PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F • HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
AUGUST 1999
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Book 1 of 1
Upper Hudson Risk Assessment
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT- REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
AUGUST 1999
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Book 1 of 1
Upper Hudson Risk Assessment
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Gradient Corporation
-------
•^ ^^ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
fJHL°5 REGION 2
9 290 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866
August 4,1999
To All Interested Parties:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is pleased to release the baseline Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River (HHRA), which is part of Phase 2 of the
Reassessment Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Reassessment RI/FS) for the Hudson River
PCBs Superfund site. The HHRA evaluates current and future risk to adults, adolescents, and
children posed by PCBs in the Upper Hudson River in the absence of remediation. The HHRA will
help establish acceptable exposure levels for use hi developing remedial alternatives in the
Feasibility Study, which is Phase 3 of the Reassessment RI/FS for the Hudson River PCBs site.
As stated in the April 1999 Responsiveness Summary for Phase 2 - Human Health Risk Assessment
Scope of Work, USEPA will complete the Mid-Hudson Human Health Risk Assessment following
review of the revised Thomann-Farley model developed for the Hudson River Foundation.
USEPA will accept comments on the HHRA until September 7,1999. 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: Upper Hudson River HHRA Comments
USEPA will hold two Joint Liaison Group meetings to discuss the findings of the HHRA. The first
meeting will be on the date of release of the report, August 4,1999, and will be held at 7:30 p.m. at
the Marriott Hotel, 189 Wolf Road, Albany, New York. The second meeting will be on August 5,
1999 at 7:30 p.m. at the Sheraton Hotel, 40 Civic Center Plaza, Poughkeepsie, New York. Both
meetings are open to the general public. Notification of these meetings was sent to Liaison Group
members, interested parties, and the press several weeks prior to the meetings.
During the public comment period, USEPA will hold availability sessions to answer questions from
the public regarding the HHRA. The availability sessions will be held from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. and
from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on August 18, 1999 at the Holiday Inn Express, 946 New Loudon Road,
Latham, New York.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
RecycUd/Recyclabl* . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
-------
If you need additional information regarding the HHRA, the availability sessions, or the
Reassessment RI/FS in general, please contact Ann Rychlenski, the Community Relations
Coordinator for this site, at (212) 637-3672.
Sincerely yours,
f Richard L. Caspe, Director
\ Emergency and Remedial Response Division
-------
Table of Contents
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Book 1 of 1 Page
Executive Summary ES-1
1 Overview of Upper 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 3
1.5 Objectives of Phase 2 Risk Assessment 4
2 Exposure Assessment 5
2.1 Exposure Pathways 6
2.1.1 Potential Exposure Media 6
2.1.2 Potential Receptors 7
2.1.3 Potential Exposure Routes 8
2.2 Quantification of Exposure 9
2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations 10
2.3.1 PCB Concentration in Fish 11
2.3.2 PCB Concentration in Sediment 15
2.3.3 PCB Concentration in River Water 16
2.3.4 PCB Concentration in Air 16
2.4 Chemical Intake Algorithms 21
2.4.1 Ingestion of Fish 21
2.4.2 Ingestion of Sediment 25
2.4.3 Dermal Contact with Sediment 27
2.4.4 Dermal Contact with River Water 29
2.4.5 Inhalation of PCBs in Air 30
3 Monte Carlo Exposure Analysis of Fish Ingestion Pathway 33
3.1 Discussion of Variability and Uncertainty 33
3.2 Derivation of Exposure Factor Distributions 36
3.2.1 Fish Ingestion Rate 37
3.2.1.1 Summary of Fish Ingestion Rate Literature 38
3.2.1.2 Fish Ingestion Rate Distribution 41
3.2.1.3 Sensitivity/Uncertainty Analysis of Fish Ingestion Rates 43
3.2.1.4 Discussion of Additional Considerations 44
3.2.2 PCB Concentration in Fish 47
3.2.3 Cooking Loss 48
i Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Book 1 of 1 Page
3.2.4 Exposure Duration 49
3.2.4.1 Joint Distribution for Current Age and Fishing Start Age 51
3.2.4.2 Time Remaining Until an Individual Stops Fishing 53
3.2.4.3 Determination of Residence Duration 55
3.2.5 Body Weight 57
3.3 Summary of Simulation Calculations 58
3.3.1 Input Distributions Base Case and Sensitivity Analysis 58
3.3.2 Numerical Stability Analysis 59
4 Toxicity Assessment 61
4.1 Non-cancer Toxicity Values 61
4.2 PCB Cancer Toxicity 63
4.3 Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Dioxin-Like PCBs 64
4.4 Endocrine Disruption 65
5 Risk Characterization 67
5.1 Point Estimate Risk Characterization 67
5.1.1 Non-cancer Hazard Indices 67
5.1.2 Cancer Risks 68
5.1.3 Dioxin-Like Risks of PCBs 69
5.2 Monte Carlo Risk Estimates for Fish Ingestion 70
5.2.1 Non-Cancer Hazards 70
5.2.2 Cancer Risks 71
5.3 Discussion of Uncertainties 71
5.3.1 Exposure Assessment 71
5.3.2 Toxicity Assessment 76
5.3.3 Comparison of Point Estimate RME and Monte Carlo Results 77
References 81
Appendix A Modeled Estimates of PCBs in Air
Appendix B Monte Carlo Analysis Attachments
Appendix C PCB Toxicological Profile
ii Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Book 1 of 1
Table 2-1 Selection Of Exposure Pathways -- Phase 2 Risk Assessment, Upper Hudson River
Table 2-2 Occurrence, Distribution And Selection Of Chemicals Of Potential Concern, Upper
Hudson River - Fish
Table 2-3 Occurrence, Distribution And Selection Of Chemicals Of Potential Concern, Upper
Hudson River - Sediment
Table 2-4 Occurrence, Distribution And Selection Of Chemicals Of Potential Concern, Upper
Hudson River - River Water
Table 2-5 Occurrence, Distribution And Selection Of Chemicals Of Potential Concern, Upper
Hudson River - Outdoor Air
Table 2-6 Medium-Specific Modeled Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Upper Hudson
River Fish - Thompson Island Pool
Table 2-7 Medium-Specific Modeled Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Upper Hudson
River Fish - River Mile 168
Table 2-8 Medium-Specific Modeled Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Upper Hudson
River Fish - River Miles 157 And 154 (Averaged)
Table 2-9 Medium-Specific Modeled Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Upper Hudson
River Sediment
Table 2-10 Medium-Specific Modeled Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Upper Hudson
River Water
Table 2-11 Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary, Upper Hudson River Air
Table 2-12 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Fish - Adult Angler
Table 2-13 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Sediment - Adult
Recreator
Table 2-14 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Sediment -
Adolescent Recreator
Table 2-15 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Sediment - Child
Recreator
Table 2-16 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Water - Adult
Recreator
Table 2-17 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Water - Adolescent
Recreator
Table 2-18 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Water - Child
Recreator
Table 2-19 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Air - Adult
Recreator
Table 2-20 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Air - Adolescent
Recreator
Table 2-21 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Air - Child
Recreator
Table 2-22 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Air - Adult
Resident
Gradient Corporation
-------
Book 1 of 1
Table 2-23
Table 2-24
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 3-5
Table 3-6
Table 3-7
Table 3-8
Table 3-9
Table 3-10
Table 3-11
Table 3-12
Table 3-13
Table 3-14
Table 3-15
Table 3-16
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
Table 4-4
Table 4-5
Table 5-1-RME
Table 5-1-CT
Table 5-2-RME
Table 5-2-CT
Table 5-3-RME
Table 5-3-CT
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Air - Adolescent
Resident
Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations, Upper Hudson River Air - Child
Resident
Summary of Fish Ingestion Rates - 1991 New York Angler Survey
Fish Ingestion Rate Summary for Several Surveys
Summary of 1991 New York Angler Survey, Fish Consumption by Species Reported
Species-Group Intake Percentages Using 1991 New York Angler Survey Data
Summary of PCB Losses from Fish due to Cooking
Joint Distribution Over Current Age and Age at Which Individual Started Fishing
Time Until Individual Stops Fishing
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Albany County, NY
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Rensselaer County, NY
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Saratoga County, NY
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Warren County, NY
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Washington County, NY
County-to-County In-Migration Data for The Upper Hudson Region
Computation of 1-Year Move Probabilities for the Upper Hudson Region
Annual Probability That Individual Will Leave Region
Age-Specific Body Weight Distributions
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data ~ Oral/Dermal, Upper Hudson River
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data ~ Inhalation, Upper Hudson River
Cancer Toxicity Data — Oral/Dermal, Upper Hudson River
Cancer Toxicity Data — Inhalation, Upper Hudson River
Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Dioxin-Like PCBs
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Fish - Adult Angler
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Fish - Adult Angler
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Sediment - Adult Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Sediment - Adult Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Sediment - Adolescent Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Sediment - Adolescent Recreator
Gradient Corporation
-------
Book 1 of 1
Table 5-4-RME
Table 5-4-CT
Table 5-5-RME
Table 5-5-CT
Table 5-6-RME
Table 5-6-CT
Table 5-7-RME
Table 5-7-CT
Table 5-8-RME
Table 5-8-CT
Table 5-9-RME
Table 5-9-CT
Table 5-10-RME
Table 5-10-CT
Table5-ll-RME
Table5-ll-CT
Table5-12-RME
Table5-12-CT
Table5-13-RME
Table5-13-CT
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Sediment - Child Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Sediment - Child Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Water - Adult Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Water - Adult Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Water - Adolescent Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Water - Adolescent Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Water - Child Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Water - Child Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Adult Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Adult Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Adolescent Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Adolescent Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Child Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Child Recreator
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Adult Resident
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Adult Resident
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Adolescent Resident
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Adolescent Resident
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Child Resident
Calculation of Non-Cancer Hazards, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson
River Air - Child Resident
Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Book 1 of 1
Table 5-14-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Fish - Adult Angler
Table 5-14-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Fish -
Adult Angler
Table 5-15-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Sediment - Adult Recreator
Table5-15-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River
Sediment - Adult Recreator
Table 5-16-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Sediment - Adolescent Recreator
Table 5-16-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River
Sediment - Adolescent Recreator
Table 5-17-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Sediment - Child Recreator
Table 5-17-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River
Sediment - Child Recreator
Table 5-18-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Water - Adult Recreator
Table 5-18-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Water
- Adult Recreator
Table 5-19-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Water - Adolescent Recreator
Table 5-19-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Water
- Adolescent Recreator
Table 5-20-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Water - Child Recreator
Table 5-20-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Water
- Child Recreator
Table 5-21-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Air - Adult Recreator
Table 5-21-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Air -
Adult Recreator
Table 5-22-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Air - Adolescent Recreator
Table 5-22-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Air -
Adolescent Recreator
Table 5-23-RME Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Air - Child Recreator
Table 5-23-CT Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Air -
Child Recreator
Gradient Corporation
-------
Book 1 of 1
Table 5-24-RME
Table 5-24-CT
Table 5-25-RME
Table 5-25-CT
Table 5-26-RME
Table 5-26-CT
Table 5-27-RME
Table 5-27-CT
Table 5-28-RME
Table 5-28-CT
Table 5-29-RME
Table 5-29-CT
Table 5-30-RME
Table 5-30-CT
Table 5-31-RME
Table 5-31-CT
Table 5-32-RME
Table 5-32-CT
Table 5-33-RME
Table 5-33-CT
Table 5-34
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Air - Adult Resident
Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Air -
Adult Resident
Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Air - Adolescent Resident
Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Air -
Adolescent Resident
Calculation of Cancer Risks, Reasonable Maximum Exposure Upper Hudson River
Air - Child Resident
Calculation of Cancer Risks, Central Tendency Exposure Upper Hudson River Air -
Child Resident
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Upper Hudson River - Adult Angler
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency Exposure
Upper Hudson River - Adult Angler
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Upper Hudson River - Adult Recreator
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency Exposure
Upper Hudson River - Adult Recreator
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Upper Hudson River - Adolescent Recreator
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency Exposure
Upper Hudson River - Adolescent Recreator
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Upper Hudson River - Child Recreator
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency Exposure
Upper Hudson River - Child Recreator
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Upper Hudson River - Adult Resident
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency Exposure
Upper Hudson River - Adult Resident
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Upper Hudson River - Adolescent Resident
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency Exposure
Upper Hudson River - Adolescent Resident
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Reasonable Maximum
Exposure Upper Hudson River - Child Resident
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs, Central Tendency Exposure
Upper Hudson River - Child Resident
Total (Tri+) PCB Concentrations - Phase 2 Fish Data - Upper Hudson
Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT
LIST OF TABLES
Book 1 of 1
Table 5-35 Fraction of Dioxin-Like PCB Congeners in Upper Hudson Fish
Table 5-36 Dioxin TEQs for Dioxin-Like PCB Congeners
Table 5-37 Risk Estimates for Dioxin and Non-Dioxin-like PCBs, Angler Ingestion of Fish
Table 5-38 Comparison of Point Estimate and Monte Carlo Non-cancer Hazard Index Estimates
for Fish Ingestion
Table 5-39 Comparison of Point Estimate and Monte Carlo Cancer Risk Estimates for Fish
Ingestion
viii Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT
LIST OF FIGURES
Book 1 of 1
Figure 2-1 PCS Concentration in Fish, Brown Bullhead-Thompson Island Pool
Figure 2-2 PCB Concentration in Fish, Brown Bullhead-River Mile 168
Figure 2-3 PCB Concentration in Fish, Brown Bullhead-River Miles 157 and 154 (averaged)
Figure 2-4 PCB Concentration in Fish, Largemouth Bass-Thompson Island Pool
Figure 2-5 PCB Concentration in Fish, Largemouth Bass-River Mile 168
Figure 2-6 PCB Concentration in Fish, Largemouth Bass-River Miles 157 and 154 (averaged)
Figure 2-7 PCB Concentration in Fish, Yellow Perch-Thompson Island Pool
Figure 2-8 PCB Concentration in Fish, Yellow Perch-River Mile 168
Figure 2-9 PCB Concentration in Fish, Yellow Perch-River Miles 157 and 154 (averaged)
Figure 2-10 PCB Concentration by Species, 1999-2069 (averaged over location)
Figure 2-1 la Segment Averaged Total PCB Concentration in Sediment (1999-2018) Weighted
Cohesive and Non-Cohesive Results — Constant Source Boundary Condition
Figure 2-1 Ib Modeled Total PCB Concentration in Sediment (1999-2018) 20 Year Segment Averages
by River Mile ~ Constant Source Boundary Condition
Figure 2-12a Modeled Water Column Total PCB Concentration 20 Year Segment (Area) Averaged
Values by River Mile — Constant Source Boundary Condition
Figure 2-12b Modeled Water Column Total PCB Concentration River Mile 188.5 - Thompson Island
Dam
Figure 2-12c Modeled Water Column Total PCB Concentration River Mile 168.2 - Stillwater Dam
Figure 3-1 Diagram of Monte Carlo Simulation Process
Figure 3-2a Lognormal Probability Plot - Respondents
Figure 3-2b Lognormal Probability Plot - Non-Respondents
Figure 3-2c Lognormal Probability Plot - Combined Respondents + Non-Respondents
Figure 3-3a Frequency Histogram of Self-Caught Fish Ingestion - New York
Figure 3-3b Frequency Histogram of Recreational Fish Ingestion -Lake Ontario
Figure 3-3c Frequency Histogram of Recreational Fish Ingestion - Michigan
Figure 3-3d Frequency Histogram of Self-Caught Fish Ingestion - Maine
Figure 3-4a Fishing Cessation - Number of Years Until Angler Will Cease Fishing (Derived)
Figure 3-4b Age at which Respondents Reported Began Fishing
Figure 3-4c Current Age of Anglers when Responded to Survey
Figure 3-4d Total Fishing Duration All Ages (Derived)
Figure 3-5a Residence Duration in 5 Upper Hudson Counties
Figure 3-5b Overall Exposure Duration (Combination of Residence Duration and Fishing Duration)
Figure 5-1 a Monte Carlo Estimate Non-cancer Hazards Base Case Scenario
Figure 5-lb Monte Carlo Estimate Non-cancer Hazards High-End Exposure Duration
Figure 5- Ic Monte Carlo Estimate Non-cancer Hazards Maine Fish Ingestion
Figure 5-ld Monte Carlo Estimate Non-cancer Hazards High-End PCB Concentration (Thompson Is.
Pool)
Figure 5-2a Monte Carlo Estimate Cancer Risks Base Case Scenario
Figure 5-2b Monte Carlo Estimate Cancer Risks High-End Exposure Duration
ix Gradient Corporation
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F - HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT
LIST OF FIGURES
Book 1 of 1
Figure 5-2c Monte Carlo Estimate Cancer Risks Maine Fish Ingestion
Figure 5-2d Monte Carlo Estimate Cancer Risks High-End PCB Concentration (Thompson Is. Pool)
Figure 5-3a Monte Carlo Non-Cancer Hazard Index Summary All Scenarios
Figure 5-3b Monte Carlo Cancer Risk Summary All Scenarios
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1 Upper Hudson River Study Area
Note: Plate 1 is located at the end of the Figures section.
Gradient Corporation
-------
Executive Summary
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment: Upper Hudson River
Executive Summary
August 1999
This document presents the baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River
(HHRA), which is part of Phase 2 of the Reassessment Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(Reassessment RI/FS) for the Hudson River PCBs site in New York.1 This HHRA quantitatively evaluates
both cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the
Upper Hudson River, which extends from Hudson Falls, New York to the Federal Dam at Troy, New York.
The HHRA evaluates both current and future risks to children, adolescents, and adults in the absence of any
remedial action and institutional controls. The HHRA uses current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(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 and the possible adverse health effects associated with such exposure.
The 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 Upper Hudson River are
above levels of concern. Consistent 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 HHRA indicates
that fish ingestion represents the primary pathway for PCB exposure and for potential adverse health effects,
and that risks from other exposure pathways are generally below levels of concern. The results of the
HHRA will help establish acceptable 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 Upper 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). The Reassessment RI/FS
documents provide current and forecasted concentrations of PCBs in fish, sediments, and river water and
form the basis of the site data collection and analyses used in conducting the HHRA.
1 A separate human health risk assessment is being conducted for the Mid-Hudson River (Federal
Dam at Troy, New York to Poughkeepsie, New York).
ES-1 Gradient Corporation
-------
Exposure Assessment
Adults, adolescents, and children were identified as populations possibly exposed to PCBs in the
Upper Hudson River due to fishing and recreational activities (swimming, wading), as well as from living
adjacent to the Upper Hudson River and inhaling volatilized PCBs in the air. Cancer risks and non-cancer
hazards were calculated for each of these populations. To protect human health and provide a full
characterization of the PCB risks and hazards, both an average (central tendency) exposure estimate and an
RME estimate were calculated. The RME is the maximum exposure that is reasonably expected to occur
in the Upper Hudson River under baseline conditions.
The exposure pathways identified in the HHRA are ingestion of fish, incidental ingestion of
sediments, dermal contact with sediments and river water, and inhalation of volatilized PCBs in air. For
these exposure pathways, 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. Incidental ingestion of river water while swimming was not
evaluated because the river water meets drinking water standards for PCBs.
In addition to the point estimate analysis, a Monte Carlo analysis was performed to provide a range
of estimates of the cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards associated with the fish ingestion pathway.
The Monte Carlo analysis helps evaluate variability in exposure parameters (e.g., differences within a
population's fish ingestion rates, number of years an angler is exposed, body weight) and uncertainty (i.e.,a
lack of complete knowledge about specific variables).
Ineestion of Fish
For fish ingestion, both 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 offish 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.
For the point estimate analyses, cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards to an adult angler were
calculated. Population mobility data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the five counties surrounding the
Upper Hudson River and fishing duration data from the 1991 New York Angler survey were used to
determine the length of time an angler fishes in the Upper Hudson River (i.e., exposure duration). The
exposure duration for fish ingestion was 12 years for the central tendency exposure estimate 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
Baseline Modeling Report, which were then grouped by fish species and averaged over species for the entire
Upper 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.
In the Monte Carlo analyses, each exposure parameter (e.g., ingestion rate, exposure duration, body
weight) was represented by a range of values, each with an assigned probability, rather than as a single point
ES-2 Gradient Corporation
-------
estimate. Cancer risks and non-cancer hazards were calculated for anglers beginning at age 10. Differences
in the length of time an angler fishes the Upper Hudson (exposure duration) were obtained from the 1991
New York Angler survey and the U.S. Census Bureau data. Differences in angler body weight through time
were obtained from national health surveys summarized in the scientific literature. Future concentrations
of PCBs in fish were derived from the Baseline Modeling Report. Fish species consumption variability was
evaluated based on consumption patterns determined from the 1991 New York Angler survey and within-
species PCB concentrations were averaged over location within the Upper Hudson River. The variability
in fish ingestion rates was examined by considering surveys offish ingestion rates in states other than New
York. Variability in PCB cooking loss was determined from a review of the scientific literature.
Due to the lack of sufficient information available to define quantitative uncertainty distributions
for several important exposure factors, such as exposure duration, an explicit two-dimensional Monte Carlo
analysis which examines variability and uncertainty separately could not be performed. Instead, an
expanded one-dimensional (1-D) analysis was completed using a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis. Each 1-D
Monte Carlo simulation examined variability of PCB intake and was repeated for a range of possible input
distributions for important exposure variables. A total of 72 separate combinations of the variable input
parameters were examined in the 1-D analysis. Each 1-D simulation consisted of 10,000 simulated anglers,
such that the entire 1-D Monte Carlo analysis consisted of 720,000 simulations.
Other Exposure Pathways
For the direct exposure scenarios for river water and sediment, the central tendency exposure
estimates for adults and young children (aged 1-6) 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) 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 due to possible inhalation of PCBs in air were evaluated for both recreational users of the river
(swimmers and waders) as well as for residents living adjacent to the Upper Hudson River. The
concentrations of PCBs in water and sediment were derived from the Baseline Modeling Report. The
concentrations of PCBs in air were calculated from a combination of historical monitoring data and modeled
emissions from the river using a USEPA-recommended air dispersion model. Standard USEPA default
factors were used for certain exposure parameters (e.g., body weight) in the risk 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 Superfund, 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, such as 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
ES-3 Gradient Corporation
-------
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 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 a probable human carcinogen, based on a number of
studies in laboratory animals showing liver tumors. Human carcinogenicity data for PCB mixtures are
limited. USEPA (1996) described three published studies that analyzed deaths from cancer in PCB
capacitor manufacturing plants (Bertazzi et al., 1987; Brown, 1987; 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. Due to the limitations of the
Kimbrough et al. (1999) study identified by USEPA in its review (e.g., more than 75% of the workers never
worked with PCBs, the median exposure for those who worked with PCBs was only a few years, and the
level ofPCB exposure could not be confirmed), USEPA expects that the study will not lead to any change
in its CSFs for PCBs, which were last reassessed in 1996.
Risk Characterization
Point Estimate Calculations
Ingestion offish contaminated with PCBs resulted in the highest lifetime cancer risks. The RME
estimate of the increased risk of an individual developing cancer averaged over a lifetime based on the
exposure assumptions is 1 x 10"3, or one additional case of cancer in 1,000 exposed people. The RME risks
associated with the dioxin-like PCBs are comparable. The central tendency (average) estimate of risk is
3 x 10"5, or 3 additional cases of cancer in 100,000 exposed people. 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 between 10"4 and 10"6. The central tendency
cancer risks and non-cancer hazards are provided to more fully describe the health effects associated with
average exposure. Estimated cancer risks relating to PCB exposure in sediment and water while swimming
or wading, or from inhalation of volatilized PCBs in air by residents living near the river, are much lower
than those for fish ingestion, falling generally at the low end, or below, the range of 10"* to 10"6. A summary
of the point estimate cancer risk calculations is presented below.
Point Estimate Cancer Risk Summary
Pathway
Ingestion of Fish
Exposure to Sediment*
Exposure to Water*
Inhalation of Air*
Central Tendency Risk
3xlO'5 (3 in 100,000)
4xlO'7 (4 in 10,000,000)
1 x lO'8 (1 in 100,000,000)
2xlO'8 (2 in 100,000,000)
RME Risk
lxlO'3(l in 1,000)
1 x lO'5 (1 in 100,000)
2x lO'7 (2 in 10,000,000)
lxlO-6(l in 1,000,000)
*Tt)tal risk for child (aged 1-6), adolescent (aged 7-18). and adult (over 18).
ES-4
Gradient Corporation
-------
The evaluation of non-cancer health effects involved comparing the average daily exposure levels
(dose) to determine whether the estimated exposures exceed the Reference Dose (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 resulted in the highest Hazard Indices, with an HI of 10 for the central tendency
point estimate and an HI of 116 for the RME point estimate. The total His for exposure to sediment, water,
and air are all below one. Non-cancer hazards due to inhalation of PCBs were not calculated because IRIS
does not contain a toxicity value for inhalation of PCBs. A summary of the point estimate non-cancer
hazards is presented below.
Point Estimate Non-Cancer Hazard Summary
Pathway
Ingestion of Fish
Exposure to Sediment*
Exposure to Water*
Inhalation of Air
Central Tendency Non-
Cancer Hazard Index
10
0.05
0.007
Not Calculated
RME Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
116
0.2
0.02
Not Calculated
* Values for child and adolescent, which are higher than adult for these pathways.
Monte Carlo Estimate
In the Monte Carlo analysis, a distribution of cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards was
calculated for the fish ingestion pathway. The tables below summarize the low-end (5th percentile),
midpoint (50"1 percentile), and high-end (> 90th percentile) cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. At a
given percentile, the risks or hazards are higher than that presented in the table for 100 minus the given
percentile. For example, as shown for the base case in the table below, the calculated incremental cancer
risk at the 95th percentile is 9 x 10"*, which means that the cancer risks for only the top 5th percentile are
greater than that value.
Monte Carlo Cancer Risk Summary - Fish Ingestion
Risk Percentile
5th Percentile
50th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
Low Estimate
7 x 10'7
1 x 10'5
7 x 10'5
IxlO-4
3x10^
Base Case
5 x 10'6
6xlO'5
SxlO"4
9x10^
4xlO'3
High Estimate
5 x 10'5
4x 10"4
2x10°
3 x lO'3
1 x 10'2
ES-5
Gradient Corporation
-------
Monte Carlo Non-Cancer Hazard Summary - Fish Ingestion
Risk Percentile
5* Percentile
50* Percentile
90* Percentile
95* Percentile
99* Percentile
Low Estimate
0.1
2
5
11
19
Base Case
1
11
31
82
136
High Estimate
7
51
117
233
366
Comparison of Point Estimate and Monte Carlo Analyses
The Monte Carlo base case scenario is the one from which point estimate exposure factors for
fish ingestion were drawn, thus the point estimate RMEs and the Monte Carlo base case estimates are
comparable. Similarly, the point estimate central tendency (average) and the Monte Carlo base case
midpoint (50th percentile) are comparable. For cancer risk, the point estimate RME for fish ingestion
(1 x 10"3) falls approximately at the 95* percentile from the Monte Carlo base case analysis. The point
estimate central tendency value (3 x 10"5) and the Monte Carlo base case 50th percentile value (6 x 10"5)
are similar. For non-cancer hazards, the point estimate RME for fish ingestion (116) falls between the
95* and 99* percentiles of the Monte Carlo base case. The point estimate central tendency HI (10) is
approximately equal to the 50* percentile of the Monte Carlo base case HI of 11.
Major Findings of the HHRA
The HHRA evaluated both cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards to children, adolescents
and adults posed by PCBs in the Upper 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 Hudson.
Under the RME scenario for eating fish, the calculated risk is one additional case of cancer for
every 1,000 people exposed. This excess cancer risk is 1,000 times higher than USEPA's goal
of protection and ten times higher than the highest risk level allowed under Superfund law.
• For non-cancer health effects, the RME scenario for eating fish from the Upper Hudson results
in a level of exposure to PCBs that is more than 100 times higher than USEPA's reference level
(Hazard Index) of one.
• Under the baseline conditions, the point estimate RME cancer risks and non-cancer hazards
would be above USEPA's generally acceptable levels for a 40-year exposure period beginning in
1999.
Risks from being exposed to PCBs in the river through skin contact with contaminated
sediments and river water, incidental ingestion of sediments, and inhalation of PCBs in air are
generally within or below USEPA's levels of concern.
ES-6
Gradient Corporation
-------
Chapter 1
-------
1 Overview of Upper Hudson River Risk Assessment
1.1 Introduction
This document presents the baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the Upper
Hudson River as required under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(USEPA, 1990). This assessment quantifies both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects from
exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the Upper Hudson River, following USEPA risk
assessment policies and guidance. This assessment evaluates both current and future risks to children,
adolescents and adults based on the assumption of no remediation or institutional controls (USEPA,
1990).
The risk assessment considers site data collected during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and data
collected during the Reassessment Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) which started in
1990. This assessment relies primarily on data from the Phase 2 Investigation contained in the database
for the Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS,1 as summarized in the following documents: the
Database Report (USEPA, 1995a); the Preliminary Model Calibration Report (USEPA, 1996a); the Data
Evaluation and Interpretation Report (USEPA, 1997d); and the Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA,
1999d).
1.2 Site Background
The Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site extends from Hudson Falls, NY to the Battery (at the
southern tip of Manhattan) in New York City. The site covers approximately 200 river miles.
Specifically, as stated in the USEPA's April 1984 Feasibility Study:
The environment affected by the Hudson River PCB problem includes all waters, lands,
ecosystems, communities and facilities located in or immediately adjacent to the 200-
mile stretch of river from Fort Edward to the Battery. This project focuses on, but is not
limited to, the most heavily contaminated reach between Albany and Fort Edward (Upper
Hudson River) (emphasis added). (1984 Feasibility Study at ES-4).
Similarly, in the USEPA's September 25, 1984 Record of Decision (ROD), the site is defined by
reference to three figures which, together, depict the Site as the entire 200-mile stretch of the River from
Hudson Falls to the Battery in New York City, plus the remnant deposits. This HHRA addresses the
Upper Hudson River, which is the area between Hudson Falls, NY and the Federal Dam in Troy, NY, a
length of approximately 40 river miles (Plate I).2
From 1957 through 1975, between 209,000 and 1,300,000 pounds of PCBs were discharged to
the Upper Hudson River from two General Electric facilities: one located in Fort Edward, NY and the
other in Hudson Falls, NY (USEPA, 199la). In 1977, the manufacture processing and distribution
1 Database for the Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, Release 4.1b, August 1998.
2 A separate risk assessment is being conducted using similar methodologies for the Mid-Hudson River (the area between Federal
Dam in Troy, NY and Poughkeepsie, NY), a length of approximately 83 river miles. The Mid-Hudson analysis will be presented
upon the completion of USEPA's review of the appropriateness of the PCB bioaccumulation modeling for the Lower Hudson
River that is being conducted under a grant from the Hudson River Foundation to Drs. Thomann and Farley.
[ Gradient Corporation
-------
commerce of PCBs within the U.S. was restricted under provisions of the Toxic Substances and Control
Act (USEPA, 1978).
In 1973, the Fort Edward Dam was removed, which facilitated the downstream movement of
PCB-contaminated sediments (USEPA, 199la). Because of potential human health risks due to
consumption of PCB-contaminated fish, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) banned fishing in the Upper
Hudson River and limited the recommended number of fish meals consumed for specific species in the
Lower Hudson River (NYSDOH, 1995). In 1976, the commercial striped bass fishery in the Hudson
River was closed based on elevated PCB levels in striped bass. The ban on fishing in the Upper Hudson
River was subsequently changed to a "catch and release" program in August 1996, however advisories
against consumption of any fish from the Upper Hudson River remain in effect (NYSDOH, 1999).
In 1984, USEPA issued a ROD for the site. The ROD required: 1) an interim No Action
decision concerning 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).
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. USEPA uses risk assessment as a tool to characterize the contaminants, evaluate the toxicity of the
chemicals, assess the potential ways in which an individual may be exposed to the contaminants, and
characterize the cancer risks and non-cancer hazards (USEPA, 1989b). In accordance with USEPA
guidance, actions at Superfund sites are based on an estimate of the reasonable maximum exposure
(RME) expected to occur under both current and future conditions at the site. The RME is defined as the
highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site. USEPA guidance also recommends the
Agency estimate risks based on central tendency, or average, exposures at a site (USEPA, 1995b). The
RME and central tendency exposures are used to estimate cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards.
A systematic framework for human health assessment was first outlined in 1983 by the National
Academy of Sciences (NRC, 1983). Building upon that foundation, the risk assessment process
described in USEPA's "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A)" (USEPA, 1989b) and subsequent Agency guidance consists of the following
components:
• Data Collection and Analysis - involves gathering data, including the use of models as
necessary, to define the nature and extent of contamination.
• Exposure Assessment - entails an estimate of the magnitude of actual and/or potential
human exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (i.e.,
inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact) by which people are potentially exposed.
• Toxicity Assessment - examines the type of adverse health effects associated with
chemical exposure, and the relationship of the magnitude of exposure and the health
response.
Gradient Corporation
-------
Risk Characterization - summarizes the results from the first three steps of the
assessment (both quantitative and qualitative) and a discussion of the uncertainties in the
analysis.
The data collection and analysis step in the risk assessment process has been documented at
length in other Phase 1 and Phase 2 Reassessment RI/FS reports. The HHRA draws upon those data and
analyses, and provides the reader with references to relevant reports where a description of the
information used in this HHRA can be found in greater detail.
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 Phase 1 Risk Assessment identified potential cancer risks and non-cancer hazards
associated with regular consumption of fish from the Upper Hudson River exceeding guidelines
established in the NCP for acceptable risk.
The Phase 1 Upper Hudson River human health risk assessment evaluated current and potential
future risks from ingestion of fish, ingestion of drinking water, dermal contact with sediments, dermal
contact with river water, and incidental ingestion of sediments. A map of the Upper Hudson River study
area is shown in Plate 1.
The cancer risks from ingestion of fish were 2 x 10~2 (i.e., an excess cancer risk of 2 in a
population of 100) using the 1986-1988 95% Upper Confidence Limit on the Mean (95% UCLM) PCB
concentration in fish (12.0 mg/kg), and 2 x 10"3 using the 30-year projected mean PCB concentration in
fish (1.5 mg/kg) (USEPA, 1991a). The non-cancer Hazard Index for ingestion of fish was 51 using the
1986-1988 95% UCLM PCB concentration, and 6 using the 30-year projected mean PCB concentration
in fish.
As described in the NCP (USEPA, 1990), "For known or suspected carcinogens, acceptable
exposure levels are generally concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer
risk to an individual of between 10"4 to 10"6 using information on the relationship between dose and
response." The cancer risks calculated in Phase 1 exceeded the range defined in the NCP; the non-cancer
Hazard Index exceeded one (1), indicating an exceedance of the Reference Dose, or the level at which no
adverse chronic health effects are expected to occur.
The cancer risk from drinking water was 6 x 10'6, within the acceptable risk range defined in the
NCP, and the non-cancer Hazard Index was less than one (USEPA, 199la). Cancer risks from dermal
exposure to river sediment, incidental ingestion of river sediment, and dermal contact with river water
totaled 8.8 x 10'6, also within the acceptable risk range, and the non-cancer Hazard Index was also less
than one (USEPA, 1991a). Risks from other pathways including ingestion of vegetables and meat, and
inhalation exposures were evaluated qualitatively in the Phase 1 risk assessment.
The Phase 1 Lower Hudson River human health risk assessment qualitatively evaluated current
and potential risks from ingestion of fish, 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
3 Gradient Corporation
-------
Hudson River. A human health risk assessment for the Mid-Hudson River will be presented upon the
review and determination of the appropriateness of the Farley-Thomann model of PCB bioaccumulation
in fish species of the Mid- and Lower Hudson.
1.5 Objectives of Phase 2 Risk Assessment
In December 1990, USEPA Region 2 began a reassessment of the No-Action decision for the
Hudson River sediments based on, among other things, a request by 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 Upper Hudson River. An ecological risk assessment for the Hudson River is also being completed.
Since the Phase 1 Risk Assessment, there have been additional data and information compiled
that are incorporated into this Phase 2 assessment:
• An extensive amount of additional PCB data have been collected in water, sediment, fish
and other biota.
• PCB concentration trends in environmental media have been forecast using extensive
modeling efforts.
• An extensive review of fish ingestion surveys was conducted to determine the most
appropriate fish ingestion rate for the HHRA.
• The cancer toxicity of PCBs has undergone an extensive review by USEPA and the
scientific community resulting in updated toxicity factors for PCBs, and the revised
toxicity values for PCBs are lower than those in effect when the Phase 1 assessment was
completed based on new animal studies and revisions in USEPA's cancer guidelines. A
reassessment of PCB non-cancer toxicity is underway.
The objectives of the Phase 2 risk assessment are to update the findings from Phase 1 (that risks
from fish ingestion outweigh other pathways of exposure), taking into consideration the additional
information highlighted above, and to provide estimates of risks both to the RME, or high-end risk
estimates (>90th to 99th percentiles), as well as estimates of risks to the Average Exposed Individual, or
central tendency risk estimates (50th percentile). This HHRA is limited to evaluating 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.
Gradient 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 (USEPA, 1989a,b; 1991b; 1992a,b,c; 1995b; 1996b;
1997a,e,f) provides the framework adopted to conduct the exposure assessment for this risk assessment.
The population of concern in this HHRA consists of the inhabitants of the towns, cities, and rural
areas surrounding the Upper Hudson River who may fish or engage in activities that will bring them into
contact with the river. In the discussion that follows, certain terms used by risk assessors are introduced
to define specific subgroups of this population. For example, members of the population who fish are
described as the "angler" population. In addition, specific types of activities (e.g., recreation) give rise to
the use of the term "recreator" to describe another possible segment of the exposed population. The term
"receptor" or "receptor population" is used to describe these subgroups of the exposed population. This
definition of several receptor population groups does not suggest that these represent distinct individuals
or even separate populations. Thus, individuals in the population of concern may fall within each of the
"angler," "recreator," and "resident" receptor groups described below and throughout this HHRA.
Distinguishing separate receptor groups does not imply these populations are mutually exclusive, but
rather the receptor groups are defined for convenience of distinguishing different PCB exposure
possibilities.
Human exposures to PCBs in the environment are quantified by determining the concentration of
PCBs in environmental media (air, water, sediment, fish) which humans may then ingest or otherwise
contact resulting in PCB uptake into the body. The exposure assessment process involves determining
the concentration of PCBs in the environmental media of concern, and combining this information with
estimates of human exposure to the environmental media. The variability of environmental
concentrations, the likelihood of exposure occurring via particular pathways, and the frequency and
duration of human exposure are all components of the analysis.
USEPA guidance and policy call for an evaluation of a central estimate of risk, and an estimate
of risk for a reasonable maximum exposure, or RME, individual. An estimate of the RME can be
obtained by determining estimates of likely "high-end" exposure factors and then combining these high-
end factors with average factors to come up with a point estimate, or single value, for the reasonable
maximum exposure. Alternatively, the RME can be estimated using probabilistic methods, often
involving a technique termed Monte Carlo analysis (USEPA, 1997a). Such a Monte Carlo analysis does
not estimate the RME based on single point estimates for each exposure factor, but rather draws repeated
plausible exposure factor values from a probability distribution characterizing each factor, and combines
these repeated samples to develop a distribution of exposure estimates. This distribution of PCB
exposure contains an explicit estimate of the probability associated with any particular PCB exposure
(intake) estimate, such that the RME can be determined based on estimates from the high-end of the
Monte Carlo exposure distributions.
In this HHRA, point estimates of exposure (and cancer risk and non-cancer hazard) are
developed for both central tendency and RME exposures for all exposure pathways that are considered to
be complete (see next section). This point estimate method is the same as the approach adopted in the
Phase 1 risk assessment, taking into consideration the important new information outlined in Section 1.5,
and is described in the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund - Part A (USEPA, 1989b). In addition,
a Monte Carlo exposure analysis is conducted for the fish ingestion pathway, the pathway shown in the
Phase I risk assessment to yield the highest exposure to PCBs. For clarity, the point estimate exposure
5 Gradient Corporation
-------
analysis is presented in this chapter (Chapter 2) of the report. The Monte Carlo exposure analysis for the
fish ingestion pathway is presented in Chapter 3. Because some of the point estimate exposure factors
(e.g., fish ingestion rate, exposure duration, etc.) are based upon the sources of information and
probability distributions for these factors derived in Chapter 3, the reader is referred to the Monte Carlo
analysis for further details on these exposure factors where they are discussed more fully.
Section 2.1 summarizes the environmental media, potential receptors, and exposure pathways of
PCB intake for the HHRA. The framework for calculating human intake resulting from PCB exposures
is presented in Section 2.2. The PCB exposure point concentrations used to estimate PCB intake are
summarized in Section 2.3. Finally, the exposure factors and algorithms used to calculate PCB intake,
and estimates of PCB intake for each complete exposure pathway, are summarized in Section 2.4. In this
report, exposure assessment information is tabulated in USEPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS), Part D format (USEPA, 1997e) in order to promote consistency of presenting risk
assessment information to the public.
2.1 Exposure Pathways
For exposure and potential risks to occur, a complete exposure pathway must exist. A complete
pathway requires the following elements (USEPA, 1989a):
• A source and mechanism for release of constituents,
• A transport or retention medium,
• A point of potential human contact (exposure point) with the affected medium, and
• An exposure route (e.g., ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation) at the exposure point.
If any one of these elements is missing, the pathway is not considered complete. For example, if
human activity patterns and/or the location of potentially exposed individuals relative to the location of
affected media prevents human contact, then that exposure pathway is not complete and there is no health
risk in such instances. Considering the sources of PCBs, potential release mechanisms, likely exposure
media, potential receptors, and possible intake mechanisms, the complete exposure pathways at the site
were identified. The exposure scenarios examined in this HHRA assume no remediation and no
institutional controls that would limit environmental exposures.
The Upper Hudson River study area for this HHRA includes urban, suburban, and rural areas
along the river. During boating, fishing, and other recreational activities members of the Upper Hudson
River study area population may become exposed to PCBs if they consume fish caught from the river, or
as they come into contact with river water and river sediments; they could also inhale PCBs that may be
released from the water into the air. Potential exposure pathways considered in this HHRA are
summarized in Table 2-1, identifying those which are "complete" and warranted exposure and risk
calculations in this study. The following sections describe site-specific elements that make up the
complete exposure pathways that are evaluated in this HHRA.
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. In addition, PCB exposure can result from the transfer of PCBs from one
g Gradient Corporation
-------
medium (water) to another (air). PCBs have been detected, monitored and modeled extensively at the
site. The exposure media that are considered the most potentially significant source of PCB exposure at
the site include the following:
Fish. Fish bioaccumulate PCBs, and as the results of the Phase 1 risk assessment indicate,
ingestion of fish is likely to be the predominant pathway for human exposure to PCBs in the
Upper Hudson River.
Sediment. Swimming, wading, and boating along the Hudson are recreational activities that
would likely give rise to contact with sediment. Therefore, sediment is a potential exposure
medium at the site.
River Water. Similar to river sediment, exposure to surface water from the Upper Hudson River
is likely to occur during recreational activities and river water is thus considered a potential
exposure medium.
Air. PCBs that volatilize from the river water may be inhaled by both recreators and residents
living near the river. This medium is being considered in this assessment in order to update
information presented in the Phase 1 risk assessment and address concerns raised by the public
regarding potential inhalation of PCBs.
The actual determination of 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.
2.1.2 Potential Receptors
As described in the opening of this section, the population of concern in the evaluation of the
Upper Hudson River consists of the inhabitants of the towns, cities, and rural areas surrounding the river.
From this population, the following "receptor" groups have been defined for the purpose of quantifying
the potential PCB exposures within the population as a whole. As indicated at the outset of this chapter,
these receptor groups should not be interpreted as though they represent distinct population subgroups,
rather they are defined for convenience of presenting the exposure and risk analysis.
Anglers. The analysis from the Phase 1 Report (USEPA, 199la) revealed that estimated PCB
intake through consumption of fish from the Hudson River is the most significant pathway of
human exposures to PCBs at the site; therefore, much of the effort for the HHRA is focused on
refining the estimates of PCB exposure to anglers. The angler population is defined as those
individuals who consume self-caught fish from the Hudson, in the absence of a fishing ban or
Hudson-specific health advisories. The assessment of fish consumption by the angler population
includes childhood through adulthood.
Fishing is an increasingly popular recreational activity. In 1988, an estimated 26,870 anglers
fished on the Hudson River; of those, an estimated 10,310 fished specifically on the Upper
Hudson River (Connelly et al., 1990). Based on the estimated number of angler days over time,
angling effort in the state of New York appears to be increasing over time (Jackson, 1990).
Gradient Corporation
-------
Recreators. Recreators along the Upper Hudson River are another potential receptor population
group defined in this HHRA This receptor population includes individuals participating in
recreational activities along the river such as swimming, wading, boating, picnicking, etc.
Because recreational activity patterns change with the age of the population, exposure by young
children (aged 1-6), older children and teenagers (aged 7-18), and adults (aged 18 and above) are
considered separately.
Residents. Although both of the above receptor groups include residents of the Upper Hudson
River study area, a third receptor group, termed "residents," has been assigned for the purpose of
assessing long-term exposure to PCB-contaminated air for that portion of the population living in
close proximity to the river.
2.1.3 Potential Exposure Routes
An exposure route is the means, or mechanism, of contact with an exposure medium. Typical
routes of exposure include dietary intake, inadvertent or incidental ingestion or intake of environmental
media, air inhalation, etc. For anglers in the Upper Hudson River area, fish ingestion (e.g., dietary
intake) is the potential exposure route 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, dermal contact with
river water, and inhalation of air. Ingestion of river water was not quantitatively evaluated in this risk
assessment because this exposure route was found to have de minimis risk, using reasonable maximum
assumptions, in the Phase 1 assessment (USEPA, 199la). Furthermore, the current, and projected future,
PCB concentrations in the Upper Hudson River are below the drinking water maximum contaminant
level (MCL). Inhalation of air is also a potential exposure route for residents who live in close proximity
to the Upper Hudson River. Each of these exposure routes is summarized in Table 2-1.
In addition to the above-mentioned routes of exposure, other potential pathways exist by which
individuals may be exposed to PCBs originating from the Upper Hudson River. Such pathways include
dietary intake of home-grown crops, and consumption of local beef or dairy products. Although
insufficient data exist to provide a detailed quantitative analysis of these exposure pathways, the
discussion below indicates they are unlikely to be a significant pathway for PCB intake.
For the last 25 years, the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has analyzed
more than 18,200 samples of cow's milk within the state and has not found any detection of PCBs above
the detection limit of 0.6 ppm (lipid normalized).3 Moreover, in the 1980s, Dr. Buckley from the Boyce
Thompson Institute at Cornell University collected data on PCBs in forage crops (corn and hay) grown in
an area with PCB-contaminated soil. He found that levels of PCBs on these crops (sources of animal
food) were below the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulatory level of 0.2 mg/kg for forage crops.
Based on this information, the risk via ingestion from foods other than Hudson River fish is likely to be
minimal, and collection of additional PCB data from vegetables, meat, eggs and milk is not warranted.
In addition, a few snapping turtles in the Upper Hudson River have been found to contain PCBs
(Stone et a/., 1980; Olafsson et al., 1983). Because of the small number of turtles that have been
analyzed, the data may not be representative. Furthermore, it is also unknown whether turtles are caught
and consumed by local residents. Consumption of fish is considered to be a more likely important
'This detection limit is significantly less than the FDA limit of 1.5 ppm (lipid normalized) (FDA, 1996).
g Gradient Corporation
-------
dietary pathway for PCB intake from the Upper Hudson River. Thus, the overall intake from possible
occasional consumption of other non-fish biota (such as turtles) would likely result in lower PCB intake
estimates than those quantitatively evaluated here for fish based on the frequency and duration of
exposure.
2.2 Quantification of Exposure
In this section of the risk assessment, the basic approach for calculating human intake levels
resulting from exposures to PCBs is presented. Exposure estimates represent the daily dose of a
chemical taken into the body, averaged over the appropriate exposure period. Chemical intake is
expressed in terms of a dose, having units of milligram chemical per kilogram body weight per day
(mg/kg-day). In general, quantitative exposure estimates involve the following:
• determination of exposure point concentrations (the concentration of PCBs in
environmental media at the point of human exposure);
• identification of applicable human exposure models and input parameters (exposure
frequency, duration, etc.); and
• estimation of human intakes using exposure algorithms.
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 -
where:
I = Intake - the amount of chemical at the exchange boundary (mg/kg body
weight/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 (yr)
CF = Conversion factor - (kg/g)
BW = Body weight - the average body weight over the exposure period (kg)
AT = Averaging time - period over which exposure is averaged (days)
Exposure parameters (e.g., contact rate, exposure frequency, exposure duration, body weight)
describe the exposure of a receptor for a given exposure scenario. These values are the input parameters
for the exposure algorithms used to estimate chemical intake (USEPA, 1989b; USEPA, 1991b; USEPA,
Gradient Corporation
-------
1997f). 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.
For each of the potentially complete exposure pathways identified in Table 2-1, both central and
RME exposure estimates are calculated in this HHRA. The RME is the maximum exposure that is
reasonably expected to occur at the site (USEPA, 1989b). A combination of Agency-recommended
values and site-specific values were used for each of the input parameters. According to USEPA
guidance (1995b), central tendency estimates are intended to reflect central estimates of exposure or
dose, while RME estimates are intended to reflect persons at the upper end ("above about the 90th
percentile") of the distribution. RME, or high-end, exposure estimates should be within the range of
possible exposures, and not beyond.
High-end risk descriptors, according to USEPA (1995b), are defined as "plausible estimates of
the individual risk for those persons at the upper end of the risk distribution." When a sufficient database
is available, USEPA (1995b) recommends reporting exposures "at a set of selected percentiles of the
distributions, such as 90th, 95th, and 98th percentile." The use of the 90th to 95th percentile estimates of
exposure parameters for the high end exposure assessment for the Upper Hudson River study area is
consistent with this guidance, and reflects the upper range of exposures, but not necessarily the maximum
possible exposure.
2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations
A typical baseline Superfund risk assessment includes an evaluation of those chemicals at a
contaminated site that pose a potential health concern, or chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). In
"this HHRA PCBs are identified as the COPCs, because this 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. Consequently, no screening of COPCs was performed for this assessment. Thus,
the USEPA RAGS Part D format tables (Tables 2-2 through 2-5) which for a typical risk assessment
would include information necessary to determine COPCs, are not needed and are included in this HHRA
only for consistency.
Another consideration which shapes the determination of the exposure point concentrations
(EPC) in this HHRA is the time- and space-dependency of the PCB concentrations in fish, sediment, and
water. Moreover, the EPC for PCBs in each of these media is based upon modeled projections of future
concentrations in each medium (although the models are based upon a large monitoring record). 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), in some instances no longer strictly applies. One
reason for its inapplicability is that the 95% UCLM calculation is based upon the notion that the estimate
of the mean exposure point concentration from a finite sample set is uncertain and is a function of the
number of samples available to estimate the true mean. However, when a model is used to predict the
EPC there is no corollary to sample size; with a model an almost unlimited number of model-predicted
values can be calculated. As the number of model-projected concentration estimates increases (in time or
space), the model mean and model 95% UCLM converge to the same value. Only if model inputs are
varied to reflect environmental variability of the model input parameters, and repeated model estimates
of the mean are obtained over the range of parameters, can an average and 95% upper confidence limit on
the modeled means be calculated.
]Q Gradient Corporation
-------
2.3.1 PCB Concentration in Fish
Because the HHRA examines current and future health risks, and because the concentration of
PCBs in fish changes over time and 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 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 Upper
Hudson River, with higher concentrations upstream (Thompson Island Pool) 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 HHRA, each of the above
factors will influence the calculation of a single exposure point concentration.
Summary of Modeled PCB Concentration Results
The 1999 report, "Further Site Characterization and Analysis Volume 2D - Baseline Modeling
Report" presents a detailed discussion of the PCB bioaccumulation and transport and fate models that
have been used by USEPA to predict future trends in PCB concentration in fish (USEPA, 1999d).
