This page intentionally left blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Objectives and Purpose....................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Regulatory Framework and Partnerships............................................................................ 1
1.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Approach ........................................................... 2
1.2.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Approach ................................................................. 2
2.0
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY .......................................................................................... 5
2.1
Site Description................................................................................................................... 5
2.2
Physical Setting................................................................................................................... 5
2.3
Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.4
Historical Sources of Contamination .................................................................................. 7
3.0
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL .................................................................................................... 11
4.0
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA AND DATA MANIPULATIONS ................................. 15
5.0
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH............................................................. 19
5.1
Identification of Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs)........................................ 19
5.1.1 COPC Selection ................................................................................................... 32
5.2
Exposure Assessment ....................................................................................................... 40
5.2.1 Exposure Pathways and Populations ................................................................... 40
5.2.2 Determination of Exposure Point Concentrations ............................................... 45
5.2.3 Estimation of Chemical Intake ............................................................................ 47
5.3
Toxicity Assessment and Risk Characterization............................................................... 54
5.3.1 Toxicity Assessment ............................................................................................ 54
5.3.2 Risk Characterization........................................................................................... 55
6.0
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH ................................................................... 58
6.1
Identification of Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern (COPECs) ................... 58
6.1.1 COPEC Selection................................................................................................. 66
6.2
Conceptual Site Model and Exposure Pathway Analysis ................................................. 78
6.3
Selection of Receptors of Concern (ROCs) ...................................................................... 79
6.3.1 Benthic Invertebrates ........................................................................................... 79
6.3.2 Demersal and Pelagic Fish................................................................................... 80
6.3.3 Piscivorous and Omnivorous Birds ..................................................................... 82
6.3.4 Mammals ............................................................................................................. 83
6.3.5 Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................................................................... 83
6.4
Assessment and Measurement Endpoints......................................................................... 83
6.5
Exposure Assessment ....................................................................................................... 86
6.5.1 Exposure Point Concentration Calculations ........................................................ 87
6.5.2 Dose Calculations for ROCs................................................................................ 87
6.6
Ecological Effects ............................................................................................................. 94
6.6.1 Ecological Effects Evaluation.............................................................................. 94
6.6.2 Ecological Effects Assessment ............................................................................ 95
6.7
Risk Characterization........................................................................................................ 96
6.7.1 Screening-Level Ecological Risk Characterization ............................................. 96
6.7.2 Baseline Ecological Risk Characterization.......................................................... 97
7.0
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 98
8.0
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 102
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
i
Version 2006/05/18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Descriptions of Historical Data Used for COPC/COPEC Screening........................................... 16
Table 2. Screening Values for Human Health. .......................................................................................... 25
Table 3. COPCs Identified in Sediment, Tissue, and Surface Water Samples for the Newark Bay Study
Area. .................................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 4. Selection of Human Health Exposure Pathways – Newark Bay Study Area. ............................. 42
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. ............................... 81
Table 9. Prey Species Consumed by Piscivorous and Omnivorous Birds in the Newark Bay
Study Area. .......................................................................................................................................... 88
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. ...................................................................................... 93
Table 19. Exposure Parameters for the Harbor Seal. ................................................................................. 94
Table 20. A Summary of the Available TRVs for Birds from USEPA Region IX (BTAG). .................... 95
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 Newark Bay Study Area........................................................................................................ 6
Figure 3. Land Use Map for Newark Bay Study Area................................................................................. 7
Figure 4. Surface Water Discharge Types and Locations along the Lower Passaic River. ......................... 9
Figure 5. Preliminary Human Health Conceptual Site Model. .................................................................. 13
Figure 6. Preliminary Ecological Conceptual Site Model. ........................................................................ 14
Figure 7. Sediment COPC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Human Health Risk Assessment. ........... 21
Figure 8. Tissue COPC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Human Health Risk Assessment. ................ 23
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. ............. 70
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
Newark Bay Study Area
ii
Version 2006/05/18
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
Newark Bay Study Area
iii
Version 2006/05/18
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
Newark Bay Study Area
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
Newark Bay Study Area
iv
Version 2006/05/18
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
Newark Bay Study Area
v
Version 2006/05/18
This page intentionally blank
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
vi
Version 2006/05/18
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Objectives and Purpose
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 Newark Bay Study Area (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
www.ourNewarkBay.org, 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
Newark Bay Study Area
1
Version 2006/05/18
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).
1.2.1
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).
1.2.2
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
Newark Bay Study Area
2
Version 2006/05/18
SMDP = scientific/management decision point
DQO = data quality objective
Figure 1. The Eight-Step USEPA Ecological Risk Assessment Process.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
3
Version 2006/05/18
This page intentionally blank
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
4
Version 2006/05/18
2.0
2.1
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
Site Description
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
Newark Bay Study Area
5
Version 2006/05/18
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 Newark Bay Study Area.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
6
Version 2006/05/18
Source: PreMis Website
Figure 3. Land Use Map for Newark Bay Study Area
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:
ƒ Runoff from leaking storage tanks;
ƒ Chemical drums;
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
7
Version 2006/05/18
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
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
Newark Bay Study Area
8
Version 2006/05/18
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
Newark Bay Study Area
9
Version 2006/05/18
This page intentionally left blank
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
10
Version 2006/05/18
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
Newark Bay Study Area
11
Version 2006/05/18
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
Newark Bay Study Area
12
Version 2006/05/18
Subtidal
Sediment
Incidental Ingestion
Non-point Source
Runoff
Dermal Contact
Sanitary Sewer
Overflow (SSO)
Inhalation
13
Combined Sewer
Overflows
Intertidal
Sediment
Ingestion of
Fish/Shellfish
Ingestion of
Other Species
Tributaries
y Passaic River
y Kill Van Kill
y Arthur Kill
y Hackensack River
Dermal Contact
Atmospheric
Deposition
Surface Water
Version 2006/05/18
Complete, Quantitative Pathway
Incidental
Ingestion
Inhalation
Complete, Qualitative Pathway
Potentially Complete Pathway
Figure 5. Preliminary Human Health Conceptual Site Model.
Port Workers
Homeless
Resident
Groundwater
Industrial Point
Source
Potential Receptors
Angler/
Sportsman
Potential Exposure
Routes
Recreational
User
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Secondary Source
Primary Source
Incidental Ingestion
Industrial Point
Sources
Non-point Source
Runoffs
Subtidal
Sediment
Dermal Contact
Ingestion of
Contaminated Prey
Sanitary Sewer
Overflow (SSO)
Incidental Ingestion
14
Combined
Sewer Overflows
(CSO)
Dermal Contact
Intertidal
Sediment
Ingestion of
Contaminated Prey
Tributaries
y
y
y
y
Passaic River
Kill Van Kill
Arthur Kill
Hackensack River
Atmospheric
Deposition
Complete, Quantitative Pathway
Incidental Ingestion
Surface Water
Dermal Contact
Ingestion of
Contaminated Prey
Version 2006/05/18
Complete, Qualitative Pathway
Figure 6. Preliminary Ecological Conceptual Site Model.
