THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE
BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS
§
<
3)
V
^tosrx
£
PRO*^°
T>
z
LU
o
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
Boston, Massachusetts
September 2015
UiAMi'xIMiMn ui i-— eHv? 11
Nancy Barmak&n, Acting Division Director Date
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Section Page Number
LIST OF ACRONYMS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-l
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM E-4
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW 2
2.1 Protectiveness Statements from Last Review 2
2.2 Status of Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions from the Last Review 2
2.3 Remedy Implementation Activities 5
2.4 System Operation/Operation and Maintenance Activities 8
3.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCES S 10
3.1 Administrative Components 10
3.2 Community Notification and Involvement 10
3.3 Document Review 10
3.4 Data Review 10
3.5 Site Inspection 18
3.6 Interviews/Questionnaires 19
4.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 20
4.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 20
4.2 Question B: Are the remedial action objectives, exposure assumptions, toxicity
data, and cleanup levels used at the time of remedy selection still valid? 27
4.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question
the protectiveness of the remedy? 38
4.4 Technical Assessment Summary 38
5.0 ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 39
6.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 41
7.0 NEXT REVIEW 41
8.0 REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX A - ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION
A. 1 SITE CHRONOLOGY A-l
A.2 BACKGROUND A-5
A.2.1 Physical Characteristics and Land and Resource Use A-5
A.2.2 History of Contamination A-5
A.2.3 Initial Response A-6
A.2.4 Basis for Taking Action A-8
A 3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS A-9
A.3.1 Operable Unit 1 Remedy Selection A-9
A.3.2 Operable Unit 1 Remedy Implementation A-ll
A.3.3 Operable Unit 2 (Hot Spot) Remedy Selection A-16
A.3.4 Operable Unit 2 (Hot Spot) Remedy Implementation A-17
A.3.5 Operable Unit 3 (Outer Harbor) Remedy Selection A-18
i
-------
APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL MAPS, FIGURES AND DATA
1 - Site Location Map
2 - The 1979 State Fishing Ban - Map of Fish Closure Areas
3 - Major Components of the Hydraulic Dredging Process
4 - Areas Dredged Through 2014
2015 Hydraulic Dredge Areas
5 - Ambient Air Data:
- Table E-1 Ambient Air Monitoring Program - Total Detectable PCB
Homologues (as of August 2015)
- Ambient Air Monitoring Station Locations
- Public Exposure Tracking System (PETS) Curves for the Aerovox and
Coffin Ave Ambient Air Monitoring Locations
6 - Seafood Monitoring Program Data Summary
7 - Blue Mussel PCB Bioaccumulation Data
8 - LTM Data
- PCB Levels in Top 2 CM of Sediment over Time
- Benthic Community Indices over Time
9 - Maps of Signage Locations for Upper, Lower and Outer Harbor
10 - 2015 Fencing and Signage Institutional Control Inspection
11 - OU3 Pilot Cap and State's Mitigation Cap Expansion Area
12 - Summary of Planned and/or Implemented IC s
13 - Lower Harbor CAD Cells and SER Navigational Dredging
14 - Outer Harbor SER Navigational Dredging
APPENDIX C - PUBLIC NOTICE/OUTREACH AND FYR INTERVIEWS
Public Notification
Interviews/Questionnaires
September 2015 Updated Seafood Consumption Advisory
APPENDIX D - RISK ASSESSMENT UPDATES
Dermal/Incidental Contact Risk Update Memo
Seafood Tissue Risk Update Memo
ii
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAL Allowable Ambient Limit
AAR After Action Report
AED EPA's Office of Research & Development, Atlantic Ecology Division
Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island
ARAR Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria
CAA Clean Air Act
CAD Confined Aquatic Disposal
CalEPA State of California Environmental Protection Agency
CDE Cornell Dubilier Electronics, Inc.
CDF Confined Disposal Facility
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIC Community Involvement Coordinator
CIP Community Involvement Plan
CSF Cancer Slope Factor
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CWA Clean Water Act
cy cubic yard(s)
DPA Designated Port Area
EA Early Action
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESD Explanation of Significant Difference (documents changes to a ROD)
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FFE Focused Feasibility Evaluation
FS Feasibility Study
FYR Five-Year Review
HDC New Bedford Harbor Development Commission
IA Inter-Agency Agreement
111
-------
ICs
Institutional Controls
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
IUR
Inhalation Unit Risk
LHCC
Lower Harbor CAD Cell
LTM
Long Term Monitoring
MA
Massachusetts
MassDEP
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MassDPH
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
MassDMF
Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries
MHW
Mean High Water
MOA
Memorandum of Agreement
NBH
New Bedford Harbor
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NLD
North Lobe Dredging
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NO A A
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priority List (EPA's list of Superfund sites)
NRD
Natural Resource Damage(s)
NRWQC
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
NTCRA
Non-Time Critical Removal Action
NWS
North of Wood Street
OL
Organic Layer
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA)
OU
Operable Unit
PAHs
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
PCB
Poly-chlorinated Biphenyl
PETS
Public Exposure Tracking System
ppb
parts per billion
ppm
parts per million
iv
-------
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RA
Remedial Action
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RfD
Reference Dose
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
SER
State Enhanced Remedy
SFO
Oral Cancer Slope Factor
TCL
Target Cleanup Level
TEF
Toxicity Equivalency Factor
TOC
Total Organic Carbon
TSCA
Toxic Substance Control Act
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
VOCs
Volatile Organic Carbons
WHG
Woods Hole Group
V
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the third Five-Year Review (FYR) for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
(the Site) located in New Bedford, Bristol County, Massachusetts covering the years 2010
through 2015. The purpose of this FYR is to review information to determine if the remedy is
and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The triggering action
for this statutory FYR was the signing of the previous FYR on 9/30/2010. This Five-Year
Review is for the entire Site (Operable Units One, Two and Three). The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region I, conducted this review pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section
121(c), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c); National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. § 300.400(f)(4)(ii);
and it is consistent with OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001).
EPA has segmented the 18,000 acre Site into three operable units (OUs). OU1 covers the
Upper and Lower Harbors and an interim action in the Outer Harbor, with a Record of Decision
(ROD) issued in 1998 (EPA, 1998) (and modified to date by five Explanations of Significant
Differences (ESDs) issued in 2001 (ESDI), 2002 (ESD2), 2010 (ESD3), 2011 (ESD4) and 2015
(ESD5)) (EPA, 2001; EPA, 2002; EPA, 2010; EPA, 2011; EPA, 2015c). The OU1 remedy, as
modified by the ESDs, includes removal of roughly 900,000 cubic yards (cy) of PCB-
contaminated sediment and disposal of this sediment off-site or in a Confined Aquatic Disposal
Cell being constructed in the Lower Harbor. In addition, a small volume of contaminated
sediment is disposed in the Pilot confined disposal facility (CDF) that was constructed on the
shoreline in the Upper Harbor in 1988. OU2 addressed an area characterized as the "Hot Spot"
sediment, generally located in a five acre area near the former Aerovox facility in the Upper
Harbor defined by sediment containing PCB levels above 4,000 ppm. The Hot Spot ROD was
issued in 1990 (modified by two ESDs issued in 1992 and 1995), an Amended ROD was issued
in 1999, and the Hot Spot remedy was completed in 2000 (EPA, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2000).
One of the Hot Spot areas, designated as Area B, was not dredged during the Hot Spot dredging
operations due to its proximity to submerged high voltage power lines serving the City of New
Bedford. This area will be addressed under OU1. All excavated OU2 contaminated sediment
was disposed in a licensed off-site disposal facility. OU3 encompasses the entire 17,000 acre
Outer Harbor area; a ROD for OU3 has not yet been issued. However, localized areas of PCB-
contaminated sediment located just outside the hurricane barrier in OU3 were capped as an
interim remedy under OU1.
The most significant activity that occurred during this FYR period is the entry of a
Supplemental Consent Decree to the 1992 Consent Decree (through two reopener clauses) with
AVX Corp., whose corporate predecessor, Aerovox Corp., owned and operated the former
Aerovox facility, the primary source of PCB contamination in the harbor (EPA, 2013c). In
September 2013, the U.S. District Court approved a landmark $366.25 million cash-out
settlement which will be used to fund the remaining cleanup of the Site. Due to prior limitations
in Superfund funding (which had typically been $15 million per year for this Site), the project
was expected to take another 40 years. With this settlement, this project will be accelerated to be
substantially completed within 5 to 7 years.
E-l
-------
To summarize this Five-Year Review, EPA continues to expect the Upper and Lower
Harbor OU1 remedy to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion, and
in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks have been, or are being,
controlled to the maximum extent practicable. As described further below, the three exposure
pathways of concern are: 1) consumption of local PCB-contaminated seafood, 2) dermal contact
with, or accidental ingestion of, PCB-contaminated shoreline sediment, and 3) ecological risks
due to the highly contaminated sediment and sediment pore water at the Site.
Based on annual seafood monitoring performed by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) since 2003, EPA determined that, based on CERCLA risk
standards, the state fishing ban issued in 1979 was not sufficiently protective regarding the
human consumption of certain species of fish and shellfish in particular areas of the harbor. In
2010 and 2015, EPA issued more stringent seafood consumption recommendations to augment
the 1979 fishing restrictions, including more stringent guidance for nursing mothers, women of
child-bearing age, and children. In 2015, EPA issued the "New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Community Involvement Plan and Institutional Control Plan for Seafood Consumption," which
formalizes the specific steps EPA has taken and will continue to take to implement the
institutional controls for local seafood consumption and collaborate with others to reduce
consumption of local PCB-contaminated seafood. EPA is performing outreach and education,
consistent with the Plan, to inform the community of local seafood consumption health risks and
our seafood consumption advisory recommendations. Despite these efforts, given the 18,000
acre size of the Site, coupled with the area's cultural diversity and reliance on local fishing,
complete control of PCB-contaminated seafood consumption will continue to be problematic
until the risk-based site-specific PCB level for seafood is reached. Institutional controls,
outreach and education shall continue until protective levels for PCBs in local seafood are
consistently achieved throughout the Site.
EPA has taken actions to minimize dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks from PCB-
contaminated shoreline areas. Accelerated cleanups were performed in 2001, 2002/2003 and in
2005 to remediate the highest priority residential and public access areas at the Site along the
Acushnet River north of the Wood Street bridge. To control remaining dermal contact/incidental
ingestion risks until full remediation occurs, EPA will continue to use shoreline fencing and
signage, as appropriate. As a result of the recent settlement, EPA has now initiated planning for
intertidal remediation efforts to address remaining dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks. By
the end of 2015, EPA will have completed a sampling program covering the intertidal areas of
both the Upper and Lower Harbor areas for delineation and remediation planning. Priority
intertidal remediation efforts are expected to begin later in 2015, and all intertidal remediation
efforts to address dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks will be scheduled over the next 5-7
years as the accelerated cleanup progresses.
Ecological risks will continue until after Site remediation is completed as noted in the
1998 ROD. Current water column PCB levels are greater than ten times the National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 0.03 ppb which is based on a Final Residue
Value protective of the marine food chain for the protection of aquatic receptors.
E-2
-------
Along with evaluating the protectiveness of the remedy, this Five-Year Review
documents the significant progress that has been made since the last Five-Year Review. This
progress includes, among others things, another 5 seasons of hydraulic dredging in the Upper
Harbor; issuance of ESD4 selecting the Lower Harbor CAD Cell (LHCC) as an element of the
remedy for sediment disposal and the construction of the LHCC; issuance of ESD5 eliminating
confined disposal facilities (CDFs) A, B and C in favor of off-site disposal and designating the
Pilot CDF located at EPA's Sawyer Street facility as a permanent TSCA disposal facility;
significant navigational dredging performed under the State Enhanced Remedy (SER)
component of the ROD; and, as noted above, the issuance of the Supplemental Consent Decree
which provides funding to accelerate the remedy.
This Five-Year Review did not identify any issues or recommendations that could impact
the protectiveness of the remedy. The long term monitoring program implemented at the Site
has shown significant improvements in benthic populations and decreases in surficial PCB
sediment concentrations in the Lower and Outer Harbor, supporting the conclusion that EPA's
Superfund remedial dredging and the navigational dredging performed under the SER process
are improving sediment quality in the harbor.
E-3
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
EPA ID:
MAD980731335
Region: 1
State: MA
City/County: New Bedford/Bristol County
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Has the site achieved construction completion?
No
Lead agency: EPA
[If "Other Federal Agency", enter Agency name]:
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Ginny Lombardo/EPA, Elaine Stanley/EPA,
Dave Lederer/EPA, Rick Sugatt/EPA, Joe Coyne/MassDEP and Paul Craffey/MassDEP
Author affiliation: EPA Region 1 and MassDEP
Review period: 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2015
Date of site inspection: Not applicable
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 3
Triggering action date: 9/30/2010
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 9/30/2015
Issues/Recommendations
Ol (s) w ithout Issues/Ueconiniendalions Identified in the l-ive-Year Review:
OU1, OU2 and OU3
E-4
-------
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
OU1 Will be Protective (if applicable):
NA
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy for OU1 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks have
been or are being controlled to the maximum extent practicable.
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
OU2 Short-term Protective (if applicable):
NA
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy for OU2 currently protects human health and the environment because the
sediment with the highest concentrations of PCBs (ranging from 4,000 ppm to over 100,000
ppm) have been dredged from the Upper Harbor and have been safely transported to an off-
site TSCA landfill. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the
remaining contaminated sediment in this geographical area will be addressed under OU1. All
future work, including institutional controls, are now within the scope of OU1.
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
OU3 Cannot be made at this time. (if applicable):
NA
Protectiveness Statement:
A remedy has not been selected for OU3, thus a protectiveness statement for it cannot be
made at this time. An RI/FS has been initiated to characterize the nature and extent of
contamination.
E-5
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and
performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy will continue to be protective of
human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are
documented in FYR reports. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if
any, and document recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares FYRs pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section
121 and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA 121 states:
"If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such
remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial
action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the
remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of
the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or
[106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the
Congress a list offacilities for which such review is required, the results of all such
reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews. "
EPA interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii), which states:
"If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such actions no less often than every
five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action."
EPA Region 1 conducted a FYR on the remedy implemented at the New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site in New Bedford, Bristol County, Massachusetts. EPA Region 1 is the lead
agency for developing and implementing the remedy for the Site. Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP), as the support agency representing the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, has reviewed all supporting documentation and provided input to EPA during the
FYR process.
This is the third FYR for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. The triggering action
for this statutory review is the completion date of the second FYR on 9/30/2010. The FYR is
required due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Site consists of three
Operable Units, all of which are addressed in this FYR.
1
-------
2.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW
2.1 Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2010 FYR
ou#
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
1
Will be
Protective
The remedy for OU1 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion,
and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks have been, or are in the
process of, being controlled to the maximum extent practicable.
2
Short-term
Protective
The remedy for OU2 currently protects human health and the environment because the sediment
dredged from the Upper Harbor as part of the OU2 Hot Spot remedy has been safely transported to an
off-site TSCA landfill. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, this
geographical area will also be addressed under OU1. All future work, including institutional controls,
for this area will be a part of OU 1.
3
A remedy has not been selected for OU3, thus a protectiveness statement for it cannot be made at this
time.
2.2 Status of Recommendations from the 2010 FYR
#
Issue
Recommendations/
Follow-up Actions
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Party
Original
Milestone
Date
Current
Status
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
Review of recent seafood
monitoring data indicates
the 1979 fishing ban needs
to be augmented to be
protective regarding the
human consumption of
certain species of fish and
shellfish in particular
areas of the Harbor,
including by certain
sensitive populations.
Although updated
consumption guidance has
Distribute new seafood
consumption brochure to
target audiences
(sportfishermen and
recreational
shellfishermen). Post new
seafood guidance on
project website and on
shoreline bulletin boards,
and make available at
public meetings.
Coordinate execution of
medical grand rounds to
EPA,
MassDPH,
MassDMF,
MassDEP
EPA
9/2010
Completed
04/2015
2
-------
been completed and is
being distributed, follow-
up measures to further
address the human
consumption of
contaminated seafood
from the Site will require
continued assessment.
include advice for
sensitive populations.
Continue to explore new
solutions to keep local
seafood consumption to a
minimum.
2
While the highest priority
PCB-contaminated
shoreline areas have been
remediated, or addressed
with fencing or warning
signs, other contaminated
shoreline areas (typically
remote saltmarsh or
industrial areas) remain
unremediated.
Continue the use of
institutional controls,
fencing and signage to
ensure that dermal contact
risks from yet-to-be
remediated shoreline areas
are controlled. Long term
institutional controls will
also be developed for
remediated shoreline areas
to protect against
development that is
inconsistent with cleanup
standards for each area.
Increased recreational
boating in the Upper
Harbor will also be
addressed through
educational materials and
coordination with the City
of New Bedford.
EPA
USACE
EPA
Ongoing
Completed
04/2015
3
-------
2.2.1 Efforts Performed to Address Issues/Recommendations from the
2010 FYR
Due to the size of the Site and the area's cultural diversity and reliance on local fishing,
EPA recognizes that complete control of seafood consumption will continue to be problematic
until risk-based levels in fish tissue are achieved. EPA continues to implement institutional
controls, including fishing restrictions and advisories, signage, and educational outreach to
minimize and, where possible, prevent exposure to contamination that could result in
unacceptable risk.
In April 2015, EPA issued the "New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site Community
Involvement Plan and Institutional Control Plan for Seafood Consumption" \
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/574395.pdf (EPA. 2015b). EPA
prepared this plan based on community interviews and other relevant information. The 2015
CIP and Seafood IC Plan specifically addresses the recommendations and follow-up actions
identified in the 2010 FYR. The Community Involvement Plan (CIP) element specifies the
community relations activities that EPA has and will continue to take during remedial response
at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. Further, the Institutional Control Plan for Seafood
Consumption (SeafoodIC Plan) element specifies the steps EPA has and will continue to take to
implement the institutional controls for seafood consumption and collaborate with others to
reduce consumption of local PCB-contaminated seafood.
The 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan includes a new seafood consumption advisory
brochure that is being used for outreach and education efforts. This brochure is posted on the
project website and is available in Spanish, Portuguese, and Vietnamese. In September 2015,
EPA updated its advisories to include a seafood consumption recommendation for tautog in
closure area 3. The updated EPA advisories are included in Appendix C and are available at
http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/fish-consumption-regulations-and-recommendations.
EPA's seafood consumption advisory brochure will be revised to reflect the updated information.
The 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan includes actions for the distribution of seafood consumption
advisory brochures to target audiences, including sportfishermen and recreational shellfishermen.
The 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan was presented at EPA's spring 2015 public meeting, and is
posted on the project website, and copies of the new brochure were made available at the spring
public meeting. The 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan also includes new actions that EPA will
implement going forward to minimize seafood consumption, including the creation of new
signage, a new video, and targeted outreach using culturally related peers. These new actions are
underway. Further, the 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan confirms that EPA will assist in raising
awareness of health risks associated with consumption of PCB-contaminated seafood through
participation in Grand Rounds at local hospitals when MassDPH schedules such events.
As documented in the 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan, EPA continues to use and maintain
fencing and signage, including informational kiosks (i.e., shoreline bulletin boards), to address
both seafood consumption and dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks. EPA conducts
inspections of fencing and signage at least annually to ensure these institutional controls remain
in place and are protective. The results of the 2015 fencing and signage inspection is attached in
Appendix B.10.
4
-------
To control remaining dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks until full remediation
occurs, EPA will continue to use shoreline fencing and signage, including informational kiosks,
as appropriate. As a result of the recent settlement, EPA has now initiated planning for intertidal
remediation efforts to address remaining dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks. By the end of
2015, EPA will have completed a sampling program covering the intertidal areas of both the
Upper and Lower Harbor for delineation and remediation planning. Priority intertidal
remediation efforts are expected to begin later in 2015 and all intertidal remediation efforts to
address dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks will be scheduled over the next 5-7 years as the
accelerated cleanup progresses. EPA is also reviewing state laws concerning various types of
land use restrictions to determine appropriate institutional controls for properties abutting the
intertidal remediation areas once cleanup levels have been achieved.
2.2.2 Status of Issue #1 - Completed
The 2015 CIP and SeafoodIC Plan documents the actions EPA has and will continue to
take to satisfy its obligations under the 1998 Record of Decision (ROD) (1998 ROD) to
implement institutional controls to minimize ingestion of local PCB-contaminated seafood and
addresses the recommendations identified for Issue #1 in the 2010 FYR. As such, EPA
considers Issue #1 from the 2010 FYR to be completed. Until such time as PCB levels in
seafood reach EPA's risk-based, site-specific threshold of 0.02 ppm (or other level if this criteria
is updated), institutional controls will remain in place and EPA will follow the 2015 CIP and
Seafood IC Plan (or an update to that plan should one be issued). Institutional controls are
necessary since it could take many years, even after the sediment remediation efforts are
completed, before PCB levels in seafood species reach safe levels for consumption. Institutional
controls shall continue until protective levels for PCBs in local seafood are consistently achieved
throughout the Site.
2.2.3 Status of Issue #2 - Completed
The 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan also documents the actions EPA has and will
continue to take to satisfy its obligations under the 1998 ROD to minimize dermal
contact/incidental ingestion risks, including outreach to the recreational boating community,
fencing and signage, and addresses the recommendations identified for Issue #2 in the 2010
FYR. As such, EPA considers Issue #2 from the 2010 FYR to be completed. These institutional
controls will continue to be implemented until such time as PCB levels in shoreline intertidal
areas meet applicable dermal contact/incidental ingestion cleanup levels and/or long term
institutional controls are developed for remediated shoreline areas to protect against development
that is inconsistent with cleanup standards for each area. As noted above, EPA now has funding
in place for intertidal remediation efforts to address remaining dermal contact/incidental
ingestion risks and delineation of intertidal/shoreline areas are ongoing.
2.3 Remedy Implementation Activities
Below is a brief summary of enforcement and decision documents issued and major
remedial implementation activities that have occurred since the previous FYR. Links are
5
-------
provided for enforcement and decision documents. Remedial implementation activities that
occurred during this FYR period are discussed in further detail in Section 4.1. Supplemental
remedial implementation information and discussion of historical remedial implementation
activities is provided in Appendix A.3.2.
• Supplemental Consent Decree and Settlement: In 2013, EPA entered into a Supplemental
Consent Decree to the 1992 Consent Decree (through two reopener clauses) with AVX
Corp., whose corporate predecessor, Aerovox Corp., owned and operated the former
Aerovox facility, the primary source of PCB contamination in the harbor
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/547266.pdf (EPA, 2013b).
In September 2013, the U.S. District Court approved a landmark $366.25 million cash-out
settlement which will be used to fund the remaining cleanup of the Site. Due to prior
limitations in Superfund funding (which had typically been $15 million per year for this
Site), the project was expected to take another 40 years. With this settlement, this project
will be accelerated to be substantially completed within 5 to 7 years. For further information,
see http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/harbor-cleanup-plans-and-legal administrative-
records under "Supplemental Consent Decree with AVX Corp."
• Five More Seasons of Hydraulic Dredging in the Upper Harbor: For years 2011 through
2013, with $15 million per year of Site funding, dredging of contaminated subtidal sediment
occurred for approximately 40 to 45 days per year. In 2014, with a portion of the settlement
funding EPA received in 2013, EPA was able to make significant improvements to the
dredging and treatment systems as well as allow for 118 days of dredging and off-site
disposal. The total volume of dredged sediment from 2011 through 2014 was 141,883 cy.
The total volume of sediment removed from the harbor under the OU1 ROD through 2014 is
approximately 354,570 cy. EPA plans on dredging an estimated 80 days in the 2015 dredge
season yielding approximately 47,000 cy of contaminated sediment. Dredging for the 2015
season, season twelve, commenced in August and is expected to run through November.
Additional information is provided in Section 4.1.
• Fourth Explanation of Significant Difference - Lower Harbor CAD Cell (ESD4): ESD4,
issued in March 2011, modified the OU1 remedy to include the construction and use of a
Lower Harbor CAD cell (LHCC) for disposal of approximately 300,000 cy of mechanically
dredged sediment from the lower portion of the Upper Harbor and from areas in the Lower
Harbor. Construction and use of the LHCC will be conducted using best management
practices to minimize environmental impacts, including maintaining water quality
performance standards, and water and air quality monitoring will be performed to ensure that
no exceedances of project performance standards occur and that the placed sediments stay
within the LHCC. ESD4, including responses to public comments received on the draft
ESD, is available at http://www.epa.gov/regionl/superfund/sites/newbedford/479471.pdf
(EPA, 2011).
• LHCC Construction: In 2011, EPA signed a Cooperative Agreement with the Harbor
Development Commission of the City of New Bedford (HDC) to provide funding for the
design and construction of the LHCC in two phases. The first phase of the CAD cell was
completed during the spring of 2014. The second phase of the construction of the LHCC is
6
-------
scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2015. Most recently, in 2015, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (US ACE) was tasked by EPA to design and contract out the dredging and
disposal of contaminated sediment into the LHCC. Dredging and disposal of the sediment
are scheduled to occur from late-2015-2018. After a period of time to allow the
consolidation of material, the CAD will be capped and institutional controls will be
implemented to ensure the integrity of the CAD.
Fifth Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD5): In July 2015, EPA issued ESD5,
available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/577652.pdf
(EPA, 2015c). ESD5 eliminated construction of the planned CDFs A, B and modified-C and
selected off-site disposal for the sediment slated for disposal in those planned confined
disposal facilities. Further, in ESD5, EPA confirmed that a Pilot CDF previously constructed
at the Site is protective and made this Pilot CDF a permanent TSCA disposal facility. As
part of the cleanup plan, following completion of remedial dredging activities, the Pilot CDF
will be covered with a clean cover/cap meeting all applicable federal and state standards and
institutional controls will be enacted to protect the cap over time.
Intertidal/Shoreline Sampling Program: In 2015, EPA initiated an intertidal/shoreline
sampling program to support the characterization of intertidal sediments to address remaining
dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks.
State Enhanced Remedy - Final Determination for South Terminal: In November 2012, EPA
issued the Final Determination for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' South Terminal
Project for construction of a confined disposal facility for navigational dredged material as
part of the State Enhanced Remedy (SER), available at
http://www.epa.gov/regionl/superfund/sites/newbedford/525556.pdf (EPA, 2012). The Final
Determination allowed for the construction of the approximately 28.45 acre marine terminal,
consisting of a CDF and upland area, as well as associated dredging including the dredging
and filling of a confined aquatic disposal cell (CAD cell). The Final Determination required
that the Commonwealth comply with certain conditions to ensure that the work performed
would be protective of human health and the environment and meet the substantive
requirements of ARARs. The Final Determination was modified to address changes to the
conditions and/or proposed work through three modifications, issued February 2013,
September 2013 and September 2014 (available at http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-
harbor/new-bedford-harbor-cleanup-plans-technical-documents-and-environmental-data.
under State Enhanced Remedy) (EPA, 2013a; EPA, 2013b; EPA, 2014c). In February 2015,
construction of the South Terminal Project was substantively completed. This project
entailed the dredging of over 262,000 cy of PCB-contaminated sediment from the Lower
Harbor (Appendix B.13). This sediment had low levels of PCB contamination and was
disposed of in the newly created navigational CAD cell 3. Removal and isolation of this
significant volume of PCB-contaminated sediment that would not otherwise be addressed by
the Superfund cleanup provided an important enhancement to the remedy, consistent with the
objective of the SER program. The Commonwealth continues to complete mitigation
projects required by the Final Determination and the State's Final Mitigation Plan for the
New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal (MassDEP, 2012). Included in the mitigation
-------
projects is supplemental capping adjacent to the OU3 Pilot Cap (discussed further below in
Section 3.4.6).
• Other SER Projects: During 2014-2015, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts proposed and
executed the Federal Interim Channel Dredging project under the SER program. Under the
program, the Federal Channel was dredged to a minimum depth of -29 MLLW to allow the
approach of large draft vessels to the South Terminal project. Approximately 117,000 cy of
PCB-contaminated dredge material was disposed of in navigational CAD Cells 2 and 3 from
the project which was substantially completed in June 2015 (Appendix B.13 and B.14).
• SER MO A Update: In January 2015, the Memorandum of Agreement (MO A) between EPA
and MassDEP describing the division of responsibilities for the SER was amended and
renewed to allow for continued operation of the program for the next ten years, available at
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/568191.pdf (MassDEP and
EPA, 2015). [See Appendix A.3.1 for an explanation of the SER program.]
• Former Aerovox Facility: The former Aerovox facility is the primary source of PCB
contamination in the harbor. In May 2013, EPA issued a certification of completion of work
for a non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA) performed by AVX Corporation (AVX),
successor of Aerovox Corporation, pursuant to a 2010 Administrative Settlement Agreement
and Order on Consent between EPA and AVX to demolish the former Aerovox building and
cap the 10 acre former Aerovox property. AVX is performing an investigation and cleanup
of the former Aerovox property under the State hazardous cleanup program pursuant to a
2010 Administrative Consent Order and Notice of Responsibility (Release Tracking Number
4-0601). The City of New Bedford, owner of the property, also entered into a 2010
Cooperation Settlement Agreement with AVX which established a framework for long-term
monitoring and maintenance of the site as well as potential redevelopment plans. Control of
the primary source of PCB contamination in the harbor is important to a successful harbor
remediation, and EPA continues to coordinate the harbor cleanup activities and schedule with
the ongoing investigation, cleanup efforts, and schedule at the Aerovox property.
2.4 System Operation/Operation and Maintenance Activities
Below is a brief description of major remedial action monitoring activities that have been
implemented at the Site to monitor various aspects of the remedy over time. The data from these
monitoring activities covering the period since the previous FYR, along with additional detail, is
discussed in Sections 3.4 and 4.1.
• Long Term Monitoring Program (LTM) Round VI (2014): EPA has been collecting long
term monitoring (LTM) data approximately every five years at the Site since 1993 to assess
sediment conditions and quantify the long term environmental effects and effectiveness of
remediation efforts in the harbor. The LTM program began in 1993 (Round I), considered
the baseline event, with subsequent rounds taking place in 1995 (Round II), 1999 (Round
III), 2004 (Round IV), 2009 (Round V) and, most recently, 2014 (Round VI).
8
-------
• Seafood Monitoring Program: Since 2003, pursuant to the State Superfund Contract,
MassDEP has been conducting annual seafood monitoring to evaluate the levels of PCBs in
edible seafood species in New Bedford Harbor and surrounding Buzzards Bay - covering the
three fish closure areas established by Massachusetts Department of Public Health
(MassDPH). As reported in the 2010 FYR, the seafood tissue data collected through the
annual seafood monitoring program was used to establish EPA seafood advisories and
recommendations.
• Remedial Dredging Water Quality Monitoring: EPA and the US ACE utilize a site-specific
turbidity-based monitoring program that produces immediate sampling results, as a
protective and quantitative approach to monitoring the dredging process in real-time rather
than having to wait days to receive laboratory data.
• Ambient Air Monitoring: Airborne PCB samples have been and continue to be collected at
various locations as part of every remedial activity involving removal of PCB-contaminated
sediment. To account for the long term nature of the harbor cleanup, as well as the chronic
nature of PCB toxicity, EPA uses a "public exposure tracking system" (PETS) to ensure that
the public's long term exposure to airborne PCBs remains below health-based levels.
• North of Wood Street (NWS) Sediment Monitoring: Subtidal and intertidal areas north of
the Wood Street bridge were remediated and restored in 2001, 2002/2003 and 2005. EPA
has been monitoring PCB sediment levels here since that time.
• OU3 Pilot Cap Monitoring: Cornell Dubilier Electronics, Inc., which was located just south
of the New Bedford Harbor hurricane barrier, was another historical source of PCBs to the
harbor. The OU1 ROD included dredging as an interim action to address an area just south
of the hurricane barrier in the Outer Harbor, near the Cornell-Dubilier mill, a known area in
the Outer Harbor that contained PCB levels above the Lower Harbor's 50 ppm cleanup
standard. In 2004 and 2005, an opportunity for an alternative accelerated cleanup approach
for this area presented itself at no cost to EPA: rather than dredging the area, clean sand
generated by the port of New Bedford's navigational dredging (implemented pursuant to the
SER) could be used to create an underwater cap. Construction of the approximately 19-acre
cap was completed in 2005. Since that time, the pilot underwater capped area has been
monitored for changes in spatial extent, thickness of cap through bathymetric surveys, PCB
levels and TOC of the cap. Monitoring of the cap has been performed in 2006, 2007, 2009,
2010, 2011 and 2012.
• Sawyer Street Groundwater Monitoring: Since 1992, EPA has conducted periodic
groundwater monitoring of 6 groundwater wells located at EPA's Sawyer Street facility
along the perimeter of the Pilot CDF and Cell #1, to ensure PCBs and VOCs are not released
from these areas and allowed to migrate in groundwater.
9
-------
3.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
3.1 Administrative Components
The public was notified of the initiation of this Five-Year Review on 1/5/2015. The New
Bedford Harbor Superfund Site FYR was led by Ginny Lombardo, EPA Team Leader for the
Site, with technical support from Elaine Stanley and Dave Lederer, Site remedial project
managers (RPMs), and community involvement support from Kelsey O'Neil, the Community
Involvement Coordinator (CIC). Joseph Coyne and Paul Craffey, Project Managers for the
MassDEP, assisted in the review as the representative for the support agency.
The FYR process was initiated with a 'kick-off meeting on 2/23/2015. In attendance at
the meeting were the Site team leader, Site RPMs, Site risk assessor, Site attorney and CIC for
the Site. The review consisted of the following components:
• Community Involvement;
• Document Review;
• Data Review; and
• FYR Report Development and Review.
3.2 Community Notification and Involvement
A press release was issued on 1/5/2015 notifying the public that a Five-Year Review was
initiated and inviting the public to submit any comments to the EPA. A copy of the press release
is included in Appendix C. The results of the review and the report will be made available on the
project website and at the Site information repository located at EPA Region 1 Records Center, 5
Post Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts and New Bedford Free Public Library, 613 Pleasant
Street, New Bedford, Massachusetts.
3.3 Document Review
This Five-Year Review consisted of a review of relevant documents including long term
monitoring reports, annual seafood tissue monitoring reports, water and sediment quality data
reports, ambient air monitoring data reports, groundwater monitoring report, and dredge season-
end reports. Applicable sediment cleanup levels, as listed in the 1998 ROD, were also reviewed.
3.4 Data Review
3.4.1 Long Term Monitoring
EPA has been collecting long term monitoring (LTM) data approximately every five
years at the Site since 1993 to assess sediment conditions and quantify the long term
environmental effects and effectiveness of remediation efforts in the harbor. The LTM program
began in 1993 (Round I), considered the baseline event, with subsequent rounds taking place in
1995 (Round II), 1999 (Round III), 2004 (Round IV), 2009 (Round V) and, most recently, 2014
(Round VI). The 2014 LTM Report is available at
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/583617.pdf (Battelle. 2015d).
10
-------
Sediment grabs are collected for chemical and physical testing as well as benthic community
analysis to assess sediment conditions. Surficial sediment (top 2 cm) is analyzed for PCBs
(measured as the sum of the 18 NOAA congeners), total organic carbon (TOC) content and grain
size distribution. Sediment from the biologically-active zone (top 10 cm) are analyzed for
benthic infauna and grain size. The benthic community evaluation assesses the effectiveness of
the remedy in terms of marine bottom (benthic) species abundance and richness (Nelson et al.,
1996).
The LTM data are evaluated by EPA's Office of Research & Development, Atlantic
Ecology Division laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island (EPA-AED) in the context of the
overall program to assess spatial and temporal data trends and to monitor the effects and
effectiveness of the remedial Site activities. EPA-AED's evaluation of the 2014 LTM data is
available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/583616.pdf (Bergen,
2015). Under the LTM program, sediments are analyzed for 18 of the 209 PCB
congeners. These are the same 18 congeners that are used in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Status and Trends Program to assess marine
environmental quality (Calder, 1986).
There is a distinct spatial gradient in surficial sediment PCB concentration from the
Upper Harbor to the Lower Harbor to the Outer Harbor. This spatial pattern is consistently
demonstrated in each of the six long-term monitoring collections (1993, 1995, 1999, 2004, 2009,
and 2014). In Nelson and Bergen (2012), there was a detailed analysis of the LTM data from the
first five long term monitoring collections, which confirmed that the cleanup activities had
resulted in significant improvement in surface sediment and benthic quality in 2009 compared to
the 1993 baseline data for the Lower and Outer Harbor areas. The 2014 sediment data continue
the trends described in that analysis and are shown visually in the interpolated sediment PCB
concentration maps included in Appendix B.8 (Bergen, 2015).
In the Upper Harbor, the % surface area (interpolated from the LTM surface sediment
stations) below 10 ppm PCBs (measured as the sum of the 18 NOAA congeners) has continued
to increase from 11% in 2009 to 19% in 2014. Of course, this data is only for the recently
deposited material in the top 2 cm of sediment but does indicate that the last 5 years of Upper
Harbor dredging has not spread any appreciable contamination to the sediment surface in the
Upper Harbor. In the Lower Harbor, 10% of the surface sediment LTM stations were above 10
ppm PCBs (measured as the sum of the 18 NOAA congeners) in 2009; however, in 2014, that
percentage dropped to zero, demonstrating improving surface sediment conditions in the Lower
Harbor and showing that CAD cell work and flux from the Upper Harbor have not caused
sediment surface PCB levels to increase in the Lower Harbor. In the Outer Harbor, the
differences were smaller given the overall lower concentrations but the area greater than 1.0 ppm
PCBs (measured as the sum of the 18 NOAA congeners) decreased from 0.7% in 2009 to zero in
2014.
As noted in Nelson and Bergen (2012), all of the harbor sections (as of the 2004
sampling) have shown statistically significant decreases (p<0.05) in surface PCB concentrations
when compared to the 1993 baseline sampling. In the 2014 collection, the Upper Harbor PCB
concentrations at most stations were not different from 2009 but 7 stations exhibited significant
11
-------
decreases while the average concentration for the area remained the same. In the Outer Harbor,
20 of 23 stations showed decreased concentrations and the mean concentration dropped from
0.24 to 0.17 ppm PCBs (measured as the sum of the 18 NO A A congeners) although this decrease
is not statistically significant. The Lower Harbor did exhibit a statistically significant decrease
(p<0.05) in mean PCB concentration (measured as the sum of the 18 NOAA congeners) from 5.1
ppm to 2.8 ppm with 21 of 29 stations exhibiting decreasing PCB concentrations. The totality of
the PCB surface sediment data points to a decrease in overall PCB concentrations in all areas of
the Site, demonstrating that remedial operations to date have resulted in notable improvements in
surface sediment conditions. The sum of the 18 NOAA congeners is multiplied by a conversion
factor of 2.6 to estimate total PCBs (FWEC, 2001; FWEC, 2002); as such, the mean PCB
concentration measured during the 2014 LTM program for the Lower Harbor is approximately 7
ppm.
There are several benthic indices that can be calculated from the LTM benthic infauna
data. One that has been used at this Site is the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program's (EMAP) benthic index for the Virginian Biogeographical Province (Paul, et. a/,
2001). This biodiversity index was developed to assess estuarine benthic condition from Cape
Cod, MA to the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, VA. The original index was based on three metrics:
salinity-normalized Gleason's D, salinity-normalized tubificid abundance, and abundance of
spionids. For the New Bedford Harbor study, only two of these metrics are used: Gleason's D
and Spionid abundance. Tubificid abundance is only considered important in low salinity waters
(close to zero salinity), and the New Bedford Harbor study area is saline. A value of zero is
considered the cut-off for distinguishing "Good" and "Poor" conditions: positive values are
good, negative values are poor.
Consistent with the results found for the other LTM variables, there is a similar spatial
pattern for the EMAP benthic index; the Upper Harbor exhibits the worst condition, as evidenced
by the large negative values observed each collection year (i.e., degraded condition), the Lower
Harbor is significantly improved relative to the Upper Harbor, with values near zero, and the
Outer Harbor is always significantly highest with positive values, indicative of a good benthic
community (see maps in Appendix B.8). Temporally, the percent of stations in each harbor
segment exhibiting a positive or "good" benthic index for each year of the LTM program are
shown in Appendix B.8. The Outer Harbor stations are almost all positive for every year. A
consistent increase in the number of stations with "good" benthic condition can be seen in the
Lower Harbor and this matches up well with the documented decreasing PCB surface
concentrations. Even in the Upper Harbor, an increase in the percent of stations with "good"
benthic readings can be seen when comparing the 2009 and 2014 data.
The overall increase in benthic health, combined with the decreasing PCB concentrations,
points to the improvement in the Site condition. It is logical with the advent of increased
remediation that these trends should continue and accelerate. Although monitoring data
indicates progress towards achieving the 1998 ROD's sediment cleanup goals, the remedy for the
Site is still under construction and these goals are not expected to be achieved until construction
is complete.
12
-------
3.4.2 Seafood Monitoring Program
Seafood tissue monitoring performed at the Site includes both the annual seafood
monitoring program and the blue mussels monitoring program.
The seafood monitoring program, initiated in 2003, is coordinated by the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, with oversight by EPA Region 1. Edible tissue of a variety of locally caught
species from all three fish closure areas in New Bedford Harbor and surrounding Buzzards Bay
are sampled annually for PCB levels. Consistent with the requirements of the 1998 ROD, the
purpose of the seafood monitoring program has been to support the implementation of seafood
advisory institutional controls for the Site. The seafood monitoring reports are available at
http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/new-bedford-harbor-cleanup-plans-technical-
documents-and-environmental-data under "Annual Seafood Monitoring". During this FYR
period, the seafood monitoring reports for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were issued
(MassDEP, 2010; MassDEP, 2011; MassDEP, 2012a; MassDEP, 2014a; MassDEP, 2014b;
MassDEP, 2015).
EPA utilized the historical seafood tissue data (2002-2009) to perform risk assessments
that led to site-specific seafood consumption advisories and recommendations that were updated
in 2010 and discussed in the 2010 FYR. As part of the development of the 2015 CIP and
SeafoodIC Plan and this third FYR, EPA performed an updated risk evaluation of the seafood
tissue data collected under the seafood monitoring program, including data from 2010-2014, and
confirmed that the seafood advisories and recommendations established by EPA in 2010 remain
protective. EPA has documented that evaluation for this FYR in a risk assessment update
included in Appendix D. That update also evaluated new data for tautog, collected in 2013 and
2014, which supports a new advisory for closure area 3 for that species. In September 2015,
EPA updated its advisories to include a seafood consumption recommendation for tautog in
closure area 3. The updated EPA advisories are included in Appendix C and available at
http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/fish-consumption-regulations-and-recommendations.
PCB concentrations in seafood tissue levels measured since 2003 have remained fairly
consistent. A summary of the seafood tissue data over time for several key species is provided in
Appendix B.6. Significant seafood tissue reductions are not expected to occur until the remedial
action is complete and it could take many years, even after the sediment remediation efforts are
completed, before PCB levels in seafood species reach safe levels for consumption. EPA is
currently working with MassDEP to optimize the seafood monitoring program towards tracking
seafood tissue decreases over time to demonstrate seafood tissue reductions as the cleanup
progresses and following completion of remedy construction. EPA will periodically evaluate
whether seafood tissue reductions observed support revisions to the site-specific seafood
consumption advisories.
The seafood monitoring program is augmented by the deployment of blue mussels
(Mytilus edulis) as another element of the long-term monitoring program for the Site (Nelson and
Bergen, 2012). Mussel deployments have been conducted twice annually since 1993 by EPA-
AED at three stations: NBH-2-Coggeshall Street, NBH-4-Hurricane Barrier, and a control site
13
-------
NBH-5-West Island. In addition, there were monthly deployments during the 1994-1995 Hot
Spot remediation for a total of 51 28-day deployments.
The mean total PCBs (as the sum of 18 congeners) in the blue mussel tissue for all three
stations for the period 1993 through 2014 are shown in Appendix B.7. As might be expected,
there is a significant spatial gradient among stations. There is an approximate five-fold decrease
in overall mean concentration between stations NBH-2 (35 ppm) and NBH-4 (8 ppm) and over
an order of magnitude decrease between station NBH-4 (8 ppm) and NBH-5 (0.5 ppm). The
PCB differences among stations are maintained over time; however, all stations exhibit seasonal
variability due to the mussel reproductive cycle where lipid-rich gametes increase during the
year (along with lipophilic organic contaminants such as PCBs), then decrease during spawning.
