PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F-A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MID-HUDSON RIVER
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
DECEMBER 1999
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Book 1 of 1
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Gradient Corporation
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 2
29° BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866
December 29,1999
To All Interested Parties:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is pleased to release the baseline Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Mid-Hudson River (Mid-Hudson HHRA), which evaluates cancer
risk and non-cancer health hazards for adults, adolescents and children posed by PCBs in sediments
at the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site, in the absence of remediation. The Mid-Hudson HHRA
is a companion volume to USEPA's August 1999 baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Upper Hudson River (Upper Hudson HHRA), which evaluated cancer risks and non-cancer health
hazards in the Upper Hudson River. The Mid-Hudson HHRA is posted on USEPA's website for the
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Reassessment RI/FS)
at www.epa.gov/hudson.
The Mid-Hudson HHRA is part of Phase 2 of the Reassessment RI/FS for the Hudson River PCBs
Superfund site. The Mid-Hudson HHRA, together with the August 1999 Upper Hudson HHRA, will
help establish acceptable exposure levels for use in developing remedial alternatives in the
Feasibility Study, which is Phase 3 of the Reassessment RI/FS.
USEPA will accept comments on the Mid-Hudson HHRA until January 28,2000. Comments should
be marked with the name of the report and should include the report section and page number for
each comment. Comments should be sent to:
Alison A. Hess, C.P.G.
USEPA Region 2
290 Broadway - 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Attn: Mid-Hudson River HHRA Comments
USEPA will hold a Joint Liaison Group meeting to discuss the findings of the Mid-Hudson HHRA
on January 11,2000, at 7:30 p.m. at the Sheraton Hotel, 40 Civic Center Plaza, Poughkeepsie, New
York. The meeting is open to the general public. Notification of the meeting was sent to Liaison
Group members, interested parties, and the press several weeks prior to the meeting.
During the public comment period, USEPA will hold an availability session to answer questions
from the public regarding the Mid-Hudson HHRA. The availability session will be held from 6:30
to 8:30 p.m. on January 18, 2000 at Sheraton Hotel. 40 Civic Center JPouehkemitd Steir-alMc.
Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable OH Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
-------
If you need additional information regarding the Mid-Hudson HHRA or the Reassessment RI/FS in
general, please contact Ann Rychlenski, the Community Relations Coordinator for this site, at (2 1 2)
637-3672.
Sincerely yours,
f Richard L. Caspe, Director
)( Emergency and Remedial Response Division
0
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F-A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MID-HUDSON RIVER
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
DECEMBER 1999
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Book 1 of 1
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Gradient Corporation
-------
Table of Contents
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F-A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MID-HUDSON RIVER
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Book 1 of 1
ACRONYMS
Executive Summary .ES-1
1 Overview of Mid-Hudson River Risk Assessment 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Site Background 1
1.3 General Risk Assessment Process 2
1.4 Discussion of 1991 Phase 1 Risk Assessment 2
1.5 Objectives of Phase 2 Risk Assessment 3
2 Exposure Assessment 5
2.1 Exposure Pathways 5
2.1.1 Potential Exposure Media 5
2.1.2 Potential Receptors 6
2.1.3 Potential Exposure Routes 6
2.2 Quantification of Exposure 6
2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations 7
2.3.1 PCB Concentration in Fish 7
2.3.2 PCB Concentration in Sediment 11
2.3.3 PCB Concentration in River Water 11
2.4 Chemical Intake Algorithms 12
2.4.1 Ingestion of Fish 12
2.4.2 Ingestion of Sediment 15
2.4.3 Dermal Contact with Sediment 17
2.4.4 Dermal Contact with River Water 19
2.4.5 Ingestion of River Water 20
3 Toxicity Assessment 23
3.1 Non-cancer Toxicity Values 23
3.2 PCB Cancer Toxicity 23
4 Risk Characterization 25
4.1 Non-cancer Hazard Indices 25
4.2 Cancer Risks 26
References 29
i TAMSy'Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F-A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MID-HUDSON RIVER
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
Book 1 of 1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Selection Of Exposure Pathways Phase 2 Risk Assessment, Mid-Hudson
River
Table 2-2 Occurrence, Distribution And Selection Of Chemicals Of Potential Concern,
Mid-Hudson River - Fish
Table 2-3 Occurrence, Distribution And Selection Of Chemicals Of Potential Concern,
Mid-Hudson River - Sediment
Table 2-4 Occurrence, Distribution And Selection Of Chemicals Of Potential Concern,
Mid-Hudson River - River Water
Table 2-5 Summary of 1991 New York Angler Survey, Fish Consumption by Species
Reported
Table 2-6 Mid-Hudson River Perch and Bass
Table 2-7 Species-Group Intake Percentages
Table 2-8 Medium-Specific Modeled EPC Summary, Mid-Hudson River Fish
Table 2-9 Medium-Specific Modeled EPC Summary, Mid-Hudson River Sediment
Table 2-10 Medium-Specific Modeled EPC Summary, Mid-Hudson River Water
Table 2-11 County-to-County In-Migration Data for Albany County, NY
Table 2-12 County-to-County In-Migration Data for Columbia County, NY
Table 2-13 County-to-County In-Migration Data for Dutchess County, NY
Table 2-14 County-to-County In-Migration Data for Greene County, NY
Table 2-15 County-to-County In-Migration Data for Rensselaer County, NY
Table 2-16 County-to-County In-Migration Data for Ulster County, NY
Table 2-17 County-to-County In-Migration Data for the Mid-Hudson River Region
Table 2-18 Computation of 1-Year Move Probabilities for the Mid-Hudson Region
Table 2-19 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Fish - Adult
Angler
Table 2-20 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Sediment -
Adult Recreator
Table 2-21 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Sediment -
Adolescent Recreator
Table 2-22 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Sediment -
Child Recreator
Table 2-23 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Water - Adult
Recreator
TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F-A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MID-HUDSON RIVER
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
LIST OF TABLES
Book 1 of 1
Table 2-24
Table 2-25
Table 2-26
Table 2-27
Table 2-28
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table4-l-RME
Table4-l-CT
Table 4-2-RME
Table 4-2-CT
Table 4-3-RME
Table 4-3-CT
Table 4-4-RME
Table 4-4-CT
Table 4-5-RME
Table 4-5-CT
Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Water -
Adolescent Recreator
Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Water - Child
Recreator
Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Water - Adult
Resident
Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Water -
Adolescent Resident
Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Mid-Hudson River Water - Child
Resident
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data - Oral/Dermal, Mid-Hudson River
Cancer Toxicity Data - Oral/Dermal, Mid-Hudson River
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Fish - Adult Angler
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Fish - Adult Angler
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Sediment - Adult Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Sediment - Adult Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Sediment - Adolescent Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Sediment - Adolescent Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Sediment - Child Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Sediment - Child Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Water - Adult Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Adult Recreator
in
TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F-A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MID-HUDSON RIVER
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
LIST OF TABLES
Book 1 of 1
Table 4-6-RME Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Water - Adolescent Recreator
Table 4-6-CT Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Adolescent Recreator
Table 4-7-RME Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Water - Child Recreator
Table 4-7-CT Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Child Recreator
Table 4-8-RME Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Water - Adult Resident
Table 4-8-CT Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Adult Resident
Table 4-9-RME Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Water - Adolescent Resident
Table 4-9-CT Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Adolescent Resident
Table4-10-RME Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-
Hudson River Water - Child Resident
Table 4-10-CT Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Child Resident
Table 4-11-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Fish - Adult Angler
Table 4-11-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Fish - Adult Angler
Table 4-12-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Sediment - Adult Recreator
Table 4-12-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Sediment - Adult Recreator
Table4-13-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Sediment - Adolescent Recreator
Table4-13-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Sediment - Adolescent Recreator
Table 4-14-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Sediment - Child Recreator
iv TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F-A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MID-HUDSON RIVER
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
LIST OF TABLES
Book 1 of 1
Table4-14-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Sediment - Child Recreator
Table4-15-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Adult Recreator
Table4-15-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Water - Adult Recreator
Table4-16-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Adolescent Recreator
Table 4-16-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Water - Adolescent Recreator
Table4-17-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Child Recreator
Table 4-17-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Water - Child Recreator
Table 4-18-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Adult Resident
Table 4-18-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Water - Adult Resident
Table4-19-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
River Water - Adolescent Resident
Table4-19-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Water - Adolescent Resident
Table 4-20-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Mid-Hudson
RiVer Water - Child Resident
Table 4-20-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Mid-Hudson River
Water - Child Resident
Table 4-21-RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adult Angler
Table 4-21-CT Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adult Angler
Table 4-22-RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adult Recreator
Table 4-22-CT Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adult Recreator
TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F-A HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR THE MID-HUDSON RIVER
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
LIST OF TABLES
Book 1 of 1
Table 4-23-RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adolescent Recreator
Table 4-23-CT Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adolescent Recreator
Table 4-24-RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Child Recreator
Table 4-24-CT Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Child Recreator
Table 4-25-RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adult Resident
Table 4-25-CT Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adult Resident
Table 4-26-RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adolescent Resident
Table 4-26-CT Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Adolescent Resident
Table 4-27-RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Child Resident
Table 4-27-CT Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency
Exposure Mid-Hudson River - Child Resident
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Average PCB Concentration in Brown Bullhead
Figure 2-2 Average PCB Concentration in Yellow Perch
Figure 2-3 Average PCB Concentration in Largemouth Bass
Figure 2-4 Average PCB Concentration in Striped Bass
Figure 2-5 Average PCB Concentration in White Perch
Figure 2-6 Average PCB Concentration by Species (averaged over location)
Figure 2-7 Average Total PCB Concentration in Sediment
Figure 2-8 Average Total PCB Concentration in River Water
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1 Mid-Hudson River Study Area
vi TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
ACRONYMS
ATSDR
GDI
CERCLA
CSF
EPC
GE
HI
HHRA
HHRASOW
HQ
NCP
NPL
NYSDEC
NYSDOH
PCB
RfD
RI
RI/FS
ROD
RM
RI/FS
SARA
TCDD
TEF
TSCA
UCL
USEPA
Agency for Toxic Substances and Desease Registry
Chronic Daily Intake
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Carcinogenic Slope Factor
Exposure Point Concentration
General Electric
Hazard Index
Human Health Risk Assessment
Human Helath Risk Assessment Scope of Work
Hazard Quotient
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Health
Poly chlorinated Biphenyl
References Dose
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
River Mile
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Toxicity Equivalency Factor
Toxic Substances Control Act
Upper Confidence Limit
United States Environmental Protection Agency
TAMS/Gradient
-------
Executive Summary
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment: Mid-Hudson River
Executive Summary
December 1999
This document presents the baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for the Mid-Hudson
River (Mid-Hudson HHRA), which is a companion volume to the baseline Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Upper Hudson River that was released by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) in August 1999. Together, the two risk assessments comprise the human
health risk assessment for Phase 2 of the Reassessment Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(Reassessment RI/FS) for the Hudson River PCBs site in New York.
The Mid-Hudson HHRA quantitatively evaluates both cancer risks and non-cancer health
hazards from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the Mid-Hudson River, which
extends from the Federal Dam at Troy, New York (River Mile 154) to just south of
Poughkeepsie, New York (River Mile 63). The Mid-Hudson HHRA evaluates both current and
future risks to children, adolescents, and adults in the absence of any remedial action and
institutional controls, such as the fish consumption advisories currently in place. The
Mid-Hudson HHRA uses the most recent USEPA policy and guidance as well as additional site
data and analyses to update USEPA's 1991 risk assessment.
USEPA uses risk assessment as a tool to evaluate the likelihood and degree of chemical
exposure and the possible adverse health effects associated with such exposure. The basic steps
of the Superfund human health risk assessment process are the following: 1) Data Collection and
Analysis, to determine the nature and extent of chemical contamination in environmental media,
such as sediment, water, and fish; 2) Exposure Assessment, which is an identification of possible
exposed populations and an estimation of human chemical intake through exposure routes such
as ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact; 3) Toxicity Assessment, which is an evaluation of
chemical toxicity including cancer and non-cancer health effects from exposure to chemicals; and
4) Risk Characterization, which describes the likelihood and degree of chemical exposure at a
site, the possible adverse health effects associated with such exposure, the quantification of
cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards, and a discussion of the uncertainties associated with
the risk assessment.
The Mid-Hudson HHRA shows that cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards to the
reasonably maximally exposed (RME) individual associated with ingestion of PCBs in fish from
the Mid-Hudson River are above levels of concern. Consistent with USEPA regulations, the risk
managers in the Superfund program evaluate the cancer risks and non-cancer hazards to the RME
individual in the decision-making process. The Mid-Hudson HHRA indicates that fish ingestion
represents the primary pathway for PCB exposure and for potential adverse health effects, and
that cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards from other exposure pathways are significantly
below levels of concern. The results of the Mid-Hudson HHRA will help establish acceptable
ES-1 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
exposure levels for use in developing remedial alternatives for PCB-contaminated sediments in
the Upper Hudson River, which is Phase 3 (Feasibility Study) of the Reassessment RI/FS.
Data Collection and Analysis
USEPA previously released reports on the nature and extent of contamination in the
Hudson River as part of the Reassessment RI/FS (e.g., February 1997 Data Evaluation and
Interpretation Report, July 1998 Low Resolution Sediment Coring Report, August 1998 Database
for the Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS [Release 4.1], and May 1999 Baseline Modeling
Report) and on human health risks for the Upper Hudson River (e.g., August 1999 Volume 2F -
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River). The Ecological Risk Assessment
for Future Risks in the Lower Hudson River (Federal Dam at Troy, New York to the Battery in
New York City), which is being issued by USEPA concurrently with this report, provided the
forecasted concentrations of PCBs in fish, sediments, and river water used to conduct the
Mid-Hudson HHRA.
Exposure Assessment
Adults, adolescents, and children were identified as populations possibly exposed to
PCBs in the Mid-Hudson River due to fishing and recreational activities (e.g., swimming,
wading), as well as from residential ingestion of river water. The exposure pathways identified
in the Mid-Hudson HHRA are ingestion of fish, incidental ingestion of sediments, dermal contact
with sediments and river water, and residential ingestion of river water. For these exposure
pathways, average (central tendency) and RME estimates were calculated using point estimate
analyses, whereby an individual point estimate was selected for each exposure factor used in the
calculations of cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards. The RME is the maximum exposure
that is reasonably expected to occur in the Mid-Hudson River under baseline conditions; the
RME is not a worst-case exposure scenario.
Risks and hazards through inhalation of volatilized PCBs were not assessed in the
Mid-Hudson HHRA because calculated risks for this pathway were shown to be de minimus
(insignificant) in the Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River. Given that
concentrations of PCBs found in the sediment and river water in the Mid-Hudson are lower than
concentrations in the Upper Hudson, the risks from volatilization also would be expected to be
insignificant (and lower) in the Mid-Hudson. Similarly, because the concentrations of PCBs in
the Mid-Hudson River are lower than in the Upper Hudson, USEPA determined that a Monte
Carlo analysis of cancer risks and non-cancer hazards for the fish ingestion pathway was not
warranted for the Mid-Hudson HHRA. An assessment of the exposure and risks from
dioxin-like PCBs was not performed because the findings for the Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Upper Hudson River showed that the risks for dioxin-like PCBs were
comparable to those calculated for total PCBs.
ES-2 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
Ingest ion of Fish
For fish ingestion, both average (central tendency) and RME estimates were developed
for each of the parameters needed to calculate the cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards.
Based on the 1991 New York Angler survey of fish consumption by licensed anglers (Connelly
et al., 1992), the central tendency fish ingestion rate was determined to be approximately six
half-pound meals per year and the RME fish ingestion rate was determined to be 51 half-pound
meals per year.
Both cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards to an adult angler and a child were
calculated. Population mobility data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the six counties
surrounding the Mid-Hudson River (i.e., Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and
Ulster) and fishing duration data from the 1991 New York Angler survey were used to determine
the length of time an angler fishes in the Mid-Hudson River (i.e., exposure duration). The
exposure duration for fish ingestion was 12 years for the central tendency exposure estimate for
cancer and non-cancer and 40 years for cancer (7 years for non-cancer) for the RME estimate.
Standard USEPA default factors were used for angler body weight. Future concentrations of
PCBs in fish were derived from forecasts presented in the Ecological Risk Assessment for Future
Risks in the Lower Hudson River, which were then grouped by fish species and averaged over
species for the entire Mid-Hudson River. PCB losses during cooking were assumed to be 20%
for the central tendency exposure estimate and 0% (no loss) for the RME estimate, based on
studies reported in the scientific literature.
Other Exposure Pathways
For the direct exposure scenarios for river water and sediment, the average (central
tendency) exposure estimates for adults and young children (aged 1-6 years) were assumed to be
one day every other week for the 13 weeks of summer (7 days/year) and for the RME were
assumed to be one day per week for the 13 weeks of summer (13 days/year). Adolescents (aged
7-18 years) were assumed to have about three times more frequent exposure, with a central
tendency exposure estimate of 20 days/year and an RME estimate of 39 days/year. The risks and
hazards due to ingestion of river water for drinking water purposes were evaluated for residents
living adjacent to the Mid-Hudson River. The concentrations of PCBs in water and sediment
were derived from the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment for Future Risks in the Lower
Hudson River. Standard USEPA default factors were used for certain exposure parameters (e.g.,
body weight) in the cancer risk and non-cancer hazard calculations for these pathways.
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment is an evaluation of the chronic (7 years or more) adverse health
effects from exposure to PCBs (USEPA, 1989b). In the federal Superfund program, two types of
adverse health effects are evaluated: 1) the incremental risk of developing cancer due to exposure
to chemicals and 2) the hazards associated with non-cancer health effects, which for PCBs
ES-3 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
include reproductive impairment, developmental disorders, disruption of specific organ
functions, and learning problems. The cancer risk is expressed as a probability and is based on
the cancer potency of the chemical, known as a cancer slope factor, or CSF. The non-cancer
hazard is expressed as the ratio of the chemical intake (dose) to a Reference Dose, or RfD. The
chronic RfD represents an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude or
greater) of a daily exposure level for the human population, including sensitive populations (e.g.,
children), that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
Chemical exposures exceeding the RfD do not predict specific diseases. USEPA's Integrated
Risk Information System, known as IRIS, provides the primary database of chemical-specific
toxicity information used in Superfund risk assessments. The most current CSFs and RfDs for
PCBs were used in calculating cancer risks and non-cancer hazards in the Mid-Hudson HHRA.