Several bioaccumulation models were used, one of which adopted an empirical prediction of
bioaccumulation based on a bi-variate correlation analysis of PCB concentrations in sediment and the
water column with those measured in fish. Another analysis involved a mechanistic food web model, a
modification of the Gobas model described as FISHRAND in the Baseline Modeling Report, that used
the historical measurements of PCBs in fish, water, and sediment in order to calibrate the model to fish
species in the Upper Hudson River. In both cases, the bioaccumulation models rely upon predictions of
future PCB concentrations in the water column and sediments (from the HUDTOX model) to predict
future trends of PCB concentration in fish. The bioaccumulation models in the Baseline Modeling
Report will be externally peer-reviewed along with the entire Baseline Modeling Report. In this HHRA,
the FISHRAND model predictions were used to estimate EPCs for fish (USEPA, 1999d).
As described in the Baseline Modeling Report, the fish bioaccumulation models used the
extensive database that was created to support the Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS to calibrate
the models (USEPA, I995a). The database contains measurements for sediments, fish and aquatic biota,
surface water flow and surface water quality from the USEPA, the NYSDEC and General Electric
Company. The database includes a total of approximately 750,000 records. Almost 350,000 of these
records contain data acquired as part of the USEPA's Phase 2 sampling effort. The remaining records
contain data from a large number of historical and ongoing monitoring efforts in the Hudson River. The
reader is referred to the Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, 1999d) for further information on the
bioaccumulation and transport and fate models.
Model predictions were provided for six fish species: brown bullhead, largemouth bass, white
perch, yellow perch, pumpkinseed, and spottail shiner. These species were selected in the Baseline
Modeling Report to get a representative distribution of bottom feeders, species at the top of the food
chain, and semi-piscivorous species (USEPA, I999d). Model estimates of Total PCB concentration in
1 | Gradient Corporation
-------
each species were based all 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, white perch, and yellow perch), the model provides estimates of PCB concentration in fish fillets,
otherwise the model results are for whole fish for the smaller species. The fillet represents the portion of
the fish most commonly consumed.
Modeled predictions of future PCB concentrations in fish are presented in the Baseline Modeling
Report at four locations in the Upper Hudson River: Thompson Island Pool (approximately River Mile
189); Stillwater Dam (approximately River Mile 168); Waterford (approximately River Mile 157); and
near the Federal Dam (approximately River Mile 154). These four locations correspond to locations
where an extensive number of fish have been monitored by the NYSDEC. Because of their close
proximity, the model predictions at the Waterford and Federal Dam locations were combined to result in
approximately equal weighting of the concentration results within the Upper Hudson River.4 Overall, the
concentrations for all fish species decrease with river mile, with concentrations around the Thompson
Island Pool being the highest.
The Baseline Modeling Report model yielded estimates of the 50th percentile (median) and 95th
upper percentile predictions of annualized PCB concentration in fish at each location. Because
environmental concentration data are by definition positive and typically exhibit a positive skew toward
larger values, a lognormal distribution often is used to describe such data (USEPA, 1992c). Under the
assumption of lognormality, the two modeled percentiles are sufficient to calculate the mean annualized
PCB concentration in each species at each location.
In the Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, 1999d), PCB concentration in fish were modeled
from 1984 to 2018. The model forecast (1998 - 2018) period of 20 years was selected in the Baseline
Modeling Report because it yielded a forecast time-frame comparable to the approximately 20-year
historical monitoring record for the Upper Hudson River. In the HHRA, the assessment period covers
present (1999) and future exposure to PCBs that are consumed in fish. Furthermore, the exposure
duration for the HHRA extends beyond the 20-year forecast period, up to 40 years for the RME duration,
and 70 years for the Monte Carlo analysis (see later sections). In order to extend the 20-year modeled
PCB concentration trends to the longer time-frame required for the HHRA, the mean concentration data
were plotted over time for each location (Thompson Island Pool, Stillwater, and the average of
Waterford/Federal Dam) and each species. An exponential trend/regression line was fit to the historical
and modeled annual PCB concentration means to extrapolate the concentration data to the year 2069 (for
a potential 70-year exposure duration) for each of the species and locations. While this extrapolation
introduces some uncertainty in the estimation of the long-term trend in fish concentration, the correlation
coefficients for all cases were 0.95, or larger, indicating a good fit to the data.
Figures 2-1 through 2-9 display the concentration trend over time and location for each of the 3
modeled species used in the HHRA. Note that several modeled species (spottail shiner, pumpkinseed,
and white perch) were not included in the HHRA. In the case of the shiner and pumpkinseed, they are
small fish and not typically consumed by humans and were modeled in the Baseline Modeling Report as
one component of the fish food web that contributes to PCB accumulation higher up in the food chain.
White perch are not commonly found in the Upper Hudson River, so they are not included in the HHRA
(Trina vonStackelberg, 1999 personal communication), although white perch will be included in the Mid-
Hudson risk assessment.
4 If the Waterford and Federal Dam results were treated independently, this would result in increased weighting of the results for
the lower stretch of the river compared to the upper stretch of the river.
12 Gradient Corporation
-------
As noted above, the model predictions include the 50th and 95lh percentile annualized
concentration. These percentiles represent percentiles of the entire distribution of PCB concentration
ranges within species, and not the range or uncertainty of the mean concentration in fish. Although a
mean concentration can be computed from the two percentiles provided in the Baseline Modeling Report,
it is insufficient to provide an estimate of the upper confidence limit on the mean, or 95% UCLM, PCB
concentration. As the summary below illustrates, the average ratio of the model predicted 95* percentile
is a factor of 2- to 3-fold greater than the 50th percentile concentration (the maximum ratios for each
species are nearly identical to their average ratios). Given this modest spread of concentration from the
50th to 95th percentile of the entire distribution, the 95% UCLM concentration would not be expected to
be significantly greater than the mean concentration. In this HHRA, the modeled mean concentration of
PCBs was used for the EPC in fish.
Average Ratio of 95th Percentile and 50th Percentile
Modeled PCB Concentration in Fish
Modeled Fish Species
Bullhead
Largemouth Bass
Yellow Perch
Thompson Island
Pool
3.4
3.4
3.4
Stillwater
2.4
1.7
2.1
Waterford/
Federal Dam
2.2
1.8
2.4
Source: Based on model predictions from Baseline Model Report (USEPA, 1999d).
Concentration Averaged Over Locations
With the exception of some limited information in the NYSDOH 1996 study of Hudson River
anglers (NYSDOH, 1999), there is insufficient information to quantify fishing preference or frequency at
specific locations within the Upper Hudson River. Consequently, projected PCB concentrations in fish
were averaged over the three locations that were modeled (the Waterford/Troy Dam locations were pre-
averaged and treated as a single location). This averaging essentially presumes a uniform likelihood of
fishing at any location within the Upper Hudson River study area. A sensitivity analysis is included in
the HHRA to examine how the exposure and risk estimates vary with fishing location. The sensitivity
analysis is presented in Chapter 5.
The PCB concentrations, averaged over location, for each of the modeled species are
summarized in Figure 2-10. Modeled PCB concentrations for brown bullhead are the highest; the
modeled PCB concentration in largemouth bass and yellow perch are comparable to one another. As
documented in the Baseline Modeling Report, the PCB concentration in the spottail shiner and
pumpkinseed species had the lowest predicted PCB concentrations of all modeled species; modeled PCB
uptake in white perch was comparable to the PCB uptake in brown bullhead (USEPA, 1999d).
PCB Concentration Weighted by Species-Consumption Fractions
In order to take into account the species individuals actually eat from the Upper Hudson River,
species-specific intake patterns, derived from the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et at., 1992),
were used to calculate the concentration of PCBs ingested in fish. That is, each species of fish has a
13
Gradient Corporation
-------
characteristic PCB concentration, and the effective concentration an angler consumes will be based on
the relative percent of different fish species consumed.
A complete discussion of the 1991 New York Angler survey is found in Chapter 3. A summary
of the Connelly et al. (1992) survey results is provided in Table 3-3, and is described briefly here. A
total of 9 specific species, plus a tenth category denoted "other," were included in the Connelly et al.
(1992) survey. Of the 9 species in the survey, salmon and trout are not commonly found in the Upper
Hudson River study area. In addition, very few catfish (there is a separate category for bullhead) were
caught in the 1991/2 and 1996 creel surveys of Hudson River anglers (NYSDOH, 1999). Therefore,
salmon, trout and catfish, along with the unidentified "other" category, were excluded when determining
species ingestion weights. The six species from the Connelly et al. (1992) survey that are potentially
caught and eaten in the Upper 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.
Table 3-4 summarizes species-group intake percentages by summing the frequency percentage of
the individual species in each group. Fish listed in Group 1, such as the brown bullhead, tend to remain
at the bottom of lakes, rivers, and streams for a large portion of their life cycle. In Group 2, bass5 and
walleye are predatory fish, preying on other fish, and can be very large, reaching several feet in length.
Perch is the only fish species in Group 3. Using this grouping of fish, the modeled concentrations for the
brown bullhead serve as surrogate for the PCB concentration for all Group 1 species; the largemouth bass
for all Group 2 species, the yellow perch for Group 3.
The point estimate PCB concentrations were derived using the species ingestion fractions shown
in Table 3-4 multiplied by the PCB concentrations in each of the three modeled fish species. Thus, the
point estimate of the weighted EPC is:
EPC = EPCoroupi x 0.44 + EPCGroUp2 x 0.47 + EPCGr0up3 x 0.09
The EPC values for fish are summarized in Tables 2-6 through 2-8 for each of the three modeled
locations. An overall EPC for the entire Upper Hudson River was calculated by averaging over the three
locations. As summarized in Table 2-12, the central tendency EPC of 4.4 mg/kg PCBs was calculated by
averaging the species-weighted concentration distribution over the 50th percentile exposure duration
estimate (i.e., 12 years). The high-end exposure EPC of 2.2 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 described in Section 2.4.1. and
Section 3.2.4.
It may be counter-intuitive that the high-end EPC is lower than the central tendency EPC. This
fact is a direct result of the declining PCB concentration 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 high-end (RME) point estimate.
5 The Connelly et al. (1992) survey did not specify what specific species were included in "bass." Presumably, this category
includes both largemouth and smallmouth bass. The category may include striped bass, and other bass species as well.
14 Gradient Corporation
-------
2.3.2 PCB Concentration in Sediment
Just as is the case for fish, PCB concentrations in sediment in the Upper Hudson River change as
a function of location and time. In the Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, 1999d), PCB concentrations
in surficial (0-4 cm) sediment were modeled over time and distance under two boundary condition
scenarios: 1) assuming a zero-upstream source of PCBs, and 2) assuming a constant-upstream source of
PCBs. For each scenario the model predictions included Total PCBs and Tri+ PCBs (USEPA, 1999d).
The predicted Total PCB concentrations assuming a constant-upstream boundary condition (i.e.,
assuming a constant source of PCBs to the river sediments) were used to calculate exposure point
concentrations.
The model predictions were presented for 10 different river mile segments from Fort Edward
(River Mile 195) to the Federal Dam (River Mile 154). Model predictions from the Baseline Modeling
Report were differentiated into cohesive and non-cohesive sediment classes for each river segment. The
area of cohesive sediment zones is 2.4 x 106 m2, and the area of non-cohesive sediment is 12.7 x 106 m2.
A plot of the 20-year modeled Total PCB concentrations in sediment is shown in Figure 2-1 la. This
figure plots the model predictions weighted by the percent of cohesive and non-cohesive sediment in
each of the 10 model segments. Because the model segments for the sediment modeling were not
uniform, the modeled concentrations were also examined on an area-weighted basis, shown by the lower
curve on Figure 2-1 la.
In Figure 2-1 Ib, the modeled results for cohesive and non-cohesive sediments are plotted by the
River Mile segments. Each point on this plot essentially represents an area averaged concentration (e.g.,
the model segments yield concentration results that apply over the entire segment modeled). As this
figure shows, there is little difference in the modeled PCB concentration for cohesive and non-cohesive
sediments. The 20-year average over all plotted River Miles for cohesive sediment is 13.5 mg/kg PCBs,
whereas for non-cohesive sediments the average is 15.6" mg/kg PCBs. Given the fact that the two
modeled sediment classes do not differ substantially in their PCB concentration, there is no reason to
choose sediments from one class or another as the representative sediment class that humans may be
exposed to. Thus, the cohesive and non-cohesive classes, weighted by their respective percentages in
each model segment, were combined for this HHRA.
It is instructive also to examine Figures 5-4(A-D) of the Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA,
1999d). These figures indicate that the cohesive sediment classes tend to occur in areas along the
margins of the river channel, or in areas that may approximate near-shore areas where human contact
might be most frequent. However, as just discussed, the PCB concentration in the cohesive sediment
class is in fact not appreciably different than the PCB concentration in non-cohesive sediments, and in
fact is somewhat lower than the average in non-cohesive sediments. Furthermore, the non-cohesive
sediments predominate on a total area basis, even in near-shore areas of the river.
The exposure point concentrations in sediment were calculated from the cohesive/non-cohesive
model results by averaging the 20-year results for each of the 10 model segments. Again, given the
relatively large scale of the model segments (on the order of one mile to several miles), these 10 segment
values represent average concentrations over the entire segment. The mean of these segment averages
(14.9 mg/kg PCBs) was used as the central tendency point estimate EPC; the 95th percentile of the 10
segment averages (28.7 mg/kg PCBs) was used as the RME point estimate (Table 2-9). Given the fact
that the predictions by segment themselves represent an average over the segment, the 95lh upper
15 Gradient Corporation
-------
percentile of these segment predictions can be interpreted as an approximate upper confidence limit on
the mean concentration in sediment within the Upper Hudson River exposure unit.
Note that the PCB concentration in sediment was not extrapolated beyond the 20-year model
period (as was done for fish). Had the concentrations been extrapolated, the EPCs would decrease,
although the decrease would be modest as shown by the relatively flat decline in area-weighted
concentration trend shown in Figure 2-1 la.
2.3.3 PCB Concentration in River Water
Similar to the sediment results, the Baseline Modeling Report provides model estimated PCB
concentrations in the water column over time and distance under two boundary condition scenarios: 1)
assuming a zero-upstream source of PCBs, and 2) assuming a constant-upstream source of PCBs. For
each scenario the model predictions included Total PCBs and Tri+ PCBs (USEPA, 1999d). The
predicted Total PCB concentrations assuming a constant-upstream boundary condition (i.e., assuming a
constant source of PCBs to the river sediments) were used to calculate exposure point concentrations.
The water column model predictions from the Baseline Modeling Report segmented the Upper
Hudson River into 47 river segments from Fort Edward (River Mile 195) to the Federal Dam (River Mile
154). In some instances (e.g., around islands), the model domain was split into multiple segments that
correspond to the same River Mile. In these instances, the PCB concentrations were averaged over the
model segments to yield a single concentration value corresponding to the associated River Mile. Of the
47 total model segments, 29 distinct River Miles are represented in the model domain. The 20-year
average PCB- concentration for each of these 29 River Mile segments is plotted in Figure 2-12a. An
indication of the time trend of the model predictions is shown in Figures 2-12b and 2-12c. These figures
plot the modeled PCB concentrations over time (model output is on a daily basis) at two particular
locations, one at the Thompson Island Dam, and another at Stillwater Dam (note the PCB concentration
axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale). As these figures illustrate, there is an overall decline in the
predictions over the 20 year period, however the decline is modest. No extrapolation of the water
column results beyond the 20-year model period was performed.
As was discussed above for the sediment model results, the water column results represent
concentrations over a model segment, or in other words each prediction is an average for the entire model
segment. The model segments range from approximately 1/3 mile in length up to approximately 4 miles
in length. The 20-year average of the 29 individual River Mile predictions, 2.4 x 10"5 mg/L PCBs (24
ng/L), was used as the central tendency point estimate EPC; the 95th percentile of these 29 predictions,
3.1 x 10'5 mg/L PCBs (31 ng/L), was used in the RME point estimate (Table 2-10). Because the 95th
percentile is an upper-bound of a concentration that represents an average over the various model
segments, it can be interpreted as an approximate upper confidence limit on the mean concentration in
river water within the Upper Hudson River exposure unit.
2.3.4 PCB Concentration in Air
The Phase 1 Report (USEPA, 199la) provides a discussion of a number of studies that have
documented PCB .measurements in air in the Upper Hudson River study area, and elsewhere in the State
of New York. A wide range of PCB concentrations in air are reported for the general study area, with
values measured in the early to late 1980s generally exhibiting concentrations in air on the order of 0.1
Hg/rn3, or less (c.f., Table B.3-21 of Phase 1 Report).
I £ Gradient Corporation
-------
In order to evaluate potential PCB exposure via inhalation, the source of the PCBs in air must be
linked to the site (i.e., the Upper Hudson River for this HHRA). Although the available air studies
indicate PCBs do exist in the atmosphere in the study area, the studies do not necessarily identify the
contribution of PCBs in the air that is derived from PCB-contaminated river water.
In order to evaluate the potential quantitative PCB exposure via inhalation that is associated with
potential releases from the Hudson, three avenues of inquiry were pursued:
1. Historical measurements in 1980-81 of PCBs released to the air from the Hudson near
Lock 6 were examined (Buckley and Tofflemire, 1983).
2. The results of the 1991 air monitoring study conducted during remediation of the PCBs
in the Remnant Deposit sediments near Fort Edward (released subsequent to the Phase 1
Report) were evaluated.
3. PCB releases from the water column were estimated using diffusion and volatilization
equations.
Buckley and Tofflemire 1980-81 Study
Airborne PCB concentrations were monitored at two locations above the Lock 6 dam during the
period of 1980-81 (Buckley and Tofflemire, 1983). The location of these monitoring sites was chosen by
the authors to represent areas anticipated to have elevated airborne PCB concentrations, owing to the
turbulence of the water in the dam spillway which promotes air exchange and increased volatilization
potential.
A total of seven samples were taken at a height of 1 meter, and two samples were taken at a
height of 4.5 meters. Table A-l (Appendix A) summarizes the PCB concentrations measured at two
locations (A and B) above the Lock 6 dam. Results of Aroclor-specific concentrations for each sample
time were summed to get a Total PCB value, assigning one-half the detection limit to non-detected
values. Summing all Aroclors to estimate Total PCBs likely overstates the Total PCB concentration.
Given the small sample size and historical nature of the results, no adjustment was attempted that would
correct for possible overestimating the Total PCB concentration.
Aroclor 1242 was detected in all samples. The Total PCB concentration ranged from 0.033
ug/m3 to 0.530 fig/m3. The highest detected value may be an outlier result, and was described by the
authors as "atypical." The mean of the nine samples is 0.11 |ag/m3.
Although this study provides evidence suggesting PCBs in air could be attributed to releases
from the water column, the study results cannot be used directly to assess current and future potential
exposure to PCBs in this HHRA. The results cannot be used because the PCB concentration in the water
column (i.e., the source term for the releases from water) was much greater in 1980-81 than current, and
projected future, concentrations.
17 Gradient Corporation
-------
Remnant Deposit Remediation Air Monitoring 1 99 1
As part of the Remnant Deposit Remediation monitoring, Harza Engineering performed air
monitoring studies from January through November 1991 (Harza, 1992). The first five months of the
monitoring program focused on two miles of the Hudson River in the Fort Edward area and monitored
PCS concentrations in air during construction containment activities. After containment was achieved,
the remaining monitoring program (June through November 1991) shifted to the Remnant Sites for the
first six weeks and then to residential areas for the remainder of the program. Between June and mid-
July, one sampler operated on, or adjacent to, each Remnant Site; from mid-July to the end of November,
three fixed-location stations (A2, A3, and A4) operated in residential areas (Harza, 1992). Concurrent
with the air monitoring, PCBs were monitored in the Hudson River water column.
Overall, 985 airborne PCB samples were collected during the 1991 construction monitoring
period. Of these samples, only 13 samples, or 1.3%, had PCB concentrations above the limit of
quantification. PCB concentrations (only Aroclor 1242 was detected in 1991) ranging from 0.03 to 0.13
ug/m3 were detected during this monitoring program. Table A-2 (Appendix A) presents all detected air
sampling results and corresponding river water samples collected in the same vicinity and approximately
the same time as the detected air sample results.
A number of factors suggest the PCBs detected in air were emanating largely from the Hudson
River, and less likely from the four Remnant Sites or other sources. First, all PCB levels were below the
detection limit throughout the first four months of 1991 when the construction containment activities
were occurring, and such activities would tend to promote airborne releases of PCBs. Second, the
surfaces of the Remnant Sites were covered when these detections occurred (Harza, 1992). Third, PCBs
were detected in air only when high PCB concentrations were detected in the water column samples.
These data can be used to estimate an empirical water to air transfer coefficient, representing the
ratio of the PCB concentration in air divided by the PCB concentration in water. Using the detected PCB
concentrations in air and water summarized in Table A-2, empirical air-water transfer coefficients range
from 0.02 to 0.4 (|J.g/m3 per ug/L), with a median value of 0.09, and an average value of 0.15 (u,g/m3 per
According to widely used transport equations used to estimate volatile release of chemicals to air
(see discussion of modeling below), at equilibrium, the chemical release to the air is linearly proportional
to the chemical concentration in water. Using this principle, the empirical transfer coefficients provide
one means of estimating the PCB concentration in air that corresponds to the predictions of future PCB
concentrations in the water column. As discussed earlier, the mean predicted PCB concentration in the
water column is 24 ng/L (0.024 u,g/L). Applying the median empirical transfer coefficient (0.09), an
empirical estimate of the PCB concentration in air associated with an average 0.024 u,g/L in the water
column is 0.002 u,g/m3. A high-end estimate of the PCB concentration in air, based on the 95th
percentile estimate of the water column PCB concentration of 0.042 jig/L and the highest empirical
transfer coefficient of 0.4, is 0.017 u.g/m3.
Modeled PCB Concentrations in Air
Another assessment of PCB releases from the Upper Hudson River involved using published
modeling approaches, summarized more fully in Appendix A. As described in the Appendix, two
approaches were used to estimate the PCB flux from the river. One approach is based on the commonly
Ig Gradient Corporation
-------
used two-layer film resistance model as described in Achman et al. (1993) and Bopp (1983), and other
standard texts. This model describes the volatilization of chemicals as a process of chemical diffusion
through a water boundary layer on the water-side of the air-water interface, volatilization at the interface,
then diffusion through the air boundary layer on the air-side of the interface. As described in Appendix
A, the PCB flux using this model is linearly proportional to the PCB concentration in water, yielding a
"normalized" flux rate (mass of chemical per unit concentration in water). Using physical-chemical
parameters determined by Bopp (1983) for tri- and tetrachlorobiphenyls, the normalized PCB flux rate is
estimated to be:
Normalized PCB Flux (two-film model): 2.7 x 10"3 (ng/m2-sec per ng/L)
A number of field studies have been conducted examining the flux of PCBs from water bodies to
the atmosphere (Nelson et al., 1998; Hornbuckle et al., 1994, Achman et al., 1993; Hornbuckle et al.,
1993). Given the complexity of the physical processes controlling the volatilization flux, the estimates
using the two-film resistance model were compared with field measurements conducted by Achman et al.
(1993) in Lake Michigan. Based upon field measurements from June through October, 1989, Achman et
al. measured the flux of PCBs on 14 separate days, under a range of field conditions (temperature, wind
speed, etc.). The Total PCB concentration in water measured during the study period ranged from 0.35
ng/L to 7.8 ng/L; measured PCB flux rates ranged from 13 to 1,300 ng/m2-day (1.5 x 10"4 to 1.5 x 10"2
ng/m2-sec). The average normalized PCB flux rate (based on the 14 measurements) was:
Normalized PCB Flux (empirical): 1.2 x 10~3 (ng/m2-sec per ng/L)
The modeled flux rate using the physical-chemical parameters from Bopp (1983) and the empirical PCB
flux rate estimates compare favorably. The two-film model estimate is used in the following discussion
to estimate the PCB concentration in air in the immediate vicinity of the Upper Hudson River.
The PCB emission estimates provided the PCB source term for the Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) air dispersion model (USEPA, 1995c) that was used to estimate PCB concentrations in air in the
vicinity of the Upper Hudson River. The ISC model is recommended as a preferred model by the
USEPA for use in regulatory and permitting applications. The ISC model was developed by USEPA for
determining atmospheric pollutant concentrations associated with point, line, area and volume sources of
emission.
Two separate versions of the ISC model are available to allow analysis of both long-term and
short-term air quality impacts. The primary difference between the two models is the type of weather
data needed as input. The short-term version, ISCST, was designed to calculate contaminant
concentrations over time periods as short as one hour. The ISCST model can be used to calculate
ambient concentrations over longer time periods (for example one year), simply by averaging the hourly
predictions over the appropriate averaging period. Because the ISCST predictions are based upon more
detailed meteorologic inputs, the predictions from the ISCST model are considered more accurate than
those estimated using the ISCLT (long-term) model. For the HHRA, the current ISC Short Term model,
ISCST3 Version 97363 (USEPA, 1995c as updated), was used to estimate the concentration of PCBs in
the vicinity of the Upper Hudson River.
19 Gradient Corporation
-------
As described in Appendix A, a one kilometer (1,000 meter) stretch of river, with an approximate
width of 200 meters (a typical width in the Thompson Island Pool area), was modeled.6 Using the
projected average PCB concentration in the Upper Hudson River of 24 ng/L (described earlier) and the
normalized flux of 2.7 x 10"3 ng/m2 per ng/L, the PCB flux estimate for the modeled source area (1000 m
x 200 m) is 13 ug/sec.
The exposure point concentration estimate for PCBs in air depends greatly on the distance from
the river. The normalized average downwind PCB concentration modeled using ISCST is estimated to be
approximately 70 pg/m3 per fig/sec at the immediate river edge (downwind), and drop by 10-fold within
200 meters downwind. The average concentration within 50 to 200 meters of the river shoreline is 9
pg/m3 per jig/sec (Appendix A).
Using the PCB flux just described (13 jig/sec), and the normalized average concentration within
200 meters of shore (9 pg/m3 per jig/sec), gives a PCB concentration in air of 117 pg/m3, or 0.00012
(ig/m3. For comparison, if the empirical estimate of PCB flux from the Lake Michigan study (Achman et
al., 1993) were used (1.2 x 10"3 ng/m2-sec per ng/L), the predicted PCB concentration in air within the
region 50 to 200 meters from the river shoreline would be 0.00005 (ig/m3.
Estimated Exposure Point Concentration in Air
In summary, there are limited data available that provide site-specific information necessary to
estimate future PCB concentrations in air that are attributable to PCB releases from the river. Based on
the foregoing discussion, the following range of PCB concentrations in the air for locations near the river
that can be reasonably linked to releases from the water column:
Measurements (1980-81): 0.11 ug/m3 (mean)
0.53 ug/m3 (maximum)
Measurements (1991): 0.03 ng/m3 (minimum detected)
0.13 ug/m3 (maximum detected)
Empirical Estimate: 0.002 ug/m3 (central est.)
(1991 Remnant Monitoring) 0.0i 7 ug/m3 (high-end est.)
Modeled Estimates: 0.00012 u.g/m3 (mean water column source)
0.00021 ^g/m3 (high-end water column source)
The 1980-81 air measurements cannot be used to assess potential current and future PCB exposures
because PCB concentrations in the water column were much greater in 1980-81 than current and
projected future concentrations. Similarly, to the extent the detected concentration range of PCBs in air
measured in 1991 are associated with releases from the water column, the water column PCB
concentrations were between one and two orders of magnitude higher in 1991 than they are predicted to
6 It should be noted that it is not necessary to model the entire Upper Hudson River. Given the general north-south orientation of
the River, the model results are very stable in the east-west direction. Had a longer stretch of river been modeled, the PCB
emission rate would have been scaled to the appropriate increase in surface area. The PCB flux per unit area (which is the term
that drives the dispersion model), remains constant.
20 Gradient Corporation
-------
be for 1999 - 2020. Thus, using the 1991 measurements directly would likely significantly overstate the
airborne PCB concentrations.
Overall, the modeled estimate of PCB concentration in air yield the lowest estimated airborne
PCB concentrations. Of the two steps in the air model (first determining the flux rate of PCBs from the
water column then using this flux in the ISCST model), modeling the flux rate is the most uncertain. The
diffusion coefficients in the flux model are highly dependent on the degree of turbulence in the water
column, especially at the air-water interface. The measured flux rates from the Lake Michigan study
could be expected to underpredict flux from the Hudson River, which is a flowing, more turbulent, water
body. Yet, even if the Lake Michigan flux rates were increased by as much as an order of magnitude, the
predicted PCB concentration in air would be 0.0005 ug/m3.
Notwithstanding the large range of airborne concentration estimates, a central estimate EPC of
0.001 ng/m3 was estimated as the midpoint between the modeled concentration (0.00012 |j.g/m3) and the
empirical transfer coefficient estimate (0.002 |o.g/m3). For the RME value, the high-end empirical
transfer coefficient estimate of 0.017 H-g/m3 was chosen as the EPC. These values are summarized in
Table 2-11.
2.4 Chemical Intake Algorithms
The following sections describe the calculation of PCB intake for each complete exposure
pathway for the HHRA, including the algorithms and exposure parameters. Complete tabulations of the
exposure factors for each exposure pathway and receptor scenario are found in Tables 2-12 through 2-24.
2.4.1 Ingestion of Fish
As has been noted earlier, both point estimate and Monte Carlo exposure estimates of PCB
exposure via fish ingestion are contained in this HHRA. For the point estimate calculations, the intake
and risks are calculated for an adult angler, who is likely to ingest the greatest amount a fish over an
extended period of time. In the Monte Carlo assessment, the angler population includes fish
consumption from childhood through adulthood (Chapter 3). This section summarizes the exposure
calculations and factors for the point estimate analysis. Because many of the point estimate factors are
based upon the analysis and derivation of their respective probability distributions, which are derived in
Chapter 3, the reader is referred to the more complete discussion contained there.
21 Gradient Corpomtio
-------
The fish ingestion point estimate intake is calculated as:
Intake fish(mg/kg-d) =
Cfish x IR x (1 - LOSS) x FS x EF x ED x CF
BW x AT
where:
Cfish = 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 = Con version Factor (10~3kg/g)
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 Table 2-12. 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 Upper Hudson River. Thus, the exposure and risk
analysis assumes the Upper Hudson River accounts for 100% of the sportfish catch of the angler (FS=1).
As noted below, the fish ingestion rate is based upon 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 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 Upper Hudson
area and continue to fish from the Upper Hudson River. For the purposes of defining the angler
population likely to fish the Upper Hudson River most frequently, it was assumed this population would
be most likely to constitute residents from the five counties bordering the Upper Hudson River (Albany,
Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, and Washington). Furthermore, the 1991 New York Angler survey (see
Chapter 3 discussion) 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 Upper 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 in
Section 3.2.4, an angler is assumed to continue fishing until any of the following occur:
22 Gradient Corporation
-------
• 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 five counties bordering the Upper Hudson River.
The 50th percentile of the fishing duration distribution is 12 years and the 95th percentile is 40
years. These values were used as the central tendency and RME point estimates, respectively. For
comparison, 9 years, and 30 years are standard exposure duration factors for Superfund risk assessments
based on national statistics of population mobility alone (USEPA, 1989b).
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, 19970 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 (USEPA, 1997b).
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 was used as the averaging time for cancer, even though the 1997
Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997f) 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). Because the PCB concentration in fish declines for the
projected 70 year period covered by this risk assessment, the average concentration (over time) actually
declines as the exposure period increases. Thus, the average concentration (and by extension, average
PCB intake in terms of mg/kg-day) in a 7-year exposure period is actually greater than the average
concentration over, say 40 years. This leads to the somewhat counter-intuitive result that the average
daily dose decreases as the exposure duration increases. For cancer risk evaluation, which is based upon
a lifetime averaging period, this lower average daily dose still yields a higher overall PCB intake, simply
because the intake is accumulated over the lifetime. For the evaluation of non-cancer hazards, it is
inappropriate to extend the averaging time to equal the exposure duration in this case, because the higher
average dose experienced over less than a lifetime of exposure (e.g., 1 years) may exceed an acceptable
dose, and may not be representative of an RME exposure.
Based on the foregoing considerations, 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 (Cfish). As described earlier in Section 2.3.1, the PCB
concentration in fish was determined based on the modeled Total PCB concentration results presented in
the Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, 1999d), combined with the fish consumption patterns as defined
23 Gradient Corporation
-------
by the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et ai, 1992). For the evaluation of cancer risks, the
central tendency EPC is 4.4 mg/kg PCBs, which was calculated by averaging the species-weighted
concentration distribution over the 50lh percentile exposure duration estimate (i.e., 12 years). The
corresponding RME value is 2.2 mg/kg PCBs, which was calculated by averaging the species-weighted
concentration distribution over the 95th 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. Thus, the 7-year average EPC in fish for the RME is 5.1 mg/kg PCBs;
the central tendency point estimate EPC, which is based on a 12-year exposure duration, is 4.4 mg/kg
PCBs.
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 of fish
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 this HHRA examines the risk of PCB intake from Hudson River
fish only, the focus is only on self-caught fish.
As described in detail in Section 3.2.1, the fish ingestion rate for the HHRA 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 offish ingestion, and the 90th percentile (31.9 g/day) is the
RME ingestion rate.7 For a one-half pound serving, these ingestion rates represent approximately 6.4 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 Section 3.2.3 and a
brief summary is presented here.
Experimental results range considerably, both between various cooking methods and within the
same method. Cooking losses, expressed as percent loss based on Total PCB mass before and after
cooking, as high as 74 percent were reported in one study (Skea et al., 1979). Several studies reported
net gains of PCBs (Moyaetal., 1998; Armbruster et al., 1987).8
Despite a wide range of data covering 12 studies, it is not possible to determine the key factors
that influence the extent of PCB cooking losses. PCB losses from cooking may be a function of the
cooking method (i.e., baking, frying, broiling, etc.), the cooking duration, the temperature during
cooking, preparation techniques (i.e., trimmed vs. untrimmed, with or without skin), the lipid content of
the fish, the fish species, the magnitude of the PCB contamination in the raw fish, the extent to which
lipids separated during cooking are consumed, the reporting method, and/or the experimental study
design. In addition, personal preferences for various preparation and cooking methods and other related
7 A fish ingestion rate of 30 grams per day was used in the Phase 1 risk assessment which was the USEPA-recommended value at
the time of that report (USEPA, 1991 a).
8 It is likely that the net gain is within the experimental measurement error and essentially indicates zero loss.
24 Gradient Corporation
-------
habits (such as consuming pan drippings) may result in consumption of PCBs "lost" from the fish upon
cooking.
The 12 studies reviewed (Section 3.2.3) support the conclusion that cooking loss may be zero to
74 percent. 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:
T Csed xIRxFSxEFxEDxCF
Intakeingestion (mg / kg - d) = -*
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)
Exposure factor values for the central tendency and RME point estimate calculations for this
pathway are summarized in Tables 2-13 through 2-15. Site-specific considerations in selecting these
factors are discussed below.
PCB Concentration in Sediment (Csetl). As described in Section 2.3.2, the Baseline Modeling
Report (USEPA, 1999d) contains 20-year projections of the PCB concentration in sediment. The mean
PCB concentration in sediment of 14.9 mg/kg was used as the central tendency point estimate, and the
95th percentile concentration, 28.7 mg/kg, was used as the RME point estimate.
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 USEPA's current
Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997f).9 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
9 In the Phase 1 risk assessment, a value of 200 mg/day was used as the sediment ingestion rate for children, and 100 mg/day for
adolescents and adults, which were the then recommended high-end ingestion rates prior to the new issue of the 1997 Exposoure
Factors Handbook (USEPA, 19970-
25 Gradient Corporation
-------
ingestion while participating in activities along the Hudson, 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 Upper 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. The
RME exposure frequency factors used here are approximately 2- to 3-fold higher than the values used in
the 1991 Phase 1 risk assessment.
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 95th and 50th
percentiles, respectively, of the residence duration determined for the five Upper Hudson counties (see
Section 3.2.4.3 and Figure 3-5a). Note the distinction between a RME of 41 years and a central estimate
of 11 years for residence duration as opposed to a RME of 40 years and a central estimate of 12 years for
angling 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 (which sum to 11 years). Note that these values
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, 1997f).
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, 1997f).
25 Gradient Corporation
-------
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:
Csed x DA x AF x SA x EF x ED x CF
lntake-(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 2-13 through 2-15. Site-specific considerations in selecting these
factors are discussed below.
PCB Concentration In Sediment (Csed). As described in Section 2.3.3, the Baseline Modeling
Report (USEPA, 1999d) contains 20-year projections of the PCB concentration in sediment. The mean
sediment concentration of 14.9 mg/kg is the central tendency point estimate, and the 95th percentile upper
bound segment average of 28.7 mg/kg is the RME point estimated EPC.
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 al., 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, 19990, which
among other studies, relies upon data published by Kissel et al. (1998). That study represents a
continuation of dermal adherence studies that provide the basis for the current exposure factors
recommended by USEPA in its 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997f).
The data in Kissel et al. (1998) include soil/skin adherence factors for a range of activities and
individuals (i.e., transplanting of bedding plants, laying of pipe by adults, children's play, etc.). For each
of these activities, Kissel lists measured dermal adherence (soil loadings) on four body parts (hands,
forearms, lower legs, and faces). Area weighted adherence factors for the Kissel, et al. (1998) study, and
others, are presented in the March 1999 Draft Dermal Risk Assessment Guidance. The area-weighted
sediment/skin adherence values for adults and children are determined by summing the soil loading rates
of each body part (hands, forearms, lower legs and face) multiplied by their respective surface area, and
dividing by the sum of the surface areas. The resulting 50th percentile sediment/skin adherence factor for
27 Gradient Corporation
-------
children is 0.2 mg/cm2, and 0.3 mg/cm2 for adults (USEPA, 1999f). 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
Upper 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, 1997f)- 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, 1991 f). In the Phase 1 risk assessment,
the corresponding exposure factors used were: 3,931 cm2, 7,420 cm2, and 5,170 cm2 for child,
adolescent, and adult surface areas, respectively. These prior values were based upon the surface area of
the child/adolescent legs, feet, arms, and hands, and adult lower legs and feet, forearms, and hands.
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 Upper Hudson River, nor do general
population studies exist that provide usable information. The exposure frequency factors (Tables 2-13
through 2-15) for dermal contact are the same as those for incidental ingestion described in the
proceeding section.
Exposure Duration (ED). 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 five Upper Hudson counties (see
Section 3.2.4.3 and Figure 3-5a). Note the distinction between a RME of 41 years and a central tendency
of 11 years for residence duration as opposed to a RME of 40 years and a central tendency of 12 years for
angling 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 (which sum to 11 years). Note that these values
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, 1997f)-
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, 1997f)-
28 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 x K x SA x DE x EF x ED x CF
Intake water (mg / kg - d) = v-
BW x AT
where:
Cw = Concentration of PCBs in water (mg/1)
KD = Chemical-specific dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
" -t
SA = Skin surface area exposed (cm )
DE = Duration of event (hr/d)
EF = Exposure frequency (d/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
CF = Conversion 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 2-16 through 2-18. Site-specific considerations in selecting these
factors are discussed below.
PCB Concentrations in River Water (Cw). As described in Section 2.3.4, the Baseline Modeling
Report (USEPA, 1999d) contains 20-year projections of the PCB concentration in sediment. The mean
water column PCB (2.4 x 10'5 mg/L) is the central tendency point estimate EPC, and the 95th percentile
upper bound segment average water column PCB concentration (3.1 x 10"5) is the RME point estimate.
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, 19990-
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 water. The surface areas for adults,
adolescents, and children, respectively are: 18,150 cm2, 13,100 cm2, and 6,880 cm2 (USEPA, 1991 f).
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).
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 Upper Hudson River, nor do general
population studies exist that provide usable information. The exposure frequency factors (Tables 2-16
through 2-18) 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.
29 Gradient Corporation
-------
Exposure Duration (ED). 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 five Upper Hudson counties (see
Section 3.2.4.3 and Figure 3-5a). Note the distinction between a RME of 41 years and a central tendency
of 11 years for residence duration as opposed to a RME of 40 years and a central tendency of 12 years for
angling 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 (which sum to 11 years). Note that these values
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, 1997f).
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, 19970-
2.4.5 Inhalation of PCBs in Air
For the inhalation pathway, intake is calculated as:
/ ,, ^ Cair xIRxDExEFxEDxCF
Intakeinhala[ion(mg/kg-d) = -^
where:
C^ = Concentration of the chemical in air (|ig/m3),
IR = Inhalation rate (nvVhr)
DE = Duration of event (hrs/day)
EF = Exposure frequency (days/yr)
ED = Exposure duration (yrs)
CF = Conversion factor (1O"3 mg/^g)
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 2-19 through 2-24. Site-specific considerations in selecting these
factors are discussed below.
PCB Concentrations in Air (Cair). The exposure point concentration estimates, summarized in
Section 2.3.4, were estimated for areas in the immediate proximity of the river. The central tendency
point estimate is 1 xlO"6 mg/m3, the RME estimate is 1.7 x 10"5 mg/tn3.
Inhalation Rate (IR). For adult residents, the inhalation rate used is 20 m /day, which is the
recommended value for long term exposure assessments for Superfund risk assessments (USEPA,
30 Gradient Corporation
-------
I991b). The inhalation rate for children (10 mVday) and adolescents (13.5 nrVday) used to calculate
inhalation are current recommendations in the 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook for long term exposures
(USEPA, 1997f).'° The same values were used in both central estimate and high-end exposure
calculations.
For all recreational scenarios, the mean inhalation rate values for short-term, moderate activities
were used: 1.6 m3/hr for adults and adolescents, and 1.2 m3/hr for children (USEPA, 1997f).
Exposure Frequency (EF). Because residents may be exposed to PCB-affected air when
performing activities outside their homes as well as when they are inside (through outside air exchange),
a high-end scenario assuming exposure 24 hours a day, 350 days a year was adopted. The exposure
frequency for inhalation of air during recreational activities is the same as those for incidental ingestion
of sediment and dermal contact with sediment and river water.
Exposure Duration (ED). The exposure duration for the inhalation pathway 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 five Upper Hudson counties (see Section 3.2.4.3 and Figure 3-5a).
Note the distinction between a RME of 41 years and a central tendency of 11 years for residence duration
as opposed to a RME of 40 years and a central tendency of 12 years for angling 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 (which sum to 11 years). Note that these values 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, 1997f).
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). A 70-year averaging time of 25,550 days was used for cancer evaluations
(365 days/year x 70 years) (USEPA, 1997). Non-cancer averaging times are equal to the exposure
duration multiplied by 365 days/year (USEPA, 1997f).
"'These values are based on children aged 6-8 years and the average male/female adolescent 12-14 year age category.
3 | Gradient Corporation
-------
"This Page Left Blank Intentionally --
32 Gradient Corporation
-------
Chapter 3
-------
3 Monte Carlo Exposure Analysis of Fish Ingestion Pathway
A Monte Carlo analysis was conducted pursuant to the Agency's guidance on this subject
(USEPA, 1997a). The purpose of the Monte Carlo analysis is to estimate a probability distribution of
PCB exposure among members of the angler population and to quantify the extent to which some sources
of uncertainty affect the precision of these estimates. When combined with the toxicity information
described in Chapter 4, the range of PCB exposure is translated into a range of cancer risks and non-
cancer hazards (Chapter 5).
As described earlier, USEPA's guidance for Superfund risk assessments and USEPA policy
recommends an evaluation of reasonable maximum exposure. In the preceding section, one method of
estimating the RME was outlined. The point estimate method consists of combining high-end and
appropriate average exposure estimates for exposure factors such that the combination of factors yields
an estimate of an individual who may experience a reasonable maximum exposure. While the RME is
widely used to capture exposures in the high-end of the distribution (above the 90th percentile), in
practice it is rare that the precise probability associated with the RME can be determined. That is, the
result is clearly a "high-end" estimate of exposure, but it is difficult to determine whether the high-end is
the 75th percentile, 90th percentile, 99th percentile, etc. within a population.
Monte Carlo simulation methods provide an alternative, probabilistic, approach to estimate the
RME. The advantage afforded by Monte Carlo methods is that, given sufficient data on parameter
distributions, they can provide an explicit estimate of the likelihood, or probability, associated with the
entire range of exposure — this quantitative estimate of the probability of exposure translates into a
quantitative estimate of the probability of risk as discussed in Chapter 5. The advantages offered by
Monte Carlo exposure analysis involve more resource intensive analysis, as well as more detailed
information describing the distribution of plausible values for the exposure factors.
After the exposure factor distributions have been determined, performing the Monte Carlo
simulation is straightforward: the range and relative likelihood of exposure is calculated by replacing
exposure factor point estimate values with values sampled from their respective probability distributions.
The simulation randomly selects a value from each parameter's distribution and calculates the
corresponding PCB intake, repeating this process many times. The collection of computed PCB intake
values approximates the exposure distribution for the population of interest.
Although the actual simulation process is straightforward, the significant challenge of a Monte
Carlo analysis lies in developing the probability distributions that describe each exposure factor. The
majority of the discussion in this section examines the information sources used to derive the
distributions for each of the exposure factors. Furthermore, the uncertainties involved in deriving the
input probability distributions are clearly outlined. Before proceeding, the next section highlights the
distinction between two important concepts in the analysis, variability and uncertainty, each of which
contribute to variations in the exposure calculations.
3.1 Discussion of Variability and Uncertainty
It is important to segregate the influence of variability and uncertainty in the context of the
Monte Carlo Analysis because they give rise to two sets of questions. Variability addresses the issue of
33 Gradient Corporation
-------
whether there are members of the population with a particularly elevated level of intake (and by
extension risk), whereas uncertainty affects the precision of the intake estimates.
Exposure factors can vary among the population, and they can be uncertain due to limited
amount of information. Parameter variability is an inherent reflection of the natural variation within a
population (e.g., true differences in fish ingestion rates, exposure duration, body weight, etc.).
Uncertainty represents a lack of perfect knowledge about specific variables, models, or other factors.
Uncertainty can be reduced through further study, measurements, etc., whereas variability cannot.
Further study of the variability of the characteristics affecting exposure within a population can however
improve the accuracy with which the variability can be modeled and thus can improve the accuracy of
exposure and risk estimates.
The exposure factor parameters used to estimate chemical intake, in concept, have multiple
possible values for any of three reasons. First, a parameter's true value may be uncertain, but may not
vary substantially across different members of the population. In this case, the parameter has one "true"
value for all members of the population of interest, but that value is not known precisely. Second, a
parameter's value may vary from member to member of the population, but be treated as known with
relative certainty. For example, the distribution of human body weights within a population clearly
varies, yet given a sufficient number of measurements the variability may be determined with accuracy.
Third, a quantity may both be uncertain and vary from member to member of the population. In practice,
most exposure factors fall into this third category. Assessments need to address both variability in a
population and scientific uncertainty in the risk estimates. The effects of these factors need to be
addressed separately and not mixed together in an assessment to develop a single risk distribution. There
are different alternatives for presenting information on variability and uncertainty, depending on the
available data and assessment needs.
If the distinction between uncertainty of an exposure factor and true variability among the
population were not distinguishable, then a single probability distribution for each exposure factor would
be all that is needed for a Monte Carlo analysis. In this instance, a "one-dimensional" Monte Carlo
analysis would proceed repeatedly drawing randomly selected values for each stochastic parameter (i.e.,
a random sample reflecting a combination of uncertainty and variability). For each set of values drawn,
the simulation computes an intake, repeating this process a large number of times. The resulting set of
intake (exposure) estimates can be plotted as a histogram that approximates the range and relative
likelihood of the plausible exposure that may exist in the modeled population. However, this
approximation to the probability distribution of exposure (and risks) generated by a one-dimensional
Monte Carlo simulation has embedded within it both variability and uncertainty. Because it reflects both
uncertainty and variability, it is broader than the true distribution of risks. Moreover, it cannot be
thought of as representing the risk that any one individual would incur.
A two-dimensional (2-D), or nested Monte Carlo simulation addresses this problem by
conducting a large number of separate one-dimensional (1-D) simulations. For each 1-D simulation, a
fixed set of randomly selected values is assigned to each of the uncertain parameters. Values for variable
parameters are permitted to vary within each 1-D simulation. Each 1-D simulation produces a large
number of intake estimates (e.g., 1,000 to 10,000 or more such estimates) representing the set of PCB
intake incurred by members of a population, given the fixed values assigned to each uncertain parameter
for that simulation.
The results of a two-dimensional analysis can be used to quantify the distribution of plausible
risks for representative members of the population. For example, the range of plausible risks for the
34 Gradient Corporation
-------
"median individual" (i.e., the individual whose risk is greater than the risk for one-half of the population,
and less than the risk for the other half) is estimated by collecting the median risk value from each of the
10,000 executed 1-D simulations.
In the Scope of Work of the Phase 2 HHRA (USEPA, 1998a), a 2-D Monte Carlo analysis had
been proposed in order to explicitly address uncertainty and variability. The 2-D analysis involves: (1)
defining probability distributions that reflect the parameter variability (i.e., true differences in fish
ingestion, exposure frequency, exposure duration, body weight, etc. within an exposed population), and
(2) evaluating the uncertainty associated with the exposure factor distributions. Thus, the first
component (variability analysis) of this process yields a probability distribution that conveys information
on the range of risk experienced by individuals within a population, and allows a quantitative estimate of
the RME individual (such as the 95th percentile exposure and risk). The second component (uncertainty
analysis) is intended to provide quantitative estimates of the accuracy of the predictions. Uncertainty in
the exposure parameter estimates affects the precision of the resulting risk estimates. The more reliable
the information is to define the exposure factor probability distributions, the narrower the range of Monte
Carlo exposure estimates for any particular exposure percentile; conversely, greater uncertainty in the
exposure factor distributions leads to wider range in the risk estimates.
While a nested Monte Carlo provides a framework for evaluating both the variability of exposure
within a population and provides a quantitative estimate of the accuracy of the exposure, the information
required to conduct the analysis is substantial. Modeling variability and uncertainty separately requires
not only a probability distribution defining the variability for a particular parameter, but also a
quantitative measure of the uncertainty for that probability distribution. As an example, consider
modeling the variability of a particular exposure parameter, such as fish ingestion, as a lognormal
random variable with parameters u, and a. In order to accomplish a fully 2-D analysis, quantitative
uncertainty distributions for both the mean and variance would in theory be necessary, or in other words
not only is a probability distribution of fish ingestion required, so too is the probability distribution for
plausible values of n and a. Clearly such an approach requires much more information than a 1-D
analysis, where uncertainty and variability are not distinguished from one another.
For the reasons described later in this section, an explicit 2-D analysis was not performed due to
insufficient information available to define quantitative uncertainty distributions for several important
exposure factors. The analysis conducted here includes a 1-D Monte Carlo analysis of the variability of
exposure as a function of the variability of individual exposure factors. The second component of the
analysis includes an uncertainty/sensitivity analysis for the important exposure variables. This sensitivity
analysis examines changes in the predicted bottom line distribution of population variability when
alternative assumptions are made for the distribution of assessment variables. A total of 72 separate
combinations of the variable input parameters were examined in the uncertainty analysis. Thus, the
likely precision of each percentile of the exposure estimate distribution is not characterized by a specific
probability, but rather the range of exposure estimates for each percentile is presented to give the reader
an estimate for how wide or narrow the exposure estimates range.
Before proceeding with the Monte Carlo exposure analysis, it must be noted that as a matter of
USEPA policy, the variability and/or uncertainty associated with chemical toxicity is not included
quantitatively in a Monte Carlo risk analysis. USEPA recognizes the uncertainty inherent in the
determination of cancer and non-cancer toxicity factors, and the uncertainty is factored into the
determination of the toxicity factors when they are published in USEPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). A discussion of the toxicity factor uncertainty is presented in Chapter 4, and in the
discussion of uncertainties in Chapter 5.
35 - Gradient Corporation
-------
3.2 Derivation of Exposure Factor Distributions
The Monte Carlo analysis calculates chemical intake via fish ingestion based upon the basic
intake equation defined in Section 2.3.1, which is repeated here for ease of reference:
Intake flsh(mg/ kg-d) =
Cflsh xIRx(^- LOSS)xFSxEFxED
BW x AT
xCF
where:
Cfish
IR
LOSS
FS
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT
Species weighted concentration of PCBs in fish (mg/kg)
Annualized fish ingestion rate (g/day)
Cooking loss (g/g)
Fraction from source (unitless fraction)
Exposure frequency (days/year),
Exposure duration (years),
Conversion Factor (10~3 kg/g)
Body weight (kg),
Averaging time (days),
For the point estimate exposure analysis, several parameters (Cfish and IR in particular) were
based on weighted average inputs based upon species ingestion rates. The Monte Carlo analysis does not
adopt weighted averages for these exposure factors. Consequently, the calculation of PCB intake from
fish ingestion for the Monte Carlo simulation is the summation of the annualized intake over the
exposure duration and over all fish species:
1999+ ED
Intake =
'-'( Cf v x IR x PCTf x (1 - LOSS) xFSx
,v=1999
BWaxAT
xCF
[3-1]
where:
Intake
Cf,y
m.