This pattern has also been observed in the New Bedford Harbor indigenous ribbed mussel
population as well (Bergen et al., 2001). Monthly deployments during the Hot Spot remediation
demonstrated that increases in mussel bioaccumulation were more closely linked to storm events
than any dredging activity (Bergen et al., 2005).
The data set indicates that in the period between 1993 and 2014, no net change in PCB
water column concentration and subsequent mussel bioaccumulation has occurred, primarily
because the exposure to PCBs has not been altered dramatically along this gradient over time.
While the overall mass of PCBs removed from the harbor has been significant, especially during
the Hot Spot removal, the average water column PCB concentrations near the mussel stations
have not appreciably decreased. It is reasonable to expect that once full remediation is complete,
surface water PCB concentrations will decrease, leading to a concomitant decrease in mussel
PCB tissue concentrations.
Both monitoring programs demonstrate that PCB tissue levels in sampled species are
above the site-specific goal of 0.02 ppm for PCB concentrations in seafood (Appendix B.6 and
B.7). PCB tissue levels vary by species and closure area, and generally show a decreasing north
to south gradient, i.e., samples closer to the Aerovox source area have higher PCB residues than
those further south. These two programs continue to demonstrate the need for the harbor PCB
cleanup, in terms of unacceptable risks to both human health and the marine ecosystem. These
monitoring programs also demonstrate that the remedy is being implemented in a safe manner
that does not exacerbate PCB bioaccumulation within the local marine food chain, as PCB
concentrations in biota have remained fairly constant and increases during active remedy
implementation have not been observed.
3.4.3 Water Quality Monitoring
EPA developed site-specific turbidity-based monitoring programs that produce
immediate sampling results, as a protective and quantitative approach to monitoring the dredging
process in real-time rather than having to wait days to receive laboratory data. The objective of
the water quality monitoring is to minimize environmental impacts, limit recontamination of
previously dredged areas, ensure that the dredging activities are conducted in a manner which
does not hinder the seasonal migration of anadromous fish to and from the Acushnet River, and
to determine the degree and extent of sediment plumes advecting away from the Site during
dredging operations. Trigger level exceedances would result in the collection of water samples
14
-------
for chemical and toxicity analyses as a follow up or discontinuing dredging operations, as
necessary to lessen turbidity. In addition, best management practices have reduced turbidity
impacts due to sediment scour from workboats, prop-wash and pipeline groundings.
The extensive water quality monitoring data base collected since the last FYR shows that
all in-water construction and dredging operations performed to date have complied with the
turbidity criterion. Reports for Upper Harbor water quality monitoring are available for review
at http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/new-bedford-harbor-cleanup-plans-technical-
documents-and-environmental-data. under "Water Quality Monitoring" (WHG, 201 lb, 2012b,
2013d, 2014; Battelle, 2015b). Turbidity plumes that were observed during dredging and
dredge-related activities have generally been confined to within 100 feet of active operations.
The continuous monitoring systems employed have also documented that high turbidity events
can occur naturally when no dredging operations are underway (Battelle, 2015b).
3.4.4 Ambient Air Monitoring
Through an extensive air monitoring program, a comprehensive data base of airborne
PCB levels has been developed for the New Bedford Harbor Site. Ambient air PCB samples
have been and continue to be collected as part of every remedial activity involving removal of
PCB-contaminated sediment. To ensure that the airborne PCB levels reported are truly the total
of all detectable PCBs, the analytical method used at the Site since 1999 quantifies all ten of the
PCB homolog groups. To account for the long term nature of the harbor cleanup, as well as the
chronic nature of PCB toxicity, the Site team established a "public exposure tracking system"
(PETS) based on a site-specific risk evaluation to ensure that the public's long term exposure to
airborne PCBs remains below health-based levels. To assist public understanding of the
program, the PETS process graphs a linear acceptable exposure level over time, and plots the
actual monitored exposure levels at various receptors over time: as long as the field monitored
values remain below the "budgeted" cumulative exposure line then health risks from airborne
PCBs remain insignificant.
During the FYR period, EPA continued its extensive air monitoring efforts. In the Upper
Harbor, monitoring continued in conjunction with the hydraulic dredging program under the
Final Plan for the Sampling of Ambient Air PCB Concentrations to Support Decisions to Ensure
the Protection of the Public During Remediation Activities, Revision No. 3 (Jacobs, 2006). In the
Lower Harbor, monitoring was conducted to monitor PCBs in ambient air during construction of
the LHCC starting in 2013 pursuant to the Final Plan for the Sampling of Ambient Air PCB
Concentrations During Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction available at
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2Q14-10/documents/538677.pdf (Jacobs. 2013c). See
Appendix B.5 for a table of ambient air monitoring data for 1999-2015, along with a map of the
sampling locations, and for the 2015 PETS curve for the Aerovox and Coffin Ave monitoring
locations, offered as examples of the PETS program. Air monitoring data is also posted on the
project website at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/581891.pdf
(Jacobs, 2015d). Ambient air monitoring data collected during the past five years continue to
show that cumulative exposure from PCBs measured in ambient air remains below risk-based
exposure budgets that are protective of human health.
15
-------
In response to community concerns about the potential for air emissions from the LHCC,
EPA took several steps. During the planning phase for the LHCC project, EPA conducted
modeling to project potential air emissions from the LHCC project. The conclusion of the
modeling effort was that emissions would be well below any health-based standards for the
project and these results were incorporated into ESD4. Under the 2013 Final Plan for the
Sampling of Ambient Air PCB Concentrations During Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction,
EPA expanded its historic air monitoring network through the addition of four additional air
monitoring stations in the Lower Harbor: two monitoring stations near the LHCC site in
Fairhaven, one in New Bedford, and one on board the dredge plant. Pursuant to the 2013 air
plan, stations in the Lower Harbor were monitored prior to, during, and after the top of CAD
material was removed from both the Phase I and Phase II LHCC projects. Ambient air
monitoring efforts performed during construction of both phases showed no levels of PCB
emissions approached the level of any health-based standards established for the project.
In order to account for the expedited remediation schedule planned with the settlement
funding, which will provide for longer dredge seasons and increased production and concurrent
hydraulic and mechanical dredging in the Upper and Lower Harbor, the EPA updated its air
monitoring plan in 2015. The Draft Final Ambient Air Monitoring Plan for Remediation
Activities, issued in July 2015, (2015 Air Monitoring Plan), available at
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-Q8/documents/577154.pdf (Jacobs. 2015c), will
be implemented for all remaining remediation activities starting with the 2015 dredge season,
which began in August 2015. Under the 2015 Air Monitoring Plan, EPA updated risk-based
ambient air goals and again expanded its air monitoring network in the Lower Harbor in
preparation for the dredging of material in conjunction with the LHCC project, and its disposal in
the LHCC. Four new Lower Harbor stations were added to provide fuller monitoring coverage
of any potential emissions from the project. The new stations will begin operation by late 2015.
3.4.5 North of Wood Street Monitoring
Subtidal and intertidal areas north of the Wood Street bridge (NWS) in the Upper Harbor
were remediated and restored in 2001, 2002/2003 and 2005. EPA has been monitoring PCB
levels in sediment in this area since 2004. During this FYR period, post-remediation monitoring
for the NWS cleanup occurred in 2011 and 2012 (WHG, 201 Id; WHG, 2012c).
PCB levels in NWS subtidal sediments have fluctuated up and down over the course of
post-remediation monitoring since 2003 with a general increasing trend in concentration. Only
one of the ten river (or subtidal) sediment stations sampled in 2012 tested below the 1998 ROD
cleanup level of 10 ppm PCBs for subtidal areas of the Upper Harbor. However, six out of ten
sampling stations contain lower concentrations of PCB when compared to 2011. The stations
containing the thickest layer of OL (organic layer) corresponded to the stations with the highest
concentrations of PCBs, as PCBs tend to bind to organics.
For the shoreline/intertidal sediment, concentrations of PCBs have remained consistently
low and fluctuate slightly up and down at the sample locations. Sampling results for recreational
use areas show PCB concentrations below the 1998 ROD cleanup level of 25 ppm for
recreational shoreline land use. For all post-remediation residential shoreline locations,
16
-------
monitoring results show PCB concentrations have fluctuated slightly up and down but are less
than 1 ppm PCBs (the 1998 ROD cleanup level for residential shoreline areas), with the
exception of three locations. For one station, the PCB concentration was slightly above 1 ppm
PCBs in 2011 but fell below 1 ppm PCBs in 2012. For the two other stations, results showed
PCB concentrations below 1 ppm PCBs in 2011 and in 2012 slightly exceeded 1 ppm PCBs.
EPA did not monitor the sediment in 2013 and 2014 due to limited funding in 2013 and a
decision to address recontamination under the accelerated cleanup strategy. In 2015, EPA began
and continues to obtain extensive sediment data to comprehensively design a remediation
strategy that will achieve cleanup goals across the Site. As part of EPA's accelerated cleanup
plan, any NWS areas that have been re-contaminated above the applicable cleanup levels will be
reassessed as the remedial action efforts progress towards completion. See Section 4.1 for
additional discussion.
3.4.6 OU3 Pilot Cap Monitoring
As an alternative to the dredging interim remedy in the 1998 ROD, in 2004/2005, EPA
constructed an approximately 19-acre pilot cap to permanently isolate sediment contaminated
with PCBs above 50 ppm in the Outer Harbor, using clean sand and gravel from a navigational
CAD cell constructed as part of the State Enhanced Remedy. Since that time, the pilot
underwater cap has been monitored for changes in spatial extent, thickness of cap through
bathymetric surveys, PCB levels and TOC (total organic carbon) of the cap. During this FYR
period, monitoring events were performed in 2010 (after the second FYR), 2011 and 2012
(WHG, 201 la; Jacobs, 201 la; Jacobs, 2012; WHG, 2013a). OU3 Pilot Cap monitoring reports
are available at http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/new-bedford-harbor-cleanup-plans-
technical-documents-and-environmental-data#OuterHarborStudv. As of the 2012 monitoring
event, cap surface sediment monitoring data show PCB concentrations were all less than 4 ppm:
samples within the pilot cap ranged from 0.04 to 3.11 ppm with an average of 0.56 ppm
(excludes three stations located outside the cap area) (WHG, 2013 a). Monitoring data continue
to support that the pilot capping operation was successful, and that additional capping efforts in
this area would be justified. The benthic environment has been robustly re-colonized, indicating
that such capping presents only a short-term impact.
In 2011, EPA requested that the U.S. Coast Guard establish the capped area as a
"Regulated Navigation Area" and, through the Department of Homeland Security, published a
Final Rule in the Federal Register with an effective date of July 20, 2011 which prohibits all
vessels and persons from activities that would disturb the seabed within the regulated navigation
area, including but not limited to anchoring, dragging, trawling and spudding. Vessels may
otherwise transit or navigate within this area without reservation.
Pursuant to the South Terminal Final Determination and the Final Mitigation Plan
(MassDEP, 2012b) for that SER Project, the State is capping an additional area adjacent to the
existing OU3 Pilot Cap (see Section 2.3). When the pilot cap was placed in 2004/2005, the cap
material was placed over all sediments above 50 ppm; however, some areas closest to the
Hurricane Barrier, with PCB concentrations of less than 50 ppm, that were slated for capping
under this project remained uncapped due to technical limitations of the placement method and
17
-------
the shallow depth of the area. The South Terminal mitigation effort will utilize clean sand from
construction of the bottom of the EPA CAD Cell to cap an area nearest to the Hurricane Barrier
adjacent to the existing OU3 Pilot Cap, an area of approximately 20 acres (extending the existing
OU3 Pilot Cap and addressing much of the area slated for capping in 2005 that was not capped
during that effort). This mitigation project was initiated in July 2015 and is expected to be
completed in October 2015. See Appendix B. 11 for a figure of the OU3 Pilot Cap and proposed
State's cap expansion area. The final remedy for this area will be included as part of OU3. In
the interim, monitoring activities will continue to ensure the cap is functioning as designed.
3.4.7 Sawyer Street Groundwater Monitoring
Since 1992, EPA has conducted periodic groundwater monitoring of 6 groundwater wells
located at EPA's Sawyer Street facility along the perimeter of the Pilot CDF and Cell #1, to
ensure PCBs and VOCs are not released from these areas and allowed to migrate in groundwater.
During this FYR period, annual groundwater monitoring of the Sawyer Street well network was
conducted in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 (WHG, 201 le; WHG, 2012a; WHG, 2013c; Battelle,
2015a) and is scheduled for Fall 2015. Sawyer Street groundwater monitoring reports are
available at http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/new-bedford-harbor-cleanup-plans-
technical-documents-and-environmental-data. under "Sawyer Street Groundwater Monitoring".
Groundwater data has consistently shown that PCBs are not migrating from the Pilot CDF or
Cell #1 areas of EPA's Sawyer Street facility. In addition, in March 2015, EPA issued the
"Modeling Analysis of Potential Environmental Impact of the Pilot Confined Disposal Facility,"
(Jacobs, 2015a) which concluded that discharge of PCBs from the groundwater to the harbor
would unlikely be measurable.
3.4.8 Other
In addition to these monitoring programs, the Site team undertakes a variety of sediment
PCB monitoring projects as needed to assist in the implementation of the ongoing remedial
actions. These include additional characterization sampling and "progress" sampling during
remedial operations.
3.5 Site Inspection
A Site inspection specific to the FYR was not performed. Site inspections for the OU1
remedy are conducted routinely throughout each year since US ACE is on site full time for
construction oversight and EPA is frequently on site for coordination and oversight activities. In
addition, inspections occur daily during the dredging season by the US ACE, with additional
oversight from EPA. An overall evaluation of the operations is prepared and documented yearly
in a year-end dredge data report prepared by the US ACE contractor. Annual dredge season data
reports are posted on the project website at http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/new-
bedford-harbor-cleanup-plans-technical-documents-and-environmental-
data#AnnualDredgingReports (Jacobs, 201 lb; Jacobs 2013a; Jacobs 2013b; Jacobs 2014; Jacobs
2015b). Applicable data from recent site inspection activities is summarized below:
18
-------
3.5.1 Signage for Seafood Advisories and
Signage and Fencing for Contaminated Shorelines
Signage and fencing at the Site installed as part of the remedial institutional controls are
inspected annually, at a minimum. Most recently, in May 2015, USACE's contractor inspected
the seafood advisory and contaminated sediment signage, including informational kiosks, along
the Upper, Lower and Outer Harbor areas. The report on the 2015 inspection is included in
Appendix B. 10. All signs that were missing or in poor condition were replaced in June 2015.
Signage will continue to be monitored by EPA, US ACE and their contractors and missing and/or
damaged signs will be replaced as needed. Fencing in areas with contaminated shoreline
sediment adjacent to parks and residential areas was also inspected and found to be in good
condition. Fencing in these areas will continue to be monitored by EPA, USACE and their
contractors and missing and/or damaged fencing will be replaced as needed.
3.5.2 Dredging, Desanding and Dewatering Operations
Dredging operations (including desanding and dewatering activities) are continuously
monitored by the USACE during the dredging season. During off-dredging season periods,
operations facilities and temporary waste disposal areas are inspected by USACE staff based at
the Site, as well as by contracted security personnel.
3.6 Interviews
As noted above, in April 2015, EPA issued the 2015 CIP and SeafoodIC Plan. A large
part of the plan was developed using feedback from community interviews on the EPA cleanup
and outreach efforts. There were a number of community groups and individuals interviewed
from various geographic and socioeconomic spectrums in New Bedford, Fairhaven, Dartmouth
and Acushnet. The 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan details the interviews and feedback, as well
as plans for action relative to the community's feedback. EPA began implementation of the plan
in the summer of 2015. The feedback from the community reflected positively on the EPA's
cleanup of the harbor and gave numerous suggestions for increased education and outreach.
EPA coordinates on a daily basis with the USACE implementation team and USACE
contractors performing the work. EPA also communicates regularly with other harbor
stakeholders and the community. During the FYR process, EPA conducted interviews with
MassDEP, the City of New Bedford and the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission
(HDC). The purpose of the interviews was to document any perceived problems or successes
with the remedy that has been implemented to date. Interview records were issued to the
interviewees via email. Completed interview records were submitted on 6/2/2015, 7/17/2015
and 7/31/2015. Interviews are summarized below and completed interview questionnaires are
included in Appendix C.
All interviewees are confident that, with the AVX settlement in place, the cleanup will
achieve the desired positive effect on the harbor and surrounding communities. There is
agreement that EPA has effectively taken advantage of the funding in the cleanup planning and
implementation. The EPA establishment of a Team Leader position is considered beneficial to
19
-------
all aspects of the cleanup work. All interviewees agree that the EPA has effectively and
efficiently responded to community concerns and complaints. Public meetings, especially in the
form of the poster session held in October 2014, are effective. Some recommendations to
improve resident's take-aways from public meetings are to develop data and graphics to hand out
to the public for them to bring home from meetings, rather than references to the project website.
The interviews focus on the strong collaboration and cooperation of EPA with MassDEP,
the City and HDC on all elements of the cleanup. The main focus from the HDC is to continue
to make effective use of the SER process and to increase port activity. The HDC leadership
would like to work with EPA to develop a mechanism to keep the SER process, or a similar
process, in place once the EPA cleanup is complete. The City believes that the great working
relationship with the EPA on a number of city plans, including those for future use of the harbor
area, have been positively enhanced with the use of settlement funds.
4.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
The technical assessment was only conducted for OU1, since OU2 is complete and
requires no further action (including no O&M) and a ROD has not yet been issued for OU3.
4.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision
documents?
Yes. The remedy is being implemented in accordance with the requirements of the 1998
ROD; the 2001, 2002, 2010, 2011 and 2015 ESDs; and design specifications. The remedy is
expected to be protective when it is completed. With the recent settlement, this project will be
accelerated to be substantially completed within 5 to 7 years. Key remedial actions at the Site
are discussed below, along with a summary of the remedial activities conducted during the
period covered by the FYR, and a discussion on how they are meeting the intent of the decision
documents.
4.1.2 Dredging of Harbor Sediment
US ACE, through its contractor, continues hydraulic dredging activities in the Upper
Harbor. Appendix B.3 shows the major components of the hydraulic dredging process. The
depth to which sediment has to be removed in a particular dredge area is based on core sampling
data, a z-star (z*) predictive model for dredging depth, and bathymetric survey data. EPA's
focus to date has been on removing the most highly contaminated PCB sediment layers to
achieve the greatest risk reductions with the limited funding that had been available historically.
For years 2011 through 2013, with $15 million per year of Site funding, dredging of
contaminated subtidal sediment occurred for approximately 40 to 45 days per year.
Approximately 64,571 cy of contaminated sediment and debris was processed and shipped off-
site by rail or truck to licensed disposal facilities during the 2011-2013 period. In 2014, with a
portion of the settlement funding EPA received in 2013, EPA was able to make significant
improvements to the dredging and treatment systems as well as allow for 118 days of dredging
and off-site disposal of approximately 77,312 cy of in-situ sediment. The total volume of
20
-------
dredged sediment from 2011 through 2014 was 141,883 cy. The total volume of sediment
removed from the harbor under OU1 through 2014 is approximately 354,570 cy. EPA plans on
dredging an estimated 80 days in the 2015 dredge season yielding approximately 47,000 cy of
contaminated sediment. The 2015 dredging season commenced in August 2015 and is expected
to run through November 2015. Appendix B.4 includes a figure showing the areas where
dredging has occurred through 2014 and a figure showing the areas where dredging is ongoing
and to be performed in 2015. Appendix A.3.2, Table 2, lists all Site sediment remediation efforts
and volumes to date.
Recommendations for improvements to the operations (lessons learned) are made at the
end of each season. These lessons learned since the second FYR are documented in the dredge
season data reports (Jacobs, 2011b; Jacobs 2013a; Jacobs 2013b; Jacobs 2014; Jacobs 2015b).
Recommended improvements to the operations have been incorporated into current year
operations.
The 2014 improvements to the dredge/treatment system that increased production
efficiency and lowered the unit cost of dredging, as presented in the 2014 dredge-season end
report (Jacobs, 2015b), are discussed below:
> Installed a larger more robust desanding unit and larger pump system to better separate sands
from the slurry. These improvements led to significantly less sand being classified as TSCA
material (>50 ppm). In 2014, 82% of sand was determined to be non-TSCA sand, which was
shipped to a solid waste landfill accepting lower concentrations of PCB-containing waste at a
cost savings to the project.
> Installed a gravity thickener in the dewatering operation to remove a portion of the water
from the slurry using polymers, thereby thickening the slurry prior to dewatering by filter
press. This unit also provides 45,000 gallons more slurry storage upstream of the filter
presses.
> Added two additional filter presses for a total of eight presses to the dewatering system for a
33% increase in capacity. The additional slurry capacity provided by the gravity thickener
helped ensure the filter presses had adequate feed material to keep them all on-line
throughout the season.
> Added upgraded dredging software program to allow the dredge operator to more accurately
program dredge cuts and track vertical and horizontal progress, reducing the dredge overlap
to one foot which allowed dredge crews to cover more area per day and greatly reduced the
amount of water introduced into the hydraulic treatment train by 42% as compared to
previous seasons.
The daily dredge volume production average for the years 2005 through 2013 was approximately
454 cy per day, while for the 2014 dredge season, the average daily production was
approximately 665 cy per day, a 46% increase.
In order to determine progress in meeting the target dredge elevation and to confirm the
removal of contaminated sediment to concentrations at or below the remediation criteria,
sediment conditions are assessed during and following dredging operations. The results indicate
that the overall thickness of the highly contaminated sediment layers in the northern reaches of
the Upper Harbor have been significantly reduced across all dredged regions, as presented in the
sediment monitoring data since the second FYR (WHG, 201 lc; WHG, 2012d; WHG, 2013b;
21
-------
Battelle, 2015c). As compared to pre-dredging PCB concentrations, post-dredge concentrations
have varied, but in general indicate that PCB concentrations are lower in areas where little
overlying organic silt remains (i.e., where native sediment, typically clay in the northern Upper
Harbor, was reached). The post-dredge monitoring also suggests that, at least in the highly
contaminated northern reaches of the Upper Harbor, the z* predictive model may be
underestimating the required depth of dredging. With the settlement funding now available to
fund an accelerated remedial effort, EPA and US ACE are in the process of performing
comprehensive characterization of the remaining PCB-contaminated sediment area for
implementation of remedial efforts to achieve established cleanup levels.
4.1.2 Construction and Filling of Lower Harbor Confined Aquatic
Disposal Cell (LHCC)
In 2011, EPA signed a Cooperative Agreement with the City of New Bedford Harbor
Development Commission to provide funding for the design and construction of the LHCC in
two phases (location shown in Appendix B.13). The first phase of the CAD cell was completed
during the spring of 2014. The second phase of the LHCC is scheduled to be completed in the
fall of 2015. Prior to construction, in 2012, EPA held technical workgroup meetings with
interested stakeholders to discuss risk assessment and modeling results, technical considerations
and design of the CAD cell, dredging protocols, and ambient air information and monitoring
plans. Information from those meetings, along with the LHCC plans and specifications, is
available at http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/lower-harbor-confined-aquatic-disposal-
cad-cell. In addition, in September 2014, EPA participated in a Fairhaven Board of Selectmen
meeting to respond to community concerns, primarily focused on the construction and use of the
LHCC. Following the meeting, EPA prepared a summary information document in an effort to
respond to the majority of concerns raised by the community. The summary document is
available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/538674.pdf. Most
recently, in 2015, US ACE was tasked by EPA to design and contract out the dredging and
disposal of PCB contaminated sediment into the LHCC. Dredging and disposal of the sediment
is expected to occur beginning late-2015 through 2018. After a period of settling, the CAD will
be capped and institutional controls will be implemented to ensure the integrity of the CAD. A
technical workgroup meeting to discuss the design of the Lower Harbor dredge areas was held in
July 2015. The information from the July 2015 meeting is available at
http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/iuly-7-2015-technical-workgroup-meeting-documents.
4.1.3 Intertidal Excavations, Restorations and Monitoring
Excavation and restorations activities were completed North of Wood Street (NWS) in
2001, 2002/2003 and 2005. See also Section 3.4.5 above. These areas were targeted for
accelerated cleanups due to the residential and recreational shoreline land use and the high levels
of PCB contamination (prior to cleanup) in these areas. These areas are periodically monitored
for soil and sediment PCB levels to assess whether recontamination due to tidal action is
occurring. During this FYR period, NWS monitoring occurred in 2011 and 2012 (WHG, 201 Id;
WHG, 2012c). As of the most recent monitoring event for these areas, completed in 2012, there
is evidence of low levels of recontamination; however, these levels have fluctuated up and down
over the course of post-monitoring sampling since 2003. PCB concentrations in the NWS
22
-------
subtidal/river sediments have shown a general increasing trend, suggesting that PCBs have been
actively transported up-river (tidally) from the known sources of PCB contamination
downstream. For NWS shoreline sediment, post-remediation sampling results suggest that the
remediation remains effective, although several post-remediation residential shoreline locations
have been fluctuating slightly above the 1 ppm PCB cleanup level. As part of EPA's accelerated
cleanup plan, any areas that have been recontaminated above the applicable cleanup levels will
be reassessed as the remedial action efforts progress towards completion.
The lower PCB concentrations between shoreline/intertidal sediment and river/sub tidal
sediment NWS may be due to differences in exposure to contaminants transported by tidal
currents. Most shoreline stations are located above mean high water (MHW) on the marsh
surface and are only flooded during spring tides. Consequently, shoreline stations receive far
less exposure to contaminants suspended in river water than subtidal sediment stations, reducing
the likelihood of recontamination. Conversely, subtidal sediment stations can be exposed to
contaminated sediment during every tidal cycle, and have a greater opportunity to accumulate
contaminated sediment.
No additional intertidal remediation and restoration activities occurred during this FYR
period. However, as a result of the recent settlement, EPA has now initiated planning for
intertidal remediation efforts to address remaining dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks. By
the end of 2015, EPA will have completed a sampling program covering the intertidal areas of
both the Upper and Lower Harbor areas for delineation and remediation planning. Priority
intertidal remediation efforts are expected to begin later in 2015 and all intertidal remediation
and restoration efforts will be scheduled over the next 5-7 years as the accelerated cleanup
progresses.
4.1.4 Construction of Confined Disposal Facilities
The 2002 and 2015 ESDs eliminated the construction of CDFs A, B, C and D. Sediment
initially slated for CDFs A, B and C will be disposed off-site. Sediment slated for CDF D will
be disposed off-site or in the Lower Harbor CAD Cell.
A pilot CDF to contain contaminated dredged sediment was constructed just north of the
end of Sawyer Street as part of the 1988/89 pilot study. This pilot CDF was modified in the
early 1990s as part of the Hot Spot ROD implementation to allow construction of a lined
sediment holding cell (Cell #1). The original contents of the pilot CDF are now contained along
the shoreline directly to the east of Cell #1; it is this shoreline area that is now referred to as the
Pilot CDF. The Pilot CDF contains approximately 19,000 cy of PCB-contaminated sediment
and debris. Groundwater and air monitoring performed at the Pilot CDF since 1992, along with
groundwater modeling, demonstrate that PCBs are not migrating from the Pilot CDF area. See
Section 3.4.7 above. In ESD5, EPA designated the Pilot CDF a permanent TSCA disposal
facility and a final remedy for the area pursuant to TSCA 40 CFR § 761.61(c), consistent with
the process described in ESDI (EPA, 2015c).
EPA will continue to utilize the Pilot CDF area as a staging and storage area for sand
from the desanding operations and debris generated from dredging operations. There may be
23
-------
additional incidental disposal of sand from the desanding operations in the Pilot CDF over the
course of remaining remedial dredging operations. Pursuant to ESD5, following completion of
remedial dredging activities, the Pilot CDF will be capped and institutional controls and long
term monitoring and maintenance will be implemented.
Cell #1 is used for interim disposal of PCB- and VOC-contaminated sediments that were
dredged during operations near the Aerovox shoreline area. In ESD3, EPA determined that there
are no existing risks associated with the temporary disposal in Cell #1 (EPA, 2010). When
funding allows, EPA intends to remove all the material from Cell #1 and dispose of it at an
appropriately licensed landfill.
4.1.5 Construction and Operation of Water Treatment Facilities
A 2,000 gpm water treatment system is part of the dewatering facilities at Area D. A
desanding facility at Area C, which receives slurry from the dredge to separate coarse-grained
materials (e.g. sand, gravel, shells, etc.) prior to dewatering, is also part of the sediment
processing operation. Both facilities have been in operation since the start of the dredge season
in 2004. Since the start of full-scale dredging, a ferric sulfate injection system was added
upstream of the desanding facility, along with other operational measures, to address the
formation of hydrogen sulfide (FhS) in the building. Overall, the treatment systems are
functioning as intended as the effluent concentrations for PCBs and selected metals are in
compliance with the stringent project effluent discharge criteria (Jacobs, 201 lb - Table C-4;
Jacobs, 2013a - Table B-5; Jacobs, 2013b - Table B-5; Jacobs, 2014 - Table B-5, Jacobs, 2015b
- Table B-5).
4.1.6 Seafood Advisories and Other Institutional Controls
As discussed above, complete control of PCB-contaminated seafood consumption will
continue to be problematic until the risk-based site-specific PCB level for seafood is reached.
Appendix B.12 provides a summary table of planned and implemented institutional controls for
the OU1 remedy. EPA has implemented the following institutional controls to minimize and,
where possible, prevent exposure to contamination that could result in unacceptable risk. ICs
planned for the future are also briefly discussed:
• Fishing restrictions and advisories. In 1979, MassDPH promulgated regulations prohibiting
fishing and lobstering throughout the Site due to elevated PCB levels in area seafood (See
Appendix B.2), and enforcement is the responsibility of MassDPH. EPA also performed risk
assessments that led to site-specific seafood consumption advisories and recommendations.
In 2010, EPA issued more stringent seafood consumption recommendations to augment the
1979 fishing restrictions, including more stringent guidance for nursing mothers, women of
child-bearing age, and children. Institutional controls in the form of seafood consumption
advisories are necessary since it could take many years, even after the sediment remediation
efforts are completed, before PCB levels in seafood species reach safe levels for
consumption. These institutional controls shall continue until protective levels for PCBs in
local seafood are consistently achieved throughout the Site. In April 2015, EPA issued the
2015 CIP and SeafoodIC Plan. EPA prepared this plan based on community interviews and
24
-------
other relevant information. The SeafoodIC Plan element specifies the steps EPA has and
will continue to take to implement the institutional controls for seafood consumption and
collaborate with others to reduce consumption of local PCB-contaminated seafood. The
2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan includes a new seafood consumption advisory brochure that
is being used for outreach and education efforts. This brochure is available in Spanish,
Portuguese, and Vietnamese. In September 2015, EPA updated its advisories to include a
seafood consumption recommendation for tautog in closure area 3. The updated EPA
advisories are included in Appendix C and available at http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-
harbor/fish-consumption-regulations-and-recommendations. EPA's seafood consumption
advisory brochure will be revised to reflect the updated information. The 2015 CIP and
Seafood IC Plan also includes new actions that EPA will implement going forward to
minimize seafood consumption, including the creation of new signage, a new video and
targeted outreach using culturally related peers.
• Fencing. Fencing has been erected along the New Bedford shoreline in residential and
recreational shoreline areas where they abut sediment with elevated levels of PCBs that may
represent dermal contact/incidental ingestion risk. As documented in the 2015 CIP and
Seafood IC Plan, EPA continues to use, monitor and maintain fencing to address both
seafood consumption and dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks. EPA conducts at least
annual inspections of fencing to ensure this institutional control remains in place. The results
of the 2015 fencing and signage inspection is attached in Appendix B. 10.
• Signage. Signage is used extensively at the Site, both to communicate the fishing advisory as
well as to warn against dermal contact/incidental ingestion with PCB-contaminated sediment.
As documented in the 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan, EPA continues to use, monitor and
maintain signage, including informational kiosks, to address both seafood consumption and
dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks. EPA conducts annual inspections of signage to
ensure this institutional control remains in place and protective. The results of the 2015
fencing and signage inspection is attached in Appendix B. 10. The 2015 CIP and Seafood IC
Plan also provided for the installation of signage at additional locations along the Upper and
Lower Harbor. The figure of the signage and kiosk locations is included in Appendix B.9.
Further, the 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan called for new signage depicting the message "do
not eat fish". These new signs have been designed and will be installed at all signage
locations by the end of 2015.
• Additional Educational Materials. In addition to outreach materials on the seafood
consumption advisories and recommendations, the 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan includes
educational and outreach materials created in 2008 that will continue to be distributed at
boating or crew-racing events in the Upper or Lower Harbor where there is a risk of exposure
to contaminated sediment and physical hazards from dredging operations. The brochure
explains the potential risks and the measures boaters can take to avoid exposure.
• ICs for CDFs, LHCC, OU3 cap and other EPA property. The only CDF that will remain as a
permanent element of the OU1 remedy is the Pilot CDF. Following completion of remedial
dredging activities, the Pilot CDF will require final capping, institutional controls and long
term monitoring and maintenance. Institutional controls will be required to restrict reuse of
25
-------
the area to passive recreational use and ensure that the integrity of the cap and the Pilot
CDF's sidewalls are maintained for long term protectiveness. In 2011, ICs were placed to
protect the OU3 cap. Once completed and capped, the LHCC will require similar
institutional controls as those already in place for the OU3 pilot cap area, and the OU3 pilot
cap area will be re-evaluated with the State once the additional subtidal mitigation capping is
completed. EPA maintains security, including fencing and security staff, around all of its
facilities where contaminated sediment is treated or stored. EPA has issued licenses to the
HDC and a local fisheries company to be able to use the marine bulkhead at the EPA's
Hervey Tichon dewatering facility (Area D) for marine industrial uses (primarily for docking
commercial fishing boats) that are compatible with the remedial activities being conducted at
the property.
4.1.7 Long Term Monitoring Program
EPA has been collecting long term monitoring (LTM) data approximately every five
years at the Site since 1993 to assess sediment conditions and quantify the long term
environmental effects and effectiveness of remediation efforts in the harbor. See discussion
above in Section 3.4.1. Overall, the long term monitoring program confirms that the cleanup
activities to date have resulted in significant improvement in surface sediment and benthic
quality in 2014 compared to the 1993 baseline data for the Lower and Outer Harbor areas
(Appendix B.8).
4.1.8 Seafood Monitoring Program
Seafood tissue monitoring performed at the Site includes both the annual seafood
monitoring program and the blue mussel monitoring program. See discussion above in Section
3.4.2. Overall, the levels of PCBs in New Bedford Harbor area seafood continue to be above the
site-specific goal and are consistent with levels expected during ongoing, long term, active
sediment remediation. EPA and USACE are continuing work on a food chain modeling effort to
update the 1990 food chain model performed in support of the 1998 ROD. The food web model
will be utilized to make predictions of biota PCB concentrations post remediation so EPA can
estimate potential seafood consumption risk reductions over time and the estimated time after
completion of the OU1 remediation to reach the risk-based fish tissue target level of 0.02 ppm.
As noted above, EPA is working to optimize the seafood monitoring program towards tracking
seafood tissue decreases over time to demonstrate seafood tissue reductions as the cleanup
progresses and following completion of remedy construction. Following completion of remedy
construction, seafood tissue data will be used to refine model predictions.
4.1.8 Summary
In summary, the remedy is proceeding as intended and with the recent settlement, this
project will be accelerated to be substantially completed within 5 to 7 years. EPA will continue
to work with project stakeholders to implement the remedy going forward. Major remedial
activities scheduled over the next five years include: continued subtidal hydraulic dredging in the
Upper Harbor; mechanical dredging of portions of the Upper Harbor and the Lower Harbor for
disposal in the LHCC; intertidal/shoreline remediation and restoration; and the development of
26
-------
LHCC, Pilot CDF and shoreline ICs. Long term monitoring shows an improvement in overall
sediment and benthic quality in the Lower and Outer Harbor areas compared to 1993 baseline
data, and the historical seafood monitoring data set has been used to establish protective seafood
consumption advisories and recommendations. It could take many years, even after the sediment
remediation efforts are completed, before PCB levels in seafood species reach safe levels for
consumption. In the interim, EPA will continue its ongoing measures and implement the
community relations activities and institutional controls for seafood consumption activities
outlined in the 2015 CIP and SeafoodIC Plan. At this time, there are no known problems with
the remedy that would affect its long term protectiveness.
4.2 Question B: Are the remedial action objectives (RAOs), exposure
assumptions, toxicity data and cleanup levels used at the time of the remedy
selection still valid?
Yes, the RAOs, exposure assumptions and cleanup levels used at the time of remedy
selection are still valid; however, toxicity data used at the time of remedy selection have
changed. The analysis presented below is for OU1. No evaluation is needed for OU2 because
all excavated Hot Spot sediment has been disposed off-site. An evaluation was not conducted of
OU3, since a remedy has not yet been selected.
4.2.1 Remedial Action Objectives
The following are the remedial action objectives as summarized in the 1998 ROD:
1. To reduce risks to human health by reducing PCB concentrations in seafood, by lowering
PCB concentrations in sediment and in the water column;
2. To ensure that contact with shoreline sediment does not present excessive risks to human
health as a result of dermal contact with or accidental ingestion of PCB-contaminated
sediment in areas prone to beach combing or in areas where residences abut the Harbor; and
3. To improve the quality of the seriously degraded marine ecosystem by
a) reducing marine organisms' exposure to PCB contaminated sediment while minimizing
consequent harm to the environment, and
b) reducing surface water PCB concentrations to comply with chronic AWQC by
reducing PCB sediment concentrations.
These remedial action objectives remain valid. The overall long term goals of the
remedy also remain appropriate (e.g.. eventual lifting of the state fishing bans and EPA seafood
consumption advisories (seafood consumption may not be safe for other reasons, such as due to
wastes from CSOs), reduction of human health risks associated with dermal contact with and
incidental ingestion of shoreline sediment, and compliance with the PCB national recommended
water quality criterion).
4.2.2 Exposure Assumptions
The exposure assumptions used at the time of remedy selection are still valid. The
environmental media which were considered in the 1998 ROD include surface water, harbor
sediment, marine biota and Site area air. Direct contact with and incidental ingestion of
27
-------
shoreline sediment and ingestion of contaminated seafood were identified as the human health
exposure pathways of primary concern. The original human health risk assessment in 1989
evaluated the cancer and non-cancer risks of PCBs, cadmium, copper, and lead in adults, young
children (age 0-5 years), and older children (age 6-16 years) exposed via sediment contact,
sediment ingestion, ingestion of aquatic biota, and inhalation of airborne contaminants. PAHs
were found to be collocated with PCBs, but were not assessed for risk because it was concluded
that the PAHs resulted from non-point sources and would be effectively addressed with PCB
remediation. Screening results performed under conservative exposure conditions indicated that
exposure to PCBs in surface water and air did not represent a significant exposure pathway.
However, EPA established water quality and ambient air monitoring programs to ensure that the
remediation efforts did not cause unacceptable impacts to surface water and air and to confirm
ambient air levels remained below levels protective of human health. These risk assessment
scenarios and exposure assumptions remain valid.
4.2.3 Toxicity Data
EPA toxicity values, including reference doses (RfDs) and cancer slope factors (CSFs),
are routinely re-evaluated and updated. As such, some of the exposure factors used in the 1989
risk assessment have changed. Carcinogen Assessment Group Potency Factors have been
replaced with CSFs. Currently, the primary source of toxicity values is EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) database. In addition, some of the toxicity data used at the time of
the 1989 risk assessment have also changed. These toxicity values are used in the calculations of
risk and the development of site-specific and more generic risk-based screening values or clean-
up goals. Changes have occurred to toxicity values used for the OU1 human health risk
assessment for PCBs.
The following summarizes changes in risk assessment toxicity factors and approaches
that have occurred since the time of the 1989 risk assessment:
1. Changes in Exposure Factors: In 2014, EPA finalized a Directive to update standard default
exposure factors and frequently asked questions associated with these updates.
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/superfund hh exposure.htm (items # 22 and #23
of this web link) (EPA, 2014a and b). Many of these exposure factors differ from those used
in the 1989 risk assessment supporting the ROD. In general, these changes result in a slight
decrease of the risk estimates for most chemicals. Specific changes of default exposure
factors related to fish consumption include: increase in adult body weight from 70 kg to 80
kg, decrease in total resident exposure duration from 30 years to 26 years, decrease in adult
resident exposure duration from 24 years to 20 years, and change of fish ingestion rate from
5 x 104 mg/day (i.e., 50 grams/day) to a recommendation to use site-specific values.
2. Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics: Changes have occurred to the
toxicity values for PCBs used for the fish consumption and inhalation exposure pathways in
the 1989 human health risk assessment. Toxicity values for other chemicals assessed for risk
at the Site (cadmium, copper, lead) have not been considered because PCBs are
overwhelmingly the primary risk driver at the Site and remedial actions (dredging,
excavation, isolation and subaqueous capping) for PCBs will result in the removal and/or
28
-------
elimination of exposure to metals as the contaminants are collocated with PCBs. The risks of
dioxin-like PCBs were not evaluated at the time of the 1989 risk assessment. Therefore, the
following information on dioxin-like PCBs is offered as new information, available since the
last FYR, rather than changes to toxicity data used at the time of remedy selection. Dioxin-
like PCBs have been detected at very low concentrations.
a. Total PCBs Toxicity Values:
i. Cancer: PCB cancer toxicity values have changed for the fish consumption
pathway and for the inhalation pathway.
• ORAL: The oral cancer slope factor (SFO) used in the 1989 seafood
consumption risk assessment was 7.7 per mg/kg-day. According to the IRIS
file on PCBs, the current recommended oral cancer slope factor for PCBs in
fish is 2.0 mg/kg-day, representing the oral cancer slope factor for "high risk"
PCBs. Since the SFO decreased since the 1989 risk assessment, the cancer
risk would be lower.
• INHALATION: For inhalation cancer risk, the current recommended
inhalation unit risk (IUR) for evaporated PCB congeners is 1 x 10"4 per ug/m3,
which is based on conversion of the middle tier (i.e., "low risk") SFO of 0.4
per (mg/kg)/day. Prior to this FYR, inhalation cancer risks were calculated
using an inhalation slope factor calculated by route to route conversion of the
SFO for Aroclor 1242. Aroclor 1242 is the Aroclor that most closely matched
the congener pattern of detected PCB congeners in air samples collected prior
to the dredging program.
ii. Non-Cancer:
• ORAL: PCB non-cancer toxicity values are available in the IRIS database for
the oral route for Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor 1254. The RfD used in the 1989
risk assessment was 1 x 10"4 mg/kg-day, based on conversion from an EPA
chronic drinking water health advisory. The non-cancer Reference Dose
(RfD) has been revised to 2 x 10"5 mg/kg-day for Aroclor 1254. Since the
RfD decreased since the 1989 risk assessment, the non-cancer risk would be
higher.
• INHALATION: Non-cancer inhalation toxicity values have not been
recommended under the EPA IRIS program since the time of the 1989 risk
assessment. However, historically, under the air monitoring program, EPA
developed non-cancer risk-based levels based on occupational limits for
PCBs. However, the cancer-based values were lower than these non-cancer
limits and were the driver for the monitoring program historically.
b. Dioxin-like PCBs Toxicity Values:
i. Cancer:
• ORAL: Although the EPA IRIS database does not recommend any cancer
toxicity values for dioxin, the EPA Regional Screening Level database
recommends the use of an oral slope factor of 1.3 x 10+5 per (mg/kg)/day.
29
-------
This value is a Tier 3 value derived from CalEPA values. The values are used
in the Toxicity Equivalency Factor (TEF) approach to calculate cancer risk of
dioxin-like PCBs.
• INHALATION: Although the EPA IRIS database does not recommend any
cancer toxicity values for dioxin, the EPA Regional Screening Level database
recommends the use of an inhalation unit risk of 3.8 x 10+1 per ug/m3. This
values is a Tier 3 value derived from CalEPA values. The values are used in
the TEF approach to calculate cancer risk of dioxin-like PCBs.
ii. Non-cancer:
• ORAL: On February 17, 2012, EPA finalized the non-cancer toxicity
assessment for the most potent dioxin, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, or 2,
3, 7, 8-TCDD, indicating that non-cancer health effects from exposure to
dioxin and dioxin-like PCB congeners can now be quantified. EPA's dioxin
reassessment has been developed and undergone review for many years, with
the participation of scientific experts in EPA and other federal agencies, as
well as scientific experts in the private sector and academia. EPA followed
current guidelines and incorporated the latest data and physiological/
biochemical research into the reassessment. With the release of the final
human health non-cancer dioxin reassessment, EPA also published an oral
non-cancer toxicity value, or reference dose (RfD), of 7xlO"10 mg/kg-day, for
2,3,1, 8-TCDD in IRIS. The dioxin oral RfD was approved for use at
Superfund sites to ensure protection of human health. As a result, non-cancer
hazard from exposure to dioxin-like PCBs can now be quantified using the
TEF approach, using the non-cancer toxicity factor for dioxin.
