This page intentionally left blank

Transcription

1

2 This page intentionally left blank

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Objectives and Purpose Regulatory Framework and Partnerships Human Health Risk Assessment Approach Ecological Risk Assessment Approach SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY Site Description Physical Setting Hydrology Historical Sources of Contamination CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA AND DATA MANIPULATIONS HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH Identification of Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) COPC Selection Exposure Assessment Exposure Pathways and Populations Determination of Exposure Point Concentrations Estimation of Chemical Intake Toxicity Assessment and Risk Characterization Toxicity Assessment Risk Characterization ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH Identification of Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern (COPECs) COPEC Selection Conceptual Site Model and Exposure Pathway Analysis Selection of Receptors of Concern (ROCs) Benthic Invertebrates Demersal and Pelagic Fish Piscivorous and Omnivorous Birds Mammals Reptiles and Amphibians Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Exposure Assessment Exposure Point Concentration Calculations Dose Calculations for ROCs Ecological Effects Ecological Effects Evaluation Ecological Effects Assessment Risk Characterization Screening-Level Ecological Risk Characterization Baseline Ecological Risk Characterization SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES Pathways Analysis Report i Version 2006/05/18

4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Descriptions of Historical Data Used for COPC/COPEC Screening...16 Table 2. Screening Values for Human Health Table 3. COPCs Identified in Sediment, Tissue, and Surface Water Samples for the Newark Bay Study Area Table 4. Selection of Human Health Exposure Pathways Table 5. Sediment Screening Value Summary for the Ecological Risk Assessment...60 Table 6. Surface Water Quality Criteria Screening Values for the Ecological Risk Assessment...67 Table 7. Summary COPECs for Ecological Risk Assessment...74 Table 8. Recommended Receptors of Concern for the Ecological Risk Assessment Table 9. Prey Species Consumed by Piscivorous and Omnivorous Birds in the Newark Bay Study Area Table 10. Preliminary Selection of ROCs and Exposure Factors. a...89 Table 11. Exposure Parameters for the Black-Crowned Night Heron...89 Table 12. Exposure Parameters for the Great Egret...90 Table 13. Exposure Parameters for the Belted Kingfisher...90 Table 14. Exposure Parameters for the Double-Crested Cormorant...91 Table 15. Exposure Parameters for the Mallard Duck...91 Table 16. Exposure Parameters for the Herring Gull...92 Table 17. Exposure Parameters for the Spotted Sandpiper...93 Table 18. Exposure Parameters for the Raccoon Table 19. Exposure Parameters for the Harbor Seal...94 Table 20. A Summary of the Available TRVs for Birds from USEPA Region IX (BTAG) Table 21. Summary of SVOCs in Sediment Included as COPCs/COPECs due to Elevated Detection Limits...99 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Eight-Step USEPA Ecological Risk Assessment Process...3 Figure 2. The...6 Figure 3. Land Use Map for...7 Figure 4. Surface Water Discharge Types and Locations along the Lower Passaic River....9 Figure 5. Preliminary Human Health Conceptual Site Model Figure 6. Preliminary Ecological Conceptual Site Model Figure 7. Sediment COPC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Human Health Risk Assessment Figure 8. Tissue COPC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Human Health Risk Assessment Figure 9. Surface Water COPC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Human Health Assessment...24 Figure 10. Sediment COPEC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Ecological Risk Assessment Figure 11. Surface Water COPEC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Ecological Risk Assessment...71 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Human Health Risk Assessment Screening Tables and Exposure Parameters Attachment B: Ecological Risk Assessment Screening Tables Pathways Analysis Report ii Version 2006/05/18

5 ACRONYMS ABS ADD AE AF AT ATSDR AOC BCNH BERA BRA BSAF BTAG BTEX BW CalEPA CBR CERCLA CF CL COPC COPEC CSF CSM CSO CTE D (2,4-) DB (2,4-) DDD DDE DDT DTSC DQO ED EF EPC ERA ER-L ER-M ET FI HHERA HHRA HI HMW HQ IBI InR IR Absorption factor Average daily dose Assessment endpoint Adherence factor Averaging time Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry Administrative Order on Consent Black-crowned night heron Baseline ecological risk assessment Baseline risk assessment Biota-sediment accumulation factors Biological Technical Assistance Group Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes Body weight State of California Environmental Protection Agency Critical body residues Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Conversion factor Cooking loss Contaminant of potential concern Contaminant of potential ecological concern Cancer slope factor Conceptual site model Combined sewer overflow Central tendency exposure 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-dichlorophenoxybutyric acid Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane Department of Toxic Substances Control (State of California) Data quality objective Exposure duration Exposure frequency Exposure point concentration Ecological risk assessment Effects range low Effects range median Exposure time Fraction ingested Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Human health risk assessment Hazard index High molecular weight Hazard quotient Index of biological integrity Inhalation rate Ingestion rate Pathways Analysis Report iii Version 2006/05/18

