Evaluation of Human Health Risks from Exposure to Elevated Levels of PCBs in Housatonic River Sediment, Bank Soils and Floodplain Soils in Reaches 3-1 to 4-6 (Newell Street to the Confluence of the East and West Branches)


Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental
Protection
Western Regional Office
436 Dwight Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
(413)784-1100
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
New England Region
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617)565-3420
                                 MEMORANDUM

DATE:          May 14,1998

SUBJECT:      Evaluation of Human Health Risks from Exposure to Elevated Levels of PCBs in
                Housatonic River Sediment, Bank Soils and Floodplain Soils in Reaches 3-1 to 4-6
                (Newell Street to the confluence of the East and West Branches)

FROM:         Mary Ballew, Environmental Scientist, EPA
                Margaret Harvey, Environmental Analyst, ORS,

TO:            Bryan Olson, Project Manager, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, EPA
                Anna G. Symington, Acting Section Chief, Special Projects, BWSC, DEP
I.  INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the human health risks from exposure to elevated levels
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) hi Housatonic River sediments, riverbank soils and floodplain soils
in reaches 3-1 to 4-6 in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The information in this memorandum will support
determinations about whether PCBs in Housatonic River reaches 3-1 to 4-6 may present an "Imminent
and Substantial Endangerment" pursuant to Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6973 and pursuant to Section 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606 (a), and also presents an
"Imminent Hazard to Human Health" pursuant to Section 40.09SS of the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP) and M.G.L 21e.

This evaluation focuses on exposures to three different receptor groups. The first receptor group is a
youth (aged 9<18) who walks and plays in Housatonic River sediments, riverbank soils and floodplain
soils on a regular and continuing basis during the warmer months of the year (April through October).
This receptor group is referred to as the "youth trespasser."

The second receptor group is a young child (age 5<12 years) who contacts PCBs in soils and sediments
adjacent to his/her residence while playing and wading at the river's edge. The Agencies have referred
to this receptor group as the "child wader".

Also evaluated in this memorandum are exposures to a very young child (age 1<6 years) who contacts
PCBs in soils and sediments while playing'at his/her residence and wading at the river's edge. The
Agencies have referred to this receptor group as the "child resident".

-------
The Agencies have evaluated exposures to the youth trespasser, child wader and child resident.
Exposure factors used in this evaluation reflect a combination of central tendency and upper end values.
Given the purpose of this evaluation, a maximal exposure estimate was not generated.
This evaluation presents separate risk estimates for soil and sediment exposures. The reasons for this are
to keep the risk assessment less complex and to allow risk managers to make separate risk management
decisions for soil and sediment, if they so choose.
II. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the evaluation presented in this Memorandum, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection and the Environmental Protection Agency conclude that short-term
exposures to elevated levels of PCBs in Housatonic River floodplain soils, riverbank soils and river
sediments in reaches 3-1 to 4-6 in Pittsfield, Massachusetts present significant risks to human
health.
m. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
The portion of the Housatonic River that is the subject of this memorandum begins at the Newell Street
bridge (reach 3-1) and extends to the confluence of the East and West Branches (reach 4-6), within the
City of Pittsfield. This section of the river (reaches 3-1 to 4-6) is called the “area of interest” in this
memorandum. Reach designations are taken from the MCP Supplemental Phase II Investigation/RCRA
Facility Investigation for the Housatonic River and Silver Lake (Blasland, Bouck and Lee 1996).
Elevated levels of PCBs have been found in Housatonic River sediments and soils in reaches 3-1 to 4-6.
In these reaches, PCBs have been detected in surficial sediments at levels as high as 905 mgfkg. In
surficial riverbank soils, PCBs have been found at levels as high as 5,800 mg/kg. PCBs have been
detected in surficial floodplain soils at levels as high as 160 mg/kg. PCBs have also been found at high
levels (over 1,000 mg/kg) in subsurface sediments and bank soils in reaches 3-1 to 4-6.
Contaminated river sediments are typically covered by one to two feet of water. However, sediments
near the banks are exposed during periods of low water. There are also sandbars in the river which
become exposed during periods of low water. In the area of interest, the river is approximately 40 to 60
feet wide.
The type and frequency of potential exposure to PCB-contaminated soils and sediments changes across
the area of interest. For this reason, the Agencies have divided the area of interest into 3 exposure areas.
In identifying exposure areas, the Agencies considered the current land use adjacent to the river,
steepness and height of the banks, and the size of the sampling database. A brief description of each
exposure area is presented below.
Each of the exposure areas described below is in the vicinity of densely settled residential areas and/or
recreational areas and is very accessible at many points. The Housatonic is the largest waterway in the
area and is an attractive place for children to walk and play, especially in the warmer months of the year.
-2-

-------
Exposure Area A
Reaches 3-1 to 3-10 (Newell Street bridge to Elm Street bridge) .
Land use along the river in this set of reaches is primarily commercial with several residences and one
recreational property. In the commercial areas, the river is within easy walking distance of densely
settled residential areas.
GE owns the property on the north side of the river in reaches 3-1 to 3-7 (Newell Street to Lyman
Street bridges). The top of the north riverbank between Newell and Lyman Streets is currently
completely fenced. Fences in this area are approximately eight feet in height. Immediately adjacent
to the Newell Street bridge are densely settled residential areas (Lombard Street and Parkside
Avenue). Teenagers from these residential areas could easily access the river from just above the
Newell Street bridge. Teenager activity underneath the Newell and Lyman Street bridges is
evidenced by the presence of graffiti.
On the south side, the top of the riverbank is currently almost completely fenced between Newell and
Lyman Streets. There is at least one hole in the fence east of the Newell Street Parking Lot. On the
south side of the river, Hibbard Park comprises reaches 3-1 to 3-4. Access to the river from Hibbard
Park currently is restricted by a fence. Densely settled residential areas lie within a two minute walk
of the south side of the river. Just above and below the Lyman Street bridge, there are two residences
which directly abut the river. There is a footbridge across the river at the Newell Street Parking Lot
site (reach 3-7).
Oxbow Areas A and C comprise part of reach 3-8 and all of reach 3-9 on the south side of the river.
Oxbows A and C are undeveloped, forested land. PCB data from these oxbows was not included in
this evaluation. No fences currently exist between Lyman and Elm Streets (reaches 3-8 to 3-10).
Riverbanks in exposure area A are steeply sloped and thickly vegetated.
Exposure Area B
Reaches 4-1 to 4-3 (Elm Street bridge to Dawes Avenue bridge) .
Land use along the river in this set of reaches is entirely residential. Distance between residences
and the river and steepness of the riverbanks varies somewhat. In reaches 4-I and 4-2, the riverbank
is moderately steeply sloped and some residences are set back as far as 100 feet from the river. In
reach 4-3, the banks (especially on the north/east side) become much less steeply sloped and houses
are closer to the river. During a site visit, Agency personnel observed childrens’ toys in the
sediment at the water’s edge behind a residence in reach 4-3. Agency personnel also observed
footpaths from the top of the bank down to the water.
Exposure Area C
Reaches 4-4 to 4-6 ( Dawes Avenue to the Confluence of the East and West Branches) .
Land use along the river in this section of reaches is primarily residential. In reach 4-4, houses are
quite close to the river and riverbanks are moderately to slightly sloped and not very high. Fred
Ganier Park is located on the north/east side of the river in part of reach 4-5 and all of reach 4-6.
Many of the residences on the south/west side of the river across from Fred Gamer Park are set back
from the river. Agency personnel have received anecdotal reports of children playing in the riverbed
and of a 12-year old child digging in the riverbed in this area.
-3-

-------
Land use described in each of the three exposure areas is current land use. This evaluation focuses only
on current uses and does not consider potential future land use.
Separate Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) for PCBs were calculated for: 1) sediment, and; 2)
floodplain/bank soils in each of the three exposure areas. Data used to calculate EPCs is provided in
Attachment 1. Attachment 1 also contains references for the data.
In accordance with EPA risk assessment guidance (EPA 1994), EPA calculated the 95 percent upper
confidence limit of the arithmetic mean (UCL 95 ) using the data in Attachment 1. The UCL 95 was
calculated using the procedure outlined in EPA guidance (EPA 1994; Gilbert 1987). In accordance with
EPA Region I guidance, when the UCL 95 exceeds the maximum concentration, the maximum
concentration should be used as the EPC. Table 1 below presents the EPCs for each of the 3 exposure
areas and indicates whether the EPC is the UCL 95 or the maximum value.
It is DEP’s general practice to use the arithmetic average rather than the UCL 95 in risk assessments.
Using the average concentration rather than the values in Table 1 results in a lower risk estimate but does
not change the conclusions of the risk assessment. DEP has adopted the practice of using the average
rather than the UCL to streamline the MCP risk assessment/risk management process. However, it
should be recognized that using the average does not account for sampling error (i.e., error in the
estimate of the “true” average) and may result in a substantial underestimate of the “true” average.
In selecting data, the Agencies included any sample result from a sample interval beginning at the
surface. The majority of sample results are from the 0 to 6-inch interval. However, at 15 out of 110
sediment sampling locations, PCB surface sediment samples extended over an interval of greater than six
inches but not more than two feet. These samples were included in the EPC. The Agencies decided that
it was reasonable to include these datapoints in this evaluation even though they are from greater than
“surficial” depth. If the EPC had been calculated using data only from the 0 to 6-inch depth interval, it
would not change the conclusions of the risk assessment.
For sample results reported as non-detect, one-half the detection limit was used in the EPC calculation.
For locations where duplicate samples were taken, the average of the two duplicates was used in the EPC
calculation. Samples located within areas that have already been remediated (for example, sediment
removal at Building 68 and residential short-term measures) were not included in the EPC calculation.
TABLE 1. EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS USED TO EVALUATE RISKS iN REACHES
3-1 TO 4-6 OF THE HOUSATONIC RIVER
EXPOSURE AREA
PCB EPC
(mg/kg)
Basis
Sediment
A: Reaches 3-I to 3-1.0 (Newell Street to Elm Streets)
B: Reaches 4-1 to 4-3 (Ehn Street to Dawes Avenue)
C: Reaches 4-4 to 4-6 (Dawes Avenue to confluence)
46
905
30
UCL,
Maximum
UCL 95 *
Floodplain & Bank Soil
A: Reaches 3-1 to 3-10 (Newell Street to Elm Street)
B: Reaches 4-1 to 4-3 (Elm Street to Dawes Avenue)
C: Reaches 4-4 to 4-6 (Dawes Avenue to confluence)
2400
377
68
UCL
Maximum
UCL 95 *
* UCL ’ have been rounded to 2 significant figures.
-4-

-------
IV. DOSE RESPONSE
To evaluate human health risks from exposure to PCBs in soil and sediments in the Housatonic River in
reaches 3-1 to 4-6, the Agencies estimated the cancer and noncancer risks associated with PCB exposure.
To evaluate the cancer risk, the Agencies used the 95% upper confidence limit of the linear-slope factor
(also known as the cancer slope factor) of 2 (mg /kg/day) for PCBs (IRIS 1998). In the cancer studies
on which the slope factor is based, a 12-month exposure (i.e., one-haifa lifetime exposure) produced a
high incidence of tumors. This suggests that a less than lifetime exposure could have significant cancer
risk implications (EPA 1996).
To evaluate chronic noncancer risks, the Agencies used the EPA-published Reference Dose (RID) of
2 x i0 5 mg/kg/day for Aroclor 1254 (IRIS 1998). To evaluate subchronic noncancer risks, the Agencies
used the EPA-published subchronic RID of 5 x 1 0 mg/kg/day for Aroclor 1254 (HEAST 1997). The
critical effects (i.e., those that occur at the lowest dose) for the chronic and subchronic RIDs are
immunologic and reproductive effects. Reference Doses for ArocIor 1254 were used because they are
the closest to being applicable to the type of PCB mixture found in the Housatonic River (Aroclor 1260).
The toxicity study on which the RID is based was conductea over a timefraxne comparable to exposure
periods evaluated in this memorandum.
A value of 14% was used for dermal absorption of PCBs from soil and sediment (Wester et a! 1993, EPA
1998). This value was peer reviewed by a panel external to EPA (EPA 1996). A relative absorption
factor (RAF) of 100% was used for oral absorption of PCBs from soil and sediment (DEP, 1992). An
RAF of 100% means that the assumed absorption of PCBs from ingestion of Housatonic soil and
sediment is equal to the absorption of PCBs in the laboratory toxicity studies.
FCB Toxicity
PCBs can have a number of effects other than the critical effects mentioned above. PCBs have been
shown to produce a wide variety of effects in many animals, including severe acne, cancer, liver damage
and reproductive and developmental effects. Monkeys, which are physiologically more similar to
humans than other animals, have developed adverse immunological and neurological effects, as well as
skin and eye irritations after being fed PCBs. Studies of PCB-exposed workers show that PCBs can
cause skin problems such as acne and rashes and eye irritation. There are also studies which have•
reported neurological, behavioral, and developmental abnormalities in children born to mothers who ate
PCB-contaminated fish. However, in these studies, the mothers’ exposures to PCBs were estimated and
not measured directly. Neurobehavioral effects reported in these studies are similar to effects seen in
monkeys (IRIS, 1998, ATSDR, 1996, ATSDR 1997).
V. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
In exposure area A (Newell to Elm Streets), the Agencies evaluated exposures to PCB-contaniinated soil
by focusing on a youth trespasser between the ages of 9 and 18 years who walks and plays two days per
week in riverbank and floodplain soils and river sediments while exploring the area during the warmer
months of the year (April through October). Walking or playing in contaminated soils or sediments could
lead to exposure to PCBs by dermal absorption or by incidental ingestion, so these two exposure routes
are the focus of this evaluation. As described in the Hazard Identification section of this memorandum,
-5-

-------
exposure area A is primarily commercial property. Thus, it is the Agencies’ view that a trespasser
exposure scenario (which assumes less frequent exposure) rather than a residential scenario (which
assumes more frequent exposure) is more appropriate.
In exposure area B (Elm Street to Dawes Avenue), the Agencies evaluated exposures to PCB-
contaminated soil and sediment by focusing on a child wader between the ages of 5 and 12 years who
wades in the water and plays in the soils and sediments five days per week during the warmest months of
the year (June through August) in areas nearby his/her residence. The Agencies also evaluated exposures
to a child wader who plays in riverbank and floodplain soils five days per week nearby his/her residence
during the warmer months of the year (April through October). As described in the Hazard Identification
section of this memorandum, exposure area B is dominated by residential property. However, riverbanks
in Area B are more difficult to access because they are generally steeper and higher than riverbanks in
Area C. Thus, it is the Agencies’ view that a child younger than age 5 is not likely to come into contact
on a regular and continuing basis with PCBs in soils and sediments in Area B. For this reason, the
Agencies focused on an older child (aged 5<12 years) rather than a vely young child as in Area C.
In exposure area C (Dawes Avenue to the confluence), the Agencies evaluated exposures to a very young
child, aged 1<6 years. Riverbanks in area C are quite easily accessed because they are not as stieply
sloped and not as high as in Areas A and B. In portions of the river in Area C, residences are located
quite close to the river. Thus, the Agencies believe that is it reasonable that a very young child could
come into contact with PCB-contaminated soils and sediments while playing and wading on the
riverbank and at the water’s edge in his/her backyard.
ARE 1 A - Youth Trespasser
To estimate risks to the youth trespasser, the Agencies used exposure assumptions described in the
following paragraphs. The Agencies believe that such assumptions are appropriate considering the
amount of site data available and the site conditions.
This evaluation assumes that the youth (aged 9<18 years) contacts soils and sediments two days per
week while walking or playing during the warmer months of the year (April through October). This
is equivalent to approximately 61 days per year (30.57 weeks in the months April through
October * 2 days per week = 61.1 days).
The Agencies assumed that dermal contact for the youth trespasser occurs to the hands, arms, feet,
and lower legs. Values for surface area of exposed skin are taken from DEP Guidance (DEP 1995).
Attachment 2 provides skin surface areas for each body art by age group. The Agencies used
DEP’s default skin-soil adherence fictor of 0.51 mg/cm (DEP 1995).
For incidental soil ingestion for the trespasser, the Agencies used 50 mg/day. This value was
previously agreed upon by the Agencies in joint comments on General Electric’s proposed Risk
Assessment Scope of Work for the Housatonic River (DEPIEPA 1997). A soil ingestion rate of 50
mg/day is DEP’s default rate for older children and adults (DEP 1995). This-value is lower than the
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) value recommended by EPA guidance (EPA 1997). EPA
considers this value to be a central tendency value. A high-end value for adult soil ingestion would
be 100 mg/day (EPA 1997).
-6-