PCTf
LOSS
FS
EF
ED
CF
BWa
AT
PCB intake from all fish species over the exposure duration (mg/kg-day)
PCB concentration in fish species/in yearj (mg/kg)
Fish ingestion rate (g/day) at age a (a = y - year of birth)
Fraction of annual fish ingestion for species/(unitless fraction)
PCB cooking loss (g/g)
Fraction from source (unitless fraction)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Conversion factor (10~3 kg/g)
Body weight (kg) at age a (a = y - year of birth)
Averaging time (days)
70 years x 365 days/yr cancer
ED x 365 days/yr non-cancer
36
Gradient Corporation
-------
In this form of the intake equation, exposure duration (ED), referred to here as the incremental exposure
duration, is the number of years until the individual stops fishing in the Upper Hudson River because the
angler stops fishing altogether or the angler moves out of the region (or dies). The total dose over the
exposure duration is given by summing over the three modeled fish species consumed (denoted by
subscript/).
The variables in the above equation for which probability distributions or sensitivity analysis
ranges were developed include:
IRa ingestion rate
Cf,y concentration of PCBs in fish
PCTf percent of species / consumed
LOSS cooking loss
ED exposure duration (e.g., fishing duration)
BWa body weight
Parameters that were treated as constants in the Monte Carlo analysis, set to the same values as they were
in the point estimate analysis, were the following:
FS Fraction from source (100%)
EF Exposure frequency
AT Averaging time
A discussion of the derivation of the variable exposure factors is presented in the following subsections.
3.2.1 Fish Ingestion Rate
The fish ingestion rate term represents the amount of fish an individual consumes on average
within the year, annualized such that it is expressed in units of grams of fish per day (g/day). For the
HHRA, Upper Hudson River anglers are defined as all individuals who would consume self-caught fish
from the Upper Hudson River at least once per year in the absence of fish consumption advisories. The
population in question therefore includes a range of infrequent to frequent anglers, who may fish for
sport (recreational) or for sustenance (food source).
Based on a review of the available literature and consideration of a number of scientific issues
relevant to fish ingestion rates, a probability distribution of fish consumption rates was determined using
data from the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992) to represent Upper Hudson River
anglers. The statistics and percentiles for this distribution are summarized in Table 3-1. The point
estimate exposure calculations used the 50th percentile of the distribution (4.0 g/day) and the 90th
percentile (31.9 g/day) ingestion rates, corresponding to approximately 6.4 and 51 one-half pound meals
per year, respectively. The entire distribution of fish ingestion rates was used in the Monte Carlo
analysis to represent variability of fish consumption among the angler population. A discussion of the
fish ingestion surveys reviewed, and the derivation of the ingestion rate distribution selected, is presented
in the following sections.
37 Gradient Corporation
-------
3.2.1.1 Summary of Fish Ingestion Rate Literature.
Self-caught fish ingestion rates can vary based on many factors, including: the type of water
body (flowing vs. still, freshwater vs. saltwater), the available fish species, the type of consumer
(commercial vs. recreational), the preference for specific species, the impact of fishing advisories,
weather, and the distance of the angler from the water body (reviewed in USEPA, 1991 f). Numerous
scientific studies of various water bodies (lakes, rivers, streams, etc.) have been conducted to identify
fishing patterns (frequency, fishing practices, fish species preference, etc.) and fish consumption rates.
Because the Upper Hudson River is a flowing body of water, the review of fish ingestion literature
focused on studies of anglers fishing in inland flowing waterbodies, also emphasizing studies conducted
in the Northeast.
Fish ingestion studies can be either "creel" surveys, where anglers are interviewed in person
while fishing, or mail surveys, where anglers (often identified as individuals with fishing licenses) are
sent questionnaires in the mail (reviewed in USEPA, 1992d). Creel surveys typically involve interviews
with anglers at the dockside requesting information about the fishing activities (fish preference,
consumption rates, cooking methods, age, gender, frequency of fishing the specific water body, etc.).
This survey method can provide information on both licensed and unlicensed anglers, depending upon
who is interviewed. Mail surveys typically involve sending questionnaires to licensed anglers requesting
information on fishing practices, preferred rivers, lakes or streams, fish consumption, and other
information. However, if mailing addresses are obtained from list of licensed anglers, unlicensed anglers
will not be represented. A third type of survey, diary surveys, where participants are asked to record the
frequency of fish ingestion, the types of fish eaten, and the meal size, require more effort on the part of
the survey participants, but are generally assumed to yield more accurate results because the potential
recall bias found in the other survey methods is minimized.
1988 New York Angler Survey (Connelly et al., 1990). In 1989, researchers at Cornell University
performed a statewide mail survey to determine New York anglers' fishing experiences during 1988
(Connelly et al., 1990). Over 10,000 licensed anglers returned completed surveys regarding fishing
preferences and interests. A subset of 200 individuals who did not respond to the mail survey was
contacted by telephone to account for potential non-response bias. An estimated 26,870 anglers fished in
the Hudson River in 1988. The mean distance traveled by anglers fishing in the Hudson was 34 miles.
The mean number of fishing trips per Hudson angler was 8.6 trips, and the mean trip duration was 1.2
days. For all New York anglers, the mean age at which they began fishing regularly was 13.3 years of
age. Although anglers were asked to estimate their total annual consumption of fish (fresh or saltwater,
sport-caught or purchased), they were not specifically asked about the quantity of self-caught freshwater
fish consumed.
1991 New York Angler Survey (Connelly et al., 1992). In 1991, researchers at Cornell performed
another statewide mail survey to determine New York anglers' awareness and knowledge of fishing
advisories, and to determine fish consumption patterns during the 1991 fishing season (Connelly et al.,
1992). A total of 1,030 licensed anglers returned completed surveys. A subset of 100 individuals who
did not respond to the mail survey was contacted by telephone to account for potential non-response bias.
Anglers were also asked to report the number of fish caught and consumed in 1991 according to fish
species and fishing location. The overall mean ingestion rate for New York anglers was 11 sport-caught
fish meals in 1991. Analysis of the raw survey data also allowed determination of fish ingestion rates for
specific locations or for categories of fishing locations (i.e., rivers vs. lakes). About 85% of New York
anglers were aware of health advisories for fish, and almost half reported that they would eat more sport-
38 Gradient Corporation
-------
caught fish if there were no problems with contaminants. Most New York anglers reported starting
fishing at an early age; the mean age at which anglers began fishing was 14 years of age.
7992 Lake Ontario Diary Study (Connelly et ai, 1996). Researchers at Cornell performed a 12-
month diary study targeting Lake Ontario anglers fishing in 1992 (Connelly et al., 1996). The goal of the
study was to provide accurate estimates of fish consumption among Lake Ontario anglers and to evaluate
the effect of Lake Ontario health advisory recommendations. Participants were asked to record all fish
consumption and fishing trips for an entire year (1992). Participation was encouraged even if anglers
intended to fish infrequently to reduce bias toward only avid anglers. Participants were also contacted by
telephone to follow-up every three months. A total of 1,202 anglers agreed to participate initially, but
only 516 completed their diary for the entire year. Adjustments were made to account for those with less
than a full year participation to address potential biases. In January, 1992, participants were also asked
to complete a questionnaire asking for 12-month recall of their 1991 fish consumption, which allowed for
comparison of results from mail (recall) surveys and diary studies.
. Based on the diary results, average daily consumption of sport-caught fish from all sport sources
for Lake Ontario anglers was 2.2 g/day for the 50th percentile, and 17.9 g/day for the 95th percentile
(Connelly et al., 1996). For fish from all sources (sport-caught and purchased fish), the average daily
consumption for Lake Ontario anglers was 14.1 g/day for the 50th percentile, and 42.3 g/day for the 95*
percentile. The overall average sport-caught meal size was 232 g/meal, or approximately one-half pound.
The 1991 12-month recall mail questionnaires yielded higher fish ingestion rates than those resulting
from the diary data, suggesting that recall bias results in overestimates offish ingestion (Connelly et al.,
1996; Connelly and Brown, 1995). Over 95% of the participants were aware of the New York State
health advisory, and 32% indicated that they would eat more fish if there were no health advisories.
Additional Connelly Surveys (Connelly and Knuth, 1993; Connelly et al., 1993). In 1993,
researchers at Cornell published two studies - one which evaluated angler knowledge and response to
Great Lakes health advisories and assessed communication techniques (Connelly and Knuth, 1993), and
one which evaluated health advisory awareness and associated behaviors among Lake Ontario anglers
(Connelly et al., 1993). Both reports focused specifically on Great Lakes anglers.
1996 and 1991-1992 Hudson Angler Surveys (NYSDOH, 1999; Barclay, 1993). The New York
State Department of Health conducted a creel survey of Hudson River anglers in 1996 (NYSDOH, 1999).
This survey used a slightly modified version of the questionnaire and interviewing technique used in a
1991-1992 creel survey of Hudson River anglers conducted by the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater
organization (Barclay, 1993). A total of 460 Hudson River anglers were interviewed in the two surveys
combined; of these, 132 anglers were from the area between Hudson Falls and the Federal Dam at Troy
(the Upper Hudson River). For the following discussion, the 1991-1992 and 1996 surveys are combined
and considered a single survey.
Of the Upper Hudson River anglers, over 85% were male; almost all (97%) were Caucasian.
About 17% of the anglers were under 20, and almost 10% were 60 and older. Half of those surveyed had
a New York fishing license, 8% did not have a license, and 42% did not respond. All of the anglers
interviewed from the Upper Hudson River were fishing from shore, and not from a boat. About half of
the anglers in the Upper Hudson River area had caught any fish at the time of the interview; the most
commonly reported fish caught included smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and white perch. Blue crabs
were caught only south of Catskill, not in the Upper Hudson River (NYSDOH, 1999).
39 Gradient Corporation
-------
About two-thirds of the Upper Hudson River anglers were aware of official health warnings
about eating fish from the Hudson. Only one angler reported food as a main reason for fishing; most
anglers were fishing primarily for recreation or other similar reasons. About 92% reported that they
never eat their catch, and similarly about 90% reported never giving their catch away to others. Only
about 14% of Upper Hudson River anglers reported having eaten fish from the Hudson in the past; of
those, about 37% reported eating fish once per week, about 19% reported eating fish 2-3 times per
month, another 19% reported eating fish once per month, and 25% reported eating fish less than once per
month (NYSDOH, 1999).
About two thirds of the Upper Hudson River anglers reported fishing two times or less in the
previous week; six percent reported fishing 7 times in the previous week. On a monthly basis, about half
reported fishing three times or less in the previous month; about 12% reported fishing 20 or more times
in the previous month. Anglers were not asked about their total number of fishing trips per year
(NYSDOH, 1999).
1993 Maine Angler Survey (Ebert et al, 1993). Ebert and colleagues conducted a mail survey of
licensed Maine anglers. A total of 1,612 licensed anglers returned completed surveys. Anglers were
questioned about the number of fish caught and consumed from flowing and standing water bodies and
the number of fishing trips completed in the 1990 season. The study authors developed a distribution of
fish ingestion rates assuming that all freshwater fish caught by the angler is shared equally with other
household members, with the 50th percentile (median) fish consumption from flowing waters equaling
0.99 g/day, and the 95th percentile equaling 12 g/day. Assuming that only the angler consumes fish and
there is no sharing in the household yielded a distribution with the 50th percentile (median) fish
consumption from flowing waters equaling 2.5 g/day, and the 95th percentile equaling 27 g/day.
1990 Mid-Hudson Angler Survey (Jackson, 1990). A survey of Hudson River anglers fishing
between Stuyvesant and Kingston (within the mid-Hudson) was conducted by researchers at Cornell
University in 1990 (Jackson, 1990). From May to August, 1990, they interviewed 413 individuals
fishing from shore and 265 individuals fishing from boats to determine fish species preferences, the
percentage of anglers that keep and eat Hudson fish, awareness of fish advisories, and various other
characteristics. Over half (57.1%) of the anglers were fishing for "anything", 28.6% were fishing for
large or small mouth bass, and 9.3% were fishing for striped bass. Of those interviewed, most were male
between the ages of 31 and 60 (82% male, 18% female; 8% <16 years, 10.8% 16-20 years, 29.1% 21-30
years, 44.6% 31-60 years, 7.5% >60 years). There were significant differences between shore and boat
anglers; shore anglers tended to be younger, more casual anglers (i.e., fishing for anything), while boat
anglers tended to be older and fishing for specific targeted species. Tournaments are popular in this
stretch of the Hudson; almost three-quarters of the boat anglers were practicing for or participating in a
tournament.
1998 Survey of Hudson River Striped Bass Fishery (Peterson, 1998). The recreational striped
bass fishery is an important social and economic resource to residents of eastern New York state
(Peterson, 1998). Based on creel surveys of boat and shore anglers on the Hudson, and interviews with
more than 2,700 Hudson anglers conducted from April through June of 1997, the New York Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Cornell University estimated that the striped bass fishery supported
more than 145,842 angler trips in 1997 (Peterson, 1998). They further estimated that 112,757 striped bass
were caught, of which 14,163 (12.5%) were harvested (caught and kept). However, because striped bass
are predominantly only located downstream of the Federal Dam in Troy (River Mile 154), striped bass
will be quantitatively evaluated in more detail in the Mid-Hudson Human Health Risk Assessment.
AQ Gmdisnt Corporation
-------
3.2.1.2 Fish Ingestion Rate Distribution
Selection of the most appropriate data set for determining a distribution of fish ingestion rates for
the Upper Hudson River involved consideration of a variety of factors. Ideally, site-specific fish
ingestion data would be the preferred source of information. However, the objective of this baseline risk
assessment is to evaluate exposures to PCBs in fish in the absence of Hudson-specific health advisories
on fish consumption. Hudson-specific fish ingestion information can not be collected at the present time
while a catch and release advisory for all fish from the Upper Hudson River remains in place. Thus,
while the 1996 and 1991-1992 Hudson Angler Surveys provide useful site-specific information, they can
not be used to determine fish ingestion rates for the Upper Hudson River because they were conducted
while fish advisories recommended eating no fish from the Upper Hudson River; fishing was prohibited
in the Upper Hudson River during the 1991-1992 survey.
Therefore, the other fish ingestion studies were reviewed to determine the study most appropriate
to serve as a surrogate for the Upper Hudson River. For angler fish ingestion rates, it is important to
consider a variety of factors, including the type of waterbody (marine vs. freshwater, flowing vs. still
water, single waterbody vs. multiple waterbodies), the climate, fishing regulations, and the availability of
desired fish species (reviewed in Ebert et al., 1994). It is also important to consider any potential biases
introduced by the survey method. All survey methods involve some uncertainties and potential biases.
Long term mail survey may involve uncertainties in individuals ability to recall their behaviors over time.
Diary surveys depend on individuals consistency in recording their behaviors and accuracy of record
keeping may decrease with time. Connelly and Brown (1995) have reported results where mail recall
estimates exceeded diary survey estimates, particularly for frequent anglers. Creel surveys (interviewing
anglers "on location") have the advantage of providing data specific to active users of a resource, but are
thus more likely to interview frequent anglers (Price et al, 1996).
The review of available fish ingestion studies were first limited to those focusing on recreational
anglers (as opposed to fish consumption of the general population that includes consumption of
purchased fish) fishing on waterbodies in the Northeast. As just indicated, the two Hudson-specific
studies (NYSDOH, 1999; Barclay, 1993) can not be used because the information was collected while
advisories against consumption of all fish from the Upper Hudson River were in place. The 1990 Mid-
Hudson angler survey (Jackson, 1990) and the 1998 survey of the Hudson River striped bass fishery
(Peterson, 1998) focus on the lower and mid-Hudson areas and are similarly impacted by the fishing
advisories, and therefore cannot be used to develop a distribution of fish ingestion rates for the Upper
Hudson River (striped bass are uncommon in the Upper Hudson). The 1988 New York Angler Survey
(Connelly et al., 1990) did not collect information on ingestion rates of self-caught freshwater fish. The
additional Connelly surveys (Connelly and Knuth, 1993; Connelly et al., 1993; Connelly et al., 1996)
focused on fish caught in the Great Lakes, and are not the preferred source of information for developing
Upper Hudson River fish ingestion rates due to differences in the types of waterbodies and the primary
species present.
The two remaining studies, the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992) and the
1993 Maine angler survey (Ebert et al., 1993), are both comprehensive mail surveys of licensed anglers.
Summary statistics for total fish ingestion rates from flowing waterbodies, as well as a distribution of
ingestion rates, were presented by the study authors for the 1993 Maine angler survey. The distribution
of fish ingestion rates from the Connelly et al. (1992) study was calculated by analyzing the raw survey
data from the 1991 New York Angler survey.
4] Gradient Corporation
-------
The 1991 New York Angler survey was selected as the primary source of information for the
Monte Carlo analysis of fish ingestion rates for Upper Hudson River anglers because the climate and
characteristics of other New York waterbodies are more likely to be similar to the Upper Hudson River
than Maine waterbodies. Because the Maine survey asked respondents only about total fish consumption
from all flowing waterbodies, and not from individual waterbodies separately, it is not possible to screen
the Maine dataset for more "Hudson-like" rivers and streams. Furthermore, in the 1991 New York
survey, survey information was collected from a subset of non-respondents over the phone, allowing for
correction of non-response bias. Such information was not collected in the 1993 Maine survey. As
discussed in a later section, the Maine angler survey was used for the sensitivity analysis performed for
this assessment.
The probability distribution of fish consumption rates used in this analysis was generated using
the data from the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992). Survey responses reporting
consumption of an unknown amount of fish were not included in the derivation of the fish ingestion rate
distribution. Total ingestion rates greater than 1,000 meals of fish per year were also excluded from the
resulting distribution, as such responses seem implausible given that three meals every day would total
1,095 meals. In addition, only non-zero ingestion rates were included in the analysis (42.7% of the
responses indicated they ate none of their fish).
Connelly et al. (1992) report fish ingestion in meals of fish eaten. These data were converted to
reflect fish ingestion rates in terms of g/day assuming a meal size of one-half pound (227 grams). This
assumption is consistent with the finding by Connelly et al. (1996) that the overall average sport-caught
meal size among Lake Ontario anglers was 232 g/meal, or approximately one-half pound. An assumed
half-pound meal size is also consistent with typical assumptions about meal size made by state agencies
and the Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force (Cunningham et al., 1990; GLSFATF, 1993;
NYSDOH, 1999).
The responses indicating consumption of fish from flowing water bodies were used to derive the
fish ingestion rate distribution; responses indicating consumption of fish from non-flowing water bodies
were not included. Many of the surveys included fish eaten from unknown water bodies. For these
responses, the fish ingestion rates for each angler were scaled based on the following:
IR
TD _ TD + Jft x Flowing
scaled Flowing *,,.*,.„,„. .,-, ,,j
Flowing Non-Flowing
A total of 226 responses formed the basis of the ingestion rate distribution for the survey
respondents. For the non-respondents, the type of water body was not reported. For this cohort, the
ingestion rate was scaled drawing a random scaling factor, based on the equation above, from the
distribution of respondent values.
Figure 3-2a provides a probability plot of the respondent results. The x-axis of this plot (z-value)
is the number of standard deviations from the central value (median). The y-axis is the natural log of the
ingestion rate. Data that are lognormal will fall on a straight line. The median ingestion rate for the
respondents is approximately 4.35 grams/day.
The 1991 Connelly survey ingestion rates were also corrected for non-response bias. A total of
100 of the 919 non-respondents were interviewed by telephone. Of these 100 interviews, 55 indicated
they consumed at least one or more meals of their catch. Figure 3-2b provides a probability plot of the 55
42 Gradient Corporation
-------
non-respondent ingestion rates. The median ingestion rate for this group is approximately 3.11 grams per
day.
Although both distributions appear to be approximately lognormal, they failed several goodness
of fit tests. Because the survey responses were categorical (i.e., discrete number of meals eaten per year),
many of the responses that clustered at the low end of the ingestion distribution (those for responses
indicating a single meal per year), tended to cause the data to fail the goodness of fit test. The results for
respondents and non-respondents were combined and this combined distribution for the entire population
was the basis for the ingestion rate probability distribution for the Monte Carlo simulation. Figure 3-2c
shows the probability plot for the combined data set. The median ingestion rate for the combined data
sets is 4.1 g/day. The entire empirical dataset (281 responses) was used to generate 1,000 random
samples (with replacement) for the Monte Carlo analysis (i.e., a fitted lognormal distribution was not
adopted). Summary statistics and percentiles for the fish ingestion rates distribution are summarized in
Table 3-1.
3.2.1.3 Sensitivity/Uncertainty Analysis of Fish Ingestion Rates
As the foregoing discussion of the many surveys of fish catch and ingestion from multiple
locations in the country indicates, fish ingestion rates vary among anglers, and the rates determined from
independent surveys differ from one another. As a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, the Monte Carlo
simulations were conducted using the fish ingestion study results from three other surveys. Summary
statistics for each of these studies are provided in Table 3-2.
The fish ingestion rates based on the 1991 New York Angler survey are consistent with the range
of ingestion rates found in the fish ingestion studies that provide the foundation of the generic ingestion
rates recommended by USEPA in its 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997f). The values in
the Exposure Factors Handbook are based on fish ingestion studies from several different freshwater
locations within the country. This value is also similar to the NYSDOH assumptions concerning fish
ingestion. Note also that the 90th percentile (31.9 g/day) value used for the RME point estimate, is
similar to the value of 30 g/day that was used in the Phase 1 risk assessment.
In the current USEPA Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997 f), the recommended fish
ingestion rates for recreational freshwater fish consumption are 8 g/day (50* percentile) and 25 g/day
(95th) percentile. These values are based on composite information from the following studies:
• 1992 Maine Angler Survey (Ebert et al., 1993)
• 1992 Lake Ontario Diary Study (Connelly et al., 1996)
• 1989 Michigan Sport Angler survey (West et al., 1989)
As the summary in Table 3-2 indicates, the median fish ingestion value from the 1991 New York Angler
study (4.0 g/day) is between the Michigan 1989 study result for recreational fish ingestion (10.9 g/day),
and the 1992 Lake Ontario study value for sportfish ingestion (2.2 g/day), and the 1993 Maine Angler
study value adjusted for angler consumption of self-caught fish (2.5 g/day). The 95th percentile fish
ingestion rate based on the 1991 New York Angler survey (63.4 g/day) is greater than the corresponding
95th percentile ingestion rates for the three above studies. The 90th percentile from the 1991 New York
Angler Survey (31.9 g/day) appears to be more consistent with the 95th percentiles of the other studies
summarized in Table 3-2. Plots of the relative frequency distributions of fish ingestion for the four
43 Gradient Corporation
-------
studies used in the sensitivity/uncertainty analysis are provided in Figures 3-3a through 3-3d. For each of
the three additional studies used in this analysis, fish ingestion was modeled as a lognormal variate with
distribution parameters summarized on the respective figures.11
The central and high-end fish ingestion rates for all flowing waterbodies from the 1993 Maine
Angler Survey (Ebert et al., 1993), particularly the results assuming that only the angler consumes sport-
caught fish and that fish is not shared in the household, are reasonably consistent with the results for all
flowing waterbodies from the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al, 1992). Compared to the
1992 Lake Ontario diary study (Connelly et al., 1996), the ingestion rates for sport caught fish are also
reasonably consistent, although the values from the 1991 New York Angler survey are somewhat higher.
This may be due to differences between Great Lakes anglers and other New York State anglers, or may
reflect the fact that the 1992 Lake Ontario study was based on diary records (believed to be more
accurate) while the 1991 New York Angler survey was a mail recall survey (possibly biased high due to
recall bias). The difference between the two studies is greater for the 95th percentile values, consistent
with the findings of Connelly and Brown (1995) that recall bias tended to result in greater overestimation
of fishing activities among more frequent anglers than among less frequent anglers. The 95th percentile
fish ingestion rate for flowing waterbodies from the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al.,
1992) is somewhat higher than the 95th percentile fish ingestion rate for Lake Ontario anglers for fish
from all sources (including sport-caught and store-bought fish). Although the above factors may be
suggestive that the rates from the 1991 New York survey may be overestimates, the differences could
also be attributable to the different types of water bodies covered by the two surveys, and possible
differences in fishing patterns among residents of the two states. The 90th percentile ingestion rate from
the 1991 New York Angler Survey (Connelly et al., 1992) was adopted as the RME point estimate.
Comparison to the 1996 and 1991-1992 Hudson angler surveys (NYSDOH, 1999; Barclay, 1993)
is more complicated. While these studies focused on anglers fishing along the Hudson River, which is of
direct interest for this risk assessment, the fact that a catch and release program is in place and current
advisories recommend eating no fish from the Upper Hudson River has likely impacted fish ingestion
rates. Very few Upper Hudson River anglers currently eat fish from the Upper Hudson; 92% reported
never eating their catch. Only 14% reported eating Hudson fish in the past; of those, 6 respondents
reported eating fish once per week, 6 respondents reported eating fish one to three times per month, and 4
respondents reported eating fish less than once per month. However, it is difficult to extrapolate these
values to annual average ingestion rates, due to seasonal variations in freshwater fishing. Nonetheless,
despite the uncertainties in interpreting the fish ingestion data from the Hudson angler surveys, the
distribution of fish ingestion rates from the 1991 New York Angler survey seems reasonable, and appears
to span the range of consumption rates reported in the Hudson angler surveys.
3.2.1.4 Discussion of Additional Considerations
Licensed Versus Unlicensed Anglers. The 1991 New York Angler survey, used to generate a
distribution to represent fish ingestion rates for the Upper Hudson River, was sent only to licensed
anglers; unlicensed anglers were not represented in the survey. It is therefore somewhat uncertain
whether unlicensed anglers are adequately represented in this risk assessment. However, given that the
distribution of fish ingestion rates from the 1991 New York Angler survey seems to span the range of
" The distribution parameters for the Connelly et al. (1996) and West et al. (1989) studies were estimated by the best-fit line
through the percentiles reported in the 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997f) fit to a lognormal distribution. The R-
squared for these regressions were 0.98 and 0.96, respectively.
44 Gradient Corporation
-------
consumption rates reported in the Hudson angler surveys, which included both licensed and unlicensed
anglers (as discussed above), it seems likely that unlicensed anglers are reasonably well represented.
Highly Exposed Subpopulations. Subpopulations of highly exposed or lesser exposed anglers
have not been explicitly characterized, but instead are assumed to be adequately represented in the fish
ingestion rate distribution used for this assessment. For example, the 99th percentile fish ingestion rate
from the 1991 New York Angler survey is 393 meals per year, or over one meal per day (Table 3-1).
Furthermore, even those responses up to 1,000 meals per year were included from the New York Angler
survey. Although it is possible that there are subsistence or highly exposed individuals who do not
obtain fishing licenses, and therefore would not have been captured in the 1991 New York Angler survey
or included in the generated distribution of ingestion rates, there are no known, distinct Subpopulations
that may be highly exposed (such as a Native American community) in the Upper Hudson River area.
Review of the limited literature available on subsistence or highly exposed angler populations
supports the assumption that these Subpopulations are likely to be adequately represented in the total
distribution of fish ingestion rates developed for Upper Hudson River anglers. As presented in a thesis
by Wendt entitled "Low Income Families' Fish Consumption of Freshwater Fish Caught From New York
State Waters," low-income families in 12 counties throughout New York, including Albany and
Rensselaer counties were interviewed (Wendt, 1986). Wendt reported that between 9% and 49% of the
low-income families in each county ate freshwater fish from New York State waters. Wendt then
conducted a more in-depth survey of low-income families in Wayne County, New York, bordering Lake
Ontario and determined fish consumption rates. The average consumption rate was 17.5 meals per year,
or 10.9 g/day. In comparison, the arithmetic average consumption rate from the distribution selected to
represent Upper Hudson River anglers is 27.8 meals per year, or 17.3 g/day.
As another surrogate for highly exposed angler populations, fish ingestion rate values for
Mohawk women, members of a Native American community along the St. Lawrence River who may be
more dependent on local fish and game than other Subpopulations, were also considered (Fitzgerald et
al., 1995). Fitzgerald et al. (1995) report the mean number of local fish meals per year consumed by
Mohawk women (one year before a pregnancy) was 27.6 meals per year, which falls between the 80th and
90th percentiles of the distribution of fish ingestion rates developed for Upper Hudson River anglers.
Impact of Advisories. The NYSDOH issues numerous health advisories on eating sportfish from
New York State rivers, lakes and streams. It is likely that the fish advisories currently in place
throughout New York State, and those in the past, have impacted fish ingestion rates from the 1991 New
York Angler survey to some degree. Almost half of the respondents in the 1991 New York Angler
survey indicated they would eat more sport-caught fish if there were no contamination problems
(Connelly et al., 1992). The general state-wide advisory limits the number of sport-caught fish eaten
from New York waters to no more than one meal per week (NYSDOH, 1998; NYSDOH, 1999). Some of
these general regulations are not health based, but presumably are established to prevent depletion of
fisheries. For the Upper Hudson River, from Hudson Falls to the Troy Dam, there is a specific
recommendation to eat no fish. For the Mid and Lower Hudson, there is a specific recommendation that
women of child-bearing age and children eat no fish, and advisories recommending restrictions on
quantities and species consumed for the remaining population.
However, fish advisories are not 100% effective in preventing or limiting fish consumption.
Based on an analysis of the raw survey data from the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al.,
1992), there was no significant difference in the mean number of freshwater fish meals eaten when
45 Gradient Corporation
-------
comparing New York waterbodies with full, partial, or no advisories, despite the expectation that the
fishing advisories would likely suppress fish ingestion rates to some degree.
To characterize fish ingestion rates that have not been influenced by the Hudson-specific health
advisories to eat no fish, this risk assessment uses fish ingestion rates from all flowing waterbodies from
the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et ai, 1992). The effect of general, non-specific NYSDEC
and NYSDOH fishing regulations that would be in effect regardless of PCS contamination levels in the
Hudson River inherently will be taken into account because these regulations also apply to the New York
flowing waterbodies surveyed in the 1991 New York Angler survey.
Women and Children Anglers. Although children and adolescents are not required to have
fishing licenses in New York State, several sources indicate that many children consume sport-caught
freshwater fish as well as adults (Connelly et al., 1990; Connelly et al., 1992; Wendt, 1986). However,
ingestion rates of freshwater fish specific for children are not available. The New York Angler surveys
provide data on the age at which anglers begin fishing, and this information has been incorporated into
the exposure duration modeling to generate both the length of exposure and also the age at which
exposure begins. For each modeled angler whose exposure begins during childhood (as shown in Figure
3-4c, approximately 16% of the anglers in the 1991 New York Angler survey were 10 years old, or
younger), the same distribution of number of meals per year generated for adult anglers was used, simply
scaled according to body weight, on a year by year basis. Thus, children are represented in this risk
assessment to the same extent that they are represented in the New York angler populations. Similarly,
although fewer women tend to fish than men, women anglers are represented in this risk assessment to
the same extent that they are represented in the New York angler populations.
Recall Bias. The 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992), as well as the other mail
recall surveys, may be subject to recall bias. It is difficult for many individuals to remember accurately
their activities over an entire year. When asked about recreation participation over a long period of time
{i.e., one year), respondents tend to overestimate their activities (reviewed in Connelly and Brown, 1995;
Westat, 1989). With respect to fishing specifically, Connelly and Brown (1995) found that anglers
reported significantly higher rates of fish consumption and numbers of days fished in 12-month mail
recall surveys compared to 12-month diary studies. The difference was greater for anglers who fished
more frequently than those who fished less frequently. These results suggest that the data from the 1991
New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992), used to generate the distribution of fish ingestion rates
used in the base case analysis in this risk assessment, are more likely to overestimate, rather than
underestimate, actual ingestion rates, particularly for more frequent anglers.
Single Versus Multiple Waterbodies. By deriving the distribution of fish ingestion rates from the
data for all flowing waterbodies from the 1991 New York Angler survey, it was conservatively assumed
that the amount of fish an individual would consume from the Upper Hudson River, a single waterbody,
is equal to the amount of fish consumed by New York anglers from all flowing waterbodies. Although
this assumption may overestimate fish ingestion rates for anglers who fish in multiple water bodies
(including the Upper Hudson River), many of the respondents in the 1991 New York survey fished in
only one or two locations; 35.5% fished in only one location and 21% fished in only two (Connelly et al.,
1992). For anglers who fish only the Upper Hudson River, the ingestion rate distribution used here
would not necessarily overestimate their fish consumption rate.
Gradient Corporation
-------
3.2.2 PCB Concentration in Fish
As described earlier in Section 2.3.1, there are several important environmental factors that affect
the determination of the exposure point concentration in fish (Cf,y) and therefore influence the variability
of PCB intake via fish ingestion:
1. The concentration of PCBs in any particular species varies for a particular year, but
overall it declines over time.
2. The concentration of PCBs within the same fish species varies depending on the location
in the Upper Hudson River (higher concentrations upstream than downstream within the
same fish species)
3. The PCB concentration varies among different fish species.
Within Species Annual Variability (C^y)
As was discussed in Section 2.3.1., the variability of model-predicted 50th (median) and 95th
percentile PCB concentration within fish for any particular year varies by approximately a factor of 2- to
3-fold. It is unknown to what degree the modeled range represents true variability that is expected among
fish of the same species, and to what extent the modeled range is a function of model uncertainty.
Regardless of the contribution these two factors may represent, the modest range between the 50th and
95th percentile predictions is not anticipated to yield large differences in the mean PCB concentration in
fish that are ingested. This conclusion is supported by an examination of the historical sampling results
as well.
Based on the historical monitoring data summarized in the Phase 1 Report (Tables B.3-16
through B.3-18), the coefficient of variation (CV), which is the ratio of the standard deviation divided by
the mean, of the measured PCB content in brown bullhead and largemouth bass is generally less than 1.0,
and typically around 0.7. Compared to this, the upstream to downstream difference in PCB concentration
within a given fish species and year is on the order of 2 to 3-fold. Thus, for an angler who consumes a
large amount of fish (i.e., someone at greatest risk), the within-species coefficient of variation is typically
less than the variation in concentration attributable to fishing either up- or downstream (i.e., fishing
location component of variability). Furthermore, the difference in PCB concentration across fish species
is also on the order of 2-fold, again greater than the within species coefficient of variation. Thus, even if
the within-species annual variability of PCB concentration in fish were included quantitatively in the
Monte Carlo analysis, it would likely be overshadowed by the larger variability in concentration across
locations and species.
For the above reasons, the within species PCB concentration for any particular year (Cf,y) was set
to the mean modeled concentration for that species and year for the intake calculated using Equation
[3-1]. The variability (randomness) of PCB ingestion from fish was modeled based on the variability in
the species consumed, which is accounted for by the PCTf term in Equation [3-1].
47 Gradient Corporation
-------
Variability of Species Ingested (PCTf)
As described in Section 2.3.1, the fish species consumption patterns for the point estimate
exposure calculations were based on a weighted average of the species consumed. The species
consumption weights were based on the 1991 New York Angler surveys (Connelly et al., 1992) which
provided information on the fish species caught and consumed by the surveyed anglers.
For the Monte Carlo analysis, the survey responses from all respondents were used to develop a
distribution of fish species ingestion patterns. The same criteria applied to fish ingestion, only those
angler responses indicating consumption of at least one and fewer than 1,000 meals from flowing water
bodies only, were used to derive the species ingestion distribution. This survey group consists of 226
respondents.
A summary of the species ingestion responses for these respondents is presented in Table 3-3.
As described earlier in Section 2.3.1, these species were grouped such that only those responses
indicating consumption of fish potentially inhabiting the Upper Hudson River were used. These
responses were grouped such that each of the three modeled species provided a surrogate for the
concentration of any fish within the group.
The fish species reported consumed by the 226 respondents were grouped into one of three
groups according to the groupings given in Table 3-4. For the Monte Carlo analysis, random samples
(with replacement) were drawn from this empirical distribution of 226 respondents. This distribution
ranges from respondents indicating consumption of a single species, to respondents indicating
consumption of multiple species.
3.2.3 Cooking Loss
Numerous studies have documented a loss of PCBs from fish due to cooking (Ambruster et ai,
1987; Ambruster et al., 1989; Moya et al., 1998; Puffer and Gossett, 1983; Salama et ai, 1998; Schecter
et al., 1998; Sherer and Price, 1993; Skea et al., 1979; Smith et al, 1973; Wilson et al., 1998; Zabik et
al., 1979; Zabik et al., 1995a; Zabik et al., 1995b; Zabik et al., 1996; Zabik and Zabik, 1996). These
studies were reviewed to determine if the extent of PCB losses during cooking have been adequately
characterized in the scientific literature to support a quantitative estimate of cooking losses for risk
assessment purposes. A summary of the cooking loss estimates for each of these studies is provided in
Table 3-4.
As this table shows, experimental results range considerably, both between various cooking
methods and within the same method. Most PCB losses (expressed as percent loss based on Total PCB
mass before and after cooking) were between 10 and 40 percent. Losses as high as 74 percent were
reported in one study (Skea et al., 1979). Net gains of PCBs were reported in several studies (Moya et
al., 1998; Armbruster et al., 1987).12 Overall, these studies support the conclusion that some PCBs are
lost during cooking. Consistent with this conclusion, both the NYSDOH and the Great Lakes Sport Fish
Advisory Task Force recommend proper methods of trimming, skinning, and cooking fish to remove fat
and reduce levels of PCBs and other contaminants (NYSDOH, 1998; NYSDOH, 1999; GLSFATF,
1993).
12 It is likely that the net gain is within the experimental measurement error and essentially indicates zero loss.
4g Gradient Corporation
-------
Although cooking loss appears to occur, the extent of PCB cooking losses has not been well
characterized in the published literature, and quantitative estimates of cooking losses remain uncertain.
There were no consistent differences in PCB losses between cooking methods in the studies reviewed.
Although losses from baking were greater than losses from pan-frying in two studies where the same fish
type was used for both cooking methods (Ambruster et ai, 1987; Salama et al, 1998), the study by
Salama et al. only used one fish per cooking method, and is therefore of limited significance. It is
difficult to make comparisons between different fish types, as different preparation and cooking methods
were often used for different fish types. With regards to preparation technique, while data from Zabik et
al. (1979) and Salama et al. (1998) showed greater losses of PCBs from fish cooked with the skin off as
compared to skin on, Zabik et al. (1995a) observed minimal differences in PCB losses between fish with
skin on or skin off.
Based on the available data, it is not possible to quantify the importance of specific factors
influencing the extent of PCB cooking losses. PCB losses from cooking may be a function of the
cooking method (i.e., baking, frying, broiling, etc.), the cooking duration, the temperature during
cooking, preparation techniques (i.e., trimmed vs. untrimmed, with or without skin), the lipid content of
the fish, the fish species, the magnitude of the PCB contamination in the raw fish, the extent to which
lipids separated during cooking are consumed, the reporting method, and/or the experimental study
design. The extent of reduction of PCBs due to cooking may also depend on the homologues present in
the fish. Zabik et al. (1994), as cited in Zabik and Zabik (1996), found that cooking losses of
pentachloro-, hexachloro- and heptachlorobiphenyls are greater than losses for homologues with either
more or fewer chlorines. Differences among the techniques used for extracting and measuring PCBs are
another factor that could contribute to the observed differences in cooking loss between studies.
The wide variation in PCB losses observed, both between and within studies, the lack of an
association with various factors which could affect PCB losses, and the fact that personal preferences for
various preparation and cooking methods and other related habits (such as consuming pan drippings) are
poorly defined, highlights that there are many uncertainties associated with estimating losses of PCBs
from fish. It is not possible to develop a probability distribution representing the variability of cooking
loss expected either among different consumers, or due to different preparation methods. Thus, for the
Monte Carlo analysis, cooking loss was held constant. However, for the sensitivity, or parameter
uncertainty analysis, the following range of cooking loss were examined:
RME Exposure: 0%
Central tendency estimate: 20%
Low-end exposure estimate: 40%
Although it is possible that PCBs volatilized during cooking could be inhaled, in the absence of
any scientific studies in this area, it is not possible to quantify the potential risks or hazards from this
pathway. Based on a qualitative assessment of the cooking frequency for fish, the temperatures used in
the cooking, the various cooking practices used, and the relatively low toxicity of inhalation versus
ingestion of PCB contaminated fish, the risks from inhalation while cooking are unlikely to be significant
compared to the ingestion of fish.
3.2.4 Exposure Duration
While Superfund risk assessments typically use the length of time that an individual remains in a
single residence as an exposure duration, such an estimate may not be a good predictor of angling
49 Gradient Corporation
-------
duration for this assessment, 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.
For the fish consumption pathway, this HHRA defines Exposure Duration (ED) to be the number
of years, starting in 1999, that an individual consumes fish from the Upper Hudson River. The angler
population has been defined as those individuals who consume self-caught fish from the Hudson at least
once per year, in the absence of a fishing ban or health advisories. Although the population of anglers
who fish from the Upper Hudson River is likely to include individuals from a large geographic area, it
was assumed that individuals residing in any of the five counties bordering the Upper Hudson would be
the most frequent anglers (recall the 1988 New York Angler survey reports the mean distance traveled by
anglers fishing in the Hudson was 34 miles). For members of this population of anglers, exposure is
assumed to continue until any of the following occur:
• The individual stops fishing;
• The individual moves out of the area; or
• The individual dies.
Information regarding the age distribution of New York anglers, including the number of years
fished, and when anglers began fishing, was obtained from the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly
et al, 1992). The probability of moving into and out of any of the five counties bordering the Upper
Hudson River was derived from 1990 U.S. census data on county-to-county mobility.
As described in the following subsections, determining the distribution of exposure duration for
the angler population involves the following computational steps:
1. Section 3.2.4.1. The individual's current age and age at which he or she began fishing is
randomly drawn from a distribution developed from information contained in the 1991
New York Angler survey conducted by Connelly et al. (1992).
2. Section 3.2.4.2. The time remaining until an individual stops fishing, which is a function
of current age and the age at which the individual started fishing, is derived from the
1991 New York Angler survey data (Connelly et al, 1992).
3. Section 3.2.4.3. The time remaining until that individual moves out of the Upper Hudson
counties (one of the five counties comprising the Upper Hudson region) is drawn from a
distribution developed from the 1990 U.S. Census In-Migration data tape. This
distribution describes the time until an individual moves out of the region as a function
of current age.
As was discussed earlier in Section 2.4.1, the 50th percentile exposure duration was determined
to be 12 years, and the 95th percentile exposure duration is 40 years. The derivation of the distribution is
described below.
50 Gradient Corporation
-------
3.2.4.1 Joint Distribution for Current Age and Fishing Start Age
The joint distribution for current age and the age at which individuals started fishing (the "fishing
start age") were characterized from the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992). For each
of the 1,030 survey respondents, the survey lists the current age and the age at which the respondent
started fishing. In addition to the 1,030 respondents, there were also 919 nonrespondents, of whom 100
were surveyed by telephone. However, the follow-up survey of the non-respondents did not record the
age at which these individuals started fishing.
From the 1991 New York Angler survey, the probability that a randomly selected angler started
fishing at age 5 and is currently age c is denoted P(s,c) can be computed as:
[3-2]
where
P(s,c) = probability of starting fishing at age s for individual who is currently age c
N(s,c) = number of survey individuals who started fishing at age 5 and are now age c
The summation in the denominator of Equation [3-2] is simply the summation over all the anglers in the
survey. Before conducting these calculations, two adjustments were made to the data, as described
below.
Adjustment 1: Data Sparseness. The data were aggregated into 10-year age groups because the
value of N(s,c) was often small or 0 for some age groups, thus compromising the robustness of the
calculated value, P(s,c). Thus, both 5 and c were rounded to the nearest value of 10. This aggregation
puts a lower limit of 10 years on the age at which individuals start fishing, and hence a lower limit on the
age at which exposure may begin. If younger children fish or consume fish caught by others, this
aggregation will underestimate exposure somewhat during childhood.
Adjustment 2: Connelly follow-up survey of non-respondents. The Connelly respondent data
(N= 1,030) were adjusted to reflect the non-respondent data (N = 913). As noted in Section 3.2.1.1,
Connelly et al. (1992) resurveyed 100 of the non-respondents and reports the ages of these individuals.
However, the non-respondent survey results do not report the age at which non-respondents started
fishing. In order to include the non-respondent information in Equation [3-2], the results for the 1,030
initial respondents were therefore adjusted by multiplying N(s,c) in Equation [3-2] by an scaling factor
(kc) computed as:
913 i
— xNR(c)+ 5>(,,c)
, _ JUU _ seall start ages L J
seall start ages
where NR(c) is the number of resurveyed non-respondents who report their current age to be c. This
adjustment is based upon the following assumptions:
5 ] Gradient Corporation
-------
The current age of the entire non-respondent group (913) mirrors the current age of the
100 surveyed non-respondents; the factor 913/100 is simply a weighting factor that
conveys this adjustment.
The distribution of the current age for the non-response group is similar to the
distribution of current age for the survey respondents.
Discussion of Assumptions
There are several basic assumptions made in deriving the joint distribution for current age and
fishing start age, which are summarized here.
• The angler population is a steady state population, meaning that the age profile of this
population remains unchanged over time.
• A corollary to the steady state assumption is that the 1991 New York Angler survey is
representative of anglers in 1999.
• Information about the 913 non-respondent group can be inferred from the information
gathered from 100 non-respondents who were recontacted by Connelly et al. (1992).
• Connelly et al. (1992) report the current age for the non-respondents, but not the age at
which they started fishing. Therefore, the results from the respondents were stratified by
current age as a surrogate. The validity of this approach rests on the assumption that the
response rate depends statistically on current age but not the age at which an individual
starts fishing.
• Although the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al, 1992)provided information
about the reported age at which each angler started fishing, the analysis required
grouping the starting age into 10-year age groups. Thus, all starting ages between 5 and
15 years were categorized in the "10 year" age group. This aggregation required an
assumption that no one began fishing before 5 years of age, when in fact, 2.9% of the
respondents reported starting fishing before age 5.
The survey results suggest that the assumption that the age profile of the angler population
remains constant over time is not strictly true, even after they have been adjusted to reflect the data
gathered from the resurveyed non-respondents. Specifically, it appears that the survey under-counted the
number of young anglers (age 10). The constructed distribution was adjusted, although it is not clear if
the adjustment is sufficient to represent of all young anglers. Although the steady state assumption may
not be strictly true, there are no studies that have evaluated fishing populations over time. The cross-
sectional design of the Connelly et al. (1992) study provides a representative indication of fishing
activities in the future and is believed to be a reasonable use of available data.
52 Gradient Corporation
-------
Upper Hudson River Angler Populations Considered
The HHRA is an evaluation of current and future human exposure (and risks). For the purposes
of the exposure calculations, the starting year for this evaluation is 1999. Two populations of anglers
were considered in the exposure analysis, because it was unclear a priori which group might have a
longer possible exposure duration. The two groups considered were:
• The population of all anglers currently living in the five counties of the Upper Hudson
region. For this population, all data from the 1991 New York Angler survey were used
to calculate the joint distribution for current age and fishing start age.
• The population of anglers living in the five counties who started fishing in 1999:
Analysis of the 1991 New York Angler survey data was restricted to individuals who
"recently" started fishing. Ideally, these data would include only those anglers whose
start age and current age are exactly the same (i.e., individuals who started fishing within
the last year). However, restricting the analysis to these individuals resulted in too small
a data set. All anglers whose rounded fishing start age and current age were the same
were used for this analysis.
After evaluating the data for both possible population groups, it turns out that the exposure duration
distributions for these two groups did not differ appreciably. Therefore, the Monte Carlo analysis was
based upon the "all angler" category. This category also represents a larger set of the New York Angler
survey respondents.
3.2.4.2 Time Remaining Until an Individual Stops Fishing
The time remaining until an individual stops fishing was also based upon the 1991 New York
Angler survey (Connelly et a/., 1992). Because time until an individual stops fishing was not directly
available from the Connelly et al. (1992) survey, it was estimated using the start age and current age of
the respondents. The probability that an individual whose start age is s and whose current age is c ~> s
stops fishing within the next T years, designated F(s,c,T), is
^_
(' ' }~
N(s,c) [3-4]
where as defined in the previous section, N(s,c) is the number of individuals in the survey who started
fishing at age s and are now age c.
The reasoning underlying Equation [3-4] is that N(s,c) is the number of individuals in a cohort
that started fishing at age s and who are now age c, and N(s,c+T) is the number of individuals remaining
in this cohort T years in the future. Since the number of individuals who will remain in this cohort T
years in the future is unknown, the number of individuals who started fishing at age s and who are
currently c+T years of age serves as a surrogate. This approach presumes that the angler population is in
a "steady state," meaning that N(s,c) remains unchanged over time for all values of s and c. From this
assumption, it also follows that:
53 Gradient Corporation
-------
• F(s,c,T) must remain unchanged over time; and
• N(s,c) > N(s,c,T) for all positive values of T.
Before making these calculations, three adjustments were made to the data. The first two, to address data
sparseness and to incorporate the Connelly et al. (1992) follow-up survey of non-respondents, are
identical to the adjustments described in Section 3.2.4.1. A third adjustment was made to preserve the
assumption of steady state. It turns out that even after adjustment of the Connelly et al. (1992) data to
reflect non-respondents, the condition N(s,c) > N(s,c,T), which follows from the steady state assumption,
failed to hold true in some cases. There are several possible reasons for this phenomenon, among which
are:
• The steady state assumption is not strictly true, and the number of individuals that started
fishing at age s, T+c years ago exceeds the number of individuals who started fishing c
years ago at age s;
• The Connelly et al. (1992) survey, even after adjustment for non-respondents, still under
counts the number of individuals in some age groups.
• The condition may fail due to the sparseness of data for some age groups (e.g., it could
be an artifact of sample size and the necessity to aggregate data).
Although the steady state assumption, may not hold exactly, it is believed to be a reasonable
approximation. To adjust the survey data so that they are consistent with the steady state assumption
(and in order to make it possible to calculate valid values for F(s,c,T)), the adjusted counts of survey
respondents (NAllj{s,c)) were set equal to the maximum of N(s,c) and N(s,c+10). In cases where this
adjustment was necessary, the resulting estimate of F(s,c,10) is 0.
The above adjustment may err on the side of understating the probability that an individual will
stop fishing within some time period since the value of NAdj(s,c) may exceed N(s,c+10). On the other
hand, in cases where the survey under-reported N(s,c,T) for some relatively small value of T, these
calculations will overstate the probability that individuals who started fishing at age s and whose current
age is c will soon stop fishing.
Summary of Fishing Cessation Probability
A frequency histogram fishing cessation probability is shown in Figure 3-4a. This figure
indicates the relative frequency of those anglers who will stop fishing in the given number of years.
Thus, approximately 24% of the angler population is estimated to cease fishing in 10 years,
approximately 23% in 20 years, 20% in 30 years, etc. Approximately 1% are estimated to cease fishing
in 70 years.
Figures 3-4a, 3-4b, 3-4c, and 3-4d summarize the fishing cessation age, starting age, current age,
and total fishing duration frequency histograms for the angler population. Note that P(s,c) and F(s,c,T)
represent conditional probability functions, and cannot be represented with a single histogram.
54 Gradient Corporation
-------
3.2.4.3 Determination of Residence Duration
The second determinant of total exposure duration is the residence duration in any of the five
Upper Hudson counties. The five counties adjacent to the river north of Troy include Albany,
Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, and Washington. When an individual moves out of these five counties,
regular fishing in the Upper Hudson River is assumed to stop.