PCBs are a group of synthetic organic chemicals consisting of 209 individual chlorinated
biphenyls called congeners. Some PCB congeners are considered to be structurally similar to
dioxin and are called dioxin-like PCBs. USEPA has classified PCBs as probable human
carcinogens, based on a number of studies in laboratory animals showing liver tumors. Human
carcinogenicity data for PCB mixtures are limited but suggestive. USEPA (1996) described three
published studies that analyzed deaths from cancer in PCB capacitor manufacturing plants
(Bertazzi et ai, 1987; Brown, 1987; and Sinks et al., 1992). Recently, Kimbrough et al (1999)
published the results of an epidemiological study of mortality in workers from two General
Electric Company capacitor manufacturing plants in New York State. In September 1999, two
Letters to the Editor regarding the Kimbrough et al. (1999) study and a response from
Kimbrough et al. were published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Due to the limitations of the Kimbrough et al. (1999) study identified by USEPA and others,
USEPA expects that the findings of the Kimbrough et al. (1999) study will not lead to any
change in its CSFs for PCBs, which were last reassessed by USEPA in 1996. The toxicity of
PCBs is discussed in detail in the Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River.
Risk Characterization
For known or suspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels for Superfund are
generally concentration levels that represent an incremental upper-bound lifetime cancer risk to
an RME individual of 10 to 10" (USEPA, 1990). Ingestion of fish to an RME individual
results in the highest cancer risks of approximately 4 x 10"4 (4 additional cancers in a population
of ten thousand). Ingestion of fish for the average (central tendency) scenario results in an
incremental upper-bound lifetime cancer risk to approximately 9x10" (9 additional cancers in a
population of one million). If it is assumed that a child meal portion is approximately 1/3 of an
adult portion, then the RME child risk for ingestion of fish is approximately 1 x 10"4. Estimated
cancer risks for all other exposure pathways are below 10"6 (Le-> less than one in a million) The
cancer risks are based on uniform exposure throughout the Mid-Hudson River (i.e., that the
exposure occurs throughout the Mid-Hudson study area).
ES-4 JAMS/'Gradient Corporation
-------
Cancer Risk Summary
Pathway
Ingestion of Fish:
Adult
Child
Recreational Exposure to
Sediment*
Recreational Dermal
Exposure to Water*
Consumption of Drinking
Water*
Central Tendency Risk
9 xlO'6 (9 in 1,000,000)
3 x 10 '6 (6 in 1,000,000)
2 x 10'8 (2 in 100,000,000)
9 xlO'9 (9 in 1,000,000,000)
2x 10'8(2in 100,000,000)
RME Risk
4 x 1Q-4 (4 in 10,000)
Ix Iff* (I in 10,000)
2 x 10'7 (2 in 10,000,000)
6 x 10'8 (6 in 100,000,000)
lx!0'7(l in 10,000,000)
Total risk for child (aged 1-6), adolescent (aged 7-18), and adult (over 18).
The evaluation of non-cancer health effects involved comparing the average daily
exposure levels (dose) to determine whether the estimated exposures exceed the RfD. The ratio
of the site-specific calculated dose to the RfD for each exposure pathway is summed to calculate
the Hazard Index (HI) for the exposed individual. An HI of one (1) is the reference level
established by USEPA above which concerns about non-cancer health effects must be evaluated.
Ingestion of fish by the RME individual results in the highest value for non-cancer health
hazards (HI = 30). Ingestion of fish by the average (central tendency) individual results in an HI
of 3. Note that the average daily dose decreases as the exposure duration increases, so the
average concentration over a 7-year exposure period used as the RME for non-cancer is greater
than the average concentration over the 40-year exposure period used as the RME for the cancer
assessment. Even if the average concentration of PCBs in fish over 40 years rather than the
average concentration over 7 years is used to evaluate non-cancer health hazards (i.e., 0.8 ppm
PCBs instead of 1.3 ppm PCBs), the HI would be 18. If it is assumed that a child meal portion is
approximately 1/3 of an adult portion, then the RME child HI for ingestion of fish is 10. Total
His for the recreational exposure pathways are all significantly less than one. The calculated His
are based on uniform exposure throughout the Mid-Hudson River (i.e., that the exposure occurs
throughout the Mid-Hudson study area).
Uncertainties are inherent in the risk assessment process and may exist in PCB
concentrations in environmental media, derivation of toxicity values, and estimating potential
exposures. The uncertainties in risk characterization for the Mid-Hudson HHRA are expected to
be similar to those found in the Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River.
ES-5
TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
Non-Cancer Hazard Summar
Pathway
Ingestion of Fish:
Adult
Child
lecreational Exposure to
Sediment*
lecreational Dermal
ixposure to Water*
Consumption of Drinking
Water*
Central Tendency
Non-Cancer Hazard Index
3
1
0.002
0.005
0.01
r
RME Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
30
10
0.004
0.007
0.02
*Higher of value for child or adolescent, which are both higher than adult for these
pathways.
Major Findings of the Mid-Hudson HHRA
The Mid-Hudson HHRA evaluated both cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards to
children, adolescents and adults posed by PCBs in the Mid-Hudson River. USEPA has classified
PCBs as probable human carcinogens and known animal carcinogens. Other long-term adverse
health effects of PCBs observed in laboratory animals include a reduced ability to fight
infections, low birth weights, and learning problems. The major findings of the report are:
Eating fish is the primary pathway for humans to be exposed to PCBs from the
Mid-Hudson.
Under the RME scenario for eating fish, the calculated risk is approximately four
additional cases of cancer for every 10,000 people exposed. This excess cancer risk is
more than 100 times higher than USEPA's goal of protection and within the upper
bound of the cancer risk range generally allowed under the federal Superfund law.
For non-cancer health effects, the RME scenario for eating fish from the Mid-Hudson
results in a level of exposure to PCBs that is 30 times higher than USEPA's reference
level (Hazard Index) of one.
Under baseline conditions, the RME cancer risks and non-cancer hazards for eating
fish would be above USEPA's generally acceptable levels for a 40-year exposure
period beginning in 1999.
ES-6
TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
For the fish consumption pathway, central tendency cancer risks lie within the risk
range of 10"6 to 10"4, and non-cancer hazards under central tendency assumptions fall
slightly above the USEPA's reference level (Hazard Index) of one.
Risks from being exposed to PCBs in the Mid-Hudson River through skin contact
with contaminated sediments and river water, residential ingestion of river water for
drinking water, incidental ingestion of sediments, and inhalation of PCBs in air are
significantly below USEPA's levels of concern for cancer and non-cancer health
effects.
ES-7 TA.MS/Gradient Corporation
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
ES-8 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
Chapter 1
-------
1 Overview of Mid-Hudson River Risk Assessment
1.1 Introduction
This report presents the baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the Mid-
Hudson River as required under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (USEPA, 1990). This report serves as a companion report to the Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River (Upper Hudson HHRA) that was issued by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in August 1999. This assessment
quantifies both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects from exposure to
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the Mid-Hudson River, following USEPA risk assessment
policies and guidance. Both current and future risks to children, adolescents, and adults were
evaluated based on the assumption of no remediation or institutional controls such as in the
absence of fish consumption advisories (USEPA, 1990).
The risk assessment methodology for the Mid-Hudson River parallels the method adopted
for the Upper Hudson HHRA. Therefore, much of the background and details of the risk
assessment process is contained in the Upper Hudson HHRA, and the reader should refer to that
report to gain a better understanding of the overall process. In addition, the 1-year move
probabilities for the Mid-Hudson region is virtually the same (less than 1 % difference for any age
group) as that for the Upper Hudson region. Given the fact that residence duration's for the Mid-
Hudson region age categories are essentially the same as those for the Upper Hudson region, the
angling and residence duration distribution derived for the Upper Hudson HHRA were applied in
the Mid-Hudson HHRA as well. An assessment of the exposure and risks from dioxin-like PCBs
was not performed because the findings for the Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper
Hudson River showed that the risks for dioxin-like PCBs were comparable to those calculated for
total PCBs.
1.2 Site Background
The Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site extends from Hudson Falls, NY to the Battery in
New York City. The site covers approximately 200 river miles. The most contaminated portion
of the Hudson River is between Hudson Falls, NY and the Federal Dam at Troy, NY (Upper
Hudson River), and was addressed in the August 1999 Upper Hudson HHRA Report (USEPA,
1999g). This HHRA addresses the Mid-Hudson River (Plate 1), which is the area between the
Federal Dam in Troy, NY (River Mile 154) and the salt water front (approximately River Mile
63) just south of Poughkeepsie, NY.
From 1957 through 1975, it is estimated that between 209,000 and 1,300,000 pounds of
PCBs were discharged to the Upper Hudson River from two General Electric capacitor
manufacturing facilities. The manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs
within the U.S. was restricted in 1977 under provisions of the Toxic Substances and Control Act
(USEPA, 1978). In 1973, the Fort Edward Dam was removed, which facilitated the downstream
TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
movement of PCB-contaminated sediments (USEPA, 199la). In 1984, USEPA issued a Record
of Decision (ROD) for the site (USEPA, 1984). The ROD specified: 1) an interim No Action
decision concerning PCBs in Upper Hudson River sediments; 2) in-place capping, containment
and monitoring of remnant deposit sediments; and 3) a treatability study to evaluate the
effectiveness of removing PCBs from the Hudson River water (USEPA, 1984). This report is
part of the reassessment of the No Action decision begun by USEPA Region 2 in December
1990.
Because of potential human health risks due to consumption of PCB-contaminated fish,
New York State has made the following general recommendations: 1) eat no more than one meal
(1/2 pound) per week of fish from the Hudson River estuary; 2) women of childbearing age,
infants, and children under the age of 15 should not eat any fish species from the Hudson River;
and 3) follow trimming and cooking advice (NYSDOH, 1999a). Additional health advisories
made specifically for the Hudson River include: 1) Hudson Falls to Troy Dam (Upper Hudson
River) - eat no species; 2) Troy Dam south to bridge at Catskill (Mid-Hudson River) eat no
species, except American shad (one meal/week), and alewife, blueback herring, rock bass, and
yellow perch (one meal/month); 3) Bridge at Catskill south to and including the Upper Bay of
New York Harbor (Mid- and Lower Hudson River) eat American eel, bluefish, striped bass,
Atlantic needlefish, rainbow smelt, white perch, carp, goldfish, white catfish, largemouth bass,
smallmouth bass, walleye, white catfish, and white perch only one meal/month, and crabs no
more than six per week (NYSDOH, 1999a). In addition, health advisories are also listed for
turtles and waterfowl statewide due to PCBs (NYSDOH, 1999a).
1.3 General Risk Assessment Process
The goal of the Superfund human health evaluation process is to provide a framework for
developing the risk information necessary to assist in the determination of possible remedial
actions at a site. The components involved in this process include: 1) Data Collection and
Analysis, 2) Exposure Assessment, 3) Toxicity Assessment, and 4) Risk Characterization, as
described more fully in the Upper Hudson HHRA Report (USEPA, 1999g).
1.4 Discussion of 1991 Phase 1 Risk Assessment
In 1991, USEPA issued the Phase 1 Report - Interim Characterization and Evaluation for
the Hudson River PCB Reassessment Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, including a
quantitative risk assessment for the Upper Hudson River and a qualitative risk assessment for the
Lower Hudson River (USEPA, 1991a). The risks from ingestion of fish in the Lower Hudson
River were qualitatively evaluated, based on the findings in the Upper Hudson River. The
assessment concluded that the risks from ingestion of fish would be similar to those found in the
Upper Hudson River. The PCB concentrations in fish, water, and sediment in the Lower Hudson
were based on the Thomann PCB bioaccumulation model (USEPA, 199la).
TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
1.5 Objectives of Phase 2 Risk Assessment
In December 1990, USEPA Region 2 began a reassessment of the No-Action decision for
the Upper Hudson River sediments based on, among other things, a request by New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and requirements of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to conduct reviews every five years of remedial
decisions for sites where contamination remains on site. The reassessment consists of three
phases: interim characterization and evaluation; further site characterization and analysis; and a
Feasibility Study. As part of the Phase 2 Reassessment, this report presents the Human Health
Risk Assessment for the Mid-Hudson River.
The objective of the Phase 2 risk assessment is to quantitatively evaluate current and
potential cancer risks and non-cancer hazards from river water, sediment, and fish in the Mid-
Hudson River. This Mid-Hudson HHRA provides estimates of cancer risks and non-cancer
hazards both to the RME individual, or high-end risk (>90th to 99th percentiles), and to the
average exposed individual, or central tendency risk (50th percentile). Since the Phase 1 Risk
Assessment, USEPA has used fate, transport, and bioaccumulation models in order to forecast
PCB concentration trends in environmental media in the Mid-Hudson River region (USEPA,
1999d and USEPA, 2000). The results from these model forecasts were incorporated into this
Phase 2 risk assessment. The Mid-Hudson HHRA is limited to evaluating current and potential
health risks associated with PCBs, because the HHRA is being conducted as part of USEPA's
Reassessment of its 1984 No-Action decision for the PCB-contaminated sediments in the Upper
Hudson River.
TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
TAMS/Grnrfie/it Corporation
-------
Chapter 2
-------
2 Exposure Assessment
The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the magnitude of human exposure
to PCBs in the study area. USEPA guidance and policy call for an evaluation of the central
estimate (CT) of risks and an estimate of risk for the reasonably maximum exposed (RME)
individual. Consistant with USEPA regulations, the risk managers in the Superfund program
evaluate the risk and hazards to the RME individual in the decision-making process. The same
approach and terminology that were used in the Upper Hudson HHRA are being adopted here for
the Mid-Hudson HHRA, with the exception that a Monte Carlo analysis was not performed for
the fish ingestion pathway for the Mid-Hudson HHRA. Because the Mid-Hudson HHRA
methods parallel those in the Upper Hudson HHRA, the reader should refer to the Upper Hudson
HHRA (USEPA, 1999g) for additional details.
2.1 Exposure Pathways
For exposure and potential risks to occur, a complete exposure pathway must exist.
Those pathways considered in the Upper Hudson HHRA were also considered for the Mid-
Hudson HHRA. In general, during boating, fishing, and other recreational activities, members of
the Mid-Hudson River study area population may be exposed to PCBs if they consume fish
caught from the river, or as they come into contact with river water and river sediments. In
addition, the Mid-Hudson River is a drinking water source and exposure may occur from this
pathway. Potential exposure pathways considered in this HHRA are summarized in Table 2-1,
identifying those pathways which are "complete" and warranted exposure and risk calculations in
this study. The following sections briefly summarize the site-specific elements that make up the
complete exposure pathways that are evaluated in the Mid-Hudson HHRA, while the Upper
Hudson HHRA discusses the exposure pathways in more detail.
2.1.1 Potential Exposure Media
Humans may be exposed to PCBs from the site either through direct ingestion or contact
with media containing PCBs. PCBs in the Hudson River have been detected, monitored and
modeled extensively. The exposure media that are considered the most potentially significant
source of PCB exposure at the site include fish, sediment, and river water. The relative
importance of each of these potential exposure media, and those which may or may not pose a
significant health risk, is determined based on the results of the quantitative exposure and risk
analysis. As discussed in the Upper Hudson HHRA, PCBs in air (volatilizing from river water)
were found to pose de minimus (i.e., insignificant) risk (10~6 or less) in the Upper Hudson region.
For the Mid-Hudson River, the total PCB concentration in river water is approximately four
times lower than the Upper Hudson such that airborne PCBs from the river would exhibit a lower
concentration (and risk) than determined for the Upper Hudson HHRA. Therefore, air is not
quantitatively evaluated in the Mid-Hudson HHRA.
JAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
2.1.2 Potential Receptors
The population of concern in the evaluation of the Mid-Hudson River includes the
inhabitants of the towns, cities, and rural areas surrounding the river who may fish or engage in
activities that will bring them into contact with the river. The six counties include: Albany,
Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and Ulster. From this population, anglers, recreators,
and residents were defined as "receptor" groups for the purpose of quantifying the potential PCB
exposures within the population as a whole. A detailed description of these receptors can be
found in the Upper Hudson HHRA.
2.1.3 Potential Exposure Routes
An exposure route is the means, or mechanism, of contact with an exposure medium.
Similar to the Upper Hudson River area, fish ingestion (i.e., dietary intake) is the potential
exposure route for anglers evaluated in this risk assessment. Routes of exposure under a
recreational use scenario include: absorption of PCBs via dermal contact with sediments,
incidental ingestion of PCBs contained in sediments during subsequent hand to mouth contact,
and dermal contact with river water. Consumption of river water as a residential source of
drinking water is included in the Mid-Hudson HHRA to address public concerns although it is
recognized that the current and predicted PCB concentrations are well below the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect public
drinking water supplies.
As summarized in Table 2-1, several exposure routes are not quantitatively evaluated in
this HHRA. Risks from the inhalation of air (due to PCBs volatilizing from river water) and
other potable water uses such as showering were not evaluated due to low PCB concentrations
present in the Mid-Hudson River and the chemical/physical properties of PCBs. In addition,
other potential pathways, such as dietary intake of home-grown crops, consumption of local beef
or dairy products, or consumption of snapping turtles, crabs and wild waterfowl are unlikely to
be significant pathways for PCB intake, for the reasons discussed in the Upper Hudson HHRA.
2.2 Quantification of Exposure
This section of the risk assessment summarizes the basic approach for calculating human
intake levels resulting from exposures to PCBs. A more detailed explanation of the
quantification of exposure can be found in the Upper Hudson HHRA.
The primary source for the exposure algorithms used in the risk assessment is USEPA's
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part A (RAGS) (USEPA, 1989b). The generalized
equation for calculating chemical intakes is:
CxCRxEFxEDxCF
BWxAT
TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
where:
I = Intake - the amount of chemical at the exchange boundary (mg/kg - day)
C = Exposure Point Concentration - the chemical concentration contacted over
the exposure period at the exposure point (e.g., mg/kg-fish)
CR = Contact Rate - the amount of affected medium contacted per unit time or
event (e.g., fish ingestion rate in g/day)
EF = Exposure frequency - describes how often exposure occurs (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration - describes how long exposure occurs (year)
CF = Con version factor - (kg/g)
BW = Body weight - the average body weight over the exposure period (kg)
AT = Averaging time - period over which exposure is averaged for non-
carcinogenic effects (i.e., ED x 365 days/year) and 70 year lifetime for
carcinogenic effects (i.e., 70 years X 365 days/year).