6 IRIS Kg LADD LMW LOAEL LPRRP MCPA MCPP ME mg mg/kg-day MOE MRL NBSA NCP NEC NJ NJDEP NJPDES NOAA NOAEL NPL NRWQC NS&T NY NYSDEC ORNL PAH PAR PAS PCB PCDD PCDF PEL PRG PPRTVs ppb POTW PVSC QA RBC RfD RI/FS RIWP RME ROC SA SARA SLERA SMDP SUF Integrated Risk Information System Kilogram Lifetime average daily dose Low molecular weight Lowest observed adverse effects level Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Methyl chlorophenoxy acetic acid 2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid Measurement endpoint milligram milligram per kilogram of body weight per day margin of error Minimal risk level National Contingency Plan No effects concentration New Jersey New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration No observed adverse effects level National Priorities List National Recommended Water Quality Criteria National Status and Trends New York New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Oak Ridge National Laboratories Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Pathways Analysis Report Princeton Aquatic Sciences Polychlorinated biphenyl Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin Polychlorinated dibenzofuran Probable effects level Preliminary remediation goal Provisional peer-reviewed toxicity values parts per billion Publicly owned treatment works Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners Quality assurance Risk-based concentration Reference dose Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Remedial Investigation Work Plan Reasonable maximum exposure Receptor of concern Surface area Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Screening-level ecological risk assessment Scientific/management decision point Site use factor Pathways Analysis Report iv Version 2006/05/18

7 SVOC SWQC T (2,4,5-) T&E TBD TCDD TEF TEL TEQ TP (2,4,5-) TPH TSI TOC TRV UCL US USACE USEPA USFWS VOC WHO Semivolatile organic compound Surface water quality criteria Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid Threatened and endangered To be determined Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic equivalency factor Threshold effects level Toxic equivalence 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxypropionic acid Total petroleum hydrocarbons Tierra Solutions, Inc. Total organic carbon Toxicity reference value Upper confidence limit of the mean United States Unites States Army Corps of Engineers United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish and Wildlife Service Volatile organic compound World Health Organization Pathways Analysis Report v Version 2006/05/18

8 This page intentionally blank Pathways Analysis Report vi Version 2006/05/18

9 1.1 Objectives and Purpose 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) issued in February 2004 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) will be conducted within the (NBSA), which is described as including Newark Bay and portions of the Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, and the Kill Van Kull (USEPA, 2004a). The purpose of the RI/FS is to characterize the nature and extent of chemical contamination within the Superfund site, develop and evaluate cleanup options, and gather necessary information to select an appropriate remedy for the site. A screening-level and if required, a baseline, human health and ecological risk assessment (HHERA) will be performed as part of the RI/FS to assess current and future health risks to human receptors and the environment in the absence of any remedial actions, and to assess remedial actions. Results of the RI/FS and risk assessments will be used to make a series of site-specific risk management decisions during the Superfund remedy-selection process. 1.2 Regulatory Framework and Partnerships As a preliminary step of the HHERA, Battelle, under contract to Malcolm Pirnie Inc., has prepared this Pathways Analysis Report (PAR). This document serves as a preliminary planning or scoping document that evaluates the potential impacts of exposure to contaminants from sediment, water, and biota on humans and wildlife in the NBSA. Based on available historical data obtained from the website an assessment of likely receptors for both human health and ecological concerns, and a preliminary contaminant screening step are presented in this document. The iterative nature of the planning phase for this project allows new information to be incorporated into the HHERA as additional studies are completed and more data become available. The PAR has been prepared to outline the exposure pathways and initial assumptions for both the human health and ecological risk assessments. Future steps of the risk assessment process will be developed in consultation with USEPA and the stakeholders. Although elements of a screening-level risk assessment are presented, this is not intended to be a screening-level risk assessment and does not include a data usability analysis or problem formulation. These elements in the risk assessment process are anticipated to be completed as part of the risk assessment process. The RI/FS for the NBSA is being conducted under the authority of USEPA, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The work is proceeding under an AOC with one of the potentially responsible parties (PRP), Occidental Chemical Corporation. As a preliminary step in the RI/FS process, a Remedial Investigation Work Plan (RIWP) has been prepared by Tierra Solutions, Inc. (TSI, 2004). Whereas the necessary investigations to support the human health and ecological risk assessments will be conducted by TSI, the AOC assigns the development of the risk assessments to USEPA. The NBSA RI/FS is being undertaken by USEPA to address the presence of contaminants transported to Newark Bay from various sources, including tributaries to the Bay. Contamination in the Lower Passaic River is being addressed by a joint effort of several state and federal agencies, known as the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project (LPRRP), which consists of a comprehensive study of a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River, extending from the Dundee Dam to Newark Bay. The integrated LPRRP study is being conducted pursuant to both CERCLA and the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The LPRRP represents an expansion of the original six-mile Passaic River Study Area for which TSI initiated an RI/FS under a previous AOC in 1994 (USEPA, 1994). In June 2004, an additional Pathways Analysis Report 1 Version 2006/05/18