The distribution for the time remaining until an individual moves out of the Upper Hudson
Region is given by estimating the one-year probability that an individual moves out of the region, and
then combining these one-year probabilities to calculate the likelihood that an individual will move out of
the area over a more extended time period. Specifically, designate pfcn to be the probability that an
individual who is now age k moves out of the area in exactly n years. Then pfcn can be computed from
the 1-year move probabilities as
n-l
Pk,n =
X
Pk+n.} [3-5]
where the product (indicated by the II symbol) is taken over a series of terms indexed by the subscript i.
Note that the product within the brackets is the probability that the individual does not move outside the
region during the next n-l years, while the term following the brackets is the probability that the
individual moves in year n. Finally, the 1-year probability, pu, is computed as the number of individuals
age k who move out of the region in a single year divided by the number of individuals age k who lived in
the region at the beginning of the year.
Data from the 1990 In-Migration portion of the County-to-County Migration Files published by
the U.S. Census Bureau were used to compute the 1-year move probabilities. For each of a series of age
groups (ages 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84, and 85+), those
files quantify the number of current (1990) residents in every U.S. county who have resided in that
county during the preceding 5 year period (1985 to 1989), and the number of current residents who
moved into the county during the preceding 5-year period. For the latter group, the data quantify how
many residents came from each outside county.
In order to estimate the probability of moving into or out of the Upper Hudson counties, the
following census information was used:
1. The number of individuals in 1990 who had resided within the five counties since 1985;
2. The number of individuals in 1990 who had moved to their current residence from one of
the other four counties within the same Upper Hudson counties; and
3. The number of individuals in 1990 who had moved to their current residence from a
county outside the Upper Hudson counties.
The sum of the first and second categories is the number of individuals in 1990 who had been living
within that region during the preceding 5 years.
If the age categories divide the population into 5-year increments, then it is by definition true that
55 - Gradient Corporation
-------
Start l985-90,k + Ini985-90,k ' Outi$s5-90,k — EndiysS-90.k+] [3-5]
where
Endi985.9o,k+i = Number of individuals in age category k+1 at the end of the 1985 to
1990 period.
Start i985-9o,k- = Number of individuals in age category k who lived in the region at the
beginning of the 1985-1990 period.
In1985-9o,k = Number of individuals in age category k who moved into the region
during the past 5 years.
Out 1985-90, k- = Number of individuals in age category k who moved out of the region
during the past 5 years.
The In-Migration files do not report the value of Endi985.90.k. However, under the assumption that
the populations in the Upper Hudson counties are in steady state, the number of individuals in age
category k at the beginning of the 1985 time period is equal to the number of individuals in the same age
category at the end of that time period. Hence, Endm5.90ik+i is assumed to equal Start i985.90.k+h and
Equation [3-5] can be rewritten,
Start l985-90,k + Ini985-90,k ~ Outl985-90,k = Startl985-90,k+l [3-6]
From Equation [3-6], the value of Outi9S5.90:k can be calculated as,
Outi9s5-9o,k = (Start i985-9o,k - Start] 935. 9o,k+i)+ Ini985-9o,k [3-7]
Finally, the probability that an individual in age category k moves out of the region during a five-
year period, denoted p(k), is computed as:
, , s ^"^1985-90,*
p(k) =
Two computational issues must be noted. First, 1-year move probabilities cannot be directly
computed using the In-Migration data because the data reflect mobility over a 5-year time period. The
number of individuals moving out of an area in a single year were assumed to equal the number who
move out over a 5-year time period divided by 5. The 1-year move probabilities were applied to all ages
within category k. Second, because the age categories for ages 35 or above are reported in 10-year
increments, while those for ages 34 and below are reported in 5-year increments, one-half the value
reported for Start 19x5.90.35-44 was used in the computation of Outi98S.90i30^4.
Tables 3-8 through 3-12 detail the In-Migration data for each of these five counties separately,
and Table 3-13 summarizes the counts summed over these five counties. Table 3-14 lists the values used
to compute the 1-year move probabilities, and Table 3-15 provides an overall summary of the move
probabilities. Figure 3-5a provides a frequency histogram of the residence duration. The overall
Gradient Corporation
-------
frequency distribution for total exposure duration (the combination of fishing duration probability and
residence duration probability) is shown in Figure 3-5b.
Assumptions for Residence Duration Estimates
Two basic assumptions were made here in order to estimate the probability distribution of
residence duration (and likelihood of moving out of the five counties):
• The population's age distribution was assumed to be at steady-state, and does not change
over time.
• The probability that an individual moves was assumed to depend only on his or her
current age and not on the length of time he or she has already lived in the area. If the
conditional probability of moving out of the area is lower for individuals who have
already lived in the area for a long period of time, it is possible that the approach adopted
will underestimate the fraction of the population whose residence times are very long.
It is of course likely that the population is not strictly at steady state. However, an adjustment for non-
steady state conditions is not apparent, because it would require projecting future trends with historical
data. Forecasting future trends was deemed to be a greater source of uncertainty than the necessary
assumption of steady state.
The exposure duration distribution ranges from 10 years to 60 years, with a 50th percentile value
of 12 years, and a 95th percentile value of 40 years. For comparison, current USEPA recommendations
for the exposure duration parameter for Superfund risk assessments are 9 years (median) and 30 years
based on population mobility statistics for the general public (USEPA, 1997f)- While there are
uncertainties inherent in the derivation of the exposure duration for this HHRA, the values are reasonable
when compared to national mobility statistics, and also cover the possibility of extended exposure, as
long as 60 years, consuming fish from the Upper Hudson River.
3.2.5 Body Weight
The probability distribution of the variation of body weight within the population was drawn
from published studies of adult and child/adolescent body weights. Brainard and Burmaster (1992)
report that the body weight distributions for males between the ages 18 and 74 years and for females
between the ages of 18 and 74 are lognormal. The Brainard and Burmaster (1992) results and the
calculated lognormal distribution summary statistics appear in Table 3-16.
Finley et al. (1994) report the arithmetic means (x) and arithmetic standard deviations (sx) of the
body weight distributions for individuals aged 1 to 18 years, and for all individuals greater than 18 years
of age. Because the authors do not specify the form of these distributions, they are assumed to be
lognormal based on the lognormality of the adult body weights found by Brainard and Burmaster (1992).
Assuming a lognormal distribution of body weight, the geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard
deviation (GSD) can be calculated from their arithmetic counterparts by,
57 Gradient Corporation
-------
= exp(ln;c-GSZ>2/2)
GSD = exp
Because body weights can be measured very accurately and the distribution of body weights in
the population has been extensively studied and well characterized (e.g., by Finley et al. (1994) and
Brainard and Burmaster (1992)), the uncertainty associated with this parameter's estimate is likely to be
negligible. No sensitivity analysis was deemed necessary for this parameter.
It was assumed that for each individual in the population, body weight is perfectly correlated
over time. That is, individuals whose body weight is high at one age will have a high body weight at
other ages, while those whose body weight is low at one age will have a low body weight at other ages.
To implement this temporal correlation, each simulated individual was assigned a weight distribution
percentile, and this body weight percentile was assigned to the simulated individual throughout the
exposure duration. For example, the individual who has the median population body weight at age 1 was
assigned the median population body weight during the remainder of his or her simulated lifetime,
ensuring that individual body weights in the population are correlated over time.
3.3 Summary of Simulation Calculations
The Monte Carlo exposure calculation sequence is shown in Figure 3-1. Each simulation
consisted of 10,000 samples, where each sample represents a simulated angler. A summary of the base
case and sensitivity analysis distribution inputs is provided in Section 3.3.1. Section 3.3.2 summarizes
the numerical stability of the Monte Carlo calculations. The risk estimates that correspond to the Monte
Carlo exposure analysis are presented in Chapter 5, following the discussion of PCB toxicity factors in
Chapter 4.
3.3.1 Input Distributions Base Case and Sensitivity Analysis
As described above, the Monte Carlo exposure analysis was conducted to examine the RME for
the fish ingestion pathway. The probability distributions derived for this analysis are aimed at
determining the variability of exposure among the angler population. Throughout the derivation of the
input distributions, a recognition of the uncertainty involved in estimating the distributions has been
presented. Because insufficient information is available to characterize the uncertainty by means of a
fully 2-D Monte Carlo analysis, a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis was performed as an alternative means
to address the approximate precision of the analysis.
The sensitivity analysis involved repeating the Monte Carlo analysis for separate input
distributions for each of the variable parameters. The 72 combinations evaluated included the following:
Gradient Corporation
-------
Parameter*
Fish Ingestion (4)
Exposure Duration (2)
Fishing Location (3)
Cooking Loss (3)
(no variability modeled)
Base Case
1991 New York Angler Survey
Empirical Ingestion Distribution
Minimum of Fishing Duration and
Residence Duration
Average of 3 Modeled Locations
20% (midpoint of typical range)
Sensitivity Analysis
1992 Maine Angler (Ebert et a/., 1993)
1989 Michigan (West et al., 1989)
1992 Lake Ontario (Connelly et a/, 1996)
Residence Duration only
Thompson Island Pool
Waterford/Federal Dam
0% (high-end exposure)
40% (low-end exposure)
"Numbers in parentheses indicate number of combinations
The Monte Carlo exposure analysis examines variability (and sensitivity/uncertainty) only of
PCB intake. The intake is translated into health risk by combining the intake results with PCB toxicity
factors for both cancer and non-cancer evaluations. Thus, the intake results are scaled linearly by the
corresponding toxicity factors. A discussion of the base case Monte Carlo analysis results is presented in
Section 5.2 and the sensitivity analysis is discussed in Section 5.3.3.
3.3.2 Numerical Stability Analysis
The Monte Carlo simulations were implemented using SAS version 6.12.13 A total of 10,000
iterations were performed for each of the 72 scenarios evaluated.
In order to investigate the numerical stability of the Monte Carlo calculations, 100 independent
trials, each of 10,000 iterations, were run. As shown below, the small coefficients of variation, which is
the standard deviation (sx) divided by the mean (x), for various PCB intake percentiles shows that
10,000 samples is sufficient to produce stable numerical results.
Numerical Stability Results
(100 Simulations of 10,000 iterations)
Statistic
5th percentile
25th percentile
50th percentile
90th percentile
95th percentile
99* percentile
Coefficient of Variation
(Sx/X)
2.9%
2.3%
1.9%
2.6%
3.8%
6.0%
At the 50th percentile (median) intake, the standard deviation of the 100 simulations (each consisting of
10,000 simulated anglers) was within 1.9% of the mean. For the tails of the intake estimates, the
standard deviation of the 95th percentile intake was within 3.8% of the mean, and for the 99th percentile
within 6% of the mean.
13 Cohen et al. (1996) describe the implementation of a 2-D Monte Carlo simulation using SAS software.
59 Gradient Corporation
-------
"This Page Left Blank Intentionally --
Gradient Corporation
-------
Chapter 4
-------
4 Toxicity Assessment
PCBs are a group of synthetic organic chemicals that contain 209 individual chlorinated biphenyl
compounds (also known as congeners) with varying harmful effects. There are no known natural sources
of PCBs in the environment. PCBs enter the environment as mixtures containing a variety of individual
components (congeners) and impurities that vary in toxicity. Commercially available PCB mixtures are
known in the U.S. by their industrial trade name, Aroclor. The name, Aroclor 1254, for example, means
that the molecule contains 12 carbon atoms (the first 2 digits) and approximately 54% chlorine by weight
(second 2 digits). The manufacture processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs in the U.S. was
restricted beginning in October 1977 because of evidence that PCBs build up in the environment and
cause harmful effects (USEPA, 1978).
At sufficient dose levels, PCBs have been demonstrated to cause a variety of adverse health
effects, both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic. These health effects include cancer, liver toxicity,
reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, dermal toxicity, and endocrine effects as described in USEPA's
IRIS toxicity profiles (USEPA, 1999a-c) and reviewed by Safe (1994) and ATSDR (1997). The toxicity
of PCBs for both cancer and non-cancer health effects is summarized in more detail in Appendix C.
USEPA has classified PCBs as "B2" probable human carcinogens based on liver tumors in
female rats exposed to Aroclor 1260, 1254, 1242, and 1016, and in male rats exposed to Aroclor 1260
and suggestive evidence from human epidemiological data (USEPA, 1999c). USEPA has also derived
reference doses for Aroclors 1016 and 1254 based on non-cancer effects, such as reduced birth weight
(Aroclor 1016) and impaired immune function, distorted finger and toe nail beds, and occluded
Meibomian glands located in the eyelid (Aroclor 1254).
It is also important to recognize that commercial PCBs tested in laboratory animals were not
subject to prior selective retention of persistent congeners through the food chain (i.e., laboratory test
animals were fed Aroclor mixtures, not environmental mixtures that had been bioaccumulated).
Bioaccumulated PCBs appear to be more toxic than commercial PCBs and appear to be more persistent
in the body (USEPA, 1999c).
Potential non-cancer hazards and cancer risks posed by exposure to PCBs are evaluated using
toxicity values, which are determined from systemic toxicity for non-cancer health effects (oral
Reference Doses, or RfDs), or chemical dose-response relationships for carcinogenicity (Cancer Slope
Factors, or CSFs). Following a rigorous peer review process, the profiles presented in USEPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database summarize the toxicity of the individual chemicals.
4.1 Non-cancer Toxicity Values
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
subpopulations, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
USEPA derives RfDs by first identifying the highest dose level that does not cause observable adverse
effects (the no-observed-adverse-effect-level, or NOAEL). If a NOAEL was not identified, a lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level, or LOAEL, may be used. This dose level is then divided by uncertainty
61 Gradient Corporation
-------
factors to calculate an RfD. There are four standard uncertainty factors that can be used when
calculating an RfD:
• An up-to-10-fold factor to account for the variation in sensitivity among members of the
human population.
• An up-to-10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty involved in extrapolating from
animal data to humans.
• An up-to-10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty involved in extrapolating from less
than chronic NOAELs to chronic NOAELs.
• An up-to-10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty involved in extrapolating from
LOAELs to NOAELs.
An additional modifying factor can also be applied to the calculation of the RfD. The modifying
factor is an additional uncertainty factor that is greater than zero and less than or equal to 10. The
magnitude of the modifying factor depends upon an assessment of the scientific uncertainties of the study
and the database used in deriving the RfD that are not explicitly treated above; e.g., completeness of the
overall data base and number of species tested.
The IRIS database provides oral RfDs for two Aroclor mixtures, Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor 1254.
There is no RfD available for Total PCBs (Table 4-1) and Aroclor 1248. The RfD for Aroclor 1016 is
0.00007 (7 x 10"5) mg/kg-day, based on the NOAEL for reduced birth weight in a monkey reproductive
bioassay, and an uncertainty factor of 100. This RfD is more stringent than the former RfD of 0.0004
used in the Phase 1 risk assessment.
The RfD for Aroclor 1254 is 0.00002 (2 x 10"5) mg/kg-day, based on the LOAEL for impaired
immune function, distorted finger and toe nail beds, and occluded Meibomian glands in the rhesus
monkey, and an uncertainty factor of 300.
For both Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor 1254, the USEPA reports "medium" confidence in the
toxicity studies on which the RfDs are based, the overall toxicity database, and the RfDs themselves.
Although there is an IRIS file for Aroclor 1248, the USEPA determined the available health
effects data to be inadequate for derivation of an oral RfD (USEPA, 1999e). However, a brief summary
of the principal findings of animal studies is included in the IRIS file (USEPA, 1999d). Results of the
studies showed impairment of reproduction in female rhesus monkeys lasting more than 4 years after
dosing, reduced birth weight for infants, facial acne and edema, swollen eyelids, and hair loss.
Due to various environmental processes, PCB mixtures present in the environment no longer
resemble the Aroclor mixture originally released into the environment. Therefore, although the General
Electric Company facilities historically used primarily Aroclor 1242 in their operations, the PCBs present
in Upper Hudson River fish, sediment, and river water do not have the same distribution of PCB
congeners as any of the commercial Aroclor mixtures. However, since RfD values are only available for
Aroclor mixtures and not Total PCBs, it was necessary to choose the Aroclor mixture most similar to the
PCBs present in Upper Hudson River fish, sediment, and river water.
Gradient Corporation
-------
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, 1997d). This distribution is more similar to Aroclor 1016 than to Aroclor 1254. Therefore, for
the purposes of this HHRA, PCBs in sediment and water samples were considered to be most like
Aroclor 1016. The Aroclor 1016 RfD (7 x 10"5 mg/kg-day) was used to evaluate non-cancer toxicity for
ingestion of Upper Hudson River sediment, dermal contact with Upper Hudson River sediment, and
dermal contact with Upper Hudson River 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, PCBs in fish were considered to be most like Aroclor
1254. The Aroclor 1254 RfD (2 x 10'5 mg/kg-day) was used to evaluate non-cancer toxicity for ingestion
of Upper Hudson River fish for both the point estimate and probabilistic assessments. Consistent with
USEPA policy (USEPA, 1997a), uncertainty and variability in the toxicity values are not quantitatively
evaluated in the Monte Carlo analysis.
The Aroclors tested in laboratory animals were not subject to prior selective retention of
persistent congeners through the food chain. For exposure through the food chain, therefore, health
hazards can be higher than those estimated in this assessment.
As indicated in Table 4-2, there are no Reference Concentrations (RfCs) currently available for
either Total PCBs or any of the Aroclor mixtures (USEPA, 1999a-c). Therefore, inhalation exposures to
PCBs are evaluated only for cancer (using the CSF), and not for non-cancer effects.
4.2 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. The CSFs developed by
the USEPA are plausible upper bound estimates, which means that the USEPA is reasonably confident
that the actual cancer risk will not exceed the estimated risk calculated from the CSF.
USEPA has classified PCBs as "B2" probable human carcinogens based on liver tumors in
female rats exposed to Aroclor 1260, 1254, 1242, and 1016, and in male rats exposed to Aroclor 1260
and suggestive evidence from human epidemiological data (USEPA, 1999c). In IRIS, which summarizes
the Agency's review of toxicity data (USEPA, 1999a-c), both upper-bound and central-estimate CSFs are
listed for three different tiers of PCB mixtures (Aroclor 1260, 1254, 1242, and 1016). These PCB
mixtures contain overlapping groups of congeners that span the range of congeners most often found in
environmental mixtures. The CSFs are based on the USEPA's reassessment of the toxicity data on the
potential carcinogenic potency of PCBs in 1996 (USEPA, 1996b; Cogliano, 1998) and were derived
following the proposed revisions to the USEPA Carcinogen Risk Assessment Guidelines (USEPA,
1996b), including changes in the method of extrapolating from animals to humans and changes in the
categories for classifying the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. The CSF reassessment was also
externally peer-reviewed. The first tier, "High Risk and Persistence," applicable to food chain exposures,
sediment or soil ingestion, dust or aerosol inhalation, dermal exposure, early-life exposure, and mixtures
with dioxin-like, tumor promoting, or persistent congeners, has upper-bound and central-estimate CSFs
63 Gradient Corporation
-------
of 2.0 and 1.0 (mg/kg-day)"1, respectively. The second tier, "Low Risk and Persistence," applicable to
ingestion of water-soluble congeners, inhalation of evaporated congeners, and dermal exposure (if no
absorption factor has been applied), has upper-bound and central-estimate CSFs of 0.4 and 0.3
(mg/kg-day)'1, respectively. The third tier, "Lowest Risk and Persistence," applicable only to mixtures
where congeners with more than four chlorines comprise less than one-half percent of the Total PCBs,
has upper-bound and central-estimate CSFs of 0.07 and 0.04 (mg/kg-day)'1, respectively.
The Aroclors tested in laboratory animals were not subject to prior selective retention of
persistent congeners through the food chain. For exposure through the food chain, therefore, risks can be
higher than those estimated in this assessment.
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 Upper Hudson River fish, ingestion of Upper Hudson River
sediments, and dermal contact with Upper Hudson River sediments (Table 4-3). These CSFs are lower
than the former value of 7.7 (mg/kg-day)"1 used in the Phase 1 risk assessment as a result of new
scientific data and changes in the methods for calculating the CSF as indicated in the proposed
Carcinogen Guidelines (USEPA, 1996b). 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-estimate
exposures to PCBs via dermal contact with Upper Hudson River water and potential inhalation of PCBs
volatilized from the Upper Hudson River (Tables 4-3 and 4-4). In the Phase 1 risk assessment, the
former CSF value of 7.7 (mg/kg-day)"1 was used.
For the Monte Carlo analysis of cancer risks via fish ingestion, only the upper bound CSF of 2.0
(mg/kg-day)'1 is used. Consistent with USEPA policy (USEPA, 1997a), variability and uncertainty in
chemical toxicity is not quantitatively evaluated in the Monte Carlo analysis.
4.3 Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Dioxin-Like PCBs
A subset of PCB congeners are considered to be dioxin-like, that is, they are structurally similar
to dibenzo-p-dioxins, bind to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, and cause dioxin-specific biochemical and
toxic responses (reviewed in USEPA, 1996b). Several investigators have estimated the carcinogenic
potency of these dioxin-like PCB congeners relative to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).
Dr. Safe proposed TEFs for a number of dioxin-like PCBs based on a review of the available
scientific data on the toxicity and mechanisms of action of dibenzo-p-dioxin, dibenzofuran, and PCB
congeners (Safe, 1990; Safe, 1994). In 1994, the World Health Organization (WHO) European Center
for Environment and Health and the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) published
recommended interim TEFs for thirteen dioxin-like PCB congeners based on a comprehensive review of
the available scientific literature and consultation with twelve international PCB experts (Ahlborg et al.,
1994). The 1994 WHO/IPCS TEFs are summarized in Table 4-5. In 1996, USEPA recommended that
the 1994 WHO/IPCS TEFs could be used to supplement analyses of PCB carcinogenicity (USEPA,
1996c). Subsequently, WHO/IPCS held a meeting in 1997 to reevaluate and update TEFs for dioxin-like
PCBs (Van den Berg et al., 1998) based on a review of both previously reviewed and new data. Their
revised TEFs for human health risk assessment were published in 1998 and are also summarized in Table
4-5. Only four TEFs were changed: the TEF for PCB congener 77 was reduced from 0.0005 to 0.0001, a
TEF for congener 81 was added, and the TEFs for congeners 170 and 180 were withdrawn.
Gradient Corporation
-------
Dioxin-like PCB congeners are responsible for only part of the carcinogenicity of a Total PCB
mixture. To account for the fact that relative concentrations of dioxin-like congeners may be enhanced in
environmental mixtures, particularly in fish due to bioaccumulation of more persistent congeners, the
1998 WHO/IPCS TEFs are used in the risk characterization, along with the CSF of 150,000
(mg/kg-day)'1 for dioxin, to supplement the evaluation of PCB cancer risks due to consumption of fish
(HEAST, 1997). (Note that use of the 1994 WHO/IPCS TEFs would result in similar risk estimates.)
4.4 Endocrine Disruption
In response to growing concerns about the potential effects of environmental endocrine
disrupters on human health, the USEPA's Risk Assessment Forum held several workshops to discuss the
current status of knowledge on endocrine disruption at the request of the USEPA Science Policy Council
in 1997. As a result of these workshops, USEPA prepared the "Special Report on Environmental
Endocrine Disruption: An Effects Assessment and Analysis" (USEPA, 1997b) which is intended to
inform Agency risk assessors of the major findings and uncertainties and to serve as a basis for a Science
Policy Council position statement.
An environmental endocrine disrupter is defined as "an exogenous agent that interferes with the
synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones in the body that are
responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis, development, and/or behavior" (USEPA, 1997b, pg. 1).
PCBs have been investigated as potential endocrine disrupters. For example, some studies have
suggested that PCBs increase the risk of breast cancer, while other studies have failed to show an
association between PCB exposure and breast cancer (reviewed in USEPA, 1997b). Overall, the USEPA
Risk Assessment Forum concluded that it is not possible to attribute a cause and effect association
between PCB exposure and breast cancer given the sparse data currently available. Similarly, an
association between endometriosis and high levels of PCBs in blood has been reported, but the evidence
for a causal relationship is considered weak (reviewed in USEPA, 1997b). Due to the similar structural
properties of PCBs and normal thyroid hormones (T4 and T3), PCBs may also cause thyroid effects such
as hypothyroidism (reduction of thyroid hormones in circulation) via competition for receptor binding
(reviewed in USEPA, 1997b). The mechanisms of thyrotoxicity associated with PCB exposure may vary
and include specific damage to the endocrine gland, interference with hormone transport, and receptor
interactions (USEPA, 1997b). For example, in rats, prenatal exposure to some PCBs (specific congeners
or mixtures such as Aroclor 1254) have been shown to lower serum T4 which reduces choline acetyl
transferase (ChAT) activity in the hippocampus and basal forebrain. ChAT is involved in the synthesis
of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter considered important to learning and memory (USEPA, 1997b).
PCB exposures may also be associated with an increase in thyroid follicular cell adenomas or carcinomas
in male rats with a statistically significant trend for Aroclor 1242 and 1254 (Mayes et al, 1998).
There is currently considerable scientific debate about whether environmental chemicals acting
via endocrine disrupter mechanisms are responsible for adverse health effects in humans (reviewed in
USEPA, 1997b). Because the human body has negative feedback mechanisms to control the fluctuations
of hormone levels, exposures to chemicals at the levels found in the environment may be insufficient to
disrupt endocrine homeostasis. Current screening assays that measure hormone receptor binding thus
may or may not be associated with a corresponding adverse health effect. Furthermore, exposures to
potential environmental endocrine disrupters are minimal compared to exposures to potential endocrine
disrupters that occur naturally in food. However, it is also possible that infants and children are more
sensitive to potential endocrine disrupter effects during sensitive windows of development.
55 Gradient Corporation
-------
The USEPA is aware and concerned about the potential effects of environmental endocrine
disrupters on human health, and is currently supporting significant research in this area along with other
federal agencies. However, "there is little knowledge of or agreement on the extent of the problem," and
"further research and testing are needed" (USEPA, 1997b, pg. vii). The USEPA Science Policy
Council's Interim Position is that "based on the current state of the science, the Agency does not consider
endocrine disruption to be an adverse endpoint per se, but rather to be a mode or mechanism of action
potentially leading to other outcomes, for example, carcinogenic, reproductive, or developmental effects,
routinely considered in reaching regulatory decisions" (USEPA, 1997b, pg. viii).
Therefore, consistent with current USEPA policy, although PCBs may act as an environmental
endocrine disrupter, the available data are insufficient to support a quantitative assessment of endocrine
effects in this risk assessment. Potential adverse health effects resulting from PCBs operating through a
potential endocrine disruption mechanism of action is an area of uncertainty.
Gradient Corporation
-------
Chapter 5
-------
5 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 non-cancer
hazards and cancer risks from exposure to PCBs. In addition, risk characterization involves an evaluation
of the uncertainties underlying the risk assessment process, and this evaluation is included in this section.
The risk characterization was prepared in accordance with USEPA guidance on risk characterization
(USEPA, 1995b; USEPA, 19925).
In Section 5.1, the point estimate calculations of non-cancer hazard indices and cancer risks are
presented. The Monte Carlo risk estimates for the base case analysis are summarized in Section 5.2. A
discussion of uncertainties inherent to the exposure and toxicity assessments is presented in Section 5.3,
along with a quantitative evaluation of the uncertainty in risk characterization for the fish ingestion
pathway.
5.1 Point Estimate Risk Characterization
5.1.1 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 Reference Dose is defined as
an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude or greater) of a daily exposure
level for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. Chronic RfDs are specifically developed to be
protective for long-term exposure to a compound, with chronic duration ranging from seven years to a
lifetime as a Superfund guideline (USEPA, 1989b).
Potential health hazards from noncarcinogenic effects are expressed as a Hazard Quotient (HQ),
which compares the calculated exposure (average daily doses, calculated as part of the exposure
assessment in Chapter 2) to the RfD (summarized as part of the toxicity assessment in Chapter 4). Both
exposure levels and RfDs are typically expressed in units of mass of PCB intake per kilogram of body
weight per day (mg/kg-day). Unlike the evaluation of carcinogenic effects, exposures of less than
lifetime duration are not averaged over an entire lifetime but rather the duration of exposure (USEPA,
1989b).
The hazard quotient is calculated by dividing the estimated average daily oral dose estimates by
the oral RfD as follows (USEPA, I989b):
,. , _ . /TJ~, Average Daily Dose (mg I kg - day)
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = s / ,, . * ~ t5'' 1
RfD (mg I kg - day)
High-end and central tendency hazard quotients calculated for each exposure pathway (fish
ingestion, sediment, and water exposure pathways) are summarized in Tables 5-1 through 5-13. 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
67 Gradient Corpomtio
-------
PCBs is equivalent to the HI. The total high-end and central tendency Hazard Indices for each pathway
and receptor are summarized in Tables 5-27 through 5-33.
If a Hazard Index is greater than one (i.e., HI>1), 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 hazard. Ingestion of fish results in the highest
Hazard Index, with an HI of 10 for the central tendency estimate, and an HI of 1 16 for the high-end
estimate, both representing exposures above the reference level (HI>1). 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., 2.2 ppm instead of 5.1 ppm), a hazard index of 50 results, which is still
above the reference level of 1. Total Hazard Indices for the recreational and residential exposure
pathways are all below one. In all cases, the Hazard Indices are based on uniform exposure throughout
the Upper Hudson River. Uncertainties inherent in these risk estimates are discussed later in this report.
5.1.2 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 term "incremental"
implies the risk due to environmental chemical exposure above the background cancer risk experienced
by all individuals in the course of daily life. Cancer risks are expressed as a probability (e.g., one in a
million, or 10" ) of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime, above background risk, as a result of
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.
Specifically, excess (incremental) cancer risks are calculated by multiplying intake estimates (lifetime
average daily doses, calculated in Chapter 2 as part of the exposure assessment) and CSFs (summarized
as part of the toxicity assessment in Chapter 4) as follows (USEPA, 1989b):
X CSF — ^— [5-2]
\kg-day)
As discussed in Chapter 2, exposure levels are expressed as the chronic daily intake averaged
over a lifetime of exposure, in units of mg/kg-day (mg of PCB intake per kilogram of human body weight
per day). A cancer slope factor is an estimate of the upper-bound probability of an individual developing
cancer as a result of a lifetime of exposure to a particular level or dose of a potential carcinogen. Cancer
slope factors are expressed in units that are the reciprocal of those for exposure (i.e., (mg/kg-day)"1).
Multiplication of the exposure level by the CSF yields a unitless estimate of cancer risk. The acceptable
risk range identified in the NCP (USEPA, 1990) is 10"4 to 10"6 (or an increased probability of developing
cancer of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000) refers to plausible upper bound risks.
High-end and central tendency cancer risk estimates calculated for each exposure pathway (fish
ingestion, recreational exposure pathways, and residential inhalation) are summarized in Tables 5-14
through 5-26. Total cancer risks are summed over all applicable exposure routes and exposure periods
Gradient Corporntio
-------
(child through adult). The total RME and central tendency cancer risks for each pathway are summarized
in Tables 5-27 through 5-33.
Ingestion of fish results in the highest cancer risks, 3.2 x 10"5 (3.2 additional cases of cancer in a
population of one hundred-thousand) for the central tendency estimate, and 1.1 x 10~3 (1.1 additional
cancers in a population of a thousand) for the high-end estimate. Risks for children consuming fish were
included in the Monte Carlo exposure calculations, however they cannot be specifically identified in the
Monte Carlo results because those results are for the entire population of anglers. If it is assumed that a
child meal portion is approximately Va of an adult portion, then the RME child risk for ingestion of fish is
approximately 3 x 10~4. As a further note on the fish ingestion risks, had the 95th percentile fish ingestion
rate (63.4 g/day, or 102 meals per year) been used in the analysis, the RME risks for fish ingestion would
approximately double (i.e., 2 x 10"3 for adults).
As indicated earlier, the acceptable cancer risk range established in the NCP is 10~4 to 10~6. Thus,
the RME fish ingestion results fall outside the NCP acceptable cancer risk range. Estimated cancer risks
relating to PCB exposure in either sediment, water, or air are much lower than those for fish ingestion,
falling generally at the low end, or below, the range of 10"4 to 10" .
5.1.3 Dioxin-Like Risks of PCBs
To account for the fact that relative concentrations of dioxin-like congeners may be enhanced in
environmental mixtures, particularly in fish due to bioaccumulation of more persistent congeners, the
1998 WHO/IPCS TEFs are used in the risk characterization, along with the CSF of 150,000 for dioxin
(USEPA, 1997), to supplement the evaluation of PCB cancer risks due to consumption of fish.
This analysis was performed using the Phase 2 fish data from the Upper Hudson River (River
Miles 159-196.9) contained in the Hudson River database. For each Phase 2 fish sample in the Upper
Hudson River, the concentrations total (tri+) PCBs, were summarized (Tables 5-34).l4'15 In order to
determine the fraction that each dioxin-like congener represented of the Total PCB concentration, the
concentration of each dioxin-like PCB congener was divided by the Total PCB concentration for each
fish sample, (Table 5-35). These fractions were averaged over all the fish samples to determine an
average fraction for each dioxin-like congener (Table 5-35, last two rows). These fractions were then
multiplied by the high-end Total PCB exposure point concentration used in the risk assessment, to
determine the high-end exposure point concentration for each dioxin-like congener (Table 5-36). These
exposure point concentrations were then multiplied by the corresponding 1998 WHO/IPCS toxicity
equivalency factors TEF to generate a dioxin equivalent (TEQ) for each dioxin-like congener (Table 5-36
last column). The TEQs for each congener were summed, yielding a high-end total dioxin TEQ of
5.3 x 10'5 mg/kg (Table 5-36, second to last row). The total concentration of the non-dioxin-like PCB
congeners was calculated by subtracting the sum of the concentrations of the dioxin-like congeners from
the high-end Total PCB exposure point concentration (Table 5-36, last row).
Cancer risks for ingestion of dioxin-like PCBs in fish were calculated similarly to those for
PCBs, substituting the dioxin TEQ for the exposure point concentration and the dioxin CSF of 150,000
14 Note that although PCB congener 81 is considered a dioxin-like PCB congener, it was not analyzed for as part of the analytical
program. At the time the analytical sampling methods were determined for the Phase 2 program, a standard for congener 81 was
unavailable. The risks for this congener are not included in this risk analysis.
15 Non-detect values were set to '/2 the detection limit if the total detection frequency was greater than 15% (based on professional
judgment) for that congener. If the total detection frequency was less than 15%, the value was set to zero.
59 Gradient Corporation
-------
(USEPA, 1997) for the cancer slope factor. The resulting intake and cancer risk estimates are shown in
Table 5-38. The RME dioxin-like cancer risk of 1.5 x 10"3 is approximately equivalent to the RME risk
calculated without consideration of the dioxin-like congeners, and, similarly, is outside of the acceptable
range for cancer risk established in the NCP.
5.2 Monte Carlo Risk Estimates for Fish Ingestion
As described in Section 3.5.1, a total of 72 scenarios were evaluated for the Monte Carlo
exposure analysis. The non-cancer hazards and cancer risk estimates for each scenario were calculated
using the same equations outlined in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, respectively, using Equation [3-1] to
calculate PCB intake. The combination of scenarios discussed in Section 3.5.1 is reproduced here for
convenience:
Parameter*
Fish Ingestion (4)
Exposure Duration (2)
Fishing Location (3)
Cooking Loss (3)
(no variability modeled)
Base Case
1991 New York Angler Survey
Empirical Ingestion Distribution
Minimum of Fishing Duration and
Residence Duration
Average of 3 Modeled Locations
20% (midpoint of typical range)
Sensitivity Analysis
1992 Maine Angler (Ebert et ai, 1993)
1989 Michigan (West et al., 1989)
1992 Lake Ontario (Connelly et al, 1996)
Residence Duration only
Thompson Island Pool
Waterford/Federal Dam
0% (high-end exposure)
40% (low-end exposure)
*Numbers in parentheses indicate number of combinations
5.2.1 Non-Cancer Hazards
For the non-cancer hazard calculations, Average Daily Dose in Equation [5-1] was calculated
using Equation [3-1], with a maximum exposure duration (ED in Equation [3-1]) of 7 years. This
exposure duration limit was selected as the minimum time-period for chronic exposure. Because the
Average Daily Dose declines as the exposure duration increases, allowing the intake to be averaged over
a longer time-period would underestimate non-cancer hazards and potentially underestimate the hazard
for an RME individual.
16
Each of the 72 scenarios examined consisted of 10,000 simulations of PCB intake (average daily
dose), each yielding a distribution of 10,000 intake estimates. From these distributions of intake, low-
end, mid-point, and high-end non-cancer hazard index percentiles (5th,..., 50th, 90lh, 95lh, 99th) are
summarized in Appendix B.
A relative frequency and cumulative distribution plot for the "base case" analysis is shown in
Figure 5-la. The median HI for the base case Monte Carlo analysis is 11.4, compared with the HI of 10
for the central point estimate. The 95th percentile HI from the base case Monte Carlo analysis is 137,
compared with 116 for the RME point estimate. At the high-end of the base case hazard distribution, the
99* percentile HI is 639; at the low end, the 5th percentile HI is 1.2, and the 10th percentile HI is 1.9.
The Monte Carlo analysis of non-cancer hazards is discussed further in the discussion of
uncertainties later in Section 5.3.3.
16 The dependency of the intake on ED is due to the time-dependency of PCB concentration in fish.
70 Gradient Corporation
-------
5.2.2 Cancer Risks
For the cancer risk calculations, Intake in Equation [5-2] was calculated using Equation [3-1]. In
the case of cancer risks, intake is averaged over a lifetime such that ED in Equation [3-1] was not limited
to 7 years, but rather equaled the particular ED value that was sampled from the input probability
distribution for this variable on each of the 10,000 iterations.
As was the case for non-cancer hazards, each of the 72 scenarios examined consisted of 10,000
simulations of PCB intake, resulting in a distribution of 10,000 intake estimates. From these
distributions of intake, low-end, mid-point, and high-end cancer risk percentiles (5*,..., 50th, 90th, 95th,
99th) are summarized in Appendix B.
A relative frequency and cumulative distribution plot for the "base case" analysis is shown in
Figure 5-2a. The median cancer risk for the base case Monte Carlo analysis is 6.4 x 10"5, which is 2-fold
higher than the central point estimate value of 3.2 x 10"5. The 2-fold difference of these two estimates is
directly tied to the fact that the PCB cancer slope factor used for the Monte Carlo estimate
(2.0 mg/kg-day"1) is 2-fold greater than the CSF used for the central point estimate (1.0 mg/kg-day"1).
The 95th percentile cancer risk estimate for the base case Monte Carlo analysis is 8.7 x 10"4 , compared
with 1.1 x 10'3 for the RME point estimate. At the high-end of the base case cancer risk distribution, the
99th percentile is 3.7 x 10"3; at the low end, the 5th percentile is 5.5 x 10"6, and the 10th percentile
9.6 x 10'6.
The Monte Carlo analysis of cancer risk is discussed further in the discussion of uncertainties
later in Section 5.3.3.
5.3 Discussion of Uncertainties
The process of evaluating human health risks involves multiple steps. Inherent in each step of
the process are uncertainties that ultimately affect the final risk estimates. Uncertainties may exist in
numerous areas, including environmental PCB concentration data, derivation of toxicity values, and
estimation of potential site exposures. In this section, the significant sources of uncertainty in three of
the four risk assessment steps (Exposure Assessment, Toxicity Assessment, and Risk Characterization)
are qualitatively discussed, including the strengths, limitations, and uncertainties inherent in key
scientific issues and science policy choices. This HHRA accounts for sources of uncertainty in the
various components of the risk assessment analysis in order to provide a full understanding of the
accuracy and reliability of calculated risks and hazards. An understanding of the strengths and potential
uncertainties of the risk assessment provides the risk manager with additional information for
consideration in the risk management decision.
5.3.1 Exposure Assessment
Selection of Exposure Pathways. There are some uncertainties inherent in the selection of
exposure pathways quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. Fish consumption is the most
significant source of risk due to exposure to PCBs in the Upper Hudson River. Anglers also may be
exposed to PCBs in sediments and surface water while fishing. However, even if the angler experienced
incidental ingestion of sediment, dermal contact with sediment and river water, and inhalation
71 Gradient Corporation
-------
comparable to the adult recreator, such exposure would not measurably increase the cancer risk or non-
cancer hazard indices because the fish ingestion pathway risks outweigh all others by several orders of
magnitude.
As discussed in Section 2.1.3, there were insufficient data to evaluate intake of PCBs via
ingestion of home-grown crops, beef, dairy products, eggs, etc. and these potential exposure pathways
were not quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. Although the magnitude of the potential risks
from these pathways cannot be reliably quantified with available information, the risks are likely to be
minimal when compared to those evaluated quantitatively. In addition, evaluation of the inhalation
pathway was limited based on the lack of an RfC.
Defining the Angler Population. For the purposes of this risk assessment, the angler population
is defined as those individuals who consume self-caught fish from the Hudson at least once per year, in
the absence of a fishing ban or health advisories. The start date for the assessment is 1999, the year in
which the risk assessment is released. Thus, the risk assessment considers all anglers fishing in the
Upper Hudson River from 1999 into the future. Although this population includes anglers who have
been fishing for a long period of time, as well as anglers who may have just started fishing, only
exposures occurring in 1999 and later were quantified in the risk assessment. The angler population
could have alternatively been defined as the subset of anglers who began fishing in 1999 (or recently).
During the development of the Monte Carlo analysis, intake was modeled both ways. The results were
comparable for both the angler population fishing in the Upper Hudson River in 1999, as well as the
subset of anglers who were assumed to begin fishing in 1999. Based on the similarity of the two
analyses, only a single angler population, based on the full set of data from Connelly et al. (1992), was
used for the exposure duration analysis.
Risks to individuals who move into, or are born into the area after 1999 were not quantitatively
evaluated in the risk assessment. Similarly, those individuals consuming Upper Hudson River fish
caught by a friend or family member or received as a gift were also not quantitatively evaluated. There is
little quantitative information available on such exposures. Nonetheless, the risks for these individuals
are expected to be less than the risks for the angler population, because friends and family members of
anglers would be expected to have lower fish consumption rates than the angler population evaluated in
this risk assessment.
PCB Exposure Concentration in Fish. During Phase 2 of the Reassessment RI/FS, USEPA has
expended considerable effort to characterize current and future PCB concentrations in fish. Despite the
extensive amount of information developed, there is still some uncertainty in the exposure point PCB
concentrations in fish used in the risk assessment. The primary source of PCB concentrations in fish was
the 1999 Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, 1999d). This report provided information about the
variability of predicted PCB concentrations in future years within each modeled fish species. Although
there are uncertainties inherent in the modeling approaches (see USEPA, 1999d), there is insufficient
quantitative information available about the precise magnitude of the uncertainties to give a quantitative
range of risks attributable to model uncertainty. Based on the ability of the fish bioaccumulation models
to capture the historical observed PCB measurements in fish, the model uncertainty in PCB projections in
fish is not expected to be sufficient to alter the overall conclusions in this risk assessment Furthermore,
the sensitivity/uncertainty analysis conducted for the Monte Carlo analysis provides a measure of the
range of exposure and risks as a function of two important factors influencing the exposure point
concentration: variations in the fish species caught (different species tend to have different characteristic
PCB uptake), and variations in fishing location (the concentration trends decline substantially between
the upper and lower reaches of the Upper Hudson River).
72 Gradient Corporation
-------
Because PCB bioaccumulation in fish was only modeled in the Baseline Modeling Report
through the year 2018, it was necessary to extrapolate the modeled results to the year 2069 in order to
yield a 70-year potential exposure duration for the Monte Carlo analysis. An exponential
trend/regression line provided a reasonably good fit for the regressions. It is unlikely that this approach
would contribute to significant underestimates of future exposures had the bioaccumulation model been
extended further into the future.
Other sources of uncertainty in the PCB concentrations in fish used in the assessment include the
fact that concentrations were averaged over location, and weighted by species. While it is likely that
different anglers fish in different locations of the Upper Hudson River there is little information available
to quantify these differences, and the presence of current fishing restrictions preclude gathering such
information. Instead, a sensitivity analysis of the risks associated with a possible population of anglers
who fish only in the upstream areas of the Upper Hudson River study area, where PCB concentrations in
fish are the highest, is presented in Section 5.3.3, below. Fish species-specific consumption frequencies
were estimated based on the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992) from which 226
angler responses report consuming self-caught fish. The variability of fish consumption preference was
modeled in the Monte Carlo analysis based on the range of species consumption patterns reflected in that
survey.
Fish Ingestion Rate. The primary source used to derive the distribution of fish ingestion for the
risk assessment was the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992). There are numerous
uncertainties inherent in the fish ingestion rate assumptions used in the risk assessment, the most
significant of which are discussed below. Despite these uncertainties, the assumptions regarding fish
consumption are believed to be reasonable and health protective. The sensitivity analysis conducted for
this parameter provides a measure of the range of risks using several alternative sources of information
regarding sportfish ingestion.
As stated at the outset, the intent of the HHRA was to evaluate risks for Upper Hudson River
anglers in the absence of a fishing ban or Hudson-specific health advisories. Because there are current
advisories to eat no fish from the Upper Hudson River, it is not possible to collect site-specific
information about angler activities in the Upper Hudson River in the absence of health advisories.
Therefore, it was necessary to select a distribution of fish ingestion rates from survey information other
than surveys only of the Hudson. There is some uncertainty as to whether data from flowing waterbodies
from the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et al., 1992) accurately represents Upper Hudson
River anglers. Although the fish ingestion rates reported in the New York Angler survey are presumably
influenced by general, non-specific NYSDEC fishing regulations (that would be in effect regardless of
PCB contamination levels in the Hudson), because the survey was state-wide, it is not likely to be unduly
affected by the Hudson-specific health advisories, and thus considered to be a reasonable surrogate for
the Upper Hudson.
Of the available studies of sportfish ingestion, the 1991 New York Angler survey (Connelly et
al., 1992) is considered the preferred study to represent Upper Hudson River anglers because, among
other reasons outlined in this report, it was conducted in New York and included a large sample size.
Other New York waterbodies are likely to be more similar to the Hudson than waterbodies in other states.
The fact that the fish ingestion rates from the 1991 New York Angler survey are reasonably consistent
with the results of published studies investigating freshwater fish ingestion rates from other locations in
the U.S. lends an additional degree of confidence in the use of the 1991 New York Angler survey data.
73 Gradient Corporatio
-------
Risks were not specifically quantified for subsistence anglers, unlicensed anglers, or other
subpopulations of anglers who may be highly exposed. Although there are no known, distinct
subpopulations that may be highly exposed, there is some degree of uncertainty as to whether these
subpopulations have been adequately addressed in this risk assessment. However, as discussed in
Section 3.2.1.4, based on consideration offish ingestion rates among low income families (Wendt, 1986),
fish ingestion rates reported for licensed and non-licensed anglers from the Hudson angler surveys
(Barclay, 1993; NYSDOH, 1999), and fish ingestion rates for angler populations in other areas of the
country (see Table 3-2), it seems likely that any highly exposed subpopulations are represented in the
upper percentiles of the fish ingestion rate distribution used in the Monte Carlo analysis.
The consumption rate chosen for each angler modeled is assumed to remain the same from year
to year; this approach assumes that fish ingestion rates are perfectly correlated each year. Actual year to
year ingestion rates are probably correlated to a high degree, but not perfectly (100%). This assumption
is supported by the finding that when classified as either low or high avidity (in relation to the median
fishing effort), two-thirds of Lake Ontario anglers were classified the same in 1991 and 1992 (Connelly
and Brown, 1995). Assuming there is no correlation between yearly ingestion rates would effectively
average high-end consumers out of the analysis, and would clearly be inappropriate. Thus, although
there are no data available to quantify the correlation between yearly ingestion rates, the approach taken
in the risk assessment is reasonable and protective of human health.
While some anglers may consume fish at frequencies less than once per year and some friends or
family members of anglers may consume "gift fish" at infrequent intervals, there are no data to quantify
the fish ingestion rates for these individuals. Nonetheless, consideration of only those anglers who
consume self-caught fish from the Hudson at least once per year is protective of human health, because
exposure to less frequent anglers, family members, or friends would be lower than the exposure
calculated for the angler population.
Angler Exposure Duration. The distribution of angler exposure durations developed for use in
the Monte Carlo assessment represents variability among anglers. The uncertainties inherent in
developing the exposure duration of anglers were described in Section 3.2.4. For example, it was
assumed that the age profile of the angler population remains unchanged over time, and that 1991 angler
data is representative of 1999 anglers. Insufficient information is available to evaluate these sources of
uncertainty quantitatively. Nonetheless, the resulting point estimates (e.g., a central tendency estimate of
12 years, and an RME estimate of 40 years) are unlikely to underestimate actual exposure durations
significantly.
PCB Cooking Losses. As described in Section 3.2.3, reported cooking losses vary considerably
among the numerous studies reviewed. In addition, there is little information available to quantify
personal preferences among anglers for various preparation and cooking methods and other related habits
(such as consumption of pan drippings). The assumption that there is no loss of PCBs during cooking or
preparation, used in the RME point estimate risk calculations, is conservative, and may overestimate
risks on average. The possible range of cooking losses was explicitly evaluated in the Monte Carlo
analysis.
Exposure Point PCB Concentrations in Sediment and River Water. Exposure point
concentrations for sediment and river water were calculated using the 20-year modeled data through 2018
(USEPA, 1999d). Although the exposure durations for recreators extend beyond the year 2018,
concentrations for sediment and river water were not extrapolated to later years. This approach is
conservative, since the concentrations are decreasing with time, and inclusion of later years would have
74 Gradient Corporation
-------
resulted in lower concentrations. The concentration in sediment and water were not extrapolated because
the concentration decline appears to be less than the decline in fish. In addition, although the upstream
conditions are somewhat uncertain, the modeled concentrations assuming a constant-upstream boundary
condition were adopted, although the choice of the boundary condition scenario has little impact on the
model predictions (USEPA, 1999d).
Sediment Ingestion Rate. In the absence of site-specific ingestion rates, USEPA-recommended
values for median daily soil ingestion were used in the risk assessment. The USEPA-recommended soil
ingestion rates are somewhat uncertain. There is considerable debate in the scientific community
regarding soil ingestion, and work is ongoing to better characterize soil ingestion rates. The soil
ingestion rate exposure factor represents total dally intake of soil integrated over a variety of activities,
including ingestion of indoor dust. In this HHRA, a median ingestion rate (as opposed to a high-end rate)
was used for recreational exposures, because the total exposure time is only a fraction of the total day.
The median ingestion rates used are likely high-end estimates of incidental sediment ingestion while
participating in activities along the Hudson, because other sources (such as at home) also account for
soil/sediment ingestion. On the other hand, increased dermal adherence of (wet) sediment compared to
(dry) soil could correspond to higher actual ingestion rates for sediment than soil.
Sediment/skin adherence factor. This factor represents the amount of sediment that adheres to
skin and is available for dermal exposure. Because this value is likely to vary based on one's activity, the
values used for this parameter, which are estimates from single activities, are somewhat uncertain. For
dermal contact with Upper Hudson River sediments, published adherence factors for adults gathering
reeds, and for children playing in wet soils, were used as a surrogate for children. Although it is
somewhat uncertain whether these scenarios are representative of contact with Hudson sediments, they
appear to be a reasonable use of available data.
Dermal Absorption Value. The PCB dermal absorption rate used in this risk assessment was
based on a value published in peer-reviewed literature. Nonetheless, since dermal absorption of soil and
sediment contaminants is a complicated issue, there is considerable uncertainty associated with dermal
absorption rates. Various factors affect the efficiency of dermal absorption. For example, many
compounds are only absorbed through the skin after a long exposure duration (i.e., >24 hours). Since
most individuals bathe at least once each day, washing may remove any soil residues adhering to the skin
before absorption can occur. Therefore, dermal absorption rates based on studies with long exposure
durations tend to overestimate actual absorption. However, soil loadings have also been shown to affect
dermal absorption rates; the percentage of dermal absorption may increase as soil loadings decrease. The
use of various testing methods also introduces uncertainties; in vivo animal studies introduce
uncertainties regarding animal-to-human extrapolation, while in vitro studies using human skin introduce
uncertainties regarding in vitro to in vivo extrapolations. Despite these uncertainties, the published
dermal absorption values used in this risk assessment provide a reasonable basis to estimate risks for the
dermal pathway.