• INHALATION: Although the IRIS database does not recommend a value for
non-cancer effects of dioxin via inhalation, the EPA Regional Screening Level
database recommends an inhalation Reference Concentration (RfCi) of 4 x 10"
8 mg/m3. This value is a Tier 3 value from CalEPA. Tier 3 values are usable
in the absence of an IRIS value or a Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity
Value (PPRTV).
3. Changes in Risk Assessment Methods: Changes have occurred since the last FYR to
methods used to evaluate vapor intrusion exposures, exposures to asbestos, exposure to
arsenic, and exposures to mutagenic carcinogens. Of these exposures, only exposure to
mutagenic carcinogens is potentially applicable because some of the PAHs are mutagenic
carcinogens; however, PAH risks are not being re-evaluated because PCBs overwhelmingly
drive risk at the Site and it is expected that the remedial actions will decrease or sequester
PAHs to exposure levels consistent with anthropogenic background.
4.2.4 Impact of Changes to Toxicity Data
Oral: EPA evaluated the impact of the exposure factor and oral toxicity value changes
outlined in Section 4.2.3 on the risk-based fish tissue target level of 0.02 ppm. Recalculation of
cancer and non-cancer risks resulted in confirmation that the 0.02 mg/kg total PCB seafood
tissue target level remains protective for both cancer and non-cancer effects of total PCBs. The
30
-------
risks of dioxin-like PCBs were also evaluated and results show that the contribution of dioxin-
like PCB risk to total PCB risk was quite variable, with factors ranging from about 0.1 to 10
between dioxin-like risk and total PCB risk. Although dioxin-like PCBs contributed
significantly in most species to the cancer and non-cancer risk of total PCBs, the recalculated
risks of seafood consumption are approximately the same as in the original risk assessment,
leading to no significant change to the seafood consumption advisories due to dioxin-like PCBs
or to the site-specific fish tissue target level of 0.02 ppm total PCBs. Since the proportion of
dioxin-like PCB risk to total PCB risk is quite variable among seafood species, development of a
seafood tissue cleanup level for dioxin-like PCBs is not practical. As noted above, as part of the
development of the 2015 CIP and SeafoodIC Plan and as part of this third FYR, EPA evaluated
the seafood tissue data collected under the Seafood Monitoring Program from 2010-2014 and
confirmed that the seafood advisories and recommendations established by EPA in 2010 remain
protective. That update also evaluated new data for tautog, collected in 2013 and 2014, which
supports a new advisory for closure area 3 for that species. In September 2015, EPA updated its
advisories to include a seafood consumption recommendation for tautog in closure area 3.
EPA's seafood consumption advisory brochure will be revised to reflect the updated information.
The seafood consumption advisories continue to be protective if complied with by the public.
EPA has documented these conclusions in a risk assessment update included in Appendix D.
Inhalation: EPA evaluated the impact of the exposure factor and inhalation toxicity
value changes outlined in Section 4.2.3 on the risk-based ambient air goals used in the ambient
air monitoring program. As noted above in Section 3.4.4, the EPA updated its air monitoring
plan in 2015. The 2015 Air Monitoring Plan (Jacobs, 2015c) will be implemented for all
remaining remediation activities starting with the 2015 dredge season, which began in August
2015. In this Plan, EPA recalculated ambient air risks using updated exposure factor and
inhalation toxicity values (Appendix A of the plan). The risks of dioxin-like PCBs were also
evaluated as part of the 2015 update and recalculation of air risks (Appendix B of the plan). The
calculated inhalation cancer risks were much lower using the updated IUR, with correspondingly
higher risk-based goals, but, for conservativeness and consistency, the previously selected cancer
risk-based goal (previously called the allowable ambient limit, or AAL) is being retained as a
risk management trigger in the ambient air monitoring program. To date, the air monitoring
program has demonstrated that the cumulative exposure from PCBs measured in ambient air
remain below risk-based exposure budgets that are protective of human health.
In addition, in the 2015 Air Monitoring Plan, EPA used route to route extrapolation from
the oral reference dose of Aroclor 1016 to calculate a non-cancer risk-based goal. This approach
was used by EPA Region 2 for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site to develop a risk
management action level for monitoring impacts of dredging activity. The calculated non-cancer
risk-based goal is 110 ng/m3. This concentration is the chronic air concentration associated with
a Hazard Quotient of one for a child resident, age birth to 6 years. This is the lowest risk-based
goal for any type of human receptor at the Site. The chronic time-weighted average
concentration in air samples taken at the Site is below this level; therefore protective.
The cancer risk of dioxin-like PCBs was approximately the same as the cancer risk of
total PCBs, resulting in an approximate doubling of the cancer risk; however, this additional risk
is not significant with regard to risk management decisions because the combined risk is lower
31
-------
than EPA's acceptable cancer risk range of 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10"4 The dioxin-like PCBs in air
samples had non-cancer risks well below a hazard quotient of 1, and did not contribute
significantly to the non-cancer risk of total PCBs. Therefore, continued monitoring of total
PCBs in ambient air under the 2015 Air Monitoring Plan is protective for both total PCB and
dioxin-like PCB risk.
4.2.5 Cleanup Levels
The sediment cleanup levels established at the time of remedy selection are still valid. In
selecting the cleanup levels for the various areas in the Harbor in the 1998 ROD, EPA balanced
protection of public health and the environment. Prior to issuing the 1998 ROD, EPA performed
a human health and ecological risk assessment at the Site. With respect to sediment cleanup
levels that would result in safe seafood consumption, EPA first considered the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's (FDA) tolerance level of 2 ppm PCBs in seafood tissue: FDA levels are
based on nationwide seafood consumption patterns of the general public and are balanced by
economic considerations. Public health agencies typically use FDA levels in regulating seafood
consumption. At Superfund sites, EPA assesses risk and derives target levels in seafood which
are protective of public health by utilizing a site-specific risk assessment process. This process
relies on reasonable assumptions about exposure and up-to-date scientific information about
toxicity. Accordingly, EPA developed a target site-specific risk-based level of 0.02 ppm for
PCBs in fish tissue (i.e., to achieve an incremental cancer risk of one in one hundred thousand, or
10"5). Based on this target site-specific risk-based level in fish tissue, EPA determined the target
cleanup level for PCB-contaminated sediment at the Site. At the time of the ROD, EPA noted
that:
"For seafood to meet both the FDA and site specific levels at the end of 10 years, EPA
believes that a TCL for sediment dredging of 1 ppm would be necessary. However, dredging to
that level would cause severe adverse environmental impacts to the Harbor. "
"Although the ecological risk assessment pointed to a 1 ppm sediment PCB threshold for
protection of marine organisms, achieving this TCL was believed to cause more harm than good
due to the radical alterations to the harbor and adverse environmental impacts that would result
given the widespread nature of the PCB contamination. "
"In order to balance both protection of human health and the environment, EPA has
determined that using a slightly higher TCL together with institutional controls on seafood
consumption allows the remedy to remain protective of human health yet does not impose as
severe adverse impacts to the Harbor ecosystem
"The selected remedy includes various institutional controls and a long term seafood
monitoring program to keep the consumption of contaminated local seafood below safe levels
EPA selected the cleanup levels in the 1998 ROD based on careful consideration of
multiple factors including: how to best balance the protection of public health with the protection
of sensitive ecosystems, such as the Site's valuable saltmarsh habitat; the large geographic area
covered by the Site (the Upper Harbor is approximately 187 acres and the Lower Harbor is
32
-------
approximately 750 acres); the wide range of potential direct contact exposure rates at the Site,
varying with shoreline land uses; and the fact that portions of OUl's Lower Harbor are within
the Designated Port Area (DPA), as classified by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Management, with concentrated maritime industrial uses.
EPA selected different cleanup levels for different areas of the Harbor. The site-specific
rationale for these varying cleanup levels is provided below.
For subtidal areas, the cleanup levels, to attain applicable water quality and seafood
consumption standards, are the following:
10 parts per million (ppm) PCBs for subtidal and mudflat sediment in the Upper
Harbor (north of the Coggeshall Street bridge), which has the highest concentrations of PCB
contamination since the Aerovox Facility was located adjacent to the Upper Harbor
shoreline. The 10 ppm PCBs cleanup level was applied to the Upper Harbor portion of the
Site in order to balance protection of public health with ecological health (i.e., avoiding the
adverse ecosystem impacts that would result from larger scale sediment and saltmarsh
removal).
50 ppm PCBs for subtidal and mudflat sediment in the Lower Harbor (between the
Coggeshall Street bridge and the New Bedford Hurricane Barrier). In contrast to the Upper
Harbor, much of the Lower Harbor portion of the Site is a DP A, with a working waterfront,
and it is lined with industrial and commercial facilities along the New Bedford shoreline.
Among other factors, EPA considered the current and future use of an area, such as an urban
port, in selecting appropriate cleanup levels. In addition, most if not all of the remaining
Lower Harbor will be dredged for navigational purposes over time, as provided in the 1998
OU1 ROD's State Enhanced Remedy. Therefore, the 50 ppm PCBs cleanup level for the
Lower Harbor was determined to be appropriate given the Lower Harbor's current and future
anticipated use and the enhancement of the cleanup due to the State Enhanced Remedy.
For the shoreline/intertidal areas, the cleanup levels, to reduce risk from human contact with
contaminated sediment, are the following:
1 ppm PCBs for areas bordering residential areas;
25 ppm PCBs for shoreline areas bordering recreational areas; and
50 ppm PCBs for other shoreline areas with little or no public access, including
saltmarshes. The Upper Harbor contains large fragile saltmarsh habitats which include
ecologically important breeding, nursery, and feeding areas for aquatic life. EPA selected a
50 ppm PCBs cleanup level for saltmarshes with limited expected access to minimize
adverse impacts to these marshes while still protecting against dermal contact/incidental
ingestion risks to the occasional beachcomber.
Based on modeling performed in support of the 1998 ROD, after the cleanup is complete,
the Harbor and surrounding areas are expected in the long term to become open for safe seafood
consumption in regard to the reduction of PCBs in seafood tissue. (Note that although PCB
contamination will be reduced, shellfish consumption may not be safe due to bacterial
contamination from CSOs). It should also be noted that the national recommended water quality
33
-------
criterion (formerly known as ambient water quality criterion) for PCBs in salt water of 0.03 parts
per billion (ppb) is expected, based on modeling performed in support of the 1998 ROD, to be
attained throughout the Harbor ten years after the cleanup is complete.
In the 1998 ROD, EPA integrated the SER of navigational dredging and onsite disposal
into EPA's OU1 Remedy. The SER provides for the removal of sediment containing PCBs up to
50 ppm and co-located heavy metals that EPA's OU1 cleanup would not be addressing in the
Lower Harbor. Under the SER, navigational dredging will address an estimated 1.7 million cy of
sediment contaminated with heavy metals and lower levels of PCBs (below 50 ppm PCBs).
Since 2005, navigational dredging under the State Enhanced Remedy of approximately 545,000
cy of sediment contaminated with low levels of PCBs from the Lower and Outer Harbor has
occurred. See Appendix A.3.2, Table 4, Appendix B. 13 and Appendix B. 14.
It is important to note that a) the 1998 ROD states, in the Upper Harbor, with a subtidal
sediment cleanup level of 10 ppm, naturally occurring sedimentation will result in residual PCB
levels that will approach 1 ppm over time; and b) in the Lower Harbor, in general, navigational
dredging is expected over the long term to leave residual PCB levels of 1 ppm or less over most
if not all of the area.
The LTM assesses the overall remedial effectiveness by quantifying long term sediment
quality and ecological effects on species abundance and richness from exposure to Upper, Lower
and Outer Harbor sediment and water column. As discussed in Sections 3.4.1 and 4.1.7, EPA's
LTM program, which assesses remedial effectiveness every five years, found in 2014 the
average concentration levels of surficial sediment (2 cm) in the Lower Harbor to be
approximately 7 ppm PCBs (Appendix B.8). In addition, the long term benthic community
monitoring confirms that the cleanup activities to date have resulted in significant improvement
in benthic quality in 2014 compared to the 1993 baseline data for the Lower and Outer Harbor
areas (Appendix B.8).
With respect to the subtidal cleanup levels, considering that the rationale for the cleanup
levels established in the 1998 ROD remains valid, the cleanup is ongoing, and the long term
monitoring program confirms that cleanup activities to date have resulted in significant
improvements in the sediment and benthic quality in the Lower and Outer Harbors, these cleanup
levels remain valid.
With respect to the intertidal cleanup levels, EPA has evaluated the impact of the
exposure factor and toxicity value changes and concluded that the changes do not significantly
change the sediment cleanup levels established in the 1998 ROD for addressing dermal
contact/incidental ingestion risks (see Appendix D). The use of many of the properties abutting
the harbor have changed since the time of the 1998 ROD, but the ROD includes cleanup levels
for various adjacent uses and those levels remain protective for associated dermal
contact/incidental ingestion risk. As discussed in Section 4.2.6 below, intertidal/shoreline areas
where adjacent property use has changed since the time of the 1998 ROD will be cleaned up to
the level appropriate for the new actual or foreseeable future use.
34
-------
4.2.6 Changes in Land Use of Shoreline Areas Abutting the Site
EPA has observed an overall trend towards a more publicly accessible shoreline in the
Upper Harbor (e.g., Riverside Park and River Road Park in New Bedford and Riverview Park in
Acushnet) as well as towards conversion of shoreline mills to residential use (e.g., Rope Works
building, Whalers Cove assisted living, Victoria Riverside Lofts, Manomet Place, Riverbank
Lofts). It is expected that additional shoreline properties developed before remediation is
performed or completed will trigger the more stringent shoreline cleanup levels. Further, the
City of New Bedford is in the process of designing a shoreline "Riverwalk," envisioned as a
passive recreational walkway to reconnect the community with the view-scape and
environmental resource that the river represents. Significant habitat restoration is planned as part
of the Riverwalk. In addition, Buzzards Bay Coalition, in collaboration with the Towns of
Acushnet and Fairhaven, are planning for the Acushnet River Reserve project, envisioned to
provide public access trails and observation decks along a large area of the saltmarsh along the
eastern shoreline of the Upper Harbor. EPA will continue to work with the local municipalities
and private shoreline landowners to assess changes in shoreline land use and incorporate them
into the remedy, as appropriate.
It should also be noted that the City has future plans for a boat house to be located in the
vicinity of EPA's Sawyer Street facility. The City has, in past years, held rowing/boating
events. In an effort to allow safe rowing in the Upper Harbor when EPA was not actively
dredging, EPA, the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission (HDC) and the New
Bedford Community Rowing program worked together to coordinate these past events. The
HDC provided a controlled (cordoned off the bank) public viewing area near the end of Sawyer
Street. EPA moved steel sheet piles used during dredging operations so that they were outside of
the rowing course. Rowers launched their boats from Pope's Island and rowed to the Upper
Harbor. EPA had representation at Pope's Island and the viewing area to hand out the rowing
safety information for the harbor and to discuss decontamination with the rowers. Increased use
of the Upper Harbor for recreational boating in the future will need to be coordinated with
ongoing dredging and other remedial activities to prevent recreational exposure to contaminated
sediment, as well as safety hazards.
4.2.7 ARAR Review
In order to evaluate the protectiveness of the remedy, the Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) in the 1998 ROD (and subsequent modifications to the
ROD) were checked for changes in standards; newly promulgated standards and TBCs (to be
considered) were also evaluated. An ARAR Review was only conducted for OU1, since the
OU2 remedy is complete and requires no operation and maintenance, and the ROD for OU3 has
not been issued.
The 2010 FYR identified certain changes to location and action-specific ARARs that
were either rescinded or required as a result of modifications to the OU1 remedy. Standards
promulgated at 40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A, pursuant to Executive Orders 11988 (Management
of Floodplains) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) were rescinded. ESDI and ESD2 included
risk-based TSCA determinations for temporary storage of PCB remediation waste at the pilot
35
-------
study CDF and for the handling and management of PCB remediation waste for offsite disposal
instead of disposal into CDF D, respectively. ESD3 modified the use of Cell #1 to include the
temporary disposal of hazardous waste (VOC-impacted sediment removed during Aerovox
shoreline dredging) as well as PCB-remediation waste and EPA invoked statutory waivers for
certain state hazardous waste surface impoundment regulations and determined that certain
identified site conditions were equally protective.
During the current FYR period, EPA issued two additional ESDs: ESD4 modified the
remedy to replace off-site disposal of a certain volume of contaminated sediments with
mechanical dredging and onsite disposal in a LHCC; and ESD5 eliminated the construction of
the planned CDFs A, B and modified design of CDF C and selected off-site disposal for the
sediment slated for disposal in those planned confined disposal facilities and confirmed that the
Pilot CDF is protective and will become a permanent TSCA disposal facility.
As a result of a review of the ARARs in the 1998 ROD since the last FYR and the
issuance of the two additional ESDs, certain ARARs and TBC were affected as described below.
Chemical-Specific ARARs:
Both Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs) and Reference Doses (RfD) were identified as TBCs
in the 1998 ROD; therefore, EPA's only task is to identify changes to these values and determine
whether the remedy remains protective. As explained above in Section 4.2.3, changes have
occurred to update the standard default exposure factors (increased adult body weight, decrease
exposure durations and change in fish ingestion rate) and toxicity values for PCBs used for fish
consumption and inhalation exposure pathways (both cancer and non-cancer values). In
addition, because dioxin-like PCBs have been detected at very low concentrations, EPA
evaluated risk from dioxin-like PCBs in seafood when updating and recalculating the human
health risk. As explained in Section 4.2.3, EPA's primary source of toxicity values is the IRIS
database; however, because IRIS does not recommend oral or inhalation cancer toxicity values or
inhalation for non-cancer toxicity values for dioxin, the CalEPA values were used to derive Tier
3 values for these pathways.
Since Table 8 of the 1998 ROD already includes EPA Cancer Slope Factors and
Reference Doses, below, EPA is identifying, as additional chemical-specific TBCs, those
guidance documents which affected the updated standard default exposure factors, toxicity
values, and those related to toxicity values that were used to update and recalculate the human
health risk at the Site.
• Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default
Exposure Factors, OSWER Directive 9200.1-120 (February 6, 2014) (EPA, 2014a);
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about update of standard default exposure factors
(OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, dated February 6, 2014) (EPA, 2014b);
• California Department of Health Services (CDHS), 1986. "Technical Support Document
Report on Chlorinated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans. Part B. Health Effects of Chlorinated
Dioxins and Dibenzofurans". The California EPA unit risk and slope factor for 2, 3, 7, 8-
TCDD are presented in "Appendix A: Hot Spot Unit Risk and Cancer Potency Values"
36
-------
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2009/AppendixA.pdf and in
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/pdf/AppCdioxinTEFs013111 .pdf.
In light of these changes in exposure factors and oral toxicity values, including dioxin-
like PCBs, in 2015 EPA recalculated the human health cancer and non-cancer risks of total PCBs
and dioxin-like PCBs in seafood and determined that the 0.02 mg/kg total PCB seafood tissue
target level remains protective. (See section 4.2.4 above for full discussion.) EPA also
recalculated ambient air risks in its updated 2015 Air Monitoring Plan using the updated
exposure factor and inhalation toxicity values, including dioxin-like PCBs, and determined the
cancer risks were much lower using the updated IUR; however, more conservative risk-based
levels will be used as risk management triggers in the air monitoring program. A non-cancer
risk-based goal of 110 ng/m3 was also established in the Plan (see section 4.2.4 for further
discussion). To date, the cumulative exposure from PCBs measured in ambient air remain below
these risk-based exposure budgets that are protective of human health. Non-cancer and cancer
risks from dioxin-like PCBs in air were less than EPA's hazard quotient of 1 and within EPA's
cancer risk range of 10"4 and 10"6. Continued monitoring of total PCBs in ambient air under the
2015 Air Monitoring Plan is protective for both total PCB and dioxin-like PCB risk.
Location Specific ARARs
With the rescission of the former floodplain and wetland regulations, both ESD4 and
ESD5 identified as relevant and appropriate FEMA regulations at 44 C.F.R. Section 9 which set
forth the policy, procedures and responsibilities to implement and enforce Executive Orders
11988 (Management of Floodplains) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). In each ESD, after
soliciting public comment on this issue, EPA determined that citing a LHCC (ESD4) and the
Pilot CDF (ESD5) in floodplains was the least damaging practicable alternative and that these
remedial actions would be implemented in compliance with the FEMA regulations within the
500-year floodplains of New Bedford Harbor.
Subsequent to the issuance of ESD4, but prior to the issuance of ESD5, in January 2015
Executive Order 13690 was issued that revised Executive Order 11988 which included a
Floodplain Standard to address the impacts of climate change and required that all federal
agencies issue regulations to implement the new Executive Order. Draft regulations were issued
for public comment until February 2015, later extended to May 2015. Final regulations have not
yet been promulgated.
Although the substantive requirements of Executive Order 13690 were not identified as a
TBC in ESD5, EPA finds that the remedy, as modified by its subsequent ESDs, remains
protective. This finding is based on a number of factors including: (1) The 1998 ROD no longer
includes CDFs A, B, C or D, all of which would have occupied and modified the floodplains; (2)
both ESD4 and ESD5 included the FEMA regulations as ARARs (many provisions of the FEMA
regulations were included in the proposed draft regulations, including the 500-year flood
elevation requirement); (3) each ESD contains independent risk-based determinations of
protectiveness pursuant to TSCA 40 CFR section 761.61(c) provided certain conditions are met
as well as detailed findings pursuant to Section 404 Guidelines of the CWA and 314 CMR
9.06(1-2) that the modifications represent the least damaging environmental alternative; and (4)
37
-------
consistent with ESD3, the storage of material in Cell #1 is temporary and all material will be
removed and disposed at an off-site TSCA- and/or RCRA hazardous waste-permitted facility
under the OU1 cleanup plan. EPA will review the final promulgated regulations and determine
if the remedy remains protective in light of any substantive provisions in the final regulations.
In 2012, the Atlantic sturgeon was divided into four distinct population segments which
were federally listed as endangered with a fifth segment listed as threatened. Although New
Bedford Harbor is not designated as critical habitat for the Atlantic Sturgeon, as part of the SER
South Terminal Project, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) stated that the Atlantic
sturgeon may use New Bedford Harbor for foraging from March through November. As part of
EPA's annual dredging plan, EPA has instituted mitigation measure to ensure fish, including the
Atlantic sturgeon, have passage during all dredging activities and therefore does not believe
dredging activities will adversely affect the Atlantic sturgeon. As part of its yearly consultation
with NMFS, EPA has communicated to NMFS its determination that, based on our past
experiences dredging in the harbor and the continued successful implementation of the Fish
Migration Plan, our dredging activities will not adversely affect the Atlantic sturgeon. NMFS
has noted that, based on the location of the action in New Bedford Harbor, and the rare
occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in that area, NMFS is not be opposed to EPA making a no effect
determination. Should NMFS provide additional information in the future, EPA will evaluate
whether or not a supplement to this Five Year review is necessary.
Based on a review of the ARARs in Table 8 of the 1998 ROD and those identified in
subsequent ESDs, this FYR identified updated CSFs and RfD values, noted the addition of the
Atlantic sturgeon as a newly identified endangered species that may forage in the harbor during
certain times of the year, and noted the issuance of a new Executive Order to address climate
change impacts on floodplains. A re-evaluation of the human health risks in light of the changes
to the CSFs and RfD concluded the remedy remains protective of human health. With respect to
the identification of FEMA regulations, EPA determined that the LHCC and the Pilot CDF will
be constructed in compliance with these FEMA regulations within the 500-year flood plain of
New Bedford Harbor. In addition, EPA has communicated to NMFS its determination that,
based on our past experiences dredging in the harbor and the continued successful
implementation of the Fish Migration Plan, our dredging activities will not adversely affect the
Atlantic sturgeon. All of these findings enables EPA to conclude that the remedy is also
protective of the environment during implementation.
4.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into
question the protectiveness of the remedy?
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of
the remedy.
4.4 Technical Assessment Summary
Based on the data reviewed, observations from regular Site inspections, and the
interviews conducted, the remedy continues to function as intended by the ROD. There have
been no changes in regulatory statutes that affect target sediment cleanup levels, and no new
pathways for exposure identified, that would call into question the goals of the remedy as set
38
-------
forth in the 1998 ROD as modified by the five ESDs. Some of the toxicity data used at the time
of the 1989 risk assessment have changed. In 2015, EPA updated the evaluation of risks for
seafood consumption and dermal contact/incidental ingestion and concluded that the changes in
toxicity data did not significantly change the target site-specific risk-based level of 0.02 ppm for
PCBs in fish tissue or the cleanup levels established for dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks
(Appendix D). The seafood consumption risk update also evaluated new data for tautog,
collected in 2013 and 2014, which supports a new advisory for closure area 3 for that species. In
September 2015, EPA updated its seafood consumption advisories to include a seafood
consumption recommendation for tautog in closure area 3. Further, in 2015, EPA updated the
ambient air monitoring plan and updated risk-based goals in the 2015 Air Monitoring Plan are
reflective of updated toxicity data and include even more conservative risk-based goals. In
addition, subtidal and intertidal cleanup levels established in the 1998 ROD remain valid.
A new Executive Order and draft regulations concerning climate change impacts to
floodplains was noted; however, EPA's incorporation of FEMA floodplains regulations into
ESD4 and ESD5, which include construction of structures or facilities in floodplains, ensure the
remedy remains protective. Likewise, EPA has communicated to NMFS its determination that,
based on our past experiences dredging in the harbor and the continued successful
implementation of the Fish Migration Plan, our dredging activities will not adversely affect the
Atlantic sturgeon.
Two issues that were identified in 2010 FYR as impacting the short term protectiveness
of the remedy to human health were: 1) the ongoing consumption of local PCB-contaminated
seafood, and 2) the potential for access to unremediated PCB-contaminated shorelines. EPA
continues to work to control these risks to the maximum extent practicable through the use of
educational and outreach efforts and with institutional controls such as fencing and signage. In
2015, EPA issued the CIP and SeafoodIC Plan that documents the actions EPA has and will
continue to take to implement institutional controls to minimize ingestion of local PCB-
contaminated seafood and dermal contact/incidental ingestion risk, as well as new actions it will
take to augment existing controls. See Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 for additional details on how
EPA has addressed these issues since the 2010 FYR.
Finally, ecological risks from the PCB contamination continue in the interim until the
remedy is complete.
5.0 ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
This Five-Year Review did not identify any issues or recommendations that could impact
the protectiveness of the remedy.
The following recommendations will improve the effectiveness of the remedy, but do not
affect the current protectiveness of the remedy:
• EPA must continue to implement the 2015 CIP and Seafood IC Plan to minimize ingestion
of local PCB-contaminated seafood and minimize dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks.
The Plan outlines educational and outreach actions, along with institutional controls such as
39
-------
fencing and signage, including informational kiosks, to control these risks to the maximum
extent practicable. Further, consistent with the Plan, EPA will continue to collaborate with
others to reduce consumption of local PCB-contaminated seafood, including providing
advisory brochures for inclusion in local shellfishing and State finfishing licenses and
collaborating with MassDPH through participation in Grand Rounds at local hospitals when
MassDPH schedules such events. The Plan includes new implementation actions to
minimize seafood consumption, including the creation of new signage, a new video and
targeted outreach using culturally related peers. It is recommended that, after these new
actions have been implemented, EPA assess their effectiveness, along with the effectiveness
of other continued outreach and education and IC actions, and update the 2015 CIP and
Seafood IC Plan, if necessary, to address any lessons learned that support further educational
and outreach and/or IC improvements.
• As noted above, the 2015 updated risk evaluation of seafood tissue data included an
evaluation of new data for tautog, collected in 2013 and 2014 (Appendix D). Data for this
species was not available prior to 2013. The 2013-2014 data supports a new advisory for
closure area 3 for tautog of consumption of no more than 1 meal per month. In September
2015, EPA updated its advisories to include a seafood consumption recommendation for
tautog in closure area 3. The updated EPA advisories are included in Appendix C and are
available at http://www2.epa.gov/new-bedford-harbor/fish-consumption-regulations-and-
recommendations. EPA's seafood consumption advisory brochure will be revised to reflect
the updated information as soon as possible and no later than early-2016.
• As noted above, as a result of the recent settlement, EPA has now initiated planning for
intertidal remediation efforts to address remaining dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks.
By the end of 2015, EPA will have completed a sampling program covering the intertidal
areas of both the Upper and Lower Harbor for delineation and remediation planning. It is
recommended that, once adequate intertidal PCB sampling data is available for remediation
planning, EPA assess the need for interim actions where PCB levels in intertidal sediments
exceed applicable cleanup levels and prioritize intertidal cleanup efforts, considering
potential human health risks and the overall remediation schedule, taking into consideration
the potential for recontamination from subtidal sediments. Priority intertidal remediation
efforts are expected to begin later in 2015 and all intertidal remediation efforts to address
dermal contact/incidental ingestion risks will be scheduled over the next 5-7 years as the
accelerated cleanup progresses. EPA is also reviewing state laws concerning various types of
land use restrictions to determine appropriate institutional controls for properties abutting the
intertidal remediation areas once cleanup levels have been achieved. It is recommended that
EPA complete its evaluation of the various land use restrictions and make a determination on
the potential institutional controls that could be employed for shoreline properties, where
needed.
40
-------
6.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
OU1 Will be Protective (if applicable):
NA
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy for OU1 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks have
been or are being controlled to the maximum extent practicable.
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
OU2 Short-term Protective (if applicable):
NA
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy for OU2 currently protects human health and the environment because the
sediment with the highest concentrations of PCBs (ranging from 4,000 ppm to over 100,000
ppm) have been dredged from the Upper Harbor and have been safely transported to an off-
site TSCA landfill. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the
remaining contaminated sediment in this geographical area will be addressed under OU1. All
future work, including institutional controls, are now within the scope of OU1.
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date
OU3 Cannot be made at this time. (if applicable):
NA
Protectiveness Statement:
A remedy has not been selected for OU3, thus a protectiveness statement for it cannot be
made at this time. An RI/FS has been initiated to characterize the nature and extent of
contamination.
7.0 NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR report for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site is required five years
from the completion date of this review in September 2020.
8.0 REFERENCES
AGM Marine Contractors, Inc, (AGM), 2012. Letter to MassDEP regarding AGM Project
Closeout. October 24, 2012.
Apex Companies LLC (Apex), 2007. Post-Dredge/Existing Conditions Report, New Bedford
Harbor Dredge Project Phase II, prepared for New Bedford Harbor Development
Commission. January 2007.
41
-------
Apex Companies, LLC (Apex), 2010. Post-Dredge/Existing Conditions Report, New Bedford
Harbor Dredge Project Phase III, prepared for New Bedford Harbor Development
Commission. March 2010.
Apex Companies, LLC (Apex), 2014. Email from Chet Myers, Apex, to Paul Craffey,
MassDEP, regarding South Terminal Dredging. December 4, 2014.
Apex Companies, LLC (Apex), 2015. Draft After Action Report, Interim Federal Navigation
Dredging Project, prepared for Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs, Office of Coastal Zone Management. August 2015.
Battelle, 2015a. Draft Final Sawyer Street Semi-annual Groundwater Monitoring Technical
Memorandum, Environmental Monitoring, Sampling, and Analysis New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA. March 2015.
Battelle, 2015b. Draft Final Water Quality Monitoring Summary Report, 2014 Remedial
Dredging Season, Environmental Monitoring, Sampling, and Analysis, New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA. April 2015.
Battelle, 2015c. Draft Final Sediment Monitoring Summary Report, Environmental Monitoring,
Sampling, and Analysis Report, 2014 Remedial Dredging Season, New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA. June 2015.
Battelle, 2015d. Final New Bedford Harbor Long-Term Monitoring Survey VI: Summary
Report, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. September 2015.
Bergen, B.J., W.G. Nelson, J.G. Quinn, and S. Jayaraman, 2001. Relationships among total
lipids, lipid classes and PCB concentrations in two indigenous populations of ribbed mussels
(Geukensia demissa) over an annual cycle. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20 (3):
575-581.
Bergen, B.J., W.G. Nelson, J. Mackay, D. Dickerson, and S. Jayaraman, 2005. Environmental
Monitoring of Remedial Dredging at the New Bedford Harbor, MA, Superfund Site.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 111 :257-275.
Bergen, 2015. New Bedford Harbor (NBH) Long Term Monitoring (LTM) Program:
Comparative analysis of the 2014 LTM collection. September 23, 2015.
Calder, J.A., 1986. Marine Environmental Quality: NOAA's national status and trends program.
In Oceans '86 Conference Record (pp. 1351-1354). Cat. No 86CH2363-0. Washington, DC:
Marine Technical Society IEEE.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWEC), 2001. Technical Memorandum
Comparison of PCB NOAA Congener with Total Homologue Group Concentrations, New
Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. May 2001.
42
-------
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWEC), 2002. Draft Technical Memorandum,
Comparison of PCB NOAA Congener with Total Homologue Group Concentrations (Inclusion
of Phase III Results), New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. June 2002.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 2006. Final Plan for the Sampling of Ambient Air PCB
Concentrations to Support Decisions to Ensure the Protection of the Public During Remediation
Activities, Revision No. 3, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. Revised November 2006.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 201 la. Final 2010 Bathymetric Survey of Pilot Underwater
Cap, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA. February 2011.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 201 lb. Final 2010 Dredge Season Data Submittal, New
Bedford Harbor Remedial Action, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
MA. March 2011.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 2012. Final 2011 Bathymetric Survey of Pilot Underwater
Cap, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA. June 2012.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 2013a. Final 2011 Dredge Season Data Submittal, New
Bedford Harbor Remedial Action, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
MA. March 2013.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 2013b. 2012 Dredge Season Data Submittal, New Bedford
Harbor Remedial Action, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. May 2013.
Jacobs Engineering Group, 2013c. Final Plan for the Sampling of Ambient Air PCB
Concentrations During Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction, New Bedford Harbor Superfund
Site, New Bedford, MA. October, 2013.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 2014. 2013 Dredge Season Data Submittal, New Bedford
Harbor Remedial Action, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. December 2014.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 2015a. Modeling Analysis of Potential Environmental
Impact of the Pilot CDF, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA. March 2015.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 2015b. Draft 2014 Dredge Season Data Submittal, New
Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. May 2015.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 2015c. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, Draft Final
Ambient Air Monitoring Plan for Remediation Activities. July 2015.
Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs), 2015d. Table E-l: Ambient Air Monitoring Program -
Total Detectable PCB Homologues, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, Current as of 8/19/15
and Figure 3-4: Ambient Air Sampling Station Locations. September 2015.
43
-------
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 2010. Contaminated
Monitoring Report for Seafood Harvested in 2009 from the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site.
October 2010.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 2011. Contaminated
Monitoring Report for Seafood Harvested in 2010 from the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site.
February 2011.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 2012a. Contaminated
Monitoring Report for Seafood Harvested in 2011 from the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site.
August 2012.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 2012b. Final Mitigation
Plan, New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal, New Bedford, MA. November 2012.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 2012c. MassDEP Meeting
Notes regarding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hurricane Barrier Dredging. April 26, 2012.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 2014a. Monitoring Report
for Seafood Harvested in 2012 from the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. August 2014.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 2014b. Monitoring Report
for Seafood Harvested in 2013 from the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. June 2014.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 2015. Monitoring Report
for Seafood Harvested in 2014 from the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. August 2015.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), 2015. First Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement between
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Region, for the New
Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. January 2015.
Nelson, W.G. and Bergen, B.J., 2012. The New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site Long-Term
Monitoring Program (1993-2009). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 184:7531-7550.
Paul, J.F., K.J. Scott, D.E. Campbell, J.H. Gentile, C.S. Strobel, R.M. Valente, S.B. Weisberg,
A.F. Holland, J. A. Ranasinghe. 2001. Developing and applying abenthic index of estuarine
condition for the Virginian Biogeographic Province. Ecological Indicators 1: 83-99.
Tetra Tech Foster Wheeler Inc. (TTFW), 2005a. After Action Report for North of Wood Street
Remediation, OU1, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. April 2005.
Tetra Tech Foster Wheeler Inc. (TTFW), 2005b. After Action Report for North Lobe Dredging,
OU1, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. August 2005.
44
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990. Record of Decision OU 2 Hot Spot. April
6, 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992. Explanation of Significant Differences
OU2 Hot Spot. April 27, 1992.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995. Explanation of Significant Differences for
Continued Storage of Hot Spot Sediments, OU2, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. October
30, 1995.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1997. Report on the Effects of the Hot Spot
Dredging Operations, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA. October 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998. Record of Decision for the Upper and
Lower Harbor Operable Unit, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA.
September 1998.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999. Amended Record of Decision OU2 Hot
Spot. April 27, 1999
U. S. Environmental Protections Agency (EPAO, 2000. Final Remedial Action Report, Hot Spot
Operable Unit, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford, Massachusetts. September
2000.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2001. Explanation of Significant Differences for
the Upper and Lower Harbor Operable Unit, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
MA. September 2001.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002. Explanation of Significant Differences for
the Upper and Lower Harbor Operable Unit, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford,
MA. August 2002.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010. Third Explanation of Significant
Differences, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site Operable Unit #1, New Bedford, MA. March
2010.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011. Forth Explanation of Significant
Differences for Use of a Lower Harbor CAD Cell (LHCC), New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Operable Unit #1, New Bedford, MA. March 2011.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2012. Final Determination for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts' South Terminal Project. November 2012.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2013a. Modification to Appendix E, Final
Determination for the South Terminal Project. February 4, 2013.
45
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2013b. Second Modification to EPA's Final
Determination for the South Terminal Project - Additional Dredging and Blasting for Rock
Removal. September 30, 2013.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2013c. Supplemental Consent Decree with
Defendant AVX Corporation. September 2013.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014a. EPA OSWER Directive 9200.1-120,
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default
Exposure Factors. February 6, 2014.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014b. EPA OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS) About Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors.
February 6, 2014.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014c. Third Modification to EPA's Final
Determination for the South Terminal Project - Additional Dredging to Widen Channel and
Associated Blasting for Rock Removal. September 30, 2014.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2015a. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Operable Unit 1 Focused Feasibility Evaluation: Comparison of Confined Disposal Facilities
(CDFs) A, B, and C versus Off-Site Disposal for PCB Contaminated Sediment. April 2015.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2015b. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Community Involvement Plan and Institutional Control Plan for Seafood Consumption. April
2015.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2015c. Fifth Explanation of Significant
Differences for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, Upper and Lower Harbor Operable
Unit 1 (OU1), New Bedford, MA. July 2015.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 201 la. Memorandum on 2010 OU3 Cap Monitoring Update.
February 11, 2011.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 201 lb. Final Water Quality Monitoring Summary Report, 2010
Dredging, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site OU1. April 2011.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 201 lc. Final Sediment Monitoring Summary Report, 2010
Remedial Dredging, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site OU1. April 2011.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 201 Id. Final North of Wood Street Post Remediation Monitoring
April 2011 Monitoring Event, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site OU1. July 2011.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 201 le. Final Report, 2010 Environmental Monitoring, Sampling,
and Analysis Reports. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA. July 2011.
46
-------
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 2012a. Final 2011 Biannual Groundwater Monitoring Sawyer
Street Pilot Study Confined Disposal Facility, New Bedford, Massachusetts. April 2012.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 2012b. Final Water Quality Monitoring Summary Report, 2011
Dredging, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site OU1. April 2012.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 2012c. Final North of Wood Street Post Remediation Monitoring
April 2012 Monitoring Event, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site OU1. August 2012.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 2012d. Final Sediment Monitoring Summary Report, 2011
Remedial Dredging, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site OU1. August 2012.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 2013a. Final Technical Memorandum, Operable Unit #3 Pilot Cap
Sediment Monitoring, November 2012 Sediment Sampling Event, New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site OU3. March 2013.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 2013b. Final Sediment Monitoring Summary Report, 2012
Remedial Dredging, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site OU1. May 2013.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 2013c. Final 2012 Biannual Groundwater Monitoring Report,
Sawyer Street Pilot Study Confined Disposal Facility, New Bedford, Massachusetts. May 2013.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 2013d. Final Water Monitoring Quality Summary Report, 2012
Remedial Dredging, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site OU1. June 2013.
Woods Hole Group (WHG), 2014. Final Water Quality Monitoring Summary Report, 2013
Remedial Dredging, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site OU1. August 2014.
47
-------
APPENDIX A - ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION
-------
A.l SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table l.A lists the chronology of major Site investigation and remedy selection events for the
New Bedford Harbor Site. Table l.B lists the chronology of major remedial action or cleanup
events for the Site.
Table 1.a: Chronology of Major Site Investigations and Remedy Selection
Events
Date
Major Site Investigation and Remedy Selection Kvent
1976-1982
Discovery of widespread contamination of PCBs and heavy metals in
sediment and marine life throughout the Harbor.
1983
EPA adds the Site to the NPL.
1988-89
Pilot dredging and disposal study performed.
1989
EPA issues its Proposed Plan for the Hot Spot OU2.
April 1990
EPA issues its Record of Decision (ROD) for the Hot Spot OU2.
August 1990
EPA issues a Feasibility Study & Risk Assessment for the entire Harbor.
January 1992
EPA issues a Proposed Plan for the Upper and Lower Harbor OU1.
April 1992
The first of two ESDs to the 1990 Hot Spot ROD is issued to include
permanent containment of incinerator ash at the on-site Confined Disposal
Facility (CDF).
May 1992
EPA issues an Addendum Proposed Plan for OU1 focusing on Outer Harbor
issues.
1993
EPA suspends the incineration component of Hot Spot remedy in response to
community opposition. New Bedford Harbor Community Forum established
to help find an alternative to on-site incineration.
1995
EPA issues the second ESD to the 1990 Hot Spot ROD for interim storage of
the dredged sediment while non-incineration options are evaluated.
1996
EPA issues a revised Proposed Plan for the Upper and Lower Harbor OU1
after extensive consensus-building with the Community Forum. The Outer
Harbor area is separated into a new OU3.
1997
EPA issues its OU2 Hot Spot FS Addendum Report.
August 1998
EPA issues its Proposed Plan to amend the 1990 Hot Spot OU2 ROD.
A-l
-------
Table 1.a: Chronology of Major Site Investigations and Remedy Selection
Events (Cont'd)
Dale
Miijor Site Investigation iind Remedy Selection Kvent
September 1998
EPA issues the ROD for the Upper and Lower Harbor OU1, including disposal
of 450,000 cy of dredged sediment in four shoreline CDFs.
April 1999
EPA issues the Amended ROD for the Hot Spot OU2.
September 2001
EPA issues the first ESD for the 1998 OU1 ROD. This ESD addresses the use
of the Pilot CDF at EPA's Sawyer Street facility for temporary storage of PCB-
contaminated sediment, the need for mechanical dewatering, a stone dike wall
design for CDF D, and the need for rail to help build CDF D.
August 2002
EPA issues the second ESD for the OU1 1998 ROD which replaces CDF D
with off-site disposal.
September 2005
First Five-Year Review completed.
November 2009
Field sampling for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study of the Outer
Harbor OU3 begins.
March 2010
EPA issues the third ESD for the OU1 1998 ROD which addresses the use of
Cell #1 at EPA's Sawyer Street facility for temporary storage of PCB-
contaminated sediment.
March 2011
EPA issues the fourth ESD for the OU1 1998 ROD which selects the use of a
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Cell in the Lower Harbor for disposal of
contaminated sediment.
November 2012
EPA issues the Final Determination for the South Terminal Project providing
for the Commonwealth to construct an approximately 28-acre marine terminal
under the State Enhanced Remedy. The Final Determination was modified in
February 2013, September 2013 and September 2014.
September 2013
Supplemental Consent Decree with AVX
September 2015
EPA issues the fifth ESD for the OU1 1998 ROD which selects off-site disposal
for the sediment slated for disposal in CDFs A, B and C and addresses the use
of the Pilot CDF as a permanent TSCA facility.