-------
The body weight used in this evaluation is 46 kg, which represents an average of the 50 th percentile
body weights for females aged 9< 18 years (DEP, 1995; EPA, 1989). For subchronic trespassing
exposures, a body weight of 30 kg for the nine-year old female was used.
Exposures to the youth trespasser using the assumptions described above were evaluated using soil
and sediment concentrations in Table I from exposure area A (Newell Street to Elm Street). Table
2A below summarizes some of the exposure factors used to evaluate the youth trespasser.
TABLE 2A: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE FREQUENCY AND DURATION USED TO
EVALUATE THE YOUTH TRESPASSER IN AREA A (REACH 3-1 TO 3-10),
HOUSATONIC RiVER.
Medium
Risk Type
Age
(years)
Exposure Exposure Period
Frequency (days)
(events/days)
Averaging Time
(days)
Soil
Soil
Soil
Cancer
ChronicNoncancer
Subchronic Noncancer
9<18
9<18
9
0.167 ”
0167 A
0 • 28 B
3285’
3285 C
214 D
2555O
3285 C
214 D
Sediment
Sediment
.
Sediment
Cancer
Chronic Noncancer
.
Subchronic Noncancer
9<18
9<18
9
0.167A
0 • 167 A
B
0.28
3285’
3285 C
D
214
25550t
3285 C
D
214
A 2 days per week; April -October; averaged over one year = 61 eventsl365 days = 0.167
B 2 days per week; April - October, averaged over the period April - October = 61 eventst2l4 days = 0.28
C years * 365 days
D 214 days in the months April - October
70 years * 365 days
AREA B - Child Wader
To estimate risks to the child wader, the Agencies used exposure assumptions described in the
following paragraphs. The Agencies believe that such assumptions are appropriate considering the
amount of site data available and the site conditions.
This evaluation assumes that the child (aged 5<12 years) contacts floodplain and riverbank soil five
days per week during the warmer months of the year (April through October). This is equivalent to
approximately 153 days per year (30.57 weeks in the months April through October * 5 days per
week= 152.85 days).
For exposures to sediment, this evaluation assumes that the child contacts sediment at the water’s
edge while wading and playing 5 times per week during the warmest months of the year (June
through August). This is equivalent to approximately 65 days per year (13 weeks during the months
June through August * 5 days per week = 65 days).
For subchronic noncancer risks to the child wader, this evaluation focused on a child (aged 5 years)
who contacts sediments 5 days per week during the warmest months of the summer (June, July and
August) and soils 5 days per week during April through October.
-7-

-------
The Agencies assumed that dermal contact to sediment occurs to the hands, feet, arms, and legs and
that dermal contact to soils occurs to the hands, arms, feet and lower legs. Skin surface areas are
from DEP guidance (DEP 1995). Attachment 2 provides skin surface areas for each body part by
age group. The Agencies used DEP’s default skin-soil adherence factor of 0.51 mg/cm 2 (DEP 1995).
For incidental soil ingestion for the child , the Agencies used 50 mg/day. This value was previously
agreed upon by the Agencies in joint comments on General Electric’s proposed Risk Assessment
Scope of Work for the Housatonic River (DEP/EPA, l997). This value is DEP’s default rate for
children and adults over the age of 5 years (DEP 1995). As previously stated, a soil ingestion rate of
50 mg/day is lower than the RME value recommended by EPA guidance (EPA 1997). EPA
considers 50 mg/day to be a central tendency value. A high-end value for adult soil ingestion would
be 100 mg/day (EPA 1997).
In an effort to simplify the risk calculations, the Agencies used a soil ingestion rate of 50 mg/day for
the 5 year-old child, rather than 100 mg/day which is the value normally applied to that age. Using
50 mg/day for the 5 year-old does not change the conclusions of the risk assessment presented in this
memorandum.
The body weight used in this evaluation is 27.8 kg , which represents the average body weight for a
female, aged 5<12 years (DEP, 1995; EPA, 1989). For subchronic exposures, a body weight of 18.8
kg for the five-year old female was used;
Exposures to the child wader using the assumptions described above were evaluated using soi1 and
sediment concentrations in Table 1 from exposure area B (Elm Street to Dawes Avenue). Table 2B
below summarizes some of the exposure factors used to evaluate the child wader.
TABLE 2B: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE FREQUENCY AND DURATION USED TO
EVALUATE THE CHILD WADER iN AREA B (REACH 4-1 TO 4-3),
HOUSATONIC RIVER.
Medium
Risk Type
Age
(years)
Exposure Exposure Period
Frequency (days)
(events/days)
Averaging Time
(days)
Soil
Soil
Soil
Cancer
Chronic Noncancer
Subchronic Noncancer
5<12
5<12
5
0.419
0 • 419 A
0 • 71 B
2555t
2555 E
214 F
25550k’
2555 E
214 F
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Cancer
Chronic Noncancer
Subchronic Noncancer
5<12
5<12
5
0.17t
O.l 78
071 D
2555k
2555 E
92 G
25550 ”
2555k
92 G
A 5 days per week; April -October; averaged over one year = 153 events/365 days = 0.4 19
B 5 days per week; April - October; averaged over the period April - October = 153 eventsl2l4 days = 0:71
C 5 days per week; June-August, averaged over one year = 65 events/365 days = 0.178
D 5 days per week; June - August, averaged over the period June - August =65 eventsl92 days = 0.71
E 7years t 365 days
F 214 days in months April - October
° 92 days in months June - August
“ 70 years * 365 days
-8-

-------
AREA C - Child Resident
To estimate risks to the child resident, the Agencies used exposure assumptions described in the
following paragraphs. The Agencies believe that such assumptions are appropriate and protective
considering the amount of site data available and the site conditions.
This evaluation assumes that a resident (aged 1<6 years) contacts floodplain and riverbank soil five
days per week during the warmer months of the year (April through October). This is equivalent to
approximately 153 days per year (30.57 weeks in the months April through October * 5 days per
week = 152.85 days).
For exposures to sediment, this evaluation assumes that a resident contacts sediment at the water’s
edge while wading and playing 5 times per week during the wannest months of the year (June
through August). This is equivalent to approximately 65 days per year (13 weeks during the months
June through August * 5 days per week = 65 days).
For subchronic noncancer risks to the resident, this evaluation focused on a child (aged 5 years) who
contacts sediments and soils 5 days per week during the warmest months of the summer (June, July
and August) and soils 5 days per week during April through October.
The Agencies assumed that dermal contact to sediment occurs to the hands, feet, arms, and legs.
Dennal contact to soils occurs to the hands, arms, feet and lower legs. Skin surface areas are taken
from DEP guidance (DEP 1995). Attachment 2 provides skin surface areas for each body part by
age group. The Agencies used DEP’s default skin-soil adherence factor of 0.51 mg/cm 2 (DEP 1995).
For incidental soil ingestion for the child resident, the Agencies used 100 mg/day. This value was
previously agreed upon by the Agencies in joint comments on General Electric’s proposed Risk
Assessment Scope of Work for the Housatonic River (DEP/EPA 1997). It is lower than the RME
value recommended by EPA guidance (EPA 1997). EPA considers 100 mg/day to be a central
tendency value. A high-end value for a child could be as high as 200 or 400 mg/day (studies by
Calabrese reviewed in EPA 1997).
The body weight used in this evaluation is 14.6 kg , which represents the average body weight for a
female, aged 1<6 years (DEP, 1995; EPA, 1989). For subchronic exposures, a body weight of 18.8
kg for the five-year old female was used.
Exposures to the child resident using the assumptions described above were evaluated using soil and
sediment concentrations in Table I from exposure area C (Dawes Avenue to the confluence). Table
2C below summarizes some of the exposure factors used to evaluate the child resident.
-9-

-------
TABLE 2C: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE FREQUENCY AND DURATION USED TO
EVALUATE THE CHILD RESIDENT IN AREA C (REACH 4-4 TO 4-6),
HOUSATONIC RIVER.
Medium
Risk Type
Age
(years)
Exposure Exposure Period
Frequency (days)
(events/days)
Averaging Tim
(days)
Soil
Soil
Soil
Cancer
Chronic Noncancer
Subchronic Noncancer
1<6
1<6
5
0.419k ’
0 • 419 A
071 B
1825b
1825 E
214 F
25550”
1825 E
214 F
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Cancer
Chronic Noncancer
Subchronic Noncancer
1<6
1<6
5
0.178’
() 178 C
0 • 71 D
1825t
182 ?
92 G
25550 ’ ’
1825 E
92°
A 5 days per week; April -October averaged over one year = 153 eventsl365 days = 0.419
B 5 days per week; April - October; averaged over the period April - October = 153 events/214 days = 0.71
C 5 days per week; June-August, averaged over one year =65 eventsl365 days = 0.178
D 5 days per week; June - August, averaged over the period June - August =65 events/92 days = 0.71
E years * 365 days
F 214 days in months April - October
° 92 days in months June - August
HlOy *3 6 5thys
Table 3 below summarizes all of the exposure parameters used in this evaluation.
TABLE 3. EXPOSURE FACTORS USED IN EVALUATING RISKS iN REACHES 3-1 TO 4-6 OF
THE HOUSATONIC RIVER
EXPOSURE PARAMETER
VALUE
Body Weight (kg); average for age 9<18 years
Body Weight (kg); age 9 years
Body Weight (kg); average for age 5<12 years
Body Weight (kg); age 5 years
Body Weight (kg); average for age 1<6 years
46
30
27.8
18.8
14.6
Skin Surface Area (cm 2 /d); average for age 9<18 years, hands/aims/feel/lower legs
Skin Surface Area (cm 2 /d); age 9 years, hands/arms/feet/lower legs
Skin Surface Area (crn 2 /d); average for age 5<12 years (soil), hands/arms/feet/lower legs
Skin Surface Area (cm 2 /d); average for age 5<12 years (sediment), hands/arms/feet/legs
Skin Surface Area (cm 2 /d); age 5 years (soil), hands/arms/feet/lower legs
Skin Surface Area (cm 2 d); age 5 years (sediment), hands/arms/feet/legs
Skin Surface Area (cm 2 /d); average for age 1<6 years (soil), hands/arms/feet/lower legs
Skin Surface Area (cm 2 /d); average for age 1<6 years (sediment), hands/arms/feet/legs
5,437
.3,889
3,675
5,370
2,970
4,269
2,358
3,368
Skin-Soil Adherence Factor (mg/cm 2 )
0.51
Soil ingestion rate (mg/day), 9<18 year olds, 5<12 year olds
Soil ingestion rate (mg/day), 1<6 year olds
. 50
100
- 10 -

-------
VI. RISK CHARACTERIZATION
This evaluation estimates risks to three sensitive receptors: youth trespassers; child waders; and child
residents. These receptor groups are appropriate given site data and current conditions in exposure areas
A-C. Land use described in this evaluation is current land use. An evaluation considering current land
use is appropriate for a removal action (or immediate response action) but does not restrict the Agencies
to considering these land uses in decisions on final remedial actions. Final remedial actions consider
both current and future land uses. Decisions on future land use are based on public participation,
development plans, and detailed site-specific information (EPA, 1995).
Calculations presented in this memorandum are protective for a person who has regular and continuing
contact with soils or sediment. Calculations are not necessarily protective for the worst case exposure
scenario. For example, calculations in this memo could underestimate risks for a pica child, who
intentionally consumes soil or sediment (Calabrese 1997), or the risks from activities such as dirt biking.
Conversely, potential risks for the “average” or “typical” child should be lower than those calculated
here.
This evaluation considers risks from exposure to PCBs in soils and sediment and does not evaluate
potential risks from exposure to PCBs through other media such as river water.
Equations for calculating doses and risks from ingestion and dermal contact with soil are presented
below. Detailed risk calculations are presented in Attachment 3. Tables 3A-3C below summarize the
doses and risks that have been calculated for the three receptor groups in the three exposure areas. Risk
estimates have been rounded to three significant figures.
A. Risk Equations
CANCER RISKS
Using the assumptions noted above in Table 2, and the equations below, a lifetime average daily dose of
PCBs from ingestion and dermal contact with soil can be calculated.
LADD = FPCB1*C*AF*ABSd I*SA*EF*ED*EP
BW AP
LADDO J =FPCB1*C*IR*ABS i*EF*ED*EP
BW*AP
Where:
LADDd I = lifetime average daily dose from dermal contact with soil; mglkg/day
LADD 0 j = lifetime average daily dose from ingestion of soil; mg/kg/day
[ PCB] = PCB concentration in soil; mg/kg
C = conversion factor; 1O kg/mg
AF = adherence factor of soil to skin; mg/cm 2 per event
ABSd = dermal absorption fraction from soil; %
ABS 0 = oral absorption fraction from soil; %
SA = surface area of exposed skin; cm 2
IR = soil ingestion rate; mg/day
—11—

-------
BW = body weight; kg
EF = exposure frequency; events/days
ED = exposure duration; days/event
EP = exposure period; days
AP = averaging period; days
The Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk from exposure to contaminated soil and sediment via dermal contact
and ingestion can be calculated using the following equation.
ELCR = (LADDde + LADD 0 1 ) * CSF
Where:
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
CSF = Cancer Slope Factor; 2 (mgIkg/day ’
LADDd = lifetime average daily dose from dermal contact with soil; mg/kg/day
LADDOIRJ = lifetime average daily dose from ingestion of soil; mg/kg/day
NONCANCER RISKS
Using the exposure assumptions in Table 2 and the equations below, an average daily dose of PCBs from
ingestion and dermal contact with soil can be calculated.
ADDd =FPCB1*C*AF*ABSd I*SA*EF*ED*EP
BW*AP
ADD 0 =fPCB1*C*IR*ABS ,*EF*ED*EP
BW*AP
Where:
ADD = average daily dose from dermal contact with soil; mg/kg/day
ADD 0 = average daily dose from ingestion of soil; mg/kg/day
[ PCB] = PCB concentration in soil; mg/kg
C = conversion factor, lO kg/mg
AF = adherence factor of soil to skin; mg/cm 2 per event
ABSd = dermal absorption fraction from soil; %
ABS 0 = oral absorption fraction from soil; %
SA = surface area of exposed skin; cm 2
IR = soil ingestion rate; mg/day
BW = body weight; kg
EF = exposure frequency; events/days
ED = exposure duration; days/event
EP = exposure period; days
AP = averaging period; days
-12-