10 AOC was signed between USEPA and a group of over 30 PRPs, including TSI, requiring the PRPs to fund the CERCLA portion of the LPRRP, which is led by USEPA (USEPA, 2004a) Human Health Risk Assessment Approach The human health risk assessment will focus on potential impacts associated with exposure to site-related contamination within the NBSA. The human health assessment will be conducted following a two-tiered approach designed to support risk management decision-making by initially defining the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) for each medium, based on existing and new data collected during the RI, and using this information to prioritize areas requiring further assessment. In the first tier, described in this PAR, data collected from historical field investigations were compared against existing risk-based screening values for soil, risk-based concentrations (RBC) for fish tissue, and surface water quality standards, all of which have been developed by USEPA. The purpose of this first tier is to identify the initial COPCs and complete exposure pathways under future and current conditions such that a more focused field investigation may be implemented during the RI to attain relevant data for the human health risk assessment. In the second tier, a more thorough analysis of the available data and supporting exposure assumptions will be conducted to determine if site-specific data collection may be required to refine key parameters (e.g., COPCs, exposure point concentrations, exposure factors) to minimize the associated uncertainties in the subsequent baseline risk assessment (BRA) Ecological Risk Assessment Approach An ecological risk assessment will be conducted using existing and new chemical data from the NBSA to evaluate the potential for adverse effects to ecological receptors. These adverse effects may be the result of exposure to contaminants in surface water, from sediments underlying the water, or from the ingestion of contaminated prey. To evaluate these potential risks, the eight-step process provided in USEPA s Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (USEPA, 1997a) will be followed (Figure 1). This PAR describes the recommended approach for conducting the screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) for the NBSA. It describes the preliminary screening for contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPECs) that was performed on available historical data from the site, the fate and transport of those COPECs, potential receptors of concern (ROCs), potential exposure pathways, and potential assessment and measurement endpoints (AEs). It is expected that further studies will provide data to fill in some of the spatial and temporal data gaps that were found in the current data set for contaminant levels in the NBSA, and a Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) will be performed. If the SLERA determines an unacceptable risk to wildlife, the site will move toward a baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA). The BERA will expand on particular ecological concerns at the site, following input from stakeholders and other involved parties. Following USEPA guidance, conservative assumptions will be used in the SLERA (USEPA, 1997a). The BERA, if necessary, will be more specific and encompass both historical data and new data to be compiled during the subsequent investigations, and may included such measurements as tissue concentrations and toxicity test results. Pathways Analysis Report 2 Version 2006/05/18

11 SMDP = scientific/management decision point DQO = data quality objective Figure 1. The Eight-Step USEPA Ecological Risk Assessment Process. Pathways Analysis Report 3 Version 2006/05/18

12 This page intentionally blank Pathways Analysis Report 4 Version 2006/05/18

13 2.1 Site Description 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY Newark Bay is part of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary and is located at the confluence of the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers. The cities of Newark and Elizabeth lay to the West of the Bay; Jersey City and Bayonne are to the East; and Staten Island is to the South. Newark Bay is approximately 6 miles long and 1 mile wide, and is linked to Upper New York Bay by the Kill Van Kull and to Lower New York Bay by the Arthur Kill (TSI, 2004) (Figure 2). 2.2 Physical Setting The two major rivers that drain into Newark Bay are the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers. The Passaic River drains a 935 square-mile watershed, encompassing 10 counties from northeastern New Jersey and southeastern New York, into Newark Bay (HydroQual, 2005). The Hackensack River spans 32 miles from New York to Newark Bay. These rivers are surrounded by one of the most heavily populated regions of the country (Hackensack Riverkeeper, 2005). Each of these two rivers has a downstream confluence with Newark Bay which, along with its other tributaries and associated wetlands, is one of the world s largest urbanized and industrialized estuarine systems (Gunster et al., 1993). For centuries, land use in the Newark Bay area has been primarily urban, consisting of a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses (Figure 3). During the 1700s, the City of Newark was recognized as a leading manufacturer of leather goods, carriages, and iron and brass products (Urquhart, 1913). Following World War II, Newark blossomed as a leading transportation center that included a highly developed infrastructure of highway, railway, and marine services. On the western shore of Newark Bay lies Port Newark which is part of the port system maintained by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This is one of the nation s largest and busiest ports for containerized cargo, including petroleum products and various hazardous cargo. Both the eastern and western banks of Newark Bay are dominated by numerous active or abandoned commercial and industrial properties. These banks are extensively developed and consist of miles of paved shoreline. A highly developed network of combined sewer overflows (CSOs), stormwater outfalls, and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) also exists throughout the study area (Mueller et al., 1982). 2.3 Hydrology To maintain the status of Newark Bay and its tributaries as one of the premier commercial ports in the nation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has conducted extensive dredging operations since the 1930s to accommodate the expanding fleet of cargo vessels. Various engineering projects, including the construction of dams to create mill ponds, canals to divert water into municipal water supplies, and extensive dredging, have altered the area s hydrology. Increases of saltwater to the Hackensack and Passaic rivers have transformed the ecology of the upstream wetlands. The original 42-plus square miles of tidal and freshwater wetlands, known as the Hackensack Meadowlands, were reduced to around 13 square miles by 1969, much of which were polluted by sewage and solid waste (Marshall, 2004). Sediment and chemical fluxes in the Newark Bay estuary are influenced by the ebb and flow of the semidiurnal tides of Newark Bay. These tides, in combination with freshwater flows from river inputs, result in density stratification in Newark Bay with a distinct counter-current transport flux in the surface and bottom layers of the water column (HydroQual, 2005). This results in a northern transport of materials (i.e., sediment and chemicals) from Newark Bay into the lower reaches of these rivers. Spills Pathways Analysis Report 5 Version 2006/05/18