A-2
-------
Table I.b: Chronology of Major Remedial Action Events
Dsilc
Miijor Keniodi:i 1 Action Kvonl
1994-1995
14,000 cy of Hot Spot sediment, with PCB levels reported as high as ten to
20 percent (100,000 - 200,000 ppm), are dredged from the harbor.
2001
Early Action cleanup is completed on highly contaminated (up to 20,000
ppm) residential properties in Acushnet and New Bedford, MA.
2001
The relocation of the combined sewer overflow (CSO) at Sawyer Street is
completed.
2001
Construction of a clean corridor for the relocation of the submerged power
lines in the vicinity of the Hot Spot sediment is completed
2002
Removal of thirteen derelict commercial fishing vessels and barges is
completed at the former Herman Melville shipyard, to allow for remedial
dredging and the relocation of a commercial barge pier.
June 2003
The six acre North of Wood Street cleanup is completed, removing PCB
levels as high as 46,000 ppm from residential and recreational shoreline
areas.
2003
The remedial dredging at the former Herman Melville shipyard is
completed.
2003
The marine bulkhead for the Area D dewatering facility is completed
2004
Relocation of two CSOs at Area D is completed
2004
Construction of the dewatering facility at Area D is finished.
2004
Full scale dredging performed in the vicinity of the Aerovox mill.
January 2005
Construction of a relocated commercial barge pier and associated
navigational channel is completed (relocation necessary to allow Area D).
July 2005
The pilot underwater cap in the vicinity of the Cornell-Dubilier mill is
completed.
2005
The second annual season of full scale dredging is performed.
2006
The third annual season of full scale dredging is performed in area along and
immediately north of the former Aerovox facility.
A-3
-------
Table I.b: Chronology of Major Remedial Action Events (Cont'd)
Date
Major Remedial Action Kvent
2007
The fourth season of dredging is performed, focused on two areas: one just
north of the former Aerovox facility; and the second off shore of the
northern Cliftex Mill.
2008
The fifth season of full-scale dredging is performed, including mechanical
excavation of the highly contaminated sediment along the former Aerovox
facility and hydraulic dredging in Pierce Mill Cove between Sawyer Street
and Coffin Avenue.
April 2009
EPA receives $30 million in funding from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA or "the Recovery Act"), allowing dredging of a
larger volume of contaminated sediment from the Upper Harbor due to the
extension of the dredging season by approximately four extra months in
2009 and one extra month in 2010.
2009
The sixth season of full scale dredging is performed in the northern portion
of the Upper Harbor.
2010
The seventh season of full scale dredging is performed in the northern
portion of the Upper Harbor.
2011
The eighth season of full scale dredging is performed in the Upper Harbor.
2012
The ninth season of full scale dredging is performed in the Upper Harbor.
November 2013
LHCC Phase I construction begins.
2013
The tenth season of full scale dredging is performed in the Upper Harbor.
June 2014
LHCC Phase I construction completed.
March 2014
The eleventh season of full scale dredging is performed in the Upper Harbor.
EPA dredges for almost 8 months as a result of availability of settlement
funding.
November 2014
Construction begins on LHCC Phase II. Scheduled for completion in late
2015.
February 2015
The construction of the South Terminal, under the SER, is substantively
completed. Mitigation activities and other ancillary activities ongoing.
A-4
-------
A.2 BACKGROUND
A.2.1 Physical Characteristics and Land and Resource Use
The Site, located in Bristol County, Massachusetts, extends from the shallow northern
reaches of the Acushnet River estuary south through the commercial harbor of New Bedford and
into 17,000 adjacent areas of Buzzards Bay (Appendix B. 1 - Site Location Map). The Site has
been divided into three areas consistent with geographical features of the area and gradients of
contamination. The Upper Harbor comprises approximately 200 acres. The boundary between
the Upper and Lower Harbor is the Coggeshall Street bridge where the width of the harbor
narrows to approximately 100 feet. The Lower Harbor comprises approximately 750 acres. The
boundary between the Lower and Outer Harbor is the 150 foot wide opening of the New Bedford
hurricane barrier (constructed in the mid-1960s). The Outer Harbor is comprised of
approximately 17,000 acres with its southern extent (and the Site's boundary) formed by an
imaginary line drawn from Rock Point (the southern tip of West Island in Fairhaven)
southwesterly to Negro Ledge and then southwesterly to Mishaum Point in Dartmouth. The Site
is also defined by three fishing closure areas, promulgated by the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health (MassDPH) in 1979, extending approximately 6.8 miles north to south and
encompassing approximately 18,000 acres in total (See Appendix B.2).
The City of New Bedford (the City), located along the western shore of the Site, is
approximately 55 miles south of Boston. During most of the 1800s, New Bedford was a world
renowned center of the whaling industry, which attracted a large community of immigrants from
Portugal and the Cape Verde islands. As of 2010, more than 1/3 of New Bedford's 93,768
residents spoke a language other than English in their homes (US Census Bureau, 2010).
Including the neighboring towns of Acushnet, Fairhaven and Dartmouth, the combined 2010
population was approximately 155,000. New Bedford is currently home port to a large offshore
fishing fleet and is a densely populated manufacturing and commercial center. By comparison,
the eastern shore of New Bedford Harbor is predominantly saltmarsh and open space in the
Upper Harbor and residential and commercial/industrial marine use in the Lower Harbor. A
large, approximately 70 acre, saltmarsh system has formed along almost the entire eastern shore
of the Upper Harbor.
The Acushnet River discharges to New Bedford Harbor in the northern reaches of the
Site, contributing relatively minor volumes of fresh water to the tidally influenced harbor.
Numerous storm drains, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and industrial discharges, as well as
smaller brooks and creeks, also discharge directly to the Site. The Upper and Lower Harbors are
believed to be areas of net groundwater discharge and are generally described as a shallow, well-
mixed estuary.
A.2.2 History of Contamination
Industrial and urban development surrounding the harbor has resulted in sediment
becoming contaminated with high concentrations of many pollutants, notably polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals, with contaminant gradients decreasing from north to south.
From the 1940s into the 1970s two capacitor manufacturing facilities, one located near the
northern boundary of the site (Aerovox) and one located just south of the New Bedford Harbor
A-5
-------
hurricane barrier (Cornell Dubilier Electronics, Inc.) discharged PCB-wastes either directly into
the harbor or indirectly via discharges to the City's sewerage system.
Identification of PCB-contaminated sediment and seafood in and around New Bedford
Harbor was first made in the mid-1970s as a result of EPA region-wide sampling programs. In
1979, MassDPH promulgated regulations prohibiting fishing and lobstering throughout the Site
due to elevated PCB levels in area seafood (See Appendix B.2). Elevated levels of heavy metals
in sediment (notably cadmium, chromium, copper and lead) were also identified during this time
frame.
PCB levels in the Upper Harbor sediment currently range from below detection to greater
than 10,000 ppm. PCB levels in the Lower Harbor sediment range from below detection to
approximately 400 ppm. Sediment PCB levels in the Outer Harbor are generally low, mostly
around 1 ppm or less, with only a small localized areas of PCBs in the 10-20 ppm range near the
Cornell-Dubilier facility based on 2009 sampling. The area of highest contamination near the
Cornell-Dubilier mill was capped in 2005. Further characterization of the Outer Harbor OU3
area continues as part of the OU3 RI/FS, initiated in 2009.
A.2.3 Initial Response
The Site was proposed for the Superfund NPL in 1982, and finalized on the NPL in
September 1983. Pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the
Commonwealth) nominated the Site as its priority site for listing on the NPL. In addition to
listing the harbor and pursuing a remedial action for the Site, separate CERCLA removal actions
have been conducted in past years, as described below, to address various mainland sources of
PCBs that have contributed contamination to the Harbor.
Prior to the listing of the Site on the NPL, in 1982 signs were erected around the Site
warning against fishing and wading. Upon listing, EPA's site-specific remedial investigations
began in 1983 and 1984 with a Remedial Action Master Plan and the Acushnet River Estuary
Feasibility Study. Site investigations continued throughout the rest of the 1980s and early 1990s,
including among others a pilot dredging and disposal study in 1988 and 1989, and extensive
hydrodynamic and bioaccumulation computer modeling, additional feasibility studies and risk
assessments all published in 1990. These studies are summarized in more detail in the 1998
ROD for the Upper and Lower Harbor (EPA, 1998).
Information collected by the remedial investigations identified the Aerovox facility as the
primary source of PCBs to the Site1. PCB wastes were discharged from Aerovox's operations
directly to the Upper Harbor through open trenches and discharge pipes, or indirectly throughout
the Site via CSOs and the City's sewage treatment plant outfall. Additional inputs of PCBs were
also made from the Cornell Dubilier Electronics, Inc. (CDE) facility just south of the New
Bedford hurricane barrier2.
1 The Aerovox facility is a separate CERCLA removal site (in addition to being regulated under TSCA and State
authority) and is not part of the harbor NPL Site.
2 The CDE facility is a separate CERCLA removal site (in addition to being regulated under TSCA and the Clean
Water Act) and is not part of the harbor NPL Site.
A-6
-------
In May 1982, Aerovox, Inc. signed an administrative Consent Order with EPA regarding
contamination on its property adjacent to the Upper Harbor. As a result of investigations
conducted pursuant to that Consent Order, Aerovox installed a sheet pile wall along the eastern
side of its property as well as a cap system over contaminated soil. Through a subsequent
Supplemental Order, Aerovox instituted a Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance Plan.
Also in May 1982, CDE and EPA signed an administrative consent agreement and final
order under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). This agreement addressed PCB handling
procedures, discharges, releases to the municipal sewer system and surrounding areas, and
groundwater monitoring requirements. Subsequently, in September 1983, EPA issued an
administrative order, as part of a separate CERCLA removal action, requiring CDE to remove
PCB-contaminated sediment from portions of the municipal sewer system downstream of the
CDE plant. The removal and disposal of this sediment took place in the fall of 1984.
EPA also issued an administrative order to the City of New Bedford under section 106 of
CERCLA, as part of a separate CERCLA removal action, in September 1983 requiring the City
to assist CDE in the sewer line clean-up and to monitor PCB levels from the City's municipal
wastewater treatment plant3.
On December 9, 1983, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under section 107 of CERCLA seeking
damages for injury to natural resources at and near the Site caused by releases of PCBs. The
next day, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the Commonwealth) filed its own section 107
action. The cases were subsequently consolidated. In February 1984, the complaint was
amended to include claims on behalf of EPA for recovery of response costs incurred, or to be
incurred, under section 107, and for injunctive relief under section 106 of CERCLA and other
environmental statutes. The United States brought this action against six companies which, at
various times, owned and/or operated either of the two capacitor manufacturing facilities at the
Site.
On December 31, 1985, the Commonwealth issued a notification of responsibility to the
City of New Bedford pursuant to the state's hazardous waste regulations regarding the build-up
of PCB-contaminated grit in one of the main interceptors of the City's sewerage system. Severe
amounts of PCB-contaminated grit had accumulated within the interceptor especially in the area
between Coffin Avenue and Campbell Street; PCB levels in this grit averaged 265 ppm on a dry
weight basis. The City subsequently encased and abandoned approximately one and one-half
mile of this sewer interceptor.
In 1991 and 1992, the Unites States, the Commonwealth and five defendants in the
litigation - Aerovox Incorporated, Belleville Industries, Inc., AVX Corporation, Cornell-Dubilier
Electronics, Inc., and Federal Pacific Electric Company (FPE) - reached settlement regarding the
governments' claims. The government's claims against the sixth defendant, RTE Corporation,
3 The City's sewer system and wastewater treatment plant are not part of the harbor NPL Site, but has previously
been addressed under EPA's CERCLA removal and State authority, and currently is regulated under TSCA and the
federal Clean Water Act.
A-7
-------
were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The federal and state governments recovered a total of
$99.6 million, plus interest, from the five settling defendants.
The terms of the settlements are set forth in three separate consent decrees. Under the
first consent decree, Aerovox Incorporated and Belleville Industries, Inc. were required to pay a
total of $12.6 million, plus interest, to the United States and the Commonwealth for damages to
natural resources and for past and future Site remedial response costs. The court approved and
entered this consent decree in July 1991. Under the second consent decree, AVX Corporation
was required to pay $66 million, plus interest, to the governments for natural resource damages
and for past and future Site remedial response costs. This decree was approved and entered by
the court in February 1992. Under the third consent decree, CDE and FPE paid $21 million, plus
interest, to the governments for natural resource damages and for past and future Site remedial
response costs. This decree was approved and entered by the Court in November 1992.
A.2.4 Basis for Taking Action
Hazardous substances that have been detected at the Site in each media are identified
below. A more complete discussion can be found in Section V of the 1998 ROD for the Upper
and Lower Harbor Operable Unit (EPA, 1998).
Sediment Surface Water Biota Air
PCBs PCBs PCBs PCBs
PAHs Copper
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
A baseline public health risk assessment was performed to estimate the probability and
magnitude of potential adverse health effects, both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic, from
exposure to Site contaminants. In addition to PCBs, this evaluation also identified cadmium,
copper and lead as contaminants that could potentially contribute to significant adverse health
effects. The exposure pathways found to be of most concern were:
ingestion of contaminated seafood
direct contact with contaminated shoreline sediment, and
(for children ages 1-5) incidental ingestion of contaminated shoreline sediment.
Ecological risk studies have concluded that aquatic organisms are at significant risk due
to exposure to PCBs in New Bedford Harbor. A more complete discussion of the human health
and ecological risks posed by the Site can be found in Section VI of the OU1 1998 ROD.
A-8
-------
A.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The Site has been divided into three operable units (OUs), or phases of site cleanup: The
Upper and Lower Harbor (OU1); the Hot Spot (OU2); and the Buzzards Bay or Outer Harbor
(OU3). A summary of the remedy selection and implementation is presented below for OU1 and
OU2. The ROD for OU3 is currently unscheduled pending the completion of the RI/FS
investigations in the Outer Harbor.
A.3.1 Operable Unit 1 Remedy Selection
The ROD for OU1 was signed on September 25, 1998 (1998 ROD). The remedial action
objectives developed for the OU1 remedy are presented in Section 4.2.1. The cleanup plan
selected in the 1998 ROD consisted of the following components:
1. construction of four shoreline confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and water treatment
facilities;
2. dredging of sediment and shoreline soils with PCB concentrations above the selected
cleanup goals (See Section 4.2.5);
3. operation of the CDFs and water treatment facilities;
4. saltmarsh excavation, restoration and monitoring;
5. preliminary capping and sediment consolidation within the filled CDFs;
6. final capping, long term monitoring and maintenance, and beneficial reuse of the
CDFs;
7. long term site wide monitoring, and
8. seafood advisories and other institutional controls.
The 1998 ROD also included, at the request of the Commonwealth, a State Enhanced
Remedy (SER) pursuant to 40 CFR 300.515(f) for the removal of navigational sediment not
otherwise covered by the ROD. This portion of the remedy is funded and managed by the
Commonwealth in conjunction with the City of New Bedford and the New Bedford Harbor
Development Commission (HDC), with oversight by EPA. It serves to increase the remedy's
protectiveness since lower concentration PCB-contaminated sediment, not covered by the OU1
ROD, are removed and disposed of as part of the port's navigational dredging program. As
discussed in Section 2.4, the SER has also provided clean underwater cap material for
contaminated sediment near the Cornell-Dubilier facility.
In September 2001 EPA issued a change to the 1998 harbor cleanup plan using a process
known as an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) (EPA, 2001). This ESD described five
refinements of the remedy that arose as the design phase progressed following issuance of the
1998 ROD. These changes included: (i) the use of mechanical dewatering for the dredged
sediment (to among other things reduce the volume of processed sediment needing disposal); (ii)
the incorporation of a rail spur; (iii) a revised wall design at CDF D - the largest of the CDFs,
(iv) ongoing use of the pilot CDF at EPA's Sawyer Street facility as an interim TSCA facility;
and (v) the remediation and monitoring of two additional intertidal areas near residential land use
areas in the Upper Harbor along the Acushnet River, in order to reduce dermal contact/incidental
ingestion risks. The 2001 ESD also noted that the estimate of in situ sediment requiring disposal
A-9
-------
pursuant to the ROD could be as high as 800,000 cy.
In August 2002 EPA issued a second ESD for the 1998 ROD (EPA, 2002). This ESD
eliminated the construction of the 17 acre CDF D, and instead selected off-site disposal for the
dredged and dewatered PCB contaminated sediment slated for the CDF. A smaller shoreline
facility, now known as Area D, replaced CDF D in the same area to support both the sediment
dewatering building and the rail car (or truck or barge) loading area required for off-site disposal
of the dredged sediment.
In March 2010 EPA issued a third ESD for OU1 (EPA, 2010), which documents EPA's
use of Cell #1 (located at Sawyer Street) for temporary storage of both PCB- and hazardous
waste-contaminated sediment from OU14. EPA invoked a CERCLA waiver of the
Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations that requires temporary storage facilities to have a
double liner rather than the single liner. The basis for the waiver was that the single liner, in
combination with site conditions and facility monitoring, is equally as protective as a double
liner for the temporary storage facility. In addition, this ESD documented that Cell #1 does not
pose a risk to health and the environment due to the temporary storage of PCBs under TSCA,
and that the use of Cell #1 for temporary storage of contaminated sediment is consistent with a
previous risk-based finding concerning the facility made in 2001 in the first OU1 ESD.
In March 2011, EPA issued the fourth ESD revising the OU1 remedy (ESD4) (EPA,
2011). ESD4 incorporated the construction and use of the LHCC for permanent disposal of
approximately 300,000 cy of mechanically dredged sediment. The fourth ESD also updated the
volume of total in situ contaminated sediment to be addressed to meet cleanup levels to be
approximately 900,000 cy, of which approximately 425,000 cy would be disposed of off-site5,
approximately 300,000 cy would be disposed of in the LHCC, and approximately 175,000 cy
would be disposed of in remaining CDFs A, B, and C.6
In January 2014, EPA modified the conceptual design of CDF C such that no CDF
structure would be constructed within the area between the southern boundary of Sawyer Street
and Coggeshall Street or within the Acushnet River adjacent to these properties. Therefore, the
overall size of CDF C could be limited to only the area adjacent to the Pilot CDF. This remedial
design change was determined to be a non-significant or minor change. This change was
estimated to result in a reduction in capacity of CDF C by one-half to two-thirds the original
conceptual design capacity (CDF modified-C).
4 A limited area of removed contaminated sediment abutting the former Aerovox facility (as discussed in Section
4.2.5, below) contained sufficient volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to exceed thresholds for being regulated as
hazardous waste. No other contaminated sediment removed from the Harbor, to date, have exceeded hazardous
waste standards and, so only applicable TSCA standards have applied to these PCB-contaminated sediment under
the CERCLA remedy.
5 Included in this estimate of 425,000 cy is approximately 10,000 cy of contaminated sediment in the Outer Harbor
just south of the New Bedford Hurricane Barrier near the New Bedford shore that have been addressed by a pilot
underwater cap.
6 It is important to note that these volumes represent the amount of sediment to be dredged, not the reduced volumes
of material that will be disposed of after desanding and dewatering processes are applied to the dredged sediment.
See Section III. A, below, for further discussion of this issue.
A-10
-------
In July 2015, EPA issued the fifth ESD which eliminated the construction of the planned
CDFs A, B and modified-C and selected off-site disposal for the sediment slated for disposal in
those planned confined disposal facilities (EPA, 2015c). Further, in the fifth ESD, EPA
confirmed that the Pilot CDF is protective, and made the Pilot CDF a permanent TSCA disposal
facility. As part of the cleanup plan, following completion of remedial dredging activities, the
Pilot CDF will be covered with a clean cover/cap meeting all applicable federal and state
standards that is technically equivalent to a cap conforming to the design requirements at 40 CFR
§ 761.61(a)(7). Appropriate institutional controls will also be implemented.
ESDs as well as other Site information are available for review at the New Bedford Free
Public Library at 613 Pleasant Street, New Bedford (in the reference section) and at EPA's
Boston records center at 5 Post Office Square and on-line at the New Bedford Harbor website
(www.epa.gov/ne/nbh).
A.3.2 Operable Unit 1 Remedy Implementation
Remedial implementation activities for the OU1 remedy were discussed in the body of
the FYR. This section is limited to historical activities not covered in the body of the FYR report
and supplemental remedial action information in support of data discussed in the body of the
FYR.
Early Cleanup Activities
The first remedial action taken after issuance of the 1998 ROD was to erect fencing in
1999 along the New Bedford shoreline in residential and public access areas where new sediment
sampling showed very high levels of shoreline PCBs. Additional "no fishing" signs were also
added throughout the Site. This was followed in 2000/2001 by the "Early Action" cleanup
which excavated approximately 2,500 cy of highly contaminated residential shoreline areas in
Acushnet followed by restoration of the impacted shoreline.
These early actions were followed by the accelerated cleanup of approximately six acres
of the Acushnet River north of the Wood Street bridge, including the riverbed and shoreline
areas in 2002/2003 and 2005. EPA prioritized this effort due to the very high PCB levels along
the shoreline in this area (up to 46,000 ppm) along with the fact that two parks and many
residences abut the shoreline in this stretch of the river. Two temporary dams were built to
dewater this stretch of the river, to allow approximately 15,600 cy of contaminated sediment to
be excavated in near-dry conditions. Approximately 2,500 cy (2,606 tons) of vegetated soil was
excavated and trucked off-site for disposal. The remaining excavated soil and sediment was
transported to EPA's Sawyer Street facility and placed in cell #1 for interim storage.
Upon removal of the contaminated sediment to the target PCB clean-up levels applicable
to each area, the shorelines were restored with imported clean fill and native riparian plantings.
As part of this shoreline restoration, large stands of the invasive common weed (Phragmites
australis) were removed and replaced with a higher value native saltmarsh. This North of Wood
Street (NWS) cleanup was completed in March 2003, with the saltmarsh and upland plantings
completed in June 2003 (TTFW, 2005a). Annual post-remediation monitoring of the NWS area
A-ll
-------
identified two small areas on the eastern shoreline requiring additional remediation, which was
performed in 2005. Judging from the monitoring data and the fact that this area had been thickly
vegetated when initially sampled, it is believed that these two areas are areas that the initial NWS
characterization missed, rather than areas that were recontaminated from the harbor to the south.
Preparation for Full Scale Dredging
In addition to accelerated cleanups in the northern-most part of the Site, numerous
advance projects and business relocations had to be completed to prepare for full scale dredging
(see Table l.B). Dredging of a clean corridor across the Upper Harbor to relocate thirteen
submerged high voltage power cables was completed in 2001. Construction of a five acre
sediment dewatering and transfer facility (the dewatering facility or Area D) at Hervey Tichon
Avenue in New Bedford for processing the dredged sediment was completed in 2004.
Relocation of two CSOs that previously discharged in the area of the dewatering facility at Area
D was also completed in 2004. Relocation of a commercial barge pier necessary for construction
of Area D was completed in 2005, including removal of abandoned fishing vessels and
associated environmental dredging (TTFW, 2005b).
Dredged sediment is sent through a pipeline in the harbor to the desanding facility at
EPA's Sawyer Street facility, where sand, gravel, shells and other coarse material within the
dredged slurry are removed. The slurry is then sent through an underwater pipeline in the harbor
to the dewatering facility at Area D. Using a series of mechanical processes, the plant squeezes
most of the water out of the slurry so that a "filter cake" is produced. The "filter cake" is then
sent off-site to a TSCA disposal facility in Michigan via rail or truck.
Full Scale Dredging
See Section 4.1.2. Table 2 summarizes the volumes of dredging performed in the Upper
Harbor by hydraulic dredging (Jacobs, 2011b; Jacobs 2013a; Jacobs 2013b; Jacobs 2014; Jacobs
2015b), while Tables 3 and 4 summarize volumes of dredging in the Lower Harbor by
mechanical dredging with CAD Cell disposal. All the volume in Table 2 and 3 have been carried
out with funding by EPA.
A-12
-------
Table 2: Summary of Upper Harbor Sediment Areas Remediated to Date
Project
Remediated Area
(see Appendix B.4)
Date
Sediment volume
remediated (cy)
1. First pilot study
Pilot Study 1 & 2
1988/89
2,900
2. Hot spot dredging (OU2)
Hot Spots B - E, & G
1994/95
14,000
3. Early action area
EAA-A & -B
200/2001
3,000
4. Pre-design field test (PDFT)
PDFT
2000
1,985
5. North of Wood Street (NWS)
NWS
2002/03
15,619
6. North Lobe Dredging
North Lobe
2003
3,952
7. Full scale dredging - season 1
Area A
2004
12,000
8. Full scale dredging - season 2
Area A, B & NWS
2005
25,179
9. Pilot underwater cap
Cap south of hurricane
barrier near NB shore
2005
10,000
10. Full scale dredging - season 3
Area G & H
2006
20,096
12. Full scale dredging - season 4
Area G & H
2007
23,307
13. Full scale dredging - season 5
Area B, A & NWS
2008
26,800
14. Full scale dredging - season 6
Area J, L, M & G
2009
49,809
15. Full scale dredging - season 7
Area M, G, J &K
2010
26,411
16. Full scale dredging - season 8
Areas K, N, G & Q
2011
26,074
17. Full scale dredging - season 9
Areas L & P
2012
18,502
18. Full scale dredging - season 10
Areas L & P
2013
18,995
19. Full scale dredging - season 11
Areas L, O, P, R & S
2014
77,312
20. Full scale dredging - season 12
Areas L, P, S and H
2015
47,000 (estimated)
Total remediated volume to date
(OU1)
1988-2015
401,570cv
(estimated)
Total remediated volume to date
(OU1 and OU2)
1988-2015
415.570 cv
(estimated)
In addition, it should be noted that approximately 13,000 cy of additional navigational
sediment was dredged in 2004/05 as part of the commercial barge business relocation7.
7 This sediment was used to fill a pier as part of the relocated barge-loading facility.
A-13
-------
Table 3: Summary of EPA's Lower Harbor CAD Cell Related Project dredging—
CONTAMINATED DREDGE MATERIAL ONLY
Component
Date
Approximate
Sediment
Volume (cy)
Top of LHCC, Phase I; Disposal in CAD 3
November 2013 to
July 2014
24,800
Top of LHCC, Phase II; Disposal in LHCC Phase I
November 2014 to
March 2015
36,000
Total
60,800
State Enhanced Remedy
The Commonwealth in conjunction with the City is performing navigational dredging
pursuant to the state enhanced remedy (SER) portion of the 1998 OU1 ROD. As of September
2015, numerous dredging projects have been undertaken pursuant to the SER. The City has used
an existing depression in the harbor bottom (the "borrow pit") and a series of excavated CAD
cells for the disposal of contaminated navigational sediment. Clean glacial material excavated to
create the CAD cells has been used for EPA's pilot capping project in the Outer Harbor or
disposed of at an approved open water disposal site.
These projects are summarized in Table 4 below and shown in Appendix B. 13 and B. 14. As
part of the reporting for the SER, based on pre- and post-dredging sediment PCB levels, it has
been estimated that over 545,000 cy of PCB contaminated sediment have been dredged (AGM,
2012; Apex 2007; Apex, 2010; Apex, 2014; Apex, 2015; MassDEP 2012c). EPA has issued
TSCA Determinations in support of the disposal of PCB-contaminated sediment as part of the
SER navigational dredging in SER CAD cells.
The totals of Table 3 and 4 show that over 605,000 cy of contaminated sediment have
been dredged from the Lower and Outer Harbor and disposed in State or EPA CAD Cells
between the efforts of EPA (under CERCLA) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (under
SER).
A-14
-------
Table 4: Summary of State Enhanced Remedy Navigational Dredging Performed
to Date -Contaminated volume only
State Enhanced Remedy Project
Date
Approximate
Sediment
Volume (cy)
Top of CAD #1 contaminated sediment to borrow pit CAD
Summer 2005
20,000
Phase II contaminated sediment dredged to borrow pit and
CAD#1
2005 - 2006
52,000
Top of CAD #2 contaminated sediment to CAD #1
Summer 2008
34,000
Phase III Dredging to CAD #2-12 Projects
September 2008 to
September 2009
53,000
Hurricane Barrier and AGM Marine dredging to CAD#2
2012
6,000
Top of CAD #3 contaminated sediment to CAD #2
2013-2014
31,000
South Terminal
January 2014-
December 2014
232,000
Interim Federal Navigational Dredging
January 2015-June
2015
117,000
Phase II and III, South Terminal, and Interim Federal
Navigation Dredging - Total volume of contaminated
sediment, including top of CADs dredged (i.e., not including
the clean bottom of CAD material)
545,000
Excavation of Aerovox Shoreline
In early summer 2008, EPA and the US ACE excavated highly contaminated shoreline
sediment immediately adjacent to the vacant Aerovox mill on Belleville Avenue in New
Bedford. The area of sediment remediated extended approximately 100 feet from the shore and
extended north-south along the entire eastern border of the Aerovox property. The dredging
team was prevented from hydraulically dredging this area due to the very high levels of
trichloroethene (TCE) in this sediment; some areas contained percent levels of PCBs and
solvents. The excavated sediment was stabilized at Aerovox with Portland cement and trucked in
water tight containers to EPA's Sawyer Street facility, where they are currently being temporarily
stored in Cell #1 pursuant to OU1 ESD #3. A layer of clean soil has been placed on top of these
sediment during temporary storage, and surface water runoff is drained to a separate holding area
and tested (and treated, if required) prior to discharge.
An extensive air monitoring program at both the Aerovox and Sawyer St locations
showed that the project was performed safely without cause for concern to the local abutters.
A-15
-------
EPA continues to monitor airborne PCBs and VOCs at the Sawyer Street facility (as well as
groundwater) while this sediment is temporarily being stored. Based on air monitoring data to
date, no airborne PCB levels were detected that pose a health risk to cleanup workers or area
residents. Groundwater data has consistently shown that PCBs are not migrating from areas of
EPA's Sawyer Street facility.
A.3.3 Operable Unit 2 Hot Spot Remedy Selection
The ROD for OU2 was signed on April 6, 1990. The remedial action objectives
developed for the OU2 remedy were to:
1. Significantly reduce PCB migration from the Hot Spot area sediment, which acts as a
PCB source to the water column and to the remainder of the sediment in the harbor.
2. Significantly reduce the amount of remaining PCB contamination that would need to
be remediated in order to achieve overall harbor cleanup.
3. Protect public health by preventing direct contact with Hot Spot sediment.
4. Protect marine life by preventing direct contact with Hot Spot sediment.
The cleanup plan selected in the 1990 OU2 ROD consisted of the following components:
1. Dredging about 10,000 cy of Hot Spot sediment (PCB concentrations ranging from a
minimum of 4,000 to over 100,000 ppm);
2. treatment of the large volume of water co-dredged along with the sediment;
3. passive dewatering of the dredged sediment;
4. on-site incineration of the dewatered sediment;
5. stabilization of the incinerator ash (if determined to be necessary); and
6. on-site disposal of the incinerator ash.
In April 1992, EPA issued an OU 2 ESD (EPA, 1992) to change the storage of ash
generated from the incineration of Hot Spot sediment from temporary storage in an on-site CDF
to permanent storage in an on-site CDF at EPA's Sawyer Street facility.
In 1993, due to a vehement reversal in public support for the incineration component of
the cleanup plan at about the time the incinerator was being mobilized, EPA agreed to terminate
the incineration contract and begin studies of other possible options for treating the Hot Spot
sediment. The New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site Community Forum was created in late 1993
to develop a consensus based cleanup plan to replace the on-site incineration component of the
original cleanup plan.
A-16
-------
During the 1994-95 construction seasons the dredging component of the 1990 Hot Spot
remedy decision was implemented. Dredging of about 14,000 cubic-yards in volume over an
area covering five acres began in April 1994 and was completed in September 1995.
In October 1995, EPA issued a second OU2 ESD (EPA, 1995) to document the need for
interim storage of the dredged Hot Spot sediment in Cell #1 at EPA's Sawyer Street facility
while studies of treatment options other than on-site incineration were conducted.
In December 1997, EPA issued a Hot Spot Feasibility Study Addendum Report which
presented the evaluation of the non-incineration treatment options investigated. In August 1998,
EPA issued a Proposed Plan to amend the incineration component of the 1990 Hot Spot cleanup
plan. The 1998 Proposed Plan called for dewatering the Hot Spot sediment and transporting
them to a permitted off-site hazardous waste landfill.
In April 1999, EPA signed an amendment to the 1990 ROD (EPA, 1999) which calls for
off-site landfilling instead of on-site incineration. The amended cleanup plan consisted of the
following activities:
1. Upgrade the existing site facilities as needed;
2. Sediment dewatering and water treatment;
3. Transportation of dewatered sediment to an off-site TSCA permitted landfill;
4. Air monitoring program.
The dredging component of the remedy remained unchanged.
A.3.4 Operable Unit 2 Remedy Implementation
The implementation of the OU2 remedy is briefly summarized below. A more detailed
description can be found in the Report on the Effects of the Hot Spot Dredging Operations (EPA,
1997) and the Remedial Action Report for OU2 (EPA, 2000).
About 14,000 cubic-yards of Hot Spot sediment were dredged from the Upper Harbor
during the 1994-95 construction seasons. The Hot Spot sediment was temporarily stored in Cell
#1 at EPA's Sawyer Street facility while alternatives to on-site incineration were evaluated. As
discussed above, in April 1999, EPA signed an amendment to the 1990 OU2 ROD which called
for off-site landfilling instead of on-site incineration. A contract to implement the amended Hot
Spot remedy was awarded in October 1999. The sediment was stabilized with lime, excavated
from Cell #1, and loaded on to trucks for off-site disposal. Transportation of the passively
dewatered Hot Spot sediment to an off-site TSCA permitted hazardous waste disposal facility
started in December 1999 and was completed in May 2000. One of the Hot Spot areas,
designated as Area B, was not dredged during the Hot Spot dredging operations due to its
proximity to submerged high voltage power lines serving the City of New Bedford. This area
will be addressed under OU1.
A-17
-------
In order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, this geographical area will also
be addressed under OU1. All future work, including institutional controls, for this area will be a
part of OU1.
A.3.5 Operable Unit 3 (Outer Harbor) Remedy Selection
The EPA has not yet selected a remedy for the 17,000 acre OU3, but is currently
performing a remedial investigation for this area.
A-18
-------
APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL MAPS, FIGURES AND DATA
-------
1 - Site Location Map
-------
Acushnet
Upper
Harbor
Aerovox Site
New Bedfor|||pr
Fairhaven
1 Street
Bridge
X&wer
Harbor
Mattapoisett
\jy hurricane
Cornell-Dubilier #C barrier
Dartmouth
West i
.Island
Wilbur
Point
Ricketson's
Point
Outer Harbor
Smith
Neck
Mishauin
Point
Upper Harbor
Lower Harbor
EPA Region 1 GIS Center 09/10/2010.
Map Tracker 7136.
Outer Harbor
Figure 1
Site Location Map
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
New Bedford, MA
-------
2 - The 1979 State Fishing Ban - Map of Fish Closure Areas
-------
*
-------
3 - Major Components of the Hydraulic Dredging Process
-------
Desanding
Step 4. Loading to rail for offsite disposal
Hydraulic dredging and disposal
Step 1 . Dredging in upper harbor
Step 3. De watering
-------
4 - Areas Dredged Through 2014
2015 Hydraulic Dredge Areas
-------
Oil-- -
Volume (cy)
Area (Acres)
Dredge Area
North Lobe
North Lobe
North of Wood St
North of Wood St
Aero vox Excavation
*Tota I Acreage represents footpri nt of a reas dredged.
Portions of some areas were dredged during multiple
years.
JACOBS
Areas Dredged in New
Bedford Harbor
through 2014
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Appendix BA
1:10,800
Legend
Areas Dredged through 2014
I 1988-1989 I 2005
1994-1995
2001
2002-2003
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Management Units
NSTAR Cable Crossing
-------
lit@|r©2(i^iF.).
haciiitVi
IMi
iiwiiSSiMsriM^j
ill
iiMiisiSMgffl)&
jjlg
Hi
MM®
g,MM81
IWa
ManomffjNorth
Booster Pump
IMS04(M
1M1I
r£reai(£
IB
\ MU-30 \ Jb
¦ |
fcoggeshall Street Bridge
-* *. - --*»• I
I
l^mng?^©5®^SE
MU-19
IMM
^
HOME)
HQMH
as'
iim|
MU-25
iMiHel
HIM
Legend
~ Manoment North Booster Pump
| | Management Units
DAH
DAS
DAL
DAP
Aerial Photography MASSGIS 2003
0 300 600
Feet
1:7,200
JACOBS
2015 Hydraulic
Dredge Areas
New Bedford Harbor Superfurid Site
name: jpiccuito Date: 7/30/2015
Figure 3-1
-------
Ambient Air Data:
- Table E-1 Ambient Air Monitoring Program - Total Detectable PCB
Homologues (as of August 2015)
- Ambient Air Monitoring Station Locations
- Public Exposure Tracking System (PETS) Curves for the Aerovox and
Coffin Ave Ambient Air Monitoring Locations
-------
Table E-1
Ambient Air Monitoring Program - Total Detectable PCB Homologues
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Current as of 8/19/2015
Sampling
Date
PCB Concentration by Location
(ng/m3 in 24-hour time-weighted average)
Activity Period
24
Aerovox
25
Manomet
25
Cliftex
27
Porter
30 Fibre
Leather
42
NSTAR
North
43
Veranda
44
Taber
46
Coffin
Area C
Area D
53
Dredge
55
Aerovox
West
56
Acushnet
Park
57
Riverside
Park
61 South
Fence
62
Century
House
63
Boathouse
64
Pilgrim
65
LHCC
Dredae
47
48
49
50
51
52
8/26/2015
62
45.9/35.3
21.9
18.8
35.5
83.9
13.23
20.7
35.2
NS
NS
32.5
NS
NS
1902.3
1.16
NS
14.62
2015 Hydraulic Dredging in Upper Harbor - Area S. Unvalidated results.
7/21/2015
44.1
47.6
10.3
44.1
20.1
37.2
19
27.2
15.8
NS
NS
11.1 /15.4d
NS
NS
NS
7.19
NS
11.5
2015 Pre-Dredge Samples for the Upper Harbor. Unvalidated results.
6/3/2015
44.8
37.5
0.973
17.1
4.23
8.58
1.24
5.59
12.7/14.1 d
NS
NS
16.1
NS
NS
NS
1.89
1.15
1.25
NS
2015 OffSeason Data Collection. Unvalidated results.
4/22/2015
52.1
25.9
NA
20.3
3.4
15.9
7.57
12.3
0.0391
NS
NS
3.62
NS
NS
NS
4.94
NS
5.72
NS
2015 OffSeason Data Collection and Pre-dredge sampling for the Upper Harbor.
Pump at Station #27 failed to run long enough to collect a viable sample so it was
not analyzed. Unvalidated results.
4/6/2015
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
5.12
NS
NS
NS
NS
8.46
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.23
NS
Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction Phase II (Post Top of CAD Cell dredging);
Unvalidated results. Pump at Station #50 failed to run the same duration as the
duplicate so only the duplicate sample was analyzed. This sample is considered
the primary sample so there is no duplicate for this post-dredge sampling event.
3/11/2015
NS
0.552/0.38
6d
NS
0.191
NS
NS
0.53
0.147
1.00
NS
NS
0.558
NS
NS
NS
0.115
NS
0.527
2.43
Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction Phase II (Top of CAD Cell dredging);
Unvalidated results. Stations 24, 27, 42, and 43 were inaccessible for sampling due
to obstructions from snow/ice piles.
2/6/2015
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.1419/
0.1738
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.0992
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.1469
NS
Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction Phase II (Top of CAD Cell dredging);
Unvalidated results. The dredge sample media was found broken at the dredge and
therefore was not analyzed.
1/13/2015
0.58
0.55
0.1600
0.11 /
0.15d
0.87
1.4
0.17
0.075
0.43
NS
NS
1.3
NS
NS
NS
0.05
0.12
0.230
2.48
Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction Phase II (top of CAD Cell dredging).
12/29/2014
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.98
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.6/1,9d
3.5
Rapid TAT data. Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction Phase II (top of CAD Cell
dredging).
12/18/2014
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.00
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.49
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2.3
3.5/4.6d
Rapid turn around time (TAT) data. Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction Phase II
(top of CAD Cell dredging). Reissue of data due to error in laboratory calculations.
12/15/2014
6.7
7.2
0.73
5.6
2.3
3.6
1.6
2.7
4.4
NS
NS
3.7/4.3d
NS
NS
NS
1.6
0.51
1.1
4.7
Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction Phase II (top of CAD Cell dredging). Off-
season data collection included on January 5, 2015 as received from laboratory.
11/4/2014
43
21.4
9.9
26.8
8.9
17.41
24.2
21
4.85
NS
NS
7.43
NS
NS
NS
4.38
7.05
15.72/
5.19d
NS
2014 Post-Dredge Operation for Upper Harbor. Pre-Dredge sampling for the Lower
Harbor CAD Cell Phase II (#44, 50 and 64).
10/6/2014
150
98/110d
5.2
180
3.6
17
21
70
21
NS
NS
21
NS
NS
90
NS
NA
12
NS
2014 Hydraulic Dredging in Areas L & S.
9/3/2014
91
44
9.1
39
36
53
12/1 Od
10
20
NS
NS
11
NS
NS
100
NS
3.8
11
2014 Hydraulic Dredging in Area R-east.
8/5/2014
75
72
8
61
17
37
17
42
55
NS
NS
23
NS
NS
260
NS
4.9
8.5
2014 Hydraulic Dredging in Area R-east.
7/8/2014
82
25
23
36
19
43
34
24
33/33d
NS
NS
22
NS
NS
110
NS
4.2
15
2014 Hydraulic Dredging in Area R-east.
6/16/2014
200
90
12/13d
100
25
35
27
50
25
NS
NS
20
NS
NS
320
NS
21
8.6
2014 Hydraulic Dredging in Area R.
5/7/2014
56.9
32.6
NS
33.8
10.86
29.7
24.3
38.28
13.38
NS
NS
10.96
NS
NS
194
NS
7.01
11.56
2014 Hydraulic Dredging in Area R.
3/18/2014
17
5.8
0.36/0.4
2d
4.5
2.2
1.7
0.41
ND
3.3
NS
NS
2.8
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.14
0.22
2014 Pre-Dredge Samples for the Upper Harbor.
3/18/2014
0.41
2.8
0.22
NS
Post-Dredge Samples for the Lower Harbor.
12/19/2014
2.32
3.5/3.02d
3.13
0.89
Lower Harbor CAD Cell Construction Phase 1 (top of CAD Cell dredging)
12/4/2013
3.31/3.
Od
0.643
2.16
3.57
11/20/2013
2.17
3.55
1.68/2.0
d
6.21
9/25/2013
25.6
26.5
2.65
14.7
8.05
11.2
NS
4.1
NS
NS
NS
13.3/12.8d
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2013 Post-Dredge Operation.
8/20/2013
230
130
15
160
18
61
NS
60/57d
29
NS
NS
29
NS
NS
240
NS
NS
NS
2013 Hydraulic Dredging in Area P.
7/16/2013
240
110
8.1
130
22
36
16
48
110
NS
NS
69
NS
NS
510
NS
NS
14.4
2013 Hydraulic Dredging in Area P.
3/26/2013
14
1.4
3.2
NS
6.6
8.3
1.1
0.65
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.49
NS
NS
NS
1.8/1,8d
2013 Pre-Dredge Samples for the Upper Harbor.
3/26/2013
1.1
0.49
1.8/1,8d
NS
2013 Pre-Dredge Samples for the Lower Harbor.
10/1/2012
98
18
17/18d
25
17
87
18
NS
NS
14
0.56
NS
NS
NS
15
NS
NA
2012 Post Dredge Operation; Sample at Station 62 had insufficient air volume and
was not analyzed. Due to several vandalized samples this station has been
discontinued.
8/21/2012
67
28
23
17
19
67
14/16d
NS
NS
20
4
NS
NS
NA
0.00033
NS
18
2012 Hydraulic Dredging in Area P; Sample at Station 53 had insufficient air
volume and was not analyzed.
7/16/2012
220
1.2
24/24d
110
36
140
26
NS
NS
57
10
NS
NS
280
10
NS
3.3
2012 Hydraulic Dredging in Area L.
7/2/2012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
NA
NA
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
All samples collected were voided due to out of temperature specification upon
arrival at laboratory.