-------
The Hazard Index can be calculated using the equation below.
HI =FADD 1
RID
HI
Rfl
ADDd
ADD 0 ,
+ ADDnrad
= Hazard Index
= Reference Dose; mg/kg/day
= average daily dose from dermal contact with soil; mg/kg/day
= average daily dose from ingestion of soil; mg/kg/day
B. Risk Results
Table 4A. Summazy of Doses and Risks To the Trespasser From Exposure to PCBs in Area A of the
Housatonic River.
9 Year o

id Trespasser
I SEDIMENT
r
..I Ofl1C
ADD
mg/kg/day

mg/kg/day
HL 1 .
0.001 13
0.00628
200
0.0000217
0.000 120
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
Chronic
ADD
mg/kg/day
ADD ,
mg/kg/day

0.000436
0.00338
200
0.00000836
0.0000649
4
Cancer
LADD ,
mg/kg/day
LADD 1
mg/kg/day
ELCR
0.0000560
0.000435
1 E-3
0.00000 107
0.00000834
.
2 E-5
* Risk results have been rounded to one significant figure.
Where:
- 13 -

-------
Table 4B. Summary of Doses and Risks to the Child Wader (aged 5<12 years) From Exposure
to PCBs in Area B of the Housatonic River.
1
5 year-old Child
5<12 Year old Child
SOIL
SEDIMENT
SOIL
SEDIMENT
r
Subchronic
ADD 0
0.000708
0.00 170
—
---
mg/kg/day
ADD , I
0.00300
0.0104
mg/kg/day
70
200
---
—-
Chronic
ADD
—
---
0.000284
0.000290
mg/kg/day
ADD( 1
—
---
0.00149
0.00222
mg/kg/day
PICjlrOfliC*
—_
90
100
Cancer
-
LADDO J
-
—
0.0000284
0.0000290
mg/kg/day
LADD U, I
—
—
0.000149
0.000222
mg/kg/day
ELCR*
4J ,.4
5f ..4
* Risk results have been rounded to one significant gifure
Table 4C. Summary of Doses and Risks to the Child Resident (aged 1<6 years) From Exposure
to PCBs in Area C of the Housatonic River.
1 —I
I
SOIL
I
JT
I
SOIL
0.000252
0.000543
20
0.0001 13
0.000344
9
—-
—
—-
—-
—
.
—
—
—
---

0.000192
0.000323
30
0.0000366
0.0000879
6
---
---
---
—-
---
---
0.0000137
0.0000231
7E-5
0.0000026 1
0.00000628
2E-5
* Risk res Its have been rounded to one significant figure.
1 .
I
I
- 14 -

-------
Federal RCRA/ CERCLA Risk Management Criteria
This analysis focuses on whether children or teenagers could receive enough dose through short-term
exposures to present an unacceptable risk. Risk managers should note that exposure periods used in this
analysis to evaluate residential cancer and noncancer risks (5 years) are shorter than those typically used
for evaluating residential areas. Risk managers should take this into account when considering the
management actions connected with risks.
As shown in Tables 4A-C above, exposure to PCB-contaminated soils and sediments in each of the three
Exposure Areas presents risks higher than levels at which EPA considers taking action. EPA is justified
in taking action when the excess lifetime cancer risk exceeds a range of 10 to lO . EPA is justified in
taking action when a noncancer Hazard Index exceeds one.
Moreover, PCB concentrations found in Housatonic River sediments, bank soils and floodplain soils
exceed the EPA action level of 1 mg/kg for residential soils and 10-25 mg/kg for industrial soils (EPA
1990). Concentrations in soils also exceed DEP’s default (Method 1) cleanup standard for residential and
commercial/industrial soils of 2 mg/kg (310 CMR 40.0985(6)).
Exposure Area A: Newell to Elm Streets
PCB-contaminated sediments in Exposure Area A (Newell to Elm Streets), pose noncancer risks to
the youth Irespasser that are roughly 3 times higher than the level at which EPA is justified in taking
action (i.e., Hazard Index greater than one). Cancer risks from sediment exposure are within the risk
range at which EPA is justified in taking action (i.e., 10 to 10”).
Chronic (9-year exposure) and subchronic (3-month exposure) noncancer Hazard Indices from soil
exposure to the youth trespasser in Exposure Area A are approximately 200 times greater than the
level at which EPA is justified in taking action (i.e., Hazard Index greater than one). PCB-
contaminated soils in Exposure Area A pose cancer risks to the youth trespasser that are roughly 10
times higher than the EPA risk range (i.e., I0 to 10 ).
Exposure Area B: Elm to Dawes Avenue
PCB-contaminated sediments in Exposure Area B (Elm to Dawes Streets) pose chronic (7-year) and
subchronic (3-month) risks to the child wader that are over 100 times the level at which EPA is
justified in taking action (i.e., Hazard Index greater than one). Cancer risks from sediment exposure
to the child wader are approximately 5 times higher than the EPA risk range (i.e., l0 to 10 ).
Chronic (7-year) and subchronic (3-month) noncancer risks from soil exposure to the child wader in
Exposure Area B are over 70 times higher than the level at which EPA is justified in taking action
(i.e., Hazard Index greater than one). Cancer risks to the child wader from soil exposure are roughly
4 times higher than the EPA risk range (i.e., I 0 to 1 0 ).
Exposure Area C: Dawes to the Confluence
PCB-contaminated sediments in Exposure Area C pose chronic (5.:year) and subchronic (3-month)
noncancer risks to the child resident that are over 6 times the level at which EPA is justified in
taking action (i.e., Hazard Index greater than one). Cancer risks to the child resident from exposure
to sediments are within the risk range at which EPA is justified in taking action (i.e., I0 to 1ff”).
- 15 -

-------
Chronic (5-year) and subchronic (3-month) noncancer risks to the child resident from exposure to
PCB-contaminated soils in Exposure Area C are approximately 20 times higher than the level at
which EPA is justified in taking action (i.e., Hazard Index greater than one). Cancer risks to the
child resident from soil exposure is within the risk range at which EPA is justified in taking action
(i.e., l0 to lot).
MCP Risk Management Criteria
As stated previously in this memorandum, it is DEP’s practice to use the arithmetic average
concentration for the EPC rather than the UCL 95 or the maximum, as was used to calculate risks
presented in Tables 4A-C above. DEP generated cancer risk estimates using the average as the EPC.
Results are contained in spreadsheets in Attachment 4. The following sections discuss the application of
MCP risk management criteria to the risk estimates presented in Attachment 4.
Under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), hazardous waste sites must be remediated such that
long-term risks do not pose significant risk of harm to human health. Significant risk exists if the excess
lifetime cancer risk exceeds the MCP risk limit of 1 x 1ff 5 or if the noncancer hazard index (Hi) exceeds
the MCP risk limit of one (310 CMR 40.0993(6)).
The MCP states that conditions at a disposal site pose an Imminent Hazard based upon the potential for
cancer effects if the estimated excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) calculated for the “short period of
time” underevaluation is greater than a cancer risk limit of 1 x iO 5 (310 CMR 40.0955(2)(b)(I)). The
MCP also provides that a HI limit of 10 is used to evaluate imminent hazards when the level! of
uncertainty inherent in a Reference Dose is high (greater than a factor of 10). When the level of
uncertainty inherent in a Reference Dose is low (less than or equal to a fictor of 10), a HI limit of one is
used (310 CMR 40.0955(2)(c)). In this evaluation, it is appropriate to use a HI limit of 10 to evaluate
imminent hazards from chronic and subchronic exposures to PCBs because the level of uncertainty
inherent in each of the chronic and subchronic PCB RfDs is greater than 10 (IRIS, 1998; BEAST, 1997).
Imminent hazards are levels of risk at which the MCP requires an Immediate Response Action to abate,
prevent, or eliminate the imminent hazard.
Cancer Risks
As shown in Attachment 4, the ELCR calculated for exposure to soils in each of the three exposure areas
exceeds the MCP risk limit for significant risk to human health and exceeds the MCP Imminent Hazard
risk limit. For sediments, the ELCR in Area B exceeds the MCP Imminent Hazard risk limit.
Therefore, it can be concluded that:
• PCB-contaminated soils in Exposure Areas A-C pose significant risk of harm to human health
and an Imminent Hazard based upon the potential for cancer health effects.
• PCB-contaminated sediments in Exposure Area B pose significant risk of harm to human health
and an Imminent Hazard based upon the potential for cancer health effects.
NonCancer Risks
As shown in Attachment 4, the HIs calculated for soils and sediment in each of the three exposure areas
exceed the MCP risk limit for significant risk to human health. In Area A, the HI for soil exceeds the
-16-

-------
MCP risk limit for an Imminent Hazard. In Area B, the HI for sediments also exceeds the MCP risk
limit for an Imminent Hazard. Therefore, it can be concluded that:
• PCB-contaminated soils and sediments in exposure areas A-C pose significant risk of harm to
human health based upon the potential for noncancer health effects.
• PCB-contaminated soils in exposure area A pose an Imminent Hazard to human health based
upon the potential for noncancer health effects.
• PCB-contaminated sediments in exposure area B pose an Imminent Hazard to human health
based upon the potential for noncancer health effects.
If conditions at a site constitute an Imminent Hazard based on the potential for either cancer or
noncancer health effects, the MCP requires an Immediate Response Action to abate, prevent or eliminate
the Imminent Hazard.
C. Other Risk Characterization/Risk Management Considerations
In order to make a judgment as to whether a specific dose level poses a health risk, the level of
uncertainty in the risk assessment, along with qualitative information, should be considered in addition
to risk results. This is discussed in more detail in the paragraphs which follow.
1. Characterization of PCB Contamination
a) The number of soil and sediment samples available for the area of interest is one uncertainty about
the risks associated with the exposure activities evaluated. There are large numbers of sediment and soil
samples available for each exposure area. However, each exposure area is also fairly large. EPA’s
sampling effort in riverbank and floodplain soils was biased towards areas with high exposure potential
but not necessarily to areas with high PCB concentration (EPA 1998a). Thus, EPA samples may not
represent the highest concentrations present. Use of the UCL 95 or the maximum concentration provides a
conservative estimate of the concentrations to which a receptor is exposed. However, it is possible that
additional sampling could indicate that even higher PCB levels are present in the area.
b) In this evaluation, samples were included in the EPC only if they began at the surface. In other
words, a sample result from the interval 6 to 12 inches would not have been included in the EPC. In at
least one stretch of the river (Newell to Elm Streets), there are samples from just below the 6-inch depth
interval with PCB concentrations in the thousands of parts-per-million. (Blasland, Bouck & Lee 1997).
The EPCs used in this evaluation do not reflect these high PCB concentrations at depth. Because of the
dynamic nature of the river, it is possible that these highly-contaminated sediments could become
exposed at the surface where a receptor could come into contact with them. If this is the case, then this
evaluation could underestimate actual risks.
c) Another uncertainty about the risks evaluated in this memorandum is that some of the sediment data
was collected from locations that are covered by shallow water for part of the year. This may over or
underestimate the PCB concentration in sediments at the water’s edge that a receptor may come into
contact with on a regular and continuing basis.
-17-

-------
d) It is possible that this evaluation could underestimate actual exposures and risks to the youth
trespasser because PCB floodplain data from Oxbow Areas A and C were not included in the EPCs. As
stated previously, Oxbows Area A and C are located in reaches 3-8 and 3-9.
2. Exposure Assessment
a) The youth trespasser evaluated in this memorandum could receive additional exposures from PCBs
present in his or her residential yard. It is possible that a youth trespasser who receives PCB exposure to
the sediments, floodplain soils, or bank soils may in fact have higher exposures and risks than estimated
in this evaluation because of exposure to other sources of PCBs in other areas.
b) This analysis does not consider risks from fish consumption. Currently there is a fish consumption
advisory in place for all fish species in the area of concern. However, there is no enforcement
mechanism in the advisory and no monitoring of the advisoiy’s effectiveness in preventing exposure.
Currently, 37% of male and 31% of female Pittsfield residents surveyed by the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health reported eating freshwater fish (not necessarily from the Housatonic) (MA
DPH 1997). The fish consumption advisory is communicated by a brochure distributed when individuals
receive fishing licenses. In addition, the advisory is posted on some locations on the river. However,
young people under 16 years old can fish without a license and they may walk to and fish from locations
that are not posted. If individuals ig Iore the advisory or are not aware of it, their cumulative risk may
be much higher than the risks presented in this evaluation. Risks from consuming Housatonic River fish
were not considered in this memorandum. However, for purposes of providing supplemental information
to EPA risk managers, Appendix A to this m morandum contains risk calculations prepared by EPA, for
fish consumption assuming full use of the Housatonic River fishing resource.
c) The exposure period evaluated for the child resident (7 years) may underestimate the actual exposure
that a resident may receive because it does not account for continuing exposure a resident may receive
after age 12. Moreover, PCBs have been present in the area of interest for many years already, making it
likely that exposure has already occurred for many years.
d) In this evaluation, it is assumed that a receptor is exposed to either soil or sediment and not both.
Because of the nature of the activity assumed to occur on the riverbanks and at the water’s edge, a
receptor would actually be exposed to both soil and sediment as he/she climbs up and down the bank to
the water’s edge. In areas A and C, PCB concentrations in bank and floodplain soils are higher than in
sediments. If a receptor is contacting both soil and sediment, then his/her risks would be different than
the estimated risks presented in this evaluation.
e) This analysis uses a dermal adherence value of 0.51 mg/cm 2 and an incidental soil ingestion rate for
children 6 years and older of 100 mg/day and 50 mg/day for adults. There are not good quantitative
estimates for soil ingestion for children between the ages of 6 and 18. Limited data on children playing
in wet soils suggest that dermal adherence could be 1 mg/cm2 (EPA 1992) or higher (Kissel 1996). If
the risk calculations in this evaluation had assumed a soil ingestion of 200 mg/day for children up to age
12, 100 mg/day for youth trespassers, and a dermal adherence of 1 mg/cm2, then the risks would be
about 2 times those presented here. For example, the noncancer hazard index would be roughly 300 for
the 9-year old contacting soil in area A and roughly 500 for the 5-year old contacting sediment in area B.
- 18 -

-------
A choice of more conservative, but still reasonable factors, given the uncertainty in the application of the
scientific information to site conditions, could double the risks calculated in this memorandum.
3. PCB Toxicity
a) Because of a lack of data, this evaluation does not consider potential risks from exposure to dioxin-
like PCBs. Dioxin-like PCBs are PCB congeners which resemble dioxin (i.e., 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) in structure and toxicity. If dioxin-like PCBs are present, the risks could be
much greater than those calculated. The presence of highly chlorinated PCBs such as Aroclor 1260 in
the area of interest makes the presence of dioxin-like PCBs a strong possibility.
b) In many risk assessments, doses received by laboratory animals in toxicity studies are substantially
higher than estimated doses received by exposed receptors. In this risk assessment, some of the
estimated dose rates received by exposed receptors are similar to dose rates received in the noncancer
PCB toxicity studies. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is less uncertainty about potential
noncancer effects of PCB exposure at this site than in risk assessments for many other sites.
-19-