14 and releases of petroleum products and hazardous waste from ships and cargo in Newark Bay, therefore, are a likely source of pollution to these tributaries. Likewise, the downstream transport of sediment and chemicals from the mixed freshwater-saline surface water of the rivers is deposited into the Bay (HydroQual, 2005). Figure 2. The. Pathways Analysis Report 6 Version 2006/05/18

15 Source: PreMis Website Figure 3. Land Use Map for 2.4 Historical Sources of Contamination Over the past two centuries, Newark Bay and its tributaries have been subjected to expanding urban and industrial development, resulting in a dramatic degradation of the Newark Bay area (Iannuzzi et al., 2002). By the early twentieth century, Newark was one of the largest industrial cities in the U.S. with well established industries such as petroleum refineries, shipping facilities, tanneries, and various manufacturers. Anthropogenic influence on the natural habitat from this industrialization included the direct release of large amounts of chemicals and human wastes into the Bay, as well as habitat destruction, wetlands drainage, and land alteration. There are numerous industrial and manufacturing facilities in the NBSA that serve as potential point and non-point source discharges to the sediment environment. Potential discharges include biological, inorganic, and organic chemical contaminants from a multitude of sources including: Runoff from leaking storage tanks; Chemical drums; Pathways Analysis Report 7 Version 2006/05/18

16 Container boxes; Marine vessels; Stormwater runoff; Combined and sanitary sewer overflows; Historical direct discharge of industrial waste; Accidental spills; Atmospheric deposition; Contaminant transport from the lower Hudson River, New York Bay, Raritan Bay; and, Illegal disposal and improper handling of chemicals and solvents. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC) serve 30 municipalities, mostly located within the Lower Passaic watershed. Industrial discharges account for 37 percent of the dry weather flow from these municipalities (Moss, 1993). The main PVSC pipeline is located along the western bank of the Passaic River from Paterson to the Newark Bay pumping station and contains 73 CSOs along this pipeline. These CSOs are capable of overflowing with as little as one inch of rainfall and can cause an estimated 125 million gallons of combined stormwater and sanitary sewage to be discharged directly into Newark Bay (Moss, 1993). Figure 4 is a map of some of the discharge types and locations along the lower Passaic River that eventually discharge into Newark Bay. Pathways Analysis Report 8 Version 2006/05/18

17 Source: NJ Dept Environmental Protection, New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Figure 4. Surface Water Discharge Types and Locations along the Lower Passaic River. Pathways Analysis Report 9 Version 2006/05/18

18 This page intentionally left blank Pathways Analysis Report 10 Version 2006/05/18

19 3.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL Based on the site description, preliminary conceptual site models (CSMs) were developed for both the human health and ecological risk assessments. The purpose of the CSM is to summarize the assumed sources of contaminants, routes of transport of contaminants, contaminated media, routes of exposures, and receptors. Figures 5 and 6 present the preliminary CSMs for the human health and ecological evaluations, respectively. Due to the close proximity of Newark Bay to the Passaic River and its similar industrial nature, some degree of similarity in the environmental conditions and potential receptors exists between the Passaic River and the NBSA. As a result, there is some overlap in the CSMs for the NBSA and those developed for the Passaic River (Battelle, 2005). These CSMs may be updated and further developed in the future, based on geochemical evaluations and modeling efforts. A summary of the information used to derive the preliminary CSMs is provided below and discussed in more detail in Section 5.0 (for human health CSM) and Section 6.0 (for ecological CSM). Increased urbanization has contributed to extensive habitat loss and degradation which has greatly reduced the functional and structural integrity of ecosystems within the NBSA. Severe loss of the natural habitat, especially wetlands, for many indigenous and migratory animals has occurred for decades. Since 1940 over 88% of wetlands in the Newark Bay estuary have been eliminated (Iannuzzi et al., 2002). Shorelines covered by bulkheads, rip-rap, structures, and pavement limit the nesting and foraging areas for birds along the Bay. In addition, tidal creeks and marshes that provide critical habitat to juvenile and migratory fish have been depleted by pollution and loss of habitat, resulting in a decline of fish and shellfish populations in the estuary. With respect to human health, pollution and habitat degradation have limited the recreational and economic use of the Bay. The State of New Jersey, recognizing the widespread chemical contamination (mainly from dioxins/furans and PCBs) of fish and shellfish in Newark Bay, has posted advisories regarding the consumption of fish and shellfish from this area (NJDEP, 2004). Despite the increased urbanization of the area and fish/shellfish consumption advisories, anglers/sportsmen continue to fish and crab in the Bay. In addition, individuals enjoy the area for other recreational purposes, such as boating and birdwatching. Observations have also been made that transient individuals (i.e., homeless residents) live in temporary makeshift shelters along the banks of the NBSA (Procter et al., 2002). Thus, potential receptors that may be directly exposed to contaminants in the environment include an angler/sportsman, a recreational receptor, and a homeless resident. Port workers (i.e., individuals loading and unloading ship cargo) also are identified as potential receptors who may indirectly be exposed to contaminants that volatilize from surface water or sediment. Although the port workers are identified here as potential receptors, the potential for exposure is minimal; therefore, they will only be qualitatively addressed in future assessments. Urbanization, the expansion of industry, and the subsequent release of chemicals into the Newark Bay estuary have resulted in elevated levels of chemical contamination in sediments (NOAA, 1998). The primary contaminants of concern (see Sections 5.0 and 6.0) represent a variety of different contaminant classes including, but not limited to heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and dioxins/furans. Some of these contaminants are known to bioaccumulate in tissue and to subsequently be transferred up the food chain to uppertrophic level organisms, including humans (Suedel et al., 1994). Physical and chemical processes that control the transport and fate of contaminants in Newark Bay and their availability to ecological or human receptors are discussed below. Some species of metals, PCBs, PAHs, pesticides, and dioxins/furans are hydrophobic, nonpolar contaminants that tend to tightly adsorb to sediment particles. Therefore, their transport and fate in Pathways Analysis Report 11 Version 2006/05/18