PCB Concentrations in Air. The PCB concentrations in air used in this risk assessment are
particularly uncertain, and the risks calculated for this pathway should therefore be considered to be
"screening" level risks. Measurements of PCBs in air in 1991, adjusted to reflect the lower PCB
concentrations in the water column at present and predicted into the future, provided one estimate for the
exposure point concentration. These measurements were compared with modeled PCB volatilization and
dispersion estimates. The two estimation methods provided a very wide range of concentration
estimates. Despite the wide range of results, the results of the analysis indicate the volatilization of PCBs
from the river is likely to yield de minims human health risks.
75 Gradient Corporation
-------
5.3.2 Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity values used in this risk assessment have been peer reviewed and are the most current
values recommended by USEPA. The USEPA used uncertainty factors of up to 300 in deriving reference
doses for Aroclor non-cancer assessment. Similarly, the PCB cancer slope factors were derived by
USEPA using health protective dose-response models. These approaches may overestimate non-cancer
hazards and cancer risks. Conversely, some uncertainties may lead to underestimation of cancer risks
and non-cancer hazards. For example, Aroclors tested in laboratory animals were not subject to prior
selective retention of persistent congeners through the food chain, such as those found in the Hudson
River.
The toxicity values used in the risk assessment are protective of both males and females. For
example, the cancer slope factor used in calculating risks is based on an increased incidence of liver
tumors in female rats reflecting the potential sensitivity of this gender. The slope factor generated based
on female rats was higher than that generated for tumors found in male rats. Because risk is a function of
exposure and hazard, the use of the higher slope factor based on data from the female rats is more
protective of the general population than using the lower slope factor identified for male rats.
Although commercial PCBs tested in laboratory animals were not subject to prior selective
retention of persistent congeners through the food chain, the CSFs are based on animal exposures to a
group of PCB mixtures (i.e., Aroclor 1260, 1254, 1242, and 1016) that contain overlapping groups of
congeners spanning the range of congeners most often found in environmental mixtures.
One of the RfDs used in the risk assessment is based on several studies of monkeys where
females were exposed through ingestion prenatally and as adults. The studies found reduced birth
weights in offspring of the prenatally exposed monkeys and immune effects in adult female monkeys
exposed for longer periods of time. The No Observed Adverse Effect Levels identified from these
studies were further reduced by factors of 100 and 300 to account for extrapolation from animals to
humans and for sensitive human populations. Thus, the use of this RfD in assessing potential non-cancer
health effects is considered to be health protective. More recent data (Arnold et al, 1995; Rice, 1999)
indicate that the margin of safety afforded by the current RfD may be smaller. It should be noted that
USEPA is currently reassessing the toxicity criteria for non-cancer effects of PCBs.
Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Dioxin-Like PCBs. There is considerable uncertainty
regarding the TEF values for the toxicity of dioxin-like PCB congeners. In their publications, WHO
indicates that their TEF values represent "an order of magnitude estimate of the toxicity of a compound
relative to TCDD" (emphasis added) (Van den Berg et al., 1998). Also, the TEF analysis assumes that
the toxic effects of dioxin-like PCBs are additive. However, this assumption is somewhat uncertain. As
discussed in the WHO/ICPS TEF reviews (Ahlborg et al., 1994; Van den Berg et al., 1998), although
there is evidence of additivity for Ah receptor mediated responses, interactions between nondioxin-like
PCBs and dioxin-like PCBs may be antagonistic, in which case the assumption of additivity is highly
conservative. However, evidence of synergistic interactions also exists. It is also important to note that
many nondioxin-like PCB congeners have independent mechanisms of toxicity (Hansen, 1998).
Although the toxicity of these congeners is likely to be reflected in the toxicity values developed for
Total PCBs, the toxicity of each PCB congener has not been fully characterized, and TEF values have not
been developed for non-dioxin-like congeners.
75 Gradient Corporation
-------
Research into possible endocrine effects of PCBs is an area of active research to develop
toxicological tests to evaluate possible endocrine disruption. Although PCBs may also act as an
environmental endocrine disrupter, the available data are insufficient to support a quantitative assessment
of endocrine effects in this risk assessment. As discussed in Section 4.4, it is recognized that this is a
source of potential uncertainty. Many of the standard toxicity tests performed to date on PCBs were not
specifically designed to identify effects of endocrine disruption, and some health endpoints could have
been missed by those studies. However, the Technical Panel concluded, based on available evidence,
that exposure to xenoestrogenic chemicals, at current environmental concentrations, is probably
insufficient to evoke an adverse effect in adults (USEPA, 1997b). Additional information is required to
understand the mechanism by which the endocrine effects are acting, and to determine if this holds for
the human fetus and neonate.
5.3.3 Comparison of Point Estimate RME and Monte Carlo Results
Each of the uncertainties associated with the Exposure and Toxicity Assessment steps in the risk
assessment process becomes incorporated into the risk estimates in the Risk Characterization step. A
comparison of the central tendency and RME point estimate risks for fish ingestion, with the Monte
Carlo estimates, provides a perspective on the variability and uncertainty in the range of risks possible for
this pathway under a wide range of scenarios.
A sensitivity/uncertainty analysis consisting of 72 combinations of the important exposure
variables for the fish ingestion pathway was performed for the Monte Carlo analysis. A comparison of
the base case Monte Carlo results with the point estimate results was presented in Section 5.2. As that
comparison showed, the RME cancer risk estimate (1.1 x 10"3), falls somewhat above the 95th percentile
of the base case Monte Carlo distribution of risk.
Tables 5-38 and 5-39 provide a summary of the point estimate HI and cancer risk estimates
together with the full range of Monte Carlo estimates. Figures 5-3a and 5-3b plot percentiles for all 72
combinations of the non-cancer HI values and the cancer risks, respectively. The central (50th percentile)
Monte Carlo HI ranges from a low of 1.8, to a high of 51.5, compared to the CT point estimate of 10.
The high-end (95th percentile) Monte Carlo HI ranges from 18.6 to 366, compared to the RME point
estimate of 116. A similar comparison for cancer risk indicates the 50th percentile cancer risk estimates
range from 9.7 x 10"6 to 4.1 x 10^, compared to a CT point estimate of 3.2 x 10"5. The 95th percentile
Monte Carlo cancer risk estimates range from 1.1 x 10"4 to 3.1 x 10"3, compared to the RME point
estimate of 1.1 x 10~3.
A discussion of the sensitivity of the Monte Carlo results as a function of several important
exposure factors follows.
Uncertainty in Fishing Locations. For the base case Monte Carlo analysis, and the point estimate
analysis, PCB concentrations in fish were averaged over the three locations modeled: Thompson Island
Pool (River Mile 189), Stillwater (River Mile 168), and the Waterford/Federal Dam area (average of
River Miles 157-154). However, it is possible that an angler would preferentially fish in a single
location. To address this possibility, the Monte Carlo analysis considered catching and consuming fish
from the most contaminated and least contaminated locations.
77 Gradient Corporation
-------
As both the historical data and modeling results indicate, the PCB concentration in fish in the
Upper Hudson River exhibits a declining concentration from upstream to downstream locations. Of the
three locations modeled, Thompson Island Pool had the highest modeled PCB concentrations in fish.
Holding all other exposure factors at their base case values, while assuming an angler catches and
consumes fish exclusively from the upstream areas of the Upper Hudson River (using the Thompson
Island Pool as a surrogate), yields the following estimates of non-cancer hazard and cancer risk:
Sensitivity Analysis-Fishing Location
Outcome
Point
Estimate3
Base Case
Monte Carlo
High- End PCB
Concentration
(Thompson Is. Pool) -
Monte Carlo"
Non-Cancer Hi -. '" ' « '•' "' . • • -; " > ' • ^ ^%^^i^t>' V5'
Central Tendency (CT)
High-End (RME)
10
116
Cancer Risk' "',,','
Central Tendency (CT)
High-End (RME)
3.4 x 10'5
1.1 x 10'3
11
137
, ' > < •$
\*»
6.4 x 10'5
8.7 x 10'4
19
226
.. ••••; „ "; ;\ vv
• >
1.0 x 1Q-4
1.5x 10'3
"Point Estimate values based on original exposure factors (unclianged).
''Refer to Run #4 in Appendix B.
Base case Monte Carlo = 5ffh percentile; High-End Monte Carlo = 95'* percentile.
As this comparison shows, the Monte Carlo HI and cancer risk increase by approximately 1.7
over their corresponding base case values for this scenario. This ratio is slightly larger than the
approximately 1.5-fold difference in the point estimate weighted PCB concentrations.
Fish Ingestion Rate. The point estimate and base case Monte Carlo used the 1991 New York
Angler survey as the basis for fish ingestion rates. As described in Chapter 3, the New York Angler
survey yielded higher estimates of fish ingestion than a number of other studies. The 1992 Maine Angler
survey (Ebert et al., 1993) yields the lowest estimate of fish ingestion of the studies examined. An
examination of the non-cancer hazards and cancer risk using the Maine fish ingestion rates yields the
following:
78
Gradient Corporation
-------
Sensitivity Analysis-Fish Ingestion Rate
Outcome
Point
Estimate"
Base Case
Monte Carlo
Using Maine Angler
Study Fish Ingestion -
Monte Carlob
Non-Cancer HI , •',.,". ;^<
Central Tendency (CT)
High-End (RME)
10
116
11
137
6
85
Cancer Risk ' • , i., - ' ' -
Central Tendency (CT)
High-End (RME)
3.4 x 10'5
1.1 x 10'3
6.4 x 10'5
8.7 x 1Q-4
3.4 x 1(T5
5.2 x 1Q-4
"Point Estimate values based on original exposure factors (unchanged).
''Refer to Run #28 in Appendix B.
Base case Monte Carlo = 5ffh percentile; High-End Monte Carlo - 95th percentile.
As this comparison shows, the Monte Carlo HI and cancer risk decrease by approximately 0.5
over their corresponding base case values for this scenario. This comparison indicates that adopting a
lower estimate of the fish ingestion rate than the base case estimate does not change the results
significantly.
Exposure Duration. The point estimate and base case Monte Carlo analysis defined exposure
duration based on the joint distribution of residence duration and fishing duration. As a sensitivity
analysis, residence duration alone was used to examine the non-cancer hazards and cancer risk under this
scenario:
Sensitivity Analysis-Exposure Duration
Outcome
Point
Estimate"
Base Case
Monte Carlo
Exposure Duration based
on Residence Duration
Only - Monte Carlob
NonrCancerHI '"' - < , '• ;."»,' "/J^i u"vV ' -'A - ' ' '** * '# '-|! • <•
Central Tendency (CT)
High-End (RME)
10
116
11
137
14
163
Cancer Risk '."'•'. "',/s
... .. . • • •:•-• • .in i • •> t
Central Tendency (CT)
High-End (RME)
3.4 x 10'5
1.1 x 10°
6.4 x 10"5
8.7 x 10'4
1.1 x ID'4
1.4x ID'3
"Point Estimate values based on original exposure factors (unchanged).
''Refer to Run #37 in Appendix B.
Base case Monte Carlo = 5ffh percentile; High-End Monte Carlo = 95'h percentile.
As this comparison shows, the Monte Carlo HI increases by approximately 1.2, and the cancer
risk increases by approximately 1.6 over their corresponding base case values for this scenario. This
comparison indicates that adopting a higher estimate of the exposure duration than the base case estimate
does not change the results significantly.
79
Gradient Corporation
-------
Population Risks. Consistent with USEPA's Superfund guidance, this risk assessment does not
estimate the number of anglers that consume their catch or the number of women of child-bearing age
exposed through consumption of fish because CERCLA requires consideration of risk to an individual
with a reasonable maximum exposure. It would be difficult to identify the number of anglers who are
consuming fish in the presence of fishing bans and health advisories, because of the potential for
underreporting and the threat of fines for anglers keeping fish from the Upper Hudson River. It is also
not possible to project with any certainty the number of potential anglers within various stretches of the
river who would consume fish if there were no health advisories in the Upper Hudson River.
Gradient Corporation
-------
References
-------
References
Achman, D.R., K.C. Hornbuckle, and S.J. Eisenreich. 1993. Volatilization of polychlorinated biphenyls
from Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27(l):75-84.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1996. "Public Health Implications of
PCB Exposures." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA. December.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997. "Toxicological Profile for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Public Health
Service, Atlanta, GA.
Ahlborg, U.G., G.C. Becking, L.S. Birnbaum, A. Brouwer, H.J.G.M. Derks, M. Feeley, G. Golor, A.
Hanberg, J.C. Larsen, A.K.D. Liem, S.H. Safe, C. Schlatter, F. Waern, M. Younes, and E. Yrjanheikki.
1994. Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxin-Like PCBs - Report on a WHO-ECEH and IPCS
Consultations, December 1993. Chemosphere 28(6):1049-1067'.
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.
Ambruster, G., K.G. Gerow, W.H. Gutenmann, C.B. Littman, and D.J. Lisk. 1989. Effects of trimming
and cooking by several methods on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) residues in bluefish. Journal of
Food Safety 9:235-244.
Arnold, D., F. Bryce, P. McGuire, R. Stapley, J. Tanner, E. Wrenshall, J. Mes, S. Fernie, H. Tryphonas,
S. Hayward, and S. Malcolm. 1995. Toxicological consequences of Aroclor 1254 ingestion by female
rhesus monkeys. Part 2 Reproduction and infant findings. Food Chem Toxicol. 33:457-474.
Barclay, B. 1993. "Hudson River Angler Survey." Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., Poughkeepsie,
New York.
Bopp, R.F. 1983. "Revised parameters for modeling the transport of PCB Components across an air
water interface." J. of Geophysical Research Vol 88(4): 2521-2529
Brainard and Burmaster. 1992. Bivariate distributions for height and weight of men and women in the
United States. Risk Anal. 12(2):267-275.
Buckley, E.H. and T.J. Tofflemire. 1983. Uptake of Airborne PCBs by Terrestrial Plants Near the
Tailwater of a Dam. Proc. Natl. Conf. on Environ. Eng., ASCE Specialty Conference, July 6-8. pg.
662-669.
Cogliano, V.J. 1998. "Assessing the cancer risk from environmental PCBs." Environmental Health
Perspectives 106(6):317-323.
Cohen, J.T., M.A. Lampson, and T.S. Bowers. 1996. The use of two-stage Monte Carlo simulation
techniques to characterize variability and uncertainty in risk analysis. Human Ecol Risk Assess 2(4):939-
971.
gl Gradient Corporation
-------
Connelly, N.A., and T.L. Brown. 1995. Use of Angler Diaries to Examine Biases Associated with 12-
Month Recall on Mail Questionnaires. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:413-422.
Connelly, N.A., T.L. Brown, and B.A. Knuth. 1990. "New York Statewide Angler Survey, 1988." New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries, Albany, New York. April.
Connelly, N.A., and B.A. Knuth. 1993. Great Lakes Fish Consumption Health Advisories: Angler
Response to Advisories and Evaluation of Communication Techniques. Human Dimension Research
Unit, Department of Natural Resources, New York State, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. HRDU Series No. 93-3. February.
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.)
Connelly, N.A., B.A. Knuth, and T.. Brown. 1996. Sportfish consumption patterns of Lake Ontario
anglers and the relationship to health advisories. N. Am. J. Fisheries Management 16:90.
Connelly, N.A., B.A. Knuth, and J.A. Vena. 1993. New York Angler Cohort Study: Health Advisory
Knowledge and Related Attitudes and Behavior, With a Focus on Lake Ontario. Human Dimension
Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, New York State, College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. HRDU Series No. 93-9. September.
Cordle, F., R. Locke, and J. Springer. 1982. Risk assessment in a federal regulatory agency: An
assessment of risk associated with the human consumption of some species of fish contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Environ. Health Perspect. 45:171-182.
Cunningham, P.A., J.M. McCarthy, and D. Zeitlin. 1990. Results of the 1989 Census of State
Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Programs. Prepared for the Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, USEPA, by the Research Triangle Institute and the
American Fisheries Society. August.
Ebert, E.S., N.W. Harrington, K.J. Boyle, J.W. Knight, and R.E. Keenan. 1993. Estimating consumption
of freshwater fish among Maine Anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:737-
745.
Ebert, E.S., P.S. Price, and R.E. Keenan. 1994. Selection of fish consumption estimates for use in the
regulatory process. J Exposure Anal Environ Epidem 4(3):373-393.
Finley et al. 1994. Recommended distributions for exposure factors frequently used in health risk
assessments." Risk Anal. 14(4):533-553.
Fischer, L.J., R.F. Seegal, P.E. Ganey, I.N. Pessah, and P.R.S. Kodavanti. 1998. Symposium overview:
toxicity of non-coplanar PCBs. Toxicological Sciences 41:49-61.
Gradient Corporation
-------
Fitzgerald, E.F., S.A. Hwang, K.A. Brix, B. Bush, K. Cook, and P. Worswick. 1995. Fish PCB
concentrations and consumption patterns among Mohawk women at Akwesasne. J Exposure Anal
Environ Epidem 5(1): 1-19.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1979. 44 FR 38330.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1996. Unavoidable Contaminants in Food for Human
Consumption and Food Packaging Material, Subpart B - Tolerances for Unavoidable Poisonous or
Deleterious Substances. 21 CFR 109.30
Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force (GLSFATF). 1993. "Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes
Sport Fish Consumption Advisory." September.
Hansen, L.G. 1998. Stepping backward to improve assessment of PCB congener toxicities.
Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (Suppl. 1): 171-189.
Harza Engineering Company. 1992. Ft. Edward Dam PCB Remnant Deposit Containment
Environmental Monitoring Program: Report of 1991 Results. March.
Hornbuckle, K.C., D.R. Achman, and S.J. Eisenreich. 1993. Over-water and over-land polychlorinated
biphenyls in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27(l):87-98.
Hornbuckle, K.C., J.D. Jeremiason, C.W. Sweet, and S.J. Eisenreich. 1994. Seasonal variations in
air-water exchange of polychlorinated biphenyls in Lake Superior. Environ. Sci. Technol.
28:1491-1501.
Jackson, J. 1990. Characterization of Angler Activity on the Hudson River Estuary, A Report of the
1990 Tiber T. Polgar Fellowship Program. Cornell University (Advisor Dr. D.M. Green).
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.
Lanting, C.I. 1999. Effects of Perinatal PCB and Dioxin Exposure and Early Feeding Mode on Child
Development. Thesis.
Mayes, B.A., et al. 1998. Comparative carcinogenicity in Sprague-Dawley rates of the polychlorinated
biphenyl mistres aroclors 1016, 1242, 1254, and 1260. Toxicological Sciences 41:62-76.
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.
National Research Council (NRC). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the
Process. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. Commission on
Life Sciences, NRC. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Nelson, E.D., L.L. McConnell, and J.E. Baker. 1998. Diffusive exchange of gaseous polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls across the air-water interface of the Chesapeake
Bay. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:912-292.
83 Gradierit Corporation
-------
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 1995. Health Advisories: Chemicals in Sport Fish
or Game 1995-1996. Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 1996. "1996-1997 Health Advisories: Chemicals in
Sport Fish or Game." Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 1998. Health Advisories: Chemicals in Sport Fish
or Game 1998-1999. Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 1999. 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.)
Olafsson, P.G., A.M. Bryan, B. Bush, and W. Stone, 1983. Snapping turtles -- A biological screen for
PCB's. Chemosphere, Vol. 12, No. 11/12, pp. 1525-1532.
Patandin, S. 1999. Effects of Environmental Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Dioxins on
Growth and Development in Young Children, A Prospective Follow-Up Study of Breast-Fed and
Formula-Fed Infants from Birth Until 42 Months of Age. Thesis.
Peterson, D.L. 1998. Assessment of the Striped Bass Fishery of the Hudson River, 1997. Prepared by
the New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, the Department of Natural Resources,
Cornell University, for the Hudson River Fishery Unit of the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation. March.
Price, P.S., S.H. Su, and M.N. Gray. 1994. The effect of sampling bias on estimates of Angler
consumption rates in Creel surveys. J Exposure Anal Environ Epidem 4(3):355-372.
Puffer, H.W. and R.W. Gossett. 1983. PCB, DDT, and Benzo(a)pyrene in raw and pan-fried White
Croaker (Genyonemus lineatus). Bull. Environm. Contain. Toxicol. 30:65-73.
Rice, D.C. 1999. Behavioral impairment produced by low-level postnatal PCB exposure in monkeys.
Environ. Res. Sec. A. 80:S113-S121.
Safe, S.H. 1990. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzofurans
(PCDFs), and related compounds: Environmental and mechanistic considerations which support the
development of toxic equivalency factors (TEFs). Critical Reviews in Toxicology 21 (1):51-88.
Safe, S.H. 1994. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Environmental impact, biochemical and toxic
responses, and implications for risk assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24(2):87-149.
Salama, A.A., M.A.M. Mohamed, B. Duval, T.L. Potter, and R.E. Levin. 1998. Polychlorinated
biphenyl concentration in raw and cooked North Atlantic bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) fillets. /. Agric.
FoodChem. 46:1359-1362.
Schecter, A., M. Dellarco, O. Papke, and J. Olson. 1998. A comparison of dioxins, dibenzofurans and
coplanar PCBs in uncooked and broiled ground beef, catfish and bacon. Chemosphere 37(9-12): 1723-
1730.
§4 Gradient Corporation
-------
Sherer, R.A. and P.S. Price. 1993. The effect of cooking processes on PCB levels in edible fish tissue.
Quality Assurance Good Practice, Regulation, and Law 2(4):396-407. December.
Skea, J.C., H.A. Simonin, E.J. Harris, S. Jackling, J.J. Spagnoli, J. Symula, and J.R. Colquhoun. 1979.
Reducing levels of mirex, Aroclor 1254, and DDE by trimming and cooking Lake Ontario Brown Trout
(Salmo trutta linnaeus) and Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieui lacepede). Internal. Assoc. Great
Lakes Res. 5(2):153-159.
Smith, W.E., K. Funk, and M.E. Zabik. 1973. Effects of cooking concentrations of PCB and DDT
compounds in Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Coho (O. kisutch) salmon from Lake Michigan.
Journal of Fisheries Research Board/Canada 30(5):702-706.
Stone, W.B., Kiviat, E. and Butkas, S.A., 1980. Toxicants in snapping turtles. New York Fish and Game
Journal. Vol 27, No. 1, pp. 39-50.
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.
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). 1984. Feasibility Study, Hudson River PCBs Site.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, New York, New York, April.
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 H by TAMS
Consultants, Inc. and Gradient Corporation. USEPA, Region II, New York, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991b "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). 1992a. Guidelines for exposure assessment. Federal
Register 57(104), May 29.
85 Gradient Corporation
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992b. "Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk
Managers and Risk Assessors." Memorandum from F. Henry Habicht, HI Deputy Administrator to
Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators. USEPA, Office of the Administrator,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992c. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:
Calculating the Concentration Term." Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
DC. Publication 9285.7-081, May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992d. Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish,
A Review and Analysis of Survey Methods. Office of Water, USEPA 822/R-92-001. February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation
Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600/8-90/066F. October.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995a. Volume 2A - Database Report, Hudson River
PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Developed for USEPA, Region n by TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Gradient
Corporation. USEPA, Region II, New York, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995b. "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). 1995c. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
User's guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) dispersion model 3rd edition, (revised). Volumes
1 and 2. Research Triangle Park, N.C. USEPA - 454/b-95-003a and -003b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996a. Volume 2B - Preliminary Model Calibration
Report, Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Developed for USEPA Region n by Limno-Tech, Inc.,
Menzie Cura & Associates, Inc. and the Cadmus Group, Inc. USEPA, Region II, New York, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996b. "Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment." Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USEPA/600/P-92/003C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996c. 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. "Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in
Risk Assessment at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, USEPA/630/R-97/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997b. "Special Report on Environmental Endocrine
Disruption: An Effects Assessment and Analysis." Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC, USEPA/630/R-96/012, February.
§5 Gradient Corporation
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997c. "Science Policy Council's Interim Position on
Endocrine Effects." In Special Report on Environmental Endocrine Disruption: An Effects Assessment
and Analysis. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USEPA/630/R-96/012, February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997d. 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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997e. "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). 1997f. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I-m.
Office of Research and Development, USEPA/600/P-95/002Fa, August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997g. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables,
FY 1997 Update. Solid Waste and Emergency Response, USEPA-540-R-97-036, July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998a. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS --
Phase 2 Human Health Risk Assessment Scope of Work. July, 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998b. 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.
87 Gradient Corporation
-------
Van den Berg, M., L. Birnbaum, A.T.C. Bosveld, B. Brunstrom, P. Cook, M. Freeley, J.P. Giesy, A.
Hanberg, R. Hasegawa, S.W. Kennedy, T. Kubiak, J.C. Larsen, F.X. Rolaf van Leeuwen, A.K. Djien
Liem, C. Nolt, R.E. Peterson, L. Poellinger, S. Safe, D. Schrenk, D. Tillitt, M. Tysklind, F. Waern, and T.
Zachareweski. 1998. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and
wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(12):775-792.
vonStackelberg, Trina, 1999. Menzie Cura, personal communication.
Wendt, M.E. 1986. Low Income Families' Consumption of Freshwater Fish Caught From New York
State Waters. Thesis, Cornell University. August.
West, P.C., M.J. Fly, R. Marans, and F. Larkin. 1989. "Michigan Sport Anglers Fish Consumption
Survey. A Report to the Michigan Toxic Substance Control Commission." Michigan Department of
Management and Budget Contract No. 87-20141.
Westat, Inc. 1989. Investigation of Possible Recall/Reference Period Bias in National Surveys of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, December.
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. J. of Toxicology and Environ. Health 39:375-382.
Wilson, N.D., N.M. Shear, D.J. Paustenbach, and P.S. Price. 1998. The effect of cooking practices on
the concentration of DDT and PCB compounds in the edible tissue offish. Journal of Exposure Analysis
and Environmental Epidemiology 8(3):423-440.
Zabik, M.E., A. Booren, M.J. Zabik, R. Welch, and H. Humphrey. 1996. Pesticides residues, PCBs and
PAHs in baked, charbroiled, salt boiled and smoked Great Lakes lake trout. Food Chemistry 55(3):231-
239.
Zabik, M.E., P. Hoollat, and C.M. Weaver. 1979. Polychlorinated biphenyls, dieldrin and DDT in lake
trout cooked by broiling, roasting or microwave. Bull. Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 21:136-143.
Zabik, M.E. and M.J. Zabik. 1996. Influence of processing on environmental contaminants in foods.
Food Technology 50(5):225-229.
Zabik, M.E., M.J. Zabik, A.M. Booren, M. Nettles, J. Song, R. Welch, and H. Humphrey. 1995a.
Pesticides and total polychlorinated biphenyls in Chinook Salmon and Carp harvested from the Great
Lakes: Effects on skin-on and skin-off processing and selected cooking methods. J. Agric. Food Chem.
43:993-1001.
Zabik, M.E., M.J. Zabik, A.M. Booren, S. Daubenmire, M.A. Pascall, R. Welch, and H. Humphrey.
1995b. Pesticides and total polychlorinated biphenyls residues in raw and cooked Walleye and White
Bass harvested from the Great Lakes. Bull. Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 54:396-402.
gg Gradient Corporation
-------
Tables
-------
TABLE 2-1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS - Phase 2 Risk Assessment
UPPER HUDSON RIVER
Scenario
Timeframe
Current/Future
Source
Medium
Rsh
Sediment
River Water
Home-grown
Crops
Beef
Dairy Products
Exposure
Medium
Fish
Sediment
Drinking Water
River Water
Outdoor Air
Vegetables
Beef
Milk, eggs
Exposure
Point
Upper Hudson Rsh
Banks of Upper Hudson
Upper Hudson River
Upper Hudson River
(wading/swimming)
Upper Hudson River
(River and near vicinity)
Upper Hudson vicinity
Upper Hudson vicinity
Upper Hudson vicinHy
Receptor
Population
Angler
Recreator
Resident
Recreator
Recreator
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Receptor
Age
Adult
Child "
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Adult
Adolescent
Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Dermal
Dermal
Dermal
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
On-Site/
Off-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
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
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
dual
Oual
Qual
dual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
Qual
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 activities along the river.
Considered in Phase 1 Risk Assessment and determined to have de minimis
risk. Concentrations below the MCL does not pose a risk during occasional
exposure, such as during swimming. Not evaluated further in this HHRA.
Recreators may come in contact with contaminated river water while wading
or swimmming.
Recreators may inhale volatilized PCBs while engaging in river-related
activities.
Nearby residents may inhale volatilized PCBs outside of their home.
Limited data; studies show low PCB uptake in forage crops.
Limited data; studies show non-detect PCB levels in cow's milk in NY.
Limited data; studies show non-detect PCB levels in cow's milk in NY.
Child angler considered in Monte Carlo analysis.
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-2
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Fish
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Poinl: Upper Hudson Fisti
CAS
Number
1336-36-3
Chemical
PCBs (3)
(1)
Minimum
Concentration
0.005
Minimum
Qualifier
N/A
d)
Maximum
Concentration
13.1
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
Toxicity Value
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
COPC
Flag
Ves
(2)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
FD, TX, ASL
(1) Minimum/maximum modeled concentration between 1999-2069 (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
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
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-3
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
UPPER HUDSON RIVER • Sediment
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
CAS
Number
1336-36-3
Chemical
PCBs (3)
(D
Minimum
Concentration
0.6
Minimum
Qualifier
N/A
0)
Maximum
Concentration
76.8
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
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 1999-2069 (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
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-4
OCCURRENCE. DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - River Water
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
xposure Point: Upper Hudson River
CAS
Number
1336-36-3
Chemical
PCBs (3)
0)
Minimum
Concentration
O.OOE+00
Minimum
Qualifier
N/A
(D
Maximum
Concentration
4.90E-04
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
Flag
Yes
(2)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
FD. TX, ASL
(1) Minimum/maximum modeled concentration between 1999-2069 (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 (BKS)
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
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-5
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
UPPER HUDSON RIVER -Outdoor Air
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River •• Water Vapor
CAS
Number
1336-36-3
Chemical
PCBs (5)
0)
Minimum
Concentration
N/A
Minimum
Qualifier
N/A
(1)
Maximum
Concentration
N/A
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
Units
N/A
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
N/A
Detection
Frequency
N/A
Range of
Detection
Limits
N/A
Concentration
Used for
Screening
N/A
(2)
Background
Value
N/A
(3)
Screening
Toxicity Value
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
N/A
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
N/A
COPC
Flag
Yes
(4)
Rationale for
Contaminant
Deletion
or Selection
FD, TX, ASL
(1) Minimum/maximum concentration.
(2) N/A - Refer to supporting information for background discussion.
Background values derived from statistical analysis. Follow Regional guidance and provide supporting information.
(3) Provide reference for screening toxicity value.
(5)
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)
Occurrence and distribution of PCBs in outdoor air is based on modeled river water concentrations, 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
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-6
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC MODELED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
UPPER HUDSON RIVER FISH - Thompson Island Pool
(Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
(Medium: Fish
(Exposure Medium: Fish
[[Exposure Point: Upper Hudson Fish - Thompson Island Pool
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
PCBs
in Brown Bullhead
in Largemouth Bass
in Yellow Perch
Species-weighted (1)
Species-weighted for chronic exposure (2)
Units
rug/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
Arithmetic
Mean'
2.8
1.4
1.3
1.9
1.9
95% UCLof
Normal
Data
••
•*
**
••
Maximum
Concentration
13.1
6.4
5.1
8.5
8.5
Maximum
Qualifier
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
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Medium
EPC
Value
4.7
2.3
2.1
3.3
7.6
Medium
EPC
Statistic
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
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Value
9.2
4.6
3.7
6.1
6.1
Medium
EPC
Statistic
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
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).
Arithmetic mean calculated from 50th percentile (median) and 95th percentile modeled concentrations assuming lognormal distributions. Mean is for 70 year time period. See text for discussion.
95% UCLM not calculated (see text).
ED = Exposure Duration
CT = Central Tendency
(1) PCB concentrations for each species were weighted based on species-group intake percentages (Connelly et al., 1992) 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) 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.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2.7
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC MODELED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
UPPER HUDSON RIVER FISH - River Mile 168
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson Fish - River Mile 168
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
PCBs
in Brown Bullhead
in Largemouth Bass
in Yellow 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
Arithmetic
Mean*
1.5
1.1
0.95
1.3
1.3
95% UCLof
Normal
Data
••
••
••
••
Maximum
Concentration
6.4
5.6
4.7
5.6
5.6
Maximum
Qualifier
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
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Medium
EPC
Value
2.6
2.0
1.6
2.2
5.1
Medium
EPC
Statistic
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
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Value
4.8
4.1
3.5
4.4
4.4
Medium
EPC
Statistic
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
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).
Arithmetic mean calculated from 50th percentile (median) and 95th percentile modeled concentrations assuming lognormal distributions. Mean is for 70 year time period. See text for discussion.
95% UCLM not calculated (see text).
ED = Exposure Duration
CT = Central Tendency
(1) PCS concentrations for each species were weighted based on species-group intake percentages (Connelly et al., 1992) 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) 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.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-8
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC MODELED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
UPPER HUDSON RIVER FISH - River Miles 157 and 154 (averaged)
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson Fish - River Miles 157 and 154 (averaged)
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
PCBs
in Brown Bullhead
in Largemouth Bass
in Yellow Perch
Species-weighted (1)
Species-weighted for chronic exposure (2)
Units
rug/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mg/kg wet
weight
mgAg wet
Arithmetic
Mean'
0.51
0.62
0.53
0.54
0.54
95% UCLof
Normal
Data
••
••
"•
••
Maximum
Concentration
2.8
3.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
Maximum
Qualifier
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
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Medium
EPC
Value
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
2.6
Medium
EPC
Statistic
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
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Value
1.9
2.4
2.1
2.2
2.2
Medium
EPC
Statistic
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
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).
Arithmetic mean calculated from 50th percentile (median) and 95th percentile modeled concentrations assuming lognormal distributions. Mean is for 70 year time period. See text for discussion.
95% UCLM not calculated (see text).
ED = Exposure Duration
CT = Central Tendency
(1) PCB concentrations lor each species were weighted based on species-group intake percentages (Connelly etal., 1992) 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) 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.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-9
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC MODELED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
PCBs
Units
mg/kg
Arithmetic
Mean
(1)
14.9
95% UCLof
Normal
Data
••
Maximum
Concentration
(1)
77
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
EPC
Units
mg/kg
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Medium
EPC
Value
28.7
Medium
EPC
Statistic
95th
percentile
area average
Medium
EPC
Rationale
High-end estimate
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Value
14.9
Medium
EPC
Statistic
mean area
average
Medium
EPC
Rationale
Central estimate
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 (see text).
(1) Mean/maximum of modeled concentration 1999-2020 (USEPA, 1999d).
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-10
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC MODELED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
PCBs
Units
mg/L
Arithmetic
Mean
(1)
2.4E-05
95% UCLof
Normal
Data
**
Maximum
Concentration
(1)
4.8E-04
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
EPC
Units
mg/L
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Medium
EPC
Value
3.1E-05
Medium
EPC
Statistic
95th
percentile
area average
Medium
EPC
Rationale
High-end estimate
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Value
2.4E-05
Medium
EPC
Statistic
mean area
average
Medium
EPC
Rationale
Central estimate
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 (see text).
(1) Mean/maximum of modeled concentration 1999-2020 (USEPA, 1999d).
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-11
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
PCBs
Units
mg/m3
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCLof
Normal
Data
Maximum
Concentration
Maximum
Qualifier
N/A
EPC
Units
mg/m3
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Medium
EPC
Value
1 .7E-05
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Used high-end empirical transfer
coefficient estimate
Medium
EPC
Rationale
High-end estimate
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Value
1.0E-06
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Used midpoint between
modeled concentration and
empirical transfer coefficient
estimate
Medium
EPC
Rationale
Central estimate
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCLof Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T); Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T);
Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).
Not applicable because outdoor air concentrations based on modeled river water concentrations (refer to Table A-2) and water to air transfer coefficient.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-12
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER FISH - Adult Angler
Scenario Timelrame: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Cftsn-C
Ctan-NC
IR*«
Loss
FS
EF
ED
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
PCB Concentration in Fish (Cancer)"
PCB 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/g
kg
days
days
RME
Value
2.2
5.1
31.9
0
1
365
40
7
1.00E-03
70
25,550
2,555
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Tables 2-6 through 2-8
See Tables 2-6 through 2-8
90th percentile value,
based on 1991 NY Angler
survey.
Assumes 100%PCBs
remains in fish.
Assumes 100% fish
ingested is from Upper
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
4.4
4.4
4.0
0.2
1
365
12
12
1.00E-03
70
25,550
4,380
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Tables 2-6 through 2-8
See Tables 2-6 through 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 Upper
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) =
Cut, x IR«» 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.
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-13
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT • Adult Recroator
Scenario Ttmelreme: Currant/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point; Banks ot Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adutt
exposure Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Parameter
Code
C^™,
IFW™
FS
EF
ED
OF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
ClvtmM*
DA
AF
SA
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Detinition
Chemical Concentration in Sedimen
Ingestion Rale ol Sediment
Fraction from Source
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Chemical Concentration in Sedimen
Dermal Absorption
Adherance Factor
Surface Area
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weigh!
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
unit less
days/yaar
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
unitless
mg/cm*
cmVevenl
event/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
RME
Value
28.7
SO
1
13
23
1.00E-O6
70
25.55O
6.395
28.7
0.14
0.3
6.073
13
23
100E-O6
70
25.550
8.395
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean adult soil ingestion
rate (USEPA. 1997f).
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Upper
Hudson.
1 day/week. 3 months/yr
derived from 95lh
percentile ol residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adutt body weight.
males and females
(USEPA. 1 939b).
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 (read
gatherer) : hands, lower
legs, forearms, and lace
(USEPA, 19991).
Ave male/female 50th
percentile: hands, lower
lags, forearms, feel, end
lace (USER A. 19971).
1 day/week, 3 monlhs/yr
derived Irom 95th
percentile ol residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adult body weight.
males and females
(USEPA. 1989U)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. I9895).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
value
14.9
50
1
^
s
1.00E-O6
70
25.550
t.825
14,9
0.14
0.3
6.073
7
5
100E-O6
70
25.550
1.625
CT
Rational*/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean adult soil ingestion
rate (USEPA. 19970.
Assumes 10O% sediment
exposure is from Upper
Hudson.
Approximately 50% ol RME
derived from 50th
percentile ol residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adult body weight.
males and females
(USEPA. I989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year
See Table 2-9
Based on absorption ol
PCBs from soil in monkeys
(Wester. 1993).
50% value for adult (reed
gatherer) : hands, lower
legs, forearms, and face
(USEPA, 19991).
Ave male/female 50th
percentile: hands, lower
legs, forearms, leel. and
lace (USEPA. 19971).
Approx 50% ol RME
derived Irom SOIh
percentile ol residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adutt 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/
Mode! Namo
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) °
C..»OT * IRunn 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
Crailitiit C
Momb«r. IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-14
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT • Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Ttmetrama: Current/Future
hjm Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Parameter
Code
C..BOT
IR-™,
FS
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Cwtflmir*
DA
AF
SA
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Delhitbn
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Ingestion Rate ol Sediment
Fraction from Source
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Dermal Absorpl ion
Adherance Factor
Surface Area
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
mo/kg
mg/day
unilless
days/year
years
kg/mg
ks
days
days
mgAg
unitless
mg/cnV
cmvevenl
event/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
RUE
Value
28.7
SO
1
39
12
1.00E-06
43
25.550
4.380
28.7
0.14
0.25
4.263
39
12
l.OOE-06
43
25.550
4.380
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean soil ingestion tale
(USEPA, 19971).
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is trom Upper
Hudson.
3 days/week. 3 months/yr
derived Irani 95lh
percentile ol residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and temales
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 1989b).
ED (years) < 365 days/year.
See Table 2-9
Based on absorption of
PCBs from soil in monkeys
(Wester. 1993).
Midpoint of adutt and child
AF: Hands, lower legs.
forearms, and lace
(USEPA. 19991).
Ave mate/female 50lh
percentile age 12: hands.
lower legs, forearms, feet.
and face (USEPA. 19971).
3 days/week. 3 months/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adolescent body
weighl. males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. !989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
14.9
50
1
20
3
l.OOE-06
43
25.550
1.095
14.9
0.14
0.25
4.263
20
3
l.OOE-06
43
25.550
1.095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean soil ingestion rate
(USEPA. 19971).
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Upper
Hudson.
Approximately 50% ol RME
derived from 50th
percentile ol residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA. 1989b)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 o/yr (USEPA. 198%)
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. 19991).
Ave male/female 50th
percentile age 12: hands.
lower legs, forearms, feet.
and lace (USEPA. 19971).
Approximately 50% ol RME
derived from 50th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 19896).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Dally Intake (mg/kg-day) =
G..O™, x IFU™ x FS x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
G..O™, x DA x AF x SA x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x I/AT
adient Corfvrdtian
M«mb»f. FT Group
-------
TABLE 2-15
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT • Child Recreate*
Scenario Timelrame: Currant/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure Roul
Ingaslion
Dermal
Parameter
Code
CiMowa
IP*-™»
FS
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
C.^«
DA
AF
SA
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Deiinakwi
Chemical Concentration in Sedimen
Ingeslion Rale ol Sedment
Fraction Irom 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
mj/Vg
mc/day
undless
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
unnuss
mg/cnv
cmVevent
event/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
PV.E
Valui
28.7
100
1
13
6
1.00E-O6
15
25.550
2.190
28.7
0.14
02
2.792
13
6
I.OOE-06
15
25.550
2.190
RUE
Rationale/
Reference
S«e Table 2-9
Mean child soil ingestion
rale (USEPA. 19971).
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Upper
Hudson.
1 day/week. 3 monlhs/yr
derived from 951h
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
-
Mean child body weight.
males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 1989D).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Sae Table 2-9
Based on absorption of
PC8s from soil in monkeys
(Wester. 1993).
50% value for children
(moist soil) : hands, tower
legs, loraaims. and face
(USEPA. 19991).
50th petcentile ave lor
mala/female child age 6:
hands, lower legs.
forearms, leet. and lace
(USEPA. 19971).
1 day/week. 3 months/yr
derived Irom 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean child body weighl.
males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 4Vr (USEPA 198»|
ED (years) x 365 daystyear.
CT
Value
14.9
100
1
7
3
I.OOE-06
15
25.550
1.095
14.9
0.14
0.2
2.792
7
3
100E-06
15
25.550
1.095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-9
Mean child soil ingestion
rate (USEPA. 19970-
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Upper
Hudson.
Approx. 50% ol RME
derived from 50th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
-
Mean child body weight.
males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA. 19886).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
See Table 2-9
Based on absorption ol
PCBs trom soil in monkeys
(Waster. 1993).
50% value lor children
(moist soil) : hands, lower
legs, forearms, and face
(USEPA, 19991).
50th petcentile ave for
male/female child age 6:
hands, lower legs.
forearms, feet, end face
(USEPA. 19971).
Approx. 50% of RME
derived from 50th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
Mean child body weighl.
males and females
(USEPA. 1989b).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 OVyr (USEPA. 19890).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
Intake Equation'
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
C«™ x IR^«, x FS x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x I/AT
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) «
C^o™, x DA x AF x SA x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Gradient Corporation
M«mb«i, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-16
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
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/cnv>
kg
days
days
RME
Value
3.1E-05
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 5 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
2.4E-05
0.48
18,150
2.6
7
5
1.00E-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 5
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.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
Cwa,.r x Kp x SA x DE x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/A1
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-17
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure Route
Dermal
Parameter
Code
Cwaiaf
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
3.1E-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 lor
swimming (USEPA,
1989b).
3 days/week. 3 months/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper Hudson
Counties (see text)
-
Mean adolescent body
weight, males and females
(USEPA, 1989U).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365 days/year.
CT
Value
2.4E-05
0.48
13,100
2.6
20
3
1.00E-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 5
Upper 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/A1
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-18
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure Route
Dermal
Parameter
Code
^walar
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
Uctn3
kg
days
days
RME
Value
3.1E-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 5 Upper 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
2.4E-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 5
Upper 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) =
Cwi!,.r x Kp x SA x DE x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/A1
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-19
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Route
Inhalation
Parameter
Code
C..
IRi.
DE
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Air
Inhalation Rate of Air
Duration of Event
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
ug/m3
m3/hour
hours/day
days/year
years
mg/ug
kg
days
days
RME
Value
1 .7E-02
1.6
4
13
23
1 .OOE-03
70
25.550
8,395
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-1 1
Mean inhalation rate for
adults during short-term,
moderate activities
(USEPA, 1997f).
Site-specific assumption
1 day/week, 3 months/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 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
1 .OE-03
1.6
4
7
5
1 .OOE-03
70
25.550
1.825
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2- 11
Mean inhalation rate for
adults during short-term,
moderate activities
(USEPA, 1997f).
Site-specific assumption
Approx. 50% of RME
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 5
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.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
Ca.xIR.iXDExEFxEDxCFx 1/BW x 1/AT
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-20
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River - Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure Route
Inhalation
Parameter
Code
C»
IR«
DE
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Air
Inhalation Rate of Air
Duration of Event
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
ug/m3
m3/hour
hours/day
days/year
years
mg/ug
Kg
days
days
RME
Value
1.7E-02
1.6
4
39
12
1.00E-03
43
25.550
4,380
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-1 1
Mean inhalation rate for
adults during short-term,
moderate activities
(USE PA. 1997f).
Site-specific assumption
3 days/week, 3 months/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper
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 .OE-03
1.6
4
20
3
1.00E-03
43
25,550
1,095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-1 1
Mean inhalation rate for
adults during short-term,
moderate activities
(USEPA, 19970.
Site-specific assumption
Approx. 50% of RME
derived from 50th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper 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) =
CM x IR* x DE x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-21
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure Route
Inhalation
Parameter
Code
C,,
IR..
DE
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Air
Inhalation Rate of Air
Duration of Event
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
ug/m3
rrfVhour
hours/day
days/year
years
mg/ug
kg
days
days
RME
Value
1 .7E-02
1.2
4
13
6
1 .OOE-03
15
25,550
2,190
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-1 1
Mean inhalation rate for
children during short-term,
moderate activities
(USE PA, 1997f).
Site-specific assumption
1 day/week, 3 months/yr
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper
Hudson Counties (see text]
-
Mean child body weight,
males and females
(USEPA, 1989D).
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 d/yr (USEPA, 1989b).
ED (years) x 365
days/year.
CT
Value
1.0E-03
1.2
4
7
3
1. OOE-03
15
25,550
1,095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2- 11
Mean inhalation rate for
children during short-term,
moderate activities
(USEPA, 1997f).
Site-specific assumption
Approx. 50% Of RME
derived from 50th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper 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 DE x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-22
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Route
Inhalation
Parameter
Code
C,,
lRal,
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Air
Inhalation Rale of Air
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
ug/m3
m3/day
days/year
years
mg/ug
kg
days
days
RME
Value
1 .7E-02
20
350
23
1 .OOE-03
70
25,550
8,395
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2- 11
RME inhalation rate
(USEPA, 1991D).
USEPA(1991b)
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 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
1.0E-03
20
350
5
1 .OOE-03
70
25,550
1,825
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2- 11
RME inhalation rate
(USEPA, 1991b).
USEPA (1 991 b)
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 5
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.
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Average Daily Intake (mg/kg-day) =
Ca» x IFU x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-23
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Resident
icenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure Route
Inhalation
Parameter
Code
C»
IR«
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Air
Inhalation Rate of Air
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
Mg/m3
rrfVday
days/year
years
mg/ug
kg
days
days
RME
Value
1 7E-02
13.5
350
12
1.00E-03
43
25.550
4,380
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-1 1
Mean long-term inhalation
rate for adolescents, aged
12-14(USEPA, 19971).
USEPA(1991b)
derived from 95th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper
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
1.0E-03
13.5
350
3
1.00E-03
43
25,550
1,095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-1 1
Mean long-term inhalation
rate for adolescents, aged
12-14 (USEPA, 1997f).
USEPA (1991 b)
derived from 50th
percentile of residence
duration in 5 Upper 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 CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 2-24
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River - Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure Route
Inhalation
Parameter
Code
C»,
IR»,
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Air
Inhalation Rate of Air
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time (Cancer)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
Units
ug/m3
nWday
days/year
years
mg/ug
kg
days
days
RME
Value
1.7E-02
8.3
350
6
1.00E-03
15
25,550
2,190
RME
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-1 1
Mean long-term inhalation
rate for children aged 3-5
years (USEPA, 1997f).
USEPA (1991b)
derived from 95th percentile
of residence duration in 5
Upper 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 .OE-03
8.3
350
3
1.00E-03
15
25,550
1,095
CT
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 2-1 1
Mean long-term inhalation
rate for children aged 3-5
years (USEPA, 1997f).
USEPA (1 991 b)
derived from 50th percentile
of residence duration in 5
Upper 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) =
Cai, x IR.J, x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Table 3-1
Summary of Fish Ingestion Rates
1991 New York Angler Survey(a>
Percentiles
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
Arith. Mean
Ingestion Rate
(meals/yr)
1
2
3
5
6.4
10
15
28
51
102
292
393
28
Ingestion Rate
(g/day)
0.62
1.2
1.9
3.1
4.0
6.2
9.3
17.4
31.9
63.4
182
244
17.3
Notes:
tal Distribution percentiles from the 1991 New York Angler Survey
(Connelly et ai. 1992)
Gradient Cur^o
Mtmlvr. IT
-------
Table 3-2
Fish Ingestion Rate Summary for Several Surveys
Study
Average Daily Fish Consumption (g/day)
Central Estimate'"' High End Estimate"11
7997 New York angler survey
(Connelly et al., 1992)
All flowing waterbodies
EPA Exposure Factors Handbook
(USEPA, 1997f)
Recreational freshwater anglers
7993 Maine Angler Survey
(Ebertetal., 1993)
All flowing waterbodies
Assuming fish shared with household
Assuming only angler consumes fish
7992 Lake Ontario Diary Study
(Connelly et al, 1996)
Sport-caught fish
Fish - all sources
4.0
0.99
2.5
2.2
14.1
31.9
25
12
27
17.9
42.3
7959 Michigan Survey
(West et al., 1989 as cited in USEPA, 7997/J
Recreational fish intake
10.9
38.7
Notes:
'"' Central estimate represents mean intake for value from the EPA Exposure Factors
Handbook (I997f), and 50th percentile values from all other studies listed.
'*' High end estimate is 90th percentile for 1991 New York Angler survey
and 95th percentile for all others.
Gradient Cnrponnitin
Mi'iiiht'i: IT Group
-------
Table 3-3
Summary of 1991 New York Angler Survey
Fish Consumption by Species Reported
Water Body Type/
Species Group
Rowing
Bass
Walleye
Bullhead
Carp
Eel
Perch
Subtotal
Salmon
Trout
Catfish
Other
Total All Fish
Not Flowing
Bass
Walleye
Bullhead
Carp
Eel
Perch
Subtotal
Salmon
Trout
Catfish
Other
Total All Fish
Not Reported
Bass
Walleye
Bullhead
Carp
Eel
Perch
Subtotal
Salmon
Trout
Catfish
Other
Total A 11 Fish
Number
Reporting
Eating Fish
68
36
23
2
4
17
35
130
11
45
154
112
53
4
2
51
55
152
10
94
128
34
55
5
5
24
14
148
4
104
Total
Caught
1,842
333
1,092
[b]
38
833
4,138
559
3,099
158
2,871
10,825
3,370
2,292
1,200
7
2
2,289
9,160
538
2,428
46
5,976
18,148
4,006
389
2,374
16
9
338
7,132
139
2,836
40
7,731
17,878
Total
Eaten
584
134
558
90
38
139
1,543
193
1,230
113
1,025
4,104
1,032
1,054
634
29
3
816
3,568
480
1,400
46
2,125
7,619
1,110
206
1,099
11
13
222
2,661
120
1,319
17
2,559
6,676
Average
Number
Eaten""
8.6
3.7
24.3
45.0
9.5
8.2
5.5
9.5
10.3
22.8
6.7
9.4
12.0
7.3
1.5
16.0
8.7
9.2
4.6
22.6
8.7
6.1
20.0
2.2
2.6
9.3
8.6
8.9
4.3
24.6
Standard
Deviation N
19.2
4.2
61.9
42.4
10.6
12.5
5.3
15.7
15.5
50.1
12.0
14.2
21.5
6.7
0.7
32.4
15.2
18.3
6.9
58.1
17.0
8.8
43.2
1.6
2.5
21.7
7.3
16.8
2.8
72.2
Maximum
Number
Eaten
145
20
300
75
25
51
25
133
50
200
100
75
100
14
2
200
80
150
20
403
100
40
225
(
i
100
20
157
*•
630
Percent of
Hudson
Species
38%
9%
36%
6%
2%
9%
100%
29%
30%
18%
0.8%
0.1%
23%
100%
42%
8%
41%
0.4%
0.5%
8%
100%
Percent of
All Fish
14%
3%
14%
2%
0.9%
3%
38%
5%
30%
3%
25%
100%
14%
14%
8%
0.4%
0.04%
11%
47%
6%
18%
0.6%
28%
100%
17%
3%
16%
0.2%
0.2%
3%
40%
2%
20%
0.3%
38%
100%
Notes:
'"' Mean and Standard Deviation are over number of anglers reporting they ate particular species.
|h| Number caught not reported.
