 613 and 614:
Page 615 and 616:
Page 617 and 618:
Page 619 and 620:
Page 621 and 622:
Page 623 and 624:
Page 625 and 626:
Page 627 and 628:
Page 629 and 630:
Page 631 and 632:
Page 633 and 634:
Page 635 and 636:
Page 637 and 638:
Page 639 and 640:
Page 641 and 642:
Page 643 and 644:
SCENARIO TIMEFRAME: FUTURE (2048) M
Page 645 and 646:
Page 647 and 648:
Page 649 and 650:
TABLE 8-104 SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PAT
Page 651 and 652:
Page 653 and 654:
Page 655 and 656:
Page 657 and 658:
Page 659 and 660:
Page 661 and 662:
Page 663 and 664:
Page 665 and 666:
Page 667 and 668:
Page 669 and 670:
Page 671 and 672:
Page 673 and 674:
Page 675 and 676:
Page 677 and 678:
Page 679 and 680:
Page 681 and 682:
Page 683 and 684:
Page 685 and 686:
Page 687 and 688:
Page 689 and 690:
Page 691 and 692:
Page 693 and 694:
Page 695 and 696:
Page 697 and 698:
Page 699 and 700:
Page 701 and 702:
Page 703 and 704:
Page 705 and 706:
Page 707 and 708:
Page 709 and 710:
Page 711 and 712:
Page 713:
show all

Appendix C - Passaic River Public Digital Library

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?