20 estuarine systems are controlled by the movement of sediment particles. Surface and subsurface sediments can be mixed by physical processes such as currents, wave resuspension, grounding of ship keels and propellers, and liquefaction or slumping; or by biological process (e.g., bioturbation). Sediments and the bound contaminants are likely moved around the system as a result of these processes. Sediment accumulation, vertical mixing, storms, floods, and anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., dredging) control the rate at which contaminants are being buried and removed from receptor pathways. The physical characteristics of the system can also impact the movement of chemicals through sediments. In anoxic environments, metals such as cadmium, lead, copper, and zinc are typically immobilized as sulfides. These metals can be mobilized via a change in redox potential (i.e., oxidation) and/or drop in ph (which is unlikely in an estuarine environment). Microbial processes can transform elemental mercury into methylmercury, which is more toxic and more bioavailable than the elemental form. In estuaries, methylation tends to occur at higher rates in coastal wetlands and tidal flats under anaerobic conditions. In contrast, VOCs are somewhat soluble in water, but volatilization rapidly removes them from the water column. Moderate adsorption to sediment occurs and VOCs may accumulate. However, they are susceptible to biodegradation in the sediment under appropriate physiochemical conditions. Although SVOCs in the water column are susceptible to volatilization, they have a strong propensity to bind to sediments. Once bound, they are less likely to volatilize than if in the water column. They are, however, susceptible to biodegradation in sediment matrices with ample oxygen content. Many contaminants are known to bioaccumulate in organisms and move through the food chain. This occurs when contaminants are retained within the tissues of primary consumers and are subsequently moved to other components of the ecosystem when higher-level consumers feed on them. This trophic transfer of contaminants through the marine food web has important human health implications because humans tend to consume organisms from higher-trophic levels that are likely to have high concentrations of contaminants. Certain metals, PCBs, chlorinated pesticides, and dioxins/furans are known to bind to tissue and bioaccumulate in upper-trophic level organisms. PAHs are not known to bioaccumulate at high rates in tissues (Suedel et al., 1994); PAH toxicity generally occurs via direct ingestion or inhalation. The preliminary CSMs in Figures 5 and 6 for human health and ecological risk, respectively, identify three distinct categories of exposure pathways: 1) A complete quantitative pathway exists based on sufficient current and historical data, as indicated by a dark blue oval; 2) a complete qualitative pathway, which currently lacks sufficient data, but is believed to exist based on anecdotal evidence and professional judgment, as indicated by a green oval; and 3) a potentially complete pathway that may be present depending on site-specific contaminants and conditions, as indicated by a light blue oval. If there is no exposure pathway to a potential receptor group, the box is left blank. Pathways Analysis Report 12 Version 2006/05/18

21 Pathways Analysis Report 13 Version 2006/05/18 Primary Source Secondary Source Potential Exposure Routes Industrial Point Source Non-point Source Runoff Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Combined Sewer Overflows Tributaries Passaic River Kill Van Kill Arthur Kill Hackensack River Atmospheric Deposition Complete, Quantitative Pathway Complete, Qualitative Pathway Potentially Complete Pathway Groundwater Subtidal Sediment Intertidal Sediment Surface Water Incidental Ingestion Dermal Contact Inhalation Ingestion of Fish/Shellfish Ingestion of Other Species Dermal Contact Incidental Ingestion Inhalation Figure 5. Preliminary Human Health Conceptual Site Model. Potential Receptors Recreational User Angler/ Sportsman Homeless Resident Port Workers