Piscivorous
Mammals
Omnivorous
Mammals
Piscivorous Birds
Omnivorous Birds
Bentivorous Birds
Groundwater
Reptiles
Potential Receptors
Pelagic Fish
Exposure Routes
Demersal Fish
Secondary Source
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Primary Source
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
www.ourNewarkBay.org. 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 1990-2000 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
Newark Bay Study Area
15
Version 2006/05/18
Table 1. Descriptions of Historical Data Used for COPC/COPEC Screening.
Organization
NOAA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
Date
Collected
Name of Survey
NS&T HudsonRaritan Phase I
NS&T HudsonRaritan Phase II
EMAP 90-92
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
March, 1991
January, 1993
January, 1990
Surface
sediment
Surface
sediment
Surface
sediment
Depth
(feet)
0-0.05
0-0.05
0
February,
1990
Surface
sediment
0-0.5
November/
December,
1991
Surface
sediment
0-0.17
December,
1992
Surface
sediment
0-0.17
March, 1993
Surface
sediment
0-0.17
July, 1993
Surface
sediment
0-0.17
May, 1996
Surface
sediment
0-0.5
April, 1997
Surface
sediment
0-0.5
April, 1998
Surface
sediment
0-0.5
July, 1999
USEPA
REMAP
August, 1993
USEPA
REMAP
August/
September,
1994
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Matrix
16
Surface
sediment
Surface
sediment
Surface
sediment
0-1
0-0.1
0-0.1
Version 2006/05/18
Table 1. Descriptions of Historical Data Used for COPC/COPEC Screening. (continued)
Organization
Name of Survey
Date
Collected
USACE
93F64HR:
Hackensack River
July, 1993
USACE
93F64PE: Port
Elizabeth
July, 1993
USACE
96PPANYNJ: Port
Authority of NY/NJ
July, 1996
USACE
96PNBCDF:
Newark Bay
Confined Disposal
Facility
July, 1996
NYSDEC
Unknown
NYSDEC
Unknown
1999 Newark Bay
Reach A Monitoring
Program
Passaic 1991 Core
Sediment
Investigation
TSI
TSI
TSI
REMAP 1994
Matrix
Water
Sediment
Tissue
Water
Sediment
Tissue
Water
Sediment
Tissue
Depth
(feet)
NA
NA
NA
Sediment
Not
Provided
October,
1993
April, 1994
Tissue
NA
Tissue
NA
June, 1999
Water
NA
Surface
sediment
0-0.17
Surface
sediment
0-0.1
November/
December,
1991
August,
1993;
August/
September,
1994
NA = not applicable
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
Newark Bay Study Area
17
Version 2006/05/18
This page intentionally left blank
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
18
Version 2006/05/18
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
Newark Bay Study Area
19
Version 2006/05/18
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
Newark Bay Study Area
20
Version 2006/05/18
Sediment chemical
concentrations in Newark Bay
Yes
COPC
Is detected
chemical a known
human
carcinogen?
No
Was chemical
detected in >5%
(a)
of samples?
No
Not a COPC
Yes
Yes
Not a COPC
Is chemical an
essential
nutrient?(b)
No
No
COPC
Is a
risk-based
soil screening value
(c)
available?
Yes
Yes
COPC
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.
Screening values are based on USEPA Region IX PRGs for residential exposure to soil.
(c)
Figure 7. Sediment COPC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Human Health Risk Assessment.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
21
Version 2006/05/18
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
Newark Bay Study Area
22
Version 2006/05/18
Tissue chemical concentrations
in Newark Bay
Yes
COPC
Is detected
chemical a
known human
carcinogen?
No
Was chemical
detected in >5%
(a)
of samples?
No
Not a COPC
Yes
Yes
Not a COPC
Is chemical an
essential
(b)
nutrient?
No
COPC
No
Is an EPA Region
(c)
III RBC available?
Yes
Yes
COPC
Is concentration
>Safe Tissue
Concentrations?
No
Not a COPC
(a)
Detection limits were at or below screening criteria.
Essential nutrients with toxicity data will be evaluated based on comparison to RBCs.
(c)
Use of EPA Region III RBC based on most current, up-to-date versions.
(b)
Figure 8. Tissue COPC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Human Health Risk Assessment.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
23
Version 2006/05/18
Surface water chemical
(a)
concentrations in Newark Bay
Yes
COPC
Is detected
chemical a known
human
carcinogen?
No
Was chemical
detected in >5%
(b)
of samples?(b)
No
Not a COPC
Yes
Yes
Not a COPC
Is chemical an
essential
(c)
nutrient?(c)
No
No
COPC
Is a
risk-based
screening value
(d)
available?
Yes
COPC
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Yes
Is concentration
> risk-based
screening value?
No
Not a COPC
The COPCs for Newark Bay are selected based on their presence in the study area, not their presence in and
potential transport from adjacent waterbodies (e.g., the Passaic River).
Detection limits were at or below screening criteria.
Essential nutrients with toxicity data will be compared to risk based screening values.
Screening values are based on USEPA Region IX PRGs for tapwater.
Figure 9. Surface Water COPC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Human Health Assessment.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
24
Version 2006/05/18
USEPA
Region IX
PRGs (1)
USEPA Region III
RBCs (2)
USEPA
Region IX
Tapwater
PRG(3)
CAS #
Chemical
INORGANICS
7429905
Aluminum
7440360
Antimony
7440382
Arsenic
7440393
Barium
7440417
Beryllium
7440439
Cadmium
16065831
Chromium (III)
7440484
Cobalt
7440508
Copper
57125
Cyanide
7439896
Iron
7439921
Lead
7439965
Manganese
7487947
Mercury
7440020
Nickel
7782492
Selenium
7440224
Silver
7440213
Silicon
7440280
Thallium
7440315
Tin
7440326
Titanium
7440622
Vanadium
7440666
Zinc
VOCs
71556
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
630206
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
79345
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
79005
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
75343
1,1-Dichloroethane
75354
1,1-Dichloroethene
107062
1,2-Dichloroethane
156592
1,2-Dichloroethylene
78875
1,2-Dichloropropane
96184
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
96128
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
106934
1,2-Dibromomethane
123911
1,4-Dioxane
76,000,000
31,000
390
5,400,000
150,000
37,000
100,000,000
900,000
3,100,000
1,200,000
23,000,000
400,000
1,800,000
23,000
1,600,000
390,000
390,000
NVA
5,200
47,000,000
100,000,000
78,000
23,000,000
NVA
541
2
270,000
2,700
680
2,000,000
NVA
54,000
27,000
405,000
500a
27,000
410
27,000
6,800
6,800
NVA
95
810,000
NVA
1,400
410,000
36,500
15
0.04
2,600
73
18
55,000
730
1,500
730
11,000
NVA
876
11
730
182
182
NA
2.5
NA
NA
36
11,000
nc
nc
ca
nc
nc
nc
nc
ca
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
NA
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
1,200,000
3,200
410
730
510,000
120,000
280
43,000
340
34
460
32
44,000
379,000
121
16
56
270,000
68,000
35
NVA
46
2
2
2
290
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
nc
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
ca
nc
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
25
Carcinogenicity
(ca/nc)
Tissue (ppb)
Surface
Water
(µg/L)
Sediment
(ppb)
Known Human
Carcinogen
Table 2. Screening Values for Human Health.