Exposure parameters (e.g., contact rate, exposure frequency, exposure duration, body
weight) describe the exposure of a receptor for a given exposure scenario (mg/kg-day). These
values are the input parameters for the exposure algorithms used to estimate chemical intake.
The general equation above is slightly modified for each pathway, and the specific exposure
parameters for each pathway are summarized and discussed in detail in Section 2.4.
2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations
The exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for PCBs in fish, water, and sediment are
based upon modeled projections of future concentrations in each medium (although the models
are based upon a large monitoring record) (USEPA, 1999h). As a result, the typical approach
adopted in Superfund risk assessments of calculating an upper confidence limit on a mean
concentration (i.e., 95% UCLM), no longer strictly applies, as discussed more fully in the Upper
Hudson HHRA. In addition, as was discussed in the Upper Hudson HHRA, no screening of
Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) was performed for this assessment because the
Mid-Hudson HHRA is being conducted as part of USEPA's Reassessment of its 1984 No Action
decision for the PCB-contaminated sediments in the Hudson River. Thus, the USEPA RAGS
Part D format (Tables 2-2 through 2-4) which, for a typical risk assessment, would include
information necessary to determine COPCs, are not needed and are included in the Mid-Hudson
HHRA only for consistency.
2.3.1 PCB Concentration in Fish
Because the Mid-Hudson HHRA examines current and future cancer health risks and
non-cancer hazards, and because the concentration of PCBs in fish changes over time and
TAMS/Grflrf/'ent Corporation
-------
location, the EPC for PCBs in fish necessarily relies upon model predictions. Three factors have
an influence on the exposure point concentration in fish:
1. The concentration of PCBs for any particular fish species varies for a particular
year, but overall it declines over time.
2. The concentration of PCBs within the same fish species varies with location in the
Hudson River, with higher concentrations upstream compared to downstream.
3. The concentration of PCBs varies among different fish species.
Thus, even though fish are considered a single exposure medium for the Mid-Hudson HHRA,
each of the above factors will influence the calculation of a single exposure point concentration.
Summary of Modeled PCB Concentration Results
The 1999 baseline Ecological Risk Assessment for Future Risks in the Lower Hudson
River (USEPA, 1999h) presents a detailed discussion of the PCB bioaccumulation and transport
and fate models that were used to predict future trends of PCB concentrations in fish. For this
Mid-Hudson HHRA, estimated EPCs for fish were derived from forecasts using USEPA's
bioaccumulation model(FISHRAND) and the Farley et a/.(1999) fate and bioaccumulation model
as presented in USEPA (1999h). The Farley et al. (1999) model forecasts were used for white
perch (ages 1-7) because the model accounts for their migratory behavior. The Farley et
al. (1999) model was not used to determine PCB concentrations in striped bass because it does
not forecast PCB concentrations in striped bass in the Mid-Hudson HHRA study area. The
FISHRAND model results were used for the brown bullhead, largemouth bass, and yellow perch.
Because striped bass was not specifically modeled in the Mid-Hudson region, the FISHRAND
modeled largemouth bass values, scaled by the average ratio of PCB concentration in striped bass
over largemouth bass in the NYSDEC monitoring data, were used to estimate future PCB
concentrations in striped bass in the Mid-Hudson River (USEPA, 1999h). The reader is referred
to USEPA (1999h) for further information on the bioaccumulation and fate and transport models
used to forecast concentrations of PCBs in sediment, water column, and fish in the Mid-Hudson.
Overall, forecasts of PCBs in fish were available for a total of seven fish species: brown
bullhead, largemouth bass, striped bass, white perch, yellow perch, spottail shiner, and
pumpkinseed. Two of these modeled species (spottail shiner and pumpkinseed) were not
included in the Mid-Hudson HHRA because they are small fish and are typically not consumed
by humans. However, these small fish were modeled as one component of the fish food web that
contributes to PCB accumulation higher up in the food chain (i.e., larger fish that are consumed
by humans) (USEPA, 1999H).
Model forecasts of total PCB concentration in each species were based on PCB congeners
with three or more chlorine molecules, i.e., Tri+ PCB concentrations (USEPA, 1999d). For the
larger fish species modeled (i.e., brown bullhead, largemouth bass, striped bass, white perch, and
8 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
yellow perch), the model provides estimates of PCB concentration in fish fillets, otherwise the
model results are for whole fish for the smaller species (i.e., spottail shiner and pumpkinseed).
The fillet represents the portion of the fish most commonly consumed by humans.
Modeled predictions of future PCB concentrations in fish from the FISHRAND model
are presented at three locations along the Mid-Hudson River: River Mile 152 (corresponding to
River Miles 153.5 - 123.5); River Mile 113 (corresponding to River Miles 123.5 - 93.5); and
River Mile 90 (corresponding to River Miles 93.5 - 63.5) (USEPA, 1999h). These three
locations correspond to locations along the river where fish have been monitored by NYSDEC.
Modeled predictions from the Farley et al. (1999) model are presented as an overall average by
food web region. Food web region 1 model results (River Miles 153.5 - 73.5) were used for the
Mid-Hudson HHRA (Plate 1). In general, the concentrations for all fish species decrease with
River Mile and time. PCB concentrations in fish were modeled from 1999 to 2039, which covers
present and future exposure to PCBs in fish. Figures 2-1 through 2-5 displays the modeled mean
concentration trend over time by location for each of the five modeled species considered in the
Mid-Hudson HHRA.
Concentration Averaged Over Locations
With the exception of some limited information in 1996 (NYSDOH, 1999b) and the 1991
- 1992 Hudson Angler survey (Barclay, 1993), there is insufficient information to quantify
fishing preference or frequency at specific locations within the Mid-Hudson River.
Consequently, projected PCB concentrations in fish were averaged over the Mid-Hudson River
region. This averaging essentially presumes a uniform likelihood of fishing at any location
within the Mid-Hudson River study area.
The PCB concentrations, averaged over location, for each of the modeled species are
summarized in Figure 2-6. Overall, modeled PCB concentrations for striped bass are the highest,
ranging from approximately 3 mg/kg to slightly less than 1 mg/kg, while the modeled PCB
concentrations in yellow perch are the lowest, ranging from approximately 0.5 mg/kg to 0.25
mg/kg.
PCB Concentration Weighted by Species-Consumption Fractions
In order to take into account the fish species that individuals actually eat from the Mid-
Hudson River, species-specific intake patterns, derived from the 1991 New York Angler survey
(Connelly et al., 1992) and (NYSDOH, 1999b) and 1991 - 1992 Hudson River angler survey
(Barclay, 1993), were used to weight the concentration of PCBs in fish. That is, the overall
average PCB concentration in fish that an angler consumes was based on the relative percent of
different fish species consumed, and their respective modeled PCB concentrations.
A complete discussion of the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992) is
found in the Upper Hudson HHRA. A summary of the survey is provided in Table 2-5, and is
briefly described here. A total of nine specific fish species, plus a tenth category denoted "other,"
were included in the Connelly et al. (1992) survey. Of the nine species in the survey, salmon,
9 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
trout, and walleye are not commonly found in the Mid-Hudson River study area (USEPA,
1991a); therefore, these three species, along with the unidentified "other" category, were
excluded when determining species ingestion weights. The six species from the 1991 New York
Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992) that are potentially caught and eaten in the Mid-Hudson
River were grouped such that species for which predicted PCB concentrations are unavailable
were assigned the PCB concentration of a modeled species that fell within the same group.
The 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992) did not distinguish among
species included in the "perch" and "bass" categories. Because white perch, yellow perch,
largemouth bass, and striped bass are being considered separately for the Mid-Hudson region, an
estimated species intake for each was based on adjusting the ingestion rates derived from the
1991 New York angler survey (Connelly et al, 1992) using relative catch frequency of the four
species. Table 2-6 summarizes the break down, which was based on the Mid-Hudson results of
the 1996 (NYSDOH, 1999b) and the 1991 - 1992 Hudson River Angler survey (Barclay, 1993).
The results from the 1996 (NYSDOH, 1999b) and 1991 - 1992 Hudson River Angler survey
(Barclay, 1993) only account for the amount of each species caught, rather than the amount of
each species consumed. Other surveys of the Mid-Hudson River region (Jackson, 1990)
generally support the results of the NYSDOH (1999b) survey. Note that although the Jackson
(1990) study revealed a higher ratio of largemouth bass to striped bass, almost 3/4 of the
respondents were targeting black bass (largemouth and smallmouth bass) for a tournament. As a
result, the NYSDOH (1999b) survey results were deemed more appropriate for use. In the
NYSDOH (1999b) survey, the white perch catch outnumbers yellow perch about 6:1, while the
striped bass catch outnumbers largemouth bass about 3:2.
Table 2-7 summarizes species-group intake percentages by summing the frequency
percentage (Table 2-5) of the individual species in each group. Carp, catfish, and eel were
assigned the same PCB concentration as brown bullhead, in part because like bullhead, they tend
to spend much of their time at the bottom of lakes, rivers, and streams. Modeled PCB
concentrations are available for each of the remaining species, in the remaining groups.
The EPCs for PCBs were derived using the species ingestion fractions shown in Table 2-
7 multiplied by the PCB concentrations in each of the five modeled fish species. Thus, the
weighted EPC is:
5
EPC = E(£PCG,Px xSpeciesIngestionFractionGrmtpX)
x=\
The species-weighted EPC value for fish in the Mid-Hudson River is summarized in
Table 2-8. The EPC for each fish group (EPCGrouPx) is the average over all locations within the
Mid-Hudson River. The central tendency EPC of 1.2 mg/kg PCBs was calculated by averaging
the species-weighted concentration distribution over the 50lh percentile exposure duration
estimate (i.e.,\2 years). The RME exposure EPC of 0.8 mg/kg PCBs was calculated by
averaging the species-weighted concentration distribution over the 95th percentile exposure
duration estimate (i.e.,40 years). The determination of these particular exposure durations is
10 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
described in Section 2.4.1. The RME exposure duration of seven years for non-cancer hazards
was 1.3 mg/kg.
It may be counter-intuitive that the RME EPC is lower than the central tendency EPC.
This is a direct result of the projected decline in PCB concentrations in fish. Due to this decline
over time, the average concentration over the 40-year exposure duration is less than the average
concentration over the 12-year period. However, the total lifetime PCB dose, which combines
concentration, exposure duration, and other intake factors, is greater for the RME point estimate.
2.3.2 PCB Concentration in Sediment
Just as is the case for fish, PCB concentrations in sediment in the Mid-Hudson generally
decrease as a function of river mile and time. As described in USEPA (1999h), PCB
concentrations in surficial (0-5 cm) sediments were modeled over time and distance. The
model predictions for the Mid-Hudson study area were presented for nine different river mile
segments, each approximately 10 miles long, from the Federal Dam at Troy, NY (River Mile
154) to the salt water front (approximately River Mile 63) just south of Poughkeepsie, NY
(Farley et ai, 1999). The forecast total PCB concentrations in sediment are plotted in
Figure 2-7.
The EPCs in sediment were calculated by first averaging the results for Total PCBs in
sediment over the nine model segments (see Figure 2-7), then averaging these values over the
central tendency (i.e., 11 years) and RME (i.e., 41 years) exposure durations. Note the exposure
duration for this pathway is based only on residence duration, as opposed to a RME of 40 years
and a central estimate of 12 years for angling duration, which is a combination of residence
duration and fishing duration. The RME exposure duration is 6 years for children, 12 years for
adolescents, and 23 years for adults (summing to 41 years), and the central tendency exposure
duration is 3 years for children, 3 years for adolescents, and 5 years for adults (summing to 11
years). The mean of the first 1-4, 5-7, and 8-12 years of these segment averages (0.61, 0.61, and
0.59 mg/kg PCBs) was used as the central tendency point estimate EPCs for children,
adolescents, and adults, respectively; the mean of the first 1-7, 8-19, and 20-42 years of these
segment averages (0.58, 0.52, and 0.45 mg/kg PCBs) was used as the RME point estimates for
children, adolescents, and adults, respectively (Table 2-9).
Again, it may be counter-intuitive that the RME EPCs are lower than the central tendency
EPCs. This is a direct result of the declining PCB concentration in sediment over time giving
rise to declining EPC estimates as the duration of exposure increases.
2.3.3 PCB Concentration in River Water
Similar to the sediment results, USEPA (1999h) provides forecast PCB concentrations in
the water column over location and time. The water column model predictions for the Mid-
Hudson River were presented for nine river segments, from the Federal Dam (River Mile 154) to
the salt water front (approximately River Mile 63) just south of Poughkeepsie, NY (Farley et ai,
II 1 MAS/Gradient Corporation
-------
1999). The forecast concentrations of total PCBs in water are plotted in Figure 2-8. Note that the
increase in PCB concentration in water at 2039 is a result of scour uncovering older, more highly
contaminated sediments, as more fully discussed by USEPA (1999h and 2000).
The exposure point concentrations in river water were calculated by first averaging the
total PCB concentrations across the nine model segments, then averaging these values over the
central tendency (i.e., 1 1 years) and RME (i.e., 41 years) exposure durations. The RME exposure
duration is 6 years for children, 12 years for adolescents, and 23 years for adults (summing to 41
years), and the central tendency exposure duration is 3 years for children, 3 years for adolescents,
and 5 years for adults (which sum to 1 1 years). The mean of the first 1-4, 5-7, and 8-12 years of
these segment averages (1.6 x 10"5, 1.6 x 10'5, and 1.5 x 10"5 mg/L PCBs) was used as the central
tendency point estimate EPCs for children, adolescents, and adults, respectively; the mean of the
first 1-7, 8-19, and 20-42 years of these segment averages (1.4 x 10"5, 1.2 x 10"5, and 9.2 x 10"6
mg/L PCBs) was used as the RME point estimates for children, adolescents, and adults,
respectively (Table 2-10).
2.4 Chemical Intake Algorithms
The calculation of PCB intake for each complete exposure pathway for the Mid-Hudson
HHRA follows the same procedures described in greater detail in the Upper Hudson HHRA.
Complete tabulations of the exposure factors for each exposure pathway and receptor scenario
are found in Tables 2-19 through 2-28.
2.4.1 IngestionofFish
The fish ingestion point estimate intake is calculated as:
, CfkhxIRx(l-LOSS)xFSxEFxEDxCF
Intake ^ ' k§ ' BW x AT
where:
Cf1Sh = Concentration of PCBs in fish (mg/kg)
IR = Annualized fish ingestion rate (g/day)
LOSS = Cooking loss (g/g)
FS = Fraction from source (unitless fraction)
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
CF = Conversion Factor (10"3 kg/g)
BW = Body weight (kg)
AT = Averaging time (days)
12 T"AMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
Exposure factor values for the central tendency and RME point estimate calculations for
this pathway are summarized in Table 2-19. Site-specific considerations in selecting these
factors are discussed below.
Fraction from Source (FS). This HHRA examines possible exposure for the population
of anglers who consume self-caught fish from the Mid-Hudson River. Thus, the exposure and
risk analysis assumes the Mid-Hudson River accounts for 100% of the sportfish catch of the
angler (FS=1). As noted below, the fish ingestion rate is based upon angler consumption of
sportfish, such that it excludes fish that may be purchased and then consumed.
Exposure Frequency (EF). Because the fish ingestion rate is based on an annualized
average ingestion over one year, an implicit exposure frequency value of 365 days/year is used in
the intake calculation. This does not imply consumption of fish is 365 days per year.
Exposure Duration (ED). While Superfund risk assessments typically use the length of
time that an individual remains in a single residence as an estimate for exposure duration, such
an estimate is not likely to be a good predictor of angling duration, because an individual may
move into a nearby residence and continue to fish in the same location, or an individual may
chose to stop angling irrespective of the location of their home. Furthermore, given the large size
of the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site, an individual may move from one place of residence
to another, and still remain within the Mid-Hudson area and continue to fish in the Mid-Hudson
River. For the purposes of defining the angler population likely to fish the Mid-Hudson River
most frequently, it was assumed this population would be most likely to constitute residents from
the six counties bordering the Mid-Hudson River (i.e., Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene,
Rensselaer, and Ulster). Furthermore, the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et ai, 1992)
found that the average distance traveled by New York anglers was 34 miles, supporting the
notion that the majority of the angler population for the Mid-Hudson River is likely to reside in
these counties.
Given the above considerations, the exposure duration (angling, or fishing, duration) for
the fish consumption pathway is not based solely upon a typical residence duration. Instead, as
described more fully in the Upper Hudson HHRA, an angler is assumed to continue fishing until
any of the following occur:
the individual stops fishing;
the individual moves out of the area, or dies.
The 1991 New York Angler survey of over 1,000 anglers (Connelly et al., 1992) was used to
estimate fishing duration habits within the population of New York anglers. U.S. Census data
(1990) on county to county mobility provided the source of information to estimate the range of
residence durations within the six counties bordering the Mid-Hudson River (Tables 2-11
through 2-18). As shown in Table 2-18, the 1-year move probabilities for the Mid-Hudson
region are virtually the same (less than 1% difference for any age group) as that for the Upper
Hudson region. Given the fact that residence durations for the Mid-Hudson region age categories
13 TAMS/ Cradien t Corporation
-------
are essentially the same as those for the Upper Hudson region, the angling and residence duration
distribution derived for the Upper Hudson HHRA were applied to the Mid-Hudson HHRA as
well.
The 50th percentile of the fishing duration distribution is 12 years and the 95th percentile
is 40 years for the Mid-Hudson River region. These values were used as the central tendency and
RME point estimates, respectively. A more complete and detailed discussion of the exposure
duration derivation is provided in the Upper Hudson HHRA.
Body Weight (BW). The average adult body weight used in the intake equation was 70 kg,
taken from USEPA (1989a). Note that the adult body weight found in the 1997 Exposure Factors
Handbook (USEPA, 1997c) is 71.8 kg. Because USEPA's derivation of the PCB cancer toxicity
factors was based upon a 70 kg adult in extrapolating the animal data to humans, this assessment
uses the prior 70 kg body weight value for consistency. This difference in the body weight does
not significantly change the calculated cancer risks and non-cancer hazards.