22 Pathways Analysis Report 14 Version 2006/05/18 Primary Source Secondary Source Exposure Routes Potential Receptors Industrial Point Sources Non-point Source Runoffs Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) Tributaries Passaic River Kill Van Kill Arthur Kill Hackensack River Atmospheric Deposition Complete, Quantitative Pathway Complete, Qualitative Pathway Groundwater Subtidal Sediment Intertidal Sediment Surface Water Incidental Ingestion Dermal Contact Ingestion of Contaminated Prey Incidental Ingestion Dermal Contact Ingestion of Contaminated Prey Incidental Ingestion Dermal Contact Ingestion of Contaminated Prey Benthic Macroinvertebrates Figure 6. Preliminary Ecological Conceptual Site Model. Demersal Fish Pelagic Fish Reptiles Bentivorous Birds Omnivorous Birds Piscivorous Birds Omnivorous Mammals Piscivorous Mammals

23 4.0 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA AND DATA MANIPULATIONS Data considered for this evaluation included historical data collected from within the NBSA by various agencies including USEPA, USACE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Status and Trends (NS&T), and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), as well as TSI. These data are currently stored in an online database at Table 1 provides the names and dates of these historical investigations. Surface sediment, surface water, and tissue are the most relevant media for identifying chemical stressors that will be evaluated in the risk assessments. Data retrieved from the database included surface sediment (defined as the top 0-1 feet), surface water, and biological tissue data for a variety of constituents, including inorganic chemicals, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, herbicides, and dioxins/furans. It should be noted that surface sediment data are from studies dating from and what was once considered surface sediment may no longer be representative of current surface conditions. While it is recognized that sediment-associated porewater is a potentially important exposure medium, the PAR does not evaluate porewater concentrations because of the difficulties inherent in collecting high quality, representative porewater data. For the purpose of this initial assessment, the sediment analytical data were deemed adequate to identify chemical stressors to benthic organisms. The historical sediment data used for this screening assessment is a combination of both subtidal bay sediments and intertidal sediments or mudflats. Porewater data will be considered during the SLERA as part of the development of exposure point concentrations (EPCs) and toxicity to benthic invertebrates. Because the historical data were collected from multiple investigations by various investigators over several years, there are discrepancies with regard to data quality, comparability, and usability. As a result, some assumptions were made to allow for comparisons of data across studies and sampling years: All data points qualified with an R (rejected) or ND (nondetect) as the reported detection limit value were removed from the dataset. In these cases, there was no chemical concentration associated with the datapoint and, therefore, the data were not useable. These were deleted from the dataset so as not to interfere with the calculations associated with the frequency of detection. Any data point with laboratory qualifiers containing a U were assumed to indicate that the chemical was analyzed for, but not detected. Furthermore, it was assumed that the value reported in the database was equivalent to the detection limit. For the purpose of this evaluation, all data identified as U were represented by one-half of the original value reported in the database. Supporting quality assurance (QA) laboratory sheets were not included in the database. It was assumed that standard protocols were used, that the units associated with the sediment data are reported on a dry weight basis, and that tissue data are reported on a wet weight basis. For the purpose of the COPC/COPEC screening described in Sections 5 and 6, the concentration of 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) was used to represent Dioxin/Furans because the maximum value for this congener alone exceeded the relevant screening criteria derived for the total dioxin toxic equivalence (TEQ). In future evaluations (e.g., the risk characterization) the TEQ will be calculated, where possible, for each sampling point, based on toxic equivalency factors (TEF) from the World Health Organization (WHO) as described in Van den Berg et al. (1998). Water samples were presented in the database as surface water, water, elutriate, porewater, and sitewater. All samples identified as surface water, sitewater, or water were used in the screening process. Because there were no descriptions of these data fields, it was assumed that elutriate samples were from laboratory studies involving a sediment dilution (for dredging permits) and thus were not included in the chemical screen. As noted above, porewater samples were also excluded. In addition, information on depth of water samples was not available in the database. Pathways Analysis Report 15 Version 2006/05/18

24 Table 1. Descriptions of Historical Data Used for COPC/COPEC Screening. Organization NOAA Name of Survey NS&T Hudson- Raritan Phase I NS&T Hudson- Raritan Phase II Date Collected March, 1991 January, 1993 USEPA EMAP January, 1990 USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA Passaic 1990 Surficial Sediment Investigation Passaic 1991 Core Sediment Investigation Passaic 1992 Core Sediment Investigation Passaic 1993 Core Sediment Investigation-01 Passaic 1993 Core Sediment Investigation-02 Passaic 1996 Newark Bay Reach A Sediment Sampling Program Passaic 1997 Newark Bay Reach B, C, D Sampling Program Passaic 1998 Newark Bay Elizabeth Channel Sampling Program Passaic 1999 Sediment Sampling Program February, 1990 November/ December, 1991 December, 1992 March, 1993 July, 1993 May, 1996 April, 1997 April, 1998 July, 1999 USEPA REMAP August, 1993 USEPA REMAP August/ September, 1994 Matrix Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Surface sediment Depth (feet) Pathways Analysis Report 16 Version 2006/05/18