Version 2006/05/18
D
CAS #
Chemical
110758
591786
108101
67641
107028
107131
107051
71432
74975
75252
75150
56235
108907
124481
75003
67663
126998
156592
542756
764410
75274
75718
97632
100414
76131
78831
98828
126987
74839
74873
78933
74884
80626
74953
75092
1634044
107120
2-Chloroethylvinylether
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl Chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl Methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Freon
Isobutyl Alcohol
Isopropyl Benzene
Methylacrylonitrile
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Iodide
Methyl Methacrylate
Methylene Bromide
Methylene Chloride
Methyl-t-butyl Ether
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Propionitrile
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
USEPA
Region IX
PRGs (1)
NVA
NVA
5,300,000
14,000,000
100
210
17,000
640
NVA
62,000
360,000
250
150,000
1,100
3,000
220
3,600
43,000
780
8
820
94,000
140,000
400,000
5,600,000
12,000,000
572,000
2,000
3,900
47,000
22,000,000
NVA
2,200,000
67,000
9,100
32,000
NVA
NVA
26
Tissue (ppb)
Surface
Water
(µg/L)
USEPA Region III
RBCs (2)
NVA
NA
NA
1,200,000
676
6
NA
57
NA
400
135,000
24
27,000
38
1,100
13,500
27,000
NA
32
NA
51
270,000
NA
135,000
41,000,000
406,000
135,000
NA
2,000
NA
810,000
NA
1,900,000
13,500
421
790
NA
NA
USEPA
Region IX
Tapwater
PRG(3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Known Human
Carcinogen
Sediment
(ppb)
Carcinogenicity
(ca/nc)
Table 2 Screening Values for Human Health (continued).
NA
nc
nc
nc
nc
ca
nc
ca
NA
ca
nc
ca
nc
ca
ca
ca
NA
nc
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
nc
nc
NA
NA
NA
nc
nc
nc
NA
nc
nc
ca
ca
NA
NA
Version 2006/05/18
D
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Total BTEXb
Total Xylenes
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
USEPA
Region IX
PRGs (1)
1,700,000
480
9,400
520,000
NVA
270,000
69,000
NVA
780
53
390,000
430,000
79
USEPA Region III
RBCs (2)
270,000
6
415
108,000
NVA
270,400
27,000
NVA
32
8
406,000
1,400,000
NVA
USEPA
Region IX
Tapwater
PRG(3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-/2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
600,000
600,000
3,400
62,000
3,000
6,100,000
6,100
180,000
1,200,000
120,000
120,000
NVA
700
4,900,000
63,000
180,000
NVA
1,100
18,000
6,100
NVA
NVA
244,000
NVA
122,000
4,100
130
13,500,000
26
135,000
290
4,000
27,000
2,700
2,700
NVA
NVA
108,000
6,800
NVA
NVA
7
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
5,400
NVA
370
183
0.5
7
0.6
3,600
3.65
110
730
73
73
NA
36
486
30
110
NVA
0.15
3.2
3.65
NVA
NVA
146
NVA
CAS #
Chemical
100425
127184
109999
108883
1330207
156605
110576
542756
79016
75694
108054
75014
SVOCs
95501
541731
106467
120821
87865
95954
88062
120832
105679
51285
121142
25321146
91587
95578
88744
88755
91941
99092
534521
101553
59507
106478
7005723
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
27
Known Human
Carcinogen
Tissue (ppb)
Surface
Water
(µg/L)
Sediment
(ppb)
Carcinogenicity
(ca/nc)
Table 2 Screening Values for Human Health (continued).
nc
ca
ca
nc
NA
nc
nc
NA
ca
ca
nc
nc
ca
D
nc
nc
ca
nc
ca
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
NA
nc
nc
nc
nc
NA
ca
nc
nc
NA
NA
nc
NA
Version 2006/05/18
CAS #
Chemical
106445
100016
100027
62533
103333
92875
95158
65850
100516
92524
111911
111444
108601
117817
85687
86748
1861321
132649
132650
1002335
84662
131113
84742
117840
87683
77474
67721
78591
78763549
98953
62759
86306
621647
1825214
95487
108952
110861
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Aniline
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Benzo(b)thiophene
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Biphenyl
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Carbazole
Dacthal
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Dibutyltin
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloropentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Monobutyltin
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitroso-di-phenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachloroanisole
O-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
USEPA
Region IX
PRGs (1)
305,000
23,000
NVA
85,000
4,400
2.1
NVA
100,000,000
18,000,000
3,000,000
NVA
220
2,900
35,000
12,000,000
24,000
610,000
150,000
NVA
NVA
49,000,000
100,000,000
6,100,000
2,400,000
6,200
370,000
35,000
510,000
NVA
20,000
9.5
99,000
69
NVA
NA
18,000,000
61,000
28
Tissue (ppb)
Surface
Water
(µg/L)
USEPA Region III
RBCs (2)
6,800
NVA
NVA
550
NVA
0.014
NVA
5,400
676,000
67,600
NVA
3
45
225
270,000
158
13,500
NVA
NVA
NVA
1,100
NVA
135,000
NVA
40
8,100
225
3,320
NVA
676
0.062
644
0.0451
NVA
NA
406,000
1,400
USEPA
Region IX
Tapwater
PRG(3)
182
3.2
NVA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NVA
0.01
0.27
4.8
7,300
3.36
NA
12
NA
NA
29,200
365,000
3,650
1,460
0.86
219
4.8
71
NA
3.4
NA
14
0.01
NA
1,800
11,000
NA
Known Human
Carcinogen
Sediment
(ppb)
Carcinogenicity
(ca/nc)
Table 2 Screening Values for Human Health (continued).