Modeled PCIi concentration estimates are available for species in Bold
Source: Connellv el al. (1992)
Gradient Corporation
Member. The IT Group
-------
Table 3-4
Species-Group Intake Percentages
Using 1991 New York Angler Survey Data
Group 1
Brown bullhead 36%
Carp 6%
Eel 2%
Species Group Totals 44%
Group 2
Bass 38%
Walleye 9%
47%
Group 3
Perch 9%
9%
Gradient Corporation
An IT Company
-------
Table 3-5
Summary of PCB Losses from Fish due to Cooking
Study
Armbruster el til., 1987
Armbruster ft ul., 1989
Moyaer ul.. 1998
Puffer and Gossett, 1983
Salaina e I ul.. 1998
Schecler e I at., 1998
Skea etui.. 1979
Smilh eitil.. 1973
Zabik et
-------
Table 3-5 (cont.)
Summary of PCB Losses from Fish due to Cooking
Study
Type of Fish
Location
Preparation Method
Cooking Method
Zabik m//., !995b
Zabik eliil.. 1996
Walleye
While Bass
Lake Trout (lean)
Lakes Erie, Huron and Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Huron
Lakes Huron, Michigan and
Ontario
filleted -
filleted -
filleted -
filleted •
filleted •
filleted •
filleted
skin on
skin on
skin on
skin on
skin on
skin on
skin on
filleted - skin off
Baked
Charb roiled
Baked or Charbroiled
Baked or Charbroiled
Baked or Charbroiled
Pan fried
Pan fried
Baked
Percent PCB Loss from
Fish
Zabik et al., I995a Chinook Salmon Lakes Huron/Michigan
Lakes Huron/Michigan
Lakes Huron/Michigan
Lakes Huron/Michigan
Carp Lakes Erie and Huron
Lakes Erie and Huron
Lakes Erie and Huron
Lakes Erie and Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Huron
trimmed, skin-on
trimmed, skin- off
trimmed, skin-on
trimmed, skin- off
trimmed, skin-on
trimmed, skin- off
trimmed, skin-on
trimmed, skin-off
trimmed, skin-on or off
trimmed, skin-on or off
Baked
Baked
Charbroiled
Charbroiled
Pan-fried
Pan-fried
Deep-fried
Deep-fried
Deep fried or Pan fried
Deep fried or Pan fried
37
37
45
48
31
32
32
26
22
44
19
25
17
24
25
18
44
13
Lake Michigan
Fat Troul (Siscowets) Lake Superior
Lake Huron
filleted - skin off
filleted - skin off
filleted - skin off
filleted - skin off
filleted - skin on
filleted - skin off
filleted - skin off
filleted - skin off
filleted - skin on
Charbroiled
Baked
Charbroiled
Saltboiled
Smoked
Baked
Charbroiled
Saltboiled
Smoked
11
10
7
10
41
18
32
19
37
Note: PCB losses for Annbusier (1987) and Zabik et al. (I995a. b, and 1996) were calculated from values in the studies for mass of PCB in fish before and after cooking.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Table 3-6
Joint Distribution Over Current Age and Age at Which Individual Started Fishing
Age
Started
Fishing
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Now
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
30
40
50
60
70
80
40
50
60
70
80
50
60
70
80
60
70
80
70
80
80
Fraction of Individuals Among
All Anglers Currently Living in the Individuals in the Upper Hudson
Upper Hudson Region Region Who Started Fishing
Recently
16.8% 72.3%
16.8%
16.8%
16.8%
8.6%
5.5%
0.9%
0.2%
2.6% 1 1 .2%
2.6%
2.5%
0.8%
0.7%
0.3%
0.1%
1.9% 8.3%
1.9%
0.6%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
1.3% 5.5%
0.6%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.4% 1 .8%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2% 0.7%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0% 0.1%
0.0%
0.0% 0.1%
Source: 1991 New York Angler Survey, (Connelly, et al., 1992).
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
Table 3-7
Time Until Individual Stops Fishing
Age
Started
Fishing
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Now
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
20
30
40
50
60
70
30
40
50
60
70
40
50
60
70
50
60
70
60
70
70
Probability
that Individual Will Stop Fishing in Exactly This Many Years
10 20
0%
0%
0%
48%
36%
83%
100%
0%
4%
67%
14%
64%
100%
0%
69%
62%
75%
100%
53%
43%
83%
100%
0%
93%
100%
67%
100%
100%
0%
0%
48%
19%
53%
17%
4%
64%
5%
55%
36%
69%
19%
29%
25%
20%
48%
17%
93%
7%
33%
30 40 50 60 70
0% 48% 19% 27% 6%
48% 19% 27% 6%
19% 27% 6%
27% 6%
11%
64% 4% 17% 10%
4% 17% 10%
18% 10%
31%
19% 9% 3%
9% 3%
10%
22% 4%
10%
7%
Source: 1991 New York Angler Survey, (Connelly, et al., 1992).
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
Notes:
Table 3-8
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Albany County, NY
Age Group
5 to 9
10 to 14
1 5 to 1 9
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+
No Move
Move In
Total
From
Abroad
Total from
Outside Region"
Domestic
Total
Outside
Region"
Inside Region"
Total
Albany Rensselaer
8,638
10,128
1 1 ,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
2,111
1,604
4,958
11,187
6,825
5,388
5,818
2,185
1,225
982
644
355
6,663
4,652
4,448
8,173
11,103
11,712
14,194
5,537
3,515
3,129
2,248
1,391
5,795
4,253
3,713
6,188
9,111
10,256
12,533
4,866
3,099
2,867
1,984
1,227
536
304
428
995
1366
840
980
458
222
179
190
117
From
Saratoga
262
86
177
705
526
558
592
208
170
74
49
41
Warren Washington
18
0
61
165
83
23
53
5
24
0
0
0
52
9
69
120
17
35
36
0
0
9
25
6
2,339
1,830
5,194
11,615
7,465
5,946
6.225
2,462
1,322
1,060
666
355
The Upper Hudson Region consists of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, and Washington Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Noies:
Table 3-9
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Rensselaer County, NY
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+
No Move
Move In
Total
From
Abroad
Total from
Outside Region8
Domestic
Total
Outside
Region*
Inside Region'
Total
From
Albany Rensselaer Saratoga
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
4,689
3,535
4,913
8,504
8,432
7,755
8,919
3,174
2,079
1,707
1,139
520
965
686
2,301
3,670
2,144
1,935
1,994
599
482
320
154
99
3,724
2,849
2,612
4,834
6,288
5,820
6,925
2,575
1,597
1,387
985
421
656
438
368
776
1211
1419
1503
495
264
216
205
75
2,902
2,283
2,084
3,777
4,713
4,076
5,030
1,951
1,303
1,101
730
328
131
101
128
215
295
273
297
85
24
62
41
12
Warren Washington
0
0
14
21
18
37
20
13
0
0
6
0
35
27
18
45
51
15
75
31
6
8
3
6
1 ,045
759
2,514
4,106
2,579
2,156
2,124
639
528
325
161
99
The Upper Hudson Region consists of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, and Washington Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Notes:
Table 3-10
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Saratoga County, NY
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+
No Move
Move In
Total
From
Abroad
Total from
Outside Region"
Domestic
Total
Outside
Region8
Inside Region8
Total
Albany Rensselaer
3,149
2,652
2,155
3,303
4,791
4,614
6,540
2,804
1,558
978
577
248
5,752
3,728
6,006
9,955
12,284
10,539
11,469
4,089
2,452
1,868
997
506
80
73
213
436
435
221
130
40
46
5
7
0
5,672
3,655
5,793
9,519
1 1 ,849
10,318
11,339
4,049
2,406
1,863
990
506
675
611
2,305
3,685
1,203
1,372
1,478
484
228
228
235
100
4,997
3,044
3,488
5,834
1 0,646
8,946
9,861
3,565
2,178
1,635
755
406
474
287
185
443
1230
1375
1179
426
347
187
52
57
293
140
171
229
580
419
622
111
53
35
34
6
From
Saratoga
3,885
2,403
2,964
4,792
8,130
6,639
7,450
2,826
1,630
1,257
581
314
Warren Washington
198
119
113
229
413
342
381
112
75
103
50
14
147
95
55
141
293
171
229
90
73
53
38
15
755
684
2,518
4,121
1,638
1 ,593
1,608
524
274
233
242
100
The Upper Hudson Region consists of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, and Washington Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Notes:
Table 3-11
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Warren County, NY
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+
No Move
Move In
Total
From
Abroad
Total from
Outside Region"
Domestic
Total
Outside
Region"
Inside Region8
Total
From
Albany Rensselaer Saratoga
1,760
2,109
2,646
1,550
1,187
1,635
4,833
4,521
4,078
3,709
2,149
677
2,429
1,879
1,765
2,538
3,392
3,247
4,111
1,700
1,263
1,128
540
348
44
32
32
57
30
47
83
31
10
17
0
0
2,385
1,847
1,733
2,481
3,362
3,200
4,028
1,669
1,253
1,111
540
348
680
482
671
611
1,136
967
1,215
571
527
429
144
75
1,705
1,365
1,062
1,870
2,226
2,233
2,813
1,098
726
682
396
273
35
19
6
13
97
113
42
13
45
3
7
0
0
33
20
2
19
0
48
14
8
12
0
0
184
180
136
155
223
190
326
93
71
81
57
39
Warren Washington
1,333
1,020
828
1,479
1,637
1,757
2,153
878
507
540
313
208
153
113
72
221
250
173
244
100
95
46
19
26
724
514
703
668
1,166
1,014
1,298
602
537
446
144
75
The Upper Hudson Region consists ojAlbany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, and Washington Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Notes:
Table 3-12
County-to-County In-Migration Data for Washington County, NY
Age Group
5 to 9
lOto 14
1 5 to 1 9
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+
No Move
IVfove In
Total
From
Abroad
Total from
Outside Region3
Domestic
Total
Outside
Region'
Inside Region0
Total
From
Albany Rensselaer Saratoga
2,438
2,544
2,756
1,731
1,464
2,093
5,534
4,350
4,313
3,824
1,822
656
1,878
1,541
1,483
2,638
3,595
3,159
3,233
1,538
953
749
492
228
3
0
30
12
32
68
6
2
2
0
2
0
1,875
1,541
1,453
2,626
3,563
3,091
3,227
1,536
951
749
490
228
483
442
372
824
1,336
1,161
1,118
432
285
254
112
90
1,392
1,099
1,081
1,802
2,227
1,930
2,109
1,104
666
495
378
138
14
8
0
6
96
75
45
21
3
2
0
0
48
34
26
58
70
77
80
49
25
25
6
0
148
92
83
148
133
267
227
132
74
40
47
26
Warren Washington
193
162
99
187
324
265
355
134
116
47
54
26
989
803
873
1403
1604
1246
1402
768
448
381
271
86
486
442
402
836
1,368
1,229
1,124
434
287
254
114
90
The Upper Hudson Region consists of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, and Washington Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Notes:
Table 3-13
County-to-County In-Migration Data for The Upper Hudson Region"
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+
No Move
Total
From
Abroad
Move
In
Total from
Outside Region3
Domestic
Total
Outside
Region0
Inside Region"
Total
Albany Rensselaer
21,562
23,588
25,661
19,507
16,720
2 1 ,774
55,782
42,696
42,068
37,901
21,090
6,773
23,830
17,238
24,022
43,859
46,706
42,579
48,281
18,540
11,630
9,646
6,089
3,348
435
404
724
1,369
1,572
1,115
756
390
201
105
38
0
23,395
16,834
23,298
42,490
45,134
41 ,464
47,525
18,150
11,429
9,541
6,051
3,348
4,914
3,825
10,607
19,977
12,644
10,823
11,623
4,271
2,747
2,213
1,289
719
18,481
13,009
12,691
22,513
32,490
30,641
35,902
13,879
8,682
7,328
4,762
2,629
6,974
5,005
4,272
7,426
11,745
13,238
15,302
5,821
3,758
3,275
2,248
1,359
3,779
2,794
2,729
5,061
6,748
5,412
6,760
2,583
1,611
1,352
960
451
From
Saratoga
4,610
2,862
3,488
6,015
9,307
7,927
8,892
3,344
1,969
1,514
775
432
Warren Washington
1,742
1,301
1,115
2,081
2,475
2,424
2,962
1,142
722
690
423
248
1,376
1,047
1,087
1,930
2,215
1,640
1,986
989
622
497
356
139
5,349
4,229
11,331
21,346
14,216
11,938
12,379
4,661
2,948
2,318
1,327
719
The Upper Hudson Region consists of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, and Washington Counties.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Notes:
Table 3-14
Computation of 1-Year Move Probabilities for the Upper Hudson Region
Age Group Ini98j.9o.ka Sfc
(k)
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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
5,349
4,229
11,331
21,346
14,216
11,938
12,379
4,661
2,948
2,318
1,327
719
»rti9gs-9o,k Starti9gs-9o,k+ic Oiiti98j.9o,kd Probability of
Moving in a
5-year Period'
21,562
23,588
25,661
19,507
16,720
21,774
55,782
42,696
42,068
37,901
21,090
6,773
23,588
25,661
19,507
16,720
21,774
27,89 lg
42,696
42,068
37,901
21,090
6,773
NAh
3,323
2,156
17,485
24,133
9,162
5,821
25,465
5,289
7,115
19,129
15,644
7,492
12.3%
7.8%
47.3%
59.1%
29.6%
17.3%
37.4%
11.2%
15.8%
47.6%
69.8%
Pk.1
2.5%
1.6%
9.5%
11.8%
5.9%
3.5%
7.5%
2.2%
3.2%
9.5%
14.0%
100%'
Taken from the column labeled, "Total from Outside Region" in Table 3-13.
Taken from the column labeled, "No Move " in Table 3-13.
Set equal to the value of Start iyS}.w.t in the preceding row.
OutiySS.wk = (Startlygj.wj - Start/
Out,
Set equal to
'1985-90,*
^"
1985-90,*
/ Set equal to 1/5 x the probability of moving in a 5-year period.
g. The value in this cell is 1/2 the value listed for 5lar//9S5.w7 to make Start, ws-vti.fi and 5wri/vgj.w7 comparable. The adjustment addresses the fact thai Age
Croup 7 represents 10 years (ages 35 to 44), whereas Age Group 6 represents 5 years (ages 30 to 34).
h. Since Age Group 12 (ages 85+) is the last age group, there is no value for Start i^s-w.u-
i. 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.
Gradient Corporation
-------
Table 3-15
Annual Probability That Individual Will Leave Region3
Current Age
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
Annual Probability of Leaving
Upper Hudson Region
1.6%
9.5%
11.8%
5.9%
3.5%
7.5%
2.2%
3.2%
9.5%
14.0%
100%
Notes:
a. From Pkl in.Table 3-14.
Gradient Coiyoratio
Member. IT Group
-------
Notes:
Table 3-16
Age-Specific Body Weight Distributions
Body Weight (kg)
Age
(Years)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
>18
>18
>18
Gender
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
both
male
female
Arithmetic
Mean3
11.8
13.6
15.7
17.8
20.1
23.1
25.1
28.4
31.3
37.0
41.3
44.9
49.5
56.6
60.5
67.7
67.0
71.0
78.7
65.4
Arithmetic Std
Deviation8
1.4
1.6
1.7
2.3
2.8
3.5
3.8
5.2
5.0
7.5
10.5
10.0
10.5
10.3
9.7
11.6
11.5
15.9
13.5
15.3
Geometric Geometric
Mean Standard
Deviation
11.72
13.51
15.61
17.65
19.91
22.84
24.82
27.94
30.91
36.26
40.03
43.83
.13
.12
.11
.14
.15
.16
.16
.20
.17
.22
.28
.25
48.42 1.23
55.69 1.20
59.74 1.17
66.73 1.19
66.03 1.19
69.28 1.25
77.57 1.19
63.68 1.26
Source: Finleyetal. (1994), Table 2.
Gradient Coloration
Meinher, IT Gmufi
-------
-This Page Left Blank Intentionally --
Gradient Cc>i7><»vi//
-------
TABLE 4-1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL
UPPER HUDSON RIVER
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Aroclor 1 254
Aroclor 1016
Chronic/
Subchronic
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
LOAEL
NOAEL
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
300
100
Sources of RfD:
Target Organ
IRIS
IRIS
Dates of RfD:
Target Organ (1)
(MM/DD/YY)
6/1/97
6/1/97
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
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 4-2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION
UPPER HUDSON RIVER
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Chronic/
Subchronic
N/A
Value
Inhalation
RfC
N/A
Units
N/A
Adjusted
Inhalation
RfD
N/A
Units
N/A
Primary
Target
Organ
N/A
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifyinc
Factors
N/A
Sources of
RfC:RfD:
Target Organ
IRIS
Dates (1)
(MM/DD/YY)
6/1/97
N/A = Not Applicable
(1) Most recent updated PCBfilein IRIS and HEAST (1997) were reviewed.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 4-3
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL
UPPER 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)'1
(mg/kg-d)'1
(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)
6/1/97
6/1/97
6/1/97
6/1/97
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 dermal contact (if no absorption factor is applied) with water soluble congeners in river water and inhalation of evaporated congeners in air.
(5) Upper-bound slope factor for exposures to PCBs via dermal contact (if no absorption factor is applied) with water soluble congeners in river water and inhalation of evaporated congeners in air.
(1) IRIS value from most recent updated PCB file.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 4-4
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION
UPPER HUDSON RIVER
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Unit Risk
N/A
N/A
Units
N/A
N/A
Adjustment
--
Inhalation Cancer
Slope Factor
0.3 (2)
0.4 (3)
Units
(mg/kg-d)'
(mg/kg-d)"
Weight of Evidence/
Cancer Guideline
Description
B2
B2
Source
IRIS
IRIS
Date(1)
(MM/DD/YY)
6/1/97
6/1/97
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
(1) IRIS value from most recent updated PCB file.
(2) Central estimate slope factor for exposures to PCBs via dermal contact (if no absorption factor is applied) with river water and inhalation of air.
(3) Upper-bound slope factor for exposures to PCBs via dermal contact (if no absorption factor is applied) with river water and inhalation of air.
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST= Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
Weight of Evidence:
Known/Likely
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Non-ortho PCBs
77
81
126
169
Table 4-5
Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Dioxin-Like PCBs
IUPAC
Number
Structure
1994 WHO/IPCS
TEFs
(Ahlborgefo/., 1994)
1998 WHO/IPCS
TEFs
(Van den Berg et a/., 1998)
3,3',4(4'-TCB
3,4,4',5-TCB
3,3',4,4',5-PeCB
3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
0.0005
Not evaluated
0.1
0.01
0.0001
0.0001
0.1
0.01
Mono-ortho PCBs
105
114
118
123
156
157
167
189
2,3,3',4,4'-PeCB
2,3,4,4',5-PeCB
2,3',4,4',5-PeCB
2',3,4,4',5-PeCB
2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4',5'-HxCB
2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB
0.0001
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0005
0.00001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0005
0.00001
0.0001
Diortho PCBs
170
180
2,2',3,3',4,4',5-HpCB
2,2',3,4,4'.5,5'-HpCB
0.0001
0.00001
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Gnmj)
-------
TABLE 5-1-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER FISH - Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
5.1
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
Route
EPC
Value
5.1
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
EPC
Selected
(or Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
2.3E-03
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
116
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 116
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected lor hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-1 -CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER FISH - Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
ngestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.4
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
Route
EPC
Value
4.4
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
2.0E-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
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
10
10
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-2-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
7.3E-07
3.7E-06
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
0.010
0.053
0.064
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-2-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
3ermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
2.0E-07
1.0E-06
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
0.003
0.015
0.018
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-3-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
3.6E-06
1.1E-05
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
0.051
0.152
0.20
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-3-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1 )
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
9.5E-07
2.8E-06
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
0.01
0.04
0.05
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-4-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Hecreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Medium
EPC
Units
rug/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
6.8E-06
5.3E-06
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
0.10
0.08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways l| 0.17
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-4-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
1.9E-06
1.5E-06
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
0.027
0.021
0.05
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-5-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
3.6E-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
0.0051
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways)! 0.0051
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-5-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER -Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
3ermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
1.5E-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
0.0021
0.0021
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-6-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
ol Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
3.10E-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
Hazard
Quotient
0.0180
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways^! O.OIBO
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-6-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
5.0E-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
0.0071
0.0071
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-7-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
6.3E-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
0.0090
0.0090
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-7-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
2.6E-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
0.0038
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 0.0038
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-8-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
5.5E-08
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways ]| N/A
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-8-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adult Recrealor
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future •
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.00E-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
1.8E-09
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-9-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
2.7E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Cradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-9-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.00E-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1 )
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
8.2E-09
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-10-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -• Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20 E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
1.9E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || N/A
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE5-10-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River •- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.00E-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1 )
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
6.1E-09
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE5-11-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -• Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
(or Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
4.7E-06
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE5-11-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
nhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .OOE-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
2.7E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-12-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River - Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
lor Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
5.1E-06
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-12-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.00E-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
3.0E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways [[ N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-13-RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
9.0E-06
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
Reference
Dose Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Concentration
N/A
Reference
Concentration
Units
N/A
Hazard
Quotient
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected lor hazard calculation.
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || N/A
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-13-CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HA2ARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR • Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.00E-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Hazard
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
5.3E-07
Intake
(Non-Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Reference
Dose
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-14-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER FISH - Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.2
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
Route
EPC
Value
2.2
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
5.7E-04
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
2
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
1.1E-03
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways H
1.1E-03
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-14-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER FISH - Adult Angler
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish
Exposure Medium: Fish
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson Fish
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.4
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
Route
EPC
Value
4.4
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg wt weight
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
3.4E-05
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
1
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
3.4E-05
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-15-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
2.4E-07
1.2E-06
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
4.8E-07
2.4E-06
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways |[ 2.9E-06
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-15-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
1.5E-08
7.4E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
1
1
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"'
(mg/kg-day)'
Cancer
Risk
1.5E-08
7.4E-08
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 8.9E-Q8
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-16-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
6.1 E-07
1 .8E-06
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)''
Cancer
Risk
1.2E-06
3.6E-06
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 4.9E-06
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE5-16-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT- Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
Intake
(Cancer)
M 4.1E-08
M 1.2E-07
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
4.1E-08
1 .2E-07
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 1.6E-07
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-17-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Medium
EPC
Units
rug/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
28.7
28.7
Route
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
5.8E-07
4.6E-07
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
mg/kg -day
Cancer Slope
Factor
2
2
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)''
(mg/kg-day)'1
Cancer
Risk
1.2E-06
9.1E-07
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 2.1E-06
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-17-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER SEDIMENT - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Banks of Upper Hudson
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
14.9
14.9
Roule
EPC
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
M
M
Intake
(Cancer)
8.2E-08
6.4E-08
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
8.2E-08
6.4E-08
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways [| 1.5E-07
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-18-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
1.2E-07
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
4.7E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 4.7E-08
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-18-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
Intake
(Cancer)
M 1.1E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
3.2E-09
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-19-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
2.2E-07
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"'
Cancer
Risk
8.6E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways [| 8.6E-08
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE5-19-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
2.1E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)'1
Cancer
Risk
6.4E-09
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 6.4E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-20-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
3.10E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
5.4E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)''
Cancer
Risk
2.2E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways ][ 2.2E-08
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-20-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER WATER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: River Water
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Route
EPC
Units
mg/L
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
M
Intake
(Cancer)
1.1E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
3.4E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways |[ 3.4E-09
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-21-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
1 .8E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
7.28E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 7.28E-09
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-21-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adult Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .OOE-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
1.3E-10
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day )"'
Cancer
Risk
3.76E-11
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 3.76E-11
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-22-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River - Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
4.6E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)'
Cancer
Risk
1.85E-08
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways [| LSSE-OS
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-22-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.00E-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
Intake
(Cancer)
R 3.5E-10
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
1.05E-10
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 1.05E-10
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-23-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River - Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
ot Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
1.7E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day )''
Cancer
Risk
6.64E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 6.64E-09
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-23-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.00E-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
2.6E-10
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
7.89E-11
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 7.89E-11
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-24-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
1.5E-06
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"'
Cancer
Risk
6.12E-07
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 6.12E-07
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-24-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR -Adult Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
nhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.00E-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
2.0E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)'
Cancer
Risk
5.87E-09
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-25-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River - Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1 )
Intake
(Cancer)
R 8.8E-07
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)'1
Cancer
Risk
3.51 E-07
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways | 3.51 E-07
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-25-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Adolescent Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1.00E-03
Route
EPC '
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
1 .3E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)''
Cancer
Risk
3.87E-09
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 3.87E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-26-RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR - Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
4.20E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .70E-02
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
7.7E-07
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.4
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cancer
Risk
3.09E-07
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways l| 3.09E-07
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-26-CT
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER AIR -Child Resident
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: River Water
Exposure Medium: Outdoor Air
Exposure Point: Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure
Route
Inhalation
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
PCBs
Medium
EPC
Value
2.40E-05
Medium
EPC
Units
rng/L
Route
EPC
Value
1 .OOE-03
Route
EPC
Units
mg/m3
EPC
Selected
for Risk
Calculation (1)
R
Intake
(Cancer)
2.3E-08
Intake
(Cancer)
Units
mg/kg-day
Cancer Slope
Factor
0.3
Cancer Slope
Factor Units
(mg/kg-day)''
Cancer
Risk
6.82E-09
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) E PC selected for risk calculation.
Total Risk Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways || 6.82E-09
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-27-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Adult Angler
Medium
Fish
Scenario Timef fame: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Medium
Fish
Exposure
Point
Upper Hudson Fish
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1.1E-03
Inhalation
-
Dermal
--
Total Risk Across Fish
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
LOAEL
Ingestion
116
Inhalation
--
Dermal
--
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
116
116
Total LOAEL HI = || 116
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-27-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER -Adult Angler
Medium
Fish
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future ]
Receptor Population: Angler
Receptor Age: Adult J
Exposure
Medium
Fish
Exposure
Point
Upper Hudson Fish
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
3.4E-05
Inhalation
--
Dermal
--
Total Risk Across Fish
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
3.4E-05
3.4E-05
3.4E-05
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
LOAEL
Ingestion
10
Inhalation
-
Dermal
-
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
10
10
Total LOAEL HI = || 10
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-28-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Adult Recreator
{Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
[[Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Sediment
River Water
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Banks of Upper Hudson
Upper Hudson River
Upper Hudson River -
Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
4.8E-07
Inhalation
7.3E-09
Dermal
2.4E-06
4.7E-08
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
2.9E-06
4.7E-08
7.3E-09
2.9E-06
5.4E-08
3.0E-06
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
Ingestion
0.01
Inhalation
N/A
Dermal
0.053
0.0051
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
0.064
0.0051
N/A
0.07
Total NOAEL HI - 1| 0.07
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-28-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Adult Recreator
[Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
[Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Sediment
River Water
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Banks of Upper Hudson
Upper Hudson River
Upper Hudson River -
Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1 .5E-08
Inhalation
3.8E-1 1
Dermal
7.4E-08
3.2E-09
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
8.9E-08
3.2E-09
3.8E-1 1
8.9E-08
3.2E-09
9.2E-08
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
Ingestion
0.00
Inhalation
N/A
Dermal
0.01
0.0021
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total NOAEL HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
0.02
0.0021
N/A
0.02
0.02 ~||
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-29-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Adolescent Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Medium
Sediment
River Water
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Banks of Upper Hudson
Upper Hudson River
Upper Hudson River -
Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1 .2E-06
--
Inhalation
1.9E-08
Dermal
3.6E-06
8.6E-08
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
4.9E-06
8.6E-08
1.9E-08
4.9E-06
1.0E-07
5.0E-06
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
Ingestion
0.05
--
Inhalation
--
N/A
Dermal
0.15
0.018
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total NOAEL HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
0.20
0.0180
N/A
0.22
0.22 ||
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
[[Receptor Age: Adolescent
TABLE 5-29-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRALTENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Adolescent Recreator
Medium
Sediment
River Water
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Banks of Upper Hudson
Upper Hudson River
Upper Hudson River -
Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
4.1E-08
--
Inhalation
-
1.0E-10
Dermal
1.2E-07
6.4E-09
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Water
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
1.6E-07
6.4E-09
1.0E-10
1.6E-07
6.5E-09
1.7E-07
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
Ingestion
0.01
--
Inhalation
--
N/A
Dermal
0.04
0.0071
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total NOAEL HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
0.05
0.0071
N/A
[ 0.06
0.06 ||
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-30-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Sediment
River Water
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Banks of Upper Hudson
Upper Hudson River
Upper Hudson River -
Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1 .2E-06
--
--
Inhalation
--
--
6.6E-09
Dermal
9.1E-07
2.2E-08
--
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Wateri
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
2.1E-06
2.2E-08
6.6E-09
2.1E-06
2.8E-08
2.1E-06
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
Ingestion
0.10
-
Inhalation
-
N/A
Dermal
0.08
0.0090
--
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes |
Total NOAEL HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
0.17
0.0090
N/A
0.18
0.18 ||
Gradient Corporal/on
Member, IT Group
-------
TABLE 5-30-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Child Recreator
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Sediment
River Water
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
River Water
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Banks of Upper Hudson
Upper Hudson River
Upper Hudson River -
Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
8.2E-08
--
Inhalation
7.9E-11
Dermal
6.4E-08
3.4E-09
Total Risk Across Sediment
Total Risk Across River Watei
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
1 -5E-07
3.4E-09
7.9E-11
1 .5E-07
3.5E-09
1 .5E-07
Chemical
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
NOAEL
NOAEL
NOAEL
Ingestion
0.03
--
Inhalation
--
N/A
Dermal
0.02
0.0038
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total NOAEL HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
0.05
0.0038
N/A
0.05
0.05 ||
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
(Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
||Receptor Age: Adult
TABLE 5-31-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Adult Resident
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
--
Inhalation
6.1E-07
Dermal
--
Total Risk Across Aii
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
6.1E-07
6.1E-07
6.1E-07
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
LOAEL
Ingestion
-
Inhalation
N/A
Dermal
--
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
N/A
N/A
Total LOAEL HI =
N/A
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
TABLE 5-31-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Adult Resident
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
-
Inhalation
5.9E-09
Dermal
Tola I Risk Across Air
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
5.9E-09
5.9E-09
5.9E-09
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
LOAEL
Ingestion
~
Inhalation
N/A
Dermal
-
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
N/A
N/A
I. il
Total LOAEL HI =
N/A
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
[Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
[[Receptor Age: Adolescent
TABLE 5-32-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Adolescent Resident
Medium
3iver Water
Exposure
Medium
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Upper Hudson River - Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
3.5E-07
Dermal
--
Total Risk Across Air
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
Chemical
3.5E-07 llpCBs
i3.5E-07
3.5E-07
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
LOAEL
Ingestion
--
Inhalation
N/A
Dermal
--
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
N/A
|_ N/A
Total LOAEL HI =
N/A
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adolescent
TABLE 5-32-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Adolescent Resident
Medium
^iver Water
Exposure
Medium
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
3.9E-09
Dermal
--
Total Risk Across Air
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
3.9E-09
3.9E-09
3.9E-09
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
LOAEL
Ingestion
--
Inhalation
N/A
Dermal
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
N/A
N/A
n ^^^=!^^^]
Total LOAEL HI =
N/A
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
[Receptor Age: Child
TABLE 5-33-RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER • Child Resident
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
•-
Inhalation
3.1E-07
Dermal
Total Risk Across Air
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
3.1 E-07
3.1E-07
3.1 E-07
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
LOAEL
Ingestion
~
Inhalation
N/A
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
N/A
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes II N/A
Total LOAEL HI = [[ N/A
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
[[Receptor Age: Child
TABLE 5-33-CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER - Child Resident
Medium
River Water
Exposure
Medium
Outdoor Air
Exposure
Point
Upper Hudson River -- Volatilized PCBs
Chemical
PCBs
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
-•
Inhalation
6.8E-09
Dermal
--
Total Risk Across Air
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
6.8E-09
6.8E-09
6.8E-09
Chemical
PCBs
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ
LOAEL
Ingestion
-
Inhalation
N/A
Dermal
--
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total LOAEL HI =
Exposure
Routes Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
"This Page Left Blank Intentionally --
-------
Table 5-34
Total
Fish Sample
EC-F09-OOOI
EC-F09-0002
EC-F09-0003
EC-F08-OOOI
EC-F08-0002
EC-F08-0003
EC-F08-OOOI
EC-F08-0002
EC-F08-0003
EC-F08-0004
EC-F08-0005
EC-F08-OOOI
EC-F08-0002
EC-F08-0003
EC-F08-OOOI
EC-F08-0002
EC-F08-0003
EC-F08-0004
EC-F08-0005
EC-F04-0001
EC-F04-0002
EC-F04-0003
EC-F04-0001
EC-F04-0002
EC-F04-0003
EC-F04-0004
EC-F04-0005
EC-F04-OOOI
EC-F04-0002
EC-F04-0003
EC-F04-0001
EC-F04-0002
EC-F04-0003
EC-F04-0004
EC-F04-0005
EC-F03-0001
EC-F03-0002
EC-F03-0003
EC-F03-0004
EC-F03-0005
EC-F03-0006
EC-F03-OOOI
EC-F03-0002
EC-F03-0003
EC-F03-OOOI
EC-F03-0002
EC-F03-0003
EC-F03-0004
EC-F03-0005
EC-F02-OOOI
EC-F02-0002
EC-F02-0003
EC-F02-CXX)I
EC-F02-0002
EC-F02-OOOI
EC-F02-0002
EC-F02-0003
EC-F02-0001
EC-F02-0002
EC-F02-0003
EC-F02-0004
EC-F02-0005
EC-F20-(XX)I
(Tri+) PCB Concentrations
Species
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
LMB
LMB
LMB
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
LMB
LMB
LMB
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
LMB
LMB
LMB
PKSD
PKSD
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
BB
• Phase 2 Fish
River Mile
159
159
159
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
196.9
Data - Upper Hudson
Concentration (ug/kg wet
weight)
1,770
1 .823
1.380
2.719
4.788
3.554
5.900
9.765
12.550
10,292
11,173
1.899
1,828
1,442
10.710
9,926
15.208
21.207
20,421
15,522
23,287
14,070
40.174
4 1 ,422
3.3.657
56.776
48,177
20.957
11.514
8.799
35.884
23.588
16.057
19.213
13.590
14,045
11.090
7.528
1 2.543
12.178
1 3,696
4,394
3.167
3,215
8,797
26,629
17,816
31.776
28.577
17.355
7.174
6.332
28.859
26.488
23.711
16.420
1 5.279
40.163
48.526
45.172
31.330
47.1%
S.OOO
Member. IT Croup
-------
Table 5-35
Fraction of Dioxin-Like PCB Congeners in Upper Hudson Fish
Fish Sample
F.C-r'09-OOOI
KC-F09-0002
KC-F09-0003
HC-FOS-OOOI
F.C-F08-0(X)2
F.C-F08-000.1
FC-F08-OOOI
KC-F08-0002
F.C-F08-0003
KC-FOS-0004
HC-F08-0005
FC-F08-OOOI
HC-FOS-0002
KC-F08-0003
FC-FOS-OOOI
1-X'-FUX-0002
HC-I;08-0003
F.C-FOS-IXKH
F.C-F08-0005
KC-F04-OOOI
FX'-F04-0002
I-:C-F04-0003
FC-F04-OOOI
KC-F04-0002
FC-F04 -0003
FC-F04-0004
F.C-F04-0005
FX'-F04-OOOI
FC-F04-0002
KC-F04-000.1
KC-FU4-OOOI
KC-F04-0002
FC-F04-0003
FC-F04-WXW
KC-F04-OU05
KC-F03-OOOI
KC-F03-0002
KC-K03 -0003
FC-FO.1-0004
F.C-F03-0005
KC-FO.I-OOOb
FC-F03-OOOI
F.C-F03-WXJ2
Species
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
LMB
.MB
LMB
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
LMB
LMB
LMB
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
PKSD
>KSD
3KSD
>KSD
'KSD
>KSD
SPOT
SPOT
River Mile
159
159
159
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
169.5
1 69.5
169.5
1 69.5
169.5
169.5
1 69.5
189.5
1 89.5
189.5
189.5
1 89.5
189.5
189.5
1 89.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
189.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
191.5
77
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.IE-03
3.4E-03
2.8E-03
2.8E-0.1
3.3E-0.1
3.3E-03
3.6E-03
3. OE-03
3. OE-03
2.5E-03
2.9E-0.1
2.8E-0.1
2.9E-03
2.8E-03
3.1E-03
3.0E-0.1
3.2E-0.1
5.8E-03
7.3E-03
6.7E-03
5.3E-03
4.4E-03
5.3E-03
6.0E-03
6.4E-0.1
8.0E-0.1
7.0E-03
7.1E-0.1
3.6E-0.1
2.0E-03
4.IE-03
5.5E-03
4.4E-0.1
5.9E-03
5.6E-03
4.8E-03
5.IE-03
3.7E-03
4.2E-03
4.5E-03
3.9E-03
105
I.7E-02
I.7E-02
I.8E-02
2.IE-02
I.8E-02
I.6E-02
I.2E-02
I.1E-02
I.3E-02
1.3E-02
1.4E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
I.2E-02
1.3E-02
1.7E-02
2.3E-02
24E-02
1.2E-02
I.2E-02
I.2E-02
I.4E-02
I.5E-02
2.3E-02
2.4E-02
2.4E-02
1.4E-02
8.2E-03
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.9E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.8E-02
1.7E-02
1.5E-02
1 .6E-02
2.3E-02
2.5E-02
114
2.0E-03
2. OE-03
2.0E-03
2.2E-03
2.IE-03
2.0E-03
1 .3E-03
I.IE-03
1 .6E-03
7.7E-04
9.9E-04
I.9E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .9E-03
3.6E-03
2. OE-03
1.8E-03
3.1E-03
I.8E-03
2.0E-03
3.7E-03
3.5E-0.1
I.4E-03
I.5E-03
I.4E-03
1.6E-03
I.6E-03
2.9E-03
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
2.8E-03
I.IE-03
3.4E-03
2.6E-03
2.2E-03
2.5E-03
2.6E-03
I.4E-03
2.7E-03
I.7E-03
1.4E-03
2.5E-03
2.9E-03
Ratio of Congener Concentration to Total (Tri+) PCB Concentration
118 123 126 156 157 167 169
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.8E-02
4.0E-02
4.2E-02
3.7E-02
2.6E-02
2.4E-02
2.7E-02
3.1E-02
3.0E-02
3.7E-02
3.5E-02
3.6E-02
3.5E-02
3.6E-02
3.2E-02
2.3E-02
2.7E-02
3.0E-02
4.3E-02
4.5E-02
2.4E-02
2.6E-02
2.5E-02
2.6E-02
2.7E-02
4.1E-02
4.5E-02
4.0E-02
2.8E-02
1 .9E-02
3.4E-02
3.1E-02
3.8E-02
3.8E-02
3.6E-02
3.7E-02
4.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.5E-02
4.6E-02
4.9E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
9.2E-04
8.4E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.2E-03
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
9.9E-04
O.OE+00
1.2E-04
7.6E-04
5.9E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.1E-04
2.2E-04
3.5E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
l.OE-03
O.OE+00
I.IE-03
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
9.8E-05
2.3E-04
2.2E-04
2.7E-04
2.3E-04
O.OE+00
7.7E-05
9.2E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.7E-05
O.OE+00
8.8E-05
1.4E-04
1.9E-04
1.7E-04
7.9E-05
8.9E-05
1.1E-04
8.7E-05
I.OE-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.3E-05
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.1E-04
O.OE+00
1.2E-04
I.3E-04
2.1E-04
I.2E-04
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
1.3E-04
1.3E-04
2.4E-03
2.8E-03
2.8E-03
2.8E-03
3.0E-03
2.9E-03
1.9E-03
1.5E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .8E-03
1.7E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
2.4E-03
2.3E-03
1 .9E-03
1 .7E-03
1 .8E-03
3.2E-03
3.2E-03
1.3E-03
1 .5E-03
1.3E-03
I.3E-03
I.IE-03
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.6E-03
2.0E-03
1.2E-03
2.2E-03
2.1E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
2.5E-03
2.6E-03
2.3E-03
1.6E-03
2.2E-03
3.IE-03
3.5E-03
I.IE-03
6.1E-04
2.7E-04
8.1E-04
5.0E-04
5.9E-04
3.1E-04
1.1E-04
1.3E-04
2.4E-04
2.7E-04
3.0E-04
2.8E-04
2.6E-04
3.4E-04
1.6E-04
3.7E-04
2.7E-04
2.1E-04
4.8E-04
7.9E-04
7.8E-04
2.5E-04
1.4E-04
1.9E-04
9.6E-05
3.1E-04
5.IE-04
3.0E-04
3.6E-04
3.7E-04
7.9E-05
4.0E-04
5.0E-04
2.9E-04
4.2E-04
1.7E-04
3.9E-04
3.5E-04
I.3E-04
3.6E-04
I.3E-04
1.8E-04
I.8E-03
1.8E-03
I.5E-03
l.OE-03
2.0E-03
1.8E-03
8.6E-04
6.2E-04
7.8E-04
9.9E-04
8.IE-04
I.7E-03
I.7E-03
1.8E-03
1 .4E-03
1.2E-03
1 .OE-03
9.0E-04
8.6E-04
l.OE-03
1 .8E-03
1.8E-03
6.1E-04
7.8E-04
6.1E-04
6.6E-04
6.5E-04
I.4E-03
I.5E-03
1.4E-03
9.6E-04
7.5E-04
1.2E-03
l.OE-03
1 .4E-03
1 .OE-03
I.IE-03
I.2E-03
I.IE-03
8.4E-04
I.IE-03
1.8E-03
2.2E-03
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.2E-05
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
189
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
8.4E-05
1.5E-04
1.6E-04
1.4E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
4.8E-05
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
l.OE-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.7E-05
6.7E-05
8.1E-05
I.3E-04
I.3E-04
5.7E-05
6.7E-05
5.2E-05
4.1E-05
3.9E-05
9.7E-05
1.7E-04
2.0E-04
6.4E-05
5.8E-05
8.3E-05
7.7E-05
I.5E-04
7.2E-05
8.6E-05
2.4E-04
7.4E-05
5.7E-05
1.6E-04
O.OE+00
7.8E-05
170
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.1E-03
3.3E-03
3.7E-03
3.5E-03
.5E-03
.1E-03
.2E-03
.5E-03
.5E-03
2.6E-03
2.6E-03
2.9E-03
2.3E-03
2.1E-03
1.8E-03
1.6E-03
1 .5E-03
I.8E-03
3.IE-03
3.2E-03
l.OE-03
1.3E-03
9.6E-04
9.0E-04
8.8E-04
2.IE-03
2.2E-03
2.5E-03
.7E-03
.1E-03
.9E-03
.9E-03
2.0E-03
.5E-03
.8E-03
.7E-03
.7E-03
.2E-03
.6E-03
2.5E-03
3. OE-03
180
8.0E-03
8.3E-03
8.7E-03
9.0E-03
9.4E-03
9.3E-03
3.IE-03
2.4E-03
2.8E-03
4.0E-03
3.5E-03
7.5E-03
7.1E-03
8.2E-03
5.9E-03
5.1E-03
4.2E-03
3.8E-03
3.9E-03
4.6E-03
7.0E-03
7.3E-03
2.2E-03
2.6E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
4.5E-03
4.9E-03
5.4E-03
3.6E-03
2.4E-03
4.9E-03
4.1E-03
4.6E-03
3.6E-03
4.1E-03
3.7E-03
3.8E-03
2.7E-03
3.3E-03
5.8E-03
7.2E-03
Total
7.6E-02
7.6E-02
7.7E-02
8.4E-02
8.3E-02
7.7E-02
5.1E-02
4.5E-02
5.1E-02
5.8E-02
5.7E-02
7.4E-02
7.0E-02
7.3E-02
7.2E-02
6.8E-02
6.2E-02
5.0E-02
5.4E-02
6.6E-02
9.4E-02
9.6E-02
4.9E-02
5.0E-02
4.9E-02
5.2E-02
5.5E-02
8.5E-02
9.0E-02
8.6E-02
5.8E-02
3.6E-02
7.0E-02
6.5E-02
7.5E-02
7.2E-02
7.2E-02
7.IE-02
7.5E-02
5.7E-02
6.6E-02
8.9E-02
9.8E-02
Gradient Cnrptirtnum
c i ,n :
AII IT Company
-------
Table 5-35
Fraction of Dioxin-Like PCB Congeners in Upper Hudson Fish
Fish Sumpk'
KC-RW -0003
KC-F03-OOOI
HC-H03-0002
KC-FO.1-000.1
KC-FO.1-0004
HC-FO.1-0005
KC-F02-OOOI
KC-F02-0002
KC-F02-0003
HC-F02-OOOI
HC-K02-0002
KC'-F02-(XX)I
KC-K02-0002
KC-F02 -000.1
KC-H02-OOOI
KC-F02-0002
KC-F02 -0003
HC-F02-0004
KC-F02-0005
l-:C-F20-OOOI
Species
SI'OT
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
LMB
LMB
LMB
PKSD
PKSI)
SPOT
SPOT
SPOT
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
BB
River Mile 77
191.5 3.5E-03
191.5 I.8E-03
191.5 5.8E-03
191.5 4.6E-03
191.5 5.IE-03
191.5 5.0E-03
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
194.
4.9E-03
5.3E-03
4.6E-03
9.7E-03
5.4E-03
6.2E-03
4.8E-03
5.5E-03
4.7E-03
5.2E-03
I.IE-03
5.2E-03
5.5E-03
196.9 2.5E-03
Average 4.5E-03
Sid. Dev. I.6E-03
105
2.2E-02
9.5E-03
2.1E-02
2.2E-02
2.0E-02
2.2E-02
2.1E-02
1 .6E-02
1 .4E-02
1 .4E-02
1.5E-02
2.0E-02
2.IE-02
1 .9E-02
1.5E-02
1 .8E-02
2.0E-02
1 .8E-02
1 .7E-02
2.3E-02
1.7E-02
3.9E-03
114
2.6E-03
I.IE-03
3.3E-03
3.IE-03
2.6E-03
3.2E-03
3.2E-03
I.3E-03
I.6E-03
3.4E-03
2.IE-03
2.4E-03
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
2.2E-03
4.4E-04
2.7E-03
2.4E-03
2.6E-03
2.2E-03
7.4E-04
Ratio of Congener Concentration to Total (Tri+) PCB Concentration
118 123 126 156 157 1«7 169
4.5E-02
2.8E-02
3.9E-02
4.0E-02
3.7E-02
4.0E-02
4.4E-02
3.IE-02
2.9E-02
2.7E-02
3.IE-02
4.IE-02
4.3E-02
3.9E-02
2.9E-02
3.5E-02
3.7E-02
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
5.IE-02
3.5E-02
6.9E-03
I.IE-03
O.OE+00
3.1E-04
2.6E-04
2.1E-04
2.9E-04
2.6E-04
8.6E-05
O.OE+00
4.0E-04
2.5E-04
3.9E-04
6.5E-05
I.9E-04
I.2E-03
3.0E-04
5.3E-05
I.IE-03
I.3E-04
2.5E-04
2.4E-04
3.8E-04
1.3E-04
O.OE+00
1 .4E-04
1 .2E-04
1.3E-04
1 .3E-04
1.IE-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6.3E-04
8.2E-05
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1 .4E-04
9.7E-05
1.5E-04
2.7E-03
2.7E-03
3.0E-03
2.8E-03
3.4E-05
2.8E-03
3.2E-03
2.0E-03
1.8E-03
2.7E-03
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
2.1E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.6E-03
3.3E-04
1.8E-03
I.8E-03
3.5E-03
2.2E-03
7.0E-04
I.IE-03
5.5E-04
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
O.OE+00
3.5E-04
5.3E-04
3.4E-04
5.0E-04
3.8E-04
4.0E-04
3.5E-04
I.2E-04
2.4E-04
3.9E-04
2.4E-04
2.9E-05
3.3E-04
2.5E-04
4.0E-04
3.5E-04
2.2E-04
I.8E-03
1 .8E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
9.3E-04
.3E-03
.8E-03
.2E-03
.2E-03
.4E-03
7.8E-04
I.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
9.4E-04
8.8E-04
1.7E-04
9.0E-04
9.0E-04
2.4E-03
1.2E-03
4.5E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
I.8E-07
I.5E-06
189
2.1E-04
2.8E-04
8.7E-05
7.6E-05
5.8E-05
7.9E-05
1.3E-04
l.OE-04
1.2E-04
9.3E-05
6.5E-05
8.6E-05
8.9E-05
7.8E-05
5.2E-05
5.7E-05
I.2E-05
5.6E-05
6.0E-05
7.5E-05
8.6E-05
6.5E-05
170
3.0E-03
5.2E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.IE-03
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.IE-03
2.0E-03
I.3E-03
2.0E-03
I.9E-03
1 .9E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
2.5E-04
1.3E-03
I.3E-03
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
8.6E-04
ISO
6.9E-03
I.5E-02
4.8E-03
4.5E-03
3.1E-03
4.6E-03
6.6E-03
4.8E-03
5.3E-03
4.6E-03
2.9E-03
4.4E-03
4.4E-03
4.3E-03
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
5.6E-04
3.2E-03
2.9E-03
7.0E-03
4.9E-03
2.4E-03
Total
9.0E-02
6.6E-02
8.2E-02
8.IE-02
7.0E-02
8.2E-02
8.9E-02
6.4E-02
6.IE-02
6.7E-02
6.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.IE-02
7.5E-02
6.IE-02
6.8E-02
6.0E-02
6.6E-02
6.5E-02
9.6E-02
7.0E-02
1.8E-02
I'agi- 1 ill 2
GniJiflll Cnrponilnm
An !T Cinni>(tit\
-------
Table 5-36
Dioxin TEQs for Dioxin-Like PCB Congeners
Average Congener /
Congener
Non-ortho PCBs
77
81
126
169
Mono-ortho PCBs
105
114
118
123
156
157
167
189
Sum
Structure
3,3',4,4'-TCB
3,4,4' ,5-TCB
3,3',4,4',5-PeCB
3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
2,3,3', 4,4 '-PeCB
2,3,4,4', 5-PeCB
2,3',4,4',5-PeCB
2',3,4,4',5-PeCB
2,3,3' ,4,4',5-HxCB
2,3,3' ,4,4',5'-HxCB
2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
2,3,3' ,4,4',5,5'-HpCB
Sum of Dioxin-Like PCB
of Non-Dioxin-Like PCB
Total PCB Ratio
0.0045
na
0.000097
0.00000018
0.017
0.0022
0.035
0.00024
0.0022
0.00035
0.0012
0.000086
Congeners (mg/kg)
Congeners (mg/kg)
Congener
Concentration
High End Estimate
(2.2 mg/kg total PCBs)
9.90E-03
na
2.13E-04
3.96E-07
3.74E-02
4.84E-03
7.70E-02
5.28E-04
4.84E-03
7.70E-04
2.64E-03
1.89E-04
0.14
2.1
1998 WHO/
IPCS TEFs
(Van den Berg
et al .,1998)
0.0001
0.0001
0.1
0.01
0.0001
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0005
0.00001
0.0001
Dioxin TEQ
High End Estimate
9.90E-07
na
2.13E-05
3.96E-09
3.74E-06
2.42E-06
7.70E-06
5.28E-08
2.42E-06
3.85E-07
2.64E-08
1.89E-08
3.9E-05
~~
Gradient Corporation
An IT Company
-------
Table 5-37
Risk Estimates for Dioxin and Non-dioxin-like PCBs
Angler Ingestion of Fish
Chemical Name Cith
High-End*
(mg/kg
wet weight)
Dioxin TEQ 3.9E-05
Non-dioxin-like PCBs 2.1
Notes:
A verage
Daily Intake Equation: Risk =
IRflsh
(g/d)
31.9
31.9
(Cfisli
FS EF
(d/yr)
1 365
1 365
ED
(yrs)
40
40
xIRfish xFSxEFxEDx Conversion
Conversion BW ATomccr
Factor
(kg/g)
l.OE-03
l.OE-03
Factor) x
(kg) (d)
70 25,550
70 25,550
Slope Factor
Lifetime Avg. Daily Oral
Intake (Cancer)
(mg/kg-d)
l.OE-08
5.4E-04
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-d)-'
150,000
2
Cancer
Risk
1.5E-03
1.1E-03
(BWxAT)
for dioxin, onlv a plausible upper bound slope factor is available; therefore, a central-tendency estimate was not calculated.