25 Table 1. Descriptions of Historical Data Used for COPC/COPEC Screening. (continued) Organization USACE USACE USACE USACE Name of Survey 93F64HR: Hackensack River 93F64PE: Port Elizabeth 96PPANYNJ: Port Authority of NY/NJ 96PNBCDF: Newark Bay Confined Disposal Facility Date Collected July, 1993 July, 1993 July, 1996 July, 1996 Matrix Water Sediment Tissue Water Sediment Tissue Water Sediment Tissue Sediment Depth (feet) NA NA NA Not Provided NYSDEC Unknown October, 1993 Tissue NA NYSDEC Unknown April, 1994 Tissue NA TSI 1999 Newark Bay Reach A Monitoring Program June, 1999 Water NA TSI Passaic 1991 Core Sediment Investigation TSI REMAP 1994 NA = not applicable November/ December, 1991 August, 1993; August/ September, 1994 Surface sediment Surface sediment All tissue data found within the study area were used for the human health chemical screen, regardless of species. Because people do not traditionally consume all species of organisms (e.g., polychaete worms) or all parts of the organism (e.g., hepatopancreas), results of the tissue chemical screen for human health consumption are believed to be highly conservative. For purposes of this PAR, a general approach was used to screen for COPCs. For instance, groups or classes of compounds (i.e., TPH, total PCBs) were screened instead of individual constituents. However, for completion of the human health BRA, the individual constituents will be evaluated if toxicity information is available. This will involve inclusion of COPCs having PPRTVs (e.g., TPHs), as well as evaluating both dioxin- and non-dioxin-like effects for PCBs. The dioxin-like assessment will incorporate the WHO TEF approach described in Van den Berg et al. (1998) or revised methodology provided by USEPA after completion of the dioxin reassessment. Total PCBs will be used to evaluate the cancer effects, whereas congener data (where available) will be used to assess the noncancer effects. Pathways Analysis Report 17 Version 2006/05/18

26 This page intentionally left blank Pathways Analysis Report 18 Version 2006/05/18

27 5.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH This section describes the methodology and results of the human health pathways assessment based on potential exposure of human receptors to contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). The report includes a description of the initial chemical screen to identify COPCs in sediment, surface water, and biota tissue; an exposure assessment for development of the preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) (Section 3.0); summary of exposure factors; and recommendations for additional data collection to support the follow-on baseline risk assessment (BRA). This section presents the information necessary to provide an introductory hazard identification and exposure assessment, the first two elements that comprise all human health risk assessments in accordance with USEPA guidance. These elements answer the basic questions: Hazard Identification: Which contaminants at the site could potentially pose a risk to human health under current and future site conditions? Exposure Assessment: Who is exposed to what contaminants, how and where are they exposed, and how much are they exposed to? This report is intended to be a scoping document and the other elements of the HHRA process, including a data usability, refinements of CSMs and exposure pathways, toxicity assessment, risk characterization will be developed in consultation with USEPA and stakeholders. The HHRA will be conducted consistent with USEPA guidelines and guidance, including, but not limited to: 1. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part A) (USEPA, 1989) 2. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA, 2005a) 3. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens (USEPA, 2005b) 5.1 Preliminary Identification of Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) COPCs for the human health assessment were determined from sediment, tissue, and surface water. COPCs were identified through a process that involved 1) identification of those compounds known to be carcinogenic to humans (i.e., formerly described as Class A carcinogens based on the description provided in USEPA guidelines [2005a]); 2) frequency of detection; 3) essential nutrient screen; and 4) comparison of the magnitude of concentration relative to existing risk-based screening values. Summaries of the screening process for sediment, tissue, and surface water samples are provided in Figures 7, 8, and 9, respectively. Each of the key steps is outlined below. Maximum concentrations were used for screening purposes. Please refer to the acronym list for all technical terms used to describe the risk assessment approach. Identification of Compounds Known to be Carcinogenic to Humans As an initial step, compounds known to be carcinogenic to humans available in the database were considered COPCs if detected in historical data. Pathways Analysis Report 19 Version 2006/05/18