Averaging Time (AT). A 70-year lifetime averaging time of 25,550 days was used for
cancer calculations (70 years x 365 day/year) (USEPA, 1989a). In order to avoid possible
confusion, a 70 year life expectancy from USEPA RAGS (USEPA, 1989b) was used as the
averaging time for cancer, even though the 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997c)
indicates 75 years is the most current estimate. Had a 75 year averaging time been used, this
would effectively decrease the calculated intake of PCBs in fish by 7%.
Non-cancer averaging times are not averaged over a lifetime, but rather over a period of
time equating to a chronic level of exposure. Chronic exposure are those exposures that exceed
the subchronic exposure durations (7 years). Therefore, the averaging time for the non-cancer
hazard assessment was set to 2,555 days (7 years x 365 days/year) for the RME point estimate
and 4,380 days (12 years x 365 days/year) for the central tendency estimate.
Concentration of PCB in Fish (Cf,sh). As described earlier in Section 2.3.1, the PCB
concentration in fish was determined based on the modeled Tri+ PCB concentration results
presented in the USEPA (1999d), weighted by fish consumption patterns (Section 2.3.1). For the
evaluation of cancer risks, the central tendency EPC is 1.2 mg/kg PCBs, which was calculated by
averaging the species-weighted concentration distribution over the 50th percentile exposure
duration estimate (i.e., 12 years). The corresponding RME value is 0.8 mg/kg PCBs, which was
calculated by averaging the species-weighted concentration distribution over the 95* percentile
exposure duration estimate (i.e., 40 years). It should be noted that the apparent contradiction in
EPC, whereby the high-end EPC is lower than the central tendency EPC, is a direct result of the
declining PCB concentration in fish over time. Due to this decline over time, the average
concentration over the 40-year exposure duration is less than the average concentration over the
12-year period.
As noted above, the averaging time for the non-cancer hazard assessment was limited to a
maximum of 7 years for the RME. The 7-year average EPC in fish for the RME is 1.3 mg/kg
14 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
PCBs; the central tendency point estimate EPC, which is based on a 12-year exposure duration, is
1.2 mg/kg PCBs (Table 2-19).
Fish Ingestion Rate (IR). The fish ingestion rate is based upon an estimate of the long
term average consumption of self-caught fish in the angler population, expressed as an
annualized daily average rate in units of grams of fish per day (g/day). It is important to note that
the ingestion offish from all sources (e.g., self-caught plus purchased fish) is necessarily greater
than or equal to the ingestion rate of only self-caught fish. Because the Mid-Hudson HHRA
examines the risk of PCB intake from Hudson River fish only, the focus is only on self-caught
fish.
A full description of the derivation of fish ingestion rates is found in the Upper Hudson
HHRA. The fish ingestion rate for both the Upper and Mid-Hudson is based upon a survey of
over 1,000 New York anglers (Connelly et al., 1992) who catch and consume fish. For the point
estimate exposure and risk calculations, the 50th percentile of the empirical distribution (4.0
g/day) is used as the central tendency point estimate of fish ingestion, and the 90th percentile
(31.9 g/day) is the RME ingestion rate. For a one-half pound serving, these ingestion rates
represent approximately 6 and 51 fish meals per year, respectively.
Cooking Loss (LOSS). Numerous studies have examined the loss of PCBs from fish
during food preparation and cooking. A review of the available literature is discussed in detail in
the Upper Hudson HHRA. Overall, the 12 studies reviewed support the conclusion that cooking
loss may be zero to 74 percent. In addition, several studies reported net gains for PCBs (Moya et
al., 1998, and Armbruster et al., 1987). Despite the rather wide range of cooking loss estimates,
most PCB losses were between 10 and 40 percent. A value of 20% (midpoint of 0% - 40%) was
selected as the central tendency point estimate for cooking loss. For the RME, no cooking loss
(LOSS = 0%) was selected to include the possibility that pan drippings are consumed.
2.4.2 Ingestion of Sediment
For the sediment ingestion pathway, intake is calculated as:
,,,, ,, CsedxIRxFSxEFxEDxCF
where:
CSed = Concentration of PCBs in sediment (mg/kg)
IR = Sediment ingestion rate (mg/day)
FS = Fraction from source (unitless fraction)
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
CF = Conversion factor (10~6kg/mg)
BW = Body weight (kg)
AT = Averaging time (days)
15 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
Exposure factor values for the central tendency and RME point estimate calculations for
this pathway are summarized in Tables 2-20 through 2-22. Site-specific considerations in
selecting these factors are discussed below.
PCB Concentration in Sediment (Csed). As described in Section 2.3.2, the central
tendency point estimates used for PCB concentration in sediment are 0.61, 0.61, and 0.59 mg/kg
for children, adolescents, and adults, respectively. The RME point estimates are 0.58, 0.52, and
0.45 mg/kg for children, adolescents, and adults, respectively (see Table 2-9).
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IR). This factor provides an estimate of incidental intake of
sediment that may occur as a result of hand-to-mouth activity. In the absence of site-specific
ingestion rates, USEPA recommended values for daily soil ingestion were used for this factor.
The incidental ingestion rate for children is 100 mg/day, and for adults and adolescents the value
is 50 mg/day. These values, reported as median estimates of soil intake, are the recommendations
found in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) (USEPA, 1989b) and the Exposure
Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997c). The incidental soil (sediment) ingestion rate provides an
estimate of the ingestion that may occur integrated over a variety of activities, including ingestion
of indoor dust. Thus, these median ingestion rates are likely high-end estimates of incidental
sediment ingestion while participating in activities along the Mid-Hudson River, because other
sources (such as at home) also account for soil/sediment ingestion.
Exposure Frequency (EF). Exposure to river sediments is most likely to occur during
recreational activities. However, there are no site-specific data to provide an indication of the
likely frequency of recreational activities along the Mid-Hudson River, nor are there general
population studies that provide usable information. Under the assumption that recreational
activities are likely to be most frequent during the summer months, an estimate of one day per
week during the 13 weeks of summer is considered a reasonable estimate of the RME value for
adults (i.e., 13 days per year). This same frequency was adopted for children (aged 1-6),
assuming they would most likely be accompanied by an adult. For adolescents (aged 7-18), who
are not as likely to be accompanied by an adult, it was assumed their recreational frequency was
three-fold greater than the adult/child frequency (i.e., 39 days per year). The RME values were
reduced by 50% for the central tendency exposure calculations.
Exposure Duration (ED). The RME exposure duration for sediment ingestion in
recreational scenarios is 41 years, and the central tendency value is 11 years, which correspond to
the 95lh and 50th percentiles, respectively, of the residence duration determined for the six Mid-
Hudson counties. The RME exposure duration is 6 years for children, 12 years for adolescents,
and 23 years for adults (summing to 41 years), and the central tendency exposure duration is 3
years for children, 3 years for adolescents, and 5 years for adults (which sum to 11 years). Note
that these values are based on U.S. Census Bureau data for the six counties (i.e., Albany,
Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and Ulster) and are somewhat greater than values
determined from nationwide statistics which indicate 30 years is the 95th percentile and 9 years is
the 50th percentile residence duration at one location (USEPA, 1989b, and USEPA, 1997c).
16 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
Body Weight (BW). Age-specific body weights were used. The mean body weight for
children aged 1 to 6 is 15 kg, the mean body weight for adolescents aged 7-18 is 43 kg, and the
mean adult body weight is 70 kg (USEPA, 1989b).
Averaging Time (AT). For all recreational exposure calculations, a 70-year lifetime
averaging time of 25,550 days (365 days x 70 years) was used for cancer evaluations (USEPA,
1989a). Non-cancer averaging times are equal to the exposure duration multiplied by 365
days/year (USEPA, 1989b, and USEPA, 1997c).
2.4.3 Dermal Contact with Sediment
For the sediment dermal contact, absorbed doses are used. Dermal intake (the amount
absorbed into the body) is calculated as:
T , ,,,_,, Csed x DA x AF x SA x EF x ED x CF
ln,aked«-(mg/kg-d)= ~ - -
where:
CSed = Concentration PCBs in sediment (mg/kg)
DA = Dermal absorption fraction (unitless)
AF = Sediment/skin adherence factor (mg/cm2)
SA = Skin surface area exposed (cm2/exposure event),
EF = Exposure frequency (exposure events/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
CF = Conversion factor (10"6kg/mg)
BW = Body weight (kg)
AT = Averaging time (days)
Exposure factor values for the central tendency and RME point estimate calculations for
this pathway are summarized in Tables 2-20 through 2-22. Site-specific considerations in
selecting these factors are discussed below.
PCB Concentration in Sediment (Csed). As described above, the central tendency point.
estimates used for PCB concentration in sediment are 0.61, 0.61, and 0.59 mg/kg for children,
adolescents, and adults, respectively. The RME point estimates are 0.58, 0.52, and 0.45 mg/kg
for children, adolescents, and adults, respectively (see Table 2-9).
Dermal Absorption Fraction (DA). The dermal absorption fraction represents the amount
of a chemical in contact with skin that is absorbed through the skin and into the bloodstream.
The dermal absorption rate of 14% used in this HHRA is based on the in vivo percutaneous
absorption of PCBs from soil by rhesus monkeys (Wester et ai, 1993).
Soil/Skin Adherence Factor (AF). The sediment adherence values for the risk assessment
were obtained from USEPA' s March 1999 Draft Dermal Risk Assessment Guidance (USEPA,
17 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
1999f), which among other studies, relies upon data published by Kissel et al. (1998). The 50th
percentile sediment/skin adherence factor for children is 0.2 mg/cm2, and 0.3 mg/cm2 for adults
(USEPA, 1999f), as discussed in more detail in the Upper Hudson HHRA. These adherence
factors are for children playing in wet soil, and adults whose soil loadings were measured for
reed gathering activities. These activities, which represent active contact with soil; are
appropriate surrogates for activities where Mid-Hudson River recreators may contact sediment.
The soil adherence factor for adolescents was taken as the midpoint between the child and adult
factors.
Skin Surface Area Exposed (SA). For children and adolescents, the mean surface area of
hands, forearms, lower legs, feet, and face were calculated by multiplying the total body surface
area (averaged between males and females) by the percentage of total body surface area that
make up the relevant body parts (USEPA, 1997c). For children, the mean surface area of the
hands, forearms, lower legs, feet, and face is 2,792 cm2 (using data for the category 6<7 years);
for adolescents, the mean surface area of the hands, forearms, lower legs, feet, and face is 4,263
cm2 (for age 12 years); the mean surface area of adult hands, forearms, lower legs, feet, and face
is 6,073 cm2 (USEPA, 1997c).
Exposure Frequency (EF). As described above, there are no site-specific data to provide
an indication of the likely frequency of recreational activities along the Mid-Hudson River, nor
do general population studies exist that provide usable information. The exposure frequency
factors (Tables 2-20 through 2-22) for dermal contact are the same as those for incidental
ingestion described in the preceding section.
Exposure Duration (ED). As explained in the previous section, the exposure duration for
sediment dermal contact in recreational scenarios is 41 years, and the central tendency value is 11
years, which correspond to the 95th and 50th percentiles, respectively, of the residence duration
determined for the six Mid-Hudson counties.
Body Weight (BW). Age-specific body weights were used. The mean body weight for
children aged 1 to 6 is 15 kg, the mean body weight for adolescents aged 7-18 is 43 kg, and the
mean adult body weight is 70 kg (USEPA, 1989a).
Averaging Time (AT). For all recreational exposure calculations, a 70-year lifetime
averaging time of 25,550 days (365 days x 70 years) was used for cancer evaluations (USEPA,
1989a). Non-cancer averaging times are equal to the exposure duration multiplied by 365
days/year (USEAP, 1989b and USEPA, 1997c).
18 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
2.4.4 Dermal Contact with River Water
For the river water dermal contact pathway, dermal intake (the amount absorbed into the
body) is calculated as:
Cw xKxSAxDExEFxEDxCF
Intake_(mg/kg-d)=
where:
Cw = Concentration of PCBs in water (mg/1)
Kp = Chemical-specific dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
SA = Skin surface area exposed (cm2)
DE = Duration of event (hr/d)
EF = Exposure frequency (d/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
CF = Con version factor (10"3L/cm3)
BW = Body weight (kg)
AT = Averaging time (days)
Exposure factor values for the central tendency and RME point estimate calculations for
this pathway are summarized in Tables 2-23 through 2-25. Site-specific considerations in
selecting these factors are discussed below.
PCB Concentrations in River Water (Cw). As described in Section 2.3.3, the central
tendency point estimates used for PCB concentration in the water column are 1.6 x 10"5, 1.6 x 10"
5, and 1.5 x 10~5 mg/L, for children, adolescents, and adults, respectively. The RME point
estimates are 1.4 x 10~5, 1.2 x 10~5, and 9.2 x 10"6 mg/L, for children, adolescents, and adults,
respectively (Table 2-10).
Permeability Constant (Kp). In the absence of experimental measurements for the dermal
permeability constant for PCBs, it was estimated to be 0.48 cm/hr based on the value for
hexachlorobiphenyls reported in the 1999 Draft Dermal Risk Assessment Guidance (USEPA,
1999f).
Skin Surface Area Exposed (SA). As a conservative estimate of possible exposure, 100%
of the full-body surface area was assumed to come into contact with river water. The surface
areas for adults, adolescents, and children, respectively are: 18,150 cm2, 13,100 cm2, and 6,880
cm2 (USEPA, 1997c).
Duration of Event (DE). For all recreator scenarios, 2.6 hours/day was used as the river
water dermal exposure time, which is the national average duration for a swimming event
(USEPA, 1989b).
19 tAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
Exposure Frequency (EF). As described above, there are no site-specific data to provide
an indication of the likely frequency of recreational activities along the Mid-Hudson River, nor
do general population studies exist that provide usable information. The exposure frequency
factors (Tables 2-23 through 2-25) for dermal contact with water while swimming are the same
as those for incidental ingestion and dermal contact with sediments described in the proceeding
sections.
Exposure Duration (ED). As described in the previous sections, the exposure duration
for river water dermal contact in recreational scenarios is 41 years, and the central tendency value
is 11 years, which correspond to the 95th and 50th percentiles, respectively, of the residence
duration determined for the six Mid-Hudson counties.
Body Weight (BW). Age-specific body weights were used. The mean body weight for
children aged 1 to 6 is 15 kg, the mean body weight for adolescents aged 7-18 is 43 kg, and the
mean adult body weight is 70 kg (USEPA, 1989a).
Averaging Time (AT). For all recreational exposure calculations, a 70-year lifetime
averaging time of 25,550 days (365 days x 70 years) was used for cancer evaluations (USEPA,
1989a). Non-cancer averaging times are equal to the exposure duration multiplied by 365
days/year (USEPA, 1989b, and USEPA, 1997c).
2.4.5 Ingestion of River Water
For the river water ingestion pathway, intake is calculated as:
C,, xlflxEFxED
Intak£ water (mg / kg - d) =
waterv . BW X AT
where:
Cw = Concentration of PCBs in water (mg/L)
IR = Ingestion rate (L/d)
EF = Exposure frequency (d/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
BW = Body weight (kg)
AT = Averaging time (days)
Exposure factor values for the central tendency and RME point estimate calculations for
this pathway are summarized in Tables 2-26 through 2-28. Site-specific considerations in
selecting these factors are discussed below.
PCB Concentrations in River Water (Cw). As described in Section 2.3.3, the central
tendency point estimates used for PCB concentration in the water column are 1.6 x 10"5,
20 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
1.6 x 10"5, and 1.5 x 10"5 mg/L, for children, adolescents, and adults, respectively. The RME
point estimates are 1.4 x 10~5, 1.2 x 10"5, and 9.2 x 10~6 mg/L, for children, adolescents, and
adults, respectively (Table 2-10).
Ingestion Rate (IR). For the residential scenarios, the 90th percentile and mean drinking
water ingestion rates of 2.3 L/day and 1.4 L/day, respectively, were used for adults and
adolescents to represent RME and central tendency exposures. Similarly the 90th percentile and
mean drinking water ingestion rates of 1.5 L/day and 0.9 L/day were used to represent RME and
central tendency exposures for children (USEPA, 1997c).
Exposure Frequency (EF). An exposure frequency of 350 days/year was assumed for
residents of all ages (USEPA, 1991b).
Exposure Duration (ED). As described in the previous sections, the exposure duration
for river water is 41 years, and the central tendency value is 11 years, which correspond to the
95th and 50th percentiles, respectively, of the residence duration determined for the six Mid-
Hudson counties.
Body Weight (BW). Age-specific body weights were used. The mean body weight for
children aged 1 to 6 is 15 kg, the mean body weight for adolescents aged 7-18 is 43 kg, and the
mean adult body weight is 70 kg (USEPA, 1989a).
Averaging Time (AT). For all residential exposure calculations, a 70-year lifetime
averaging time of 25,550 days (365 days x 70 years) was used for cancer evaluations (USEPA,
1989a,b). Non-cancer averaging times are equal to the exposure duration multiplied by 365
days/year (USEPA, 1989b and 1997c).
21 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
22 TAMS/ Gradient Corporation
-------
Chapter 3
-------
3 Toxicity Assessment
Potential non-cancer health hazards and cancer risks posed by exposure to PCBs are
discussed using the most current USEPA toxicity values, which are summarized in Tables 3-1
and 3-2 and discussed briefly below. The reader is referred to Chapter 4 and Appendix C of the
Upper Hudson HHRA for a thorough discussion of PCB toxicity and the toxicological profile.
3.1 Non-cancer Toxicity Values
The chronic RfD represents an estimate of a daily exposure level for the human
population, including sensitive subpopulations, that are likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime. The IRIS database provides oral RfDs for two Aroclor
mixtures, Aroclor 1016 (USEPA, 1999a) and Aroclor 1254 (USEPA, 1999b). The oral RfD for
Aroclor 1016 is 0.00007 (7 x 10"5) mg/kg-day, and for Aroclor 1254 is 0.00002 (2 x 10"5) (Table
3-D-
The PCB homologue distribution of sediment and water samples is predominately
dichloro- through pentachlorobiphenyls, as reported in the Hudson River Data Evaluation and
Interpretation Report (USEPA, 1997a). This distribution is more similar to Aroclor 1016 than to
Aroclor 1254. Therefore, for the purposes of this HHRA, the Aroclor 1016 oral RfD (7 x 10'5
mg/kg-day) was used to evaluate non-cancer toxicity for ingestion and dermal contact with Mid-
Hudson River sediment and water.