5/21/2012
51
NS
67/66d
0.81
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.0029
2012 Pre-Dredge Samples; Station 27 is a new location in 2012 season for eastern
residential receptor.
10/11/2011
36
NS
NS
42
10
18
11
NS
NS
25
17
NS
NS
NS
420
18
0.29
2011 Post-Dredge Operation.
9/14/2011
480
NS
NS
120
29
61
93
NS
NS
220
0.62
NS
NS
460
28
57
NS
2011 Hydraulic Dredging in Area N. Sample at Station 62 was tampered and not
analyzed.
8/23/2011
280
NS
NS
60
80
94
NS
NS
NS
220/20
Od
16
NS
NS
1800
48
13
52
2011 Hydraulic Dredging in Area K.
7/26/2011
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
51
Excavation of Area Q.
7/13/2011
1100
NS
NS
130
40
43
43
NS
NS
78
110
NS
NS
1000/110
Od
79
25
6.7
NS
2011 Hydraulic Dredging in Area K.
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table E-1
Ambient Air Monitoring Program - Total Detectable PCB Homologues
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Current as of 8/19/2015
Sampling
Date
PCB Concentration by Location
(ng/m3 in 24-hour time-weighted average)
Activity Period
24
Aerovox
25
Manomet
25
Cliftex
27
Porter
30 Fibre
Leather
42
NSTAR
North
43
Veranda
44
Taber
46
Coffin
Area C
Area D
53
Dredge
55
Aerovox
West
56
Acushnet
Park
57
Riverside
Park
61 South
Fence
62
Century
House
63
Boathouse
64
Pilgrim
65
LHCC
Dredae
47
48
49
50
51
52
5/25/2011
56
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
93/97d
NS
0.68
25
2011 Pre-Dredge Samples; Station 63 is a new location in 2011 season for Area Q.
10/13/2010
80
NS
NS
36
9
7.4
21
NS
NS
24
4.4
NS
NS
NS
19
5.9
1.1
NS
2010 Post-Dredge Operation.
8/18/2010
1800
NS
NS
300
25
36
31
NS
NS
130
37
NS
NS
560/580d
200
11
13
2010 Hydraulic Dredging.
7/20/2010
270
NS
NS
29
NS
26
47
NS
NS
79/73d
37.0
NS
NS
450
93
26
2.7
6/30/2010
120.0
NS
NS
7.3
0.0013
82.0
13
NS
NS
32
3.3
NS
NS
230
3.20
12.0
44/41 d
5/21/2010
86
NS
NS
NS
0.042
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
ND/NDd
2010 Pre-Dredge Samples.
5/13/2010
void
NS
NA
NS
void
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
void
2010 pre-dredge samples. Sample location at Century House Resturant (#62) in
Acushnet added at the direction of the EPA. Samples taken on 5/13/10 were
damaged during shipment.
12/16/2009
3.3
NS
NS
0.134
23.8
9.12
0.171
NS
NS
1.78
NS
0.184
NS
NS
0.372/0.3
53d
0.63
2009 Post-Dredge Operation.
11/9/2009
45.2
NS
NS
20.4/31 d
25.3
55.2
32.8
NS
NS
51.8
NS
2.92
NS
205.1
8.31
17.2
2009 Hydraulic Dredging.
10/14/2009
48.79
NS
NS
11.77
17.92
10.01
o.o/u.u
1A
NS
NS
13.26
NS
3.75
NS
0.13
10.00
2.62
9/17/2009
160
NS
NS
24
2.2
51
13
NS
NS
35
NS
42
NS
180
14
10/9.8d
8/13/2009
130
NS
NS
21
14
49
14
NS
NS
32
NS
31
NS
130
28/30d
20
7/13/2009
130
NS
NS
18
39
110
36
NS
NS
77/76d
NS
5.3
NS
290
7.4
6
6/16/2009
150
NS
NS
77
10
33
35
43
NS
NS
NS
32
NS
120
33
8.2
11/10/2008
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
15
1.3
NS
NS
6.2
NS
ND
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.11
2008 Post-Dredge Operation.
10/7/2008
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
5.2
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
2008 Hydraulic Dredging.
9/24/2008
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
18
NS
NS
NS
42
NS
NS
NS
1.5
NS
NS
15.0
8/21/2008
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
31.66
121.9
NS
NS
123.4/
116.4d
NS
2.85
NS
178.0
NS
NS
37.46
7/16/2008
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA
68.6
NS
286.5
2008 Land-Based Excavation of Shoreline at Aerovox. Sample Station 61 - South
Fence was used only during the excavation timeframe.
7/8/2008
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA
8.7
NS
26.1
6/25/2008
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA
5.52
NS
NS
6/19/2008
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA
8.9
NS
NS
6/12/2008
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA
7.3
NS
43.1
6/8/2008
NS
NS
NA
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NA
25.9
NS
34.4
11/9/2007
19.7
NS
20.2
NS
15.7
1.86
9.29
NS
NS
NS
4.39
NS
NA
NS
NS
2007 Post-Dredge Operation.
9/18/2007
176
NS
120
NS
16.3
21.4
57.1
NS
NS
48.7
NS
NS
130
NS
NS
2007 Hydraulic Dredging
8/21/2007
282
NS
147
NS
19.2
36.1
46.9
NS
NS
36.7
NS
NS
138
NS
NS
11/19/2006
41.1
NS
0.14
NS
NS
4.05
NS
NS
81.4
2.6
NS
NS
NA
NS
NS
2006 Post-Dredge Operation.
10/6/2006
2,357
NS
451
NS
NS
108
NS
NS
157
NS
NS
197
13430
NS
NS
2006 Hydraulic Dredging.
8/31/2006
1,629
NS
176
NS
NS
70.4
39.2
NS
NS
NS
67.3
NS
2336
NS
NS
12/29/2005
83.2
NS
10.9
NS
21.4
65.1
7.4
NS
NS
NS
2.2
NS
NA
10.8
13.5
2005 Post-Dredge Operation.
11/18/2005
15.9
NS
0.1
NS
63.6
0.1
NS
0.1
3.7
NS
NS
NS
913.0
0.1
3.8
2005 Hydraulic Dredging.
10/28/2005
15.4
NS
NS
NS
32.3
2.1
NS
4.6
12.3
0.0
NS
NS
505.0
4.0
2.7
10/6/2005
1822.0
NS
251.0
NS
119.0
130.0
NS
60.1
114.0
81.7
NS
NS
6315.0
222.0
180.0
9/29/2005
383.0
NS
104.0
NS
5.3
124.0
NS
17.3
44.2
24.2
NS
NS
391.0
87.0
77.9
9/23/2005
178.0
NS
35.2
NS
83.3
115.0
NS
19.1
97.0
0.3
NS
NS
780.0
2.6
23.9
9/15/2005
1490.0
NS
58.2
NS
22.5
99.8
NS
14.9
83.6
0.5
NS
NS
1280.0
37.6
102.0
8/11/2005
216.0
NS
103.0
NS
25.9
37.2
NS
NS
29.3
NS
NS
21.3
NA
42.1
49.9
2005 Pre-Dredge Samples.
12/3/2004
30
NS
27
NS
40
15
22
NS
26
22
NS
31
NA
9.33
1.52
2004 Post-Dredge Operation.
11/5/2004
578
NS
61
NS
73
80
NS
NS
28
NS
NS
NS
351
28.42
39.08
2004 Hydraulic Dredging.
10/19/2004
559
NS
259
NS
NS
36
47
48
66
17
74
100
704
NS
NS
9/28/2004
9557
NS
423
NS
NS
342
35
165
207
80
75
115
2734
NS
NS
9/23/2004
588
NS
97
NS
NS
5
7
10
17
6
5
19
1212
NS
NS
9/14/2004
1449
NS
229
NS
NS
48
64
64
86
38
39
61
98
NS
NS
Initial MU-2 Dredging During Startup.
9/9/2004
1024
NS
167
NS
NS
145
28
37
56
20
16
47
723
NS
NS
6/29/2004
2286
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
56
NS
NS
NS
No Dredging Activities.
ividi ui i-ividy
76
NS
35
NS
29
35
61
61
61
6.8
6.8
6.8
NS
NS
No Dredging Activities. Data from Foster-Wheeler.
">onp
32
NS
3.2
NS
9.9
3.2
89
89
89
3.4
3.4
3.4
NS
NS
SepL-ivUv
67
NS
22
NS
24
22
43
43
43
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.2
5.2
jui id-MUyu5>L
innn
130
NS
46
NS
31
46
33
33
33
12
12
12
NS
NS
Notes:
d = field duplicate result P = Pending results
NA = sample collected but not analyzed
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table E-1
Ambient Air Monitoring Program - Total Detectable PCB Homologues
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Current as of 8/19/2015
Sampling
Date
PCB Concentration by Location
(ng/m3 in 24-hour time-weighted average)
Activity Period
24
Aerovox
25
Manomet
25
Cliftex
27
Porter
30 Fibre
Leather
42
NSTAR
North
43
Veranda
44
Taber
46
Coffin
Area C
Area D
53
Dredge
55
Aerovox
West
56
Acushnet
Park
57
Riverside
Park
61 South
Fence
62
Century
House
63
Boathouse
64
Pilgrim
65
LHCC
Dredae
47 I 48 I 49
50 I 51 I 52
ng/m = nanograms per cubic meter of air
NS = not sampled
PCB= polychlorinated biphenyl
ND = no detections (non-detect)
Sample station with gray blocking is a newer station added to the air sampling program or discontinued station (no
activity).
Page 3 of 3
-------
Acushnet
' / • •*
New Bedford
Phase II
Phase I
Fairhaven
1 . -
Revere
Aerial Photography MASSGIS 2014
[EM
Station
Location
'-•fHBSIidKI
Aerovox
bSmbB
Ma nomet
5L'5?
Porter
Fibre Leather
(9&&.
NSTAR N
V
Vera nda
Taber
Coffin
Area C Downwind
Area D Downwind
Dredge
Aerovox West
Acushnet Park
Pearl
Popes
Washburn
Century House
Pilgrim
CAD Cell Dredge
Hutt eston
„ Residential Ambient Air
^ Sampling Station Location (Historical)
/\ Commercial Ambient Air
Sampling Station Location (Historical)
Residential Ambient Air
Sampling Station Location (New)
Commercial Ambient Air
Sampling Station Location (New)
Legend
Available Ambient Air
Sampling Station
Locations
New Bedford Harbor Superftind Site
S5M50 EPA CAD CELL
-------
Air Sampling Status Report
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Station #: 24 Aero vox
Exposure Budget Slope (EBS) = 344 nanograms per cubic meter per day (ng/m3-day)
Collection Date: 6/3/2015
This report summarizes sample results for the above referenced location and date. The samples were collected on polyurethane foam (PUF)/XAD
sample media with a glass fiber pre-filter using a BGI, PQ-1 Low-Volume sampler. The samples were analyzed using high-resolution mass
spectrometry (HRGCMS) for total PCB homologue groups. Results are evaluated relative to the Exposure Budget Tracking Process described in the
Development of PCB Air Action Levels for the Protection of the Public, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, August 2001.
Summary of Dredging Activities This Sampling Period:
2014 hydraulic dredge season mobilization activities began March 25,2014 and lasted until April 14, 2014. Hydraulic dredging activities were
conducted in the Upper Harbor, Areas L and P, from April 18, 2014 to October 10, 2014. Demobilization activities began October 14,
2014 and ended October 24, 2014.
Summary of Sampling Activities at Location 24 Aerovox in 2014:
A pre-dredge sampling event was conducted that includes this location. Baseline sample data was used to continue the production of the PETS
curves for 2014. To date, the cumulative exposure budget expended for cancer is approximately 43%. The cumulative exposure budget expended for
non-cancer effects is approximately 14.5%.
Summary of Previous Sampling Activities:
Previous ambient air sampling data and PETS curves are in the Draft 2013 Ambient Air Monitoring Report, ACE-J23-35BG0708-M17-0012.
1 of 5
-------
Sample Results, Calculated Budget and Exposure Values
Station: 55 Aerovox West
Monitoring Station
24 Aerovox
Exposure Budget Slope
344
Work Start Date
11/12/2002
Projected Work End Date
11/10/2022
Occupational Limit Used as Ceiling
[ng/m3l
500,000
TEL for Worker in Public
[ng/m3l
50,000
NTEL for Worker in Public
[ng/m3l
1,789
Minimum of TEL/NTEL
[ng/m3l
1,789
Background Concentration
[ng/m3l
5.2
Background Concentration (100%)
[ng/m3l
5.2
Background Concentration (200%)
[ng/m3l
10.4
Project Duration (10% left)
[days]
730.3
Project Duration (25% left)
[days]
1825.75
Project Duration (50% left)
[days]
3651.5
Notes:
TEL - Threshold Effects Exposure Limit
NTEL - Non-Threshold Effects Exposure Limits
The EPA periodically assesses this Projected Work End Date, which is subject to change.
NC = Not Calculated
Column F shading represents actual sampling data. All others are
projected quarterly averages of PCB concentrations for that period.
2 of 5
-------
Sample Results, Calculated Budget and Exposure Values
Station: 24 Aerovox
(A)
Event
(B)
Sampling Date
(C)
Days Since
Previous
Sampling
Event
(D)
Work Effort
Elapsed
Time
(E)
Estimated Work
Effort
Remaining
(F)
PCB
Concentration
Result
(G)
Average of Most
Recent Two
Concentration
Results
(H)
Weighted Average of
Concentration Results
(I)
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget for the
Period
(J)
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget for Work
Effort to Date
(K)
Measured
Cancer Risk
Exposure
During the
Period
(L)
Calculated
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure for
Work Effort to
Date
(M)
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget
Expended
During the
Period
(N)
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Expended for
Work Effort to
Date
[#}
[month/day/year]
[days]
Runnina Sum
of Column CO
[days]
[ng/m3]
[ng/m3]
Column (LVColumn (D)
EBS * Column (C)
Sum of Column (I)
Column (GV
Column (C)
Sum of Column (K)
Column CKI
/Column (I)
[%]
Column C11
/Column (J)
[%]
to Date
fdavsl
[ng/m3]
[ng/m3-days]
[ng/m3-days]
[ng/m3-days]
[ng/m3-days]
1
11/12/2002
0
0
7303
67
67
67
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2
11/30/2002
18
18
7285
67
67
67
6,192
6,192
1,206
1,206
19.5%
19.5%
3
12/1/2002
1
19
7284
32
50
66
344
6,536
50
1,256
14.4%
19.2%
4
2/28/2003
89
108
7195
32
32
38
30,616
37,152
2,848
4,104
9.3%
11.0%
5
5/31/2003
92
200
7103
76
54
45
31,648
68,800
4,968
9,072
15.7%
13.2%
6
8/31/2003
92
292
7011
130
103
64
31,648
100,448
9,476
18,548
29.9%
18.5%
7
11/30/2003
91
383
6920
67
99
72
31,304
131,752
8,964
27,511
28.6%
20.9%
8
2/28/2004
90
473
6830
32
50
68
30,960
162,712
4,455
31,966
14.4%
19.6%
9
5/31/2004
93
566
6737
76
54
65
31,992
194,704
5,022
36,988
15.7%
19.0%
10
8/31/2004
92
658
6645
130
103
71
31,648
226,352
9,476
46,464
29.9%
20.5%
11
9/8/2004
8
666
6637
67
99
71
2,752
229,104
788
47,252
28.6%
20.6%
12
9/9/2004
1
667
6636
1024
545.50
71.66
344
229,448
546
47,798
158.6%
20.8%
13
9/14/2004
5
672
6631
1449
1236.50
80.33
1,720
231,168
6,183
53,980
359.4%
23.4%
14
9/23/2004
9
681
6622
588
1018.50
92.73
3,096
234,264
9,167
63,147
296.1%
27.0%
15
9/27/2004
4
685
6618
790
689.00
96.21
1,376
235,640
2,756
65,903
200.3%
28.0%
16
10/19/2004
22
707
6596
559
674.50
114.20
7,568
243,208
14,839
80,742
196.1%
33.2%
17
11/5/2004
17
724
6579
578
568.50
124.87
5,848
249,056
9,665
90,406
165.3%
36.3%
18
12/3/2004
28
752
6551
30
304.00
131.54
9,632
258,688
8,512
98,918
88.4%
38.2%
19
2/28/2005
87
839
6464
32
31.00
121.11
29,928
288,616
2,697
101,615
9.0%
35.2%
20
5/31/2005
92
931
6372
76
54.00
114.48
31,648
320,264
4,968
106,583
15.7%
33.3%
21
8/10/2005
71
1002
6301
130
103.00
113.67
24,424
344,688
7,313
113,896
29.9%
33.0%
22
8/11/2005
1
1003
6300
216
173.00
113.73
344
345,032
173
114,069
50.3%
33.1%
23
9/15/2005
35
1038
6265
1490
853.00
138.66
12,040
357,072
29,855
143,924
248.0%
40.3%
24
9/23/2005
8
1046
6257
178
834.00
143.97
2,752
359,824
6,672
150,596
242.4%
41.9%
25
9/29/2005
6
1052
6251
383
280.50
144.75
2,064
361,888
1,683
152,279
81.5%
42.1%
26
10/6/2005
7
1059
6244
1822
1102.50
151.08
2,408
364,296
7,718
159,997
320.5%
43.9%
27
10/28/2005
22
1081
6222
15.4
918.70
166.70
7,568
371,864
20,211
180,208
267.1%
48.5%
28
11/18/2005
21
1102
6201
15.9
15.65
163.83
7,224
379,088
329
180,537
4.5%
47.6%
29
12/29/2005
41
1143
6160
83.2
49.55
159.73
14,104
393,192
2,032
182,568
14.4%
46.4%
30
2/28/2006
61
1204
6099
32
57.60
154.55
20,984
414,176
3,514
186,082
16.7%
44.9%
31
5/31/2006
92
1296
6007
76
54.00
147.41
31,648
445,824
4,968
191,050
15.7%
42.9%
32
8/15/2006
76
1372
5931
130
103.00
144.95
26,144
471,968
7,828
198,878
29.9%
42.1%
33
8/16/2006
1
1373
5930
1629
879.50
145.49
344
472,312
880
199,757
255.7%
42.3%
34
8/31/2006
15
1388
5915
1629
1629.00
161.52
5,160
477,472
24,435
224,192
473.5%
47.0%
35
10/5/2006
35
1423
5880
2357
1993.00
206.57
12,040
489,512
69,755
293,947
579.4%
60.0%
36
10/19/2006
14
1437
5866
41.1
1199.05
216.24
4,816
494,328
16,787
310,734
348.6%
62.9%
37
11/19/2006
31
1468
5835
41.1
41.10
212.54
10,664
504,992
1,274
312,008
11.9%
61.8%
38
11/30/2006
11
1479
5824
67
54.05
211.36
3,784
508,776
595
312,603
15.7%
61.4%
39
2/28/2007
90
1569
5734
32
49.50
202.08
30,960
539,736
4,455
317,058
14.4%
58.7%
40
5/31/2007
92
1661
5642
76
54.00
193.87
31,648
571,384
4,968
322,026
15.7%
56.4%
41
8/6/2007
67
1728
5575
130
103.00
190.35
23,048
594,432
6,901
328,927
29.9%
55.3%
42
8/7/2007
1
1729
5574
282
206.00
190.36
344
594,776
206
329,133
59.9%
55.3%
43
8/21/2007
14
1743
5560
282
282.00
191.10
4,816
599,592
3,948
333,081
82.0%
55.6%
44
9/18/2007
28
1771
5532
176
229.00
191.70
9,632
609,224
6,412
339,493
66.6%
55.7%
45
10/13/2007
25
1796
5507
67
121.5
190.72
8,600
617,824
3,038
342,530
35.32%
55.4%
46
11/9/2007
27
1823
5480
19.7
43.35
188.54
9,288
627,112
1,170
343,701
12.60%
54.8%
47
11/30/2007
21
1844
5459
67
43.35
186.88
7,224
634,336
910
344,611
12.60%
54.3%
48
2/28/2008
90
1934
5369
32
49.5
180.49
30,960
665,296
4,455
349,066
14.39%
52.5%
49
5/31/2008
93
2027
5276
76
54
174.69
31,992
697,288
5,022
354,088
15.70%
50.8%
Notes:
NC = Not Calculated
3 of 5
-------
Sample Results, Calculated Budget and Exposure Values
Station: 24 Aerovox
(A)
Event
(B)
Sampling Date
(C)
Days Since
Previous
Sampling
Event
(D)
Work Effort
Elapsed
Time
(E)
Estimated Work
Effort
Remaining
(F)
PCB
Concentration
Result
(G)
Average of Most
Recent Two
Concentration
Results
(H)
Weighted Average of
Concentration Results
to
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget for the
Period
(j)
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget for Work
Effort to Date
(K)
Measured
Cancer Risk
Exposure
During the
Period
(L)
Calculated
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure for
Work Effort to
Date
(M)
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget
Expended
During the
Period
(N)
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Expended for
Work Effort to
Date
50
6/8/2008
8
2035
5268
34.4
55.2
174.22
2,752
700,040
442
354,529
16.05%
50.6%
51
6/12/2008
4
2039
5264
43.1
38.75
173.95
1,376
701,416
155
354,684
11.26%
50.6%
52
7/8/2008
26
2065
5238
26
34.55
172.20
8,944
710,360
898
355,583
10.04%
50.1%
53
7/16/2008
8
2073
5230
290
158
172.14
2,752
713,112
1,264
356,847
45.93%
50.0%
54
8/31/2008
46
2119
5184
130
210
172.96
15,824
728,936
9,660
366,507
61.05%
50.3%
55
11/30/2008
91
2210
5093
67
98.5
169.90
31,304
760,240
8,964
375,470
28.63%
49.4%
56
2/28/2009
90
2300
5003
32
49.5
165.18
30,960
791,200
4,455
379,925
14.39%
48.0%
57
5/31/2009
92
2392
4911
76
54
160.91
31,648
822,848
4,968
384,893
15.70%
46.8%
58
6/16/2009
16
2408
4895
150
113
160.59
5,504
828,352
1,808
386,701
32.85%
46.7%
59
7/13/2009
27
2435
4868
130
140
160.36
9,288
837,640
3,780
390,481
40.70%
46.6%
60
8/13/2009
31
2466
4837
130
130
159.98
10,664
848,304
4,030
394,511
37.79%
46.5%
61
9/17/2009
35
2501
4802
160
145
159.77
12,040
860,344
5,075
399,586
42.15%
46.4%
62
10/14/2009
27
2528
4775
48.79
104.395
159.18
9,288
869,632
2,819
402,405
30.35%
46.3%
63
11/9/2009
26
2554
4749
45.2
46.995
158.04
8,944
878,576
1,222
403,627
13.66%
45.9%
64
12/16/2009
37
2591
4712
2.59
23.895
156.12
12,728
891,304
884
404,511
6.95%
45.4%
65
2/28/2010
74
2665
4638
32
17.295
152.27
25,456
916,760
1,280
405,791
5.03%
44.3%
66
5/21/2010
82
2747
4556
86
59
149.48
28,208
944,968
4,838
410,629
17.15%
43.5%
67
6/30/2010
40
2787
4516
120
103
148.82
13,760
958,728
4,120
414,749
29.94%
43.3%
68
7/20/2010
20
2807
4496
270
195
149.14
6,880
965,608
3,900
418,649
56.69%
43.4%
69
8/18/2010
29
2836
4467
1800
1035
158.20
9,976
975,584
30,015
448,664
300.87%
46.0%
70
10/13/2010
56
2892
4411
80
940
173.34
19,264
994,848
52,640
501,304
273.26%
50.4%
71
11/30/2010
48
2940
4363
67
73.5
171.71
16,512
1,011,360
3,528
504,832
21.37%
49.9%
72
2/28/2011
90
3030
4273
32
49.5
168.08
30,960
1,042,320
4,455
509,287
14.39%
48.9%
73
5/25/2011
86
3116
4187
56
44
164.66
29,584
1,071,904
3,784
513,071
12.79%
47.9%
74
7/13/2011
49
3165
4138
1100
578
171.06
16,856
1,088,760
28,322
541,393
168.02%
49.7%
75
8/23/2011
41
3206
4097
280
690
177.69
14,104
1,102,864
28,290
569,683
200.58%
51.7%
76
9/14/2011
22
3228
4075
480
380
179.07
7,568
1,110,432
8,360
578,043
110.47%
52.1%
77
10/11/2011
27
3255
4048
36
258
179.73
9,288
1,119,720
6,966
585,009
75.00%
52.2%
78
11/30/2011
50
3305
3998
67
51.5
177.79
17,200
1,136,920
2,575
587,584
14.97%
51.7%
79
2/28/2012
90
3395
3908
32
49.5
174.39
30,960
1,167,880
4,455
592,039
14.39%
50.7%
80
5/21/2012
83
3478
3825
51
41.5
171.21
28,552
1,196,432
3,445
595,483
12.06%
49.8%
81
7/16/2012
56
3534
3769
220
135.5
170.65
19,264
1,215,696
7,588
603,071
39.39%
49.6%
82
8/21/2012
36
3570
3733
67
143.5
170.37
12,384
1,228,080
5,166
608,237
41.72%
49.5%
83
10/1/2012
41
3611
3692
98
82.5
169.38
14,104
1,242,184
3,383
611,620
23.98%
49.2%
84
11/30/2012
60
3671
3632
67
82.5
167.96
20,640
1,262,824
4,950
616,570
23.98%
48.8%
85
2/28/2013
90
3761
3542
32
49.5
165.12
30,960
1,293,784
4,455
621,025
14.39%
48.0%
86
3/26/2013
26
3787
3516
14
23
164.15
8,944
1,302,728
598
621,623
6.69%
47.7%
87
7/16/2013
112
3899
3404
240
127
163.08
38,528
1,341,256
14,224
635,847
36.92%
47.4%
88
8/20/2013
35
3934
3369
230
235
163.72
12,040
1,353,296
8,225
644,072
68.31%
47.6%
89
9/25/2013
36
3970
3333
25.6
127.8
163.39
12,384
1,365,680
4,601
648,673
37.15%
47.5%
90
3/18/2014
174
4144
3159
17
21.3
157.43
59,856
1,425,536
3,706
652,379
6.19%
45.8%
91
5/7/2014
50
4194
3109
56.9
36.95
155.99
17,200
1,442,736
1,848
654,226
10.74%
45.3%
92
6/16/2014
40
4234
3069
200
128.45
155.73
13,760
1,456,496
5,138
659,364
37.34%
45.3%
93
7/8/2014
22
4256
3047
82
141
155.65
7,568
1,464,064
3,102
662,466
40.99%
45.2%
94
8/5/2014
28
4284
3019
75
78.5
155.15
9,632
1,473,696
2,198
664,664
22.82%
45.1%
95
9/3/2014
29
4313
2990
91
83
154.67
9,976
1,483,672
2,407
667,071
24.13%
45.0%
96
10/6/2014
33
4346
2957
150
120.5
154.41
11,352
1,495,024
3,977
671,048
35.03%
44.9%
97
11/4/2014
29
4375
2928
43
96.5
154.02
9,976
1,505,000
2,799
673,846
28.05%
44.8%
98
12/15/2014
41
4416
2887
6.7
24.85
152.82
14,104
1,519,104
1,019
674,865
7.22%
44.4%
99
1/13/2015
29
4445
2858
0.58
3.64
151.85
9,976
1,529,080
106
674,971
1.06%
44.1%
100
4/22/2015
99
4544
2759
52.1
26.34
149.11
34,056
1,563,136
2,608
677,578
7.66%
43.3%
101
6/3/2015
42
4586
2717
44.8
48.45
148.19
14,448
1,577,584
2,035
679,613
14.08%
43.1%
Notes:
NC = Not Calculated
4 of 5
-------
Sample Results, Calculated Cancer Budget and Exposure Values
Station: 24 Aerovox
Sample Station :
Collection Date:
Measured PCB Concentration (ng/m3):
Exposure Budget Expended During This Period:
Cumulative Exposure Budget Expended to Date:
Response Level:
Response:
24 Aerovox
6/3/2015
44.8
14.1%
43.1%
No Triggers Identified
No Response Necessary
Comparison of Monitored Cumulative Airborne PCB Exposures
to the Commercial Risk-Based Exposure Budget
LEGEND
UJ Tp
> E
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-Cancer Exposure
Budget for Work
Effort to Date
-Monitored
Exposure for
Work Effort to
Date
365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650 4015 4380 4745 5110
Time Since Start of Work (days)
5 of 5
-------
Air Sampling Status Report
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Station #: 46 Coffin
Exposure Budget Slope (EBS) = 202 nanograms per cubic meter per day (ng/m3-day)
Collection Date: 12/15/2014
This report summarizes sample results for the above referenced location and date. The samples were collected on polyurethane foam (PUF)/XAD
sample media with a glass fiber pre-filter using a BGI, PQ-1 Low-Volume sampler. The samples were analyzed using high-resolution mass
spectrometry (HRGCMS) for total PCB homologue groups. Results are evaluated relative to the Exposure Budget Tracking Process described in the
Development of PCB Air Action Levels for the Protection of the Public, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, August 2001.
Summary of Dredging Activities This Sampling Period:
2014 hydraulic dredge season mobilization activities began March 25,2014 and lasted until April 14, 2014. Hydraulic dredging activities were
conducted in the Upper Harbor, Areas L and P, from April 18, 2014 to October 10, 2014. Demobilization activities began October 14,
2014 and ended October 24, 2014.
Summary of Sampling Activities at Location 46 Coffin in 2014:
Baseline sample data was used to continue the production of the PETS curves for 2014. The cumulative non-cancer exposure budget for a child
receptor expended is approximately approximately 30% as a six-year running average. The cumulative cancer budget for an adult residential resident
expended to date is approximately 16%.
Summary of Previous Sampling Activities:
Previous ambient air sampling data and PETS curves are in the Draft 2012 Ambient Air Monitoring Report, ACE-J23-35BG0708-M17-0012.
1 of 5
-------
Sample Results, Calculated Budget and Exposure Values
Station: 46 Coffin Ave
Monitoring Station
46 Coffin Ave
Exposure Budget Slope
202
Work Start Date
11/12/2002
Projected Work End Date
11/10/2022
Occupational Limit Used as Ceiling
[ng/m3l
500,000
TEL for Worker in Public
[ng/m3l
50,000
NTEL for Worker in Public
[ng/m3l
1,789
Minimum of TEL/NTEL
[ng/m3l
1,789
Background Concentration
[ng/m3l
115
Background Concentration (100%)
[ng/mJ]
115
2 of 5
-------
Sample Results, Calculated Budget and Exposure Values
Station: 55 Aerovox West
(C)
(D)
Work Effort
Elapsed
Time
(E)
Estimated
Work Effort
Remaining
(F)
PCB
Concentration
Result
(G)
(I)
(J)
Cumulative
(K)
Measured
Cancer Risk
Exposure
During the
Period
(L)
Calculated
(M)
Cancer Risk
(N)
Cumulative
(A)
Event
(B)
Sampling Date
Days Since
Previous
Sampling
Event
Average of Most
Recent Two
Concentration
Results
(H)
Weighted Average of
Concentration Results
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget for the
Period
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget for
Work Effort to
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure for
Work Effort to
Exposure
Budget
Expended
During the
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Expended for
Work Effort to
Date
Date
Period
Date
Runnina Sum
Column (G)*
of Column (C)
Column (Li/Column CD")
Column (K)
Column (L)
to Date
EBS * Column (C)
Sum of Column (h
Column (C)
Sum of Column (K)
/Column (h
/Column (J)
m
[month/day/year]
[days]
fdavsl
[days]
[ng/m3]
[ng/m3]
[ng/m3]
[ng/m3-days]
[ng/m3-days]
[ng/m3-days]
[ng/m3-days]
[%]
[%]
1
9/9/2004
0
0
7303
145
145
145
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2
9/14/2004
5
5
7298
48
97
97
1010
1010
483
483
47.8%
47.8%
3
9/23/2004
9
14
7289
5
27
52
1818
2828
239
721
13.1%
25.5%
4
9/28/2004
5
19
7284
342
174
84
1010
3838
868
1589
85.9%
41.4%
5
10/19/2004
21
40
7263
36
189
139
4242
8080
3969
5558
93.6%
68.8%
6
11/5/2004
17
57
7246
80
58
115
3434
11514
986
6544
28.7%
56.8%
7
12/3/2004
28
85
7218
15
48
93
5656
17170
1330
7874
23.5%
45.9%
8
8/11/2005
251
336
6967
37.2
26
43
50702
67872
6551
14425
12.9%
21.3%
9
9/15/2005
35
371
6932
99.8
69
45
7070
74942
2398
16822
33.9%
22.4%
10
9/23/2005
8
379
6924
115
107
47
1616
76558
859
17681
53.2%
23.1%
11
9/29/2005
6
385
6918
124
120
48
1212
77770
717
18398
59.2%
23.7%
12
10/6/2005
7
392
6911
130
127.00
49.20
1414
79184
889
19287
62.9%
24.4%
13
10/28/2005
22
414
6889
2.1
66.05
50.10
4444
83628
1453
20740
32.7%
24.8%
14
11/18/2005
21
435
6868
0.1
1.10
47.73
4242
87870
23
20764
0.5%
23.6%
15
12/29/2005
41
476
6827
65.1
32.60
46.43
8282
96152
1337
22100
16.1%
23.0%
16
8/31/2006
245
721
6582
70.4
67.75
53.67
49490
145642
16599
38699
33.5%
26.6%
17
10/6/2006
36
757
6546
108
89.20
55.36
7272
152914
3211
41910
44.2%
27.4%
18
11/19/2006
44
801
6502
4.05
56.03
55.40
8888
161802
2465
44375
27.7%
27.4%
19
8/21/2007
275
1076
6227
36.1
20.08
46.37
55550
217352
5521
49896
9.9%
23.0%
20
9/18/2007
28
1104
6199
21.4
28.75
45.92
5656
223008
805
50701
14.2%
22.7%
21
11/9/2007
52
1156
6147
1.86
11.63
44.38
10504
233512
605
51306
5.8%
22.0%
22
8/21/2008
286
1442
5861
121.94
61.90
47.86
57772
291284
17703
69009
30.6%
23.7%
23
10/7/2008
47
1489
5814
5.2
63.57
48.35
9494
300778
2988
71997
31.5%
23.9%
24
11/10/2008
34
1523
5780
1.3
3.25
47.35
6868
307646
111
72107
1.6%
23.4%
25
6/16/2009
218
1741
5562
35
18.15
43.69
44036
351682
3957
76064
9.0%
21.6%
26
7/13/2009
27
1768
5535
36
35.50
43.56
5454
357136
959
77022
17.6%
21.6%
27
8/13/2009
31
1799
5504
14
25.00
43.24
6262
363398
775
77797
12.4%
21.4%
28
9/17/2009
35
1834
5469
13
13.50
42.68
7070
370468
473
78270
6.7%
21.1%
29
10/14/2009
27
1861
5442
8.8
10.90
42.22
5454
375922
294
78564
5.4%
20.9%
30
11/9/2009
26
1887
5416
32.8
20.80
41.92
5252
381174
541
79105
10.3%
20.8%
31
12/16/2009
37
1924
5379
0.171
16.49
41.43
7474
388648
610
79715
8.2%
20.5%
32
6/30/2010
196
2120
5183
13
6.59
38.21
39592
428240
1291
81006
3.3%
18.9%
33
7/20/2010
20
2140
5163
47
30.00
38.13
4040
432280
600
81606
14.9%
18.9%
34
8/18/2010
29
2169
5134
31
39.00
38.15
5858
438138
1131
82737
19.3%
18.9%
35
10/13/2010
56
2225
5078
21
26.00
37.84
11312
449450
1456
84193
12.9%
18.7%
36
7/13/2011
273
2498
4805
43
32.00
37.20
55146
504596
8736
92929
15.8%
18.4%
37
9/14/2011
63
2561
4742
93
68.00
37.96
12726
517322
4284
97213
33.7%
18.8%
38
10/11/2011
27
2588
4715
11
52.00
38.11
5454
522776
1404
98617
25.7%
18.9%
39
7/16/2012
279
2867
4436
26
18.50
36.20
56358
579134
5162
103778
9.2%
17.9%
Notes:
NC = Not Calculated
Column F shading represents actual sampling data. All others are
projected quarterly averages of PCB concentrations for that period. 3 of 5
-------
Sample Results, Calculated Budget and Exposure Values
Station: 55 Aerovox West
(A)
Event
(B)
Sampling Date
(C)
Days Since
Previous
Sampling
Event
(D)
Work Effort
Elapsed
Time
(E)
Estimated
Work Effort
Remaining
(F)
PCB
Concentration
Result
(G)
Average of Most
Recent Two
Concentration
Results
(H)
Weighted Average of
Concentration Results
(I)
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget for the
Period
(J)
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget for
Work Effort to
Date
(K)
Measured
Cancer Risk
Exposure
During the
Period
(L)
Calculated
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure for
Work Effort to
Date
(M)
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Budget
Expended
During the
Period
(N)
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Exposure
Expended for
Work Effort to
Date
40
8/21/2012
36
2903
4400
16
21.00
36.01
7272
586406
756
104534
10.4%
17.8%
41
10/1/2012
41
2944
4359
18
17.00
35.74
8282
594688
697
105231
8.4%
17.7%
42
3/26/2013
176
3120
4183
0.65
9.33
34.25
35552
630240
1641
106872
4.6%
17.0%
43
7/16/2013
112
3232
4071
48
24.33
33.91
22624
652864
2724
109597
12.0%
16.8%
44
8/20/2013
35
3267
4036
60
54.00
34.13
7070
659934
1890
111487
26.7%
16.9%
45
9/25/2013
36
3303
4000
4.1
32.05
34.10
7272
667206
1154
112641
15.9%
16.9%
46
3/18/2014
174
3477
3826
0
2.05
32.50
35148
702354
357
112997
1.0%
16.1%
47
5/7/2014
50
3527
3776
38.28
19.14
32.31
10100
712454
957
113954
9.5%
16.0%
48
6/16/2014
40
3567
3736
50
44.14
32.44
8080
720534
1766
115720
21.9%
16.1%
49
7/8/2014
22
3589
3714
24
37.00
32.47
4444
724978
814
116534
18.3%
16.1%
50
8/5/2014
28
3617
3686
42
33.00
32.47
5656
730634
924
117458
16.3%
16.1%
51
9/3/2014
29
3646
3657
10
26.00
32.42
5858
736492
754
118212
12.9%
16.1%
52
10/6/2014
33
3679
3624
70
40.00
32.49
6666
743158
1320
119532
19.8%
16.1%
53
11/14/2014
39
3718
3585
21
45.50
32.63
7878
751036
1775
121306
22.5%
16.2%
54
12/15/2014
31
3749
3554
2.7
11.85
32.46
6262
757298
367
121674
5.9%
16.1%
Notes:
NC = Not Calculated
Column F shading represents actual sampling data. All others are
projected quarterly averages of PCB concentrations for that period. 4 of 5
-------
Sample Results, Calculated Cancer Budget and Exposure Values
Station: 46 Coffin Ave
Sample Station :
Collection Date:
Measured PCB Concentration (ng/m3):
Exposure Budget Expended During This Period:
Cumulative Exposure Budget Expended to Date:
Response Level:
Response:
46 Coffin Ave
12/15/2014
2.7
5.9%
16.1%
No Triggers Identified
No Response Necessary
Comparison of Monitored Cumulative Airborne PCB Exposures
to the Residential Risk-Based Exposure Budget
« —~
SLS.
X (0
LU "9
> E
E
3
o
—mm.—^ x
LEGEND
-Cancer Exposure
Budget for Work
Effort to Date
- Monitored
Exposure for
Work Effort to
Date
1460 1825 2190 2555 2920
Time Since Start of Work (days)
4380
5 of 5
-------
6 - Seafood Monitoring Program Data Summary
-------
Scup
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Sampling Year
Note: Scup was not sampled in Area 1.
~ Area II
~ Area III
-------
Black Sea Bass
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Sampling Year
~ Area II
¦ Area III
Note: Black Sea Bass was not sampled in Area 1.
-------
Quahog (Pre-Spawn)
£1
XI
£L
n.
ru.
JZL
n_
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2008 2009 2010
Sampling Year
2011 2012 2013 2014
~ Area I
~ Area II
~ Area III
Note: Quahog samples were not taken in 2008-2010 or 2012 in Area 1.
-------
Quahog (Pre-Spawn)
Areas II & III only
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Sampling Year
~ Area II
~ Area III
-------
Lobster Meat
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
-------
Lobster Tomalley
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2012
Sampling Year
~ Area I
~ Area II
~ Area III
Note: Lobster samples were not taken in 2003 or 2012 in Area 1. Lobster samples were not taken 2008-2011 or after 2012.
-------
7 - Blue Mussel PCB Bioaccumulation Data
-------
70
60
50
40
E
Q.
a.
m
o
Q_
75 30
+->
o
20
10
-------
NBH-4
18
16
14
12
E
Q.
S 10
m
o
Q_
re
+->
o
8
O)
CO
O)
00
CD
O)
CM
o
CO
00
^r
CO
LO
LO
^r
CD
CM
^r
^r
CM
LO
CO
LO
CO
o
o
CD
CO
co
T—
T—
o
00
CD
LO
CM
CO
CM
CD
LO
LO
o
o
CM
CM
o
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
o
o
CM
CM
o
o
o
T—
CM
o
o
CM
o
o
CM
o
o
CM
o
o
CM
T—
CM
o
O
CM
LO
CD
00
O)
o
^—
CM
CM
CO
LO
5
CD
o
LO
o
CD
^—
CD
o
LO
^—
CD
o
o
5
CM
r-~
CM
r-~
^—
CM
CM
^—
CD
r-~
^—
CD
00
^—
CD
o
r-~
r-~
o
o
o
o
o
o
T—
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
T—
o
o
T—
o
o
o
o
o
T—
o
o
T—
o
o
T—
o
o
T—
o
O
o
CO
CO
^r
5"
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
CD
5
r-~
r-~
00
00
CD
CD
o
O
CM
CM
CO
CO
^r
LO
LO
5
N-
r-~
00
CD
CD
o
T—
CM
CM
CO
^r
0)0)0)0)0)0)010)0)010)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)010)000000000000000000
-------
1.40
1.20
1.00
E
a. 0.80
m
o
Q_
75 °-60
+-»
&
0.40
0.20
0.00
-------
8 - LTM Data
- PCB Levels in Top 2 CM of Sediment over Time
- Benthic Community Indices over Time
-------
Area of Detail
klawn Park
.^ytoodside
PCB Values 2009
<1 ppm
if? 1-10 ppm
10-50 ppm
C_r 50 - 100 ppm
# > 100 ppm
u V w
-------
PCB Values 2014
<1 ppm
if? 1-10 ppm
10-50 ppm
C_r' 50 - 100 ppm
# > 100 ppm
E
-------
-------
-------
Kilometers
-------
Kilometers
-------
Area of Detail
•Nasketucket Bay \
Burt Schi \u) 0
> - A K
vLivese
BI Values 2009
• <-1.86
O -1.86--0.59
O -0.59-0.33
• 0.33-1.91
Kilometers
-------
Area of Detail
•Nasketucket Bay \
Burt ScJjI !
-------
BI Values 2009
• <-1.86
O -1.86--0.59
O -0.59-0.33
O 0.33-1.91
• >1.91
Riverside
J CernfC
Area of Detail
jjs Radio Towers
m
;©tartv
^shrrw
[\ far^'
]\ l
arine
Crow
Island
yFteh
/ Island
Mi
K E W B B-D F 0 K 1
)) \ N\ 1 X
"'\ o H A rQ o hC •
Palmei
Islanc
t"T PHOKNIX BKAC
Palmer
Island
Lights ^-ffpHOENIX BEAcA
STATE RESERVATION
Playground
Kilometers
-------
BI Values 2014
• <-1.86
O -1.86--0.59
O -0.59-0.33
$ 0.33-1.91
• >1.91
Riverside
J CernfC
Area of Detail
!r Radio Towers
> ; (WBSM)o/
~-ft,**!!
fclfcshrn«
\\ ?arft
j\ i
N E W \B1
A
" 9 HA
Palmoi
Islanc
t"T PHOKNIX BKAC
Palmer Floddga
island
Lights ^-ffpHOENIX BEAcA
STATE RESERVATION
Playground
Kilometers
-------
Kilometers
-------
Kilometers
-------
11:17 Friday, August 28, 2015 1
1.0
0.9
0.8
Upper Lower Outer Upper Lower Outer Upper Lower Outer Upper Lower Outer Upper Lower Outer Upper Lower Outer strat
I— 1993 —I |— 1995 —I |— 1999 —| |— 2004 —| |— 2009 —| |- 2014 —| year
strat l l Upper Lower l l Outer
-------
9 - Maps of Signage Locations for Upper, Lower and Outer Harbor
-------
30
O
c
IP
2 o *s>
<£ v? "
Dawson St
n
o
a
c
1 I
UJ *
J"
^11P
Truro^ "!U
<•
Ol
is
b(oV
rooklawn Park
Howard Ave
Perry St
Acushnet
River
to
5
Irvirvgton
rinoeton St
Clifford St
>
a.