-------
REFERENCES
ATSDR 1996. Public Health Implications of PCB Exposures, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA, and US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 1996.
ATSDR 1997. Toxicological Profile for Polychiorinated Biphenyls, Update, prepared by Research
Triangle Institute for the US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, September 1997.
TechLaw Inc. 1998. Draft Sediment Sampling Data for Samples collected during September through
November 1998, Data collected by TechLaw Inc. for EPA under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0013 and
EPA Work Assignment No. R01012, April 6, 1998.
Blasland, Bouck and Lee 1996. Supplemental Phase II/RCRA Facility Investigation Report/or
Housatonic River and Silver Lake, perpared by Blasland, Bouck and Lee for General Electric, January
1996.
Blasland, Bouck and Lee 1997. Building 68 Area RemovalAction Work Plan, prepared by Blasland,
Bouck and Lee on behalf of General Electric, May 1997.
Calabrese 1997. Soil Ingestion: A Concern/or Acute Toxicity in Children, Calabrese, E.J., Stanek, E.J.,
James R.C. et al., Environmental Health Perspectives . 105:1354-58, December 1997.
ChemRisk 1997. Work Plan/or the Ecological Risk Assessment of the Housatonic River Site, Volume II,
Appendix A, Sampling Maps, prepared by ChemRisk on behalf of General Electric, May 24, 1997.
DEP 1992. Documentation For The RiskAssessment Shor form, Residential Scenario,
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Research and Standards and the
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, Policy BWSC/ORS-142-92, October 1992.
DEP 1995. Guidance For Disposal Site Risk Characterization In Support of the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan, Interim Final Policy, BWSCIORS-95-141, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup and Office of Research and Standards, July
1995.
DEPIEPA 1997. Joint DEP/EPA Technical and Review Comments on General Electric Proposal/or
Human Health Risk Assessment of the Housatonic River, August 13, 1997.
EPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance/or Superfrnd: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A), Interim Final, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, EPA/540/ 1-89/002, December 1989.
EPA 1990. A Guide on Remedial Actions at Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination. EPA Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive 9355.4-0 1, August 1990.
- 20-

-------
EPA 1992. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Interim Report, Exposure
Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA/600/8-91/O1 IB, January 1992.
EPA 1994. EPA Region One, Waste Management Division Risk Updates, Number 2, August 1994.
EPA 1995. Land use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process. Memorandum from Elliott P. Laws to
Directors of Waste Management Division, OSWER Directive #9355.7-04, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, May 25, 1995.
EPA 1996. PCB Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures,
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, US EPA,
EPAI600IP-961001F, September 1996.
EPA 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook Volume I , General Factors. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPAI600/P-95/OO2Fa, August 1997.
EPA 1998. Dermal Workgroup Response to GE’s Challenge to the Soil Dermal Absorption Value for
PCBs of 14%, EPA Interoffice Memorandum from EPA Dermal Workgroup to Mary Ballew, Region I
RCRA Program, January 27, 1998.
EPA I 998a. General Electric - PCB Testing Results for Samples collectedfor EPA by Roy F Weston in
March 1998, Memorandum from Peter Philbrook, EPA Environmental Services Division to Susan
Svirsky, EPA, March 23, 1998.
Gilbert 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. R.O. Gilbert, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1987.
BEAST 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, 9200.6-303 (97-i), EPA-540-R-97-036, PB97-921 199, July 1997.
IRIS 1998. EPA Integrated Risk Information System, 1998.
Mass DPH 1997. Housatonic River Area PCB Exposure Assessment Study, Final Report, Massachusetts
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment, Environmental Toxicology
Unit, September 1997.
Wester 1993. Percutaneous absorption of PCBs from soil: In vivo rhesus monkey, in vitro human skin,
and binding to powdered human stratum corneum. R.C. Wester, H.I. Maibach, L. Sedik, et al., Journal
of Toxicology and Environmental Health 39:375-82.
-21 -
this is uprch5l4 doc

-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Data used to calculate Exposure Point Concenirations

-------
HOUSATONIC RIVER SEDIMENT
Newell Street to Elm Street, Area A sediments
conc PCB
STATION ID DEPTH DATA SOURC (ppm) ND Ln PCB’s
S0-9-G 0-0.4’ GE/EGO 5/97 34.00 3.53 last modifie
3- IA-3A 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 0.60 -0.51 05/11/98
3-2A-1 0-4 inches GE/EGO 5/97 10.00 2.30
HCSE-5 0-1.0’ GE/EGO 5/97 0.10 * -2.30
3-5A-3 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 66.40 4.20
SO9F 0-0.3’ GE/ECO 5/97 1.40 0.34
SO9EI 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 30.00 3.40
S09E2 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 0.52 -0.65
3-6A-1 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 4.90 1.59
3-6A 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 0.30 -1.20
SO9D 0-0.3’ GE/EGO 5/97 67.00 4.20
BBSO9D 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 0.94 -0.06
SO9C 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 0.55 -0.60
SO9B . 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 5.70 1.74
3-7B 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 1.40 0.34
SO9A 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 16.00 2.77
HCSE-15 0-1.8’ GE/EGO 5/97 100.00 4.61
3-7D-CRD 0-4 inches GE/EGO 5/97 7.80 2.05
3-6C-18 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 27.00 3.30
3-6G-66 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 1.20 0.18
3-6C-20 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 140.00 4.94
3-6C-55 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 0.70 -0.36
3-6G-22 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 16.40 2.80
3-6C-49 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 0.24 -1.43
3-6G-48 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 10.20 2.32
3-6C-27 0-5 BLDG68 5/97 20.10 3.00
3-6G-79 0-7 BLDG68 5/97 1.20 0.18
3-6G-35 0-8.4 BLDG68 5/97 4.50 1.50
3-6C-38 0-8.4 BLDG68 5/97 1.35 * 0.30
3-6G -62 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 0.36 -1.02
3-6C-41 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 1.35 0.30
3-6C-65 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 0.16 -1.83
3-6G-63 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 1.02 0.02
3-6C-43 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 61.70 4.12
3-6G-44 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 1.70 0.53
3-6G-45 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 3.14 1.14
3-6G-46 0-7 BLDG68 5/97 3.34 1.21
3-6G-47 0-6 BLDG68 5/97 0.29 -1.24
3-lA 0-6 ATK 0.06 * -2.81
3-2B 0-6 ATK 1.70 0.53
3-4A 0-6 ATK 0.15 -1.90
3-5D 0-6 ATK 0.63 -0.46
3-7E Ô-6 ATK 1.80 0.59
3-8A 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 15.80 2.76
HCSE-4 0-1.6’ GE/EGO 5/97 15.00 2.71

-------
S IOBI 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 7.30 1.99
SlOB 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 90.00 4.50
BBS IOB 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 14.00 2.64
3-8B-1 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 9.54 2.26
HCSE-3 0-1.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 8.60 2.15
3-8C 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 5.90 1.77
3-9A 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 1.40 0.34
HCSE-A6 0.2”-0.8” T 3-7, SUP PH 140.00 4.94
3-9B-1 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 5.68 1.74
HCSE-2 0-1.6’ GE/ECO 5/97 10.00 2.30
3-9D 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 0.75 -0.29
3-lOB 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 4.40 1.48
3-lOG 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 9.60 2.26
3-1 DC-I 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 85.40 4.45
S IOA 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 8.10 2.09
3-IOD 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 1.80 0.59
HCSE-1 0-1.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 3.20 1.16 J
3-8C 0-6 ATK 25.20 3.23
3-8E 0-6 ATK 1.40 0.34
3-9FF 0-6 ATK 2.20 0.79
3-9F 0-6 ATK 12.70 2.54
3-IOD 0-6 ATK 5.00 1.61
3- IOE 0-6 ATK 1.90 0.64
mean 16.66 1.36
sample variance 964.31 3.45
sample stdev 31.05 1.86
maximum 140.00
minimum 0.06
68.00 68.00
Gilbert UCL 45.489
Gilbert Mean 21.939
H stat 3.2125

-------
Elm Street to Dawes Avenue, Area B sediments
PCB
STATION ID DEPTH DATA SOURC conc (ppm) ND Ln PCB’s
4-IA—CRD 0-4 inches GE/ECO 5/97 123 4.81
HCSE-16 0-1.1’ GE/ECO 5/97 0.25 -1.39
4-2A 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 9.3 2.23
HCSE-17 0-1.8’ GE/ECO 5/97 17 2.83
4-2B 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 33 3.50
4-2B-1 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 17 2.83
BBSI 1 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 22 3.09
4-38 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 5.1 . 1.63
SI 1 0-0.5’ GEIECO 5/97 130 4.87
HCSE-18C 0-0.25’ GE/ECO 5/97 3.1 1.13
HCSE-18B 0-0.25’ GE/ECO 5/97 51 3.93
HCSE-18 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 905 6.81
4-3A 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 1.6 0.47
HCSE-18D 0-0.33’ GEJECO 5/97 1.6 0.47
HCSE-18A 0-0.25’ GE/ECO 5/97 17 2.83
mean 89.06 2.67
sample variance 52659.87 4.20
sample stdev 229.48 2.05
maximum 905.00
minimum 0.25
15.00 15.00
Gilbert UCL 1521.077
Gilbert Mean 118.141
H stat 4.6633

-------
Dawes to the confluence, Area C sediments
PCB
STATION ID DEPTH DATA SOURC conc (ppm) ND Ln PCB’s
4-4A 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 2.6 0.96
HCSE-19 0-2.0’ GE/EGO 5/97 3.3 1.19
4-4C 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 3.6 1.28
4-4B 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 32 3.47
4-4D 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 9.8 2.28
4-4E 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 0.93 -0.07
4-5A 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 9.2 2.22
4 5A(*) 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 1.6 0.47
HCSE-20 0-1.9’ GE/EGO 5/97 5.3 1.67
4-5A-1 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 10.1 2.31
BBS I2 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 24 3.18
S12 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 28 3.33
4-5C-1 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 13.18 2.58
4-5E 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 4.7 1.55
4-5B 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 14.9 2.70
4-6B 0-0.5’ GE/ECO 5/97 1.7 0.53
4-6A 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 22.8 3.13
4-6G 0.5-6 inches GE/ECO 5/97 10.5 2.35
4-6D 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 7.8 2.05
4-6F 0.5-6 inches GE/EGO 5/97 5.6 1.72
4-6G 0-0.5’ GE/EGO 5/97 17 2.83
4-4F 0-6 ATK 6.9 1.93
4-4G 0-6 ATK 37.3 3.62
4-5H 0-6 ATK 1.8 0.59
4-5G 0-6 ATK 16.4 2.80
4-5F 0-6 ATK 14.2 2.65
4-6J 0-6 ATK 132 4.88
mean 16.19 2.16
sample variance 631.45 1.28
sample stdev 25.13 1.13
maximum 132.00
minimum 0.93
n 27.00 27.00
Gilbert UCL 29.580
Gilbert Mean 16.361
H stat 2.67088
ND - samples where ND was reported were listed as 1/2 .the sample detection limit
ATK = Data from A.T. Keamey
GE/ECO 5/97 = Work Plan for the Ecological Risk Assessment of the Housatonic
River Site Volume II, by ChemRisk
BLDG68 5/9 Building 68 Removal Action Work Plan, May 1997, by BBL
T 3-7 Supplemental Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation Report for the Housatonic River
and Silver Lake, Table 3-7, 1/96

-------
GE Housatonic River Bank and Floodplain Data
Newell Street to Elm Street, Area A soils last modified
PCB 05/11/98
Location Type Depth - Conc. Report Ln Conc. ND
BE-0043-A Bank 0 to 6” 2.50 Weston98 0.92
BW-0030-A Bank 0 to 6” 27.00 Weston98 3.30
BE-0040-A Bank 0 to 6” 5800.00 Weston98 8.67
BE-0041-A Bank 0 to 6” 1000.00 Weston98 6.91
BE-0042-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.21 Weston98 -1.56
BE-0044-A Bank 0 to 6” 4.88 Weston98 1.58
BE-0045-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.28 Weston98 -1.27
BE-0046-A Bank 0 to 6” 1.15 Weston98 0.14
BW-0031-A Bank 0 to 6” 2.69 Weston98 0.99
HR-EB2 Bank 0 to 6” 600.00 ECO-RA 5/97 6.40
BW-0032-A Bank 0 to 6” 2.15 Weston98 0.77
BW-0035-A Bank 0 to 6” 110.00 Weston98 4.70
BW-0038-A Bank 0 to 6” 7.30 Weston98 1.99
BW-0037-A Bank 0 to 6” 1.70 Weston98 0.53
BW-0036-A Bank 0 to 6” 11.00 Weston98 2.40
BW-0034-A Bank 0 to 6” 59.00 Weston98 4.08
HR-EB I Bank 0 to 6” 12.40 ECO-RA 5/97 2.52
BW-0033-A Bank 0 to 6” 4.47 Weston98 1.50
BE-0039-A Bank 0 to 6” 140.00 Weston98 4.94
l9-4-14D Flood Plain 0 to 6” 4.30 ECO-RA 5/97 1.46
l9-4-14A Flood Plain 0 to 6” 6.20 ECO-RA 5/97 1.82
19-4-14B Flood Plain 0 to 6” 4.30 ECO-RA 5/97 1.46
19-4-14C Flood Plain 0 to 6” 47.00 ECO-RA 5/97 3.85
18-24-5A Flood Plain 0 to 6” 38.00 ECO-RA 5/97 3.64
18-24-5B Flood Plain 0 to 6” 0.70 ECO-RA 5/97 -0.36
18-24-5C Flood Plain 0 to 6” 2.10 ECO-RA 5/97 0.74
BW-0029-A Bank 0 to 6” 43.00 Weston98 3.76
BW-0028-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.15 Weston98 -1.90 *
BW-0040-A Bank 0 to 6” 36.00 Weston98 3.58
mean 274.77 2.33
sample variance 1173344.57 6.25
sample stdev 1083.21 2.50
maximum 5800.00
minimum 0.15
29.00 29.00
Gilbert UCL 2393.253
Gilbert Mean 233.360
H stat 4.928