The PCB homologue distribution in fish differs from the sediment and water samples due
to differential bioaccumulation of PCB congeners with higher chlorination levels. Trichloro-
through hexachlorobiphenyls contribute to the majority of fish tissue PCB mass as reported in the
Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, 1999d). This distribution is more similar to Aroclor 1254
than to Aroclor 1016. Therefore, for the purposes of this HHRA, the Aroclor 1254 oral RfD
(2 x 10'5 mg/kg-day) was used to evaluate non-cancer toxicity for ingestion of Mid-Hudson River
fish.
3.2 PCB Cancer Toxicity
The Cancer Slope Factor, or CSF, is a plausible upper bound estimate of carcinogenic
potency used to calculate risk from exposure to carcinogens, by relating estimates of lifetime
average chemical intake to the incremental risk of an individual developing cancer over a
lifetime. In IRIS, both upper-bound and central-estimate CSFs are listed for three different tiers
of PCB mixtures (USEPA, 1999c). Consistent with the recommended values in IRIS, the first
tier upper-bound and central-estimate CSFs of 2.0 and 1.0 (mg/kg-day)"1 are used to evaluate
cancer risks for the upper-bound and central-estimate exposures to PCBs via ingestion of Mid-
Hudson River fish, ingestion of Mid-Hudson River sediments, and dermal contact with Mid-
Hudson River sediments (Table 3-2). The second tier upper-bound and central-estimate CSFs of
0.4 and 0.3 (mg/kg-day)"1 are used to evaluate cancer risks for the upper-bound and central-
23 T'AMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
estimate exposures to PCBs via ingestion and dermal contact with Mid-Hudson River water
(Table 3-2). It should be noted that the PCB concentration in Hudson River water is significantly
below the MCL. Recently, Kimbrough et al. (1999) published the results of an epidemiological
study of mortality in workers from two General Electric Company capacitor manufacturing plants
in New York State. In September 1999, two Letters to the Editor regarding the Kimbrough et al.
(1999) study and a response from Kimbrough et al. were published in the Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Due to the limitations of the Kimbrough et al.
(1999) study identified by USEPA and others, USEPA expects that the findings of the
Kimbrough et al. (1999) study will not lead to any change in its CSFs for PCBs, which were last
reassessed by USEPA in 1996 (USEPA, 1996).
24 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
Chapter 4
-------
4 Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the final step of the risk assessment process, which combines the
information from the Exposure Assessment and Toxicity Assessment steps to yield estimated
cancer risks and non-cancer hazards from exposure to PCBs. A detailed evaluation of the
uncertainties underlying the risk assessment process is presented in Section 5.3 of the Upper
Hudson HHRA. This risk characterization was prepared in accordance with USEPA guidance on
risk characterization (USEPA, 1995; USEPA, 1992).
As described in the Upper Hudson HHRA, some PCB congeners are considered to be
structurally similar to dioxin and have been termed "dioxin-like" congeners. A risk analysis for
dioxin-like PCB congeners was not performed in the Mid-Hudson HHRA because the findings of
the Upper Hudson HHRA showed that risks from the dioxin-like PCB congeners are
approximately equivalent to risks from total PCBs. It is expected that a similar finding would
hold for the Mid-Hudson River, and in light of the lower concentration of PCBs in the Mid-
Hudson River, risks for dioxin-like PCB congeners were not evaluated in the Mid-Hudson
HHRA.
4.1 Non-cancer Hazard Indices
The evaluation of non-cancer health effects involves a comparison of average daily
exposure levels with established Reference Doses (RfDs) to determine whether estimated
exposures exceed recommended limits to protect against chronic adverse health hazards. A more
detailed explanation of non-cancer hazard indices can be found in the Upper Hudson HHRA.
The hazard quotient is calculated by dividing the estimated average daily oral dose
estimates by the oral RfD as follows (USEPA, 1989b):
, ^ ,,, Average Daily Dose (me I kg - day} rA .,
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = - [4-1 ]
RfD (mg I kg - day)
RME and central tendency hazard quotients calculated for each exposure pathway (fish
ingestion, sediment, and water exposure pathways) are summarized in Tables 4-1 through 4-10.
Hazard Quotients are summed over all COPCs (chemicals of potential concern) and all
applicable exposure routes to determine the total Hazard Index (HI). In this HHRA, PCBs are
the COPCs and the HQ for PCBs is equivalent to the HI. The total RME and central tendency
Hazard Indices for each pathway and receptor are summarized in Tables 4-21 through 4-27.
If a Hazard Index is greater than one (i.e., HIM), unacceptable exposures may be
occurring, and there may be concern for potential non-cancer effects, although the relative value
of an HI above one (1) cannot be translated into an estimate of the severity of the health hazard.
Ingestion of fish results in the highest Hazard Indices, with an HI of 3 for the central tendency
estimate, and an HI of 30 for the high-end estimate, both representing exposures above the
25 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
reference level (HIM). Note that as discussed earlier, the average daily dose decreases as the
exposure duration increases, so the average concentration over a 7-year exposure period (used as
the high-end estimate in this HHRA) is greater than the average concentration over the RME
duration of 40 years. Even if the average concentration over a 40-year exposure period is used
(i.e., 0.8 ppm instead of 1.3 ppm), a hazard index of 18 results, which is above the reference level
of 1. In addition, if it is assumed that a child's meal portion is approximately 1/3 of an adult
portion, then the RME child risk for ingestion of fish would be 10. Furthermore, Total Hazard
Indices for the recreational (wading and swimming) and residential exposure pathways
(consuming river water) are all below one. In all cases, the Hazard Indices are based on uniform
exposure throughout the Mid-Hudson River.
4.2 Cancer Risks
Cancer risks are characterized as the incremental increase in the probability that an
individual will develop cancer during his or her lifetime due to site-specific exposure. The
quantitative assessment of carcinogenic risks involves the evaluation of lifetime average daily
dose and application of toxicity factors reflecting the carcinogenic potency of the chemical. A
more detailed explanation of cancer risks can be found in the Upper Hudson HHRA.
The cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime average daily oral dose
estimates by the oral slope factor as follows (USEPA, 1989b):
( \ ( V'
Cancer Risk = Intake m§ \xCSF\ mg [4-2]
{kg-day) {kg-day)
RME and central tendency cancer risk estimates calculated for each exposure pathway
(fish ingestion, recreational and residential exposure pathways) are summarized in Tables 4-11
through 4-20. Total cancer risks are summed over all applicable exposure routes and exposure
periods (child through adult). The total RME and central tendency cancer risks for each pathway
are summarized in Tables 4-21 through 4-27.
Ingestion of fish results in the highest cancer risks, 9.3 x 10"6 (9.3 additional cancers in a
population of one million) for the central tendency estimate, and 4.2 x 10"4 (4.2 additional
cancers in a population of ten-thousand) for the high-end estimate. If it is assumed that a child
meal portion is approximately 1/3 of an adult portion, then the RME child risk for ingestion of
fish is approximately 1.4 x 10"4.
For known or suspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels for Superfund are
generally concentration levels that represent an incremental upper-bound lifetime cancer risk to
an RME individual of 10"4 to 10'6 (USEPA, 1990). The cancer risk associated with RME fish
ingestion results falls within the upper bound of the cancer risk range generally allowed under the
federal Superfund law. Estimated cancer risks for all other exposure pathways are insignificant
26 1 MAS/Gradient Corporation
-------
(i.e., below 10~6). In all cases, the cancer risks are based on uniform exposure throughout the
Mid-Hudson River.
27 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
28 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
References
-------
References
Ambruster, G., K.G. Gerow, W.H. Gutenmann, C.B. Littman, and D.J. Lisk. 1987. The effects
of several methods of fish preparation on residues of polychlorinated biphenyls and sensory
characteristics in striped bass. Journal of Food Safety 8:235-243.
Barclay, B. 1993. "Hudson River Angler Survey." Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.,
Poughkeepsie, New York.
Connelly, N.A., B.A. Knuth, and C.A. Bisogni. 1992. Effects of the Health Advisory Changes
on Fishing Habits and Fish Consumption in New York Sport Fisheries. Human Dimension
Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, New York State, College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Report for the New York Sea
Grant Institute Project No. R/FHD-2-PD, September. (Raw survey data also received
electronically from study authors.)
Farley, K., R. Thomann, T. Cooney, D. Damiani, and J. Wands. 1999. An Integrated Model of
Organic Chemical Fate and Bioaccumulation in the Hudson River Estuary. Environmental
Engineering Department, Manhattan College. March.
Jackson, J. 1990. Characterization of Angler Activity on the Hudson River Estuary, A Report of
the 1990 Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program. Cornell University (Advisor Dr. D.M. Green).
Kimbrough, R.D., M.L. Doemland, and M.E. LeVois. 1999. Mortality in male and female
capacitor workers exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls. J Occupational Environmental
Medicine 41 (3): 161-171.
Kissel, J.C., J.H. Shirai, K.Y. Richter, and R.A. Feske. 1998. Investigation of dermal contact
with soil in controlled trials. J. of Soil Contamin. 7(6):737-752.
Moya, J., K.G. Garrahan, T.M. Poston, G.S. Durell. 1998. Effects of cooking on levels of PCBs
in the fillets of winter flounder. Bull. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 60:845-851.
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 1999a 1999-2000 Health Advisories:
Chemicals in Game and Sportfish. http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/environ/fish.htm
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 1999b. Health Consultation: 1996 Survey
of Hudson River Anglers, Hudson Falls to Tappan Zee Bridge at Tarrytown, New York.
February. (Raw survey data received electronically from Edward Horn of NYSDOH in June,
1998.)
U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. County-to-County Migration Flow Files 1990 Census of
Population and Housing: In-Migration (CD90-MIG-01). Special Project 312. U.S. Department
of Commerce Bureau of the Census.
29 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1978. 40 C.F.R. Part 761, Subpart B
(Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use of PCBs and PCB Items).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1984. Record of Decision for the Hudson
River PCBs Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989a. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office
of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/8-89/043, July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS), Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). USEPA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. USEPA/540/1-89/002, December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Final Rule, codified as amended at 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 199la. Phase 1 Report - Interim
Characterization and Evaluation, Hudson River PCB Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared for USEPA
Region n by TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Gradient Corporation. USEPA, Region n, New York,
New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 199Ib "Risk assessment guidance for
Superfund. Volume I: Human health evaluation manual - Supplemental Guidance: Standard
default exposure factors." Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Washington, DC).
OSWER Directive 9285.6-03; NTIS PB91-921314. 20p. March 25, 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. "Guidance on Risk Characterization
for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors." Memorandum from F. Henry Habicht, in Deputy
Administrator to Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators. USEPA, Office of the
Administrator, Washington, DC., March 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. "USEPA Risk Characterization
Program." Memorandum from Administrator Carol M. Browner to Assistant Administrators,
Associate Administrators, Regional Administrators, General Counsel and Inspector General on
March 21, 1995, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response
Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures. National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997a. Volume 2C - Data Evaluation and
Interpretation Report, Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Developed for the USEPA and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by TAMS Consultants, Inc., The Cadmus Group, Inc. and
Gradient Corporation. USEPA, Region II, New York, New York.
30 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997b. "Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS) Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part D, Standardized
Planning, Reporting and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments)." Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, DC, OSWER Publication #9285.7-010-1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume
I- Office of Research and Development, USEPA/600/P-95/002Fa, August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning,
Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments - Interim. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC. January. Downloaded from
www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/techres/ragsd/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999a. "Integrated Risk Information System
Chemical File for Aroclor 1016." National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999b. "Integrated Risk Information System
Chemical File for Aroclor 1254." National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999c. "Integrated Risk Information System
Chemical File for Polychlorinated Biphenyls." National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999d. Volume 2D - Baseline Modeling
Report, Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Developed for the USEPA and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers by Limno-Tech, Inc., Menzie Cura & Associates, Inc. and Tetra-Tech, Inc.
USEPA, Region H, New York, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999e "Integrated Risk Information System
Chemical File for Aroclor 1248." National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999f. "Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Dermal Risk
Assessment Interim Guidance." Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
March, 1999. Draft.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999g. Volume 2F - Human Health Risk
Assessment, Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Developed for the USEPA and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. USEPA, Region n, New York, New York. August.
31 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999h. Volume 2E-A Baseline Ecological
Risk Assessment for Future Risks in the Lower Hudson River. Hudson River PCBs
Reassessment RI/FS. Developed for the USEPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USEPA,
Region n, New York, New York. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Volume 2D Revised Baseline Modeling
Report, Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Developed for the USEPA and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers by Limno-Tech, Inc., Menzie Cura & Associates, Inc. and Tetra-Tech, Inc.
USEPA, Region n, New York, New York. January 2000. In Preparation.
Wester, R.C., H.I. Maibach, L. Sedik, J. Melendres, and M. Wade. 1993. Percutaneous
absorption of PCBs from soil: In vivo Rhesus Monkey, in vitro human skin, and binding to
powdered human stratum corneum. /. of Toxicology and Environ. Health 39:375-382.
32 TAMS/Gradient Corporation
-------
Tables
-------
TABLE 2-1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS - Phase 2 Risk Assessment
MID-HUDSON RIVER
Scenario
Timetrame
Current/Future
Source
Medium
Fish
Sediment
River Water
Home-grown
Crops
Beel
Dairy Products
Exposure
Medium
Fish
Sediment
Drinking Water
River Water
Outdoor Air
Vegetables
Beef
Milk, eggs
Exposure
Point
Mid-Hudson Fish
Banks of Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson River
Mid-Hudson River
(wading/swimming)
Mid-Hudson River (River
and near vicinity)
Mid-Hudson vicinity
Mid-Hudson vicinity
Mid-Hudson vicinity
Receptor
Population
Angler
Recreator
Resident
Recreator
Recreator
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Receptor
Age
Adult
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adull
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolesce ni
Child
Exposure
Route
Ingest! on
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Dermal
Dermal
Dermal
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalalion
Ingeslion
Ingestion
Ingeslion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
On-Site/
Oft-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Sita
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
dual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Oual
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
PCBs have been widely detected in fish.
Recreators may ingest or otherwise come In contact with contaminated river
sediment while engaging in recreational activities along the river.
Considered in Phase 1 Risk Assessment and determined to have de minimus
risk. Included to address public concerns. Other potable pathways not
evaluated based on risks/hazards found through Ingestion being less than
EPA Risk Range.
Recreators may come In contact with contaminated river water while wading
or swimmming.
Considered In Phase 2 Upper Hudson River HHRA and determined to have
insignificant nsh( le.de minimus) . Concentrations In Upper Hudson River
approximately four times higher than Mid-Hudson region; therefore, not
evaluated further in this HHRA
Considered in Phase 2 Upper Hudson River HHRA and determined to have
insignificant risk ( i.e. de minimus). Concentrations In Upper Hudson River
approximately four times higher than Mid-Hudson region; therefore, not
evaluated further In this HHRA.
Limited data; studies show low PCS uptake In forage crops. Qualitatively
assessed In Upper Hudson River HHRA.
Limited data; studies show non-detect PCS levels in cow's milk in NY.
Qualitatively assessed in Upper Hudson River HHRA.
Limited data; studies show non-detect PCB levels in cow's milk in NY.
Qualitatively assessed in Upper Hudson River HHRA.
"Quant" = Quantitative risk analysis performed. "Qual' = Qualitative analysis performed.
\B708fl76\MU-Hudson\
Ragstbts.xls\lbl2-l ) 2/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-2
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Fish
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson Fish
CAS
Number
1336-36-3
Chemical
PCBs (3)
(D
Minimum
Concentration
0.1
Minimum
Qualifier
N/A
(D
Maximum
Concentration
2.9
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
Units
mg/kg wet
weight
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
N/A
Detection
Frequency
N/A
Range of
Detection
Limits
N/A
Concentration
Used for
Screening
N/A
Background
Value
N/A
Screening
Toxicrty Value
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
COPC
Flag
Yes
(2)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
FD, TX, ASL
(1) Minimum/maximum modeled concentration between 1999-2067 (USEPA, 1999d).
(2) Rationale Codes Selection Reason: Infrequent Detection but Associated Historically (HIST)
Frequent Detection (FD)
Toxicity Information Available (TX)
Above Screening Levels (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Infrequent Detection (IFD)
Background Levels (BKG)
No Toxicity Information (NTX)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Below Screening Level (BSL)
(3) Occurrence and distribution of PCBs in fish were modeled, not measured (USEPA, 1999d).
Definitions: N/A = Not Applicable
SOL = Sample Quantiiation Limit
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
MCL = Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
SWCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogenic
N = Non-Carcinogenic
\870B676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl2-2 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-3
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Sediment
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks ol Mid-Hudson
CAS
Number
1336-36-3
Chemical
PCBs (3)
(D
Minimum
Concentration
0.14
Minimum
Qualifier
N/A
(D
Maximum
Concentration
0.62
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
Units
mg/kg
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
N/A
Detection
Frequency
N/A
Range of
Detection
Limits
N/A
Concentration
Used for
Screening
N/A
Background
Value
N/A
Screening
Toxicity Value
N/A
Potential
ARAFVTBC
Value
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
COPC
Rag
Yes
(2)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
FD, TX, ASL
(1) Minimum/maximum segment-averaged modeled concentration between 1999-2067 (USEPA, 1999d).
(2) Rationale Codes Selection Reason: Infrequent Detection but Associated Historically (HIST)
Frequent Detection (FD)
Toxicity Information Available (TX)
Above Screening Levels (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Infrequent Detection (IFD)
Background Levels (BKG)
No Toxicity Information (NTX)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Below Screening Level (BSL)
(3) Occurrence and distribution of PCBs in sediment were modeled, not measured (USEPA, 1999d).