Gradient Corporation
An IT Company
-------
Table 5-38
Comparison of Point Estimate and Monte Carlo Non-cancer Hazard Index
Estimates for Fish Ingestion
Point Estimate HI
Central Estimate 10
High-End Estimate 116
(RME)
Monte Carlo Estimate HI
11.4
1.8
51.5
137
18.6
366
Monte Carlo Scenario
Base - 50th percentile
Low - 50th percentile
High - 50th percentile
Base - 95th percenlile
Low - 95th percentile
High - 95th percentile
Table 5-39
Comparison of Point Estimate and Monte Carlo Cancer Risk Estimates for Fish Ingestion
Point Estimate
Monte Carlo Estimate
Monte Carlo Scenario
Central Estimate
3.4 x 1CT
6.4 x 10''
9.7 x I0'6
4.1 x IO'4
Base - 50th percentile
Low - 50th percentile
High - 50th percentile
High-End Estimate
(RME)
I.I x 10"
8.7 x 10'4
1.1 x W4
3.1 x 10°
Base - 95th percentile
Low - 95th percentile
High - 95th percentile
Gradient Corporation
-------
Figures
-------
Figure 2-1
PCB Concentration in Fish
Brown Bullhead - Thompson Island Pool
-Modeled Arithmetic Mean
-Exponential Trendline
= 2E+67eu'u""x
R2 = 0.9967
O
1980
1990
2000
3010
2020 2030
Year
2040
2050
2060
2070
Figure 2-2
PCB Concentration in Fish
Brown Bullhead - River Mile 168
s*
c |>
o> 5
c o>
o B>
-Modeled Arithmetic Mean
- Exponential Trendline
R2 = 0.9906
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020 2030
Year
2040
2050
2060
2070
50
45
f 40-
g & 35
Ta 1 30
C S> 25
u 5
g o> 20
ol. 15-
.§. 10-
5-
0-
19
Figure 2-3
PCB Concentration in Fish
Brown Bullhead - River Miles 157 and 154 (averaged)
,.
^H**>*»^tl
• Modeled Arithmetic Mean
.
y = 3E+75e-°-088311
R2 = 0.9879
BO 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year
2070
Note: Modeled arithmetic mean from FISHRAND model in BMR (USEPA. 1999d).
Exponential trendline fit through the data extends to 2069.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Figure 2-4
PCB Concentration in Fish
Largemouth Bass - Thompson Island Pool
• Modeled Arithmetic Mean
-Exponential Trendline
R2 = 0.9694
-f-
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020 2030
Year
2040
2050
2060
2070
Figure 2-5
PCB Concentration in Fish
Largemouth Bass - River Mile 168
•Modeled Arithmetic Mean
• Exponential Trendline
R2 = 0.9637
1990
2000
2010
2020 2030
Year
2040
2050
2060
2070
Figure 2-6
PCB Concentration in Fish
Largemouth Bass - River Miles 157 and 154 (averaged)
-Modeled Arithmetic Mean
- Exponential Trendline
y = 4E+75e'
-0.0864X
-. 0.9667
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020 2030
Year
2040
2050
2060
2070
Note: Modeled arithmetic mean from FISHRAND model in BMP (USEPA, 1999d).
Exponential trendline fit through the data extends to 2069.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Figure 2-7
PCB Concentration in Fish
Yellow Perch - Thompson Island Pool
Modeled Arithmetic Mean
Exponential Trendline
R2 = 0.9648
1990
2000
2010
2020 2030
Year
2040 2050
2060
2070
Figure 2-8
PCB Concentration in Fish
Yellow Perch - River Mile 168
Modeled Arithmetic Mean
Exponential Trendline
= 1E+70e-°-079811
R2 = 0.9486
1990
2000
2010
2020 2030
Year
2040 2050
2060
2070
Figure 2-9
PCB Concentration in Fish
Yellow Perch - River Miles 157 and 154 (averaged)
-Modeled Arithmetic Mean
- Exponential Trendline
R2 = 0.9528
1990
2000
2010
2020 2030
Year
2040
2050
2060
2070
Note: Modeled arithmetic mean from FISHRAND model in BMP (USEPA, 1999d).
Exponential trendline fit through the data extends to 2069.
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
1990
Figure 2-10
PCB Concentration by Species, 1999-2069
(averaged over location)
BrownBullhead
LargemouthBass
YellowPerch
2000
2060
2070
Note: Modeled data were only available until the year 2018. Data were extrapolated from 2018 until 2069 by applying an exponential trend/regression line.
Gradient Corporation
An IT Company
-------
30
25 ••
S1
f 20 +
o
1 15
o
O 10
m
o
Q.
5--
Figure2-11a
Segment Averaged Total PCB Concentration in Sediment (1999 - 2018)
Weighted Cohesive and Non-Cohesive Results
Constant Source Boundary Condition
No Area Weighting
Weighted by Total Sediment
Area in Segment
10 15
Elapsed Time (years)
20
25
Figure 2-1 ib
Modeled Total PCB Concentration in Sediment (1999 - 2018)
20 Year Segment Averages by River Mile - Constant Source Boundary Condition
Cohesive
- - O- - • Non-Cohesive
Weighted Mean = 14.9
Weighted 95th percentile = 28.7
195
190
185
180
175 170
River Mile
165
160
155
150
Source: Modeling results from Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, I999d).
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Modeled Water
Figure 2-1 2a
Column Total PCB Concentration
20 Year Segment (Area) Averaged Values by River Mile
Constant
oc
cr so -
o)
c
~ 25-
o
'« 20-
k.
C
8 15 J
o
0 10 -
m
O -
Q. 5 -
+4
*
/*
C^
A Wo
^r ° §
h- w
\
200 190
Source Boundary Condition
k.*#.
• • *
Mean (24 ng/L)
180
River Mile
95th Percentile (31 ng/L)
»»*
*******
<5
s E
> (u W
CO
I
170 160 150
c
o
I
I
o
o
m
o
Q.
1000
100-
10-
Figure 2-12b
Modeled Water Column Total PCB Concentration
River Mile 188.5 - Thompson Island Dam
10 15
Elapsed Time (years)
20
25
Figure 2-12c
Modeled Water Column Total PCB Concentration
River Mile 168.2 - Stillwater Dam
1000
100
c
0)
o
c
o
o
m
o
Q.
10-
10 15
Elapsed Time (years)
20
25
Source: Modeling results from Baseline Modeling Report (USEPA, 1999d).
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Croup
-------
Figure 3-1
Diagram of Monte Carlo Simulation Process
Select Current Age,
Fishing Start Age
(joint probability
distribution)
Emprical Distribution
based on Connelly 1991
Angler Survey
Select Exposure
Duration
(years)
Select
i = 1
to
10,000
Anglers
Probability of Moving
out of Region
based on Current Age
Minimum of these
Select Body Weight
Percentile for
Individual
Probability of Quitting
Fishing
Body Weight varies with
time but individual
remains at the same
percentile of distribution
over time
Select Fish Ingestion
Rate Percentile for
Individual
Empirical Ingestion
Rates based on Connelly
1991 Angler Survey
Calculate Angler
PCB Intake
(constants: Cooking
Loss, Averaging Time)
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Croup
-------
Figure 3-2a
Lognormal Probability Plot - Respondents (N=226)
50th percentile = 4.35
95th percentile = 64.7
Z-Score
Figure 3-2b
Lognormal Probability Plot - Non-Respondents (N=55)
50th percentile =3.11
95th percentile = 32.6
5 -r
3 --
y = 1.245x + 1.44
R2 = 0.9655
1 1
1.5
2.5
Figure 3-2c
Lognormal Probability Plot
Combined Respondent + Non-Respondent (N=281)
8 -r
6 --
4 ..
50th percentile = 4.1
95th percentile = 62.2
Z-Score
Source: 1991 NY Angler Survey (Connelly et al., 1992).
Gradient Corporation
Member IT Group
-------
Figure 3-3a
Frequency Histogram of Self-Caught Fish Ingestion -
New York (Connelly et al., 1992)
Empirical Distribution
50th percentile = 4.0
90th percentile = 31.9
Fish Ingestion (grams/day)
Figure 3-3c
Frequency Histogram of Recreational Fish Ingestion -
Michigan (West et al., 1989)
Lognormal
GM = 7.9
GSD = 3.16
oooo
i— CMCo^j-
? 8 S §
i- i- i- C\J
o
CM
Fish Ingestion (grams/day)
O
CO
90%
Figure 3-3b
Frequency Histogram of Recreational Fish Ingestion -
Lake Ontario (Connelly et al., 1996)
Lognormal
GM = 1.98
GSD = 3.95
? 8
O ^5
O T-
o
in
Fish Ingestion (grams/day)
Lognormal
GM = 2.5
GSD = 4.25
o o
00 O)
8 ?
o
CM
Fish Ingestion (grams/day)
Figure 3-3d
Frequency Histogram of Self-Caught Fish Ingestion -
Maine (Elbert et al.. 1993)
o o
m o
i- CM
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
Figure 3-4a
Fishing Cessation - Number of Years Until Angler Wiii Cease
Fishing (Derived)
25%
0%
20 30 40 50 60
Time Until Cease Fishing (years)
70
Figure 3-4b
Age at Which Angler Respondent Reported Began Fishing
90%
10
20
30 40
Age (Years)
50
Figure 3-4c
Current Age of Anglers When Responded to Survey
Figure 3-4d
Total Fishing Duration All Ages (Derived)
25%
0%
40%
35%
30%
>• 25%
3 20%
o-
0)
£ 15%
10%
5%
0%
20
30 40 50
Age (Years)
60
70
10 20 30 40 50
Duration (years)
60
70
Source: Distributions based on 1991 NY Angler Survey (Connelly et. al., 1992).
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Figure 3-5a
Residence Duration in 5 Upper Hudson Counties
Duration (years)
Source: Derived using In-Migration data from 1990 Census (see text).
Figure 3-5b
Overall Exposure Duration
(Combination of Residence Duration and Fishing Duration)
60%
50th percentile = 12 years
95th percentile = 40 years
o%
20
30
40
Duration (years)
50
60
70
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
20% T-
0%
0%
Figure 5-1 a
Monte Carlo Estimate Non-Cancer Hazards
Base Case Scenario
100%
0%
Hazard Index
Figure 5-1 c
Monte Carlo Estimate Non-Cancer Hazards
Maine Fish Ingestion
r 100%
4-0%
Hazard Index
20%
15%--
10%--
20% T
15% --
10%--
Figure5-1b
Monte Carlo Estimate Non-Cancer Hazards
High End Exposure Duration
100%
0%
Hazard Index
Figure 5-1 d
Monte Carlo Estimate Non-Cancer Hazards
High End PCB Concentration (Thompson Is. Pool)
100%
0%
Hazard Index
Gradient Corporation
Member. IT Group
-------
20%
0%
20%
0%
Figure 5-2a
Monte Carlo Estimates of Cancer Risk
Base Case Scenario
100%
--80%
- • 60%
- - 40%
- - 20%
1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3
Cancer Risk
1E-2
1E-1
Figure 5-2c
Monte Carlo Estimate of Cancer Risk
Maine Fish Ingestion Rate
100%
0%
Cancer Risk
Figure 5-2b
Monte Carlo Estimate of Cancer Risk
High-End Exposure Duration
20% -i
15% --
100%
or
S
u.
10% --
5% - -
0%-\
0%
20%
0%
Cancer Risk
0
Figure 5-2d
Monte Carlo Estimate of Cancer Risk
High End PCB Concentration (Thompson Is. Pool)
100%
0%
Cancer Risk
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
Figure 5-3a
Monte Carlo Non-Cancer Hazard Index Summary
All Scenarios
100% •
90% -
jj 80% -
g 70% -
u
£ 60% -
a> 50% -
13
~ 40% -
| 30% •
S 20% -
10% -
f\C7
Central Tendency
Point Estimate ~^^-^
**** RME
Point Estimate
0 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Incremental Individual Hazard Index
100% -i
90% -
80% -
1 70% -
o>
$ 60% -
0-
•s 50% -
* 40% -
1 30% -
O
20% -
10%
ACT _
Figure 5-3b
Monte Carlo Cancer Risk Summary
All Scenarios
«
4MMM
Central Tendency
Point Estimate ~~ — — ^^
^^A^^^^HMMH^^^^HHI^HB^M M^^^^k
RME
Point Estimate
•
1E-07 1E-06 IE-OS 1E-04 1E-03 1E-02 1E-01
Incremental Individual Cancer Risk
Gradient Corporation
Member, IT Group
-------
WARREN COUNTY
THOMPSON ISLAND DAM
(RM 188.5)
SARATOGA COUNTY
LOCK 3 DJUI (RM 166.0)
LOCK e DAM (RM 163.6)
LOCK 1 DAM (RM 169.4)
LOCK 7
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
LOCK 6
RENSSELAER COUNTY
Cohoea
y ft
ALBANY CO '— I ft* 55
LEGEND
180 RIVER MILE (RM) UPSTREAM OF BATTERY
SHORELINES AND RM DESIGNATION ARE APPROXIMATE.
SCALE IN MILES
f=
0
MAP SOURCE: TAMS CONSULTANTS. INC
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
PHASE 2: FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2F: HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
UPPER HUDSON RIVER
STUDY AREA
Gradient Corporation
PLATE 1
-------
Appendix A
-------
Appendix A
Modeled Estimates of PCBs in Air
Gradient Corporation
-------
Appendix A
Modeled Estimates of PCBs in Air
In order to assess the impact of volatilization of PCBs from the Upper Hudson, PCB emission
estimates were coupled with air dispersion modeling using the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model.
The ISC model is recommended as a preferred model by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) for use in regulatory and permitting applications. The ISC model was developed by USEPA
for determining atmospheric pollutant concentrations associated with point, line, area and volume
sources of emission. The model has undergone several revisions to incorporate new features (e.g.,
Schulman and Hanna 1986; Schulman and Scire 1980) since first being issued by Bowers et al. (1979).
The ISC model, based on an advanced steady-state Gaussian plume equation, calculates chemical
concentrations at specific downwind locations as a function of wind speed, atmospheric stability,
temperature gradient, mixing height and downwind distance. It can account for plume rise, building
downwash effect, settling and dry deposition of particulates, receptor elevation and complex terrain
adjustment. At each receptor location, the computed concentrations are weighted and averaged
according to the joint frequency of occurrence of wind-speed and wind-direction categories, classified by
the Pasquill-Gifford atmospheric stability categories.
Two separate versions of the ISC model are available to permit both long-term and short-term air
quality impact analysis. The primary difference between the two models is the type of weather data
needed as input. The short-term version, ISCST, was designed to calculate contaminant concentrations
over time periods as short as one hour. The ISCST model can be used to calculate ambient
concentrations over longer time periods (for example one year), simply by averaging the hourly
predictions over the appropriate averaging period. Because the ISCST predictions are based upon more
detailed meteorologic inputs, the predictions from the ISCST model are more accurate than those
estimated using the ISCLT model. The ISCST model requires more detailed weather input data than
does the long-term version, ISCLT, which was designed to determine the monthly, seasonal, or annual
average concentrations. For this assessment, the current ISC Short Term model, ISCST3 Version 97363,
was used to estimate the concentration of PCBs in air in the immediate vicinity of the river.
A.I Features of the ISC Model
The ISC model1 provides a range of user-specified and USEPA-recommended default options.
The "simple terrain" algorithm of the ISC model, which was adopted here, is appropriate when the
topography within the model domain can be described as reasonably flat terrain with elevation variation
of less than approximately 30 feet, or when the chemical release point is reasonably close to the ground,
which is the case for the current analysis.
The model assumes that pollutants from an emission source disperse in a Gaussian manner, with
dispersion coefficients that vary as a function of atmospheric stability. Six atmospheric stability classes
(A-F) are used in the model, with A representing the most unstable atmospheric class and F representing
' "ISC" is used to describe common features possessed by both ISCST3 and ISCLT3 models. "ISCST3" or "ISCLT3" is
used if a distinction between the two models exists.
A-l Gradient Corporation
-------
the most stable class. For each of these six stability classes, dispersion coefficients are calculated, as a
function of distance, to define the spread of the plume from the source in the horizontal and vertical
directions.
A set of standard rural or urban dispersion coefficients are used by the ISCST3 model, depending
on the location of the source and the surrounding land use. The EPA guidance on the distinction between
urban and rural is based on land use within a 3-km radius of the site in question. If over 50% of the land
use within a 3 km radius is rural (single-family residential is considered rural), then rural dispersion
coefficients are appropriate. Rural dispersion coefficients were adopted for the current assessment. It
should be noted that rural atmospheric dispersion coefficients lead to predictions of lower chemical
dispersion and mixing than do the urban dispersion coefficients which account for the increased mixing
induced by the higher heat fluxes in urban settings and greater mixing induced by air flow around large
buildings. Thus, the rural dispersion coefficients used lead to predictions of higher chemical concentrations
in the atmosphere.
The standard EPA default regulatory options were used in the ISCST3 modeling. Default vertical
wind profile exponents were used for each stability class (A:0.07, B:0.07, Q0.10, D:0.15, E:0.35, F:0.55 for
the rural mode). These wind profile exponents define the increase in wind velocity with height. Also,
default vertical potential temperature gradients were used for each stability class (A:0.0, B:0.0, C:0.0, D:0.0,
E:0.02, F:0.035 °K/m); these define the strength of the temperature inversion during stable (E and F)
atmospheric conditions.
A.2 Meteorological Data
The principal meteorological input required by the ISCST model is hourly meteorological data
including the joint frequency of occurrence of wind-speed and wind-direction categories, and mixing
heights classified according to the Pasquill stability categories. The meteorologic data was obtained
from the National Climatic Data Center for the National Weather Service (NWS) station at Albany New
York Airport from EPA's electronic bulletin board service (USEPA, 1998). The most recent full-year
(8760 hours) of NWS data from the Albany station was used for the ISCST modeling.
A.3 Source Characterization
Volatile emissions of PCBs from the Upper Hudson River water surface provide the source term
for the air modeling performed for this assessment. The PCB flux (ng/sec) from the river surface
depends on chemical factors (e.g., the volatility of PCBs and their affinity to partition into air, water,
etc.); atmospheric conditions, including wind speed, ambient temperature; and the diffusion of PCBs at
the water-air interface.
A model incorporating a two-layer film resistance approach is commonly applied to the
estimation of chemical volatilization at the air-water interface (Achman et al., 1993; Bopp 1983). The
two-layer model accounts for diffusion through a water boundary layer on the water side of the interface,
then diffusion through an air boundary layer on the air side of the air-water boundary. Given the
complexity and uncertainty of modeling this chemical release, PCB releases were estimated using two
approaches. The.first approach uses the two-layer model, and the physical-chemical parameters for
PCBs determined by Bopp (1983) to estimate the flux of PCBs from the water column into the air. This
estimate was compared with an empirical calculation based on actual PCB flux measurements from
Green Bay, Lake Michigan (Achman et al., 1993).
A-2 Gradient Corporation
-------
According to the two-layer film resistance model, the flux of chemical across the air-water
interface is given by (Bopp, 1983):
F = K, (Cw - Cg/H) [1]
and
[2]
K, D, HDg
where:
F = flux (g/cm2-sec)
Cw = chemical concentration in water (g/cm3)
Cg = chemical concentration in bulk gas phase (g/cm3)
H = dimensionless Henry's law constant
K] = mass transfer coefficient (cm/sec)
|j.i, jig = liquid and gaseous boundary layer thickness (cm)
DI = liquid phase diffusion coefficient (cm /sec)
Dg = gas phase diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec)
The mass transfer coefficient is a function of chemical-specific Henry's law constant and
chemical diffusion coefficients. Values for tri- and tetrachlorobiphenyl published by Bopp (1983) were
used to estimate the PCB mass transfer coefficient. The parameter values, and the mass transfer
coefficients calculated using equation [2] are summarized below. The calculated mass transfer
coefficients compare favorably with the empirical coefficients determined by Achman et al. (1993) based
on in-situ measurements for total PCBs in Lake Michigan. Achman et al. (1993) determined mass
transfer coefficients ranging from 0.02 to 0.31 m/day (0.2 x 10~4 to 3.6 x 10"4 cm/sec).
Chemical-Specific Input Parameters for Flux Estimate1"1
Parameter (units)
H (dimensionless)
DI (cmVsec)
Dg (cm2/sec)
K, (cm/sec) lb)
Trichlorobiphenyl
3.3 x 10'2
0.58 x 10'5
5.4 x 10'2
2.7 x 10-4
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
1.4X 10~2
0.58 x 10'5
5.2 xlO'2
2.2 xlQ-4
Notes:
'"'Source: Bopp (1983)
"''Calculated using equation [2] with n, = 0.018 cm and pg= 1 cm (Bopp, 1983)
It is typically observed, as suggested by Bopp (1983), that the gas phase term (Cg/H) in Equation
[1] is small with respect to the chemical concentration in water (Cw). Under these conditions, the flux of
chemical from the water reduces to:
F - K, x Cw [3]
A-3 Gradient Corporation
-------
Equation [3] indicates that the flux is linearly proportional to the concentration in water. For a unit
concentration in water (1 ng/L = 10"12 g/cm3), the flux of PCBs into the air based on Equation [3] is:
trichlorobiphenyl: 2.7 x 10"7 (ng/cm2-sec per ng/L)
tetrachlorobiphenyl: 2.2 x 10"7 (ng/cm2-sec per ng/L)
Given the only slight differences in the flux estimates, the higher flux rate (2.7 x 10"7 ng/cm2-sec per
ng/L) was used as the source term to the ISCST model to estimate the PCB concentration in air.
The flux calculated according to the two-film theory model, was compared with the PCB flux
from water estimated based on the field studies performed by Achman et al. (1993), who measured PCB
volatilization from Lake Michigan on 14 separate days from June to October, 1989. The total PCB
concentration in water measured during the study period ranged from 0.35 ng/L to 7.8 ng/L. The
measured PCB flux rates ranged from 13 to 1,300 ng/m2-day. The highest flux rate (1,300 ng/m2-day)
corresponded to a PCB concentration in water of 6.67 ng/L and was measured on a day with a wind
speed of 6.5 m/sec (the day with the highest observed wind speed during the study when PCB
measurements were taken).
Using the 14 measurements from the Achman et al. study, the ordinary least squares linear
regression fit to the data gives:
Flux (ng/m2-day) = 0.087 C, (ng/m3) + 47.5 (R2=0.31)
The data exhibited a significant degree of variability, as evidenced by the low R2 value. Using this
empirical regression equation, the flux of PCBs from water per unit concentration is 134.5 ng/m2-day per
ng/L, or 1.6x 10"7 ng/cm2-sec per ng/L. The average normalized flux (average of 14 measurements)
measured by Achman et al. was 104 ng/m2-day, or 1.2 x 10"7 ng/cm2-sec per ng/L. These experimental
results are very close to the flux estimate calculated above using the two-layer film resistance theory.
A.4 Scaling Unit Emission Rate to Actual Source Strength
The ISC model yields a predicted chemical concentration (e.g., pg/m3) at a particular point in
space averaged over a particular time period that is linearly proportional to the emission source (in
(ig/sec). This linear property is common to the Gaussian "advection dispersion" type models widely used
for chemical fate and transport not only in air but in soil, groundwater and surface water. Because of the
linear relationship between the source emission rate and the predicted ambient chemical concentration in
air, the ISC model can be run for a "unit emission source" (i.e., 1 (ig/sec), and the results then scaled
based on the actual source strength of any particular constituent modeled. This greatly reduces the
number of modeling iterations required. The ISC model results for the unit source are converted to the
chemical-specific concentration predictions by a simple arithmetic conversion using the chemical-
specific emission rates for the source(s) under consideration:
Q(x,y) = C*(x,y) x J, [1]
A-4 Gradient Corporation
-------
where:
Ci(x,y) = chemical concentration of the ilh chemical at a particular (x,y) location
(pg/m3)
C*(x,y) = normalized chemical concentration in air at a particular (x,y) location
per unit emission rate (pg/m3 per |o.g/sec emissions)
Ji = emission rate for the ith chemical (ng/sec)
For this assessment, a unit source (1 |J.g/sec) was apportioned to a representative reach of the river, taken
as a one kilometer long, by approximately 200 meter wide, which is a representative width of the Upper
Hudson in the vicinity of the Thompson Island Pool area.
As described above, the flux rate ((O.g/cm2-sec) is linearly proportional to the concentration of
PCBs dissolved in water. Therefore, the ISCST model results can be scaled linearly to the PCB
concentration in water.
A.5 Summary of Modeling Results
The average normalized chemical concentration predictions, C*(x,y), were calculated for
receptor points covering a uniform grid (50 m x 50 m) up to 200 meters on either side of this
representative stretch of river. The complete ISCST output file is provided in Attachment B-l. A plot of
the annual average normalized PCB concentration in air is provided in Figure B-l.
Not surprisingly, the maximum average concentrations are predicted to occur immediately along
either side of the river, with slightly higher ambient concentrations predicted along the eastern, or
predominantly downwind, bank of the river. The typical concentration along the eastern river bank is on
the order of 70 picograms per cubic meter per 1 |ig/sec emission source strength (e.g., 70 pg/m3 per
(ig/sec). The concentration drops approximately 10-fold as the distance downwind increases to
approximately 200 meters. The downwind average normalized concentration within a 200 meter wide
zone is approximately 22 pg/m3 per |0,g/sec of PCB emissions.
A-5 Gradient Corporation
-------
A.6 References
Achman, D.R., K.C. Hornbuckle, and S. Eisenreich. 1993. "Volatilization of polychlorinated biphenyls
from Green Bay, Lake Michigan." Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27(1): 75-87.
Bopp, R.F. 1983. "Revised parameters for modeling the transport of PCB Components across an air
water interface." J. of Geophysical Research Vol 88(4): 2521-2529
Bowers, J.F., J.R. Bjorkland, and C.S. Cheney. 1979. Industrial Source Complex (ISC) dispersion model
user's guide, Vol: I. Research Triangle Park, N.C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-450/4-79-030.
Gifford, F.A., Jr. 1968. An outline of theories of diffusion in the lower layers of the atmosphere. In
Meteorology and atomic energy, ed. D.H. Slade. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Office of
Information Services. TID-24190.
Pasquill, F. 1962. Atmospheric diffusion. London: D. Van Nostrand Company, Ltd.
Schulman, L.L., and S.R. Hanna. 1986. Evaluation of downwash modifications to the Industrial Source
Complex model. /. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 36(3):258-164.
Schulman, L.L., and J.S. Scire. 1980. Buoyant line and point source (BLP) dispersion model user's
guide. Document P-7304B. Concord, Mass.: Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Support Center for Regulatory Air Models
(SCRAM) Bulletin Board Service. Meteorological Data and Associated Programs. Meteorologic data
for Boston, Logan Airport.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 1995.
User's guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) dispersion model 3rd edition, (revised). Volumes
1 and 2. Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA - 454/b-95-003a and -003b.
A-6 Gradient Corporation
-------
Table A-l
Airborne PCB Concentrations (ng/m3)
Monitor
Height
1 m
1 m
1m
1 m
1 m
1 m
1 m
4.5m
4.5m
Date
8/25-27/80
9/5-7/80
8/19-26/81
9/2-9/81
9/16-26/81
9/10/81
9/10/81
9/10/81
9/10/81
Location
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
Aroclor 1221
<10
<10
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<3
<3
<3
<3
Aroclor 1242
110
520
46
50
32
60
58
39
31
Aroclor 1254
<10
<10
1.3
1.1
0.6
<2
<2
<2
<2
Total PCBs (a)
120
530
47
51
33
63
61
42
34
Notes:
(a) Total PCB based on summing Aroclor concentrations, including 1/2 the detection limit for
non-detected results.
Source: Buckley and Tofflemire (1983)
Page I of
Gradient Corporation
AN IT COMPANY
-------
Table A-2
Summary of PCBs Detected in Air and Corresponding Water Sampling Results
Remnant Deposit Monitoring Program (Harza, 1992)
AIR
Site
A2
A3
A4
B3
Date
9/18/91
9/18/91
6/8/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
5/15/91
5/15/91
5/21/91
5/21/91
5/24/91
5/24/91
5/27/91
6/8/91
PCB Cone
(ug/m3)
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.13
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.05
WATER
Associated Water
Sample Locations
RS2-W1
RS2-W2
El
RS3-W1
RS3-W2
RS4-W1
E3
RS4-W2
E4
RS4-W1
E3
RS4-W2
E4
RS4-W1
E3
RS4-W2
E4
RS3-W1
RS3-W2
RS3-W1
RS3-W2
RS3-W1
RS3-W2
RS3-W1
RS3-W2
RS3-W1
RS3-W2
RS3-W1
RS3-W2
RS3-W1
RS3-W2
RS3-W1
RS3-W2
Total PCB
(ug/L)
1.8(9/19/91)
NS
1.1 (9/19/91)
1.5(9/19/91)
1.8(9/19/91)
NS
0.14(6/7/91)
NS
ND (6/7/91)
NS
1.4(9/19/91)
NS
1.5(9/19/91)
ND
ND
0.14
ND
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.2
0.14
Transfer Coefficient
Ratio
PCBai,/PCBh2o
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.2
0.09
0.09
0.3
0.3
0.4
Page 1 of 1
Gradient Corporation
AN IT COMPANY
-------
(0
Figure A-1
ISCST Model Results
Normalized PCB Concentration
(pg/m3 per 1 ug/s)
n ftf\ f\ r
££UU — t
i
.
i
.
i
i
2000-f
c
i
i
1800-E
f
1600-E
1400-t
1200-*
1 HAH
I UUU
son
O \f\J
4
4
P
5
P
5
P
5
5
P
5
P
5
P
5
P
5
] P
5
] P
5
i a
5
i P
5
] D
4
] D
4
] D
4
] D
4
i a
4
i a
4
i a
3
i P
3
i P
3
i P
3
i a
3
i P
3
] P
2
3 P
2
1 P
2
i n
J UH
6
6
P
6
P
7
P
7
7
P
7
P
7
P
7
P
7
P
7
P
7
D
7
P
7
a
7
D
7
a
6
a
6
a
6
p
5
a
5
p
5
P
4
P
4
P
4
P
4
P
3
P
3
P
3
n
LJ
8
9
P
10
P
10
P
11
12
P
12
P
12
P
13
P
13
P
13
P
13
P
13
P
13
a
12
a
12
a
12
a
11
a
11
p
10
p
9
D
8
P
7
P
7
P
6
P
5
P
5
P
4
P
4
14 !3 1J; 19
12 15 15 12
P P P P
15 19 19 16
P P P P
20 26 26 23
P P P P
40 62 63 60
r— > i — i r-i i— i
5
t
5
[
C
1
C
[
E
[
C
[
C
t.
c
1
t
1
I
c
c
c
c
1
1
1
I
1
4
4
2
1
i
1
t
}
7
I
i
1
i
]
)
1
1
1
>
i
)
1
i
1
1
1
! 52 57 57
Bn n n
10 15 17 18
P P P P
7 10 11 12
P P P P
6899
P P P P
5677
n n n n
cp LJ LJ CJ
1 5
8 5
P P
10 5
P P
13 6
P P
31 8
i— » r— i
5
[
6
[
6
[
6
t
6
[
6
[
6
[
6
[
6
[
6
t
6
1
6
6
1
(
1
6
6
6
1
6
LJ
12
P
14
P
16
P
17
D
1 17
I P
I 18
I P
1 18
I P
I 18
) P
) 18
1 D
1 18
I D
» 18
I Q
) 18
i a
) 18
i a
I 18
] O
7 18
i a
> 17
] D
i 17
1 P
I 16
I P
) 16
1 P
) 14
5 P
15 10
P P
10 8
P P
8 6
P P
6 5
n n
"F D
3
3
P
4
P
4
P
5
7
P
8
P
9
P
10
P
11
P
11
P
11
P
11
P
11
D
11
D
11
D
11
D
11
a
11
a
11
o
11
a
11
p
11
p
10
p
10
p
8
P
6
P
5
P
4
2 2
e.. r
t
2 ;
p t
3 ;
p [
3 ;
p t
3 :
Dr
i
4 :
p t
5
p (
6 !
P [
7 i
P [
8 !
P [
8 i
P [
8 1
P
8
P
8
a
8
p
8
a
8
a
8
a
8
P
8
a
8
D
8
P
8
P
8
P
7
P
6
P
5
P
4
P
4
t
—
1
1
1
J-
1
1
1
H
]
]
]
H
)
]
)
—
800
1000
1200
1400
East (meters)
Gradient Corporation
An IT Company
-------
Attachment A-l
ISCST3 Modeling Results
Gradient Corporation
-------
**BEE-Line Software: BEEST for Windows data input file
** Date: 3/18/99 Time: 10:41:10 AM
NO ECHO
BEE-Line ISCST3 "BEEST" Version 6.61
Input File - C:\Beework\hudson.DTA
Output File - C:\Beework\hudson.LST
Met File - C:\Beework\METDATA\ALBAN91.MET
*** SETUP Finishes Successfully ***
Page: 1
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 *** *** Hudson River PCS *** 03/18/99
*** *** 10:41:17
PAGE 1
**MODELOPTs: CONC RURAL FLAT DFAULT
*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY ***
"Intermediate Terrain Processing is Selected
"Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average concentration Values.
-- SCAVENGING/DEPOSITION LOGIC --
"Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DDPLETE = F
"Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WDPLETE = F
"NO WET SCAVENGING Data Provided.
"Model Does NOT Use GRIDDED TERRAIN Data for Depletion Calculations
"Model Uses RURAL Dispersion.
"Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Final Plume Rise.
2. Stack-tip Downwash.
3. Buoyancy-induced Dispersion.
4. Use Calms Processing Routine.
5. Not Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
6. Default Wind Profile Exponents.
7. Default Vertical Potential Temperature Gradients.
8. "Upper Bound" Values for Supersquat Buildings.
9. No Exponential Decay for RURAL Mode
"Model Assumes Receptors on FLAT Terrain.
"Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
"Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only
"This Run Includes: 1 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 320 Receptor(s)
"The Model Assumes A Pollutant Type of: OTHER
"Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
"Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
"NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
"Misc. Inputs: Anem. Hgt. (m) = 10.00 ; Decay Coef. = 0.000 ; Rot. Angle = 0.0
Emission Units = UG/S ; Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07
Output Units = PG/M'
"Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 1.2 MB of RAM.
"Input Runstream File: C:\Beework\hudson.DTA
"Output Print File: C:\Beework\hudson.LST
Page: 2
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 *** *** Hudson River PCB *** 03/18/99
*** *** 10:'.1:17
PAGE 2
**MODELOPTS: CONC RURAL FLAT DFAULT
*** AREA SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE COORD (SW CORNER) BASE RELEASE X-DIM Y-DIM ORIENT. INIT. EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X Y ELEV. HEIGHT OF AREA OF AREA OF AREA SZ SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEC.) (METERS) BY
RIVER 0 0.50000E-05 1000.0 1000.0 0.0 0.00 200.00 1000.00 0.00 0.00
Page: 3
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 *** *** Hudson River PCB *** 03/18/99
*** *** 10:41:17
PAGE 3
**MODELOPTs: CONC RURAL FIAT DFAULT
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***
GROUP ID SOURCE IDs
ALL RIVER
Page: 4
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 ***
*MODELOPTs: CONC
*** Hudson River PCB
RURAL FLAT
DFAOLT
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 4
'* DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS *'
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1100
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1100
( 800
( 900
( 1000
( 1100
( 1200
( 1300
( 1400
( 850
( 950
( 1050
( 1150
( 1250
( 1350
( 800
( 900
( 1000
( 1100
( 1200
( 1300
( 1400
( 850
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
•0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2000
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
1000
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
850
850
850
850
850
850
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
950
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
• 0,
• 0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
• 0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
o,
o,
0,
o,
0,
o,
0,
0,
o.
0,
0,
o,
0,
0,
0,
o.
o,
0,
0,
o,
0,
o,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
o,
0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
• 0);
.0);
.0);
• 0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
-0);
.0);
.0);
-0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
.0);
{ 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1000
( 1050
( 1150
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
{ 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1200
( 1150
( 1050
( 850
( 950
( 1050
( 1150
( 1250
( 1350
( 800
( 900
( 1000
( 1100
( 1200
( 1300
( 1400
( 850
( 950
( 1050
( 1150
( 1250
( 1350
( 800
( 900
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0, •
.0,
.0, '
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
1050
1150
1250
1350
1450
1550
1650
1750
1850
1950
2000
2000
1950
1850
1750
1650
1550
1450
1350
1250
1150
1050
1000
1000
800
800
800
800
800
800
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
900
900
900
900
900
900
950
950
.0,
-0,
-0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
Page: 5
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 ***
**MODELOPTs: CONC
*** Hudson River PCB
***
RURAL FLAT
DFAULT
***
***
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 5
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 950.0,
( 1050.0,
( 1150.0,
( 1250.0,
{ 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
{ 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
{ 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
950.0,
950.0,
950.0,
950.0,
950.0,
1000.0,
1000.0,
1000.0,
1000.0,
1050.0,
1050.0,
1050.0,
1050.0,
1100.0,
1100.0,
1100.0,
1100.0,
1150.0,
1150.0,
1150.0,
1150.0,
1200.0,
1200.0,
1200.0,
1200.0,
1250.0,
1250.0,
1250.0,
1250.0,
1300.0,
1300.0,
1300.0,
1300.0,
1350.0,
1350.0,
1350.0,
1350.0,
1400.0,
1400.0,
1400.0,
1400.0,
1450.0,
1450.0,
1450.0,
1450.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
o.o,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0) j r
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) j :
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) i ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) i ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
1000.0,
1100.0,
1200.0,
1300.0,
1400.0,
850.0,
950.0,
1300.0,
1400.0,
850.0,
950.0,
! 1300.0,
; 1400.0,
850.0,
950.0,
1300.0,
1400.0,
850.0,
950.0,
1300.0,
1400.0,
850.0,
950.0,
1300.0,
1400.0,
850.0,
950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
{ 1400.0,
950.0,
950.0,
950.0,
950.0,
950.0,
1000.0,
1000.0,
1000.0,
1000.0,
1050.0,
1050.0,
1050.0,
1050.0,
1100.0,
1100.0,
1100.0,
1100.0,
1150.0,
1150.0,
1150.0,
1150.0,
1200.0,
1200.0,
1200.0,
1200.0,
1250.0,
1250.0,
1250.0,
1250.0,
1300.0,
1300.0,
1300.0,
1300.0,
1350.0,
1350.0,
1350.0,
1350.0,
1400.0,
1400.0,
1400.0,
1400.0,
1450.0,
1450.0,
1450.0,
1450.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j :
0.0) i ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j r
0.0) j r
0.0) i ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) i ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) | r
0.0) ;
0.0) i ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j r
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j :
0.0) ;
0.0) j ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j r
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j ;
0.0);
0.0) i r
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ,-
0.0) j r
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
Page: 6
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 ***
*MODELOPTS: CONC
*** Hudson River PCB
***
RURAL FLAT
DFADLT
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 6
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
: 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
900.0,
1250.0,
1350.0,
800.0,
900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
1250.0,
1350.0,
800.0,
900.0,
1250.0,
1350.0,
800.0,
900.0,
1250.0,
1350.0,
( 800.0,
{ 900.0,
( 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
{ 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
( 900.0,
{ 1250.0,
( 1350.0,
( 800.0,
1500.0,
1500.0,
1500.0,
1500.0,
1550.0,
1550.0,
1550.0,
1550.0,
1600.0,
1600.0,
1600.0,
1600.0,
1650.0,
1650.0,
1650.0,
1650.0,
1700.0,
1700.0,
1700.0,
1700.0,
1750.0,
1750.0,
1750.0,
1750.0,
1800.0,
1800.0,
1800.0,
1800.0,
1850.0,
1850.0,
1850.0,
1850.0,
1900.0,
1900.0,
1900.0,
1900.0,
1950.0,
1950.0,
1950.0,
1950.0,
2000.0,
2000.0,
2000.0,
2000.0,
2050.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0) ;
0.0) ) ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) i r
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) i ;
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) j :
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) i
0.0);
0.0) j ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
{ 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
{ 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
{ 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
( 950.0,
( 1300.0,
( 1400.0,
( 850.0,
1500.0,
1500.0,
1500.0,
1500.0,
1550.0,
1550.0,
1550.0,
1550.0,
1600.0,
1600.0,
1600.0,
1600.0,
1650.0,
1650.0,
1650.0,
1650.0,
1700.0,
1700.0,
1700.0,
1700.0,
1750.0,
1750.0,
1750.0,
1750.0,
1800.0,
1800.0,
1800.0,
1800.0,
1850.0,
1850.0,
1850.0,
1850.0,
1900.0,
1900.0,
1900.0,
1900.0,
1950.0,
1950.0,
1950.0,
1950.0,
2000.0,
2000.0,
2000.0,
2000.0,
2050.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0,
0.0) i r
0.0) ;
0.0) i ;
0.0) j :
0.0) i ;
0.0) 1 1
0.0) i ;
0.0) j :
0.0) j ;
0.0) i r
0.0) ; ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) i ;
0.0) j ;
0.0) ;
0.0);
0.0) ; ;
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) j :
0.0);
0.0) ;
0.0) ;
0.0) j :
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0);
0.0) ;
Page: 7
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 ***
*MODELOPTs: CONC
k* Hudson River PCB
RURAL FLAT
DFAULT
***
***
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 7
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 900
( 1000
( 1100
( 1200
( 1300
( 1400
( 850
( 950
( 1050
( 1150
( 1250
{ 1350
( 800
( 900
( 1000
( 1100
( 1200
( 1300
( 1400
( 850
( 950
( 1050
( 1150
( 1250
( 1350
.0,
-0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
.0,
•0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
2050
2050
2050
2050
2050
2050
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2150
2150
2150
2150
2150
2150
2150
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
.0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•0,
.0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0.
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0.
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0}
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
;
•
•
•
•
1
i
;
i
•
•
•
1
•
•
;
1
i
1
J
•
;
!
;
( 950
1050
1150
; 1250
; 1350
800
900
1000
1100
: 1200
; 1300
( 1400
850
950
1050
1150
1250
1350
800
900
1000
1100
( 1200
( 1300
1400
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0.
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
,0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
2050.
2050.
2050.
2050.
2050.
2100.
2100.
2100.
2100.
2100.
2100.
2100.
2150.
aiso.
2130.
2150.
2150.
2150.
2200.
2200.
2200.
2200.
2200.
2200.
2200.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
o,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0.
• 0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
.0,
-0,
.0,
.0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
Page: 8
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 *** *** Hudson River PCB
*MODELOPTs: CONC
RURAL FLAT
DFAO1T
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 8
*** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING
(1=YES; 0=NO)
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED MILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
2 3
70000E-01 .70000E-01
70000E-01 .70000E-01
10000E+00 .lOOOOE-fOO
15000E+00 .15000E+00
35000E+00 .35000E+00
55000E+00 .5SOOOE+00
4
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
. 10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
. 55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.10000E+00
.15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
. 10000E+00
. 15000E+00
.35000E+00
.55000E+00
*** VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS ***
(DEGREES KELVIN PER METER)
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
B
C
D
E
F
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
WIND SPEED CATEGORY
2 3
OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00
OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00
OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00
OOOOOE+00 .OOOOOE+00
20000E-01 .20000E-01
35000E-01 .35000E-01
4
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.OOOOOE+00
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
Page: 9
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 9835S ***
**MODELOPTs: CONC
*** Hudson River PCS
***
RURAL FLAT
DPAULT
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 9
*** THE FIRST 24 HOURS OP METEOROLOGICAL DATA ***
FILE: C:\Beework\METDATA\ALBAN91.MET
FORMAT: (412,2F9.4,F6.1,12,2F7.1,f9.4,flO.l,f8.4,14,f7.2)
SURFACE STATION NO.: 14735 UPPER AIR STATION NO.: 14735
NAME: UNKNOWN NAME: UNKNOWN
YEAR: 1991 YEAR: 1991
FLOW
YR MN DY HR VECTOR
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
1 10
1 11
1 12
1 13
1 14
1 15
1 16
1 17
1 18
1 19
1 20
1 21
1 22
1 23
1 24
121.0
188.0
214.0
13.0
33.0
352.0
355.0
323.0
357.0
351.0
354.0
346.0
353.0
359.0
2.0
354.0
341.0
347.0
344.0
347.0
340.0
342.0
350.0
340.0
SPEED
(M/S)
2.57
1.54
1.54
1.54
2.06
2.57
0.00
2.06
4.12
4.63
4.12
3.09
2.57
3.60
3.60
3.09
4.12
5.14
6.17
4.63
5.14
5.14
4.63
4.63
TEMP STAB
(K) CLASS
263.7
263.1
264.3
263.1
263.1
262.6
262.6
263.7
265.4
267.0
269.3
270.4
271.5
271.5
272.0
272.0
272.6
273 .1
272 .6
272 .0
271.5
271.5
270.9
270.9
£
6
6
7
6
6
7
6
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
S
s
5
MIXING HEIGHT (M)
RURAL URBAN
1179.8
1179.0
1178.2
1177.3
1176.5
1175.7
1174.8
86.1
266.6
447.1
627.6
808.0
988.5
1169.0
1169.0
1169.0
1163.8
1154.6
1145.4
1136.2
1127.1
1117.9
1108.7
1099.5
484.0
484.0
484.0
484.0
484 .0
484.0
484.0
534.5
640.2
746.0
851.7
957.5
1063.2
1169.0
1169.0
1169.0
1163.8
1154.6
1145.4
789.4
683.0
576.7
470.3
364.0
USTAR M-0 LENGTH
(M/S) (M)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z-0 IPCODE PRATE
(M) (mm/HR)
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
*** NOTES:
STABILITY CLASS 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D, 5=E AND 6=F.
FLOW VECTOR IS DIRECTION TOWARD WHICH WIND IS BLOWING.
Page: 10
-------
ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 ***
*MODELOPTs: CONC
*** Hudson River PCB
RURAL FLAT
DFAULT
*** THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL
INCLUDING SOURCE (S) : RIVER
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M)
** CONC OF OTHER
CONC
IN PG/M»
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M)
CONC
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 10
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1100
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1100
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
850
950
1050
1150
1250
1350
800
900
1000
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2000
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
1000
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
850
850
850
850
850
850
900
900
900
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
22
47
52
54
56
57
57
57
56
54
40
63
30
63
67
68
68
68
68
67
66
63
43
56
1
2
4
7
6
4
3
2
3
7
8
6
4
1
3
7
.07373
.50103
.20403
.71456
.27484
.23437
.61974
.56608
.93792
.97485
.45110
.03386
.52155
.55464
.10719
.33302
.85168
.93752
.57832
.80934
.43845
.53041
.19268
.52396
.71132
.65345
.89268
.07984
.19377
.12667
.20853
.27357
.99271
.75454
.74653
.02888
.31338
.92499
.23949
.22578
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1050
1150
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
]:200
1150
1050
850
950
1050
1150
1250
1350
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
850
950
1050
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1050
1150
1250
1350
1450
1550
1650
1750
1850
1950
2000
2000
1950
1850
1750
1650
1550
1450
1350
1250
1150
1050
1000
1000
800
800
800
800
800
800
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
900
900
900
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
42
50
53
55
56
57
57
57
56
52
62
59
58
65
67
68
68
68
68
67
65
60
57
51
2
3
6
7
5
3
1
2
5
8
7
4
3
2
4
10
.87648
.25271
.62135
.58282
.81124
.48371
.64756
.34848
.19948
.66998
.16137
.93647
.85975
.82605
.85329
.63849
.93349
.80656
.25227
.23401
.28090
.45412
.37995
.99488
.09794
.53305
.23722
.05333
.06923
.57315
.82337
.92581
.83157
.76458
.60235
.96236
.80759
.44381
.57338
.17241
Page: 11
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 ***
*MODEU)PTS: CONG
*** Hudson River PCB
***
RTJRAL FLAT
DFAULT
*** THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL
INCLUDING SOURCE (S) : RIVER
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN PG/MJ **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M)
CONC
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M)
CONC
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 11
1100
1200
1300
1400
850
950
1050
1150
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
900
900
900
900
950
950
950
950
950
950
1000
1000
1000
1000
1050
1050
1050
1050
1100
1100
1100
1100
1150
1150
1150
1150
1200
1200
1200
1200
1250
1250
1250
1250
1300
1300
1300
1300
1350
1350
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
11.
9.
6.
4.
2.
5.
14.
17.
10.
6.
2.
3.
14.
7.
2.
4.
15.
7.
2.
4.
16.
8.
2.
4.
16.
8.
2.
5.
17.
8.
2.
5.
17.
8.
2.
5.
17.
8.
2.
6.
47499
99092
22603
47277
S0182
29063
87307
74545
28474
24828
14564
87225
04338
17653
23053
10313
74475
73811
27582
35000
49319
01431
34492
66363
97028
18003
43513
03939
28089
29107
53023
41777
57410
39251
64137
78423
77308
44976
76531
12460
1150
1250
1350
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
900
900
900
950
950
950
950
950
950
950
1000
1000
1000
1000
1050
1050
1050
1050
1100
1100
1100
1100
1150
1150
1150
1150
1200
1200
1200
1200
1250
1250
1250
1250
1300
1300
1300
1300
1350
1350
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
11
7
5
2
3
9
17
14
7
5
2
6
9
5
2
6
10
6
3
7
10
6
3
8
11
6
3
9
11
6
3
9
11
6
3
10
11
6
3
11
.62601
.56808
.24577
.02206
.54064
.69326
.25429
.76254
.88130
.13477
.79230
.07374
.51243
.74568
.92121
.68728
.40069
.13843
.02233
.49496
.80454
.36010
.16385
.40458
.06846
.47795
.32748
.24351
.23282
.56854
.52037
.99459
.37267
.64296
.72551
.66136
.44867
.68927
.93330
.23338
Page: 12
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 ***
*MODELOPTS: CONC
*** Hudson River PCB
***
RURAL FLAT
THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS)
INCLUDING SOURCE(S):
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 12
DFAULT
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
RIVER ,
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
X- COORD
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
(M) Y-COORD
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1350
1350
1400
1400
1400
1400
1450
1450
1450
1450
1500
1500
1500
1500
1550
1550
1550
1550
1600
1600
1600
1600
1650
1650
1650
1650
1700
1700
1700
1700
1750
1750
1750
1750
1800
1800
1800
1800
1850
1850
(M)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
** CONC OF OTHER
CONC
17
8
2
6
18
8
3
6
18
8
3
6
18
8
3
7
18
8
3
7
17
8
3
7
17
8
3
7
17
7
3
7
17
7
3
7
16
7
3
7
.92351
.47758
.89661
.42739
.02281
.44733
.02478
.69188
.07342
.46418
.14226
.91755
.07918
.42549
.24445
.10563
.03699
.35973
.32626
.25438
.94057
.26190
.38384
.35930
.77885
.11881
.41242
.41567
.53460
.89871
.42700
.41404
.17905
.55333
.42856
.33115
.63605
.04240
.42112
.25945
IN PG/M'
X- COORD
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
(M) Y-COORD
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1350
1350
1400
1400
1400
1400
1450
1450
1450
1450
1500
1500
1500
1500
1550
1550
1550
1550
1600
1600
1600
1600
1650
1650
1650
1650
1700
1700
1700
1700
1750
1750
1750
1750
1800
1800
1800
1800
1850
1850
(M)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
**
CONC
11
6
4
11
11
6
4
12
11
6
4
12
11
6
4
12
11
6
4
12
11
6
4
12
11
6
4
12
10
6
4
12
10
S
4
12
10
5
4
12
.48068
.72504
.13610
.70851
.48968
.73121
.32314
.09709
.47856
.71343
.48695
.40904
.44505
.67164
.62138
.64957
.38648
.60078
.71823
.82312
.29694
.48852
.80180
.92826
.16586
.31361
.84942
.95698
.97170
.05283
.86509
.90482
.66610
.68428
.82506
.73545
.17012
.19690
.80525
.48831
Page: 13
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 ***
k*MODELOPTS: CONC
*** Hudson River PCB
RURAL FLAT
DFAULT
*** THE ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): RIVER
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 13
X-COORD
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1250
1350
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
850
950
1050
1150
1250
1350
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
850
950
1050
1150
1250
1350
(M) Y-COORD
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1850
1850
1900
1900
1900
1900
1950
1950
1950
1950
2000
2000
2000
2000
2050
2050
2050
2050
2050
2050
2050
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2150
2150
2150
2150
2150
2150
2150
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
(M)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
** CONC OF OTHER
CONC
15
6
3
7
14
5
3
6
11
4
3
6
7
3
3
6
19
25
13
3
2
4
9
18
16
5
2
3
6
12
14
8
3
1
4
7
12
10
4
2
.76420
.31179
.41695
.09176
.28900
.38364
.40993
.91910
.62837
.38036
.36931
.70275
.90739
.44472
.36040
.57309
.72559
.86624
.24762
.99196
.21432
.55844
.62609
.84926
.01717
.47558
.57722
.37633
.17376
.48498
.71947
.45336
.28740
.83961
.38106
.99835
.26181
.25024
.60203
.23310
IN PG/M»
X-COORD
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1300
1400
850
950
1050
1150
1250
1350
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
850
950
1050
1150
1250
1350
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
(M) Y-COORD
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1850
1850
1900
1900
1900
1900
1950
1950
1950
1950
2000
2000
2000
2000
2050
2050
2050
2050
2050
2050
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2150
2150
2150
2150
2150
2150
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
(M)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
**
CONC
9.