-------
Elm Street to Dawes Avenue, Area B soils
PCB
Location Type Depth Conc. Report Ln Cone. ND
18-4-6-1 Flood plain 0 to 6” 0.10 ECO-RA 5197 -2.30 *
BE-0020-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.18 Weston98 -1.71 *
BE-0014-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.10 Weston98 -2.30 *
BE-0018-A Bank 0 to 6” 17.00 Weston98 2.83
BE-001 7-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.20 Weston98 -1.63
BE-0016-A Bank 0 to 6” 1.49 Weston98 040
BE-0015-A Bank 0 to 6” 18.00 Weston98 2.89
BE-0013-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.10 Weston98 -2.30 *
BE-0034-A Bank 0 to 6 17.00 Weston98 2.83
BE-0012-A Bank 0 to 6” 33.00 Weston98 3.50
BE-0021-A Bank 0 to 6” 39.00 Weston98 3.66
HR-EB4 Bank 0 to 6” 377.00 ECO-RA 5/97 5.93
HR-EB5 Bank 0 to 6” 268.00 ECO-RA 5197 5.59
BE-001 9-A Bank 0 to 6” 32.00 Weston98 3.47
HR-EB3 Bank 0 to 6” 0.07 ECO-RA 5/97 -2.66 *
BE-0033-A Bank 0 to 6” 28.96 Weston98 3.37
BE-0022-A Bank 0 to 6” 2.49 Weston98 0.91
BE-0023-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.45 Weston98 -0.81
BE-0025-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.12 Weston98 -2.08 *
BE-0026-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.10 Weston98 -2.30 *
BE-0027-A Bank 0 to 6” 46.00 Weston98 3.83
BE-0024-A Bank 0 to 6” 14.00 Weston98 2.64
BE-0028-A Bank 0 to 6” 3.40 Weston98 1.22
BE-0029-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.10 Weston98 -2.30 *
BE-0031-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.36 Weston98 -1.02
BE-0032-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.10 Weston98 -2.30 *
BE-0030-A Bank 0 to 6” 65.00 Weston98 4.17
mean 35.72 0.87
variance 7363.24 8.13
sample stdev 85.81 2.85
maximum 377.00
minimum 0.07
27.00 27.00
Gilbert UCL 2857.310
Gilbert Mean 139.253
H statistic 5.403

-------
Dawes Avenue to the confluence of the Housatonic with the West Branch, Area C soils
PCB
Location
Type
Depth
Conc.
Report
Ln Conc ND
l7-2-45A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
12
ECO-RA 5/97
2.48
17-2-45B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
10
ECO-RA 5/97
2.30
l7-2-45C
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
30
ECO-RA 5/97
3.40
l7-2-33A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
12
ECO-RA 5/97
2.48
l7-2-33B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
49
ECO-RA 5/97
3.89
l7-2-33B-1
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
6.2
ECO-RA 5/97
1.82
17-2-33B-2
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
16
ECO-RA 5197
2.77
l7-2-33B-6
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
34
ECO-RA 5/97
3.53
17-2-33C
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
4.6
ECO-RA 5197
1.53
17-2-33D
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
3.6
ECO-RA 5/97
1.28
l7-2-32A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
92
ECO-RA 5197
4.52
17-2-32A-5
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
2.5
ECO-RA 5/97
0.92
17-2-32B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
24
ECO-RA 5197
3.18
17-3—7A-1
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
12
ECO-RA 5/97
2.48
l7-3-7A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
82
ECO-RA 5/97
4.41
l7-3-7A-2
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
160
ECO-RA 5/97
5.08
17-3-7B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
24
ECO-RA 5/97
3.18
17-3-7C
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
30
ECO-RA 5/97
3.40
17-3-6C-12
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
12.5
ECO-RA 5/97
2.53
17-3-6C-10
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
46
ECO-RA 5/97
3.83
17-3-6C
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
62
ECO-RA 5/97
4.13
17-3-6A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
27
ECO-RA 5/97
3.30
l7-3-6B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
40
ECO-RA 5/97
3.69
17-2-25C
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
7.4
ECO-RA 5/97
2.00
l7-2-25B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
5.6
ECO-RA 5/97
1.72
l7-2-25A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
39
ECO-RA 5/97
3.66
17-3-IA
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
12
ECO-RA 5/97
2.48
17-3-lB
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
12
ECO-RA 5/97
2.48
17 -3-IC
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
3.3
ECO-RA 5/97
1.19
17-3-1 F
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
7.9
ECO-RA 5/97
2.07
l7-1-3A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
0.7
ECO-RA 5/97
-0.36
16-1-67B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
6.4
ECO-RA 5/97
1.86
16-1-67A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
44
ECO-RA 5/97
3.78
l6-1-66A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
15
ECO-RA 5/97
2.71
l6-1-66B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
34
ECO-RA 5/97
3.53
17-1-4A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
8
ECO-RA 5/97
2.08
l6-1-64A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
40
ECO-RA 5/97
3.69
l6-1-64B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
1
ECO-RA 5/97
0.00
16-1 -62A
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
6.2
ECO-RA 5/97
1.82
l6-1-62B
Flood
Plain
0 to 6”
12
ECO-RA 5/97
2.48

-------
17-2-20-19
Flood Plain
0 to 6”
34.9
SITE EXAC 6/95
3.55
17-2-20-1
Flood Plain
0 to 6”
39.5
SITE EXAC 6/95
3.68
17-2-20-3
Flood Plain
0 to 6”
5.7
SITE EXAC 6/95
1.74
17-2-20-2
Flood Plain
0 to 6”
17
SITE EXAC 6/95
2.83
17-2-20-12
Flood Plain
0 to 6”
2.9
SITE EXAC 6/95
1.06
17-2-20-11
Flood Plain
0 to 6”
2.6
SITE EXAC 6/95
0.96
17-2-20-6
Flood Plain
0 to 6”
4
SITE EXAC 6/95
1.39
17-2-20-16
Flood Plain
0 to 6”
2.2
SITE EXAC 6/95
0.79
17-2-3-2
Flood Plain
0 to 6”
1.2
SITE EXAC 6/95
0.18
BE-001 1-A
Bank
0 to 6”
30.0
Weston98
3.40
BE-0010-A
Bank
0 to 6”
18.0
Weston98
2.89
BW-0023-A
Bank
0106”
2.9
Weston98
1.07
BW-0025-A
Bank
0 to 6”
40.0
Weston98
3.69
BW-0027-A
Bank
0 to 6”
83.0
Weston98
4.42
BW-0026-A
Bank
0106”
27.0
Weston98
3.30
BW-0024-A
Bank
0 to 6”
16.5
Weston98
2.80
BE-0009-A
Bank
0106”
29.0
Weston98
3.37
BE-0004-A
Bank
0106”
48.0
Weston98
3.87
BE-0008-A
Bank
0106”
28.0
Weston98
3.33
HR-EB6
Bank
0 to 6”
3.1
ECO-RA 5/97
1.14
HR-EB7
Bank
0 to 6”
0.7
ECO-RA 5/97
-0.37
BE-0002-A
Bank
0 to 6”
65.0
Weston98
4.17
BW-0021-A
Bank
Oto6”
29.0
Weston98
3.37
BE-0003-A
Bank
0 to 6”
14.0
Weston98
2.64
BE-0007-A
Bank
Oto6”
0.1
Weston98
-2.30
BE-0001-A
Bank
0 to 6”
4.1
Weston98
1.41
BE-0005-A
Bank
0 to 6”
25.0
Weston98
3.22
BE-0006-A
Bank
0 to 6”
0.2
Weston98
-1.49
BW-0022-A
Bank
0 to 6”
59.0
Weston98
4.08
BW-0008-A
Bank
0 to 6”
13.0
Weston98
2.56
BW-0020-A
Bank
0 to 6”
37.0
Weston98
3.61
BW-0019-A
Bank
0 to 6”
340
Weston98
3.53
BW-0002-A
Bank
0 to 6”
69.0
Weston98
4.23
BW-0004-A
Bank
0 to 6”
48.0
Weston98
3.87
BW-0003-A
Bank
0106”
21.0
Weston98
3.04
BE-0037-A
Bank
0106”
2.4
Weston98
0.89
BW-0001-A
Bank
0 to 6”
4.1
Weston98
1.42
BW-0006-A
Bank
0106”
13.0
Weston98
2.56
BE-0036-A
Bank
0 to 6”
23.0
Weston98
3.14
BE-0035-A
Bank
0 to 6”
21.0
Weston98
3.04
*

-------
BW-0005-A Bank 0 to 6” 8.2 Weston98 2.10
BW-0009-A Bank 0 to 6” 12.0 Weston98 2.48
BW-0007-A Bank 0 to 6” 9.1 Weston98 2.21
BW-0018-A Bank 0 to 6” 47.0 Weston98 3.85
BW-0015-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.2 Weston98 -1.90 *
BW-0017-A Bank 0 to 6” 36.0 Weston98 3.58
BW-0016-A Bank 0 to 6” 10.0 Weston98 2.30
BW-0013-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.1 Weston98 -2.30 *
BW-0014-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.1 Weston98 -2.30 *
BW-0010-A Bank 0 to 6” 18.0 Weston98 2.89
BW-0012-A Bank 0 to 6” 0.1 Weston98 -2.30 *
BW-001 1-A Bank 0 to 6” 20.0 Weston98 3.00
mean 23.10 2.36
sample variance 635.98 2.68
sample stdev 25.22 1.64
maximum 160.00
minimum 0.10
92.00 92.00
Gilbert UCL 67.810
Gilbert Mean 40.448
H stat 3.0098
ND - samples where ND was reported were listed as 1/2 the sample detection limit
ECO-RA 5/97 = Work Plan for the Ecological Risk Assessment of the Housatonic
River Site, Volume II, May 24, 1997, by Chem Risk
SITE EXCAVATION PLAN 95-03-47-4, dated 6/95
Note: Flood plain samples selected were those samples located within the I ppm
isopleth that were not excavated or capped during short
term measures or immediate response actions performed by GE
Weston98 = Samples collected by Weston in March 1998

-------
ATFACHMENT 2
Table of Skin Surface Areas by Age Group
Part of the Body I Skin Surface Area (cm 2 ) ’
Age 9<18
Hands
Arms
Feet
Lower Legs
746.2
1863.8
1071.0
1756.3
Age9
Hands
Arms
Feet
Lower Legs
561.8
1303.8
805.6
1216.9
Age 5<12
Hands
Arms
Feet
Lower Legs .
Legs
516.02
1292.6
736.-S
1130.1
2825.2
Age 5
Hands
Arms
Feet
Lower Legs
Legs
444.0
1090.6
568.7
866.2
2165.6
Age 1<6
Hands
Arms
Feet
Lower Legs
Legs
365.0
861.7
457.8
673.5
1683.7
‘Skin Surface Areas are 50th percentile values for females (DEP 1995).

-------
ATFACHMENT 3
Spreadsheets showing risk calculations

-------
PCB Exposure In Reaches 3-I to 4-6
Housatonic River
REACH A: 3-1 TO 3-10
NEWELL TO ELM
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Trespasser, Age 9 - SUBCHRONIC
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Trespasser, Aqe 9 - SUBCHRONIC
Media
Soil
Soil
So!I
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
REACH B: 4-1 TO 4-3
ELM TO DAWES
Wader, Age 5<12 - CANCER
Media
ISoil
ISoil
Soil
ELCR
9.83E-04
I .88E-05
ELCR
3.55E-04
HI
191.0445
148.1659
3.661686
2.839847
HI
(L)ADDoraI
mq/kg-d
5.6054E-O5
4.3597E-04
1.1 304E-03
I .0744E-06
8.3562E -06
2.1 667E-05
ADDoral
mg/kg-d
2.8423E-05
2.8423E-04
7.0840E-04
2.8986E-05
(L)ADDdermal
mglkg-d
4.3520E-04
3.3849E-03
6.2779E-03
8.3414E-06
6.4878E-05
I .2033E-04
ADpdermal
mg/kg-d
1 .4916E-04
1 .4916E-03
3.0044E-03
2.2228E-04
2.2228E-03
I .0367E-02
EPC
mg/kg
2400.00
2400.00
2400.00
46.00
46.00
EPC
46.00
mg/kg
377.00
377.00
377.00
905.00
905.00
905.00
Rf 0
mg/kg-d
2E-05
2E-05
5E-05
2E-05
2E-05
5E-05
RID
mg/kg-d
2E-05
2E-05
5E-05
2E-05
2E-05
5E-05
CSF
(mglkg-d)-1
2
2
2
2
2
2
CSF
(mglkg-d)-1
2
2
2
2
2
2
RISK CALCULATIONS
REACH C: 4-4 TO 4-6
DAWES TO CONFLUENCE
Young Resident, Age 1< 6 - CANCER
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CHR NONCANCER
Young Resident, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CANCER
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CHR NONCANCER
Young Resident, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
Media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
ELCR
7.37E-05
1.78E-05
HI .
25.80036
15.7254
6.226499
9.133987
ADDoral
mg/kg-d
1.3734E-05
1 .9228E-04
2.51 96E-04
2.6125E-06
3.6575E-05
1.1282E-04
ADDdermal
mg/kg-d
2.3123E-05
3.2373E-04
5.3431E-04
6.2825E-06
8.7955E-05
3.4388E-04
EPC
mg/kg
67.00
67.00
67.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
RID
mg/kg-d
2E-05
2E-05
5E-05
2E-05
2E-05
5E-05
CSF
(mglkg-d)-1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Wader, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
Wader, Age 5<12 - CANCER
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Wader, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
Sediment
Sediment
5.03E-04
88.79105
74.25684
125.6323
241.3448
2.8986E-04
1.7 005E- 03
this Is up_rchs.xls
5/14/98
Page 1

-------
1 RISK CALCULATIONS
I
PCB Exposure in Reaches 3-1 to 4-6
Housatonic River
.‘_______
.
REACH A: 3-1 TO 3-10
C IR
EF
ED
EP
RAF-o
RAF-d
BW
AP
NEWELL TO ELM
kg/mg mg/d
ev/d
d/ev
days
kg
days
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
1.O OE-061 50
0.167
1
3285
1 0.14
46
25550
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Trespasser, Age 9- SUBCHRONIC
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
1.OOE-061 50
1.O OE-061 50
1.OOE-061 50
0.167
0.283
0.167
1
1
1
3285
214
3285
1 0.14
1 0.14
1 0.14
46
30
46
3285
214
25550
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Trespasser, Age 9- SUBCHRONIC
1.OOE-061 50
1.00E -0 j 50
0.167
0.283
1
1
3285
214
1 0.14
1 0.14
46
30
3285
214
REACH B: 4-1T04-3
C 1 1R ]
kg/mg I mg/d
EF
ED
EP
RAF-o
fRAF -d
BW
AP
ELM TO DAWES
[ ev/d
d/ev
days
kg
days
Wader, Age 5<12 - CANCER
1.OOE-06
50
0.419
1
2555
1 0.14
27.8
25550
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
1.O OE-06
50
0.419
1
2555
1 0.14
27.8
2555
Wader, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
1.OOE-06
50
0.707
1
214
1 0.14
18.8
214
Wader, Age 5<12 - CANCER
1.OOE-06
50
0.178
1
2555
1 0.14
27.8
25550
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
1.O OE-06
50
0.178
1
2555
1 0.14
27.8
2555
—
Wader, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
1. OOE-06
50
0.707
1
92
1 0.14
18.8
92
REACH C: 4-4 TO 4-6
C
IR
EF-
ED
EP
RAF-o
RAF-d
BW
AP
DAWES TO CONFLUENCE
kg/mg
mg/d
ev/d
dlev
days
kg
days
Young Resident, Age 1<6- CANCER
1. O OE-06
100
0.419
1
1825
1 0.14
14.6
25550
Young Resident, Age 1 <6- CHR NONCANCER
1.OOE-06
100
0.419
1
1825
1 0.14
14.6
1825
Young Resident, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
1.OOE-06
100
0.707
1
214
1 0.14
18.8
214
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CANCER
1.OOE-06
100
0.178
1
1825
1 0.14
14.6
25550
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CHR NONCANCER
1.OOE-06
100
0.178
1
1825
1 0.14
14.6
1825
Young Resident, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
1. O OE-06
100
0.707
1
92
1 0.14
18.8
92
this is up_rchs.xls
siiuse Page 2