Definitions: N/A = Not Applicable
SQL = Sample Quantitation Limit
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
MCL = Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogenic
N = Non-Carcinogenic
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\MkJ-Hudson\
RagsWs X1SMDI2-3 12/28J99
-------
TABLE 2-4
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
MID-HUDSON RIVER - River Water
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
CAS
Number
1336-36-3
Chemical
PCBs (3)
(D
Minimum
Concentration
3.19E-06
Minimum
Qualifier
N/A
(1)
Maximum
Concentration
1 .84E-05
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
Units
mg/L
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
N/A
Detection
Frequency
N/A
Range of
Detection
Limits
N/A
Concentration
Used for
Screening
N/A
Background
Value
N/A
Screening
Toxicity Value
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
COPC
Rag
Yes
(2)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
FD, TX. ASL
(1) Minimum/maximum segment-averaged modeled concentration between 1999-2067 (USEPA, 1999d).
(2) Rationale Codes Selection Reason: Infrequent Detection but Associated Historically (HIST)
Frequent Detection (FD)
Toxicity Information Available (TX)
Above Screening Levels (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Infrequent Detection (IFD)
Background Levels (BKG)
No Toxicity Information (NTX)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Below Screening Level (BSL)
(3) Occurrence and distribution of PCBs in river water were modeled, not measured (USEPA, 1999d).
Definitions: N/A = Not Applicable
SQL = Sample Quantitation Limit
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
MCL = Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogenic
N = Non-Carcinogenic
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
RagstHs.xlMbe-4
Gradient Corporation
-------
Table 2-5
Summary of 1991 New York Angler Survey
Fish Consumption by Species Reported
Water Body Type/
Species Group
Flowing
Bass
Bullhead
Carp
Catfish
Eel
Perch
Subtotal
Salmon
Trout
Walleye
Other
Total A 11 Fish
Not Flowing
Bass
Bullhead
Carp
Catfish
Eel
Perch
Subtotal
Salmon
Trout
Walleye
Other
Total A 11 Fish
Not Reported
Bass
Bullhead
Carp
Catfish
Eel
Perch
Subtotal
Salmon
Trout
Walleye
Other
Total All Fish
Number
Reporting
Eating Fish
68
23
2
11
4
17
35
130
36
45
154
53
4
10
2
51
55
152
112
94
128
55
5
4
5
24
14
148
34
104
Total
Caught
1,842
1,092
[b]
158
38
833
3,963
559
3,099
333
2,871
10,825
3,370
1,200
7
46
2
2,289
6,914
538
2,428
2,292
5,976
18,148
4,006
2,374
16
40
9
338
6,783
139
2,836
389
7,731
17,878
Total
Eaten
584
558
90
113
38
139
1,522
193
1,230
134
1,025
4,104
1,032
634
29
46
3
816
2,560
480
1,400
1,054
2,125
7,619
1,110
1,099
11
17
13
222
2,472
120
1,319
206
2,559
6,676
Average
Number
Eaten ""
8.6
24.3
45.0
10.3
9.5
8.2
5.5
9.5
3.7
22.8
6.7
12.0
7.3
4.6
1.5
16.0
8.7
9.2
9.4
22.6
8.7
20.0
2.2
4.3
2.6
9.3
8.6
8.9
6.1
24.6
Standard
Deviation '"
19.2
61.9
42.4
15.5
10.6
12.5
5.3
15.7
4.2
50.1
12.0
21.5
6.7
6.9
0.7
32.4
15.2
18.3
14.2
58.1
17.0
43.2
1.6
2.8
2.5
21.7
7.3
16.8
8.8
72.2
Maximum
Number
Eaten
145
300
75
50
25
51
25
133
20
200
100
100
14
20
2
200
80
150
75
403
100
225
5
7
7
100
20
157
40
630
Percent of
Hudson
Species
38%
37%
6%
7%
2%
9%
100%
40%
25%
1.1%
1.8%
0.1%
32%
100%
45%
44%
0.4%
0.7%
0.5%
9%
100%
Percent of
All Fish
14%
14%
2%
3%
0.9%
3%
37%
5%
30%
3%
25%
100%
14%
8%
0.4%
0.6%
0.04%
11%
34%
6%
18%
14%
28%
100%
17%
16%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
3%
37%
2%
20%
3%
38%
100%
Notes:
'"' Mean and Standard Deviation are over number of anglers reporting they ate particular species.
Number caught not reported.
Modeled PCB concentration estimates are available for species in Bold
Source: Connelly et al. (1992)
87<>K(>76\Mid-Hudson\fish
Spcdes-xls. consumption 12/2K/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
Table 2-6
Mid-Hudson River Perch and Bass
Species
Perch
Bass
Species
Intake'
9%
38%
Mid-Hudson Species
White Perch
Yellow Perch
Largemouth Bass
Striped Bass
Relative Percentage
Species Caught"
85%
15%
40%
60%
Relative Percentage
Species Intake"
7.6%
1.4%
15%
23%
' From 1991 New York Angler Survey (Connelly et ai, 1992), see Table 2-5.
2 From 1991/92 (Barclay, 1993) and 1996 NYSDOH study of Hudson River anglers (NYSDOH, 1999B).
87l)8676\Mid-HuUscm\fish
Sivcios.xls. ctarwalerl2/2K/'»
Gradient Corporation
-------
Table 2-7
Species-Group Intake Percentages
Group 1
Brown bullhead 37%
Carp 6%
Catfish 7%
Eel 2%
Species Group Totals 52%
Group 2
White Perch 7.6%
7.6%
Group 3
Yellow Perch 1.4%
1.4%
Group 4
Largemouth Bass 15%
15%
Group 5
Striped Bass 23%
23%
Sources:
1991 New York Angler Survey (Connelly et al, 1992).
1991/92 (Barclay, 1993) and 1996 NYSDOH study of Hudson River anglers (NYSDOH, I999B).
87
-------
TABLE 2-8
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC MODELED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
MID-HUDSON RIVER FISH
Scenario Timelrame: Current/Future
jMedium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
[Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson Fish
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
PCBs
in Brown Bullhead
in Yellow Perch
in Largemouth Bass
in Striped Bass
in White Perch
Species-weighted (1)
Species-weighted for chronic exposure (2)
Units
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
Arithmetic
Mean (3)
0.6
0.2
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.65
0.65
95% UCL of
Normal
Data
*
**
*
Maximum
Concentration
(3)
1.3
0.5
1.8
2.9
1.4
1.5
1.5
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
EPC
Units
mg/kg wet weight
mg/kg wet weight
mg/kg wet weight
mg/kg wet weight
mg/kg wet weight
mg/kg wet weight
mg/kg wet weight
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Medium
EPC
Value
0.8
0.3
0.9
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.3
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Medium
EPC
Rationale
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Value
1.1
0.4
1.4
2.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Medium
EPC
Rationale
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (957o UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T); Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T);
Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).
Not applicable because fish data was modeled, not measured.
ED = Exposure Duration
CT = Central Tendency
(1) PCS concentrations for each species were weighted based on species-group intake percentages (Connelly et al., 1992; NYSDOH, 1999) and averaged over the
central tendency exposure duration (12 years) to calculate the CT EPC, and over the RME exposure duration (40 years) to calculate the RME EPC for cancer risks.
(2) PCB concentrations for each species were weighted based on species-group intake percentages (Connelly et al., 1992; NYSDOH, 1999) and averaged over the
central tendency exposure duration (12 years) to calculate the CT EPC, and over the RME exposure duration (7 years) to calculate the RME EPC for non-cancer hazards.
(3) Mean/maximum modeled concentration between 1999-2067 (USEPA, 1999d).
\8708676\MJd-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xlsUW2-8 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-9
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC MODELED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
PCBs
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Units
mg/kg
Arithmetic
Mean
(1)
0.3
95% UCLof
Normal
Data
»
Maximum
Concentration
(1)
0.6
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
EPC
Units
mg/kg
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (2)
Medium
EPC
Value
0.45
0.52
0.58
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Medium
EPC
Rationale
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Central Tendency (2)
Medium
EPC
Value
0.59
0.61
0.61
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Medium
EPC
Rationale
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T); Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T);
Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).
Not applicable because sediment data was modeled, not measured.
(1) Mean/maximum of segment-averaged modeled concentration 1999-2067 (USEPA, !999d).
(2) EPC values were averaged over 23 yrs RME and 5 yrs CT for adults; 12 yrs RME and 3 yrs CT for adolescents; 6 yrs RME and 3 yrs CT for children; for a total of 41 yrs RME and 11 yrs CT exposure.
Gradient Corporation
\870B676\Mid-Hudson\
Hagslbls.xls\tbl2-9 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 2-10
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC MODELED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water (Drinking Water Supply)
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
PCBs
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Units
mg/L
Arithmetic
Mean
(1)
6.1E-06
95% UCL of
Normal
Data
"
Maximum
Concentration
(1)
1.8E-05
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
EPC
Units
mg/L
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (2)
Medium
EPC
Value
9.2E-06
1.2E-05
1.4E-05
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Medium
EPC
Rationale
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Averaged over RME
ED
Central Tendency (2)
Medium
EPC
Value
1.5E-05
1.6E-05
1.6E-05
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Mean-N
Mean-N
Mean-N
Medium
EPC
Rationale
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Averaged over CT
ED
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T); Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T);
Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).
Not applicable because river water data was modeled, not measured.
(1) Mean/maximum of segment-averaged modeled concentration 1999-2067 (USEPA, 1999d).
(2) EPC values were averaged over 23 yrs RME and 5 yrs CT for adults; 12 yrs RME and 3 yrs CT for adolescents; 6 yrs RME and 3 yrs CT for children; for a total of 41 yrs RME and 11 yrs CT exposure.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.Jcls\tD12-10 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
Table 2-11
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Albany County, NY
No Move
Move In
Total From
Abroad
Age Group
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85+
Total
Outside
Region"
Total from
Outside Region0
Domestic
Inside Region
Total
From
Albany Columbia Dutchess
8,638
10,128
11,284
8,012
5,515
8,196
24,243
20,091
20,764
19,380
10,929
3,670
9,002
6,482
9,642
19,788
18,568
17,658
20,419
7,999
4,837
4,189
2,914
1,746
228
226
236
428
640
558
407
277
97
78
22
0
8,774
6,256
9,406
19,360
17,928
17,100
20,012
7,722
4,740
4,111
2,892
1,746
2,318
1,607
4,983
11,201
6,882
5,691
6,094
2,234
1,271
928
653
367
6,456
4,649
4,423
8,159
11,046
11,409
13,918
5,488
3,469
3,183
2,239
1,379
5,795
4,253
3,713
6,188
9,111
10,256
12,533
4,866
3,099
2,867
1,984
1,227
42
28
45
83
143
86
149
36
34
34
16
13
14
21
133
367
94
37
53
27
48
32
0
0
Greene Rensselaer
63
36
64
311
221
149
160
72
62
34
23
22
536
304
428
995
1366
840
980
458
222
179
190
117
Ulster
6
7
40
215
111
41
43
29
4
37
26
0
2,546
1,833
5,219
11,629
7,522
6,249
6,501
2,511
1,368
1,006
675
367
Notes:
a. The Mid-Hudson Region consists of Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and Ulster Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson
Lh_in.xls Albany
-------
Table 2-12
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Columbia County, NY
No Move
Move In
Total From
Abroad
Age Group
5 to 9
lOto 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85+
Total
Outside
Region0
Domestic
Total from
Outside Region8
Inside Region
Total
Columbia Albany
2,143
2,399
2,644
1,591
1,242
1,663
6,034
4,979
4,756
4,650
2,721
725
2,284
1 ,583
1,587
2,024
3,246
3,144
3,896
1,932
1,170
1,075
823
315
91
20
15
44
52
77
84
38
4
3
2
0
2,193
1,563
1,572
1,980
3,194
3,067
3,812
1,894
1,166
1,072
821
315
506
433
539
415
864
922
1 ,332
622
388
370
192
81
1,687
1,130
1,033
1,565
2,330
2,145
2,480
1,272
778
702
629
234
,341 48
900 28
849 31
,314 23
,819 97
,678 80
,859 85
,060 60
674 34
613 11
521 10
182 6
From
Dutchess Greene Rensselaer Ulster
165
103
44
86
228
217
165
80
25
30
30
5
47
35
48
8
38
48
103
25
19
11
8
15
77
34
41
118
122
91
230
24
16
29
51
17
9
30
20
16
26
31
38
23
10
8
9
9
597
453
554
459
916
999
1,416
660
392
373
194
81
Notes:
The Mid-Hudson Region consists oj'Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and Ulster Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson
Lh in.xls Columbia
-------
Table 2-13
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Dutchess County, NY
No Move
Move In
Total From
Abroad
Age Group
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85+
9,052
9,868
10,981
7,992
5,622
8,384
23,706
21,703
17,443
13,686
7,236
2,149
8,557
5,878
7,671
12,027
16,195
15,794
18,091
7,320
4,503
3,394
2,331
889
224
135
347
461
497
409
400
180
98
74
52
0
Total
8,333
5,743
7,324
11,566
15,698
15,385
17,691
7,140
4,405
3,320
2,279
889
Outside
Region8
3,749
2,249
4,313
6,472
7,645
7,156
7,774
2,865
1,885
1,496
984
379
Total from
Outside Region8
Domestic
Inside Region
Total
4,584
3,494
3,011
5,094
8,053
8,229
9,917
4,275
2,520
1,824
1,295
510
Dutchess
4,363
3,367
2,833
4,675
7,221
7,578
9,255
4,049
2,469
1,727
1,220
446
From
Albany Columbia
0
16
24
30
166 .
144
41
8
0
0
10
0
72
33
40
61
82
90
136
32
9
20
33
0
Greene Rensselaer
0
0
9
25
12
2
8
15
5
0
0
0
0
0
25
31
46
13
22
4
2
0
0
0
Ulster
149
78
80
272
526
402
455
167
35
77
32
64
3,973
2,384
4,660
6,933
8,142
7,565
8,174
3,045
1,983
1,570
1,036
379
Notes:
a. The Mid-Hudson Region consists of Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and Ulster Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson
Lh in.xls Dutchess
-------
Table 2-14
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Greene County, NY
No Move
Move In
Total From
Abroad
Age Group
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85-1-
1,491
1,706
1,713
1,229
967
1,216
3,742
3,503
3,195
3,142
1,979
480
1,496
1,074
1,145
1,971
2,594
2,540
2,816
1,228
1,095
813
464
254
20
2
19
51
65
33
21
18
3
3
1
0
Total
1,476
1,072
1,126
1,914
2,529
2,507
2,795
1,210
1,092
810
463
254
Outside
Region"
593
383
495
991
1,165
992
1,109
500
518
356
148
127
Total from
Outside Region8
Domestic
Inside Region
Total
883
689
631
923
1,364
1,515
1,686
710
574
454
315
127
From
Greene
712
571
525
719
1111
1169
1328
503
498
370
279
120
Albany Columbia
120
79
27
81
79
171
137
104
25
43
24
7
1
0
19
31
21
49
53
15
7
17
10
0
Duchess Rensselaer
16
21
20
33
14
57
78
20
16
15
0
0
0
0
5
0
9
12
27
18
0
0
0
0
Ulster
34
18
35
59
130
57
63
50
28
9
2
0
613
385
514
1,048
1,230
1,025
1,130
518
521
359
149
127
Notes:
a. The Mid-Hudson Region consists of Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and Ulster Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson
Lh in.xls Greene
-------
Table 2-15
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Rensselaer County, NY
No Move
Total From
Abroad
Age Group
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85+
5,577
6,155
6,820
4,911
3,763
5,236
14,632
10,930
11,355
10,010
5,613
1,522
4,769
3,608
5,126
8,940
8,867
7,976
9,049
3,214
2,125
1,712
1,146
520
80
73
213
436
435
221
130
40
46
5
7
0
Total
4,689
3,535
4,913
8,504
8,432
7,755
8,919
3,174
2,079
1,707
1,139
520
Outside
Region8
1,046
666
2,304
3,564
2,331
2,053
2,112
685
487
369
190
101
Move In
Total from
Outside Region0
Domestic
Inside Region
Total
3,643
2,869
2,609
4,940
6,101
5,702
6,807
2,489
1,592
1,338
949
419
Rensselaer
2,902
2,283
2,084
3,777
4,713
4,076
5,030
1,951
1,303
1,101
730
328
From
Albany Columbia
656
438
368
776
. 1,211
1,419
1,503
495
264
216
205
75
64
58
46
175
113
139
170
39
10
9
0
9
Duchess Greene
0
21
33
157
40
42
11
0
2
4
0
0
4
13
47
26
0
14
39
0
0
0
5
0
Ulster
17
56
31
29
24
12
54
4
13
8
9
7
1,126
739
2,517
4,000
2,766
2,274
2,242
725
533
374
197
101
Notes:
a. The Mid-Hudson Region consists of Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and Ulster Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson
Lh in.xls Rensselaer
-------
Table 2-16
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Ulster County, NY
No Move
Move
Total From
Abroad
Age Group
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85+
Total
Outside
Region3
In
Total from
Outside Region"
Domestic
Inside Region
Total
From
Ulster Albany Columbia
5,911
6,285
6,544
4,651
3,959
5,824
15,066
13,465
12,045
10,090
5,884
1,664
4,990
4,019
4,059
7,370
10,262
9,224
1 1,368
4,510
2,774
2,122
1,307
494
73
43
165
229
293
226
209
65
49
28
0
0
4,917
3,976
3,894
7,141
9,969
8,998
11,159
4,445
2,725
2,094
1,307
494
1,619
1,340
1,915
3,553
3,921
3,238
3,839
1,602
832
790
350
181
3,298
2,636
1,979
3,588
6,048
5,760
7,320
2,843
1 ,893
1,304
957
313
2,990
2,368
1,741
2,980
4,864
4,916
6,542
2,504
1,722
1,241
890
284
14
5
12
76
75
92
45
7
17
0
8
0
13
17
15
0
21
18
23
18
9
11
0
0
Duchess Greene Rensselaer
250
223
190
454
1004
663
629
272
122
37
54
29
31
19
9
68
65
56
66
31
23
15
5
0
0
4
12
10
19
15
15
11
0
0
0
0
1,692
1,383
2,080
3,782
4,214
3,464
4,048
1,667
881
818
350
181
Notes:
a. The Mid-Hudson Region consists of Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and Ulster Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson
Lh in.xls Ulster
-------
Table 2-17
County-to-County In-Migration Data for the Mid-Hudson River Region
No Move
Move In
Total
From
Abroad
Total
Outside
Region3
Domestic
Total from
Outside Region9
Inside Region
Total
Age Group
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85+
32,812
36,541
39,986
28,386
21,068
30,519
87,423
74,671
69,558
60,958
34,362
10,210
31,098
22,644
29,230
52,120
59,732
56,336
65,639
26,203
16,504
13,305
8,985
4,218
716
499
995
1,655
1,982
1,524
1,251
618
297
191
84
0
30,382
22,145
28,235
50,465
57,750
54,812
64,388
25,585
16,207
13,114
8,901
4,218
9,831
6,678
14,549
26,196
22,808
20,052
22,260
8,508
5,381
4,309
2,517
1 ,236
20,551
15,467
13,686
24,269
34,942
34,760
42,128
17,077
10,826
8,805
6,384
2,982
From
Albany Renssalaer Columbia
6,633
4,819
4,175
7,174
10,739
12,162
14,344
5,540
3,439
3,137
2,241
1,315
3,515
2,625
2,595
4,931
6,275
5,047
6,304
2,466
1,543
1,309
971
462
1,533
1,036
1,014
1,664
2,199
2,060
2,390
1,200
743
704
580
204
Dutchess
4,808
3,756
3,253
5,772
8,601
8,594
10,191
4,448
2,682
1,845
1,304
480
Greene
857
674
702
1,157
1,447
1,438
1,704
646
607
430
320
157
Ulster
3,205
2,557
1,947
3,571
5,681
5,459
7,195
2,777
1,812
1,380
968
364
10,547
7,177
15,544
27,851
24,790
21,576
23,511
9,126
5,678
4,500
2,601
1,236
Notes:
The Mid-Hudson Region consists of Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, and Ulster Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson
Lh_in.xls Total -- Mid Hudson
-------
Table 2-18
Computation of 1-Year Move Probabilities for the Mid-Hudson Region
Notes:
Age Group (k) In1985.w,ka Startl985.yo,kb Start, 985.90,k+,c Out19U4Mld
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f-
8-
h.
i.