4.
4.
12.
8.
3.
4.
11.
6.
3.
4.
10.
4.
2.
4.
10.
25.
22.
6.
2.
3.
6.
15.
18.
10.
3.
1.
4.
8.
14.
12.
4.
2.
3.
5.
10.
12.
7.
3.
1.
37212
59092
75733
08076
13863
91706
70961
51345
50294
24484
61827
85766
88160
62147
57935
35232
73849
77712
22397
87120
38354
41473
19395
71589
17593
57546
97631
48595
79050
92951
48565
97807
38715
34134
85992
58626
08466
28442
06388
72748
Page: 14
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 *** *** Hudson River PCB
***
03/18/99
10:41:17
PAGE 14
*MODELOPTs: CONG
RURAL FLAT DFAULT
*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS ***
GROUP ID
** CONC OF OTHER
AVERAGE COMC
IN PG/MJ **
NETWORK
RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID
ALL 1ST
2ND
3RD
4TH
5TH
6TH
7TH
8TH
9TH
10TH
HIGHEST
HIGHEST
HIGHEST
HIGHEST
HIGHEST
HIGHEST
HIGHEST
HIGHEST
HIGHEST
HIGHEST
VALUE IS
VALUE IS
VALUE IS
VALUE IS
VALUE IS
VALUE IS
VALUE IS
VALUE IS
VALUE IS
VALUE IS
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
67
67
93752 AT
93349 AT
85168 AT
80656 AT
63849 AT
57832 AT
33302 AT
25227 AT
85329 AT
80934 AT
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
i 1200
( 1200
.00,
.00,
.00,
.00,
.00,
.00,
.00,
.00,
.00,
.00,
1500.00,
1550.00,
1600.00,
1450.00,
1650.00,
1400 .00,
1700.00,
1350.00,
1750.00,
1300.00,
0.00,
0.00,
0.00,
0.00,
0.00,
0.00,
0.00,
0.00,
0.00,
0.00,
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
0.00)
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RECEPTOR TYPES:
GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
BD = BOUNDARY
Page: 15
-------
*** ISCST3 - VERSION 98356 *** *** Hudson River PCB *** 03/18/99
*** *** 10:41:17
PAGE 15
**MODELOPTs: CONC RURAL FLAT DFAULT
*** Message Summary : ISCST3 Model Execution ***
Summary of Total Messages
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 0 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 1217 Informational Message(s)
A Total of 1217 Calm Hours Identified
FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*** ISCST3 Finishes Successfully ***
Page: 16
-------
Appendix B
-------
Appendix B
Monte Carlo Analysis Attachments
Gradient Corporation
-------
Table B-l
Monte Carlo Summary - Mean
Max
Min
Ratio
Base
I
•.xp
Run Duration
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
B = Base Case
H = High-End
[. = Low-Iind
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Ingcslion
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
Ml
Ml
Ml
MI
Ml
Ml
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Ont
Oni
Oni
Oni
Oni
Oni
Oni
Ont
Ont
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
Ml
Ml
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Oni
Oni
Oni
Ont
Oni
Oni
Oni
Oni
Ont
PCB Cone
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
I,
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
1.
L
Cooking
Loss
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
I.
B
H
L
B
H
I.
8.53E-04
2.84E-05
30.05
2.42E-04
Cancer
Risk
I.24E-04
I.63E-04
l.OIE-04
2.09 E-04
2.72E-04
1.60E-04
5.07E-05
6.57E-05
3.91E-05
2.56E-04
3.36E-04
2.03E-04
4.17E-04
5.39E-04
3.15E-04
I.08E-04
1.30E-04
7.84E-05
2.42E-04
3.14E-04
I.81E-04
3.91 E-04
5.14E-04
2.97E-04
I.04E-04
I.29E-04
7.96E-05
9.95E-05
1.18E-O4
7.04E-05
1.62E-04
1.98E-04
1.I7E-04
4.18E-05
4.89E-05
2.84E-05
I.95E-04
2.50E-04
I.49E-04
3.35E-04
4.26E-04
2.43E-04
7.59E-05
9.37E-05
5.94E-05
4.12E-04
5.12E-04
3.14E-04
6.57E-04
8.53E-04
5.02E-04
1.62E-04
2.00E-04
I.18E-04
3.93E-04
5. 11 E-04
2.90E-04
6.80E-04
8.21 E-04
4.79E-04
I.59E-04
I.92E-04
I.I5E-04
I.50E-04
1.91E-04
I.IIE-04
2.41 E-04
3.I8E-04
I.82E-04
6.I5E-05
7.49I--05
4.4IK-05
101.5
4.8
21.14
40.3
Hazard
Index
20.3
26.8
16.6
34.2
44.1
25.8
8.5
II. 1
6.6
41.8
54.3
33.2
68.1
87.9
51.8
18.4
22.2
13.3
40.3
51.5
29.4
63.9
85.8
48.5
17.4
22.3
13.5
16.2
19.4
11.5
26.5
32.2
19.0
7.0
8.3
4.8
23.7
30.2
18.2
40.0
50.7
29.2
10.0
12.4
7.8
50.0
62.3
38.0
78.9
101.5
60.2
21.0
26.4
15.6
47.2
61.1
35.3
82.1
98.4
57.2
20.8
25.4
15.2
18.2
23.0
13.6
28.8
38.1
22.0
8.0
9.9
5.8
I'agc I of 9
-------
Table B-2
Monte Carlo Summary - 5th Percentile
Max 4.77E-05 6.6
Mil) 7.056-07 O.I
Ratio 67.70 44.74
Base 5.49E-06 1.2
Exp
Run Duration
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
37
38
.39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
D = Base Case
H = High-End
1. = Low-End
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Ingcslion
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Onl
Ont
Ont
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Onl
Onl
Onl
Ont
Onl
Ont
Onl
Ont
Onl
PCB Cone
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L.
L
1.
B
B
D
H
H
H
I.
I.
1.
Cooking
Loss
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
Cancer
Risk
2.54E-06
3.08E-06
I.82E-06
4.03E-06
4.55E-06
2.82E-06
9.58E-07
I.22E-06
7.22E-07
9.80E-06
1.32E-05
7.8IE-06
1.53E-05
2.05E-05
1.18E-05
4.44E-06
5.51E-06
3.13E-06
5.49E-06
6.93E-06
4.01E-06
8.43E-06
I.04E-05
6.IOE-06
2.34E-06
3.08E-06
1.73E-06
2.I9E-06
2.78E-06
I.59E-06
3.24E-06
4.29E-06
2.43E-06
8.67E-07
I.OSE-06
7.05E-07
5.92E-06
7.86E-06
4.14E-06
9.22E-06
I.15E-05
6.91E-06
2.38E-06
2.95E-06
I.87E-06
2.60E-05
3.22E-05
I.98E-05
3.96E-05
4.T7E-05
2.87 E-05
1. USE-OS
I.28E-05
7.79E-06
1.35E-05
1.63E-05
1.01 E-05
2.02E-05
2.63 E-05
I.57E-05
5.47E-06
6.79E-06
4.I4E-06
4.6.3E-06
5.92E-06
3.67R-06
7.70E-06
9.56E-06
5.24 E-06
I.92E-06
2.41 E-06
1. 4913-06
Hazard
Index
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.2
2.1
2.8
1.7
3.3
4.2
2.5
1.0
1.2
0.7
1.2
1.6
0.9
1.9
2.3
1.3
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
• 0.9
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.8
1.0
0.5
1.2
1.5
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.3
3.4
4.2
2.7
5.4
6.6
3.7
1.5
1.7
1.1
1.8
2.2
1.3
2.7
3.5
2.1
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
Page 2 of 9
-------
Table B-3
Monte Carlo Summary - 10th Percentlle
Max
Min
Ratio
Base
Exp
Run Duration
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
D = Base Case
H = High-lind
I.= l.mv-l;nd
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Ineestion
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
Ml
Ml
MI
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Om
Ont
Ont
Onl
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Onl
Onl
Onl
Ont
Ont
Ont
Onl
Ont
Ont
PCB Cone
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
1.
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
1.
1.
1.
Cooking
Loss
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
U
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
1.
B
H
L
B
H
1.
B
H
L
B
H
L
7.86E-05
I.28E-06
61.51
9.58E-06
Cancer
Risk
4.69E-06
5.93E-06
3.48E-06
7.56E-06
8.84 E-06
5.62E-06
1.97E-06
2.41 E-06
1.55E-06
I.75E-05
2.27 E-05
1.40E-05
2.68E-05
3.69E-05
2. 10E-05
8.08E-06
9.42E-06
5.76E-06
9.58E-06
1.I5E-05
6.80E-06
1.45E-05
1.81 E-05
1.09 E-05
3.98E-06
4.95E-06
2.88E-06
3.93E-06
4.91 E-06
2.95E-06
6.30E-06
7.60E-06
4.54E-06
1.60E-06
2.04E-06
1.28E-06
1.04E-05
1.32E-05
7.55E-06
1.63 E-05
2.03E-05
1.22E-05
4.31 E-06
5.21E-06
3.20E-06
4.10E-05
5.10E-05
3.12E-05
6.35E-05
7.86E-05
4.62E-05
I.66E-05
2.06E-05
1.22E-05
1.95E-05
2.39E-05
I.46E-05
3.IOE-05
3.99E-05
2.33E-05
7.71E-06
9.34E-06
5.75E-06
8.24E-06
1.05E-05
6.30E-06
1.3 1 E-05
1.69E-05
9.41 E-06
3.42E-06
4.12E-06
2.51 E-06
10.2
0.3
39.04
1.9
Hazard
Index
0.9
1.2
0.7
1.6
1.8
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.3
3.6
4.7
2.9
5.5
7.6
4.4
1.6
2.0
1.2
1.9
2.2
1.4
2.9
3.6
2.2
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.6
1.2
1.5
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.3
1.4
1.7
1.0
2.1
2.6
1.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
5.3
6.6
4.1
8.3
10.2
6.0
2.3
2.8
1.7
2.4
2.9
1.8
3.8
5.0
2.9
1.0
1.2
0.8
I.I
1.4
0.8
1.7
2.1
1.2
(1.5
0.6
0.4
I'age 3 of 9
-------
Table B-4
Monte Carlo Summary - 25th Percentile
Max
Min
Ratio
Base
Exp
Run Duration
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
B = Base Case
H = High-End
I. - Low-End
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Ingestion
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MI
MI
MI
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Ont
Om
Ont
Om
Ont
Ont
Ont
Onl
Ont
ME
ME
MB
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Ont
Onl
Onl
Onl
Onl
Ont
Onl
Onl
Onl
PCB Cone
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
I.
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
[.
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
I.
B
B
B
H
H
H
1.
L
L
Cooking
Loss
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
1,
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
1.
B
H
I.
B
H
I.
B
H
L
1.72E-04
3.43E-06
50.09
2.33E-05
Cancer
Risk
1.22E-05
1.60E-05
9.62E-06
2.03E-05
2.53E-05
I.54E-05
5.35E-06
6.51E-06
3.95E-06
4.39E-05
5.47E-05
3.36E-05
6.73E-05
8.99E-05
5.52E-05
I.92E-05
2.29E-05
I.38E-05
2.33E-05
2.73E-05
I.68E-05
3.63E-05
4.38E-05
2.64E-05
9.20E-06
1.17E-05
6.89E-06
1.09E-05
1.33E-05
7.99E-06
1.70E-05
2.15E-05
I.26E-05
4.56E-06
5.42E-06
3.43E-06
2.38E-05
3.05 E-05
1.75E-05
3.78E-05
4.81E-05
2.84E-05
9.63E-06
I.I8E-05
7.30E-06
8.51 E-05
1.IOE-04
6.78E-05
1.34E-04
I.72E-04
I.02E-04
3.40E-05
4.22E-05
2.64E-05
4.51 E-05
5.47E-05
3.28 E-05
7.05 E-05
8.94E-05
5.26E-05
1.76E-05
2.13E-05
1.32E-05
2.07E-05
2.55E-05
I.54E-05
3.I6E-05
4.I4K-05
2.43E-05
8.I6E-06
I.OOE-05
6.0IE-06
21.7
0.7
32.89
4.4
Hazard
Index
2.3
3.0
1.8
3.8
4.8
2.9
1.0
1.2
0.7
8.4
10.5
6.5
12.9
17.0
10.4
3.7
4.4
2.7
4.4
5.2
3.2
6.9
8.1
5.1
1.8
2.3
1.3
2.1
2.5
1.5
3.2
4.0
2.4
0.9
1.0
0.7
3.0
3.8
2.2
4.8
6.0
3.6
1.3
1.6
1.0
11.0
13.9
8.5
17.1
21.7
12.8
4.7
5.7
3.6
5.6
6.9
4.2
9.0
11.4
6.6
2.4
2.9
1.8
2.6
3.2
2.0
4.0
5.2
3.1
I.I
1.4
0.8
I'iige 4 D| 9
-------
Table B-S
Monte Carlo Summary - 50th Percentile
Ma* 4.12E-04 51.5
Min 9.69E-06 1.8
Ralio 42.48 28.75
Base S.38E-05 11.4
Exp
Run Duration
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
B = Base Case
H = High-l'inl
1. = Low-End
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Ingeslion
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
Ml
Ml
Ml
MI
Ml
MI
MI
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
Ont
Om
Om
Om
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Om
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Om
Ont
Ont
Om
Cooking
PCB Cone
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
I.
L
1.
Loss
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
Cancer
Risk
3.44E-05
4.66E-05
2.78E-05
5.8 IE-OS
7.39E-05
4.24E-05
I.47E-05
I.90E-05
I.10E-05
I.14E-04
1.42E-04
8.83E-05
1.77E-04
2.33E-04
1.42E-04
4.78E-05
5.96E-05
3.60E-05
6.38E-05
7.85E-05
4.82E-05
1.04E-04
1.24E-04
7.52E-05
2.72E-05
3.34E-05
2.00E-05
3.14E-05
3.81 E-05
2.30E-05
S.O8E-O5
6.20E-05
3.66E-05
1.32E-05
I.59E-05
9.69E-06
6.20E-05
7.97E-05
4.66E-05
I.02E-04
1.28E-04
7.68E-05
2.46E-05
3.HE-05
1.88E-05
2.05E-04
2.64E-04
I.56E-04
3.19E-04
4.12E-04
2.43E-04
8.07E-05
1.02E-04
6.24E-05
1.I2E-04
1.43E-04
8.57 E-05
I.88E-04
2.37E-04
I.33E-04
4.49E-05
5.49E-05
3.35E-05
5.38E-05
6.78E-05
4.09E-05
8.54E-05
1.IIE-04
6.34E-05
2.I9E-05
2.66E-05
I.58I--05
Hazard
Index
6.1
8.1
4.9
10.4
13.1
7.7
2.7
3.4
2.0
20.1
25.2
15.7
31.6
41.2
25.3
8.9
10.8
6.5
11.4
13.9
8.5
18.7
22.3
13.4
4.8
6.0
3.7
5.7
6.9
4.1
9.O
II. 1
6.6
2.4
2.9
1.8
7.8
9.8
5.8
12.6
16.0
9.4
3.3
4.2
2.5
25.7
32.7
19.8
39.7
51.5
30.6
10.9
13.9
8.4
13.9
18.1
10.7
23.3
29.0
16.6
6.1
7.4
4.5
6.8
8.4
5.1
10.6
13.6
7.9
2.9
3.6
2.1
Page 5nl9
-------
Table B-6
Monte Carlo Summary - 75th Percentile
Max
Min
Ratio
Base
Exp
Run Duration
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
B = Base Case
H = High-End
1. = Low-End
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Ingestion
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Onl
Out
Ont
Onl
Ont
Ont
Onl
Onl
Onl
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MI
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Onl
Onl
Onl
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Onl
PCB Cone
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
1.
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
1.
Cooking
Loss
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
D
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
D
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
[.
B
H
I.
B
H
1.
9.61 E-04
2.71E-05
35.49
I.83E-04
Cancer
Risk
I.09E-04
I.33E-04
8.4IE-05
I.73E-04
2.25E-04
1.31 E-04
4.4IE-05
5.54E-05
3.22E-05
2.79E-04
3.71 E-04
2.24E-04
4.53E-04
5.98E-04
3.55E-04
1.20E-04
1.47E-04
9.1IE-05
1.83 E-04
2.23 E-04
1.33E-04
2.92E-04
3.71E-04
2.13E-04
7.39E-05
9.50E-05
5.62E-05
8.75E-05
I.08E-04
6.53E-05
1.45E-04
I.78E-04
1.07E-04
3.80E-05
4.64E-05
2.71E-05
I.78E-04
2.26E-04
I.32E-04
2.93E-04
3.75E-04
2.20E-04
7.06E-05
8.77E-05
5.26E-05
4.59E-04
5.95E-04
3.53E-04
7.52E-04
9.61 E-04
5.82E-04
1.85E-04
2.28E-04
1 .38E-O4
2.94E-04
3.77E-04
2.I8E-04
5.07E-04
6.23E-04
3.63E-U4
I.16E-04
I.4SE-04
8.84E-05
1.42E-04
1 .84K-04
1 .0812-04
2.30E-04
2.96E-04
I.73E-04
5.89E-05
7.2IE-05
4.I5F.-05
1 17.5
4.7
24.90
30.8
Hazard
Index
18.5
23.0
14.5
29.6
38.5
22.3
7.9
9.7
5.7
47.7
61.7
37.8
77.3
99.7
60.7
20.7
25.5
15.8
30.8
37.3
22.1
48.9
62.6
35.9
12.8
16.3
9.8
14.8
18.4
11.2
24.9
29.9
17.8
6.7
8.1
4.7
21.8
27.7
16.3
35.9
45.3
26.7
9.3
11.6
7.0
57.2
71.5
43.4
91.7
117.5
70.4
24.3
30.2
18.0
35.6
46.1
26.5
61.2
74.9
42.8
15.1
19.4
11.5
17.7
22.4
13.4
28.1
36.8
20.9
7.8
9.5
5.6
Page 6 of 9
-------
Table B-7
Monte Carlo Summary - 90th Percentile
Max I.94E-03 233.5
Win 6.63E-05 11.2
Ratio 29.21 20.85
Base 4.90E-04 82.0
Exp
Run Duration
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
B = Base Case
H = High-l-nd
1, = l.ow-1-nd
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
a
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
a
B
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Ingcstion
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
Ml
MI
MI
Ml
Ml
MI
MI
MI
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Onl
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Om
Om
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MI
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Ont
Ont
Onl
Onl
Ont
Onl
Ont
Onl
Ont
PCB Cone
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
[.
I.
1,
Cooking
Loss
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
I.
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
1,
B
H
1.
Cancer
Risk
2.99E-04
3.74E-04
2.29E-04
5.04E-04
6.21E-04
3.68E-04
I.I9E-04
1.56E-04
9.49E-05
5.98E-04
7.80E-04
4.95E-04
9.87E-04
1.26E-03
7.37E-04
2.53E-04
3.07E-04
1.90E-04
4.90E-04
6. 19E-O4
3.45E-04
7.76E-04
1.04E-03
5.77 E-04
1.95E-04
2.50E-04
I.54E-04
2.25E-04
2.71 E-04
1.66E-04
3.63E-04
4.42E-04
2.72E-04
9.40E-05
1.12E-04
6.63 E-05
4.52E-04
5.96E-04
3.54E-04
7.95E-04
I.02E-03
5.63E-04
I.79E-04
2.2IE-04
1.43E-04
9.38E-04
1.18E-03
7.02E-04
1.49E-03
1.94E-03
1.17E-03
3.78E-04
4.58E-04
2.69E-04
7.86E-04
9.74E-04
5.67E-04
I.35E-03
I.64E-03
9.38E-04
3.06E-04
3.78E-04
2.28E-04
3.33E-04
4.45E-04
2.51 E-04
5.69E-04
7. 11 E-04
4.22E-04
I.38E-04
I.74E-04
i.oon-m
Hazard
Index
48.8
63.5
38.4
81.8
103.0
59.6
19.9
26.9
16.0
96.8
123.1
77.9
158.3
204.3
121.8
42.3
51.9
31.4
82.0
102.2
57.9
129.6
170.3
93.8
33.6
43.2
26.6
36.5
44.4
26.3
60.5
72.5
45.0
15.8
19.0
11.2
56.2
71.3
43.2
93.9
122.9
68.5
23.4
29.3
18.7
114.3
143.3
87.0
178.8
233.5
137.4
48.4
60.1
36.0
95.6
117.6
69.6
162.8
196.1
112.6
40.8
49.5
29.7
42.0
54.6
31.2
66.9
85.0
51.8
18.6
22.7
13.0
Page 7 of 9
-------
Table B-8
Monte Carlo Summary - 95th Percentile
Max
Min
Ratio
Base
Exp
Run Duration
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
B = Base Case
H = High-End
1. = l.uw-1-nd
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Ingestion
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
Ont
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
om
Ont
Onl
Ont
Onl
Ont
Ont
Onl
Om
PCB Cone
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
Cooking
Loss
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
I.
D
H
L
3.I4E-03
I.13E-04
27.69
8.67E-04
Cancer
Risk
5.I7E-04
6.73E-04
4.29E-04
9.03E-04
I.09E-03
6.52E-04
2.I6E-04
2.81 E-04
I.69E-04
9.52E-04
1.24E-03
7.62E-04
I.55E-03
2.00E-03
1.19E-03
4.00E-04
4.78E-04
2.91 E-04
8.67E-04
I.I3E-03
6.27E-04
I.45E-03
I.9IE-03
I.07E-03
3.63E-04
4.62E-04
2.79E-04
3.96E-04
4.58E-04
2.79E-04
6.50E-04
7.63E-04
4.78E-04
I.59E-04
I.90E-04
I.I3E-04
8.23E-04
I.05E-03
6.35E-04
1.42E-03
1.77E-03
9.99E-04
3. 11 E-04
3.84E-04
2.58E-04
I.50E-03
1.84E-03
1.IIE-03
2.30E-03
3.14E-03
1.79E-03
5.80E-04
7.05E-04
4.14E-04
I.39E-03
I.73E-03
I.04E-03
2.46E-03
2.83 E-03
I.66E-03
5.47E-04
6.59E-04
4.I9E-04
5.74E-04
1ME-M
4.36E-04
9.5SE-04
I.20R-03
7.II7B-04
2.37E-K4
2.88E-04
I.69R-04
366.2
18.6
19.74
136.5
Hazard
Index
84.7
114.4
68.6
147.9
176.7
107.3
35.4
48.2
29.2
152.6
200.8
122.2
248.5
321.0
187.6
65.2
79.6
47.9
136.5
178.6
99.6
225.9
303.0
169.1
59.8
76.4
47.3
61.5
75.6
44.8
103.8
124.2
75.7
25.9
32.5
18.6
100.3
128.2
77.1
173.1
214.0
120.2
40.6
51.4
33.7
180.9
222.7
131.1
275.6
366.2
210.8
74.6
93.1
54.4
163.1
210.5
124.9
291.2
341.8
193.3
72.3
84.7
55.1
68.7
88.8
52.6
112.4
144.2
86.4
29.7
37.1
21.9
Page X of 9
-------
Table B-9
Monte Carlo Summary - 99th Percentlle
Max I.20E-02 1515.1
Min 2.88E-04 47.0
Ratio 41.43 32.23
Base 3.75E-03 638.7
Exp
Run Duration
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
B = Base Case
H = High-1'.nd
1. = Low-End
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Ingeslion
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
MI
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Onl
Ont
Ont
Onl
Onl
Onl
Onl
Ont
Onl
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Ml
MI
MI
Ml
MI
MI
Ml
Ml
Ml
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Onl
Ont
Ont
Ont
Onl
Ont
Ont
Ont
Onl
PCB Cone
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
L
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
I.
L
B
B
B
H
H
H
L
t.
L
D
B
B
H
H
H
I.
L
L
Cooking
Loss
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
B
H
L
Cancer
Risk
I.47E-03
I.96E-03
I.25E-03
2.35E-03
3.44E-03
2.02E-03
5.75E-04
7.29E-04
4.5IE-04
2.06E-03
2.76E-03
I.68E-03
3.67E-03
4.56E-03
2.60E-O3
8.70E-04
1.02E-03
5.95E-04
3.75E-03
4.51E-03
2.62E-03
5.65E-03
7.42E-03
4.42E-03
I.53E-03
I.99E-03
I.I6E-03
I.09E-03
I.20E-03
7.I5E-04
I.72E-03
2.I8E-03
1.27E-03
4.64E-04
4.90E-04
2.88E-04
2.I5E-03
2.73E-03
1.65E-03
3.73E-03
4.74E-03
2.79E-03
8.43E-04
I.OOE-03
6.5IE-04
3.08E-03
3.72E-03
2.40E-03
4.95E-03
6.50E-03
3.72E-03
I.16E-03
I.47E-03
8.I1E-04
5.45E-03
7.82E-03
4.3IE-03
l.OIE-02
1.20E-02
7.29E-03
2.32E-03
2.94E-03
1.59E-03
1.49E-03
I.95E-03
1 .03E-03
2.33E-03
3.68E-03
I.84E-03
6.07E-04
7.46E-04
4.SOR-04
Hazard
Index
219.5
290.6
189.3
372.5
528.2
293.6
90.9
116.9
72.4
320.5
407.7
243.2
526.7
697.3
401.8
141.7
164.1
93.7
638.7
802.9
456.4
939.2
1266.9
768.2
257.2
339.6
206.6
166.2
195.0
110.8
277.5
352.2
193.5
75.1
82.5
47.0
256.7
331.2
197.9
432.0
566.8
331.6
111.7
128.7
85.1
365.6
431.6
282.3
595.3
735.6
428.1
146.9
190.4
108.5
670.2
909.4
521.9
1216.1
1515. 1
854.6
316.6
386.3
221.0
175.0
217.1
125.8
284.0
409.5
210.3
77.2
93.4
55.7
Page 9 of 9
-------
"This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
-------
Appendix C
-------
Appendix C
PCB Toxicological Profile
Gradient Corporation
-------
Appendix C
PCB Toxicological Profile
C.I Overview of PCB Toxicity and Carcinogenicity
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) represent a group of synthetic organic chemicals that consists
of 209 individual chlorinated biphenyls (called congeners) (reviewed in ATSDR, 1997). PCBs are either
colorless or light yellow in color and can be oily liquids or solids depending on the composition of the
mixture. Because of their insulating capacity, stability, and low burning capacity, PCBs were used in
capacitors, transformers, and other electrical equipment prior to 1977. Commercially available PCB
mixtures are known in the U.S. by their industrial trade name, Aroclor. The name, Aroclor 1254, for
example, means that the molecule contains 12 carbon atoms (the first 2 digits) and approximately 54%
chlorine by weight (second 2 digits). Use of PCBs was generally banned in 1977 after they were found
to build up in the environment and to have harmful effects.
Although PCB use was generally stopped over 20 years ago, they still exist in old electrical
equipment and environmental media to which humans can be exposed (reviewed in ATSDR, 1997).
Because of the ubiquitous presence of PCBs in the environment, general routes of human exposures can
include contaminated outdoor or indoor air, drinking water, direct dermal contact, and food. Fish can
have levels of PCBs much higher than the water in which they swim from exposure to contaminated
sediments and/or eating prey that contain PCBs. Beef and dairy cattle can contain PCBs from grazing on
PCB-containing plants. People can be exposed to PCBs in the workplace primarily through inhalation
and dermal contact due to repair, maintenance and disposal of PCB-containing electrical equipment.
Specific routes of exposures applicable for the Hudson River are discussed in Section 2.1.3 Potential
Exposure Routes.
C.2 Summary of PCB Carcinogenicity
C.2.1 Carcinogenic Potential in Animals
The USEPA has determined that sufficient evidence exists to show that PCB mixtures are
carcinogenic in animals. The available PCB animal Carcinogenicity studies are summarized in USEPA's
1996 reassessment of the toxicity data on the potential carcinogenic potency of PCBs (USEPA, 1996b),
as well as in the USEPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), an electronic database which
provides the Agency's consensus review of chemical-specific toxicity data (USEPA, 1999c). Of the
studies presented which support observations of animal Carcinogenicity, the most thorough is a study by
Mayes et al., (1999). In this study, female and male Sprague Dawley rats were used to examine the
carcinogenic potential of a number of different Aroclors (1260, 1254, 1242, and 1016) at a number of
different dose levels (25, 50, or 100 ppm) with an exposure duration of 104 weeks. These mixtures
contain overlapping groups of congeners that span the range of congeners most often found in
environmental mixtures. In female rats, a statistically significant increase in liver adenomas and
carcinomas were observed with exposure to all Aroclors tested. In male rats, a significant increase in
liver cancers was observed for Aroclor 1260. Additionally, thyroid follicular cell adenomas or
carcinomas were increased for all Aroclors in male rats only. Interestingly, these investigators observed
a decrease in mammary tumors in female rats exposed to Aroclor 1260, 1254, and 1242.
C-l Gradient Corporation
-------
A number of other animal studies also demonstrated an increase in cancer incidence with
exposure to PCB mixtures (USEPA, 1999c; USEPA, 1996b). Kimbrough (1975) observed liver
carcinomas in female Sherman rats fed diets of 100 ppm Aroclor 1260 for 21 months. The National
Cancer Institute (NCI) observed hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in female and male Fischer 344
rats fed 100 ppm Aroclor 1254 for 24 months (NCI, 1978). Similarly, Norback and Weltman (1985)
observed a statistically significant increase in hepatocellular carcinomas in female and male Sprague-
Dawley rats exposed to 100 ppm Aroclor 1260 in the diet for 16 months, 50 ppm for 8 months, followed
by 5 months on a control diet when compared to the control rats. Gastric lesions in rats from this NCI
study were further examined and found to have a statistically increased level of adenocarcinomas
(Morgan etal., 1981; Ward, 1985).
C.2.2 Carcinogenic Potential in Humans
The USEPA has classified PCBs as a probable human carcinogen (B2), based on a number of
studies in animals showing liver tumors with a number of different PCB mixtures which are believed to
span the range of congeners found in environmental mixtures (see Section C.2.1) (USEPA, 1996).
Human carcinogenicity data for PCB mixtures is currently "inadequate, but suggestive" (USEPA, 1999c).
USEPA (1996) describes three cohort studies that analyzed deaths from cancer in PCB capacitor
manufacturing plant workers. In the first study, 2100 capacitor manufacturing plant workers in Italy
were followed and deaths attributed to cancer were determined (Bertazzi et al., 1987). The study
included 1,556 females and 544 males that had worked for at least one week at the capacitor plant. Both
Aroclor 1242 and 1254 had been used at the facility. For females, an excess risk of death from
hematologic cancer was reported. This excess was statistically significant compared to local rates, but
not to national rates. In males, an increase in death from gastrointestinal tract cancer was observed. This
increase was statistically significant when compared to both local and national rates.
In the second study, Sinks et al. (1992) conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3,588 electrical
capacitor workers with known exposures to PCBs in air. There were more deaths observed than expected
for malignant melanoma and cancer of the brain and nervous system. The risk of malignant melanoma
was not related to cumulative PCB exposure (i.e., no dose-response, but the exposure information was
poor). The authors concluded that the possibility that the results are due to chance, bias, or confounding
cannot be excluded.
In the third study, Brown (1987) determined the cancer mortality rate for capacitor
manufacturing workers in New York and Massachusetts. In this study, 2,588 workers (1,318 females and
1,270 males) that had worked for at least 3 months in areas thought to have potential high exposure to
PCB mixtures were followed. Aroclors 1254, 1242 and 1016 were used at different times in both plants.
The investigators observed a statistically significant increase in death from cancer of the liver, gall
bladder, and biliary tract compared to national rates.
Recently, Dr. Kimbrough and others (1999) published a paper describing a study of workers from
two General Electric Company capacitor manufacturing plants in New York State. In this study,
mortality (deaths) from all cancers was determined for the study group, which comprises 7,075 female
and male workers who worked at the General Electric Company facilities for at least 90 days between
1946 and 1977.
USEPA's review of the Kimbrough el al. (1999) paper identified a number of limitations that
suggest the study may not change USEPA's conclusions regarding the health effects of PCBs, including
the following:
C-2 Gradient Corporation
-------
• More than 75% of the workers in the study never worked with PCBs.
• The actual level of PCB exposure in the remaining workers could not be confirmed.
• Less than 25% of the workers who were exposed to PCBs at the General Electric
Company facilities were employed in these jobs for less than a year. Such short-term
occupational exposure is generally not comparable to the long-term exposure that may
occur in the environment.
• At the end of the study period in December 1993, most of the workers were still quite
young (average age, 57). Because cancer deaths usually occur in older individuals, the
workers in the General Electric Company study may have been too young to die from
cancer.
• The study did not investigate vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly or
people with existing health problems.
Due to the limitations identified by USEPA in its review of the Kimbrough et al. (1999) study,
USEPA expects that the study will not lead to any change in its cancer slope factors for PCBs, which
were last reassessed in 1996. Nevertheless, USEPA will complete its ongoing external peer consultation
regarding the Kimbrough et al. (1999) study prior to making a final determination on this matter.
C.2.3 PCB Cancer Slope Factors
The Cancer Slope Factor, or CSF, is an 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 their lifetime. The USEPA's Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS), which provides the Agency's consensus review of toxicity data
(USEPA, 1999a-c), provides both upper-bound and central-estimate CSFs for three different tiers of PCB
mixtures. These CSFs are based on the USEPA's 1996 reassessment of the toxicity data on the potential
carcinogenic potency of PCBs (USEPA, 1996b). They were derived following the proposed revisions to
the USEPA Carcinogen Risk Assessment Guidelines (USEPA, 1996a), including changes in the method
of extrapolating from animals to humans, and changes in the categories for classifying the carcinogenic
potential of chemicals.
In order to develop CSFs for use in human health risk assessments for exposure to environmental
PCBs, USEPA (1999c) reviewed all of the relevant animal and human data, and focused on two studies:
Brunner et al. (1996) and Norback and Weltman (1985). Human equivalent doses were determined from
dose-response data from these two studies. A tiered approach for cancer potencies of PCB mixtures was
then developed based on both exposure route and congener type.
The first tier, "High Risk and Persistence," applicable to food chain exposures, sediment or soil
ingestion, dust or aerosol inhalation, dermal exposure, early-life exposure, and mixtures with dioxin-like,
tumor promoting, or persistent congeners, has an upper-bound and central-estimate CSF of 2.0 and 1.0
(mg/kg-day)"1, respectively. The second tier, "Low Risk and Persistence," applicable to ingestion of
C-3 Gradient Corporation
-------
water-soluble congeners, inhalation of evaporated congeners, and dermal exposure (if no absorption
factor has been applied), has an upper-bound and central-estimate CSF of 0.4 and 0.3 (mg/kg-day)"1,
respectively. The third tier, "Lowest Risk and Persistence," applicable only to mixtures where congeners
with more than four chlorines comprise less than one-half percent of the total PCBs, has an upper-bound
and central-estimate CSF of 0.07 and 0.04 (mg/kg-day)"1, respectively.
Cancer risk is estimated by multiplying the appropriate CSF by a lifetime daily dose. Using this
method, EPA has calculated an upper-bound unit risk for ingestion of PCB congeners in water to be 1 x
10"5 per jig/L. Drinking water concentrations associated with a risk of 1 in 10,000, 100,000, and
1,000,000 are 10, 1, and 0.1 |ig/L, respectively.
C.3 Summary of PCB Non-cancer Toxicity
C.3.1 Potential for Non-cancer Effects in Humans and Animals
A number of non-cancer health effects have been associated with PCB exposure (reviewed in
ATSDR, 1997; ATSDR, 1996; USEPA, 1996). The prominent observed effect in workers exposed to
large quantities of PCBs was a skin condition known as chloracne. Other effects such as depression,
fatigue, nose irritation, and gastrointestinal discomfort were suggested to be associated with workplace
PCB exposure. Studies in rats that have been exposed to high doses of PCBs have shown mild liver
damage, stomach effects, thyroid gland injuries, acne, and with high enough doses, death. Studies in
rabbits exposed to high PCB doses have also shown kidney effects. In low-dose, long-term exposure
studies, reproductive, eye, and nail effects have also been observed.
Coplanar PCB congeners are thought to cause adverse health effects by binding to the aryl
hydrocarbon receptor, similar to dioxin. Non-coplanar PCB congeners (ortho-substituted congeners) are
believed to cause adverse health effects, such as neurotoxicity and behavioral changes, although the
mechanism of action is less certain (reviewed in Fischer et al., 1998).
There are several on-going studies assessing the non-cancer health effects in children consuming
PCBs in fish. Two of the more recent investigations by Patandin (1999) and Lanting (1999) involved a
prospective follow-up study of Dutch breast-fed and formula-fed infants from birth until 42 months of
age, to evaluate the effect of perinatal background exposure to PCBs and dioxins on growth and
development in young children. Significant associations between perinatal exposure to PCBs and
dioxins and adverse effects on growth, immunologic parameters, and neurodevelopmental and behavioral
effects were reported. Some effects were apparent during infancy (adverse effects on growth and
neurological effects), while others were not apparent until preschool age (cognitive and behavioral
effects).
PCBs have also been investigated as potential endocrine disrupters. An environmental endocrine
disrupter is defined as "an exogenous agent that interferes with the synthesis, secretion, transport,
binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones in the body that are responsible for the maintenance
of homeostasis, development, and/or behavior" (USEPA, 1997, pg. 1). For example, some studies have
suggested that PCBs increase the risk of breast cancer, while other studies have failed to show an
association between PCB exposure and breast cancer (reviewed in USEPA, 1997). Overall, the USEPA
Risk Assessment Forum concluded that it is not possible to attribute a cause and effect association
between PCB exposure and breast cancer given the sparse data currently available. Similarly, an
association between endometriosis and high levels of PCBs in blood has been reported, but the evidence
C-4 Gradient Corporation
-------
for a causal relationship is considered very weak (reviewed in USEPA, 1997). Due to the similar
structural properties of PCBs and normal thyroid hormones, PCBs may also cause thyroid effects such as
hypothyroidism via competition for receptor binding sites (reviewed in USEPA, 1997).
There is currently considerable scientific debate about whether environmental chemicals acting
via endocrine disrupter mechanisms are responsible for adverse health effects in humans (reviewed in
USEPA, 1997). Because the human body has negative feedback mechanisms to control the fluctuations
of hormone levels, exposures to chemicals at the levels found in the environment may be insufficient to
disrupt endocrine homeostasis. Current screening assays that measure hormone receptor binding thus
may or may not be associated with a corresponding adverse health effect.
Overall, the USEPA is aware and concerned about the potential effects of environmental
endocrine disrupters on human health, and is currently supporting significant research in this area along
with other federal agencies. However, "there is little knowledge of or agreement on the extent of the
problem," and "further research and testing are needed" (USEPA, 1997b, pg. vii). The USEPA Science
Policy Council's Interim Position is that "based on the current state of the science, the Agency does not
consider endocrine disruption to be an adverse endpoint per se, but rather to be a mode or mechanism of
action potentially leading to other outcomes, for example, carcinogenic, reproductive, or developmental
effects, routinely considered in reaching regulatory decisions" (USEPA, 1997b, pg. viii).
C.3.2 PCS Reference Doses
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
subpopulations, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
Chronic RfDs are specifically developed to be protective for long-term exposure to a compound, with
chronic duration ranging from seven years to a lifetime as a Superfund guideline (USEPA, 1989b). The
USEPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which provides the Agency's consensus review of
toxicity data (USEPA, 1999a-b), provides RfDs for two Aroclor mixtures, Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor
1254; there is no RfD available for Total PCBs. Although there is an IRIS file for Aroclor 1248, the
USEPA determined the available health effects data to be inadequate for derivation of an oral RfD
(USEPA, 1999d). There are no Reference Concentrations (RfCs) currently available for either total
PCBs or any of the Aroclor mixtures (USEPA, 1999a-c).
C.3.2.1 Aroclor 1016 RfD
The USEPA derived an oral RfD of 7 x 10"5 mg/kg-day for Aroclor 1016 based on a series of
reports of a single study conducted in monkeys (Barsotti and van Miller, 1984; Levin el al., 1988;
Schantz et al., 1989, 1991; as summarized in USEPA, 1999a). In this study, female rhesus monkeys were
administered Aroclor 1016 in the diet for 22 months at doses of 0, 7, and 28 jog/kg-day. Animals were
exposed 7 months prior to breeding and continued until offspring were 4 months of age. Although there
was no evidence of overt toxicity observed, hairline hyperpigmentation, decreased birth weight, and
possible neurologic impairment were observed in the offspring. The observed hyperpigmentation
occurred at the lowest dose tested (7 |lg/kg-day), but was not considered by the USEPA to be a critical
adverse effect. Both reduced birth weight and possible neurologic impairment were observed at
28 |j,g/kg-day. EPA chose a NOAEL of 7 |j,g/kg-day and a LOAEL of 28 |ig/kg-day based on reduced
birth weight.
C-5 Gradient Corporation
-------
The USEPA used an uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 based on the following: intraspecies
variability and protection of sensitive individuals (UF=3), interspecies variability (UF=3), database
limitations (UF=3), and the use of a subchronic study (UF=3). Application of the total UF of 100 to the
NOAEL of 7 ng/kg-day results in an oral RfD for Aroclor 1016 of 7 x 10"5 mg/kg-day.
C.3.2.2 Aroclor 1254 RfD
The USEPA has derived an RfD for chronic oral exposure to Aroclor 1254 based on effects
observed in rhesus monkeys fed Aroclor 1254 (USEPA, 1999b). Female rhesus monkeys were fed daily
dosages of 0, 5, 20, 40 or 80 jog/kg-day of Aroclor 1254 in gelatin capsules for more than five years. A
number of investigators evaluated health effects over the five-year period. General health and clinical
pathology evaluations were conducted during the first 37 months and reported by Arnold et al. (1994a;
1994b, as summarized in USEPA, 1999b). Immunologic evaluations were conducted after 23 and 66
months by Tryphonas et al. (1989; 1991a; 1991b, as summarized in USEPA, 1999b). Truelove et al.
(1990, as summarized in USEPA, 1999b) and Arnold et al. (1993a, as summarized in USEPA, 1999b)
evaluated the monkeys for reproductive endocrinology changes after 24 or 29 months. Hydrocortisone
levels were evaluated after 22 months and reported by Loo et al. (1989, as summarized in USEPA,
1999b) and Arnold (1993b, as summarized in USEPA, 1999b). Although a number of other toxicological
parameters were evaluated, the five studies by Arnold et al. (1993a, 1993b, as summarized in USEPA,
1999b) and Tryphonas et al. (1989, 1991a, 1991b, as summarized in USEPA, 1999b) were the studies
used by the USEPA to derive the oral RfD.
Arnold et al. (1994a) identified eye toxicity and finger and toe nail changes as part of their
general health and clinical pathology evaluations. These investigators observed a significant increase in
the frequency of inflamed Meibomian glands and incidence of eye exudate in treated monkeys as
compared to controls. Additionally, a statistically significant increase in the incidence of certain nail
changes (nail folding, elevated nails, nail separation, prominent beds) was observed in treated animals.
Both the eye and nail effects were observed at the lowest dose of 5 p.g/kg-day:
Tryphonas et al. (1989; 1991a,b) examined changes in IgG, IgM, helper T-cells, and suppressor
T-cells following a challenge with sheep red blood cells in Rhesus monkeys exposed to Aroclor 1254 for
23 months. These researchers noted significant reductions in IgG and IgM at the lowest dose tested
(5 |J.g/kg-day) and T-cell changes at the 80 |J.g/kg-day dose level.
EPA derived the oral RfD based on a lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) of 5 p.g/kg-
day and the observance of the following critical effects: ocular exudate, inflamed and prominent
Meibomian glands, distorted growth of finger and toe nails and decreased antibody (IgG and IgM)
response to sheep erythrocytes. An UF of 300 was applied by EPA to derive an oral RfD of 2 x 10"5
mg/kg-day to account for: intraspecies variability (UF=10), interspecies variability (UF=3), the use of a
LOAEL value (UF=3), and the use of a subchronic study (UF=3).
C.4 Summary of Other PCB Guidelines and Regulations
The following is a discussion of selected PCB-related guidelines and regulations.
C-6 Gradient Corporation
-------
C.4.1 FDA Tolerance for PCBs in Fish
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) promulgated a regulation lowering the tolerance
level for PCBs in the edible portion of fish and shellfish destined for interstate commerce from 5 mg/kg
to 2 mg/kg in 1979 (FDA, 1979) which became effective in 1984. This tolerance level of 2 mg/kg
remains in effect today (FDA, 1996). The tolerance level was based on weighing the results of a risk
assessment against the magnitude of potential food loss resulting from a lowered tolerance level. It is
important to point out that the methodology of the FDA risk assessment precludes application of its
results to the Upper Hudson River Human Health Risk Assessment risk assessment for fish ingestion.
The FDA limit was developed under different legislation and regulatory responsibilities in 1979 using
FDA guidance. Additionally, the FDA specifically states that this tolerance is intended to apply to fish
entering interstate commerce, and that this level may not be protective for locally caught fish from
contaminated areas.
To arrive at a tolerance of 2 mg/kg, the FDA considered national per capita fish consumption,
looking at the general distribution of PCB levels in fish for sale across the U.S. The FDA risk
assessment was performed by assuming that the tolerance level of 2 mg/kg would be the maximum
concentration in fish encountered by a heavy fish consumer, and that PCB concentrations in fish
consumed would be distributed below 2 ppm in a manner reflecting a mix of fish from diverse sources
(Cordle, 1982). The tolerance is not based on the assumption that all fish consumed contain 2 mg/kg
PCBs. Because the distribution of PCB concentrations in fish caught in the Upper Hudson River by local
anglers is likely to be different from the distributions of PCB concentrations in fish for sale across the
U.S., the risk associated with regularly eating Upper Hudson River fish will differ from the risks
associated with the FDA assessment for a 2 ppm tolerance, even if Hudson River fish do not exceed 2
mg/kg.
C.4.2 USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level in Drinking Water
The USEPA has promulgated a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PCBs in drinking water
of 0.5 |lg/L (USEPA, 1998a), which corresponds to a lifetime cancer risk of 10"4 assuming lifetime
ingestion of 2 liters of water per day, and the old CSF of 7.7 (mg/kg-day)"1. A lifetime cancer risk of 10"5
is calculated assuming lifetime ingestion of 2 liters of water per day, and the new CSF of 0.4 (mg/kg-
day)"1 for water ingestion.
C.4.3 USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria
USEPA has issued ambient water quality criteria for PCBs of 4.4 x 10'5 |4.g/L and 4.5 x 10"5 fig/L,
corresponding to a lifetime cancer risk of 10"6, based on the ingestion of both water and organisms (fish
and shellfish) and ingestion of organisms only (USEPA, 1998b). These ambient water quality criteria are
applicable to seven Aroclor mixtures (i.e., Aroclor 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260). The
risks are primarily attributable to ingestion of fish and remain similar whether ingestion of drinking water
is considered or not. USEPA is proposing a new ambient water quality criteria of 1.7 x 10"4 |0.g/L for
ingestion of water and organisms or ingestion of water for total PCBs (USEPA, 1998c).
C-7 Gradient Corporation
-------
C.4.4 New York State Ambient Water Quality Criteria
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has issued ambient water
criteria for PCBs in surface waters. The aquatic-based criteria is 0.001 |ig/L, and the health-based
criteria (assuming ingestion of water) is 0.01 (J.g/L (NYSDEC, 1993). These values are higher than the
USEPA-derived ambient water quality criteria.
C-8 Gradient Corporation
-------
C.5 References
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 1991. Documentation of the
Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices (Sixth Edition). Cincinnati, Ohio.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1996. "Public Health Implications of
PCB Exposures." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA. December.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997. "Toxicological Profile for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Public Health
Service, Atlanta, GA.
Cordle, F., R. Locke, and J. Springer. 1982. Risk Assessment in a federal regulatory agency: An
assessment of risk associated with the human consumption of some species of fish contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Environ. Health Perspect. 45:171-182.
Fischer, L.J., R.F. Seegal, P.E. Ganey, I.N. Pessah, and P.R.S. Kodavanti. 1998. Symposium overview:
toxicity of non-coplanar PCBs. Toxicological Sciences 41:49-61.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1979. 44 FR 38330.
Food and Drag Administration (FDA). 1996. Unavoidable Contaminants in Food for Human
Consumption and Food Packaging Material, Subpart B - Tolerances for Unavoidable Poisonous or
Deleterious Substances. 21 CFR 109.30
Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force (GLSFATF). 1993. "Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes
Sport Fish Consumption Advisory." September.
Jacobson, J.L. and S.W. Jacobson. 1996. Intellectual impairment in children exposed to polychlorinated
biphenyls in utero. New England J Medicine 335(11):783-789.
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.
Lanting, C.I. 1999. Effects of Perinatal PCB and Dioxin Exposure and Early Feeding Mode on Child
Development. Thesis.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1993. Water Quality
Regulations, Surface Water and Groundwater Classifications and Standards. New York State Codes,
Rules and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 703.5.
OSHA. 1998. Occupations Safety and Health Standards, Air Contaminants. 29 CFR 1910.1000.
Patandin, S. 1999. Effects of Environmental Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Dioxins on
Growth and Development in Young Children, A Prospective Follow-Up Study of Breast-Fed and
Formula-Fed Infants from Birth Until 42 Months of Age. Thesis.
Sinks, T., G. Steele, A. Smith, K. Watkins, R. Shults. 1992. Mortality among workers exposed to
polychlorinated biphenyls. American Journal of Epidemiology 134(4):389-398).
C-9 Gradient Corporation
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996a. "Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment." Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/P-92/003C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996b. 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). 1997. "Special Report on Environmental Endocrine
Disruption: An Effects Assessment and Analysis." Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC, EPA/630/R-96/012, February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Maximum Contaminant Level. 40 CFR 141.61.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998b. Water Quality Standards. 40 CFR 131.36.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998c. Water quality Standards; Establishment of
numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants; States' Compliance - Revision of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) Criteria. Federal Register. April 2, 1998. Volume 63(63): 16182-16188.
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. "Integrated Risk Information System
Chemical File for Aroclor 1248." National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio.
C-10 Gradient Corporation
------- |