-------
REACH B: 4 -1 TO 4-3
ELM TO AWES
Wader Age 5<12 - CAr
SA
cm2ld
3675
3675
AF
mglcm2
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
FRISK CALCULATIONS
FPCB Exposure in Reaches 3-1 to 4-6
IHousatonic River
REACH A: 3-1 TO 3-10
SA
AF
NEWELL TO ELM
cm2/d
mg/cm2
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
5437
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
5437
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9- SUBCHRONIC
3889
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
5437
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
5437
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9- SUBCHRONIC
3889 0.51
- - -
REACH C: 4-4 TO 4-6
SA
AF
DAWESTO CONFLUENCE
cm2ld
mg/cm2
Young Resident, Age 1< 6- CANCER
2358
0.51
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CHR NONCANCER
2358
0.51
Young Resident, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
2970
0.51
Young Resident, Age 1 <6- CANCER
3368
0.51
Young Resident, Age 1 <6- CHR NONCANCER
3368
0.51
Young Resident, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
4269
0.51
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Wader, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
Wader, Age 5< 12 - CANCER
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NON ANCER
Wader, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
2970
5370
5370
4269
this Is upjchs.xls
5/14198
Page 3

-------
AT ACHMBNT 4
Spreadsheets showing risk calculations using Arithmetic Average PCB Concentrations for the EPCs

-------
‘RISK CALCULATIONS
Using AVERAGE PCB concentration as EPC
REACH A: 3-I TO 3-10
Media
ELCR
HI
ADDoral
ADDdermal
EPC
RfD
CSF
NEWELL TO ELM
mg/kg-d
mglkg-d
mg/kg
mg/kg-d
(mg/kg-d)-1
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
Soil
1.05E-04
5.9903E-06
4.6509E-05
274.80
2E05
2
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Soil
21 .8746
4.9919E-05
3.8757E-04
274.80
2E-05
2
Trespasser, Age 9- SUBCHRONIC
Soil
16.965
1.2943E-04
7.1882E-04
274.80
5E 05
2
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
Sediment
6.38E-06
.
3.6382E-07
2.8247E-06
16.69
2E-05
2
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Sediment
1.328555
3.0318E-06
2.3539E-05
16.69
2E-05
2
Trespasser, Age 9 - SUBCHRONIC
Sediment
1.03037
7.8612E-06
4.3657E-05
16.69
5E-05
2
Media
ELCR
HI
ADDoral
ADDdermal
EPC
RfD
CSF
REACH B: 4-1 TO 4-3
.
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg
mg/kg-d
(mg/kg-d)-1
Wader, Age 5<12 - CANCER
Soil
3.15E-05
2.51 91 E-06
1.3220E-05
35.80
2E-05
2
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Soil
8.431617
2.6990E-05
1.4164E-04
35.80
2E-05
2
Wader, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
Soil
7.051445
6.7270E-05
2.8530E-04
35.80
5E-05
2
Wader, Age 5<12 - CANCER
Sediment
4.62E-05
2.6624E-06
2.04 6E-05
89.06
2E-05
2
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
Sediment
12.36333
2.8525E-05
2.1874E-04
89.06
2E-05
2
Wader, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
Sediment
23.75046
1.6735E-04
1.0202E-03
89.06
5E-05
2
Media
ELCR
HI
ADDoral
ADDdermal
EPC
RfD
CSF
REACH C: 4-4 TO 4-6
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg
mg/kg-d
(mg/kg-d)-1
Young Resident, Age 1< 6 - CANCER
Soil
2.33E-05
.
4.3354E-06
7.2991E-06
22.66
2E-05
2
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CHR NONCANCER
Soil
8.725911
6.5031 E-05
I .0949E-04
22.66
2E-05
2
Young Resident, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
Soil
5.318471
8.5216E-05
1.8071E-04
22.66
5E-05
2
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CANCER
Sediment
8.87E-06
1.3021 E-06
3.131 2E-06
16.02
2E-05
2
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CHR NONCANCER
Sediment
3.32495
1.9531 E-05
4.6968E-05
16.02
2E-05
2
Young Resident, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
Sediment
4.877549
6.0245E-05
1.8363E-04
16.02
5E-05
2
this Is upjchs.xls
5114/98 Page 1

-------
‘RISK CALCULATIONS
Using AVERAGE PCB concentration as EPC
REACH A: 3-1 TO -10
C
IR
EF
ED
EP
RAF-o
RAF-d
BW AP
NEWELL TO ELM
kg/mg
mg/d
ev/d
dlev
days
kg
days
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
1.OOE-06
50
0.167
1
3285
1
0.14
46
27375
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
1.OOE-06
50
0.167
1
3285
1
0.14
46
3285
Trespasser, Age 9- SUBCHRONIC
1.OOE-06
50
0.283
1
214
1
0.14
30
214
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
1.OOE-06
50
0.167
1
3285
1
0.14
46
27375
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
1.OOE-06
50
0.167
1
3285
1
0.14
46
3285
Trespasser, Age 9- SUBCHRONIC
1.OOE-06
50
0.283
1
214
1
0.14
30
214
EF
ED
EP
RAF-o
RAF-d.
BW
AP
REACH B: 4-1 TO 4-3
kglmg J
mgld
ev/d
dlev
days
kg
days
Wader, Age 5<12 - CANCER
1.OOE-06
50
0.419
1
2555
1
0.14
27.8
27375
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
1.OOE-06
50
0.419
1
2555
1
0.14
27.8
2555
Wader, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
1.OOE-06
50
0.707
1
214
1
0.14
18.8
214
Wader, Age 5<12 - CANCER
1. O OE-06
50
0.178
1
2555
1
0.14
27.8
21375
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
1.OOE-06
50
0.178
1
2555
1
0.14
27.8
2555
Wader, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
1.OOE-06
50
0.707
1
92
1
0.14
18.8
92
C
IR
EF
ED
EP
RAF-o
RAF-d
BW
AP
REACH C: 4-4 TO 4-6
kg/mg
mgld J yId
d/ev
days
kg
days
Young Resident, Age 1<6 - CANCER
1.QOE -06
100
0.419
1
1825
1
0.14
14.6
27375
Young Resident Age 1 <6- CHR NONCANCER
1.OOE-06
100
0.419
1
1825
1
0.14
14.6
1825
Young Resident, Age 5 - SUBCHRONIC
1. O OE-06
100
0.707
1
214
0.14
18.8
214
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CANCER
1.OOE-06
100
0.178
1
1825
1
0.14
14.6
27375
Young Resident, Age 1 <6- CHR NONCANCER
1.OOE-06
100
0.178
1
1825
1
0.14
14.6
1825
Young Resident, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
1.O OE-06
100
0.707
1
92
1
0.14
18.8
92
this Is upjchs.xls
J14IqR Pa e2

-------
RISK ALCULA11ONS
Using AVERAGE PCB concentration as EPC
REACH A: 3-1 TO -1O
SA
AF
NEWELL TO ELM
cm2ld
mg/cm2
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
5437
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
5437
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9- SUBCHRONIC
3889
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CANCER
5437
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9<18 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
5437
0.51
Trespasser, Age 9- SUBCHRONIC
3889
0.51
SA
AF
REACH B: 4-1 TO 4-3
cm2/d
mglcrn2
Wader, Age 5<12 - CANCER
3675
0.51
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NONCANCER
3675
0.51
Wader, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
2970
0.51
Wader, Age 5<12-CANCER
5370
0.51
Wader, Age 5<12 - CHRONIC NON ANCER
5370
0.51
Wader, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
4269
0.51
SA
AF
REACH C: 4-4 TO 4-6
cm2ld
mg/cm2
Young Resident, Age 1<6- CANCER
2358
0.51
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CHR NONCANCER
2358
0.51
Young Resident, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
2970
0.51
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CANCER
3368
0.51
Young Resident, Age 1 <6 - CHR NONCANCER
3368
0.51
Young Resident, Age 5- SUBCHRONIC
4269
0.51
this is up_rchs.xls
5114 198 Page 3

-------
Appendix A. Memo on Potential Human Health Risks from Consuming Fish from the Housatonic
River in Massachusetts

-------
United States Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Environmental Protection Agency (617) 565-3420
New England Region
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 14,1998
SUBJ: Potential Human Health Risks from Consuming Fish from the Housatonic River in
Massachusetts
FROM: Mary Ballew, Environmental Scientist, EPA 1fl4j3
TO: Biyan Olson, Project Manager, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, EPA
I. INTRODUCTION
This memo provides calculations and a limited discussion of potential risks from consuming fish
from the Housatonic River in Massachusetts. Currently there is a fishing advisory on the
Housatonic which may help to limit fish consumption.
II. CONCLUSIONS
Consumption of fish in the Housatonic river, even for periods as short as one summer,
presents a significant risk to human health.
ilL HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
For the Housatonic River in Massachusetts, there is a fish consumption advisory in place for all
fish species. However, there is no enforcement mechanism in the advisory and no monitoring of
the advisory’s effectiveness in preventing exposure. Currently, 37% of male and 31% of female
Pittsfield residents surveyed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health reported eating
freshwater fish (not necessarily from the Housatonic) (MA DPH 1997). The fish consumption
advisory is communicated by a brochure distributed when individuals receive fishing licenses. In
addition, the advisory is posted on some locations on the river. However, young people under 16
years old can fish without a license and they may walk to and fish from locations that are not
posted. The river has numerous access points by foot or by boat. Under the fishing advisory,
catching and releasing the fish is allowed, which adds to the difficulty of monitoring its
effectiveness. If individuals ignore the advisory or are not aware of it, their cumulative risk may
be represented by the risks presented in this memo.

-------
GE collected “young of yea ?’ 1 fish to monitor changes (trends) in PCB levels over time, not to
represent the type of fish people were likely to eat. Since these fish were about six months old
(Finldestein 1998), they were too small to eat. GE reported that composites of young of year
fish (pumpkinseeds, largemouth bass and yellow perch) caught in 1994 near New Lenox Road
(just downriver of Pittsfield) in the Housatonic ranged from 22 to 35 mg PCBs per kilogram
(ppm) of whole fish composite. Similarly, fish composites at Woods Pond (12 miles downriver of
GE) ranged from 3 to 58 ppm (GE 1994). So although Woods Pond contained high levels of
PCBs, the fish in sections of the river closer to Pittsfield contained comparable levels. For
example, the 69 largemouth bass sampled at New Lenox Road averaged 31 ppm and the 70
largemouth bass sampled at Woods Pond averaged 23 ppm (young of year results, GE 1994).
In 1994, the National Biological Survey of the US Geological Survey (USGS) collected 28
largemouth bass from Woods Pond, which is a wide shallow section of the Housatonic River.
PCB levels in 24 whole fish ranged from a minimum of 27 ppm to a maximum of 206 ppm and
averaged 100 ppm (not adjusted for lipid). Four additional muscle tissue samples ranged from 13
to 70 ppm PCBs (Attachment Al). Woods Pond is twelve miles downriver from the GE facility
and the sediment levels ofPCBs in Woods Pond average 27 ppm (personal communication, Dean
Tagliaferro, April 1998). The dominant Aroclors 2 found in the fish resemble Aroclors 1254 and
1260 which are the environmentally modified forms of the original Aroclor 1260 released from
GE.
In 1997, EPA-New England asked the EPA Office of Research and Development for technical
assistance to perform congener-specific 3 analysis of the USGS fish samples. Since this was the
only congener-specific data for fish available for the Housatonic River, this data was selected for
these risk calculations. The USGS had a limited amount of data on other species; however, EPA
chose the largemouth bass for congener analysis because they are a popular game species. The
largemouth bass caught by the USGS were all of a size that would provide good fillets. In
‘“Young of year” fish are those less than one year old.
2 PCB mixtures manufactured in the United States carried the trademark “Aroclor” followed by a four-digit
number the first two digits are “12” and the last two digits indicate the percent chlorine by weight For example,
Aroclor 1260 was manufactured using 60% chlorine. Aroclor 1016 is an exception, because it contains 41 percent
chlorine by weight (EPA 1996). Once released into the environment, distribution and bioaccumulation of an Aroclor
can change the character of the mixture so that it may no longer resemble the original mixture (EPA 1996)
3 Each PCB molecule consists of two 6-carbon rings, with one chemical bond joining a carbon from each ring
(imagine sunglasses with hexagonal frames). Chlorine can attach to any of the other 10 carbons There are 209 possible
arrangements, called congeners The number and position of chiorines determine a PCB molecule’s physical and
chemical properties Congeners are numbered I to 209 The coplanar congeners, those with the two rings aligned on
the same plane, have dioxin-like properties (EPA 1996) Congener specific data improves our ability to identi1 the
presence of bioaccumulated PCBs
2

-------
contrast, the GE young of year fish were too small to eat.
IV. DOSE RESPONSE
Toxicology
To determine whether exposure to PCBs in fish from the Housatonic River in Massachusetts
presents a potential risk to human health, EPA evaluates the cancer and noncancer risks
associated with PCB exposure. To evaluate the cancer risk, EPA uses the 95% upper confidence
limit of the linear-slope factor (also known as the cancer slope factor) of 2 (mg/kg/day) 1 for
PCBs (IRIS 1998). The fish ingestion scenario involves ingestion of bioaccumulated PCBs.
Ingestion of fish contaminated with these PCBs may result in a dose greater than that which
occurred in the toxicity studies used to develop the potency estimates (EPA 1996). For that
reason, EPA estimates the risk of consuming bioaccumulated PCBs using the Toxic Equivalence
Factor -(TEF) approach (outlined in EPA 1996). The TEF’s are ratios for certain PCB congeners,
that when multiplied by each congener’s concentration in fish tissue and the cancer slope factor
for dioxin, yield an estimate of the carcinogenicity of the bioaccumulated PCBs in the fish.
Because of its toxicity, the cancer slope factor for dioxin is very high, 150,000 (mg/kg/day) 1 , so
even small concentrations of these dioxin-like PCBs in the fish can present a cancer risk.
In the cancer study for Aroclor 1260 on which the slope factor is based, a 12-month exposure
produced approximately the same cancer potency as a full two-year exposure. This suggests that
a less than lifetime exposure could have significant risk implications (EPA 1996).
To evaluate chronic noncancer risks, EPA used a Reference Dose (RfD) of 2 x 10 mg/kg/day for
Aroclor 1254 (IRIS 1998). To evaluate subchronic noncancer risks, EPA used the subcbronic
RfD of 5 x 1O mg/kg/day for Aroclor 1254 (HEAST 1997). Reference Doses for Aroclor 1254
were used because they are the closest ones applicable to the type of PCB mixture found in the
Housatonic River (Aroclor 1260). The toxicity of Aroclor 1254 is much more similar to that of
Aroclor 1260 than the toxicity of Aroclor 1016 (the other choice for an EPA accepted Rif)). The
toxicity study on which the RfI)s are based was conducted over a shorter-term time frame (5
years). The subchronic exposure period evaluated in this memorandum (one summer) is consistent
with that used in the toxicity study. The critical effects for the chronic and subchronic RfDs are
immunologic and reproductive effects In addition, PCBs have been associated with deficits in
learning and neurological effects (see ATSDR 1996 for a recent review)
A relative absorption factor (RAF) of 100% was used for oral absorption of PCBs from fish
(DEP, 1992). An RAF of 100% means that the assumed absorption of PCBs from ingestion of
Housatonic fish is equal to the absorption of PCBs in the laboratory toxicity studies.
3