28 Frequency of Detection In the next step in the identification of COPCs, the frequency of detection of each chemical was evaluated. Chemicals detected in less than five percent of the samples were eliminated from further consideration unless identified as a known human carcinogen. In addition, those chemicals that were not detected, but had maximum detection limits above the screening value were identified as COPCs. Including these nondetects as COPCs helped to address the uncertainty when using historical analytical data having detection limits considerably higher than current analytical methods provide. As part of future data screening, chemicals detected in less than five percent of the samples will be further examined to consider the total number of samples, the magnitude of the concentration, and spatial relationship (i.e., relative distance and direction) to potential hot spots. Potential hot spot areas were not addressed in the PAR; however, a thorough data evaluation will be conducted which will identify hot spot areas prior to conducting the BRA. Essential nutrients Inorganic constituents considered to be essential nutrients, which are not likely to be toxic at anticipated environmental levels, were excluded from consideration as COPCs. These included calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium. Risk-Based Screening Values The maximum concentrations of all constituents that were detected in greater than five percent of the samples, and not considered essential nutrients, were screened against a hierarchy of risk-based soil, tissue, and surface water quality screening values. Constituents with maximum concentrations exceeding the risk-based screening values were identified as COPCs while constituents with concentrations below the risk-based screening values were excluded from further analysis. Because the investigation will span several years, rescreening of the constituents may be necessary to address updates to the risk-based screening values based on toxicity reviews. The identification of COPCs was established to be conservative; therefore, when risk-based screening values were not available, the constituent was retained as a COPC. In addition, background and ambient conditions were not considered during the screening process. As a result of the conservative nature of the COPC identification process, the COPCs identified during the screen may include constituents that are not consistent with industrial sources or those that are typical of background conditions. It is anticipated that a more thorough review of COPCs will be performed as part of the BRA and constituents may then be eliminated as COPCs. For sediment samples (Figure 7), the risk-based screening values are based on the USEPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for residential soils (USEPA, 2004b). These risk-based values are derived to correspond to either a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk or a noncarcinogenic hazard quotient (HQ) of one. They were developed using default, conservative exposure assumptions for an integrated child/adult receptor based on exposure through ingestion, dermal contact, and/or inhalation of vapors and fugitive dust from soil. Because there are no screening values available for sediment, the soil screening values serve as conservative criteria because it is likely that the potential receptors will spend less time offshore in the intertidal areas of Newark Bay as compared to onshore recreational/residential areas. To account for potential cumulative effects, the risk-based screening values derived for noncarcinogenic effects were decreased by a factor of 10 (i.e., hazard quotient = 0.1, not 1.0) for the purpose of this assessment. Table 2 provides a summary of the available screening values for sediment. Pathways Analysis Report 20 Version 2006/05/18

29 Sediment chemical concentrations in Newark Bay COPC Yes Is detected chemical a known human carcinogen? No Was chemical detected in >5% (a) of samples? No Not a COPC Yes Not a COPC Yes Is chemical an essential (b) nutrient? No COPC No Is a risk-based soil screening value (c) available? Yes COPC Yes Is concentration > risk-based screening value? No Not a COPC (a) Detection limits were at or below screening criteria. (b) Essential nutrients with toxicity data will be compared to PRGs. (c) Screening values are based on USEPA Region IX PRGs for residential exposure to soil. Figure 7. Sediment COPC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Human Health Risk Assessment. Pathways Analysis Report 21 Version 2006/05/18

30 For tissue samples (Figure 8), USEPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) (USEPA, 2006) for ingestion of fish were used as screening values. These RBCs were derived based on an adult exposure, assuming an ingestion rate of 54 g/day. To account for potential cumulative effects, the RBCs for noncarcinogenic effects were decreased by a factor of 10 for the purpose of this assessment. Table 2 provides a summary of the available screening values for tissue. For surface water samples (Figure 9), risk-based screening values used for comparison to maximum concentrations are based on the USEPA Region IX PRGs for tapwater (USEPA, 2004b). These values were derived for the protection of human health based on ingestion and inhalation of contaminants in water. Screening criteria for surface water are summarized in Table 2. All screening values for chromium were based on the trivalent species. The decision to use the trivalent form, rather than the hexavalent form, was based on two factors: 1) the trivalent form is more prominent in the environment, and 2) the carcinogenicity for the hexavalent form is based on the inhalation route of exposure, which is not expected to be a primary route of exposure for this site. Groups of compounds (e.g., TPH, BTEX) also are provided on the screening tables in Attachment A. None of these compound groups have screening values, however the individual constituents (i.e, benzene, toluene, xylenes) do have screening values and COPC determination will be based on the individual constituents if these data are available. The compound groups, however, will remain in the table to help identify COPCs where specific analytical data are lacking. If for instance, the only analytical data available consist of the group analyses, then these data will be used for COPC determination to aid in future sampling needs. A residential soil PRG is available for lead from USEPA Region IX. The soil PRG is derived based on a pharmacokinetic model designed to predict the probable blood lead concentrations for children between six months and seven years of age who have been exposed to lead through various sources (air, water, soil, dust, diet and in utero contributions from the mother). Risk-based values for consumption of water or fish are not available from USEPA Region IX and III, respectively. However lead exposure from ingestion of fish was evaluated by USEPA Region X (Stifelman et al., 2001) and the results of this study will be used to determine whether lead is a COPC in fish tissue. Stifelman et al. (2001) evaluated exposure to lead through ingestion of fish using the USEPA s lead software models (Integrated Exposure Uptake BioKinetic [IEUBK] for children and the Adult Lead Model [ALM]). Results of the Stifelman study indicated that fish tissue concentrations below 0.5 mg/kg lead were unlikely to cause blood lead levels in children greater than 10 µg/dl in more than 5% of the population, based on a median consumption rate of 16 g/day, or an extreme consumption rate of 101 g/day. Similarly, fetal blood lead levels greater than 10 µg/dl in more than 5% of the population were unlikely to occur at 0.7 mg/kg, assuming the mother s consumption rate was 39 g/day. For the purposes of this screening evaluation, 0.5 mg/kg will be used as the screening value for lead in fish tissue. Pathways Analysis Report 22 Version 2006/05/18