nc
ca
NA
ca
ca
ca
NA
nc
nc
nc
NA
ca
ca
ca
nc
ca
nc
nc
NA
NA
nc
nc
nc
nc
ca
nc
ca
ca
NA
nc
ca
ca
ca
NA
NA
nc
nc
Version 2006/05/18
Tetrabutyltin
Tributyltin
USEPA
Region IX
PRGs (1)
NVA
18,000
USEPA Region III
RBCs (2)
NVA
406
USEPA
Region IX
Tapwater
PRG(3)
NA
NA
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylphenanthrene
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
Naphthalene
PAHs, Total
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
3,700,000
NVA
22,000,000
620
62
620
NVA
NVA
6,200
62,000
62
2,300,000
2,700,000
NVA
620
NVA
56,000
NVA
NVA
NVA
2,300,000
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
5,400
81,000
NVA
410,000
4.3
0.43
4.3
NVA
NVA
43
430
0.43
54,000
54,000
NVA
4.3
NVA
27,000
NVA
NVA
NVA
41,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NVA
365
NVA
1,825
0.09
0.0092
0.092
NA
NVA
0.921
9.21
0.0092
1,500
240
NA
0.092
NA
6.2
NA
NA
NVA
180
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
nc
NA
nc
ca
ca
ca
NA
NA
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
NA
ca
NA
nc
NA
NA
NA
nc
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
45
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.034
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
CAS #
Chemical
1461252
56359
PAHs
90120
832699
829265
581420
91576
83329
208968
120127
56553
50328
205992
192972
191242
207089
218019
53703
206440
86737
193395
91203
198550
85018
129000
PCBs
12674112
11104282
11141165
53469219
12672296
11097691
11096825
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Total PCBs
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
29
Carcinogenicity
(ca/nc)
Tissue (ppb)
Surface
Water
(µg/L)
Sediment
(ppb)
Known Human
Carcinogen
Table 2 Screening Values for Human Health (continued).
NA
nc
Version 2006/05/18
USEPA
Region IX
PRGs (1)
USEPA Region III
RBCs (2)
USEPA
Region IX
Tapwater
PRG(3)
CAS #
Chemical
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
93765
2,4,5-Tc
93721
2,4,5-TPd
94757
2,4-De
94826
2,4-DBf
53190
2,4-DDD
3424826
2,4-DDE
784020
2,4-DDT
72548
4,4'-DDD
72559
4,4'-DDE
50293
4,4'-DDT
50293
DDTs, total of 6 isomers
309002
Aldrin
BHC-total
12789036 Total Chlordane
75990
Dalapon
1918009
Dicamba
120365
Dichloroprop
50671
Dieldrin
88857
Dinoseb
115297
Total Endosulfan
72208
Total Endrin
76448
Total Heptachlor
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
94746
MCPAi
93652
MCPPj
72435
Methoxychlor
2385855
Mirex
Total Nonachlor
8001352
Toxaphene
DIOXINS/FURANS
1746016
2,3,7,8-TCDD
610,000
490,000
690,000
490,000
2,400
1,700
1,700
2,400
1,700
1,700
1,700
29
90g
1,600
1,800,000
1,800,000
NVA
30
61,100
370,000
18,000
53h
300
30,000
61,100
310,000
270
NVA
440
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
13
9.3
9.3
13
9.3
9.3
9.3
0.2
0.5g
9
40,600
40,600
NVA
0.2
1,400
8100
410
0.7
2
680
1,400
6,800
270
NVA
2.9
365
292
365
292
0.28
0.2
0.2
0.28
0.2
0.2
NA
0.004
0.037
0.19
NA
NA
NA
0.0042
NA
220
11
0.015
0.042
NA
NA
180
NA
NA
0.061
nc
nc
nc
nc
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
NA
NA
NA
ca
NA
nc
nc
ca
ca
NA
NA
nc
ca
NA
ca
0.0039
0.000021
0.00000045
ca
Carcinogenicity
(ca/nc)
Tissue (ppb)
Surface
Water
(µg/L)
Sediment
(ppb)
Known Human
Carcinogen
Table 2 Screening Values for Human Health (continued).
ca = carcinogenic
nc = noncarcinogenic
NVA – no value available
NA – not applicable or not analyzed for
(1) USEPA 2004b. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/files/04prgtable.pdf
(2) USEPA 2006. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rbc/rbc0406.pdf
(3) USEPA 2004b. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/files/04prgtable.pdf
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
30
Version 2006/05/18
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
From Stifelman et. al., 2001.
Total BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes
2,4,5-T = Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4,5-TP = 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxypropionic acid
2,4-D = 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4-DB = 2,4-dichlorophenoxybutyric acid
Value presented is the most conservative for all derivatives; which is BHC-alpha.
Value presented is the most conservative for all derivatives; which is heptachlor epoxide.
MCPA = Methyl chlorophenoxy acetic acid
MCPP = 2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
31
Version 2006/05/18
5.1.1
Preliminary COPC Selection
5.1.1.1
Sediment
The results of the sediment screen to identify COPCs for the human health risk assessment are
summarized in Attachment A, Table 1. COPCs were identified from seven classes of chemical
constituents in sediments: inorganic constituents, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, dioxins/furans, and
pesticides. The screening results for the individual chemical classes are presented below and the selected
COPCs are summarized in Table 3 at the end of the section.
Inorganic Constituents
A total of 27 inorganic constituents were analyzed and detected in greater than five percent of the surface
sediment samples. Of these, 15 constituents were identified as COPCs. All of these 15 constituents,
except silicon, exceeded the screening value; a screening value for silicon does not exist.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Surface sediment samples collected from the NBSA were analyzed for a total of 66 VOCs. Although 16
VOCs were detected, only 13 were detected in more than five percent of the samples. None of the
individual VOC constituents detected exceeded the screening value. Four of the individual constituents
analyzed for were identified as COPCs because they do not have risk-based screening values (2chloroethylvinylether, 2-hexanone, bromochloromethane, and propionitrile). These four constituents
were not detected in sediment, and, based on screening values for similar compounds (e.g., chloroform, 4methyl-2-pentanone, chlorodibromomethane, and acrylonitrile) they are not anticipated to be present
above levels of concern. Therefore, 2-chloroethylvinylether, 2-hexanone, bromochloromethane, and
propionitrile are not considered as COPCs.