(rvington St
Clifford St
4T
T
%
Or
IS
^ Central Ave
5? Acusk
,-y Av/rw.
BateiSt
3
i.
st 5
^ WhitmanS*
o-
3
v?
fteMev
jille Rd
S
i/1
Q.
Q.
3
O
>
*
•
i Rd
<
.S
>
<
T3
mVch-a"1 St
thavJay
EarVe St
>
J
tP
?
o.
>
n
C
O
(0
r*
eb^e'
Hatha^aV St
Davis St
r oUette St
Ea.leSt
philips
Ave
Co^
o
o
Nye St
-lattmanSt
BuWdSt >
TaUrtvar* St
Holly St
12 n
13
€14
15
1)16
tJlt
10
Hadlcy
O
O
O
O
O
O Os
9
HoUy St
(§3nIfL
iawyef
5.
Lecuyen Ui
o
if*
%.
V,
Laors * ^
portef
v.
fairf
F,e\dSt
,rariCrt St
tran*-1
By"
*****
tagfcM Sf
AO'
,^o°'
J St
0
1
Spf
-o
¦3
Ha
steSt
Ha'
-c
w
\esv
A
t/i
©
10P
Bi
Ave
18
woiV *ve
A^ne
0ov®r
Morgan St
\Winsot St g
Q)
—i—Worto^ St 3
£
Oanie
Ha**^'
St
Uldtf""**
VNo^MC
G\enVva^°'
ad
-o
5U
Livesey
Memorial
Park
re
vC
c
Sign Type
O No Fishing
© Proposed New No-Fishing Sign Locations
O Catch & Release
O PCB Contaminated Sediment
A Kiosk Location
w-s^ ^ y~ i
«EPA
-------
Be®'1
iSt
s
I
20
19 O 21
z
o
Coqg*
I St
24
18
IS =
2223 25
Zv r—
26
O JP
-- 01
27#;
Morion St 3
LA
Ocane St ~
IA
f
28
A»
logaQfc
Hicks St
to9®r< ^
Washburn St Q
Kilburn St
Signage
New Bedford Harbor
-Lower Harbor-
O
% LOfl9 f
Z
3
7P
© 8P
©
Hedge
u s h
©
6P
I
a
«/*
^ o*tort*
5P
©
St
Mort*1 41
nfield *
Birc
St
liO1*-
i\<<*
fcje a
B
5 3
V*>1 W
Q
4P
jetted*
St
Popes Island
31
O
3P
©
32
0 5 -
&r %
2P
%
o 5
o-
¦?
•s.
•£
1
•£
•6
\
30
Fish
O land
©
~
o O.
29
& Middle Si
Elm St
<2
am st
2
z
* -n
Crow
Island
Washing'00
£
Hodman St
St
£
3
3
S 9
n ^
3" i/t
Vfl
l,am S* 2.
LrJlOOVS
aid St
Onion St
Spring
£ $tn<*
3"
vj
Walnut St
Madison St
Stale
33
— 3
®' 6
3 £
£ ""
Union St
Sou^sl
Cent"
rr St
a
01
3
|
1 >s ^
«/* —
ro -3
1 !
ts> c
r* a>
s
o
teonardi ^
J
a
n.
Rusie" St ^
Bedtoid
1
? £
1
c
a>
¦rf
£
5
St
3
?
s
s
cu
1
- 1 p
uj
% f
Grinned ®
^ V?
Tt
C I
111. _
a ~ s
Chute*1 St ^
f
UJ
farm f.eld St
Cott»9"sv 5
Mapl'5
§ '
pXlO"1 Sl
v/Jashkt
«
. £
phoe^*
St
Qoai^
St
Sign Type
O No Fishing
© Proposed New No-Fishing Sign Locations
O Catch & Release
O PCB Contaminated Sediment
A Kiosk Location
N
W-^ ^ t
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
I Miles
SEPA
-------
Signage
New Bedford Harbor
-Outer Harbor-
Palmers
Island
37
A 35
1P A
34
o
2
I
Bolton
Strut •
OsiOMI
ST*E£T
Q £
» ~ .
o
W^eP*^ & %
*
i
¦g •AeW0
~HO®*
Cove Rd
Jf
«
-z
¦3
§L
X
4
a**"*'
«4y
40O410
Ac;-,
38
G^0I°
*
6»
I
S
Cove St
5 <
£ t= £
s- a a;
4243A
8
5
% s
W-. ^
2
* 1
\
OS*"
*•** "it
u*
V
\ .
%. *<***
a*"
«#*•
A*
Buuards Say
1
0^
44
5 M
45
*4°*
o»fi
Park
darks Cove
¦3.
6
O
Haze! wood Park
<>
<***
CP
i
V,
nJtotfUt ^
Bc 4
cM®0"1
\
CP**
, ««**
90^
p^do^
ClaAi
8W<>
N\f®
fo^
$ Point
.„V
k£SW
ft?
«,\ma
57
Port Taber Parfc
I®
j 59
60
¦ Bei
62
Qfi3
Sign Type
O No Fishing
© Proposed New No-Fishing Sign Locations
O Catch & Release
O PCB Contaminated Sediment
A Kiosk Location
N
W-^ ^ t
«EPA
-------
2015 Fencing and Signage Institutional Control Inspection
-------
New Bedford Harbor
Sign Locations
LOCATION
SIGN TYPE
CONDITION
INSPECTION
DATE
ACTION
DATE
1
No Fishing
Bad
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
2
No Fishing
Bad
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
3
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
4
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
5
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
6
No Fishing
Need Pole & Sign
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
7
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
8
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
9
No Fishing
Missing
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
10
PCB Contaminant Beyond Point
Good
May 26,2015
11
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
12
PCB Sediment Beyond Fence
Good
May 26,2015
13
PCB Sediment Beyond Fence
Good
May 26,2015
14
No Trespassing
Good
May 26,2015
15
No Fishing/ PCB
Good
May 26,2015
16
PCB Contaminant
Good
May 26,2015
17
No Fishing and
PCB Beyond Fence
Good
May 26,2015
18
No Fishing
Needs New Post &
Sign
May 26,2015
Replaced Post
June 17,2015
21
No Fishing
Bad
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
22
No Fishing
Bad
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
23
No Fishing
Bad
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
24
No Fishing
Bad
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
26
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
Page 1 of 3
-------
New Bedford Harbor
Sign Locations
LOCATION
SIGN TYPE
CONDITION
INSPECTION
DATE
ACTION
DATE
27
Warning PCB Sediment
Good
May 26,2015
28
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
29
No Fishing
Missing
May 26,2015
LJI UU1 1 LI LJOIIUI 1 OUI 1 1 1UL
replace
June 17,2015
30
No Fishing
Missing
May 26,2015
Same as 29
June 17,2015
31
No Fishing
Construction
May 26,2015
Same as 29
June 17,2015
32
No Fishing
Construction
May 26,2015
Same as 29
June 17,2015
33
No Fishing
Missing
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
34
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
35
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
36
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
37
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
38
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
39
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
40
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
42
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
43
No Fishing
Good
May 26,2015
44
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
45
Missing
Missing
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
46
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
47
Catch and Release
Missing
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
48
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
49
Catch and Release
Missing
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
50
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
51
Catch and Release
Bad
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
52
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
Page 2 of 3
-------
New Bedford Harbor
Sign Locations
LOCATION
SIGN TYPE
CONDITION
INSPECTION
DATE
ACTION
DATE
53
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
54
Catch and Release
Missing
May 26,2015
Replaced
June 17,2015
55
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
56
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
57
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
58
Catch and Release
Bad
May 26,2015
59
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
60
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
61
Catch and Release
Good
May 26,2015
62
Catch and Release
Bad
May 26,2015
63
Catch and Release
Missing
May 26,2015
Page 3 of 3
-------
11 - 0U3 Pilot Cap and State's Mitigation Cap Expansion Area
-------
APPENDIXB.il
0U3 PILOT CAP AND STATE'S MITIGATION CAP EXPANSION AREA
lOU18-12
OU16-12
OU25-12
OU12-12
OU13-12
Proposed
Winter Flounder
Mitigation Area.
OU22-12
OU21-12
[OU23?12
OU04-12
,OU 24-12
OU02-12
OU03-12
WOODS
HOLKGPOUP
Area A
¦ - OU08-12
OU06-12
OU09-12
^OU07-12
•{3 nOU07-12-REP
Area B
Legend:
• 2012 Cap Sample Locations
Total NOAA-18 PCB Isopleths
25 ppm
50 ppm
Note: Isopleths are surficial
concentrations prior to capping
-------
Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs
-------
Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs
Objective of IC
Form ofIC
Status of IC
Prevent consumption of
PCB -contaminated
seafood above risk-based
levels
MassDPH fishing restriction regulations.
Promulgated in 1979
Establish site-specific seafood consumption advisories.
Completed
Education and outreach
Ongoing
Signage
Installed/Ongoing
Prevent dermal
contact/incidental
ingestion of PCB-
contaminated sediments
Fencing
Installed/Ongoing
Signage
Installed/Ongoing
Land use controls on properties not remediated to unrestricted use.
Planned following completion of
intertidal/shoreline remediation.
Maintain the
protectiveness of the Pilot
CDF cap (following cap
construction)
Land use controls on the Pilot CDF property to restrict reuse of the
area to passive recreational use and ensure that the integrity of the cap
and the Pilot CDF's sidewalls are maintained for long term
protectiveness.
Planned following completion of
remedial dredging activities and
construction of Pilot CDF cap.
Maintain the
protectiveness of the
OU3 Pilot Cap
Coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a regulated
navigation area that will prohibit activities that could disturb the
seabed within the OU3 Cap area and also delineate the OU3 Cap
footprint on marine navigational charts for the New Bedford Harbor
area. These charts will note the anchorage restrictions for mariners in
the harbor.
Completed
Maintain the
protectiveness of the
LHCC Cap (following
cap installation)
Work with harbor stakeholders to develop guidelines for mooring and
anchor designs that will ensure that the integrity of the cap is not
damaged by moorings and anchors. Assist these stakeholders in
developing and implementing regulations requiring that such mooring
and anchor designs are used within the cap area.
Planned following completion of
remedial dredging activities for the
filling of the LHCC and
construction/installation of the LHCC
cap
Coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a regulated
navigation area that will prohibit activities that could disturb the
seabed within the LHCC and also delineate the LHCC footprint on
marine navigational charts for the NBH area. These charts will note
the anchorage restrictions for mariners in the harbor.
Planned following completion of
remedial dredging activities for the
filling of the LHCC and
construction/installation of the LHCC
cap
-------
13 - Lower Harbor CAD Cells and SER Navigational Dredging
-------
GIFFORD STREET
CHANNEL
MATCH L!
I—i*jTOiy#j
LEGEND:
PHASE I DREDGE AREAS
CONTACT INFORMATION
JAY BORKLAND
125 BROAD STREET, 5TH
FLOOR
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
JOHN GROWTHER
APEX
OFFICES NATIONWIDE
(P) 617 728-0070
P:\Jobs\6690 NBH_ Phase !V\PLANS\PUBLIC MEETING 22 OCT 2014\POST£RS_recover.dwg
-------
14 - Outer Harbor SER Navigational Dredging
-------
FAIR HAVEN
ralmer;s
ffeuwb
GIFFORD STREE'
CHANNEL
GIFFORD STREET
CHANNEL
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
LEGEND:
PHASE I DREDGE AREAS
PHASE II DREDGE AREAS
PHASE III DREDGE AREAS
PHASE IV DREDGE AREAS
EXISTING CAD CELL LOCATIONS
INTERIM FEDERAL CHANNEL DREDGING
CONTACT INFORMATION
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR
JAY BORKLAND
125 BROAD STREET, 5TH
FLOOR
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
JOHN CROWTHER
APEX
DREDGE AREAS TO DATE
OFFICES NATIONWIDE
P:\Jobs\6690 NBH_ Phase !V\PLANS\PUBLIC MEETING 22 OCT 2014\POST£RS_recover.dwg
-------
APPENDIX C - PUBLIC NOTICE/OUTREACH AND FYR INTERVIEWS
Public Notification
Interviews/Questionnaires
September 2015 Updated Seafood Consumption Advisory
-------
EPA New England News Release
Protecting Human Health and the Environment
www.epa.gov/regionl/news
News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Office
January 5, 2015
Contact: Emily Bender, 617-918-1037
EPA Will Review 24 Hazardous Site Cleanups during 2015
Boston, Mass.- EPA will review site clean ups and remedies at 20 Superfund Sites and oversee
reviews at 4 Federal Facilities across New England this year by doing scheduled Five-Year Reviews
at each site.
EPA conducts evaluations every five years on previously-completed clean up and remediation work
performed at Superfund sites and Federal Facilities listed on the "National Priorities List" (aka
Superfund sites) to determine whether the implemented remedies at the sites continue to be
protective of human health and the environment. Further, five year review evaluations identify any
deficiencies to the previous work and, if called for, recommend action(s) necessary to address them.
The Superfund Sites where EPA will begin Five Year Reviews in FY' 2015 (October 1, 2014 through
September 30, 2015) are below. Please note, the Web link provided after each site provides
detailed information on the site status and past assessment and cleanup activity. The web link also
provides contact information for the EPA Project Manager and Community Involvement Coordinator
at each site. Community members and local officials are invited to contact EPA with any comments
or current concerns about a Superfund Site or about the conclusions of the previous Five Year
Review.
The Superfund Sites at which EPA is performing Five Year Reviews over the following several
months include the following sites.
Connecticut
Durham Meadows, Durham
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/durham
Old Southington Landfill, Southington
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/oldsouthinqton
Raymark Industries, Stratford
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/ravmark
Solvents Recovery Services of New England, Southington
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/srs
-------
Maine
Brunswick Naval Air Station (Federal Facility), Brunswick
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/brunswick
Callahan Mining Corp., Brooksville
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/callahan
Eastland Woolen Mill, Corinna
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/eastland
Loring Air Force Base (Federal Facility), Limestone
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/lorinq
Pinette's Salvage Yard, Washburn
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/pinette
Saco Municipal Landfill, Saco
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/sacolandfill
Massachusetts
Atlas Tack Corp., Fairhaven
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/atlas
Cannon Engineering Corp., Bridgewater
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/cannon
Charles-George Reclamation Trust Landfill, Tyngsborough
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/charlesqeorqe
Fort Devens (Federal Facility), Ayer, Harvard, Lancaster & Shirley
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/devens
Groveland Wells No. 1 & 2 Site, Groveland
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/qroveland
Materials Technology Laboratory (US ARMY, Federal Facility), Watertown
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/amtl
New Bedford Harbor, New Bedford
www.epa.gov/nbh
PSC Resources, Palmer
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/psc
New Hampshire
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill, Somersworth
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/somersworth
-------
South Municipal Water Supply Well (Five Year Review Addendum), Peterborough
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/southmuni
Troy Mills Landfill, Troy
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/trovmills
Rhode Island
Stamina Mills Inc., North Smithfield
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/stamina
West Kingston Town Dump/URI Disposal Area, South Kingstown
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/wkinqston
Vermont
Burgess Brothers Landfill, Woodford and Bennington
http://www.epa.qov/reqion1/superfund/sites/burqess
Learn More about the Latest EPA News & Events in New England
(http://www.epa.gov/reqion1/newsevents/index.html')
Follow EPA New England on Twitter (http://twitter.com/epanewengland')
Connect with EPA New England on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/EPARegion1')
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: New Bedford Harbor
EPA ID No.: MAD980731335
Subject: 2015 Five Year Review - State and Local
Considerations
Time: 1030
Date: 6/2/15
Type: Q Telephone ^ E-mail Q Other
dl Visit Location of Visit:
~ Incoming ~ Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name:
Title:
Organization: EPA
Individual Contacted:
Name: Joseph Coyne Title: Environmental Engineer
Organization: MassDEP
Telephone No: 617-348-4066
Fax No: 617-292-5530
Street Address: 1 Winter Street
City, State, Zip: Boston, Ma 02108
E-Mail Address: Joseph.Coyne@state.ma.us
Summary of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
Overall I am satisfied with how the project is progressing and how EPA, the Corps and the private contractor have
been able to solve the unique and difficult problems that have arisen in a site as large and complicated as this.
2. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting activities, etc.)
conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and results.
MassDEP is a partner with EPA in the cleanup of the harbor and therefore our office remains in close contact with
EPA regarding the site and we participate in site visits, inspections and other reporting activities.
3. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a response by
your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses.
Yes there have been various complaints regarding the use of CAD Cells, the timing of the clean-up, the amount of
PCBs that will remain at the site, the frequency and extent of sampling, and the total amount from AVX
settlement.
4. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
For the most part, yes.
5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operation?
The site management and operations are being done at a very high level.
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: New Bedford Harbor
EPA ID No.: MAD980731335
Subject: 2015 Five Year Review - State and Local
Considerations
Time: 7/17/15 Date
Type: Q Telephone ^ E-mail Q Other
dl Visit Location of Visit:
~ Incoming ~ Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name:
Title:
Organization: EPA
Individual Contacted:
Name: Michele Paul
Title: Director, Env. Stewardship Organization: City of New Bedford
Telephone No: 508-979-1487
Fax No:
Street Address: 133 William Street, Rm 304
City, State, Zip: New Bedford, MA 02740
E-Mail Address: michele.paul@newbedford.ma-gov
Summary of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
Until the AVX settlement greatly compressed the project timeframe, I sincerely doubted that the overall condition
of the harbor could be positively affected at the former pace of cleanup. The EPA has responded to the
opportunity provided by the settlement with a comensurate increase in resources. Ginny Lombardo's work as the
harbor program team leader has greatly enhanced coordination and communication and Ginny has informed the
City about funding opportunities enabling the City to carry out associated work at a local level. The City has
numerous projects in the planning stages for the future of the harbor which rely on close coordination with Ginny
and her Harbor Team.
2. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting activities, etc.)
conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and results.
Our office does not perform inspections or reporting activities, but we do keep up to date so that we can inform
the public when we are asked. We participate in EPA-facilitated public outreach events to demonstrate the
partnership between the City and EPA.
3. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a response by
your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses.
There have not been any complaints or violations. When we have received questions from the public that we were
not able to answer, we have passed those questions along to Ginny and the team. The Harbor Team is extremely
responsive - making site visits immediately if that is what is required to address and issues.
4. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
Absolutely - Ginny keep our department informed of site progress and schedule on regular basis and calls, emails,
or sets up meetings with any significant items of note as they occur.
5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operation?
From my perspective, I could not be more pleased with the coordination and cooperation of the Harbor Team.
When I speak to the public about EPA's efforts, I do so with full confidence in the quality of the work, and the
dedication of the Harbor Team.
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: New Bedford Harbor
EPA ID No.: MAD980731335
Subject: 2015 Five Year Review - State and Local
Considerations
Time:
Date: 7/31/15
Type: Q Telephone ^ E-mail Q Other
dl Visit Location of Visit:
~ Incoming ~ Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Kelsey O'Neil
Title: Community Involvement
Coordinator
Organization: EPA
Individual Contacted:
Name: Edward Anthes-
Washburn
Title: Acting Port Director
Organization:
New Bedford Harbor
Development
Commission
Telephone No: 508-961-3000
Fax No:
Street Address: 52 Fishermans Wharf
City, State, Zip: New Bedford, MA 02740
E-Mail Address:
Summary of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
The AVX settlement has provided a needed funding source and a welcome increase in the pace of the harbor clean
up. The HDC appreciates the cooperation and collaboration of the EPA team with respect to all aspects of the
project. As the clean up moves forward, one of the HDC's primary concerns is to continue to make effective use
of the State Enhanced Remedy (SER) Process to increase port activity and provide for additional dredging while
removing additional PCBs from the environment. Without the SER process, the port would not be able to
maintain and deepen vital channels and berths. In the months and years ahead, we look forward to further use of
the SER process for federal channel maintenance dredging, Phase V berth dredging, the design of additional
bulkheads in the North terminal and construction of a new Route 6 bridge. As the Superfund clean up progresses,
we look forward to EPA's cooperation in working with the HDC and City to develop a mechanism for the SER, or
a similarly efficient process, to be available once the EPA harbor clean up is completed.
2. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting activities, etc.)
conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and results.
HDC staff meets weekly with the EPA and Army Corps project team to review the progress of construction on
the Lower Harbor CAD cell. These weekly meeting provide an excellent method to coordinate federal, state and
city interests in the timely completion of CAD cell construction and other issues related to the harbor clean up.
We appreciate the project teams' responsiveness to our requests for information and updates.
3. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a response by
your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses.
Complaints and concerns regarding EPA operations have been expeditiously addressed by the EPA/Army Corps
project team.
4. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress?
Yes.
5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's management or
operation?
-------
Public outreach efforts are well planned and executed - particularly the public meeting held in the Fairhaven Town
Hall. One recommendation is to develop data and graphic handouts for the public as take aways from public
meetings. Handouts could show work areas, pollution concentrations, etc. Handouts with key data and mapping
would be welcomed by community members rather than a reference to a web page and could be used to inform
and educate others.
-------
Fish Consumption Regulations
and Recommendations
Massachusetts Regulations / U.S. EPA Recommendations for Eating Fish, Shellfish
and Lobster Caught in Three Fish Closure Areas Around New Bedford Harbor
UPDATED SEPTEMBER 2015
Closure Area 1
Inner Harbor: North of the hurricane barrier and Ft. Phoenix Beach State Reservation - Includes Palmer Island
If you catch...
Then-
Any shellfish, lobster, or fish, including bottom feeders
Do not eat it
Closure Area 2
Duter Harbor: South of the hurricane barrier to Ricketsons Point and tip of Sconticut Neck (Wilbur Point) - Includes Clarks Cove
If you catch...
Then-
Fish:
Black Sea Bass
Eat no more than one meal per month
All bottom-feeding fish including:
Do not eat it
Flounder
Scup
V*
Tautog
All other fish
U.S. EPA does not have adequate data so cannot make a recommendation
Lobster ^
Do not eat it
Shellfish (clams, quahogs, mussels, conch, etc,)
Eat no more than one meal per month. Exception: Shellfish caught in Clarks
Cove: East no more than one meal per week
Note: Pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under age 12, and women who may become pregnant should not eat fish, shellfish or
lobster caught in Closure Area 2, except they can safely eat one, and only one, meal per month of shellfish caught in Clarks Cove.
Closure Area 3
Buzzards Bay: South of Ricketsons Point and tip of Sconticut Neck (Wilbur Point) to Mishaum Point in Dartmouth and West Island South
Point in Fairhaven - Includes area south of the West Island Causeway
If you catch...
Then...
Fish:
Black Sea Bass
Eat no more than one meal per month
All bottom-feeding fish including:
U.S. EPA does not have adequate data so cannot make a recommendation
Flounder
U.S. EPA does not have adequate data so cannot make a recommendation
Scup
Do not eat it
Tautog
Eat no more than one meal per month
All other fish
U.S. EPA does not have adequate data so cannot make a recommendation
Lobster ^
Do not eat it
Shellfish (clams, quahogs, mussels, conch, etc.)
There are no eating restrictions
Note: Pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under age 12, and women who may become pregnant should not eat fish or lobster
caught in Closure Area 3. They can safely eat one, and only one, meal per month of shellfish caught in Area 3.
-------
*
-------
APPENDIX D - RISK ASSESSMENT UPDATES
Dermal/Incidental Contact Risk Update Memo
Seafood Tissue Risk Update Memo
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1
5 POST OFFICE SQUARE SUITE 100
BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02109-3912
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
.ombardo
Sugatt
>er 15,2015
I risk evaluation of sediment cleanup goals for PCBs from the
1998 Record of Decision (ROD) for the New Bedford harbor Superfund Site. New
Bedford, Massachusetts
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to evaluate whether the 1998 ROD cleanup
goals for PCBs in shoreline sediments at the New Bedford Superfund Site remain
protective. Shoreline sediment cleanup levels were calculated in Appendix B of the
1998 "Declaration for the Record of Decision New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site Upper
and Lower Harbor Operable Unit New Bedford, Massachusetts'*,
The exposure assumptions for these calculations arc presented in Table 1. The exposure
equations are provided in a copy of Appendix B attached. The cleanup levels were
calculated for non-cancer risk using the oral Reference Dose (RfD) for Aroclor 1254.
which has not changed. In order to evaluate whether these cleanup levels remain
protective for non-cancer effects, as well as cancer effects, the LP A Regional Screening
Level (RSL) calculator < htlp:/'www.ena.uo\ 'reizion9/supcrfiind/priA) was used to
calculate concentrations of Aroclor 1254 for a Hazard Quotient (HQ) of 1 and an
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (II.CR) of 1 x 10"° to 1 x 10"4 (also expressed as 1 F.-06
to 1 F.-04). The RSL calculator uses current (June, 201 5) recommended exposure and
loxicity factors.
The 1998 ROD derived cleanup le\els for five shoreline areas (see Table 1). As detailed
in Table 1. the receptor for three primarily non-residential areas was an older child age 7-
18 years who contacted sediment for 20 or 32 days/year for 12 years, with a sediment
ingestion rate of 100 mg/dav. The fraction ingested from the site was assumed to be 0.5.
and (he oral absorption was assumed to be 100%. The fraction ingested is the fraction of
total daily sediment ingestion that is from the Site as opposed to other areas. Dermal
contact was assumed to occur over a skin surface area of 4380 enr, with a skin adherence
factor of 0.61 mg/cnr and an oral to dermal absorption factor of 0.14. The PCB cleanup
level for an HQ -1 was 25 mg/kg for the receptors with 32 day/year exposure frequency
and 40 mg/kg for the receptors with 20 day/year exposure frequency.
Also as shown in Table 1, the receptor for two primarily residential areas was a young
child age 0-6 years who contacted sediment for 1 50 days/year for 6 years, with a
sediment ingestion rale of 200 mg/dav. the fraction ingested from the site was assumed
to be L and the oral absorption was assumed to be 100%. Dermal contact was assumed
to occur over a skin surface area of 2900 cm2, with a skin adherence factor of 1 mg/cnr
i-'j
To: Ginnv I
From: Richard
Date: Sepieml
Subject: Updated
-------
and an oral to dermal absorption factor of 0.14, The PCB cleanup level for an HQ -1 was
1 mg/kg.
The risk-based concentrations (RBCs") calculated using the EPA RSL calculator arc
presented in Table 2 for comparable receptors. A copy of the calculator printout is
attached. The printout contains all of the exposure factors used in the calculation, l or the
older child receptor with an exposure frequency of 20 days/year (with a 1998 cleanup
level of 40 mg/kg), the 2015 RBC was 184 mg/kg for HQ = 1 and 159 mg/kg for ILCR =
1F-05. Since both 2015 RBCs are higher than the 1998 cleanup level, it is concluded that
the 1998 ROD cleanup lex el remains protective for both non-cancer and cancer risk.
For the older child receptor with an exposure frequency of 32 days/year (with a 1998
cleanup level of 25 mg/kg), the 2015 RBC was 115 mg/kg for HQ =1 and 27 mg'kg for
ILCR - 1K-05. Since both 2015 RBCs arc higher than the 1 998 cleanup level, it is
concluded that the 1998 ROD cleanup level remains protective for both non-cancer and
cancer risk.
For the young child receptor with an. exposure frequency of 150 days (with a 1.998
cleanup level of 1 mg/kg). the 2015 RBC was 2.7 mg/kg for HQ ~ 1 and 5.8 mg/kg for
ILCR = 1 li-05. Since both 2015 RBCs arc higher than the 1998 cleanup level, it is
concluded that the 1998 ROD cleanup level remains protective.
As shown in Table 2. the 2015 non-cancer RBCs are higher (less stringent) than the 1998
cleanup levels for comparable receptors. The major differences in exposure factors
between 1998 and 2015 are in the fraction ingested, skin adherence factor, and skin
surface area. For the older child receptors, the 2015 non-cancer RBCs are about 5 times
higher (less stringent) than the 1998 cleanup levels primarily because the skin adherence
factor is now about ten times lower (0.07 mg'cnr in 201 5 iw 0.61 mg/cm2 in 1998),
combined with a doubling of the fraction ingested from 0.5 in 1998 to 1 in 2015. and a
slight decrease in skin surface area (2900 enr in 1998 i».v 2373 enr in 2015). For the
young child receptor, the 2015 non-cancer RBC is about 3 times higher (less stringent)
than the 1998 cleanup level primarily because the skin adherence factor is now about five
times lower (0.2 mg/enr in 2015 \\s 1 mg 'cnr in 1998). combined with an increase in
skin surface area (2900 enr in 1998 v.y 6032 enr in 2015).
2
-------
Table 1, Exposure and toxicity factors for sediment cleanup levels from 1998 Record of Decision
Non-
Oral to
Exposure
Oral
Cancer
Sediment
Fraction
Skin
Skin
Dermal
Cleanup
Scenario
Receptor
Reference
Body
Exposure
Exposure
Averaging
ingestion
Ingested
Surface
Adherence
Absorption
Level
Age
Dose
Weight
Frequency
Duration
Time
Rate
from Site
Area
Factor
Factor
(for HQ =1)
(yr)
(mg/kg-day)
(kg)
(days/yr)
(yr)
(days)
(mg/day)
(unitless)
{cm')
(mg/cm2)
(unitless)
(mg/kg)
1
7 18
2.0E-05
47
32
12
4380
100
0.5
4380
0.61
0.14
25
2
7-18
2.0E-05
47
20
12
4380
100
0,5
4380
0.61
0.14
40
3
0-6
2.0E-05
15
ISO
8
2900
200
1
2900
1
0.14
1
4
7-18
2.0E-05
47
20
12
4380
100
0.5
4380
0.61
0.14
40
5
0-6
2.0E-05
15
150
6
2900
200
1
2900
1
0.14
1
Information from Appendix B "Record of Decision for the Upper and Lower Harbor Operable Unit, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, New Bedford, MA" EPA (1998)
HQ - Hazard Quotient
1 = Coffin St. cove, New Bedford, including Coffin St. playground, vacant waterfront property, hot spot CDF
2 = Industrial area north of Coffin St. playground continuing to Wood St. Bridge
3 = Houses just north of Wood St. Bridge, New Bedford
4 = South of Wood St. Bridge (Acushnet Side)
5 = Veranda St. inlet (Fairhaven)
-------
Table 2. Comparison of 1998 ROD PCB Sediment Cleanup levels with Updated 2015 PCB Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs)
1998 ROD
2015 RBCs (mg/kg) for Aroclor 12.54
Exposure
Scenario
Receptor
Age
(yr)
Exposure
Frequency
(days/yr)
Cleanup
Level
(mg/kg)
Receptor
Age
(yr)
Cancer
Non-Cancer
ILCR=
Child
Adult
1E-06
1E-05
1E-04
HQ = 1
HQ - 1
1
7-18
52
25
6-16 & 16-30
2.71
27.1
271
NA
115
2
7-18
20
40
6-16 & 16-30
15.9
159
1590
NA
184
3
0-6
150
1
0-6
0.578
5.8
58
2.7
24.5
4
7-18
20
40
6-16 & 16-30
4.34
43.4
434
NA
184
5
0-6
150
1
0-6
0.578
5.8
58
2.7
24.5
NA = Not Applicable, because young child was not a receptor in 1998 ROD
The Child HQ. represents the HQ for a child age 0-6 years without adjustment for other age groups
1LCR = Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
HQ, = Hazard Quotient
Screening Levels calculated with EPA Regional Screening Level calculator (http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/)
1 = Coffin St. cove, New Bedford, including Coffin St. playground, vacant waterfront property, hot spot CDF
2 = Industrial area north of Coffin St. playground continuing to Wood St. Bridge
3 = Houses just north of Wood St. Bridge, New Bedford
4 = South of Wood St. Bridge (Acushnet Side}
5 = Veranda St. inlet (Fairhaven)
-------
APPENDIX B
CALCULATIONS SUPPORTING
UPDATED SHORELINE CLEANUP LEVELS
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE - ROD 2.
1. Coffin Street cove, New Bedford; This area contains three subareas; the Coffin Street
playground area, a recently cleared waterfront property and the hot spot CDF area.
a. £(^Streetj^xgR2und: This is a well established playground with swings, a plavset,
ba 'held, hockey court and an old outdoor shower. Adjacent and very close to this area is'the
shoreline bordered by a narrow strip of saltmarsh. There is currently a fence between the
playground and shoreline although there is evidence that individuals can trespass over the fence
ln add,t,on> we!l worn Paths are Present within the fenced area to the shoreline. The playground
is surrounded by homes. It is reasonable to assume that an older child aged seven to eighteen
could access the shoreline and saltmarshes two times per week during the summer months of
June, July and August and one time per week during May and September.
b. \frcant waterfront property; This area was cleared of an old (Pierce) mill complex in 1997.
e City of New Bedford has proposed use of at least part of this area as a ''Riverside" park
Since the tnnge saltmarsh conditions are very similar to those bordering the Coffin Street
p ay ground, the potential exposures and receptor arc assumed to be the same as for the
playground area.
c. C£F: It is reasonable to assume that the hot spot CDF could be converted into a recreational
or park aica m the future to match the land use of the other properties bordering the cove. As
wit the playground and vacant waterfront property, it is likely that the fringe saltmarsh in this
area would remain and act. as a buffer limiting complete access to the .shoreline. Based on this
future scenano, a future exposure scenario and receptor could be the same as for these other
waterfront properties bordering the cove,
d EM^felsanupjCTd: All three areas of the Cove have the same receptor and exposure
pathways, thus the same cleanup level should be attained in all three areas. The 95% Upper
.on e Level on the arithmetic mean of exposed sediments in these areas should meet the
cleanup goa! denved below since this is the statistic utilized in assessing exposure in risk
assessments, 1
-------
B-2
CLEANUP' LEVEL FOR PCBS IN SEDIMENTS IN AREAS OF BEACHCOMBING
ACTIVITIES
C (mg/kg) = TOOxBW.xAT..
FxD [(_L x 1R. ) + (_L x SA_ x AF x RAF.)
RfD0 106 mg/kg RfD0 106 mg/kg
C, = PCB concentration in soil = soil cleanup level
THQ = target hazard quotient - 1
BVV -- average body weight of child 7-18 years of age r- 47 kg
AT,k averaging time, noncarcinogen = (12yrs x 365dys/yr) = 4,380 days
F - exposure frequency — 2dys/wk x 4wks/mo x 3mos/yr + ] dy/wk x 2 mos/yr ¦= 32 days per
year
D = duration =12 years
RfD = reference dose for PCBs = 2xl0"5mg/kg-dy (IRIS, 10/1/96)
IR = sediment ingestion rate = [ 1 OOmg/dy (soil ingestion rate for older child) x 0.5 (fraction of
total soil/sediment from source)] = 50 mg/day
SA = surface area of an older child exposed (head, hands, lower arms and lower legs) = 4,380
cm2
AF = skin adherence factor = 0.61 mg/cm2; derived by averaging adherence factor of 1 mg/cm2
for age groups 7-12 exposed to wet sediment (Kissel et al., 1996) with adherence factor
of 0.23 mg/cm2 for age groups 13 - 18 exposed to wet sediments (Kissel et al., 1996)
RAFdamJ] = dermal relative absorption factor = 14% ~ amount absorbed in the blood via the
dermal route from the site divided by the amount absorbed in the blood from the toxicity
study which is the basis of the RfD or CDF (From Wester el al., 1993)
Substituting the above values into the equation:
C (mg/kg) « (1)(47)(4380)
32x12 10} * (50) + 1 x 4380x 0.6x0.141
2x10"5 106 2x1.0"5 106
= (205.860)
384( 50.+ 374)
20 20
= 205,860/8141.8 = 25.2 or 25 ppm
-------
B-3
2. Industrial area north of Coffin Street playground continuing to Wood Street Bridge: A
heavily industrialized area extends north from the Coffin Street playground to the Wood Street
Blidee This area is uniikeiy to be visited on a regular basis by children or adults since it is on"
private property, not very accessible and not very attractive. It is assumed that an older child,
aged 7-18, might visit this area one time per week for five months per year (about 20 davs per
year). ' 1
Proposed Cleanup Gnat
C. <™S%) = THQxBW.xATn
FxDfP- x ir1^ + Ci_2L^A^xAFjLR!4Ed)
RfD„ 10 mg/kg RflD0 106 mg/kg
€, = PCB concentration in soil = soil cleanup level
THQ = target hazard quotient = 1
BW = average body weight of child 7-18 years of age - 47 kg
ATnc = averaging time, noncarcinogen = (12 vrs x 365 dys/yr) = 4,380 days
P = exposure frequency - 20 days per year
D = duration = 32 years
RfD = reference dose for PCBs = 2x10 smg/kg-dy (IRIS, 10/1/96)
IR - sediment ingestion rate = [lOOmg/dv (soil ingestion rate for older child) x 0,5 (fraction of
total soil/sediment from source)] = 50 mg/day
SA - surface area of an older child exposed (head, hands, lower arms and lower legs) = 4,380
AF = skin adherence factor - 0.61 mg/cm2; derived by averaging adherence factor of 1 mg/cm2
™ K 8r°.Ups,7 ~ 12 exP°sed t0 wet sediment (Kissel et al., 1996) with adherence factor
bab ° - 'X ,C T* age groups 13 ~ ?S exposed to wet sediments (Kissel et al 1996)
, - dermal relative absorption factor - 14% = amount absorbed in the blood via the
dermal route from the site divided by the amount absorbed in the blood from the toxicity
study which is the basis of the RfD or CDF (From Wester et al., 1993)
Substituting the above values into the equation;
C (mg/kg) = CI)(47),'4380^
20x12 [0J x (50)+ l x 4380 x 0.6 x 0 14]
2x10"5 106 2x 10'5 10*
= 205.860
240( 50.+ 374)
20 20
205,860/5088 — 40'.4 or 40 ppm
-------
B-4
3. Houses just north of Wood Street Bridge (New Bedford): There are three houses just
north of the Wood Street bridge which abut the west shore of the Acushnet River. Paths lead
from each home through a thin band of saltmarsh to the river. Due to the close proximity of the
river and the easy access to the river and sediment, the cleanup goal for all sediment areas
adjacent to these homes should be consistent with a "residential cleanup goal (see below).
SEDIMENT CLEANUP LEVEL FOR RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURES
The following cleanup level applies to residential properties which abut areas of the
harbor with exposed sediments. This cleanup level is protective of a young child (ages 0-6) who
would access these sediments as if they were an extension of their backyard. This cleanup level
should be attained in surface soils, (i.e., 0-lft). The following calculation assumes two potential
exposure pathways from soil, accidental ingestion of soil and dermal absorption of soils. The
inhalation pathway is not expected to contribute significantly to the total risk from contaminated
soils.
C, (mg/kg) = TBO x BW,.x..AT„ , _
FxD [(j_ x 1R, ) + CI x SA- x AT x RAF,)
RfD0 106 mg/kg RfD0 106 mg/kg
C, - PCB concentration in soil = soil cleanup level
THQ = target hazard quotient = 1
BW -- average body weight of child 0-6 years of age = 15 kg
ATnc = averaging time, noncarcinogen = (6 yrs x 365dys/yr) ~ 2,190 days
F • exposure frequency = 150 days per year (amount of time that ground is not frozen or covered
with snow)
D = duration -- 6 years
RfD = reference dose for PCBs = 2x10 'mg/kg-dy (IRIS, 10/3/96)
1R = sediment ingestion rate =-= 200 mg/'day (soil ingestion rate for young child)
S A — surface area of a young child exposed (head, hands, lower arms and lower legs) = 2,900
cm2
AF - skin adherence factor - 1 rng/cm2 (Kissel et al, 1996, for young children)
RAFdemaj = derma! relative absorption factor " 14% - amount absorbed in the blood via the
dermal route from the site divided by the amount absorbed in the blood from the toxicity
study which is the basis of te RfD or CPF (from Wester et at., 1993)
Substituting the above values into the equation;
C (mg/kg) = (1¥15¥2190)
150x6 [0) x (2001 + 1 x2900 x 1 x0.141
2x10"5 106 2xl0"5 tO6
-------
B-5
= (32.8501
900( 200 + 406)
20 20
= (32850)/27,270 = 1.2 or 1 ppm
4u South ofthe Wood Street (Acushnet Side): Just south of the Wood Street bridge on
the Acushnet and Fairhaveri shore of the Acushnet River is a small industrial area bordered to the
south by a continuous and extensive saltmarsh system. These saltmarshes extend inland quite a
bit before meeting houses or roads and are difficult to get to. It is likely that only an older child
or adult would access these marshes on a regular basis. Thus the most reasonable exposure
pathway is for an older child (7-18 years of age) who would visit this area one time per week for
five months per year. The cleanup level would be the same for #2 above; the industrial area
north of the Coffin St. playground (i.e., 40 ppm).
5. Veranda Street inlet fFairhavm)
This area contains many homes whose lawns extend right down to the river There is
veryilttie sl°Pe md the river *s essentially at the level ofthe lawn. Thus the river can be
considered an extension ofthe backyards of these residences. The cleanup goal for exposed
sediments adjacent to and extending into residential backyards in this area should attain the
residential cleanup level of 1 ppm (as derived in #3 above).