-------
Data Analysis
Of the available fish data, only the 1994 USGS 24 whole fish and 4 tissue samples were tested for
dioxin like PCBs (see data in attachment Al spreadsheets). The whole fish samples included skin,
organs, and all other tissues. For the muscle tissue samples, USGS removed about 100 grams of
muscle tissue and attached skin (about 2 inches wide, 4 inches long, and 1 inch deep) from the
back of the fish directly above the gut (Steven Smith, personal communication, 1998).
To compare the fish on the same basis, EPA adjusted the whole fish data to its equivalent in fish
tissue, thus:
(ppm PCBs in whole fish divided by % lipid in each fish) x 100 =
micrograms of PCB per gram of fat
The concentration of PCBs in fish muscle tissue equivalents were detririnined using the lipid
normalized concentration ofPCBs and the average lipid found in the four fish tissue samples
(approximately 1%). While the use of lipid normalization data is not recommended in all cases
the lipid approximation of 1% was considered to be reasonable, given the very low levels of%
lipid in whole fish (0.87-5.8%).
Following the procedure outlined in EPA 1996, EPA multiplied the concentrations of the
individual PCB dioxin-like congeners by the toxic equivalence factors (TEF’s) appropriate to
each. This product, called dioxin toxic equivalents (TEQ’s) is calculated for each tissue sample.
Next, EPA calculated the 95% upper confidence limit of the mean (Gilbert 1987) concentration
for the non-dioxin PCBs and the dioxin-like PCBs. These calculations resulted in a UCL 95 of
0.00 13 for TEQ’s and 52.2 ppm for nondioxin PCBs. These were the exposure point
concentrations used with the exposure factors to calculate the risks of consuming the fish. Eleven
of the 13 dioxin-like PCBs were detected in fish samples used for this risk evaluation.
V. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Currently the waters of the Housatonic are under a fishing advisory by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The calculations for the adult fisher and subsistence fisher that follow assume that
“For human health risk assessment, adjusting for lipid requires site-specific samples of fish muscle tissue or
fillet in addition to the data on whole fish. A standardized (not site-specific) lipid adjustment is not appropriate because
the lipid levels of the fish may have been affected by the site contamination. Also, the adjustment does not make
biological sense unless the contaminant sequesters in the fat
4

-------
people do not adhere to the advisory.
The calculations for the child fisher represent the short-term PCB doses and risks that a child
could receive during one summer of consuming contaminated fish caught between GE and the
Woods Pond Dam on the Housatonic River in Massachusetts.
Adult Fisher
To estimate risks to the adult fisher, EPA used exposure assumptions that consider the
amount of site data available and the site conditions. The exposure assumptions described
below are reflective of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) for adult residents who
consume contaminated fish.
These calculations assume that an adult fisher5 consumes a daily average of 26 grams of fish
over the course of 365 days per year (Ebert et a!.; 1993). This could represent 3 or 4(8-
ounce) fish meals per month throughout a year or 7 (8-ounce) fish meals per month during the
wanner months (April through October). A daily average of 26 grams represents the 95th
percentile of fish consumption for all water bodies in Maine (Ebert et al., 1993). Because the
Housatonic is the largest water body in the region and an attractive resource, this value is
appropriate. This value was previously agreed upon by the Agencies in joint comments on
General Electric’s proposed Risk Assessment Scope of Work for the Housatonic River; GE
did not dispute this value (DEPIEPA 1997).
The body weight used in this evaluation is 70 kg, which represents the average body weight
for an adult (EPA, 1989).
Subsistence Fisher
To estimate risks to the subsistence fisher, EPA used exposure assumptions that consider the
amount of site data available and the site conditions. The exposure assumptions described
below are appropriate for a sensitive subpopulation that is highly exposed
These calculations assume that a subsistence fisher 5 consumes a daily average of 140 grams of
fish over the course of 365 days per year This could represent 4 or 5 (8-ounce) fish meals
per week during a year. The daily average of 140 grams per day was estimated by EPA
Office of Water staff based on a review of the literature on fish consumption by Native
Americans and subsistence anglers (EPA 1995). Given site conditions, this value is
appropriate for subsistence fishers as a whole; a particular ethnic group-or tribe of Native
5 Thrn is a person who has adult body weight and who would ingest adult-sized portions of fish For example,
for a thirty year exposure duration, this could be a person who ate fish each year when they were between the ages of 18
and 48
5

-------
Americans may consume more fish. This value for subsistence fish consumption was
previously agreed upon by the Agencies in joint comments on General Electric’s proposed
Risk Assessment Scope of Work for the Housatonic River; GE did not dispute this value
(DEPIEPA 1997).
The body weight used in this evaluation is 70 kg, which represents the average body weight for
an adult (EPA, 1989).
Childfisher
To estimate the subchromc risks to the child fisher, EPA used exposure assumptions that
consider the amount of site data available and the site conditions. The exposure assumptions
described below are reflective of short term exposures and do not represent the RME.
These calculations assume that the child fisher (age 9 years) consumes one small (6- or 7-
ounce) fish meal per week during the summer months (June, July, August). EPA assumes 13
weeks per summer (June, July and August).
The one summer exposure period used in this evaluation is shorter than the 30-year exposure
period (for cancer risks) typically evaluated by EPA as part of the RME. The purpose of this
calculation is to e*amine whether short term exposures could provide enough dose and
present enough risk, at some point later in life, to be a concern.
For fish ingestion for the child fisher, EPA used 182.5 g/week. This is the same value for
residential fish consumption mentioned above and adjusted to a weekly consumption rate (26
glday * 365 days/yr divided by 52 weeks/yr).
The body weight used in these calculations is 30 kg, which represents an average of the 50 th
percentile body weights for females age 9 years (DEP, 1995; EPA, 1989).
6

-------
TABLE 1. Exposure factors used to calculate the potential risks from fishing on the Housatonic
River
EXPOSURE ETER v4 wE
body weight (kg), adult or subsistence fisher 70
body weight (kg); age 9 years 30
exposure duration, subchronic, (weeks) 13
exposure duration (years) 30
fish ingestion rate (g/day), adults 26
fish ingestion rate (g/day), subsistence fishers 140
fish ingestion rate (g/week), children 182.5
averaging time (days); cancer 25,550
averaging time (days); chronic, noncancer 10,950
averagmg time (days), subchronic, noncancer 92
VI. RISK CHARACTERIZATION
A. Risk Calculations
CANCER RISKS
Using the assumptions noted above in Table 1, and the equations below, a lifetime average daily
dose of PCBs from ingestion of fish can be calculated.
LADD =IPCB1*C*IR*ED
BW t AT
Where:
LADDØ 1 = lifetime average daily dose from mgestion of fish, mg/kg/day
[ PCB] = PCB concentiation in fish, j. gfkg
C = conversion factor, 1O
IR = fish ingestion rate; g/day
BW = body weight; kg
ED = exposure duration; years
AT = averaging time; period over which exposure is averaged - days or years
The Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) from ingestion of fish can be calculated using the
following equations.
7

-------
ELCR = (LADDO ) CSF (for cancer risks less than 1 in 100)
ELCR = 1- exp ( LADD * CSF) (for cancer risks greater than 1 in 100)
Where:
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
CSF = Cancer Slope Factor; 2 (mg/kg/day) 1 for nondioxin-like PCBs and 150,000
(mg/kg/day)’ for dioxin TEQ’s
LADD J = lifetime average daily dose from ingestion of fish
exp = e raised to the power of x, where x is the product of the dose and the cancer slope factor
NONCANCER RISKS
Using the exposure assumptions in Table 1 and the equations below, an average daily dose of
PCBs from ingestion of fish can be calculated.
ADD =EPCB1*C*LR*ED
BWAT
Where:
ADD = average daily dose from ingestion of fish; mg/kg/day
[ PCB] = PCB concentration in fish; çtg/kg
C = conversion factor; 10
IR = fish ingestion rate; g/day or gfweek
BW = body weight; kg
ED = exposure duration; weeks or years
AT = averaging time; period over which exposure is averaged - days or years
The Hazard Index can be calculated using the equation below.
HI = LADL 1
RID
Where:
HI = Hazard Index
RID = Reference Dose; mg/kg/day
ADDQ = average daily dose from ingestion of fish; mg/kg/day
8

-------
B. Risk Results
RCRA/ CERCLA Risk Management Criteria
The cancer risks for the adult fisher and the subsistence fisher whom consume PCB contaminated
fish are two orders of magnitude (100 times) or more above the EPA cancer risk range (discussed
in EPA 1991) of I 0 to 1 0 (see tables attached) and this justifies EPA in taking an (remedial or
removal) action.
Even a child who consumes one fish meal a week over the course of one summer has a cancer risk
from that short term exposure which is nine times higher than the EPA cancer risk range of 1 0 to
101 and-this justifies EPA in taking an action.
The chronic noncancer risks for the adult fisher and the subsistence fisher whom consume PCB
contaminated fish are over 900 times the risk (ie., a chronic Hazard Index of 1) at which EPA is
justified in taking an action.
The noncancer risks (subchronic) for a child who consumes one fish meal a week over the course
of one summer are over 800 times the risk (ie., a subchronic Hazard Index of 1) at which EPA is
justified in taking an action.
If adults or children are consuming the fish on a regular basis, they have a significant risk of
cancer or noncancer health effects.
C. Discussion of Risk Characterization
Discussion Related to Exposure Scenarios
The exposure period evaluated for the child fisher (one summer) may underestimate the actual
exposure that a child may receive because it does not account for continuing exposure.
Moreover, PCBs have been present in the residential areas in Pittsfield for many years already,
making it likely that exposure via some other environmental media has already occurred
The exposure period selected for evaluation of cancer effects is one summer for the child fisher
However, different assumptions about the exposure period have a significant impact on the risk
results. As the exposure period increases, the cancer risk estimate increases For evaluating
cancer risks, one could easily justif ’ using a longer exposure period than the ones selected Also,
typically the calculation of cancer risks attributable to fish consumption may involve some
weighting of child and adult exposures, which may make the risks higher than those calculated for
9

-------
the adult alone.
The risk calculations may not be conservative enough for ethnic groups whose members consume
the whole fish. Also, particular Native American or ethnic groups may consume more fish than
noted in the subsistence fishing calculations.
Pre-natal exposure to PCBs as well as post-natal exposure to PCBs via breast milk may have
higher risks than those noted. Early stages of development may have an extra sensitivity to the
effects of PCBs (reviewed in EPA 1993, JIUS 1998).
Toddlers consuming fish may have higher risks than those noted because of the large doses that
these fish would provide given the small body size of a toddler. Also, the toddler may be more
sensitive to the developmental effects of PCBs.
Discussion Related to Toxicity and Exposure -
The cancer risks from the dioxin-like PCBs was about twice the risks from PCBs (without the
properties of dioxin). This illustrates the importance of performing congener specific analysis of
PCBs for estimates of cancer risk.
The PCB doses from eating the fish, even for as short a period as one summer, are higher than the
doses at which monkeys showed marked reproductive effects (Arnold et al 1995) and effects on
cognitive behavior (Rice 1995, 1997, Rice and Hayward 1997, Rice Ct a! 1996) and activity
(reviewed in EPA 1993). This suggests that there may be no safety margin between the exposure
estimates for people who eat fish from the Housatonic river and the exposures in the monkey
studies which show adverse health effects.
The risks from consuming the fish are substantial. If the fishing advisory is effective, then there is
no risk from the fish. However, a report in the literature suggests that fishing advisories are
violated regularly (Tilden et al 1997)6. And some people in the area may have consumed fish
from the Housatomc before the fishing advisory was in place (about 10 years ago).
In sum, doses estimated for children and adults who ingest contaminated fish from the Housatonic
river are higher than those received by the monkeys in the PCB noncancer toxicity study that
demonstrated adverse health effects This is true even in the case of children who ingest
contaminated fish over the course of one summer. These exposure estimates raise significant
concerns regarding potential health effects in children and adults who ingest contaminated fish
from the Housatonic river
6 Tilden estimates that, in one year, as many as 4 7 million people ate Great Lakes sport
fish despite long standing (since the mid-70’s) state fishing advisories
10

-------
REFERENCES
Arnold et al 1995. Toxicological Consequences ofAroclor 1254 Ingestion by Female Rhesus (Macaca
mulatta) Monkeys. Part 2. Reproduction and Infant Findings. Arnold DL, Biyce F, McGuire PF et al.
Fd. Chem. Toxic. 33:457-74.
ATSDR 1996. Public Health Implications ofPCBs December 1996
DEP 1992. Documentation For The RiskAssessment Shortform, Residential Scenario,
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Research and Standards and the Bureau
of Waste Site Cleanup, Policy BWSC/ORS-142-92, October 1992
DEP 1995. Guidance For Disposal Site Risk Characterization In Support of the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan, Interim Final Policy, BWSC/ORS-95- 141, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup and Office of Research and Standards, July 1995.
DEPIEPA 1997. Joint DEP/EPA Technical and Review Comments on General Electric Proposal for
Human Health Risk Assessment of the Housatonic River, August 13, 1997.
Ebert Ct al 1993. Estimating Consumption of Freshwater Fish among Maine Anglers. Ebert ES,
Harrington, NW, Boyle KJ, Ct al. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:737-45, 1993.
EPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfrnd: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A), Interim Final, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, EPA/540/l-89/002, December 1989.
EPA 1991. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfrnd Remedy Selection Decisions USEPA,
OSWER Directive 9355.0-30, April 22, 1991.
EPA 1993. Workshop Report on Developmental Neurotoxic Effects Associated with Exposure to PCBs.
USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum EPA/6301R-92/004, May 1993
EPA 1995. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. Supplementary Information Document
(SID). USEPA, Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-00l, March 1995, p. 575
EPA 1996 PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment andApplication to Environmental Mixtures
NCEA, ORD, EPA/600/P-96/OOlF.
Frnklestein 1998. Personal communication, Ken Finidestem, NOAA, May 11,1998
GE 1994 Preliminary draft, MCP Supplemental Phase II Investigazion/RCRA Facility Investigation of
Housatonic River and Silver Lake Tables 8 through 10
Gilbert 1987 Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring R 0 Gilbert, Van
II

-------
Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1987
HEAST 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, 9200.6-303 (97-1), EPA -540-R-97-036, PB97-921 199, July 1997.
IRIS 1998 EPA IntegratedRisk information System, a database, 1998.
Mass DPH 1997. Housatonic River Area PCB Exposure Assessment Study. Final Report, Massachusetts
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment, Environmental Toxicology
Unit, September 1997.
Rice 1995. Neurotoxicily of Lead, Methylmercury, and PCBs in Relation to the Great Lakes DC Rice
Environmental Health Perspectives 103(Supplement 9):71-87, 1995.
Rice Ct al 1996. Lessons for Neurotoxicology from Selected Model Compounds: SGOMSEC Joint
Report. Rice DC, de Duffard AME, Duffard R, et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 104(Supplement
2):205- 15.
Rice 1997. Effect of Postnatal Exposure to a PCB Mixture in Monkeys on Multiple Fixed Interval-Fixed
Ratio Performance. DC Rice. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 19:429-34.
Rice and Hayward 1997 Effects of Postnatal Exposure to a PCB Mixture in Monkeys on Nonspatial
Discrimination Reversal and DelayedAlternation Performance. Rice DC, Hayward S. Neurotoxicology
18:479-94, 1997.
Smith 1998. Personal communication with Steven Smith, USGS, April 28, 1998.
Tagliaferro 1998. Personal communication, Dean Tagliaferro, EPA removals program, April 1998.
Tilden et al 1997. Health Advisories for Consumers of Great Lakes Sport Fish Is the Message Being
Received 7 Tilden J, Hanrahan LP, Anderson, H, et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 105i360-65,
1997
Tilson et al 1990. Polychlormated Biphenyls and the Developing Nervous System. Cross-species
Comparisons Tilson HA, Jacobson JL, Rogan WJ. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 12 239-248, 1990.
12