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 to 84
85+
(1) 10,547 32,812
(2) 7,177 36,541
(3) 15,544 39,986
(4) 27,851 28,386
(5) 24,790 21,068
(6) 21,576 30,519
(7) 23,511 87,423
(8) 9,126 74,671
(9) 5,678 69,558
(10) 4,500 60,958
(11) 2,601 34,362
(12) 1,236 10,210
36,541
39,986
28,386
21,068
30,519
43,712s
74,671
69,558
60,958
34,362
10,210
NAh
6,818
3,732
27,144
35,169
15,339
8,383
36,263
14,239
14,278
31,096
26,753
11,446
Probability of
Moving in a 5-
year Period*
15.7%
8.5%
48.9%
62.5%
33.4%
16.1%
32.7%
17.0%
1 9.0%
47.5%
72.4%
(Mid-Hi
3
1
9
12
6
3
6
3
3
9
14
Pkj
idson) (Up
.1%
.7%
.8%
.5%
.7%
.2%
.5%
.4%
.8%
.5%
.5%
100%'
PM
per Hudson)
2.5%
1.6%
9.5%
11.8%
5.9%
3.5%
7.5%
2.2%
3.2%
9.5%
14.0%
100%'
Difference
Mid-Hudson
vs. Upper
Hudson
-0.6%
-0.1%
-0.3%
-0.7%
-0.8%
0.3%
1.0%
-1.2%
-0.6%
0.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
Taken from the column labeled, "Total from Outside Region" in Table 2-14.
The Mid- Hudson Region consists of Albany, Columbia, Dutchess,
Set equal
Out /VN5-90
Set equal
Set equal
The value
addresses
Since Age
to the value of Start lyi!S.VOik in the preceding row.
k = (Start iVli_i-yo.k ' Start ivxs-vo,k-n) + 'n ivxs-w.k
to (Out iv>a.w.k ) /(Start /(,«-«;.* + In iv^.vo.k )
to 1/5 x the probability of moving in a 5-year period.
Greene, Rensselaer,
and Ulster
in this cell is 1/2 the value listed far Start ,yw.ya7 to make Start IVK5.VM and Start /ws-wj
the fact that Age Group 7 represents JO years (ages 35
to 44), whereas Age
Counties.
comparable. The
adjustment
Group 6 represents 5 years (ages 30
to 34).
Group 12 (ages 85+) is the lust age group, there is no value for Start ms.w.n
Assumes no exposure after age 85. This assumption has no effect
on the estimated risk since it is assumed that individuals stop fishing by age
80.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson
Lh_in.xls Move Probabilities
-------
TABLE 2-19
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER FISH- Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
c»-c
C»-NC
IR»
Loss
FS
EF
ED
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
PCB Concentration in Fish (Cancer)"
PCS Concentration in Fish (Non-cancer)"
Ingestion Rate of Fish
Cooking Loss
Fraction from Source
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration (Cancer)
Exposure Duration (Noncancer)
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/kg wet weight
mg/kg wet weight
grams/day
9/9
unitless
days/year
years
years
kg/9
kg
days
days
RME
Value
0.8
1.3
31.9
0
1
365
40
7
1.00E-03
70
25,550
2,555
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-8
See Table 2-8
90th percentile value.
based on 1991 NY Angler
survey.
Assumes 100%PCBs
remains in fish.
Assumes 100% fish
ingested is from Mid-
Hudson.
Fish ingestion rate already
averaged over one year.
95th percentile value,
based on 1991 NY Angler
and 1990 US Census data.
see text
-
Mean adult body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
1.2
1.2
4.0
0.2
1
365
12
12
1.00E-03
70
25,550
4,380
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-8
See Table 2-8
50th percentile value,
based on 1991 NY Angler
survey.
Assumes 20% PCBs in fish
is lost through cooking.
Assumes 100% fish
ingested is from Mid-
Hudson.
Fish ingestion rate already
averaged over one year.
50th percentile value.
based on 1991 NY Angler
and 1990 US Census data.
50th percentile value,
based on 1991 NY Angler
and 1990 US Census data.
Mean adult body weight.
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
Cw, x IRw, x (1 - Loss) X FS x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Species-weighted PCB concentration averaged over river location.
\8708676\Mid-HudsonV
Ragslbte.xlsUbl2.19 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-20
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
yledium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adutl
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Parameter
Code
c«
iR»<»w<
FS
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
DA
AF
SA
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
ngestion Rate of Sediment
Fraction from Source
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duratbn
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Dermal Absorption
Adherance Factor
Surface Area
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/kg
rug/day
unitless
days/year
years
ko/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
unilless
mg/cm*
cm*/event
event/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
RME
Value
0.45
50
1
13
23
t .OOE-06
70
25.550
8,395
0.45
0.14
0.3
6,073
13
23
1. OOE-06
70
25.550
6.395
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean adult soil ingestion
rate (USEPA. 19971).
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Mid-
Hudson.
t day/week. 3 months/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 6 Mid-Hudson
Counties (see text)
-
Mean adult body weight.
males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year
See Table 2-9
Based on absorption of
PCBs from soil in monkeys
(Wester. 1993).
50% value lor adult (reed
gatherer) : hands, lower
legs, forearms, and face
(USEPA. 19991).
Ave male/female 50th
percentile: hands, lower
legs, forearms, feet, and
lace (USEPA, 19971).
1 day/week. 3 monlhs/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 6 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adult body weight.
males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year
CT
Value
0.59
50
1
7
5
1 .OOE-06
70
25.550
1.825
0.59
0.14
0.3
6,073
7
5
1. OOE-06
70
25.550
1,825
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean adult soil ingestion
rate (USEPA, 1997f).
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure e from Mid-
Hudson.
Approximately 50% of RME
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean adult body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70- year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 19896).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
See Table 2-9
Based on absorption of
PCBs from soil in monkeys
(Wester, 1993).
50% value lor adult (reed
gatherer) : hands, lower
legs, forearms, and face
(USEPA. 19991).
Ave male/female 50th
percentile: hands, lower
legs, forearms, feet, and
lace (USEPA. 1897f).
Approx. 50%ofHME
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration In 6
Upper Hudson Counties
(see text)
Mean adult body weight.
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365d/yr (USEPA. 1989D).
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) »
CM,,, x IR,^ x FS x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Average Dairy Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C«on«« x DA x AF x SA x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/A1
Gradient Corporation
Ragsfcb itWlbe-20 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 2-21
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Derma!
Parameter
Code
CKdM.
1R~
FS
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
c^,
DA
AF
SA
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Ingestion Rate of Sediment
Fraction from Source
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Dermal Absorption
Adherance Factor
Surface Area
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/kg
mo/day
unitless
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mgflcg
unitless
mo/cm*
cm'/event
event/year
years
kg/mg
Kg
days
days
RME
Value
0.52
50
1
39
12
1.00E-06
43
25.550
4,380
0.52
0.14
0.25
4,263
39
12
l.OOE-06
43
25,550
4,360
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean soil ingestion rate
(USEPA, 19971).
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Upper
Hudson.
3 days/week, 3 months/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 6 Mid-Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA, 1989t>).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
See Table 2-9
Based on absorption of
PCBs from soil in monkeys
(Wester. 1993).
Midpoint of adult and child
AF: Hands, lower legs,
forearms, and face
(USEPA, 1999f).
Ave male/female 50th
percentile age 12: hands,
lower legs, forearms, feet.
and face (USEPA, 19971).
3 days/week, 3 months/yr
derived from 95lh
percentile of residence
duration in 6 Mid-Hudson
Counties (see text)
-
Mean adolescent body
weight, mates and females
(USEPA. 19690).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
0.61
50
1
20
3
1.00E-06
43
25,550
1.095
0.61
0.14
0.25
4,263
20
3
1.00E-06
43
25.550
1,095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean soil ingestion rate
(USEPA, 19970.
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Upper
Hudson.
Approximately 50% of RME
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
-
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
See Table 2-9
Based on absorption of
PCBs from soil in monkeys
(Wester, 1993).
Midpoint of adult and child
AF: Hands, lower legs.
forearms, and face
(USEPA, 19990.
Ave male/female 50th
percentile age 12: hands,
lower tegs, forearms, feet.
and face (USEPA, 19970.
Approximately 50% of RME
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
-
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Dairy Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C^,, x IR««« x FS x EF it ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Average Dairy Intake (mg/Vo-day) =
C_ammxDAxAFxSAxEFiEDxCFxt/BWx1/AT
Gradient Corporation
\07Oe67OMkl-Hudw*
-------
TABLE 2-22
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Child Recrealor
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recrealor
Receplor Age: Child
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Oarmal
Parameter
Coda
Cuonnni
'R««n,
FS
EF
ED
CF '
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
CM*.
DA
AF
SA
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Ingestion Rale o( Sediment
Fraction from Source
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Dermal Absorption
Adherance Factor
Surface Area
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mo/kg
nig/day
unitless
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mo/kg
unitless
mg/cm*
cm1/ event
event/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
RME
Valuo
0.58
too
1
13
6
1 .OOE-06
15
25,560
2,190
0.58
0.1 4
0.2
2.792
13
6
1. OOE-06
15
25.550
2.190
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean child soil ingestion
rate (USEPA, 19971).
Assumes 1 00% sediment
exposure is from Upper
Hudson.
1 day/week. 3 months/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 6 Mid-Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean child body weight.
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
See Table 2-9
Based on absorption of
PCBs from soil in monkeys
(Wester. 1993).
50% value for children
(moist soil) : hands, lower
legs, forearms, and face
(USEPA. 1999f).
50th percentile ave for
male/female child age 6:
hands, lower legs,
forearms, feet, and face
(USEPA. 19971).
1 day/week, 3 months/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 6 Mid-Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean child body weight.
mates and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
061
100
1
7
3
1. OOE-06
15
25.550
1,095
061
0.14
0.2
2.792
7
3
1. OOE-06
15
25.550
1.095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean child soil ingestion
rate (USEPA. 1997t).
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Upper
Hudson.
Approx. 50% of RME
derived from 50th percentilc
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean chid body weight.
males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365d/yr (USEPA. 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Based on absorption of
PCBs from soil in monkeys
(Wester. 1 993).
50% value for children
(moist soil) : hands, tower
legs, forearms, and face
(USEPA. 19991).
5Oth percenlileave for
male/female child age 6:
hands, lower legs.
forearms, feet, and face
(USEPA. I997t).
Approx. 50% of RME
derived from 50lh percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
-
Mean child body weight.
males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70- year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 19S9b).
ED (years) x 365 daysryear.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) B
C.a^n, x IR^, x FS x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C«, x DA x AF x SA x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Cradietit Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-23
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Route
Dermal
Parameter
Code
Cwatar
Kp
SA
DE
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in River Water
Dermal Permeability Constant (for PCBs)
Surface Area
Dermal Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/L
cm/hour
cm2
hours/day
days/year
years
L/crrf>
kg
days
days
RME
Value
9.2E-06
0.48
18,150
2.6
13
23
1.00E-03
70
25,550
8,395
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2- 10
Hexachlorobiphenyl
(USEPA, 1999f)
Full body contact (USEPA,
1997f)
National average for
swimming (USEPA, 1989b).
1 day/week, 3 months/yr
derived from 95th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
-
Mean adult body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
1.5E-05
0.48
18,150
2.6
7
5
1 .OOE-03
70
25.550
1,825
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-10
Hexachlorobiphenyl
(USEPA, 1999f)
Full body contact (USEPA,
1997f)
National average for
swimming (USEPA, 1989b).
Approx. 50% of RME
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
-
Mean adult body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C,,,., x Kp x SA x DE x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
\8708676\Mkl-Hudson\
Ragslbls x1s\lb!2-23 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-24
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure Route
Dermal
Parameter
Code
c.,«
Kp
SA
DE
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in River Water
Dermal Permeability Constant (for PCBs)
Surface Area
Dermal Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/L
cm/hour
cm2
hours/day
days/year
years
L/cm3
kg
days
days
RME
Value
1 .2E-05
0.48
13,100
2.6
39
12
1.00E-03
43
25,550
4,380
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-10
Hexachlorobiphenyl
(USEPA, 1999f)
Full body contact (USEPA,
1997f)
National average for
swimming (USEPA, 1989b).
3 days/week, 3 months/yr
derived from 95th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
1.6E-05
0.48
13,100
2.6
20
3
1 .OOE-03
43
25,550
1,095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-10
Hexachlorobiphenyl
(USEPA, 1999f)
Full body contact (USEPA,
1997f)
National average for
swimming (USEPA, 1989b).
Approx. 50% of RME
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C*,,., x Kp x SA x DE x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
\B708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragslbls xlsVlb!2-24 12/28*99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-25
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure Route
Dermal
Parameter
Code
Cwal«f
Kp
SA
DE
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in River Water
Dermal Permeability Constant (for PCBs)
Surface Area
Dermal Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/L
cm/hour
cm*
hours/day
days/year
years
L/cm3
kg
days
days
RME
Value
1 .4E-05
0.48
6,880
2.6
13
6
1 .OOE-03
15
25,550
2,190
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-10
Hexachlorobiphenyl
(USEPA, 1999f)
Full body contact (USEPA,
1997f)
National average for
swimming (USEPA, 1989b).
1 day/week, 3 months/yr
derived from 95th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
--
Mean child body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 19895).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
1 .6E-05
0.48
6,880
2.6
7
3
1 .OOE-03
15
25,550
1,095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2- 10
Hexachlorobiphenyl
(USEPA, 1999f)
Full body contact (USEPA,
1997f)
National average for
swimming (USEPA, 1989b).
Approx. 50% of RME
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean child body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C«w x Kp x SA x DE x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
\8708676\Mld-Hudson\
Ragslbls xlsUb!2-25 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-26
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Cwaiw
IR
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in River Water
Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/L
L/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
RME
Value
9.2E-06
2.3
350
23
70
25,550
8,395
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-10
90th percentile drinking
water intake rate for adults
(USEPA, 1997c)
(USEPA, 1991 b)
derived from 95th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean adult body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
1 .5E-05
1.40
350
5
70
25,550
1,825
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-10
Mean drinking water intake
rate for adults (USEPA,
1997c)
(USEPA, 1991b)
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean adult body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C.M, x IR x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls xlsMbl2 26 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-27
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER Adolescent Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Cwat»r
IR
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in River Water
Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/L
L/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
RME
Value
1.2E-05
2.3
350
12
43
25,550
4,380
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-10
90th percentile drinking
water intake rate for adults
(USEPA, 1997c)
(USEPA, 1991 b)
derived from 95th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
1 .6E-05
1.40
350
3
43
25,550
1,095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-10
Mean drinking water intake
rate for adults (USEPA,
1997c)
(USEPA, 1991b)
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C..^, x IR x EF x ED X 1/BW X 1/AT
\S708676\Wid-Hudson\
Ragslbls Kls'Jbl2-27 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 2-28
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Cwatflf
IR
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in River Water
Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/L
L/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
RME
Value
1.4E-05
1.5
350
6
15
25,550
2,190
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2- 10
90th percentile drinking
water intake rate for
children, ages 3-5 (USEPA,
1997c)
(USEPA, 1991b)
derived from 95th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean child body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
1.6E-05
0.87
350
3
15
25,550
1,095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2- 10
Mean drinking water intake
rate for children, ages 3-5
(USEPA, 1997c)
(USEPA, 1991b)
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 6
Mid-Hudson Counties (see
text)
Mean child body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C,,,, x IR x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
,
V8708676\Mid-Hu
-------
TABLE 3-1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL
MID-HUDSON RIVER
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1016
Chronic/
Subchronic
Chronic
Chronic
Oral RfD
Value
2.00E-05 (2)
7.00E-05 (3)
Oral RfD
Units
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
Oral to Dermal
Adjustment Factor
Adjusted
Dermal
RfD
Units
Primary
Target
Organ
Immune system
Birth Weight
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
300
100
Sources of RfD:
Target Organ
IRIS
IRIS
Dates of RfD:
Target Organ (1]
(MM/DD/YY)
12/1/99
12/1/99
N/A = Not Applicable
(1) IRIS value from most recent updated PCB file.
(2) Oral RfD for Aroclor 1254; there is no RfD available for total PCBs. PCBs in fish are considered to be most like Aroclor 1254.