-------
Site-specific
Recreator Equation Inputs for Sol
Variable Value
TR (target cancer risk) unitless 1 .OE-6
2
SArecsc sur^ace area - child) cm /day 2373
SArecsa SIJrface area - adult) cm2/day 6032
2
SAq_2 (skin surface area - mutagenic) cm /day 2373
2
SAj_6 (skin surface area - mutagenic) cm /day 2373
SA6_16 (skin surface area - mutagenic) cm2/day §032
2
SAi6_3o (skin surface area - mutagenic) cm /day 6032
2
SAfecsa *skin surface area * adult) cm /day 6032
THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless 1
LT (lifetime - recreator) year 70
IFSror (age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg/kg 2100
DFS^^j (age-adjusted soil dermal factor) mg/kg 5908
IFSMr^_,Hi (mutagenic age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg/kg 9533,333
DFSMrc_ ^ (mutagenic age-adjusted soil dermal factor) mg/kg 24472 _ ^
EFn (exposure frequency) day/year
EF-, K (exposure frequency) day/year
EFC (exposure frequency) day/year
EF,c_„n (exposure frequency) day/year
EFrQr<;r. (exposure frequency - child) day/year
EF,q^c^ (exposure frequency - adult) day/year
EF,^^ (exposure frequency - adult) day/year
EFrc^e (exposure frequency - recreator) day/year
IRSn , (soil intake rate) mg/day
IRS-, ^ (soil intake rate) mg/day
IRSC (soil intake rate) mg/day
IRS1K_^n (soil intake rate) mg/day
IRS(aftr (soil intake rate - child) mg/day
IRS„„, (soil intake rate - adult) mg/day
Output generated 25AUG2015:09:46:02
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
200
200
100
100
200
100
t"
1
-------
Site-specific
Recreator Equation Inputs for Soil
Variable
IRSrtsrc, (soil intake rate - adult) mg/day
EDn (exposure duration) year
ED., K (exposure duration) year
EDC (exposure duration) year
(exposure duration) year
EDro^c^ (exposure duration - child) year
ED,OJ.e^ (exposure duration - adult) year
EDrorca (exposure duration - adult) year
EDra„ (exposure duration - recreator) year
ETn (exposure time) hr/day
ET-, K (exposure time) hr/day
ETK_1K (exposure time) hr/day
ET-ik.™ (exposure time) hr/day
ET,ttw (exposure time - child) hr/day
ET«,rc-, (exposure time - adult) hr/day
ET„rc, (exposure time - adult) hr/day
ETwr (exposure time - recreator) hr/day
BWn , (body weight) kg
BW-, K (body weight) kg
BWf- 1K (body weight) kg
BW1K -,n (body weight) kg
BWro„r (body weight - child) kg
BWror„ (body weight - adult) kg
BWror„ (body weight - adult) kg
2
AF0_2 (skin adherence factor) mg/cm
2
AF2 6 (skin adherence factor) mg/cm
2
AFe-16 (skin adherence factor) mg/cm
2
AF16 30 (skin adherence factor) mg/cm
2
(skin adherence factor - child) mg/cm
recsc
2
Value
100
2
4
10
10
6
20
20
28
4
4
2
2
4
2
2
2.462
15
15
80
80
15
80
80
0.2
0.2
0,07
0,07
0,2
Output generated 25AUG2015:09:46:02
-------
Site-specific
Recreator Equation Inputs for Soil
Variable
AFfecsa ^'n adherence factor - adult) mg/cm^
AFfccsa (sWn adherence factor - adult) mg/cm^
City (Climate Zone) PEF Selection
Ac (acres)
2 3
Q/Cwp {g/m -s per kg/m )
3
PEF (particulate emission factor) m /kg
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
U„, (mean annual wind speed) m/s
Uf (equivalent threshold value)
F(x) (function dependant on Um/Ut) unitless
City (Climate Zone) VF Selection
Ae (acres)
2 3
Q/Cvol (g/m -s per kg/m )
foe (fraction organic carbon in soil) gig
ρb (dry soil bulk density) g/cm3
ρs (soil particle density) g/cm
&theta:,„ {water-filled soil porosity) L,
T (exposure interval) s
A (VF Dispersion Constant)
B (VF Dispersion Constant)
C (VF Dispersion Constant)
City (Climate Zone) VFml Selection
3
VF (volitization factor) m /kg
rtii
Value
0,07
0.07
Hartford, CT (8
.5
73.950449528400
10982401741.557
12.5907
18.8368
215.4377
0.5
3.84
11.32
0.0345
Hartford, CT (8
.5
73.950449528400
0.006
1,5
2.65
0.15
819936000
12.5907
18.8368
215.4377
Default
Output generated 25AUG2015:09:46:02
3
-------
Site-specific
Recreates Equation Inputs for Soil
Variable
2 3
Q/CV0| (g/m -s per kg/m )
Ac {acres)
T (exposure interval) yr
de (depth of source) m
3
&rho:b (dry soil bulk density} g/cm
A (VF Dispersion Constant - Mass Limit)
B (VF Dispersion Constant - Mass Limit)
C (VF Dispersion Constant - Mass Limit)
4
Value
68.18365
.5
26
I,5
II.911
18.4385
209.7845
Output generated 25AUG2015:09:46:02
-------
Site-specific
Recreator Screening Levels (RSL) for Soil
or:\ ca* {Where nc SL < 100 x ca St),
ca** (Where nc SL < 10 x ca SL), max=SL exceeds ceiling limit {see User's Guide), sst=SL exceeds csal
Smax=Soii SL exceeds ceiling limit and has been substituted with the max value (see User's Guide), .
$sat=Soi inhalation SL exceeds csa! and has been substituted with the esat
Ingestion Inhalation Chronic
SF "niJ Chronic Chronic Rfc Chronic
CAS x SFO Rlsk3 ^ IUR RfD RfD 3 RfC
Chemical Number Mutagen? VOC? (mg/kg-day) Ref
-------
Site-specific
Recreator Equation inputs for Soil
Variable Value
TR (target cancer risk) unitless 1.0E-6
2
SArecsc (skin surface area - child) cm /day 2373
2
SA„,__ (skin surface area - adult) cm /day 6032
TSC53
2
SAq_2 (skin surface area - mutagenic) cm /day 2373
SA2_6 (skin surface area - mutagenic) cm 2/day 2373
2
SA6_16 (skin surface area - mutagenic) cm /day 6032
SAie-3Q ^'n sur':ace area * mutagenic) cm 2/day 6032
2
SAfecsa (skin surface area - adult) cm /day 6032
THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless 1
LT (lifetime - recreator) year 70
IFS_aHi (age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg/kg 3360
DFSMr.J« (age-adjusted soil dermal factor) mg/kg 9452.8
IFSM„r.^| (mutagenic age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg/kg 15253.333
DFSM„^,'h; (mutagenic age-adjusted soil dermal factor) mg/kg 39155.2 ,
EFn (exposure frequency) day/year
EF-, K (exposure frequency) day/year
EFS_1C (exposure frequency) day/year
EF1c_,n (exposure frequency) day/year
EFro„,. (exposure frequency - child) day/year
EFrow (exposure frequency - adult) day/year
EF,om (exposure frequency - adult) day/year
(exposure frequency - recreator) day/year
IRS,-, (soil intake rate) mg/day
IRS, K (soil intake rate) mg/day
IRSK_1C (soil intake rate) mg/day
IRS1K_,n (soil intake rate) mg/day
IRS,„[P (soil intake rate - child) mg/day
IRSrecSa (soil intake rate - adult) mg/day
Output generated 25AUG2015:09:52:02
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
200
200
100
100
200
100
1
-------
Site-specific
Recreator Equation Inputs for Soil
Variable
(soil intake rate - adult) mg/day
EDn_T (exposure duration) year
ED-,_k (exposure duration) year
EDR i1R (exposure duration) year
ED.,k -,n (exposure duration) year
(exposure duration - child) year
ED,0,.C, (exposure duration - adult) year
(exposure duration - adult) year
EDrn^c (exposure duration - recreator) year
ETn (exposure time) hr/day
ET-, R (exposure time) hr/day
ETc_1k (exposure time) hr/day
ET1K (exposure time) hr/day
ETro,_C(, (exposure time - child) hr/day
ET,q,.c, (exposure time - adult) hr/day
ETro^c, (exposure time - adult) hr/day
ETrQ^c (exposure time - recreator) hr/day
BWn (body weight) kg
8W, c (body weight) kg
BWK_1S (body weight) kg
(body weight) kg
BWror
-------
Site-specific
Recreator Equation Inputs for Soil
Variable Value
2
AFrecsa
-------
Site-specific
Recreator Equation Inputs for Soil
Variable Value
Q/Cv0| (g/m2-s per kg/m3) 68.18365
Ac (acres) -5
T (exposure interval) yr 26
dr (depth of source) m
3
&rho:b (dry soil bulk density) g/cm 1 5
A (VF Dispersion Constant - Mass Limit) 11,911
B (VF Dispersion Constant - Mass Limit) 18.4385
C (VF Dispersion Constant - Mass Limit) 209.7845
Output generated 25AUG2015:09:52:02
4
-------
Site-specific
Recreator Screening Levels (RSL) for Soil
ca=Cancer, nc=Noncancer, ca* (Where nc SL < 100 x ca SL),
ca** (Where nc SL < 10 x ca SL), max=SL exceeds ceiling limit (see User's Guide), sat=SL exceeds csat.
Smax=Soil SL exceeds ceiling limit and has been substituted with the max value (see User's Guide),
Ssat=Soil inhalation SL exceeds csat and has been substituted with the csat
Ingestion Inhalation Chronic
U.n'* Chronic Chronic Chronic
CAS ^ SFO R|S|^ IUR RfD RfD RfC
Chemical Number Mutagen? VOC? (mg/kg-day) Ref (ug/m ) Ref (mg/kg-day) Ref (mg/m ) Ref GIABS ABS RBA
Aroclor 1254||11097-69-1 [No llYes : 2.00E+00 | S H 5.71 E-04 |] S II 2.00E-05~1| I 1 - I 11 1 l|0.14|l 1
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation
„ , .... Soil Particulate |ngestion Dermal Inhalation Carcinogenic SL SL SL
Volatilization Saturation Emission SL SL SL S|_ Chj|d chi|d chj|d
Fa^tor Concentration Fa«or tr=1.0e-6 TR=1.0E-6 TR=1.0E-6 TR=1.0E-6 HQ=1 HQ=1 HQ=1
Chemical (m /kg) (mg/kg) (m /kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Aroclor 12541 8.43E+05 I - I 1.36E+09 I 3.80E+00 | 9.65E+00 14.41E+02 I 2.71E+00 |1.71E+0115.15E+011'
Noncarcinogenic Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Noncarcinogenic
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
Child
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Screening
Hl=1
HQ=1
HQ=1
HQ=1
Hl=1
Level
Chemical
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Aroclor 1254|
1.28E+01
|l .83E+02
|3.09E+02|
- I
1.15E+02
12.71 E+00 ca**
ir t
Output generated 25AUG2015:09:52:02
-------
Site-Specific
Recreator Equation Inputs for Soil/Sediment
Variable Value
TR (target cancer risk) unitless 1 .OE-6
EDr (exposure duration - recreator) years 26
ETr (exposure time - recreator) hours 2.5
ED,, (exposure duration - child) years 6
BW? (body weight - adult) kg 80
BW,_ (body weight - child) kg 15
SA^ (skin surface area - adult) cm2/day 6032
OL
SAC (skin surface area - child) cm 2/day 2373
THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless 1
LT (lifetime - recreator) yr 70
EFr (exposure frequency) d/yr 150 jfr-
IRS, (soil intake rate - adult) mg/day 100
IRS,, (soil intake rate - child) mg/day 200
2
AF= (skin adherence factor - adult) mg/cm 0.07
2
AFC (skin adherence factor - child) mg/cm 0.2
IFS,^ (age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg/kg 15750
DFS?'^; (age-adjusted soil dermal factor) mg/kg 44310
IFSMj,; (mutagenic age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg/kg 71500
DFSM^Hi (mutagenic age-adjusted soil dermal factor) mg/kg 183540
2
AFq_2 (skin adherence factor) mg/cm .2
2
AF2-6 (skin adherence factor) mg/cm .2
2
AF6.16 (skin adherence factor) mg/cm .07
AFl6-30 (s^'n adherence factor) mg/cm2 .07
BWn.-> (body weight) kg 15
BW2_6 (body weight) kg 15
Output generated 24AUG2015:14:45:00
-------
Site-Specific
Recreator Equation Inputs for Soil/Sediment
Variable Value
BW^r (body weight) kg 80
BW1?_,n (body weight) kg 80
EDn_-, (exposure duration) year 2
ED-,_£ (exposure duration) year 4
EDA_1A (exposure duration) year 10
ED1fi_„n (exposure duration) year 10
EFn (exposure frequency) day/year 150
EF, a (exposure frequency) day/year 150
EFK (exposure frequency) day/year 150
EF1G (exposure frequency) day/year 150
ET,^-, (exposure time) hour/day 4
ET-,.C (exposure time) hour/day 4
ETfi1R (exposure time) hour/day 2
ET1fi .,n (exposure time) hour/day 2
IRSn 0 (soil intake rate) mg/day 200
IRS, R (soil intake rate) mg/day 200
IRSK1R (soil intake rate) mg/day 100
IRS1A_,n (soil intake rate) mg/day 100
2
SAq 2 (skin surface area) cm /day 2373
2
SA2 6 (skin surface area) cm /day 2373
SAg_i6 (skin surface area) cm 2/day 6032
SA^ 30 (skin surface area) cm2/day 6032
City (Climate Zone) PEF Selection Hartford, CT (8
Ac (acres) PEF Selection 0.5
2 3
Q/Cwp (g/m -s per kg/nn ) PEF Selection 93.77
3
PEF (particulate emission factor) m /kg 1359344438
Output generated 24AUG2015:14:45:00
-------
Site-Specific
Recreator Equation Inputs for Soil/Sediment
Variable
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
Um (mean annual wind speed) m/s
Ut (equivalent threshold value)
F(x) (function dependant on U^/U,) unitless
City (Climate Zone) VF Selection
Ac (acres) VF Selection
A (VF Dispersion Constant)
B (VF Dispersion Constant)
C (VF Dispersion Constant)
2 3
Q/Cyyp (g/m -s per kg/m ) VF Selection
foe (fraction organic carbon in soil) gig
3
ρb (dry soil bulk density) g/cm
3
ρs (soil particle density) g/cm
θ„, (water-filled soil porosity) L
T (exposure interval) s
Output generated 24AUG2015:14:45:00
Value
16.2302
18.7762
216.108
0.5
4.69
11.32
0.194
Hartford, CT (8
0.5
11.911
18.4385
209.7845
68.18
0.006
1.5
2.65
0.15
819936000
-------
Site-Specific
Recreator PRG for Soil/Sediment
Chronic
RfD
RfD
IUR
Chronic Inhalation
R^* Rfc Ingestion SF Unit Risk
Chemical Mutagen? VOC? (mg/kg-day) Reference (mg/m ) Reference (mg/kg-day) 1 Reference (ug/m3)"1 Reference ABSderm ABSgj
Aroclor 1254 No Yes 2.00E-05 IRIS - 2.00E+00 SURROGA 5.71E-04 SURROGA 0.14 1
Particulate
Volatilization Emission
Factor Factor
(m3/kg) (m3/kg)
8.43E+05 1.36E+G9
Child Child Child
Soil Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Carcinogenic Ingestion Inhalation Dermal
Saturation PRG PRG PRG PRG PRG PRG PRG
Concentration TR=1.0E-6 TR-1.0E-6 TR=1.0E-6 TR=1.0E-6 HQ-1 HQ=1 HQ=1
(mg/kg) RBA (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
1 8.11E-01 9.27E+01 2.06E+00 5.78E-01 3.65E+00 - 1.10E+01
Noncarcinogenic
Child PRG
HI-1
(mg/kg)
2.74E+00
Adult Adult Adult
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal
PRG PRG PRG
HQ=1 HQ=1 HQ=1
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
3.89E+01 - 6.B9E+01
Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted
Noncarcinogenic Ingestion Inhalation Derma!
Adult PRG PRG PRG PRG
Hl=1 HQ=1 HQ=1 HQ=1
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
2.45E+01 1.21E+01 - 3.06E+01
Noncarcinogenic
Adjusted PRG
Hl=1
(mg/kg)
8.65E+00
Output generated 24AUG2015:14:45:00
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1
5 POST OFFICE SQUARE, SUITE 100
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109-3912
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Ginny Lombardo
From: Richard Sugatt
Date: September 29, 2015
RE: Evaluation of protectiveness of risk-based target levels in seafood and EPA
seafood consumption advisories for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site
One purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the human health risk-based target level
(RBTL) for finfish and shellfish for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site to ensure
that the target level is still protective. Additional purposes are to evaluate the cancer and
non-cancer risks of specific species of finfish and shellfish based on the tissue
contaminant data available up to 2014 and use that risk information to confirm whether
the EPA seafood consumption advisories remain protective.
Risk-based Target Level for total PCBs
The current risk-based target level for the ROD for seafood is 0.02 mg/kg. To evaluate
the protectiveness of this level, cancer and non-cancer risks of total PCBs were calculated
using current exposure assumptions and toxicity values for one meal per month and 4
meals per month for adult, older child, younger child and lifelong resident receptors. The
risks were calculated for each receptor for total PCB concentrations of 0.02 mg/kg, 0.03
mg/kg, and 0.04 mg/kg.
The exposure and toxicity assumptions are presented in Table 1, along with the equations
for cancer risk and non-cancer risk. Cancer risk, expressed as the Elevated Lifetime
Cancer Risk (ELCR), is the probability of getting cancer (e.g. 1 x 10"6, or 1 in 1 million,
or 1E-06) due to exposure related to the site. Non-cancer risk (i.e. for health effects
other than cancer) is expressed as a Hazard Quotient (HQ) which is the number obtained
by dividing the site-related dose by the safe Reference Dose (RfD). EPA's acceptable risk
levels at Superfund sites are ELCR within a range of 1 x 10"6 to 1 x 10"4, and a HQ of 1 or
less.
The fraction ingested (FI) was conservatively assumed to be 1, meaning that 100 % of the
total seafood consumption of the specified seafood species was assumed to be from the
specified area of New Bedford Harbor. The Exposure Frequency (EF) was assumed to be
either 12 events per year (i.e. once per month) or 52 events/year (once per week, or about
4 times per month). The EF of 12 events/yr was designated as the Central Tendency
Exposure (CTE), and the EF of 52 events/yr was designated as the Reasonable Maximum
Exposure (RME). The exposure duration (ED) was assumed to be 55 years for the adult
(age 16 to 70 years), 10 years for the older child (age 6 to 15 years), and 5 years for the
young child (age 1-6 years). The exposure duration of the lifelong resident was assumed
to be 70 years. The body weight (BW) was assumed to be 70 kg for the adult, 40 kg for
-------
the older child, and 15 kg for the young child. The averaging time for cancer risk was
25,550 days (70 years x 365 days/yr) for each receptor. The averaging time for non-
cancer risk was 20,075 days (55 yr x 365 days/yr) for the adult, 3650 days (10 yr x 365
days/yr) for the older child, and 1825 days (5 yr x 365 days/yr) for the young child. Meal
size was assumed to be 0.227 kg for the adult and older child and half of that (0.114 kg)
for the young child. The larger meal size was designated as the CTE and RME for adults
and older child. The smaller meal size was designated as the CTE and RME for the
young child.
The toxicity factors for total PCBs were those for "high-risk" PCBs as designated in
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). These toxicity factors are the same as
those recommended for Aroclor 1254. The oral cancer slope factor (SF) was 2.0 per
mg/kg/day. The oral Reference Dose (RfD) was 2.0 x 10"5 mg/kg/day for chronic
exposure (adults and older child) and 5.0 x 10"5 mg/kg/day for subchronic exposure
(young child). These values are current as of 2015.
Table 1. Exposure and toxicity assumptions
AT-
Receptor
Age
(yrs)
Exposure
Condition
IR
FI
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
nc
RfD
SF
Adult
16-70
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
Older Child
6-15
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
Young
Child
1-6
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
FI = Fraction Ingested from site (unitless)
EF = meal/yr
ED = Exposure Duration (yr)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-cancer
(days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-cancer
(days)
RfD = Reference Dose
(mg/kg/day)
SF = Slope Factor (mg/kg/day)"1
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure
RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure
The calculated cancer and non-cancer risks for seafood total PCB concentrations of 0.02
mg/kg, 0.03 mg/kg, and 0.04 mg/kg are presented in Table 2 and summarized below:
2
-------
Total PCB
(mg/kg)
Maximum HQ
ELCR
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
0.02
0.2
0.8
1E-05
2E-05
0.03
0.3
1.2
8E-06
3E-05
0.04
0.4
1.6
1E-05
4E-05
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure (one meal per month)
RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure (4 meals per month)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
The number in bold exceeds EPA's risk limit for non-cancer (HQ < 1)
Based on uncertainty inherent in the risk assessment process, HQ and ELCR values
should be rounded to the nearest whole number; therefore, the above HQ values of 1.2
should be rounded to 1, and an HQ of 1.6 would be rounded to 2. The results indicate that
the cancer and non-cancer risks of PCB concentrations of 0.02 mg/kg and 0.03 mg/kg are
within EPA's risk limits for both cancer and non-cancer effects, but that the PCB
concentration of 0.04 mg/kg exceeds the non-cancer risk limit, based on a rounded HQ of
2 for the RME condition of 4 meals per month. The PCB concentration of 0.04 mg/kg
would have acceptable non-cancer risk for 1 meal per month. Since a PCB concentration
of 0.03 mg/kg is acceptable for both cancer and non-cancer risk for both 1 meal per
month and 4 meals per month, it is concluded that the ROD risk target of 0.02 mg/kg in
seafood is protective.
Risks of Seafood and Comparison to EPA Consumption Advisories
The 1979 Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MassDPH) and 2010 EPA
seafood consumption advisories for New Bedford Harbor are summarized in Table 3.
The advisories categorize receptors as either "sensitive receptors" or "other" receptors.
Sensitive receptors include pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under age 12, and
women who may become pregnant. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
(MassDMF) and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
have collected and analyzed seafood for total PCB congeners and dioxin-like PCB
congeners on an annual basis since 2003. Seafood was collected from Area 1 of
Operable Unit 1 (OU1), Area 2 and 3 of OU3, and a Reference Area (Sippican Harbor)
and analyzed for PCB congeners. The available data (from 2003 to 2013, assuming zero
concentration for non-detected congeners) were used in the 2014 draft risk assessment for
OU 3 (AMEC, 2014) to calculate Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) for those
species which had sufficient data to calculate an Upper Confidence Level (UCL) of the
arithmetic mean. These included: Lobster meat (Area 2, Area 3, Reference); Lobster
meat and tomalley (Area 2, Area 3, Reference); Quahogs (Area 2, Clark's Cove, Area 3,
Reference); Scup (Area 2, Area 3, Reference); and Black Sea Bass (Area 2, Area 3).
These EPCs are summarized in Table 4. The EPC tables from the draft risk assessment
are provided in the attachment to this memorandum. The UCLs in the draft risk
3
-------
assessment were calculated and selected using EPA's ProUCL software. The selected
UCL is often the 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean, but the software selects the most
statistically appropriate UCL type. The statistical basis for each UCL is identified in the
EPC tables from the draft risk assessment in the attachment to this memorandum.
Although these EPCs were calculated before 2014 data were available, the 2014 data are
consistent with past years so the EPCs will not change significantly.
There were insufficient data to calculate a UCL for three additional species (eel, flounder,
and tautog) that have MassDPH and EPA consumption advisories. The individual data,
and mean and maximum concentrations of available data from 2003 to 2014 for these
species from designated areas are provided in Table 5. The EPC for EPA risk
assessments is usually the UCL or maximum, whichever is lower. Since there were
insufficient data to calculate a statistical UCL EPC for eel, flounder, and tautog, the
maximum concentration would normally be used for risk assessment purposes; however,
both the maximum and mean concentrations for these three species are evaluated for risk
to understand the level of uncertainty given that there were so few samples. The
maximum and mean concentrations for these species are summarized in Table 4 along
with the EPCs for the other species.
The cancer and non-cancer risks of the EPCs for lobster, quahog, scup, black sea bass,
and the maximum and mean concentrations for eel, flounder, and tautog, were calculated
for the adult, young child, older child, and lifelong receptor using the toxicity factors and
exposure assumptions for PCBs previously described in Table 1. In addition, for lobster,
quahog, and black sea bass, the risks of dioxin-like PCBs were calculated using the same
exposure assumptions and dioxin Toxicity Equivalence values (TEQ) for the dioxin-like
PCB congeners. The TEQ value for a particular dioxin-like PCB congener is expressed
as a proportion of the toxicity of the most toxic dioxin, 2, 3, 7, 8-
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD). The non-cancer toxicity factor for 2, 3, 7,
8-TCDD is an oral Reference Dose of 7.0 x 10"10 mg/kg from the EPA Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). There is no cancer toxicity value for 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD on
IRIS; however, the EPA Regional Screening Level database
(http://www3.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg/) recommends the use of the California
EPA cancer oral slope factor of 1.6 x 105 per mg/kg., which was used here. The risks of
dioxin-like PCBs for eel, flounder, and tautog were not calculated due to lack of data on
dioxin-like PCBs.
The risks are summarized in Table 6 (Area 2), Table 7 (Clark's Cove), Table 8 (Area 3)
and Table 9 (Reference area). The consumption advisory information from Table 3 has
been added to these risk tables to facilitate comparison of the risks with the advisory
recommendation for that species or type of seafood. Since both the young child receptor
(age 1-6 years) and older child receptor (age 6-15 years) include ages below 12 years,
both types of child receptors are considered to be "sensitive" receptors for comparison of
risks with advisories. The "other" receptor advisory category therefore includes adults
but not children. The lifelong receptor risks include both childhood and adult exposure,
but are not compared with advisories because there is no separate advisory category for
"lifelong" receptors.
4
-------
Although there are no advisories associated with the Reference Area, the risks of seafood
from the Reference Area have been calculated to evaluate risks from a New England
coastal area unaffected by contamination from New Bedford Harbor. The risk values in
the tables are colored green if they are acceptable (HQ < 1; ELCR < 1 x 10"4) or bolded
red if they are unacceptable (HQ > 1; ELCR > 1 x 10"4). These risk management criteria
are used by EPA at Superfund sites. The individual risk calculations are documented in
un-numbered tables in the attachment to this memorandum.
The protectiveness of current advisories and recommendations for Area 2 and Area 3 of
OU3 are described below. Area 1 was not further evaluated because the existing advisory
is to not eat any seafood from Area 1, and the available data indicate that PCB
concentrations in seafood from this area remain above acceptable risk levels for all
receptors.
Area 2
The advisory for Area 2 recommends that sensitive receptors should not eat fish, shellfish
or lobster caught in Area 2 (except for shellfish from Clark's Cove in Area 2, see below).
As shown in table 6 (Area 2), the advisory for Area 2 is still protective for sensitive
receptors (0 meals/month) because the risks at both the RME (4 meals/month) and the
CTE (1 meal/month) are still unacceptable for children for each species at the UCL EPC
or maximum concentration. The advisory of no consumption of any fish species in Area
2 for sensitive receptors ensures protectiveness for children.
The advisory for "non-sensitive" receptors (adults) is to eat no bottom-feeding fish or
lobster from Area 2 and no more than one meal per month of black sea bass or shellfish
(clams, quahog, mussels, etc.) and no recommendation for all other fish due to lack of
data. This advisory is still protective because the CTE risks (1 meal/month) for black sea
bass and quahog are acceptable. [Note that quahog data have been used to establish the
advisory for all shellfish, including clams, quahog, mussels, etc.]
Clark's Cove
The advisory related to Clark's Cove recommends that sensitive receptors can safely eat
one, and only one, meal per month of shellfish caught in Clark's Cove. Other receptors
can safely eat no more than one meal per week (e.g. 4 meals/month) of shellfish. For this
advisory, shellfish are considered to be "clams, quahogs, mussels, etc." but not lobster.
As shown in Table 7 (Clark's Cove), there is acceptable risk for both 1 meal per month
(CTE) and 4 meals per month (RME) of quahogs for non-sensitive (adult) receptors;
therefore, the advisory of 4 meals per month for non-sensitive receptors is still protective.
Although the CTE and RME for the child receptor is acceptable, the RME (4 meals per
month) risk for the older child (which is included in the 'sensitive' receptor group) is
unacceptable. The CTE (1 meal/month) risk for the older child is acceptable; therefore
the advisory of no more than 1 meal/month remains protective for sensitive receptors.
Advisories for species other than quahog are not shown in Table 7 because the advisories
for Area 2 apply to these species.
Area 3
The advisories related to Area 3 for non-sensitive receptors recommend no more than 1
meal/month for black sea bass, no consumption of lobster or scup, no restrictions for eel,
5
-------
flounder, tautog, and no recommendation for all other fish due to lack of data. Also,
sensitive receptors should not eat lobster or fish but can eat one, and only one, meal per
month of shellfish (clams, quahog, mussels, etc.) caught in Area 3.
As shown in Table 8, the advisories are still protective for sensitive receptors for
shellfish. Although the CTE and RME for the child receptor is acceptable, the RME (4
meals/month) risk for the older child (which is included in the 'sensitive' receptor group)
is unacceptable. The CTE (1 meal/month) risk for the older child is acceptable; therefore
the advisory of no more than 1 meal per month for shellfish remains protective for
sensitive receptors.
As shown in Table 8, the advisory of no more than one meal per month for black sea bass
is still protective because the CTE risks are acceptable whereas the RME risks are
unacceptable. The advisory of no consumption for scup and lobster meat & tomalley is
still protective because both the RME and CTE risks are unacceptable.
The advisory for non-sensitive receptors is "There are no eating restrictions" (NR in table
8) for eel, flounder and tautog. There are no contaminant data for eels in Area 3 so a
protectiveness conclusion concerning the non-restricted consumption of eel from Area 3
by sensitive or non-sensitive receptors cannot be made. It is recommended that the
advisory for eel of "no restriction" (NR) be changed to "EPA has insufficient data so
cannot make a recommendation" (i.e., ND). The limited data for flounder (2 fish from
2003) indicate that the risk may be unacceptable for both the RME and CTE at the mean
and maximum PCB concentration; therefore, the advisory of no restriction (NR) may be
of concern. Since the flounder data from Area 3 are limited and more than 10 years old,
it is recommended that the advisory for flounder be changed from "no restriction (NR) to
"EPA has insufficient data so cannot make a recommendation" (i.e., ND).
These recommended changes for eel and flounder will be protective because the
MassDMF indicated that it is unlikely that there is any significant consumption of these
species from Area 3 (Vincent Malkoski, personal communication-see attachments)
because eel do not aggregate enough to catch them easily, and the flounder fishery is in
serious decline.
The data for tautog (8 fish) indicate that the risk is acceptable for the CTE (1 meal/
month), for both mean and maximum PCB concentrations, but not acceptable for the
RME (4 meals/month) at mean and maximum PCB concentrations; therefore, the
advisory of unrestricted consumption should be changed to no more than one meal per
month for tautog.
Reference Area
Although there are no known seafood consumption advisories for seafood from the
Reference Area, the risks of total PCB congeners and dioxin-like PCBs were calculated
for lobster meat, lobster meat & tomalley, scup, and quahog to evaluate risks of seafood
from a New England coastal area unaffected by contamination from New Bedford
Harbor. As shown in Table 9, the risks were acceptable for lobster meat (but not lobster
meat & tomalley) and quahog for both CTE and RME consumption rates by children and
adults. Risks of scup were unacceptable for both CTE and RME consumption rates by
6
-------
children and for the RME consumption rate by adults. Although the concentrations of
total PCBs and dioxin-like PCBs were lower than in the same biota from Area 2 and Area
3 at New Bedford Harbor, it should be noted that the total PCB EPCs in lobster and scup
(but not quahog) from the Reference Area were higher than the 0.02 mg/kg biota target
concentration in the ROD for New Bedford Harbor, suggesting that the ROD target tissue
concentration may be lower than background for some types of seafood.
Conclusions
1. It is concluded that the ROD target biota concentration of 0.02 mg/kg total PCBs
is still protective. It is also concluded that the current seafood consumption
advisories are still protective, although the following changes should be made:
2. The current "no restriction" advisory for eel and flounder in Area 3 for non-
sensitive receptors should be changed to "insufficient data for EPA to make a
recommendation" because there are no eel data and only two samples of flounder
from Area 3 from 2003. The current "no restriction" advisory has probably been
protective because these fish are unlikely to be caught by recreational fishers in
Area 3 due to scarcity. For the same reason, the change to "insufficient data for
EPA to make a recommendation" will be protective. There is also a "do not eat"
advisory for sensitive receptors for all fish from Area 3.
3. The current "no restriction" advisory for tautog in Area 3 for non-sensitive
receptors should be changed from "no restriction" to "no more than 1 meal per
month". This new recommendation is based on data collected in 2013 and 2014.
Data for this species was not available prior to 2013. The change will be
protective because the mean and maximum concentration in tautog (8 samples)
has acceptable risk for adults at a CTE consumption rate of 1 meal per month.
References
AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 2014. 2014 Revised Draft Baseline Human
Health Risk Assessment Operable Unit #3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site New
Bedford, Massachusetts. Prepared for Army Corps of Engineers, New England District.
March 26, 2014.
Personal Communication. Email dated September 28, 2015 from Vincent Malkoski
(MassDMF) to Ginny Lombardo (EPA).
7
-------
Table 2. EPA calculation of risk-based target levels for total PCBs in seafood- New Bedford Harbor
0.02 mg/kg Total PCB Congeners
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.02
2.13E-06
1.7E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E-01
3E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.02
9.24E-06
7.3E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E-01
1E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.02
3.73E-06
5.3E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E-01
1E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.02
1.62E-05
2.3E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E-01
5E-06
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.02
5.00E-06
3.6E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E-01
7E-07
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.02
2.17E-05
1.5E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E-01
3E-06
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
5E-06
2E-05
0.03 mg/kg Total PCB Congeners
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.03
3.20E-06
2.5E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E-01
5E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.03
1.39E-05
1.1E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E-01
2E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.03
5.60E-06
8.0E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E-01
2E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.03
2.43E-05
3.5E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1.2E+00
7E-06
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.03
7.50E-06
5.4E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E-01
1E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.03
3.25E-05
2.3E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E-01
5E-06
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
8E-06
3E-05
0.04 mg/kg Total PCB Congeners
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.04
4.26E-06
3.4E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E-01
7E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.04
1.85E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
9E-01
3E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.04
7.46E-06
1.1E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E-01
2E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.04
3.23E-05
4.6E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1.6E+00
9E-06
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.04
9.99E-06
7.1E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E-01
1E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.04
4.33E-05
3.1E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
9E-01
6E-06
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
1E-05
4E-05
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested from site (unitless)
EF = meal/yr
ED = Exposure Duration (yr)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-cancer (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-cancer (days)
CF = Concentration in Seafood (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = Slope Factor (mg/kg/day)1
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure
RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure
ADD = CF * IR * Fl * EF * ED * 1/BW * 1/AT-nc
LADD = CF * IR * Fl *EF * ED * 1/BW * 1/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD * SF
-------
Table 3. EPA Seafood Advisories
Seafood
Maximum Meals/Month
Type
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Other Area 2
Clark's Cove
Receptors
Receptors
Receptors
Receptors
Sensitive
Others
Sensitive
Others
Sensitive
Others
Sensitive
Others
Any fish, lobster, shellfish
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
Any bottom feeding fish
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
Black Sea Bass
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
Scup
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
0
0
Lobster
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shellfish other than lobster
0
0
0
1
1
4
1
NR
Eel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
Flounder
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
Tautog
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
NR
All other fish
0
0
0
ND
0
ND
0
ND
Sensitive receptors: pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under age 12, women who may become pregnant
ND = No Data (therefore EPA cannot make a recommendation)
NR = No Restrictions
A value of 0 meals/month means "do not eat"
A value of 4 meals/month is equivalent to "no more than one meal/week"
-------
Table 4. Seafood Exposure Point Concentrations-New Bedford Harbor
Seafood
EPC
Exposure Point Concentration (mg/kg)
Data Source
Type
Type
Area 2
Area 3
Reference
Clark's
Cove
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
Lobster meat
UCL
7.9E-06
0.149
NA
NA
5.8E-06
0.0982
1.3E-07
0.0133
Table 3-1 draft HHRA
Lobster meat & tomalley
UCL
1.6E-04
2.7
NA
NA
1.0E-04
1.5
4.3E-05
0.596
Table 3-2 draft HHRA
Quahog
UCL
3.89E-07
0.223
1.87E-07
0.0623
6.92E-07
0.0525
9.72E-08
0.0122
Table 3-3 draft HHRA
Scup
UCL
5.0E-05
2.37
NA
NA
4.8E-05
1.33
6.5E-07
0.14
Table 3-4 draft HHRA
Black Sea Bass
UCL
1.1E-06
0.246
NA
NA
5.5E-06
0.15
NA
NA
Table 3-5 draft HHRA
Eel
Max
83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 5, this memo
(n= 4 in Area 2)
Mean
40.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 5, this memo
Tautog
Max
1.9
NA
NA
NA
0.11
NA
NA
Table 5, this memo
(n= 7 in Area 2, 4 in Area 3)
Mean
0.15
NA
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
Table 5, this memo
Flounder
Max
2
NA
NA
NA
0.62
NA
NA
Table 5, this memo
(n= 4 in Area 2, 2 in Area 3)
Mean
0.72
NA
NA
NA
0.37
NA
NA
Table 5, this memo
NA = Not Available
tPCB = total PCB congeners
TEQ = dioxin Toxicity Equivalents, dioxin-like PCB congeners
HHRA = Human Health Risk Assessment, for Operable Unit 3, 2014 draft
UCL = Upper Confidence Level
-------
Table 5. Total PCBs in flounders, eel, and tautog, New Bedford Harbor
Total PCB
Area 1
Area II
Area III
Year
Species
Area
Station
(mg/kg)
min
max
mean
n
min
max
mean
n
min
max
Mean
n
2004
Summer Flounder
II
A
0.11
2005
Winter Flounder
II
C
2
2006
Winter Flounder
II
C
0.055
2004
Summer & Winter Flounder
II
E
0.82
2003
Winter Flounder
III
A
0.62
2003
Summer Flounder
III
A
0.11
all
All Flounders
0.055
2
0.72
4
0.11
0.62
0.37
2
2004
Eel
1
A
28
2004
Eel
1
B
32
2004
Eel
1
C
22
2004
Eel
1
D
133
2004
Eel
1
E
68
2005
Eel
1
A
16
2005
Eel
1
B
15
2005
Eel
1
C
29
2005
Eel
1
D
35
2005
Eel
1
E
28
2006
Eel
1
A
81
2006
Eel
1
B
69
2006
Eel
1
C
37
2006
Eel
1
D
70
2006
Eel
1
E
55
2007
Eel
1
A
47
2007
Eel
1
B
22
2007
Eel
1
C
66
2007
Eel
1
D
102
2007
Eel
1
E
59
2012
Eel
1
A
53.3
2012
Eel
1
B
20.3
2012
Eel
1
D
36.8
2004
Eel
II
C
40
2005
Eel
II
C
6.9
2006
Eel
II
C
31
2007
Eel
II
C
83
All
All Eel
15
133
48.9
22
6.9
83
40.2
4
2012
Tautog
II
B
0.5
2012
Tautog
II
C
1.9
2013
Tautog
II
A
0.42
2013
Tautog
II
B
0.15
2013
Tautog
II
C
1.22
2013
Tautog
II
D
0.20
2013
Tautog
II
E
0.87
2014
2A
0.16
2014
2B
0.14
2014
2C
0.97
2014
2D
0.83
2014
2E
0.12
2013
Tautog
III
A
0.08
2013
Tautog
III
B
0.14
2013
Tautog
III
C
0.09
2013
Tautog
III
D
3A
3C
3D
3E
0.11
0.019
0.072
0.074
0.042
All
All Tautog
0.14
1.9
0.62
12
0.02
0.14
0.08
8
-------
Table 6. Risk summary Area 2
EPC
Young Child
Seafood Advisory
Seafood Type
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
meals/month
Still
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Protective?
Lobster meat
0.149
7.9E-06
UCL
3
2
10
3
0
Yes
Lobster meat & tomalley
2.7
1.6E-04
UCL
60
30
200
60
4E-04
2E-03
5E-04
2E-03
6E-04
0
Yes
Black Sea Bass
0.246
1.1E-06
UCL
5
3
2
0 4
4E-04
0
Yes
Scup
0.69
6.6E-06
UCL
10
9
10
2
2E-04
0
Yes
Quahog
0.223
3.89E-07
UCL
5
3
0 6
0 1
0
Yes
Eel (n=4)
83.0
NA
Max
2000
1000
NA
NA
1E-02
3E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Eel (n=4)
40.2
NA
Mean
900
500
NA
NA
6E-03
1E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
2.0
NA
Max
40
20
NA
NA
3E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
0.72
NA
Mean
20
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Tautog(n=12)
1.9
NA
Max
40
20
NA
NA
3E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Tautog(n=12)
0.62
NA
Mean
10
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Seafood Type
EPC
(mg/kg)
Older Child
Seafood Advisory
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
meals/month
Still
Protective?
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Lobster meat
0.149
7.9E-06
UCL
6
1
9
2
2E-04
0
Yes
Lobster meat & tomalley
2.7
1.6E-04
UCL
100
30
200
40
6E-04
3E-03
7E-04
4E-03
8E-04
0
Yes
Black Sea Bass
0.246
1.1E-06
UCL
10
2
1
0
Yes
Scup
0.69
6.6E-06
UCL
30
6
8
2
2E-04
3E-04
0
Yes
Quahog
0.223
3.89E-07
UCL
9
2
0.4
0 1
0
Yes
Eel (n=4)
83.0
NA
Max
3000
800
NA
NA
2E-02
4E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Eel (n=4)
40.2
NA
Mean
2000
400
NA
NA
9E-03
2E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
2.0
NA
Max
80
20
NA
NA
5E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
0.72
NA
Mean
30
7
NA
NA
2E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Tautog(n=12)
1.9
NA
Max
80
20
NA
NA
4E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Tautog(n=12)
0.62
NA
Mean
30
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Seafood Type
EPC
(mg/kg)
Adult
Seafood Advisory
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
meals/month
Still
Protective?
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Lobster meat
0.149
7.9E-06
UCL
3
0 S
5
1
1E-04
5E-04
6E-04
1E-04
0
0
Yes
Lobster meat & tomalley
2.7
1.6E-04
UCL
60
10
100
20
2E-03
5E-04
9E-03
2E-03
1E-02
3E-03
0
0
Yes
Black Sea Bass
0.246
1.1E-06
UCL
6
1
2E-04
2E-04
6E-0S
0
1
Yes
Scup
0.69
6.6E-06
UCL
20
4
4
1
5E-04
4E-04
9E-04
2E-04
0
ND
No?
Quahog
0.223
3.89E-07
UCL
5
1
0 06
2E-04
2E-04
4E-0S
0
1
Yes
Eel (n=4)
83.0
NA
Max
2000
400
NA
NA
6E-02
1E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
Yes
Eel (n=4)
40.2
NA
Mean
900
200
NA
NA
3E-02
7E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
2.0
NA
Max
50
10
NA
NA
1E-03
3E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
0.72
NA
Mean
20
4
NA
NA
5E-04
1E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
Yes
Tautog(n=12)
1.9
NA
Max
40
10
NA
NA
1E-03
3E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
Yes
Tautog(n=12)
0.62
NA
Mean
10
3
NA
NA
5E-04
1E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
Yes
EPC
Lifelong
Seafood Advisory
Seafood Type
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
(meals/mo.)
Still
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive | Others
Protective?
Lobster meat
0.149
7.9E-06
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-04
7E-04
2E-04
9E-04
2E-04
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Lobster meat & tomalley
2.7
1.6E-04
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
3E-03
7E-04
1E-02
3E-03
2E-02
4E-03
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Black Sea Bass
0.246
1.1E-06
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
3E-04
4E-04
96-05
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Scup
0.69
6.6E-06
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
8E-04
2E-04
6E-04
1E-03
3E-04
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Quahog
0.223
3.89E-07
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-04
3E-04
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Eel (n=4)
83.0
NA
Max
NA
NA
NA
NA
9E-02
2E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Eel (n=4)
40.2
NA
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
4E-02
1E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Flounder (n=2)
2.0
NA
Max
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-03
5E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Flounder (n=2)
0.72
NA
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
8E-04
2E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Tautog(n=12)
1.9
NA
Max
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-03
5E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Tautog(n=12)
0.62
NA
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-04
4E-0S
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
NA = Not Available
ND = No EPA advisory was issued due to lack of data,
n = number of samples
tPCB = total PCBs
TEQ = dioxin Toxicity Equivalent for dioxin-like PCBs
UCL = Upper Confidence Level
Max = Maximum concentration
HQ= Hazard Quotient
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure (1 meal/month)
RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure (4 meals/month)
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
Numbers in red are unacceptable (HQ> 1; ELCR > 1E-04)
Numbers in green are acceptable (HQ< 1; ELCR < 1E-04)
Sensitive receptors include pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under age 12, women who may become pregnant
ND = No EPA advisory was issued due to lack of data.
-------
Table 7. Risk summary Area 2 Clark's Cove
EPC
Young Child
Seafood Advisory
Seafood Type
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
meals/month
Still
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Protective?
Quahog
0.0623
1.87E-07
UCL
1
0.8
0,3
0,0?
IE-05
2E-06
2E-06
5E-07
IE-05
3E-06
1
Yes
EPC
Older Child
Seafood Advisory
Seafood Type
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
meals/month
Still
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Protective?
Quahog
0.0623
1.87E-07
UCL
3
0,6
0,2
0,05
8E-07
2E-05
4E-06
1
Yes
EPC
Adult
Seafood Advisory
Seafood Type
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
meals/month
Still
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Protective?
Quahog
0.0623
1.87E-07
UCL
1
0,3
0,1
0,03
3E-06
6E-05
IE-05
1
4
Yes
Seafood Type
EPC
(mg/kg)
Lifelong
Seafood Advisory
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
meals/month
Still
Protective?
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive Others
Quahog
0.0623
1.87E-07
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
<
No advisory for life
ong receptor
NA = Not Available HQ = Hazard Quotient
n = number of samples CTE = Central Tendency Exposure (1 meal/month)
tPCB = total PCBs RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure (4 meals/month)
TEQ= dioxin Toxicity Equivalent for dioxin-like PCBs ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
UCL = Upper Confidence Level EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
Max = Maximum concentration Numbers in red are unacceptable (HQ > 1; ELCR > 1E-04)
Numbers in green are acceptable (HQ< 1; ELCR < 1E-04)
Sensitive receptors include pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under age 12, women who may become pregnant.
Note: The HQfor the older child is acceptable for 1 meal/month, but not for 4 meals/month; however the advisory
recommends no more than 1 meal/month for children under age 12, which is included in the older child receptor;
therefore, the advisory is protective for the CTE condition, which has acceptable risk.