Note that although total BTEX has been identified as a COPC, the individual constituents (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes) were not selected as COPCs. TPH, including diesel and motor-range
petroleum hydrocarbons are also indicated as COPCs. The presence of these compounds may be
evaluated qualitatively in the risk assessment, or evaluated using the provisional peer-reviewed toxicity
values for TPH as data permit. Five VOCs (1,2,3-trichloropropane, 1,2-dibromomethane, acrolein, cis1,4-dichloro-2-butene, and trichloroethene) were not detected in sediment, but had maximum detection
limits above the screening value; however, these constituents were not selected as COPCs because VOCs
were generally not frequently detected in sediment; and those that were had concentrations much lower
than the associated screening values.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Surface sediment samples were analyzed for a total of 62 SVOCs. Fifty-four of the SVOCs were
detected; 51 of which were detected in more than five percent of the samples. Thirteen constituents were
identified as COPCs because they lack screening values. Twenty-one constituents were identified as
COPCs because maximum concentrations exceeded the screening values. It is important to note that the
majority of SVOCs in sediment were not detected above the laboratory’s detection limits. As described
in the data evaluation procedures, a value equivalent to one-half the detection limit was used to evaluate
these constituents; however, because the detection limits were elevated above the screening criteria, these
constituents were conservatively retained as COPCs. This decision represents a source of uncertainty (see
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
32
Version 2006/05/18
Section 7.0) that will need to be addressed in subsequent sampling efforts. Future sampling efforts should
ensure that samples are analyzed using appropriate methods with sufficient analytical sensitivity to meet
risk-based screening criteria requirements.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Sediment samples were analyzed for 27 PAHs and all were detected in greater than five percent of the
samples. Thirteen constituents were identified as COPCs because they lack screening values; three of
these were associated with the group analyses (e.g., high molecular weight PAHs, low molecular weight
PAHs, and total PAHs). Maximum concentrations of seven constituents exceeded their screening values
and also were identified as COPCs.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Surface sediment samples were analyzed for total PCBs plus seven Aroclor mixtures. All were identified
as COPCs because the maximum concentrations exceeded the risk-based screening values.
During completion of the BRA, total PCBs will be used to evaluate the cancer effects, whereas Aroclor
matching will be used to assess the non-cancer health effects based on the available Aroclor-derived
reference doses. Dioxin-like PCBs will also be evaluated, using the 1997 World Health Organization
(WHO) Toxicity Equivalence Factor (TEF) scheme in Van den Berg et al., (1998) or revised
methodology provided by USEPA after the dioxin reassessment is complete.
Pesticides/Herbicides
Sediment samples were analyzed for a total of 29 pesticides; 26 pesticides were detected, of which eight
were identified as COPCs. Of the identified COPCs, two pesticides were selected because they lacked
screening values: dichloroprop and total nonachlor. The other constituents were selected as COPCs
because they exceeded the risk-based screening value: aldrin, dieldrin, toxaphene, methoxychlor, MCPP,
and hexachlorobenzene.
Dioxins/Furans
As previously discussed in Section 4.0, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was selected as an indicator for the purpose of
screening polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF). 2,3,7,8TCDD was detected in the majority of the samples (98%) and the maximum concentration exceeded the
screening value; therefore, dioxins/furans will be retained as a COPC.
The dioxin assessment will be based on the WHO toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) approach described
in Van den Berg et al (1998) or revised methodology provided by USEPA after the dioxin reassessment is
complete. Based on the methodology provided in the dioxin reassessment, noncancer toxicity may be
evaluated using a margin of error approach (MOE) if the USEPA reassessment document has been
released at the time the risk assessment for NBSA is being completed.
5.1.1.2
Tissue
The results of the tissue screen for the human health risk assessment are summarized in Table 3 in
Attachment A. COPCs were identified for five classes of chemical constituents: inorganic constituents,
PAHs, PCBs, dioxins/furans, and pesticides. VOCs were not measured in tissue because they do not
bioaccumulate and are not lipophillic in nature. Data for only one SVOC, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, were
available in the database. The COPCs identified for each of the individual chemical classes are described
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
33
Version 2006/05/18
below and summarized in Table 3 at the end of this section. Although the dataset used in the screening
assessment was a compilation of biological tissue, separate analyses for fish and crabs will be required for
the BRA.
Inorganic Constituents
Tissue samples from the NBSA were analyzed for nine inorganic constituents, all of which were detected
in more than five percent of the samples. A total of eight COPCs were identified because maximum
concentrations exceeded the risk-based screening values.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Although detected in greater than five percent of the samples, the maximum concentration of 1,4dichlorobenzene was less than the screening value, so this SVOC was not identified as a COPC.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Tissue samples were analyzed for 19 PAHs, all of which were detected in more than five percent of the
samples, but only 18 constituents were identified as COPCs. Maximum concentrations for 12 of the 18
constituents exceeded risk-based screening values, while six constituents were selected as COPCs
because they lack a risk-based screening value.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Total PCBs were detected in all of the tissue samples (i.e., frequency of detection was 100 percent). The
maximum concentration of total PCBs in each of the samples exceeded the screening value. In addition,
the data indicated that Aroclors 1248, 1254, and 1260 were detected frequently and also exceeded the
risk-based screening values. Although Aroclor 1242 was not detected in any of the samples it has been
identified as a COPC because of its high detection limits and its association with the other detected
Aroclors.
Total PCBs will be used to evaluate the cancer effects, whereas Aroclor matching will be used to assess
the non-cancer health effects based on the available Aroclor-derived reference doses. Dioxin-like PCBs
will also be evaluated, using the 1997 World Health Organization (WHO) Toxicity Equivalence Factor
(TEF) scheme in Van den Berg et al., (1998) or revised methodology provided by USEPA after they have
completed the dioxin reassessment.
Pesticides/Herbicides
Tissue samples were analyzed for a total of 17 pesticides, including isomers of DDD, DDE, and DDT. Of
these, 14 pesticides were identified as COPCs. Nonachlor was identified as a COPC because it lacks a
screening value. Although total BHC and toxaphene were not detected, they were identified as COPCs
because their detection limits were above the screening value. The other 11 constituents exceeded their
respective screening value.
Dioxins/Furans
As discussed for sediments, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was used as an indicator chemical for all PCDD/PCDFs in
tissues. It was detected in 100 percent of the tissue samples and the maximum concentration exceeded the
screening value, therefore the dioxin/furan contaminant class is considered to be a COPC.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
34
Version 2006/05/18
For the BRA, the dioxin assessment will be based on the WHO toxicity equivalency factor (TEF)
approach described in Van den Berg et al (1998) or revised methodology provided by EPA after they
have completed their dioxin reassessment. Based on the methodology provided in the dioxin
reassessment, noncancer toxicity may be evaluated by using a margin of error approach (MOE) if the
USEPA reassessment document has been released at the time the risk assessment for NBSA is being
completed.