(3) Oral RfD for Aroclor 1016; there is no RfD available for total PCBs. PCBs in sediment and water samples are considered to be most like Aroclor 1016.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\lbl3-1 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 3-2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL
MID-HUDSON RIVER
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Oral Cancer Slope Factor
1 (2)
2 (3)
0.3 (4)
0.4 (5)
Oral to Dermal
Adjustment
Factor
--
--
--
Adjusted Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor
--
-
Units
(mg/kg-d)"'
(mg/kg-d)''
(mg/kg-d)'1
(mg/kg-d)"
Weight of Evidence/
Cancer Guideline
Description
B2
B2
B2
B2
Source
Target Organ
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
Date(1)
(MM/DD/YY)
12/1/99
12/1/99
12/1/99
12/1/99
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
EPA Group:
A - Human carcinogen
B1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human data are available
B2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence in animals and
inadequate or no evidence in humans
C - Possible human carcinogen
D - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen
E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
Weight of Evidence:
Known/Likely
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
(2) Central estimate slope factor for exposures to PCBs via ingestion of fish, ingestion of sediments, and dermal contact (if dermal absorption fraction is applied) with sediments.
(3) Upper-bound slope factor for exposures to PCBs via ingestion of fish, ingestion of sediments, and dermal contact (if dermal absorption fraction is applied) with sediments.
(4) Central estimate slope factor for exposures to PCBs via ingestion and dermal contact (if no absorption factor is applied) with water soluble congeners in river water.
(5) Upper-bound slope factor for exposures to PCBs via ingestion and dermal contact (if no absorption factor is applied) with water soluble congeners in river water.
(1) IRIS value from most recent updated PCB file.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\M id- Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\lbl3-2 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-1-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER FISH -Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.3
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
Route
EPC
Value
1.3
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
5.9E-04
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
2.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
30
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 30
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragslbls.xlsMbl4-1-RME 12/2B/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE4-1-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER FISH - Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.2
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
Route
EPC
Value
1.2
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
5.4E-05
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
2.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
3
3
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tt>l4-1-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-2-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.5
0.5
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.5
0.5
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
1.1E-08
5.9E-08
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.0002
0.0008
0.001
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
\8708676\MkJ-HudsonV
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-2-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-2-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
8.1E-09
4.1E-08
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
0.0001
0.0006
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
I otal Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 0.0007
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xlsMbH-2-CT \2I2BI99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-3-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.5
0.5
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.5
0.5
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
6.5E-08
1.9E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
. N/A
Hazard
Quotient
0.001
0.003
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
\8708676\MH-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\lbl4-3-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-3-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adolescent Recreator
icenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
3.9E-08
1.2E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.001
0.002
0.003
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
\8708676\Mkl-Hudson\
Ragstols.xlsMbM-3-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-4-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
1 .4E-07
1.1E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.002
0.002
0.004
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\MkJ-Hudson\
Ragslbls.xls\!bl4-4-RME 12/23/99
-------
TABLE 4-4-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Medium
EPC
Units
rng/kg
rng/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
rng/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
7.8E-08
6.1 E-08
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.001
0.001
0.002
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragslbls.xlsMDI4-4-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-5-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER -Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
9.18E-06
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
9.18E-06
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
1.1E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.002
0.002
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-5-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-5-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.49E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .49E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
9.2E-08
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.001
0.001
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
\8708676\MM-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xlsMbM-5-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-6-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.16E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.16E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
4.7E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.007
0.007
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mkl-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xIsUbM-6-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-6-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.63E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.63E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
3.4E-07
Intake
(Non -Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
0.005
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specilic (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways [| o.oos
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
RagstbIs.xlsMbM.6-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-7-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
2.9E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.004
0.004
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid.Hudson\
RagslblS.xls«t)l4-7-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-7-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1 .63E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.63E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
1.8E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.003
0.003
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\B708676\MKJ-Hucfson\
Ragstt>ls.xls\tt>l4-7-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-8-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
9.18E-06
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
9.18E-06
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
2.9E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
0.004
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xIsMbM-B-RME 12/26/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-8-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River - Drinking Water
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.49E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.49E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
2.9E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.004
0.004
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xlsMbl4-8-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-9-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River - Drinking Water
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.16E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.16E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
5.9E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
0.0085
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || o.ooas
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragslbls.xlsMW4-9-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-9-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River - Drinking Water
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1 .63E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.63E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
5.1E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
0.0073
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 0.0073
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.)ds\tbl4.9-CT 12/28TC9
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-10-HME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER-Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River - Drinking Water
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1 .40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non -Cancer)
1.3E-06
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.019
0.0192
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls xls\tbW-10-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-10-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER -Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River - Drinking Water
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.63E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.63E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
9.1E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
7.0E-05
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
0.0130
0.0130
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected lor hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mkl-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xtsMbl'l-IO-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE4-11-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER FISH - Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
ngestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.8
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
Route
EPC
Value
0.8
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
Intake
(Cancer)
2.1E-04
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
2
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
4.2E-04
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways [| 4.2E-04
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\lbl4-11-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-11-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER FISH - Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.2
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
Route
EPC
Value
1.2
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
9.3E-06
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
1
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
9.3E-06
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 9.3E-06
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\!bl4-11-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-12-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.5
0.5
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.5
0.5
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
3.8E-09
1 .9E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
2
2
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
(mg/kg-day)"1
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Cancer
Risk
7.6E-09
3^9E-08
4.6E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-12-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-12-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
5.8E-10
2.9E-09
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
1
1
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
(mg/kg-day)"1
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Cancer
Risk
5.8E-10
2.9E-09
3.5E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-12-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-13-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.5
0.5
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.5
0.5
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
1.1E-08
3.3E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
2
2
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
(mg/kg-day)'1
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Cancer
Risk
2.2E-08
6.7E-08
8.9E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-13-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE4-13-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
1 .7E-09
4.9E-09
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
1
1
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
1.7E-09
4.9E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
I otal Hisk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 6.6E-09
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-13-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-14-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
1 .2E-08
9.2E-09
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
2
2
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
2.4E-08
1.8E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways \\ 4.2E-08
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragslbls.xls\tbl4-14-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-14-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Mid-Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
0.6
0.6
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
3.3E-09
2.6E-09
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
1
1
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
3.3E-09
2.6E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways H 5.9E-09
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-HudSOn\
Ragslbls.xls\tbl4-14-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-15-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
9.18E-06
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
9.18E-06
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
Intake
(Cancer)
3.5E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
1.4E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways | 1.4E-08
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\Ibl4-15-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-15-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.49E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .49E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
Intake
(Cancer)
6.6E-09
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
2.0E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
I otal Hisk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 2.0E-09
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-15-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-16-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.16E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.16E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
8.1E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Cancer
Risk
3.2E-08
3.2E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-16-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-16-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1 .63E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.63E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
1.5E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"'
Cancer
Risk
4.4E-09
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Gradient Corporation
\B708676\Mid-HudSOn\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-16-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-17-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1 .40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
2.4E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)'1
Cancer
Risk
9.8E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways |[ 9.8E-Q9
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragslbls.xls\Ibl4-17-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-17-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
ScenarioTimefname: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.63E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
rng/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .63E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
7.7E-09
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
2.3E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
I otal Hisk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 2.3E-09
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-17-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-18-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water (Drinking Water)
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
9.18E-06
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
9.18E-06
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
9.5E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
3.8E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 3.8E-08
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\!bl4-18-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-18-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water (Drinking Water)
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1 .49E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.49E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
Intake
(Cancer)
2.0E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
6.1E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 6.1E-09
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-1B-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-19-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.16E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.16E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
1.0E-07
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"'
Cancer
Risk
.
4.1E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways [| 4.1E-08
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragslbls.xls\tbl4-19-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-19-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water (Drinking Water)
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1 .63E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .63E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
Intake
(Cancer)
M 2.2E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
6.5E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
i otai HISK Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways | 6.5E-09
\8708676\Mid-HudSOn\
Ragstbls.xls\tbM-19-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-20-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1 .40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
Intake
(Cancer)
1.15E-07
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
4.6E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 4.6E-08
\8708676\Mid-HudSOn\
Ragslbls.xls\lbl4-20-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-20-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Mid-Hudson River
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
1.63E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .63E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
tor Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
3.9E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
1.2E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 1.2E-08
\8708676\Mid-HudSOn\
Ragstbls.xls\tbl4-20-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-21-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Angler
[[Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Fish
Exposure
Medium
Fish
Exposure
Point
Mid-Hudson Fish
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
4.2E-04
Inhalation
Dermal
-
Total Risk Across Fish
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
4.2E-04
4.2E-04
4.2E-04
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Immune System
Ingestion
30
Inhalation
--
Dermal
-
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
30
I 30
Total Immune System HI = || 30
W708676Wlid-Hudson\
RagslDlsxlsUbW-21-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-21-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adult Angler
Medium
Fish
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Medium
Fish
Exposure
Point
Mid-Hudson Fish
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
9.3E-06
Inhalation
-
Dermal
-
Total Risk Across Fish
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
9.3E-06
9.3E-06
9.3E-06
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Immune System
Ingestion
3
Inhalation
--
Dermal
-
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
3
3
Total Immune System HI = | 3 |l
\870B676\Wri-Hudson\
Ragslbte.xlsMbM-21-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-22-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adult Recreator
(Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
[Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Point
Banks of Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
7.6E-09
Inhalation
-
Dermal
3.9E-08
1.4E-08
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
4.6E-08
1.4E-08
4.6E-08
1.4E-08
6.0E-08
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.000
Inhalation
-
Dermal
0.001
0.0015
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total Low Birth Weight HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
0.001
0.0015
0.003
0.003 I
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-HudsonV
Ragslbls xls\lbl4-22-RUE 12/28/99
-------
enario Timeframe: Current/Future
ceptor Population: Recreator
ceptor Age: Adult
TABLE 4-22-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adult Recreator
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Point
Banks of Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
5.8E-10
Inhalation
Dermal
2.9E-09
2.0E-09
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
3.5E-09
2.0E-09
3.5E-09
2.0E-09
5.5E-09
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.000
Inhalation
-
Dermal
0.001
0.0013
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total Low Birth Weight HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
0.001
0.0013
0.002
0.002 I
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbis.xls\tbM-22-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-23-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adolescent Recreator
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Point
Banks of Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
2.2E-08
Inhalation
Dermal
6.7E-08
3.2E-08
Total Risk Across Sedimenl
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
8.9E-08
3.2E-08
8.9E-08
3.2E-08
1 .2E-07
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.001
Inhalation
-
Dermal
0.003
0.007
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
0.004
0.0067
0.010
Total Low Birth Weight HI = || 0.010 |
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragslbls xis\lbl4-23-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-23-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
[[Receptor Age: Adolescent
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Point
Banks of Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1.7E-09
Inhalation
Dermal
4.9E-09
4.4E-09
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
6.6E-09
4.4E-09
6.6E-09
4.4E-09
1.1E-08
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.001
Inhalation
--
Dermal
0.002
0.0049
Exposure
Routes Total
0.002
0.0049
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes || 0.007
Total Low Birth Weight HI - 1| 0.007 ||
\8708676\Mtt-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xlsMbl4-23.CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
[[Receptor Age: Child
TABLE 4-24-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Child Recreator
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Point
Banks of Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
2.4E-08
Inhalation
Dermal
1.8E-08
9.8E-09
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
4.2E-08
9.8E-09
4.2E-08
9.8E-09
5.2E-08
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.002
Inhalation
-
Dermal
0.002
0.0041
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total Low Birth Weight HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
0.003
0.0041
0.008
0.008 I
\8708676\MU-HljdsonV
Ragstbls.xls\tt>l4-24-RME 12/26/99
Cradiml Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-24-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Child Recrealor
[Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
[Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Exposure
Point
Chemical
Banks ol Mid-Hudson IPCBs
Mid-Hudson River PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
3.3E-09
Inhalation
Dermal
2.6E-09
2.3E-09
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
5.9E-09
2.3E-09
5.9E-09
2.3E-09
8.2E-09
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.001
Inhalation
--
Dermal
0.001
0.0026
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total Low Birth Weight HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
0.002
0.0026
0.005
0.005
Gradient Corporation
\8708676\M kJ-HudsonV
Ragstbls.xisMbW-24-CT 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-25-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Point
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
3.8E-08
Inhalation
-
Dermal
--
Exposure
Routes Total
3.8E-08
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes | 3.8E-08
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.0041
Inhalation
-
Dermal
-
Exposure
Routes Total
0.0041
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes | 0.004
Total Low Birth Weight HI = || 0.004
\8708676\MKj-Hudson\
Ragslbls.xlsMbU-25-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-25-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Point
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
6.1E-09 |
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
6.1E-09
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
Inhalation
0.0041 |
Dermal
-
Exposure
Routes Total
0.0041
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes || 6.1E-09 || Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes || 0.004
Total Low Birth Weight HI = || 0.004 ||
\870S676\M id-Hudsoni
Ragstbls.xls\lbl4-25.CT
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-26-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adolescent Resident
[Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
[[Receptor Age: Adolescent
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Point
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
4.1E-08
Inhalation
--
Dermal
-
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
4.1E-08
4.1E-08
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
aw Birth Weig
Ingestion
0.0085
Inhalation
--
Dermal
-
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
0.0085
0.008
Total Low Birth Weight HI = || 0.008
Gradient Corporation
\S708676\Mld-Hudson\
Ragslbls.xls\lbM-26-RME 12/28/99
-------
TABLE 4-26-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Adolescent Resident
pcenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
[Receptor Age: Adolescent
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Point
Chemical
Mid-Hudson River PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
6.5E-09 |
Dermal
-
Exposure
Routes Total
6.5E-09
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes || 6.5E-09
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.0073
Inhalation
Dermal
-
Exposure
Routes Total
0.0073
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes l| 0.007
Total Low Birth Weight HI = [| 0.007
\a708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragstbls.xlsMbW-26-CT 12/28199
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-27-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER - Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Point
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
4.6E-08 |
Dermal
-
Exposure
Routes Total
4.6E-08
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.0192
Inhalation
-
Dermal
-
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes || 4.6E-08 j Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
0.0192
0.019
Total Low Birth Weight HI = || 0.019 ||
\B708676VMtt-HudsorA
RagstblsxlsMbH-27-RME 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
TABLE 4-27-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
MID-HUDSON RIVER -Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Point
Mid-Hudson River
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
1 .2E-08 |
Dermal
-
Exposure
Routes Total
1 .2E-08
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
Low Birth Weight
Ingestion
0.0130
Inhalation
--
Dermal
--
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes || 1.2E-08 || Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
0.0130
0.013
Total Low Birth Weight HI = || 0.013 ||
\8708676\Mid-Hudson\
Ragslbte.xlsMbl4.27-CT 12/28/99
Gradient Corporation
-------
Figures
-------
Figure 2-1
Average PCB Concentration in Brown Bullhead
Mid-Hudson River
2.0
1.8 -
1.6 -
1.4
River Miles 153.5-123.5
(Farley Segments 1-3)
River Miles 123.5-93.5
(Farley Segments 4-6)
River Miles 93.5 - 63.5 (Farley
Segments 7-9)
O)
f,ot
c
O
0.8
0.6
0.4 -
0.2 -
0.0
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Gradient Corporation
-------
0.7
0.6-
0.5 -
0.4
o
g 0.3
c
-------
3.50
Figure 2-3
Average PCB Concentration in Largemouth Bass
Mid-Hudson River
3.00
2.50 -
a
a>
5 2.00
f
c
o
« 1.50 f
o
u
1.00 -
0.50
0.00
-River Miles 153.5 -123.5 (Farley
Segments 1-3)
- River Miles 123.5 - 93.5 (Farley
Segments 4-6)
- River Miles 93.5 - 63.5 (Farley
Segments 7-9)
-4-
1995
2000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Year
Gradient Corporation
-------
Figure 2-4
Average PCB Concentration in Striped Bass
Mid-Hudson River
8.00
7.00 -
6.00
oi
« 5.00
en
f 4.00
c
o
I
c
g 3.00
c
o
o
2.00
1.00
-River Miles 153.5-123.5
(Farley Segments 1 -3)
-River Miles 123.5-93.5
(Farley Segments 4-6)
- River Miles 93.5 - 63.5
(Farley Segments 7-9)
2035
2040
2045
Gradient Corporation
-------
1.6
1.4 -
1.2
1.0
o>
f 0.8
o
o
o
0.4 -
0.2
0.0
1995
Figure 2-5
Average PCB Concentration in White Perch
Mid-Hudson River
White Perch (Farley Segmentsl - 9)
-i-
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Year
Gradient Corporation
-------
Figure 2-6
Average PCB Concentration by Species (averaged over location)
Mid-Hudson River
3.50
3.00
y 2.50
£
O)
2.00
I
I 1.50
co
c
O 1.00
0.50
Brown Bullhead
Yellow Perch
A Largemouth Bass
X Striped Bass
X White Perch
0.00
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Gradient Corporation
-------
0.9
0.8 -
0.7
0.6
"3
E. 0.5
c
IO
I
§ 0.4 -f
c
o
o
0.3
0.2
0.1 --
0.0
1995
Figure 2-7
Average Total PCB Concentration in Sediment
Mid-Hudson River
-River Miles 153.5-143.5
(Farley Segment 1)
-River Miles 73.5-63.5
(Farley Segment 9)
Overall Average, River
Miles 153.5-63.5 (Farley
Segments 1-9)
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Gradient Corporation
-------
Figure 2-8
Average Total PCB Concentration in River Water
Mid-Hudson River
0.035
0.030 -
0.025
0.020
c
o
*^
S
I
o
u
0.015-
0.010 -
0.005
-River Miles 153.5-143.5
(Farley Segment 1)
-River Miles 73.5-63.5
(Farley Segment 9)
-Overall Average, River
Miles 153.5-63.5 (Farley
Segments 1 -9)
0.000
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Convert to nig/L by dividing by 1000 for comparison to Table 2-10.
Gradient Corporation
-------
LEGEND
75 RIVER MILE (RM) UPSTREAM OF THE BATTERY
1UP SOURCE BH DATA > HAPS. SHAPEHLB
SCALE IN MILES
10 5 0 10
PLATE 1
MID-HUDSON RIVER
STUDY AREA
Gradient Corporation
------- |