-------
Table 8. Risk summary Area 3
EPC
Young Child
Seafood Advisory
Seafood Type
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
meals/month
Still
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Protective?
Lobster meat
0.0982
5.8E-06
UCL
2
1
9
2
2E-05
7E-05
2E-05
9E-05
2E-05
0
Yes
Lobster meat & tomalley
1.5
1.0E-04
UCL
30
20
200
40
2E-04
1E-03
3E-04
1E-03
3E-04
0
Yes
Black Sea Bass
0.15
5.5E-06
UCL
3
0.7
9
2
9E-05
0
Yes
Scup
0.3
6.2E-06
UCL
6
4
10
2
0
Yes
Quahog
0.0525
6.92E-07
UCL
1
0.7
1
0,2
1
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
0.62
NA
Max
10
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
0.37
NA
Mean
8
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Tautog(n=8)
0.14
NA
Max
3
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Tautog(n=8)
0.08
NA
Mean
2
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
EPC
Older Child
Seafood Advisory
Seafood Type
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
(meals/mo.)
Still
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Protective?
Lobster meat
0.0982
5.8E-06
UCL
4
0.9
7
2
-06
IE-04
3E-05
0
Yes
Lobster meat & tomalley
1.5
1.0E-04
UCL
60
10
100
30
3E-04
-_-05
2E-03
4E-04
2E-03
5E-04
0
Yes
Black Sea Bass
0.15
5.5E-06
UCL
6
1
6
1
IE-04
3E-05
0
Yes
Scup
0.3
6.2E-06
UCL
10
3
7
2
2E-04
4E-05
0
Yes
Quahog
0.0525
6.92E-07
UCL
2
05
0.8
0,2
2E-05
6E-06
1
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
0.62
NA
Max
30
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
0.37
NA
Mean
10
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Tautog(n=8)
0.14
NA
Max
6
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
Tautog(n=8)
0.08
NA
Mean
3
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Yes
EPC
Adult
Seafood Advisory
Seafood Type
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
(meals/mo.)
Still
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Protective?
Lobster meat
0.0982
5.8E-06
UCL
2
05
4
0.9
7E-05
3E-04
8E-05
4E-04
9E-05
0
0
Yes
Lobster meat & tomalley
1.5
1.0E-04
UCL
30
8
70
20
1E-03
3E-04
6E-03
1E-03
7E-03
2E-03
0
0
Yes
Black Sea Bass
0.15
5.5E-06
UCL
3
0.8
4
0.8
IE-04
3E-04
7E-05
4E-04
IE-04
0
1
Yes
Scup
0.3
6.2E-06
UCL
7
2
4
0.9
2E-04
4E-04
6E-04
IE-04
0
0
Yes
Quahog
0.0525
6.92E-07
UCL
1
0.3
05
0.1
4E-05
8E-05
2E-05
1
NR
Yes
Flounder (n=2)
0.62
NA
Max
10
3
NA
NA
5E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
ND
?
Flounder (n=2)
0.37
NA
Mean
9
2
NA
NA
3E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
ND
?
Tautog(n=8)
0.14
NA
Max
3
NA
NA
IE-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NR
?
Tautog(n=8)
0.08
NA
Mean
2
NA
NA
6E-05
IE-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NR
?
EPC
Lifelong
Seafood Advisory
Seafood Type
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB& TEQ
(meals/mo.)
Still
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Protective?
Lobster meat
0.0982
5.8E-06
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
IE-04
3E-05
5E-04
6E-04
IE-04
No advisory for life
ong receptor
Lobster meat & tomalley
1.5
1.0E-04
UCL
NN
NA
NA
NA
2E-03
4E-04
9E-03
2E-03
1E-02
2E-03
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Black Sea Bass
0.15
5.5E-06
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-04
4E-05
5E-04
IE-04
7E-04
2E-04
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Scup
0.3
6.2E-06
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
3E-04
8E-05
6E-04
IE-04
9E-04
2E-04
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Quahog
0.0525
6.92E-07
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
6E-05
IE-05
6E-05
IE-05
IE-04
3E-05
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Flounder (n=2)
0.62
NA
Max
NA
NA
NA
NA
7E-04
2E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Flounder (n=2)
0.37
NA
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
4E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Tautog(n=8)
0.14
NA
Max
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
Tautog(n=8)
0.08
NA
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No advisory for lifelong receptor
NA = Not Available
ND = No Data, therefore EPA cannot make a recommendation
NR = No Restrictions
n = number of samples
tPCB = total PCBs
TEQ= dioxin Toxicity Equivalent for dioxin-like PCBs
UCL = Upper Confidence Level
Max = Maximum concentration
HQ= Hazard Quotient
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure (1 meal/month)
RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure (4 meals/month)
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
Numbers in red are unacceptable (HQ> 1; ELCR > 1E-04)
Numbers in green are acceptable (HQ< 1; ELCR < 1E-04)
Sensitive receptors include pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under age 12, women who may become pregnant.
-------
Table 9. Risk summary Reference Area
Seafood Type
EPC
Young Child
Seafood Advisory
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
meals/month
Still
Protective?
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB&TEQ
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Lobster meat
0.0133
1.3E-07
UCL
0,3
0,2
0,2
!
no advisory
Lobster meat & tomalley
0.596
4.3E-05
UCL
10
7
70
20
5E-04
6E-04
no advisory
Scup
0.14
6.5E-07
UCL
3
2
1
no advisory
Quahog
0.012
9.72E-08
UCL
0,3
0,2
0,2
!
no advisory
Seafood Type
EPC
Older Child
Seafood Advisory
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
meals/month
Still
Protective?
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB&TEQ
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Lobster meat
0.0133
1.3E-07
UCL
0,5
0,1
0,2
0,03
6E-07
5E-06
IE-06
no advisory
Lobster meat & tomalley
0.596
4.3E-05
UCL
20
6
50
10
8E-04
2E-04
9E-04
2E-04
no advisory
Scup
0.14
6.5E-07
UCL
6
1
0,8
0,2
IE-05
no advisory
Quahog
0.012
9.72E-08
UCL
0,5
0,1
0,1
0,03
IE-06
no advisory
Seafood Type
EPC
Adult
Seafood Advisory
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
meals/month
Still
Protective?
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB&TEQ
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Lobster meat
0.0133
1.3E-07
UCL
0,3
0,0?
0,02
3 IE-06
IE--06
no advisory
Lobster meat & tomalley
0.596
4.3E-05
UCL
10
3
30
7
4E-04
2E-03
6E-04
3E-03
7E-04
no advisory
Scup
0.14
6.5E-07
UCL
3
0,7
0,1
no advisory
Quahog
0.012
9.72E-08
UCL
0,3
0,0?
0,06
0,01
no advisory
Seafood Type
EPC
Lifelong
Seafood Advisory
(mg/kg)
HQ
ELCR
Maximum
meals/month
Still
Protective?
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB
TEQ
tPCB&TEQ
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Sensitive
Others
Lobster meat
0.0133
1.3E-07
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
IE-05
3 E-06
IE-05
3E-06
3E-05
6E-06
no advisory
Lobster meat & tomalley
0.596
4.3E-05
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
7E-04
2E-04
4E-03
9E-04
4E-03
1E-03
no advisory
Scup
0.14
6.5E-07
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-04
2E-04
no advisory
Quahog
0.012
9.72E-08
UCL
NA
NA
NA
NA
no advisory
NA = Not Available HQ = Hazard Quotient
n = number of samples CTE = Central Tendency Exposure (1 meal/month)
tPCB = total PCBs RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure (4 meals/month)
TEQ= dioxin Toxicity Equivalent for dioxin-like PCBs ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
UCL = Upper Confidence Level EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
Max = Maximum concentration Numbers in red are unacceptable (HQ > 1; ELCR > 1E-04)
Numbers in green are acceptable (HQ< 1; ELCR < 1E-04)
Sensitive receptors include pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under age 12, women who may become pregnant.
-------
ATTACHMENTS
8
-------
Table 3-1
Exposure Point Concentrations - Lobster (Meat)
Remedial Investigation Report
New Bedford Harbor - OU3
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Exposure
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL (4)
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Point
of
Mean
(calcu lation)
Detected
Potential
Concentration
EPC
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Concern (3)
(qualifier)
Area 2
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
2.5E-06
7.9E-06
NP [a]
3.6E-05
7.9E-06
mg/kg
UCL - NP [a]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.129
0.149
Nfbl
0.314
0.149
mg/kg
UCL - N fbl
(5)
Area 3
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
1.8E-06
5.80E-06
NP [a]
2.6E-05
5.8E-06
mg/kg
UCL - NP [a]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.0802
0.0982
Gfcl
0.308
0.0982
mg/kg
UCL - G fcl
(5)
Reference
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
6.1E-08
1.31E-07
N [b]
1.5E-07
1.3E-07
mg/kg
UCL - N [b]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.0067
0.0133
N[bl
0.0150
0.0133
mg/kg
UCL - N fbl
(5)
Notes: Prepared by / Date: KJC 01/08/14
(1) TEQ - Toxicity equivalence for dioxin-like PCB congeners. Toxic equivalence factors (TEFs) from the Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) Checked by / Date: MJM 01/22/14
for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds EPA/100/R 10/005 USEPA, 2010. Dioxin-like congeners
that were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of TEQ.
(2) Sum of all detected PCB congeners. Congeners that were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of total PCB congeners.
(3) Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are identified in Table 2-1, Table 2-7, and Table 2-12.
(4) 95% UCL is calculated using ProUCL software (V. 5.0); calculations presented in Appendix D.
NP - Non-Parametric Distribution G - Gamma Distribution
[a] 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) [c] 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
N - Normal Distribution
[b] 95% Students-t UCL
(5) The 95% UCL is used as the EPC because the calculated 95% UCL is less than the maximum detected concentration.
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit on the arithmetic mean
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
P:\old_Wakefield_Data\projects\3651130080 - WHG New Bedford OU3 RIFS\4.0 Project Deliverables\4.1 Reports\Draft BHHRA 2015 JUNE\EPCs\
EPC_Lobster-Meat.xls, EPC Lobster Meat Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-2
Exposure Point Concentrations - Lobster (Meat and Tomalley)
Remedial Investigation Report
New Bedford Harbor - OU3
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Exposure
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL (4)
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Point
of
Mean
(calcu lation)
Detected
Potential
Concentration
EPC
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Concern (3)
(qualifier)
Area 2
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
1.3E-04
1.6E-04
N [a]
3.5E-04
1.6E-04
mg/kg
UCL - N [a]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
2.1
2.7
G[bl
6.5
2.7
mg/kg
UCL - G fbl
(5)
Area 3
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
8.4E-05
1.0E-04
N [a]
2.7E-04
1.0E-04
mg/kg
UCL - N [a]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
1.3
1.5
LN [cl
3.4
1.5
mg/kg
UCL - LN [cl
(5)
Reference
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
1.4E-05
4.3E-05
N [a]
5.1E-05
4.3E-05
mg/kg
UCL - N [a]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.4
0.60
N[al
0.60
0.596
mg/kg
UCL - N [al
(5)
Notes: Prepared by / Date: KJC 03/10/14
(1) TEQ - Toxicity equivalence for dioxin-like PCB congeners. Toxic equivalence factors (TEFs) from the Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Checked by / Date: MJM 3/11/14
Human Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds EPA/100/R 10/005 USEPA, 2010. Dioxin-like congeners
that were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of TEQ.
(2) Sum of all detected PCB congeners. Congeners that were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of total PCB congeners.
(3) Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are identified in Table 2-2, Table 2-8, and Table 2-15.
(4) 95% UCL is calculated using ProUCL software (V. 5.0); calculations presented in Appendix D.
N - Normal distribution LN - Log Normal Distribution
[a] 95% Student's-t UCL [c] 95% H-UCL
G - Gamma Distribution
[b] 95% Adjusted Gamma
(5) The 95% UCL is used as the EPC because the calculated 95% UCL is less than the maximum detected concentration.
(6) The maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC because it is lower than the calculated 95% UCL, or no 95% UCL is calculated.
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit on the arithmetic mean
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
P:\old_Wakefield_Data\projects\3651130080 - WHG New Bedford OU3 RIFS\4.0 Project Deliverables\4.1 Reports\Draft BHHRA 2015 JUNE\EPCs\
EPC_Lobster-Meat+Tomalley.xls, EPC Lobster Meat + Tomalley Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-3
Exposure Point Concentrations - Quahogs
Remedial Investigation Report
New Bedford Harbor - OU3
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Exposure
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL (4)
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Point
of
Mean
(calcu lation)
Detected
Potential
Concentration
EPC
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Concern (3)
(qualifier)
Clark's Cove
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
1.6E-07
1.87E-07
G [a]
3.8E-07
1.87E-07
mg/kg
UCL - G [a]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.0532
0.0623
G[al
0.133
0.0623
mg/kg
UCL - G [a]
(5)
Area 2
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
3.3E-07
3.89E-07
LN [b]
1.9E-06
3.89E-07
mg/kg
UCL - LN [b]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.155
0.223
NP [cl
0.881
0.223
mg/kg
UCL - NP [cl
(5)
Area 3
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
1.8E-07
6.92E-07
NP [c]
9.1E-06
6.92E-07
mg/kg
UCL - NP [c]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.0349
0.0525
NP [cl
0.193
0.0525
mg/kg
UCL - NP [cl
(5)
Reference
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
2.2E-08
9.72E-08
N [d]
1.1E-07
9.72E-08
mg/kg
UCL - N [d]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.00253
0.0122
G [a]
0.015
0.0122
mg/kg
UCL - G [al
(5)
Notes: Prepared by / Date: KJC 03/10/14
(1) TEQ - Toxicity equivalence for dioxin-like PCB congeners. Toxic equivalence factors (TEFs) from the Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Checked by / Date: MJM 3/11/14
Human Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds EPA/100/R 10/005 USEPA, 2010. Dioxin-like congeners that
were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of TEQ.
(2) Sum of all detected PCB congeners. Congeners that were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of total PCB congeners.
(3) Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are identified in Tables 2-3, 2-4, 2-9, and 2-13.
(4) 95% UCL is calculated using ProUCL software (V. 5.0); calculations presented in Appendix D.
G - Gamma Distribution NP - Non-Parametric Distribution
[a] 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL [c] 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd)
LN - Log Normal Distribution N - Normal Distribution
[b] 95% H-UCL [d] 95% Student's-t UCL
(5) The 95% UCL is used as the EPC because the calculated 95% UCL is less than the maximum detected concentration.
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit on the arithmetic mean
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
P:\old_Wakefield_Data\projects\3651130080 - WHG New Bedford OU3 RIFS\4.0 Project Deliverables\4.1 Reports\Draft BHHRA 2015 JUNE\EPCs\
EPC_Quahog.xls, EPC Quahog Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-4
Exposure Point Concentrations - Scup
Remedial Investigation Report
New Bedford Harbor - OU3
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Exposure
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL (4)
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Point
of
Mean
(calcu lation)
Detected
Potential
Concentration
EPC
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Concern (3)
(qualifier)
Area 2
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
5.2E-06
6.6E-06
LN [a]
5.0E-05
6.6E-06
mg/kg
UCL - LN [a]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.58
0.69
Gfbl
2.37
0.69
mg/kg
UCL-G [bl
(5)
Area 3
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
2.3E-06
6.2E-06
NP [c]
4.8E-05
6.2E-06
mg/kg
UCL - NP [c]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.26
0.3
Gfbl
1.33
0.30
mg/kg
UCL-G [bl
(5)
Reference
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
4.8E-07
7.81 E-07
N [d]
6.5E-07
6.5E-07
mg/kg
Maximum
(6)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.10
0.174
Nidi
0.14
0.14
mg/kg
Maximum
(6)
Notes: Prepared by / Date: KJC 03/10/14
(1) TEQ - Toxicity equivalence for dioxin-like PCB congeners. Toxic equivalence factors (TEFs) from the Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Checked by / Date: MJM 3/11/14
Human Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds EPA/100/R 10/005 USEPA, 2010. Dioxin-like congeners that Revised by/Date MJM 7/28/15
were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of TEQ. Checked by/Date LCG 7/28/15
(2) Sum of all detected PCB congeners. Congeners that were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of total PCB congeners.
(3) Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are identified in Table 2-5, Table 2-10 and Table 2-14.
(4) 95% UCL is calculated using ProUCL software (V. 5.0); calculations presented in Appendix D.
LN - Log Normal Distribution NP - Non-Parametric distribution
[a] 95% H-UCL [c] 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd)
G - Gamma Distribution N - Normal Distribution
[b] 95% Approximate Gamma [d] 95% Student's-t UCL
(5) The 95% UCL is used as the EPC because the calculated 95% UCL is less than the maximum detected concentration.
(6) The maximum detected concentration is used as the EPC because it is lower than the calculated 95% UCL, or no 95% UCL is calculated.
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit on the arithmetic mean
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
P:\old_Wakefield_Data\projects\3651130080 - WHG New Bedford OU3 RIFS\4.0 Project Deliverables\4.1 Reports\Draft BHHRA 2015 JUNE\EPCs\
EPC_Scup.xls, EPC Scup Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 3-5
Exposure Point Concentrations - Sea Bass
Remedial Investigation Report
New Bedford Harbor - OU3
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern (3)
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL (4)
(calcu lation)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
EPC
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Area 2
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
8.0E-07
1.1E-06 LN [a]
7.5E-06
1.1E-06
mg/kg
UCL - LN [a]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.1792
0.246 LN fal
1.9331
0.246
mg/kg
UCL - LN fal
(5)
Area 3
Dioxin-Like PCB Congener TEQ (1)
mg/kg
1.5E-06
5.5E-06 NP [b]
4.5E-05
5.5E-06
mg/kg
UCL - NP [b]
(5)
Total PCB Congeners (2)
mg/kg
0.119
0.15 Gfcl
0.593
0.15
mg/kg
UCL - G fcl
(5)
Notes: Prepared by / Date: KJC 01/09/14
(1) TEQ - Toxicity equivalence for dioxin-like PCB congeners. Toxic equivalence factors (TEFs) from the Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Checked by / Date: MJM 01/22/14
Human Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds EPA/100/R 10/005 USEPA, 2010. Dioxin-like congeners that
were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of TEQ.
(2) Sum of all detected PCB congeners. Congeners that were not detected in a given sample were assigned a concentration of zero for calculation of total PCB congeners.
(3) Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are identified in Table 2-6 and Table 2-11.
(4) 95% UCL is calculated using ProUCL software (V. 5.0); calculations presented in Appendix D.
G - Gamma Distribution
[c] 95% Adjusted Gamma
NP - Non-Parametric Distribution
[b] 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd)
LN - Log Normal Distribution
[a] 95% H-UCL
(5) The 95% UCL is used as the EPC because the calculated 95% UCL is less than the maximum detected concentration.
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
UCL = Upper Confidence Limit on the arithmetic mean
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
P:\old_Wakefield_Data\projects\3651130080 - WHG New Bedford OU3 RIFS\4.0 Project Deliverables\4.1 Reports\Draft BHHRA 2015 JUNE\EPCs\
EPC_Sea Bass.xls, EPC Sea Bass Page 1 of 1
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Black Sea Bass in Area 2, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.246
2.62E-05
2.1E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
4E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.246
1.14E-04
8.9E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+00
2E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.246
4.59E-05
6.6E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
1E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.246
1.99E-04
2.8E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
6E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.246
6.15E-05
4.4E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
9E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.246
2.66E-04
1.9E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E+00
4E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
6E-05
3E-04
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
1.1E-06
1.17E-10
9.2E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-01
1E-05
1E+00
6E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
1.1E-06
5.08E-10
4.0E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
7E-01
6E-05
6E+00
2E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
1.1E-06
2.05E-10
2.9E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E-01
5E-06
3E+00
2E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
1.1E-06
8.89E-10
1.3E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+00
2E-05
1E+01
8E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
1.1E-06
2.75E-10
2.0E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
4E-01
3E-06
3E+00
1E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
1.1E-06
1.19E-09
8.5E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+00
1E-05
7E+00
5E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
2E-05
IE-04
9E-05
4E-04
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Black Sea Bass in Area 3, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
3
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.15
1.60E-05
1.3E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E-01
3E-05
3
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.15
6.93E-05
5.4E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
IE-04
Older Child
3
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.15
2.80E-05
4.0E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
8E-06
3
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.15
1.21E-04
1.7E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+00
3E-05
Young Child
3
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.15
3.75E-05
2.7E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E-01
5E-06
3
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.15
1.62E-04
1.2E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
2E-05
Total
3
3
CTE
RME
4E-05
2E-04
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
3
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
5.5E-06
5.86E-10
4.6E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
8E-01
7E-05
2E+00
1E-04
3
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
5.5E-06
2.54E-09
2.0E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
4E+00
3E-04
7E+00
4E-04
Older Child
3
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
5.5E-06
1.03E-09
1.5E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+00
2E-05
3E+00
3E-05
3
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
5.5E-06
4.45E-09
6.4E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
6E+00
IE-04
1E+01
IE-04
Young Child
3
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
5.5E-06
1.37E-09
9.8E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+00
2E-05
3E+00
2E-05
3
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
5.5E-06
5.96E-09
4.3E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
9E+00
7E-05
1E+01
9E-05
Total
3
3
CTE
RME
IE-04
5E-04
2E-04
7E-04
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Scup in Area 2, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.69
7.36E-05
5.8E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+00
IE-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.69
3.19E-04
2.5E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+01
5E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.69
1.29E-04
1.8E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+00
4E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.69
5.58E-04
8.0E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+01
2E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.69
1.72E-04
1.2E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
9E+00
2E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.69
7.47E-04
5.3E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
IE-04
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
2E-04
8E-04
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
6.6E-06
7.04E-10
5.5E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+00
9E-05
5E+00
2E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
6.6E-06
3.05E-09
2.4E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
4E+00
4E-04
2E+01
9E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
6.6E-06
1.23E-09
1.8E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+00
3E-05
8E+00
6E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
6.6E-06
5.34E-09
7.6E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
8E+00
IE-04
4E+01
3E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
6.6E-06
1.65E-09
1.2E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+00
2E-05
1E+01
4E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
6.6E-06
7.15E-09
5.1E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+01
8E-05
3E+01
2E-04
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
IE-04
6E-04
3E-04
1E-03
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Scup in Area 3, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.3
3.20E-05
2.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
5E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.3
1.39E-04
1.1E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E+00
2E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.3
5.60E-05
8.0E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
2E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.3
2.43E-04
3.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
7E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.3
7.50E-05
5.4E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+00
1E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.3
3.25E-04
2.3E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+00
5E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
8E-05
3E-04
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
6.2E-06
6.61E-10
5.2E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
9E-01
8E-05
3E+00
1E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
6.2E-06
2.86E-09
2.3E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
4E+00
4E-04
1E+01
6E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
6.2E-06
1.16E-09
1.7E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+00
3E-05
4E+00
4E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
6.2E-06
5.01E-09
7.2E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
7E+00
IE-04
2E+01
2E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
6.2E-06
1.55E-09
1.1E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+00
2E-05
6E+00
3E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
6.2E-06
6.71E-09
4.8E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+01
8E-05
2E+01
1E-04
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
IE-04
6E-04
2E-04
9E-04
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Scup in Reference Area, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.14
1.49E-05
1.2E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E-01
2E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.14
6.47E-05
5.1E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
IE-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.14
2.61E-05
3.7E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
7E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.14
1.13E-04
1.6E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+00
3E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.14
3.50E-05
2.5E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
5E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.14
1.52E-04
1.1E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
2E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
4E-05
2E-04
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
6.5E-07
6.93E-11
5.4E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E-01
9E-06
8E-01
3E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
6.5E-07
3.00E-10
2.4E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
4E-01
4E-05
4E+00
1E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
6.5E-07
1.21E-10
1.7E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-01
3E-06
1E+00
1E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
6.5E-07
5.26E-10
7.5E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
8E-01
1E-05
6E+00
4E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
6.5E-07
1.62E-10
1.2E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-01
2E-06
2E+00
7E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
6.5E-07
7.04E-10
5.0E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+00
8E-06
4E+00
3E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
1E-05
6E-05
5E-05
2E-04
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Quahogs in Area 2, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.223
2.38E-05
1.9E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
4E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.223
1.03E-04
8.1E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E+00
2E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.223
4.16E-05
5.9E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
1E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.223
1.80E-04
2.6E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
9E+00
5E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.223
5.57E-05
4.0E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
8E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.223
2.41E-04
1.7E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E+00
3E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
6E-05
2E-04
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
3.89E-07
4.15E-11
3.3E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
6E-02
5E-06
1E+00
4E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
3.89E-07
1.80E-10
1.4E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E-01
2E-05
5E+00
2E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
3.89E-07
7.26E-11
1.0E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E-01
2E-06
2E+00
1E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
3.89E-07
3.15E-10
4.5E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
4E-01
7E-06
9E+00
6E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
3.89E-07
9.72E-11
6.9E-12
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E-01
1E-06
3E+00
9E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
3.89E-07
4.21E-10
3.0E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
6E-01
5E-06
5E+00
4E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
8E-06
3E-05
7E-05
3E-04
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Quahogs in Clark's Cove, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.0623
6.64E-06
5.2E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E-01
1E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.0623
2.88E-05
2.3E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
5E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.0623
1.16E-05
1.7E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E-01
3E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.0623
5.04E-05
7.2E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
1E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.0623
1.56E-05
1.1E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E-01
2E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.0623
6.75E-05
4.8E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
1E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
2E-05
7E-05
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
1.87E-07
1.99E-11
1.6E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E-02
3E-06
4E-01
1E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
1.87E-07
8.64E-11
6.8E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E-01
1E-05
2E+00
6E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
1.86E-07
3.47E-11
5.0E-12
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
5E-02
8E-07
6E-01
4E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
1.87E-07
1.51E-10
2.2E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-01
3E-06
3E+00
2E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
1.87E-07
4.67E-11
3.3E-12
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
7E-02
5E-07
8E-01
3E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
1.87E-07
2.02E-10
1.4E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E-01
2E-06
2E+00
1E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
4E-06
2E-05
2E-05
9E-05
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Quahogs in Area 3, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.0525
5.60E-06
4.4E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E-01
9E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.0525
2.43E-05
1.9E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
4E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.0525
9.80E-06
1.4E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E-01
3E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.0525
4.24E-05
6.1E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
1E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.0525
1.31E-05
9.4E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E-01
2E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.0525
5.68E-05
4.1E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
8E-06
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
1E-05
6E-05
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
6.92E-07
7.38E-11
5.8E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E-01
9E-06
4E-01
2E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
6.92E-07
3.20E-10
2.5E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
5E-01
4E-05
2E+00
8E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
6.92E-07
1.29E-10
1.8E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-01
3E-06
7E-01
6E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
6.92E-07
5.59E-10
8.0E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
8E-01
1E-05
3E+00
2E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
6.92E-07
1.73E-10
1.2E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-01
2E-06
9E-01
4E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
6.92E-07
7.49E-10
5.4E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+00
9E-06
2E+00
2E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
1E-05
6E-05
3E-05
IE-04
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Quahogs in Reference Area, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.0122
1.30E-06
1.0E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E-02
2E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.0122
5.64E-06
4.4E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E-01
9E-06
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.0122
2.28E-06
3.3E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E-01
7E-07
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.0122
9.86E-06
1.4E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E-01
3E-06
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.0122
3.05E-06
2.2E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E-01
4E-07
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.0122
1.32E-05
9.4E-07
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E-01
2E-06
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
3E-06
1E-05
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
9.72E-08
1.04E-11
8.1E-12
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E-02
1E-06
8E-02
3E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
9.72E-08
4.49E-11
3.5E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
6E-02
6E-06
3E-01
1E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
9.72E-08
1.81E-11
2.6E-12
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E-02
4E-07
1E-01
1E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
9.72E-08
7.86E-11
1.1E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E-01
2E-06
6E-01
5E-06
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
9.72E-08
2.43E-11
1.7E-12
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E-02
3E-07
2E-01
7E-07
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
9.72E-08
1.05E-10
7.5E-12
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-01
1E-06
4E-01
3E-06
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
2E-06
9E-06
5E-06
2E-05
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Lobster (Meat & Tomalley) in Area 2, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
2.7
2.88E-04
2.3E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
5E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
2.7
1.25E-03
9.8E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+01
2E-03
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
2.7
5.04E-04
7.2E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+01
IE-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
2.7
2.18E-03
3.1E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+02
6E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
2.7
6.75E-04
4.8E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+01
IE-04
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
2.7
2.92E-03
2.1E-04
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+01
4E-04
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
7E-04
3E-03
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
1.6E-04
1.71E-08
1.3E-08
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+01
2E-03
4E+01
3E-03
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
1.6E-04
7.39E-08
5.8E-08
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+02
9E-03
2E+02
1E-02
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
1.6E-04
2.99E-08
4.3E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
4E+01
7E-04
7E+01
8E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
1.6E-04
1.29E-07
1.8E-08
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+02
3E-03
3E+02
4E-03
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
1.6E-04
4.00E-08
2.9E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
6E+01
5E-04
9E+01
6E-04
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
1.6E-04
1.73E-07
1.2E-08
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+02
2E-03
3E+02
2E-03
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
3E-03
1E-02
4E-03
2E-02
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Lobster (Meat & Tomalley) in Area 3, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
1.5
1.60E-04
1.3E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E+00
3E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
1.5
6.93E-04
5.4E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+01
1E-03
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
1.5
2.80E-04
4.0E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
8E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
1.5
1.21E-03
1.7E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+01
3E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
1.5
3.75E-04
2.7E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+01
5E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
1.5
1.62E-03
1.2E-04
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+01
2E-04
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
4E-04
2E-03
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
1.0E-04
1.07E-08
8.4E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+01
1E-03
2E+01
2E-03
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
1.0E-04
4.62E-08
3.6E-08
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
7E+01
6E-03
1E+02
7E-03
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
1.0E-04
1.87E-08
2.7E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E+01
4E-04
4E+01
5E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
1.0E-04
8.08E-08
1.2E-08
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+02
2E-03
2E+02
2E-03
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
1.0E-04
2.50E-08
1.8E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
4E+01
3E-04
5E+01
3E-04
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
1.0E-04
1.08E-07
7.7E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+02
1E-03
2E+02
1E-03
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
2E-03
9E-03
2E-03
1E-02
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Lobster (Meat & Tomalley) in Reference Area, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.596
6.35E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
IE-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.596
2.75E-04
2.2E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
4E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.596
1.11E-04
1.6E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+00
3E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.596
4.82E-04
6.9E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+01
IE-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.596
1.49E-04
1.1E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E+00
2E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.596
6.45E-04
4.6E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
9E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
2E-04
7E-04
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
4.3E-05
4.58E-09
3.6E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
7E+00
6E-04
1E+01
7E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
4.3E-05
1.99E-08
1.6E-08
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E+01
2E-03
4E+01
3E-03
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
4.3E-05
8.02E-09
1.1E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+01
2E-04
2E+01
2E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
4.3E-05
3.48E-08
5.0E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
5E+01
8E-04
7E+01
9E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
4.3E-05
1.07E-08
7.7E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+01
IE-04
2E+01
1E-04
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
4.3E-05
4.66E-08
3.3E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
7E+01
5E-04
8E+01
6E-04
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
9E-04
4E-03
1E-03
4E-03
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Lobster (Meat) in Area 2, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.149
1.59E-05
1.2E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E-01
2E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.149
6.88E-05
5.4E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
1E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.149
2.78E-05
4.0E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
8E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.149
1.20E-04
1.7E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+00
3E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.149
3.72E-05
2.7E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
5E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.149
1.61E-04
1.2E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
2E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
4E-05
2E-04
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
7.9E-06
8.42E-10
6.6E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+00
1E-04
2E+00
1E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
7.9E-06
3.65E-09
2.9E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
5E+00
5E-04
9E+00
6E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
7.9E-06
1.47E-09
2.1E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+00
3E-05
3E+00
4E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
7.9E-06
6.39E-09
9.1E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
9E+00
1E-04
2E+01
2E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
7.9E-06
1.97E-09
1.4E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E+00
2E-05
5E+00
3E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
7.9E-06
8.55E-09
6.1E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
1E+01
1E-04
2E+01
1E-04
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
2E-04
7E-04
2E-04
9E-04
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Lobster (Meat) in Area 3, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.0982
1.05E-05
8.2E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E-01
2E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.0982
4.54E-05
3.6E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
7E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.0982
1.83E-05
2.6E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
9E-01
5E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.0982
7.94E-05
1.1E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+00
2E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.0982
2.45E-05
1.8E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
4E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.0982
1.06E-04
7.6E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
2E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
3E-05
1E-04
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
5.8E-06
6.18E-10
4.9E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
9E-01
8E-05
1E+00
9E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
5.8E-06
2.68E-09
2.1E-09
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
4E+00
3E-04
6E+00
4E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
5.8E-06
1.08E-09
1.5E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+00
2E-05
2E+00
3E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
5.8E-06
4.69E-09
6.7E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
7E+00
1E-04
1E+01
IE-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
5.8E-06
1.45E-09
1.0E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E+00
2E-05
3E+00
2E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
5.8E-06
6.28E-09
4.5E-10
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
9E+00
7E-05
1E+01
9E-05
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
1E-04
5E-04
1E-04
6E-04
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2014 draft Rl Calculation of Risks of Lobster (Meat) in Reference Area, OU#3 New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.0133
1.42E-06
1.1E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E-02
2E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.0133
6.14E-06
4.8E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E-01
1E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.0133
2.48E-06
3.5E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E-01
7E-07
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.0133
1.08E-05
1.5E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E-01
3E-06
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.0133
3.32E-06
2.4E-07
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E-01
5E-07
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.0133
1.44E-05
1.0E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E-01
2E-06
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
3E-06
1E-05
Dioxin-Like PCBs- TEQ (mg/kg)
PCB&TEQ
Receptor
Area
Exposure
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
1.3E-07
1.39E-11
1.1E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-02
2E-06
9E-02
4E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
1.3E-07
6.01E-11
4.7E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
9E-02
8E-06
4E-01
2E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
1.3E-07
2.43E-11
3.5E-12
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
3E-02
6E-07
2E-01
1E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
1.3E-07
1.05E-10
1.5E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-01
2E-06
7E-01
5E-06
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
1.3E-07
3.25E-11
2.3E-12
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
5E-02
4E-07
2E-01
8E-07
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
1.3E-07
1.41E-10
1.0E-11
7.0E-10
1.6E+05
2E-01
2E-06
5E-01
4E-06
Total
2
2
CTE
RME
3E-06
1E-05
6E-06
3E-05
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Average Total PCB Concentration in Tautog in Area 2, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.15
1.60E-05
1.3E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E-01
3E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.15
6.93E-05
5.4E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
1E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.15
2.80E-05
4.0E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
8E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.15
1.21E-04
1.7E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+00
3E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.15
3.75E-05
2.7E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
5E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.15
1.62E-04
1.2E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
2E-05
Total
2
CTE
4E-05
2
RME
2E-04
Using average fish tissue concentration (n=7)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Maximum Total PCB Concentration in Tautog in Area 2, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
data
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
1.9
2.03E-04
1.6E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
3E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
1.9
8.78E-04
6.9E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+01
1E-03
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
1.9
3.54E-04
5.1E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+01
1E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
1.9
1.54E-03
2.2E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E+01
4E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
1.9
4.75E-04
3.4E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+01
7E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
1.9
2.06E-03
1.5E-04
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+01
3E-04
Total
2
CTE
5E-04
2
RME
2E-03
Using maximum fish tissue concentration (n=7)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Average Total PCB Concentration in Tautog in Area 3, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.08
8.53E-06
6.7E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E-01
1E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.08
3.70E-05
2.9E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
6E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.08
1.49E-05
2.1E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E-01
4E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.08
6.47E-05
9.2E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
2E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.08
2.00E-05
1.4E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
3E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.08
8.66E-05
6.2E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
1E-05
Total
2
CTE
2E-05
2
RME
9E-05
Using average fish tissue concentration (n=4)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Maximum Total PCB Concentration in Tautog in Area 3, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
data
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.11
1.17E-05
9.2E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E-01
2E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.11
5.08E-05
4.0E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
8E-05
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.11
2.05E-05
2.9E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
6E-06
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.11
8.89E-05
1.3E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+00
3E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.11
2.75E-05
2.0E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+00
4E-06
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.11
1.19E-04
8.5E-06
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
2E-05
Total
2
CTE
3E-05
2
RME
1E-04
Using maximum fish tissue concentration (n=4)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Average Total PCB Concentration in Flounder in Area 2, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.72
7.68E-05
6.0E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+00
1E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.72
3.33E-04
2.6E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+01
5E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.72
1.34E-04
1.9E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E+00
4E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.72
5.82E-04
8.3E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+01
2E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.72
1.80E-04
1.3E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
9E+00
3E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.72
7.80E-04
5.6E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+01
1E-04
Total
2
CTE
2E-04
2
RME
8E-04
Using average fish tissue concentration for summer and winter flounder (n=4)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Maximum Total PCB Concentration in Flounder in Area 2, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
2
2.13E-04
1.7E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
3E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
2
9.24E-04
7.3E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E+01
1E-03
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
2
3.73E-04
5.3E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+01
1E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
2
1.62E-03
2.3E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E+01
5E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
2
5.00E-04
3.6E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+01
7E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
2
2.17E-03
1.5E-04
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+01
3E-04
Total
2
CTE
5E-04
2
RME
2E-03
Using maximum fish tissue concentration for summer and winter flounder (n=4)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Average Total PCB Concentration in Flounder in Area 3, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.37
3.94E-05
3.1E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+00
6E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.37
1.71E-04
1.3E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
9E+00
3E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.37
6.90E-05
9.9E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
2E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.37
2.99E-04
4.3E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
9E-05
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.37
9.24E-05
6.6E-06
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E+00
1E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.37
4.01E-04
2.9E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E+00
6E-05
Total
2
CTE
9E-05
2
RME
4E-04
Using average fish tissue concentration for summer and winter flounder (n=2)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Maximum Total PCB Concentration in Flounder in Area 3, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
0.62
6.61E-05
5.2E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+00
1E-04
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
0.62
2.86E-04
2.3E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
5E-04
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
0.62
1.16E-04
1.7E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+00
3E-05
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
0.62
5.01E-04
7.2E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+01
1E-04
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
0.62
1.55E-04
1.1E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E+00
2E-05
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
0.62
6.71E-04
4.8E-05
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+01
1E-04
Total
2
CTE
2E-04
2
RME
7E-04
Using maximum fish tissue concentration for summer and winter flounder (n=2)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Maximum Total PCB Concentration in Eel in Area 1, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
133
1.42E-02
1.1E-02
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
7E+02
2E-02
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
133
6.14E-02
4.8E-02
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+03
1E-01
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
133
2.48E-02
3.5E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+03
7E-03
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
133
1.08E-01
1.5E-02
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E+03
3E-02
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
133
3.32E-02
2.4E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+03
5E-03
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
133
1.44E-01
1.0E-02
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+03
2E-02
Total
2
CTE
3E-02
2
RME
1E-01
Using maximum fish tissue concentration (n=22)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Average Total PCB Concentration in Eel in Area 1, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
48.9
5.21E-03
4.1E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+02
8E-03
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
48.9
2.26E-02
1.8E-02
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+03
4E-02
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
48.9
9.12E-03
1.3E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E+02
3E-03
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
48.9
3.95E-02
5.6E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+03
1E-02
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
48.9
1.22E-02
8.7E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
6E+02
2E-03
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
48.9
5.29E-02
3.8E-03
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+03
8E-03
Total
2
CTE
1E-02
2
RME
5E-02
Using average fish tissue concentration (n=22)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Average Total PCB Concentration in Eel in Area 2, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
40.2
4.29E-03
3.4E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+02
7E-03
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
40.2
1.86E-02
1.5E-02
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
9E+02
3E-02
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
40.2
7.50E-03
1.1E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+02
2E-03
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
40.2
3.25E-02
4.6E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+03
9E-03
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
40.2
1.00E-02
7.2E-04
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
5E+02
1E-03
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
40.2
4.35E-02
3.1E-03
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
9E+02
6E-03
Total
2
CTE
1E-02
2
RME
4E-02
Using average fish tissue concentration (n=4)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
EPA 2015 Calculation of Risks of Maximum Total PCB Concentration in Eel in Area 2, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site 2013 data
Total PCB Congeners (mg/kg)
Receptor
Area
Exp.
IR
Fl
EF
ED
BW
AT-c
AT-nc
CF
ADD
LADD
RfD
SF
HQ
ELCR
Adult
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
55
70
25550
20075
83
8.85E-03
7.0E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
4E+02
1E-02
2
RME
0.227
1
52
55
70
25550
20075
83
3.83E-02
3.0E-02
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+03
6E-02
Older Child
2
CTE
0.227
1
12
10
40
25550
3650
83
1.55E-02
2.2E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
8E+02
4E-03
2
RME
0.227
1
52
10
40
25550
3650
83
6.71E-02
9.6E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
3E+03
2E-02
Young Child
2
CTE
0.114
1
12
5
15
25550
1825
83
2.07E-02
1.5E-03
2.0E-05
2.0E+00
1E+03
3E-03
2
RME
0.114
1
52
5
15
25550
1825
83
8.99E-02
6.4E-03
5.0E-05
2.0E+00
2E+03
1E-02
Total
2
CTE
2E-02
2
RME
9E-02
Using maximum fish tissue concentration (n=4)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg/meal)
Fl = Fraction Ingested (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (meals/yr)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT-c = Averaging Time-carcinogenic (days)
AT-nc = Averaging Time-non-carcinogenic
CF = Concentration in Fish (mg/kg)
ADD = Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
LADD = Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg/day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
SF = oral Slope Factor (per mg/kg/day)
HQ = Hazard Quotient
ELCR = Elevated Lifetime Cancer Risk
ADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*1/BW*1/AT-nc
LADD = CF*IR*FI*ED*EF*l/BW*l/AT-c
HQ = ADD/RfD
ELCR = LADD*SF
-------
RE: Eel and flounder
Page 1 of 2
RE: Eel and flounder
Delete Reply Reply all Forward
yy Malkoski, Vincent (FWE) ; ~ Sugatt, Richard;
You replied on 9/28/2015 12:17 PM.
This item will expire in 0 days.
Hi Ginny
Eels will pass through Area III but they do not aggregate anywhere in sufficient numbers or with enough
frequency for us to catch them. Likewise, it is unlikely that anyone else is catching them out there other
than as a random event. Directed fishing occurs in brackish and freshwater. Bottom line, no worries for
Area III.
Flounder - In years past, winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) were taken from Areas 2 &3,
however the species has been in serious decline throughout the southeastern management area.
Basically, the stock has crashed. We've tried to catch them over the years but have had no luck in the
last 10+ years. They do occur, but again not in sufficient numbers to be caught for samples or regular
consumption. I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw anything other than a juvenile (age 0 - age
2). Summer flounder or fluke (Paralichthys dentatus) do move into the area in late spring but we've
never submitted these as samples and I am not aware of a data set for this area.
Vin
Please note new office address and phone number
Vin Malkoski
MA Division of Marine Fisheries
1213 Purchase Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
508-990-2860, ext.107 Fax: 508-990-0449
From: Lombardo, Ginny [mailto:Lombardo.Ginny@epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 11:40 AM
To: Malkoski, Vincent (FWE)
Cc: Craffey, Paul (DEP); Sugatt, Richard
Subject: Eel and flounder
Vin-
http s : // outl ook.office365.com/owa/
9/29/2015
-------
RE: Eel and flounder
Page 2 of 2
We are looking at the New Bedford fish tissue data to confirm the protectiveness of our fish
consumption advisories. We have no data from any of the years for eel in Area III. Is this species not
found in Area III? Our advisories consider human health risks from eating 1-4 meals per month of a
species. Is this species potentially available in Area III at an abundance that could possibly meet a 1-4
meal per month consumption frequency?
Also, for flounder, we only have 2 data points from Area III from 2003. Is this species not readily found
in Area III?
I am of course trying to tie up some loose ends on this data for the end of FY - which is Wednesday - so
if you could get back to me asap it would be a HUGE help. Thanks.
Ginny Lombardo, Team Leader
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
U.S. EPA Region 1
5 Post Office Square
Suite 100 (OSRR07-1)
Boston, MA 02109-3912
(617)918-1754 (office)
(617)918-0754 (fax)
http s: // outl ook.office365.com/owa/
9/29/2015
------- |