5.1.1.3
Surface Water
The results of the surface water screen for the human health risk assessment are summarized in
Attachment A, Table 3. COPCs were selected from several classes of chemical constituents: inorganic
constituents, SVOCs, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins/furans, and pesticides. The screening results for the
individual chemical classes are presented below and the COPCs identified are summarized in Table 3 at
the end of the section.
Inorganic Constituents
Surface water samples were analyzed for a total of 24 inorganic constituents. Eighteen constituents were
detected in more than five percent of the samples, but only six were identified as COPCs: arsenic,
cadmium, lead, manganese, thallium, and vanadium. Of these six COPCs, lead was the only one that
lacked a risk-based screening value.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Three samples of surface water were analyzed for a total of 46 SVOCs; however no SVOCs were
detected in any samples. Therefore SVOCs were not retained as COPCs in surface water.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Surface water samples were analyzed for total PCBs and they were not detected in any samples.
Therefore total PCBs were not retained as a COPC in surface water.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Three surface water samples were analyzed for a total of 17 PAHs; however none were detected in any
samples. Therefore PAHs were not retained as COPCs in surface water.
Pesticides/Herbicides
Surface water samples were analyzed for 21 pesticides. Eight pesticides were detected in more than five
percent of the samples. Four pesticides were identified as COPCs because the maximum concentration
exceeded the screening criteria: aldrin, total BHC, dieldrin, and total heptachlor. Total nonachlor was
selected as a COPC because it does not have a screening value. Both hexachlorobenzene and toxaphene
had detection limits that were greater than the screening value and were therefore retained as COPCs.
Dioxins/Furans
As previously discussed in Section 4.0, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was selected as an indicator for the purpose of
screening PCDD and PCDF in surface water. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in all of the samples and the
maximum concentration exceeded the screening value; therefore, the dioxin/furan chemical class will be
considered a COPC.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
35
Version 2006/05/18
The dioxin assessment will be based on the WHO toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) approach described
in Van den Berg et al (1998) or revised methodology provided by USEPA after they have completed their
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
36
Version 2006/05/18
Table 3. COPCs Identified in Sediment, Tissue, and Surface Water Samples for the Newark Bay
Study Area.
Constituents
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silicon
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
SVOCs
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-/2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Sediment
Tissue
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
X
X
X
Xa
X
X
X
Xa
37
X
NA
X
NA
X
X
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Surface Water
X
X
X
X
NA
X
X
NA
Version 2006/05/18
Table 3. COPCs Identified in Sediment, Tissue, and Surface Water Samples for the Newark Bay
Study Area (continued).
Constituents
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Benzidine
Benzo(b)thiophene
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Dibutyltin
Monobutyltin
Nitrobenzene
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachloroanisole
Tetrabutyltin
PAHs
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylphenanthrene
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
Flourene
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
Naphthalene
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Sediment
Xa
Xa
X
Xa
X
Xa
Xa
X
X
X
X
Xa
Xa
Xa
X
X
X
Xa
Xa
Tissue
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Surface Water
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
X
X
Xa
Xa
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
Xa
X
X
X
X
NA
Xa
X
X
Xa
X
X
X
38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
X
X
X
X
Version 2006/05/18
Table 3. COPCs Identified in Sediment, Tissue, and Surface Water Samples for the Newark Bay
Study Area (continued).
Constituents
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Total PCBs
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
DDD (2,4’- and 4,4’- isomers)
DDE (2,4’- and 4,4’- isomers)
DDT (2,4’- and 4,4’- isomers)
Aldrin
Total BHC
Total Chlordane
Dicamba
Dichloroprop
Dieldrin
Total Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
MCPPc
Methoxychlor
Total Nonachlor
Toxaphene
DIOXINS/FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Sediment
Xa
Xa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tissue
NA
Xa
X
Surface Water
NA
NA
NA
NA
Xd
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
X
X
Xa
X
X
X
X
X
Xd
X
NA
NA
X
X
X
NA
NA
Xa
Xd
X
X
X
a
X
X
NA
X
X
NA
NA
X
X
Xd
NA
Xa
Xd
X
NA – indicates that the database did not contain any analytical data for that constituent
a
Indicates that the constituent was identified as a COPC because risk-based screening values
were not available. A more thorough review of COPCs will be performed as part of the BRA
and constituents may be eliminated if they are not consistent with industrial sources or are
typical of background conditions.
b
BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes
c
MCPP = 2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid
d
Indicates the constituent was identified as a COPC because although it was not detected, the detection limits
were above the screening value
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
39
Version 2006/05/18
dioxin reassessment. Based on the methodology provided in the dioxin reassessment, noncancer toxicity
may be evaluated by using a margin of error approach (MOE) if the USEPA reassessment document has
been released at the time the risk assessment for NBSA is being completed.
5.2
Exposure Assessment
The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the magnitude, frequency, duration, and routes of
current and reasonably anticipated future human exposure to COPCs associated with the NBSA. The
exposure assessment is based on the receptor scenarios that define the conditions of exposure to siterelated COPCs. The exposure assessment will include both a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) and
a central tendency exposure (CTE) to describe the magnitude of exposure incurred by the receptor groups.
USEPA (1989) defines the RME as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site.
According to USEPA guidance (1998), central-tendency estimates are intended to reflect central estimates
of exposure or dose. The objective of providing both the RME and CTE exposure cases is so that the
resulting range of exposures provides some measure of uncertainty surrounding these estimates.
5.2.1
Exposure Pathways and Populations
An exposure pathway defines the most reasonable pathway in which a receptor may come into contact
with the contaminated media. In order for an exposure pathway to be complete, the following four
elements must be present:
•
•
•
•
A source and mechanism of chemical release;
A retention or transport medium;
A point of contact between the human receptor and the medium; and,
A route of exposure for the potential human receptor at the contact point.
There must be a complete exposure pathway from the source of chemicals in the environment (i.e., from
sediment or biota tissue) to human receptors in order for chemical intake to occur. If all exposure
pathways are incomplete for human receptors, no chemical intake occurs and no human health effects are
associated with site-related COPCs.
The NBSA is one of the most urbanized and industrialized areas in the U.S. Land use surrounding the
estuary is comprised of typical urban activities including residential, commercial, and industrial areas
(Figure 3). The Port of Newark serves as an important transportation link for the transfer of goods from
cargo vessels to railroad and truck lines (TSI, 2004). Newark Bay, therefore, is used primarily as a
commercial waterway for heavy marine traffic such as ships and barges. A highly developed network of
combined sewer overflows, stormwater outfalls, and publicly owned treatment works exists throughout
the study area. Local residents use the waterway for recreational activities, including boating, fishing,
crabbing, and birdwatching (May and Burger, 1996). People have been known to kayak 70-plus miles of
the Passaic River, beginning at the Great Swamp and ending in Newark Bay (Ivry, 2004).