-------
ATTACHMENT Al
Spreadsheets showing raw data and UCL calculations
13

-------
Congener specific PCB concentrations and TEQ’s in largeniouth bass collected from Woods Pond, MA
PCB’s
last modified 5/10/98
Fish refer- EPni Lipid
ence rCBs, (%)
number total
in Lipid . Mcc.ktfrpzxU. J, Dioxin-like Congeners(ppm)
(Mg t ‘ I I
PCB’s/g 1242 1248 1254 1260 17 105 114 ‘118/106 126 156 167 169 I 170 1. 189 •IS1
who lefishi
I .
J . ’:
.‘
I
{
201 57 2 25 2533.3 - - flo.42 ,,ao 2.6 SOt 7.,,, 0.46 0.32 Q9Q , ,, , 1 ,,, 3.1 ,j t 96
202 206 381 5406.8 ‘cO$ <05 1W 96 0001 0.52 ‘04043 ‘ 3.3 0+02 06 0.41 0 0033 4.2 0 ,16 . 012
B03 65 1.61 4037 3 cQS <.05 35 30 0 0.17 0.01,3 1.2 0S073 0.21 0.15 0.0005 0 16 0.045 0.043
204 117 1.06 110377 <.0+1 <05 60 57 0 0.33 ‘0.031 2.2 04012 0.42 0.3 040014 3.3 0411 Ø )Ø 7
205 75 2.85 2631.6 - - 0 0.26 002’ 1.7 0 ,0096 0.34 0.24 0(0016 2.6 0487 0.071
206 63 579 10881 - , - 0 0.27 OIOZ 1.6 0.01 0.34 0.25 0.OiS’ 27 0.09 007
207 71 335 21194 <.0+1 <.05 38’ 33 0 0.21 0+015 ’ 1.3 0 O096 0.24 0.18 0(0012’ 2 0057 005
208 31 2.41 1286.3 - - 0 0.23 0+018. 1.6 04086 0.29 0.21 0.001 2.4 0.066 0.039
209 157 4 33 3625 9 <.05 <.05 88 69 0 0.39 0432 2.5 0417 o.44 0.31 040022 3.4 0 ,1 1 0 .0 *9
210 69 1 89 3650.8 <.05 <.05 36 33 0 0.19 0.016 1.4 0.01 0.25 0.2 0.0018 1.8 0.06 0.054
811 56 2.02 2772.3 <.05 <.05 30 26 0 0.18 0415 1.2 001 0.21 0.16 0 ,001 1 5 0046 ,0 043
212 196 344 5697.7 < .05 <.05 110 86 0 0.46 0437 2.9 04021 0.52 0.37 04021 4 ‘ 0 ,12 0 11
214 27 1 7 1588.2 - - - - 0 0.3 0.026 2 c10098 0.4 0.3 0.0014 2.9 0.097 0.078
815 77 329 23404 < .05 <.05 42 35 0 0.25 0422 1.7 0 014 0.03 0.23 0(0021 22 0072 0.062
819 110 3.99 2756.9 - (I , - 0 0.51 04044’ 3 0417 0.56 039 040022 4 0.12 0.11
220 121 2 13 5680.8 <03 <.05 61 60 0 0.33 0 27 2 0416 0.45 0.32 040022 3 3 0 ,13 0.09
221 198 3.69 5365.9 <05 <.05 110 88 0401, 0.53 0444 .. 3.3 ‘0s319 0.63 0.43 0(0024 4 2 014 0,13
222 89 2.46 3617.9 <.0 5 <.05 48 41 0 , 0.26 0j22’ 1.7 &012 0.32 0.23 0(0011 2.4 0 ,71 0 061
223 130 3.18 4088.1 <45 <.05 79,J 51 0 . 0.36 . :0.031’ . 2.3 ‘04015 0.38 0.28 04015 2.3 0.073 0083
824 168 3.55 4732.4 <.05 <.05 957 73 Q , 0.43 0’438 2.7 ‘0017’ 0.5 0.35 0.0021, 3.5 0.11 0.1
225 87 2.38 3655.5 < .05 <.05 48. ‘ 39 0.’’ 0.25 0.018 . 1.5 0.0093 0.3 0.22 0.0013 2 1 0.07 0.064
831 47 1.39 3381.3 94 $ <.05 24 23 0. ,‘ 0.15 ,iXO l’’ 0.86 cSQ34 0.19 0.14 0Q 5 1 4 0,046 0.04
833 50 1.39 3597.1 <.Q5 <.05 $,J 24 ‘,o,: , 0.14 0.0D,96 0.68 G.0,O 0.19 0.14 f 10G5 1.4 0.053 0.039
834 121 0872 138761 <05 <05 62 59 0 031 0 3 19 0.981 042 03 0.0005 33 011 0087
muscle tissue
213 13.8 0.577 2391.7 <.05 <.05 7.9 5.9 . 0 0.045 ‘0.0031 0.23 0.004 0.05 0.037 0.0005 0.39 0.01 0.0082
B16 70 1 86 3763.4 <.05 ‘ <.05 35 ‘ 35 ‘0 0.19 04t8 1.3 041 0.28 0.23 0.0024 2 1 0,075 0.057
217 41 119 3445.4 < .05 <.05 21 , 20 0 0.12 0 0t 0.64 04063 0.17 0.13 040012 1 2 0.044 0,034
218 13 2 0 39 3384.6 <.05 <.05 7,2 6 0 0.036 0.0025 0.19 04013 0.047 0.045 0.0005 0 34 0.024 0.0078

-------
ave. % lipid,
muscle tissue
OSD
n
H statist ic
95% UCL of the TEQ’s:
mcg TEQIg tissue
max TEQ
04 )013 95% UCL PC8’s 52.2
mcg ?C8/g tissue
0.0102 maxPCB’s 1388
22-05 32-04 ZE’OS 22-04
22-05 32-04 2 1-03 32-04
Fish refer- ppm
once PCBs,
—
I
TEFs and TEQ’s for tested congeners
I
sum of TEQ%
number total
Iwholefishl
Lipid
1 !’ 1
77
00005
105
00001
1 114
00005
118/106j
00001
126
0.1
156
00005
167
000001
169
001
170
04)001
189
0.0001
157
00005
(mgTEQ/kg mcgTEQ mcgTEQ
whole fish) Igfat /gtissue
Laconc
TEQ’s
micro&am
PCB’s/g tissue
La PCB
801 57
802 206
803 65
804 117
805 75
806 63
807 71
808 3i
809 157
810 69
DII 56
812 196
814 27
815 77
819 110
820 121
821 198
822 89
823 130
824 168
825 87
831 47
833 50
834 121
muscle tissue
813 13.8
816 70
817 41
818 132
225
381
1 61
1 06
2 85
5 79
3 35
2.41
433
1 89
202
3.44
1.7
3.29
3.99
2 13
3 69
246
3 18
3 55
2.38
1 39
1.39
0 87
058
1 86
1.19
0.39
02400
62-07
0 2+00
02+00
02+00
02 ÷00
02+00
02 +00
02 ÷00
02 *00
02+00
02+00
02 +00
0 1÷00
01+00
02+00
52-07
0E 00
02 00
02 +00
0.24 00
02400
02+00
02+00
02+00
024*0
OEi-00
0 2 00
42-05
52-05
22-05
32-05
32-05
32-05
22-05
22-05
42-05
22-05
22-05
52-05
32-05
32-05
52-05
32-05
SE-OS
32-05
42-OS
42-05
32-05
22-05
12-05
32-05
52-06
22-05
12-05
42-06
72-06
22-05
12-05
1 2-OS
82-06
92-06
22-OS
82-06
82-06
22-OS
12-05
12.05
22.05
12-04
22 - 05
345
22-05
22-OS
92-06
52.06
52-06
12-05
22.06
92 -06
52 -06
12-06
12-04
22-04
22-04
22-04
12-04
22-04
32-04
12-04
12-04
32-04
22-04
22-04
32-04
22-04
32-04
22-04
22-04
32-04
22-04
92-05
72-05
22-04
22-05
12-04
62-05
22-05
1E 04
11.03
1 : 2403
12-03
11 .03
91 .04
2243
1243
1 : 2.03
21.03
3-03
12-03
2243
2143
2243
343
22-03
2143
92-04
52.04
42-04
tE 03
45-04
a
1:2-04
3 U6
42-06
2246
32-06
22-0 6
3 1-0 6
2246
2 1 -06
3 2-06
22-06
22.06
424$
3 2 - 06
2 2 -06
42.06
32 .06
4246
22-06
3 1-06
4:2 .06
11.06
i S- D o
32 . 06
42 .07
22-04
12-06
5347
12-04
22 -04
22-04
22-04
12-04
12-04
22-04
12-04
12-04
32-04
22-04
22-OS
32-04
22-04
32-04
22-04
22-04
32-04
22-04
12-04
12-04
22-04
32-OS
12-04
92-05
2 2-OS
SEW
62-05
2145
42-05
42 .05
42.05
32.05
32-05
42.05
32.05
22 .05
62-05
42.0$
32.05
62.05
52-05
72.05
32.05
42.05
SE-OS
3 * 0 5
22-05
4245
22-05
32-OS
52-06
12-05
22-05
22-04
12-OS
12-OS
22-OS
22-05
12-OS
32-05
12-05
22-OS
22-OS
22-OS
22-05
22-05
22-OS
22-OS
12-OS
52-06
52-06
52-06
52-06
22-OS
12-OS
52-D C
0.0026
00032
0.0010
0.0021
00017
00019
00015
00015
0.0026
0.0015
0.0014
0.0032
0.0018
0.0019
0.0028
0.0025
0.003 1
0.0019
0.0023
00027
0.0015
0.0009
0.0009
0.0089
3 1’04
42.04
2 2 - 05
31-04
31.04
32 04
2 1 -04
22-04
32.04
22 .04
21-04
4.2 14
32-04
2*04
42-04
32.04
41-04
22.04
21-04
41-04
2304
11-04
1304
31-04
4 1 - 05
2304
15-04
32.05
1 5-OS
22-OS
52-06
12-OS
92-06
92-06
62-06
72-06
12.03
62-06
52-06
12-05
12-05
72-06
12-05
12-05
12-05
82-05
72-06
12-05
72-06
32-06
52-06
12-05
12-06
82-06
42-06
22-06
0 1174
00850
00638
0 1965
00582
0.0322
0.0443
0 .0616
00611
00807
0.0712
0.0934
0.1046
00578
0.0713
0.1177
00853
00787
0.0713
00765
00642
04)656
0.0671
1.0247
0
00012
0.0008
0 0006
0 0020
0 0006
0 0003
0 0004
0 0006
00006
00008
00007
04)009
0.00 10
0.0006
0.0007
00012
0 0009
0.0008
0.0007
00008
00006
00007
0.0007
0.0102
0.0003
0.0016
0.0010
0.0002
2533
5407
4037
11038
2632
1088
2119
1286
3626
3651
2772
36.98
1588
2340
2757
5681
5366
3618
40.88
4732
36 55
3381
35.97
13876
13.8
70
41
132
-675
-707
-736
-623
-745
-804
-772
-739
-740
-7.12
-7.25
-698
-6.86
-746
-725
-6.75
-7.07
-715
-7.25
-717
-7.35
-7.33
-7.31
-458
-759
-6.46
-6.96
-841
066
28
2.0923
3 23
3 99
3 70
4 70
3 27
2 39
3 OS
2 53
359
3 60
3 32
4 04
2 77
3 IS
3 32
4 04
3 98
3.59
371
3 86
3 60
352
3.58
493
2 62
4.2 5
3 71
258
in? TEQ’s/kg tir
42-46 0.0005
32-05 04)016
22-05 00010
4E-06 0.0002
GSD 061
n 28
Hstatistic 20502

-------
ATTACHMENT A2
Spreadsheets showing risk calculations
14

-------
Potential risks from ingesting largemouth bass from the Housatonic River (Woods Pond area) in Massachusetts on a regular basis
last modified 5/14/98
The concentrations are based upon the 95% UCL of the mean concentration in muscle tissue.
adult who consumes PCB contaminated fish
conc ingestion
(mc /kg) (g/day)
ED
(yrs)
BW
(kg)
AT
(yrs)
LADD
(mg/kg-d)
slope
(per mg/kg-d)
risk
cancer risk from TEQ’s
cancer risks dioxin TEQ 1.30 26
30
70
70
2.06E-07
150000
3E-02
nond.ioxin-Iike PCBs 5.2E+04 26
30
70
70
0.0083
2
2E-02
cancer risk, nondioxinlike PCB’s
5E-02
excess cancer risk, lifetime
noncancer risks nondioxin-like PCBs 5.2E+04 26
30
70
30
ADD(mg/kg-d)
RID oral(1254)
HI
rounding to one significant figure,
0.0194
0.00002
969
1000
risk
subsistence fisher who consumes PCB contaminated fish
noncancer
(chronic)
conc ingestion
ED
BW
AT
LADD
slope
risk
(meg/kg) (g/day)
(yrs)
(kg)
(yrs)
(mg/kg-d)
(per mg&g-d)
cancer risk from TEQ’s
cancer risks dioxin TEQ 1.30 140
30
70
70
1.1 1E-06
150000
2E-0 1
nondioxin4ike PCBs 5.2E+04 140
30
70
70
0.0447
2
9E-02
cancer nsk, nondioxmlike PCB’s
2E-O1
excess cancer risk, lifetime
noncancer risks nondioxm-like PCBs 5.2E+04 140
30
70
30
ADD(mg4cg-d)
RID oral(1254)
HI
rounding to
0.1044
0.00002
5219
5000
one figure,
risk
9 year child wh
o consumes PCB cont
aminated
fish once per
week fo
r one summer
cone
ingestion
ED
BW
AT
LADD
slope
risk
cancer risks
dioxin TEQ
(meg/kg)
(g/week)
(weeks)
(kg)
(days)
(mg/kg-d)
(per mg/kg-d)
cancer risk from TEQ’s
1.30
182.5
13
30
25,550
4.02E-09
150000
6E-04
nondioxin-like PCBs
5.2E+04
182.5
13
30
25,550
0.00016
2
3E-04
9E-04
cancer risk, nondioxmlike PCB’s
cancer risk due to dose
from a short-term
noncancer risks
nondioxin-like PCB’s
5.2E+04
182.5
13
30
92
ADD(mg/kg-d)
RID oral(1254),
subchronic
HI
exposure
rounding to one significant figure,
risk
0.0449
SE-OS
897
900

-------