Based on the above information and ongoing initiatives to restore Newark Bay, it was assumed that
exposure to contaminants in the Bay would be associated with current recreational activities such as
fishing, crabbing, and boating. Human receptors identified as engaging in these activities include a
Recreational User and an Angler/Sportsman. In addition, the NBSA is populated by many homeless
people, as well as recent immigrants, who rely on subsistence fishing, which includes fish and crabs
(Martin, 2005). Although there is limited information regarding the length of their occupancy and their
specific activities while in the Bay, a residential scenario is included in the CSM to address potential
exposures to this community. The receptors and exposure scenarios associated with future use are not
expected to differ significantly from those being evaluated under the current use scenarios. Consumption
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
40
Version 2006/05/18
of fish and crabs is anticipated to be the primary exposure pathway. A summary of each of these
receptors and the associated exposure pathways is provided below and summarized in Table 4. Note that
the receptors, types of expected exposures, and various exposure parameter assumptions provided in this
PAR are preliminary and will be refined as additional information is obtained during the RI.
Angler/Sportsman. The Angler/Sportsman is defined as an adult catching and consuming a variety of fish
(i.e., carp, striped bass, catfish, and American eel), and other local species (i.e., blue crab) from the banks
of the NBSA for recreational purposes (i.e., not for subsistence fishing). It is assumed that an adult
Angler/Sportsman will provide fish/shellfish to other household members such as an adolescent (age 1018 years) and a child (age 0-6 years). The collection and consumption of fish and shellfish from the
NBSA has been well documented (Burger et al. 1999; Burger, 2002; Pflugh and Kerry. 2002, and Pflugh
et al., 1999). Therefore, it is clear that this exposure pathway is complete for the Angler/Sportsman. In
addition, the possibility that individuals might also catch and consume other species such as waterfowl,
turtles, or frogs from the Bay will be considered. Consumption of other species, however, is more
speculative at this time, and additional information will be required in order to quantitatively evaluate this
pathway because there are no historical data on chemical concentrations in the tissues of these organisms.
Therefore, consumption of waterfowl, turtles, frogs and other species will initially be evaluated
qualitatively.
Other potential exposure pathways relevant to the adult Angler/Sportsman include direct exposures (i.e.,
dermal contact and incidental ingestion) to sediments and surface water contacted during collection
activities. Inhalation exposures may also occur if activities occur in intertidal areas, or if VOCs are
present in sediments or surface waters.
Recreational User. Recreational use associated with the NSBA includes boating, fishing, crabbing, and
birdwatching. Three types of recreational users will be evaluated: an individual fishing on a boat, an
individual kayaking, and an individual wading around the area birdwatching. Wading is defined as
walking around the intertidal areas and along shallower parts of the Bay; thus, exposure is primarily to
sediment, but may include exposure to surface water as well. Boaters and kayakers, for the most part, are
expected to remain in their boats except for the occasional fall into the water where exposure to surface
water and sediment is likely.
For recreational activities, the receptors that will be evaluated include an adult (over 18 years of age), a
child (age 0-6 years), and an adolescent (age 10-18 years). The boater/kayaker is assumed to be an adult.
Potential exposure pathways identified include direct contact (ingestion and dermal contact) with
sediment and surface water. Inhalation exposures to VOCs may also occur if activities occur in intertidal
areas or near sediments. Ingestion of fish will not be included as a potential exposure pathway for this
receptor. The angler/sportsman, who is the maximally exposed receptor for this route, will encompass
this particular exposure rather than the recreational user. The recreational scenario may include a
swimmer where appropriate, and as additional information is obtained during the RI, this receptor may
need to be included in the BRA.
Homeless Resident. Although anecdotal observations have been made that a number of transient
individuals live in temporary makeshift shelters along the banks of the NBSA (Procter et al., 2002), this
type of receptor is included to provide an upper-bounds to the risk assessment. Although minimal
information is available regarding the daily routine of these individuals, it is assumed that they would
likely contact sediment and surface water during daily activities. Therefore, the Homeless Resident
scenario evaluates the potential risks to an adult, a child (age 0-6 years), and an adolescent (age 10-18
years) living along the Bay. The adult and child exposures will be evaluated separately because it is
unlikely that a child introduced to this lifestyle would continue to reside near Newark Bay into adulthood.
Complete exposure pathways associated with this receptor include direct contact (ingestion and dermal
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
41
Version 2006/05/18
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Table 4. Selection of Human Health Exposure Pathways – Newark Bay Study Area.
Scenario
Timeframe
Source
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Quantitative
Ingestion
Quantitative
Ingestion
Quantitative
Homeless Resident
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Ingestion
Quantitative
Angler/Sportsman
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Ingestion
Qualitative
Homeless Resident
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Ingestion
Qualitative
Homeless Resident
Angler/Sportsman
Biota
Tissue
Shellfish
42
Other
species
(waterfowl,
etc.)
Type of
Analysis
Ingestion
Fish
Sediment
Exposure
Route
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Angler/Sportsman
Current/Future
Receptor
Age
Rationale for Selection or
Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Many site-related contaminants in
sediment have been shown to
bioaccumulate in fish. Assumes
receptor and family members will
consume fish caught from NBSA.
Many site-related contaminants in
sediment have been shown to
bioaccumulate in shellfish. Assumes
receptor and family members will
consume shellfish caught from
NBSA. Shellfish ultimately
evaluated may include clams and
crabs.
The possibility that individuals hunt
and consume other species (e.g.,
waterfowl, frogs, or turtles) will be
investigated. Assumes receptors will
consume other species caught from
NBSA and share meat with family
members. There may be limitations
associated with a quantitative
assessment of this pathway due to the
lack of information on tissue
concentrations in these species.
Version 2006/05/18
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Table 4. Selection of Human Health Exposure Pathways – Newark Bay Study Area (continued).
Scenario
Timeframe
Source
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Angler/Sportsman
Current/Future
Sediment
Receptor
Age
Adult,
Adolescent
43
Version 2006/05/18
Sediment
Dermal
Contact,
Incidental
Ingestion,
Inhalation
Type of
Analysis
Water
Surface
water
Recreational User
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Dermal
Contact,
Incidental
Ingestion,
Inhalation
Homeless Resident
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Dermal
Contact,
Incidental
Ingestion,
Inhalation
Adult,
Adolescent
Dermal
Contact,
Incidental
Ingestion,
Inhalation
Angler/Sportsman
Rationale for Selection or
Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Quantitative
Angler/Sportsman may contact
sediment while fishing or crabbing
from the bank. Inhalation may occur
if activities occur in intertidal areas
and volatiles are present. Assumes
that children accompanying adult
angler would be engaging in
recreational activities as described for
recreational user.
Quantitative
Recreational users will consist of an
adult, an adolescent, and a child who
may ingest or otherwise come in
contact with contaminated sediment
while engaging in activities (i.e.,
boating). Inhalation may also occur
if activities occur in intertidal areas
and volatiles are present.
Sediment
Sediments
Current/Future
Exposure
Route
Quantitative
Quantitative
Resident will refer to homeless
individuals living in makeshift
shelters along the bank that may
contact sediments during daily
activities.
Angler/Sportsman may contact
surface water while fishing or
crabbing from the bank. Inhalation
may occur if volatiles are present.
Assumes that children accompanying
adult angler would be engaging in
recreational activities as described for
recreational user.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Table 4. Selection of Human Health Exposure Pathways – Newark Bay Study Area (continued).
Scenario
Timeframe
Current/Future
Source
Medium
Sediment
Exposure
Medium
Water
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
44
Recreational User
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Dermal
Contact,
Incidental
Ingestion,
Inhalation
Homeless Resident
Adult,
Adolescent,
Child
Dermal
Contact,
Incidental
Ingestion,
Inhalation
Surface
water
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or
Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Quantitative
Recreational users will consist of a
combined exposure for child,
adolescent, and adult who may ingest
or otherwise come in contact with
contaminated surface water while
engaging in activities (i.e., boating).
Inhalation of contaminants may also
occur if activities occur in intertidal
areas.
Quantitative
Surface water from the NBSA is not
used as a domestic water supply;
therefore, resident will refer to
homeless individuals living in
makeshift shelters along the bank.
Version 2006/05/18
contact) with sediment and surface water while wading and swimming (or bathing). In addition, ingestion
of fish and shellfish for subsistence living also will be evaluated. Although other individuals may have a
subsistence living along the Bay, the homeless resident is designed to capture this exposure. Inhalation
exposures to VOCs also may be evaluated if activities occur in intertidal areas or near sediment.
As described above, sediment exposure is assumed to occur for each of the receptors. The primary
exposure is assumed to be associated with the intertidal sediment for the angler/sportsman, a wading
recreational user, and the homeless resident. Exposure to bay sediment is more likely to occur for
receptors who boat or kayak, and for the recreational swimmer, should one be identified.
5.2.2
Determination of Exposure Point Concentrations
Estimates of chemical concentrations at points of potential human exposure are necessary for evaluating
chemical intakes by potentially exposed individuals. The concentrations of chemicals in the exposure
medium at the exposure point are termed "exposure point concentrations" (EPC). USEPA recommends
using the average concentration to represent “a reasonable estimate of the concentration likely to be
contacted over time” (USEPA, 1989) and “because of the uncertainty associated with estimating the true
average concentration at a site” recommends that the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) be used.
Calculation of the EPC will be conducted following guidance provided by USEPA (2002a), using
distribution shift tests to determine the underlying population distribution. Specifically, the ProUCL
software package developed by USEPA (2004c) will be used to determine the underlying distributions
and to determine the most applicable EPC based on the characteristics of the data. Depending on the
statistical distributions identified by the software application, the most appropriate measure of central
tendency will be selected as the EPC. When evaluating data, one-half the sample method detection limit
will be used to represent non-detected values.
Prior to using any analytical data, the data must undergo a thorough evaluation. Review of the data will
follow guidance from USEPA including RAGS Human Health Evaluation Manual Part A, Chapters 4 and
5 (USEPA, 1989), Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations (USEPA,
2000a), and Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessment (USEPA, 1990). The data evaluation
involves an examination of the analytical data (historical and existing) to determine its usefulness for
evaluation in the risk assessment. The data quality objectives (DQOs) for the project and the performance
criteria necessary to meet these DQOs will be used to guide the data evaluation. The overall quality
control (QC) objective during data evaluation is to generate data that are of known, documented, and
defensible quality. The data will be reviewed for precision, accuracy, and completeness. Precision
quantifies the repeatability of a given measurement. Accuracy refers to the percentage of a known
amount of analyte recovered from a given matrix. Completeness refers to the percentage of valid data
received from actual testing performed in the laboratory.
The data also will be evaluated qualitatively by comparing newly collected data with historical data. All
data and units used in reporting for this project should be consistent with accepted conventions for
environmental matrix analyses. This approach will ensure direct comparability between the results from
current analyses and the results from historical analyses. All project data will be reviewed to determine if
the qualitative parameters of representativeness and comparability have been achieved. Specific data
quality parameters that will be examined include analytical methods and quantitation limits, laboratory
qualifiers and codes, and presence of blank contamination.
Chemicals that are not measured in any samples above the detection limit will be assumed to not be
present and eliminated from further evaluation unless other supporting information exists to indicate
otherwise. Other supporting information that will be examined include the magnitude of the detection
limit, the presence of the chemical in other environmental media, the presence of related degradative
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
45
Version 2006/05/18
compounds, and whether the chemical is expected to be present based on historical uses on and around
the site and/or fate and transport of related compounds.
In accordance with USEPA (1989), data from different time periods may be combined if the methods
used to analyze the samples and the quality assurance (QA) and QC procedures followed are similar.
However, if concentrations differ significantly between sampling events, the data may be kept separate
and evaluated as such in the risk assessment. A third option would be to only evaluate the most recent
data and include a qualitative assessment of the historical data. Therefore, determination of which data to
use and whether to combine historical and recent data will be made based on a thorough review of all the
data. In particular, the fate and transport of chemicals in surface water bodies are subject to seasonal
changes in flow, temperature, and depth (USEPA, 1989), the data will be examined for temporal and
spatial representativeness as suggested in USEPA (1989); and the most applicable data will be selected to
derive the EPC.
For completion of the BRA, the EPCs used in the RME and CTE evaluations will be the same. The RME
and CTE exposures will differ with regard to the receptor-specific exposure variables instead.
An EPC will be derived for both fish and shellfish exposures as data permit. Calculation of the EPC will
be conducted following guidance provided by USEPA (2002a), using distribution shift tests to determine
the underlying population distribution. A weighted approach will be used to account for the different fish
species (or types of fish) consumed, provided the appropriate data are available. Identification of fish
species consumed will be based on findings in the published literature, New Jersey State regulatory
websites, and consumption surveys associated with the NBSA. Information to be reviewed may include
fishing licenses, angler surveys, or other information obtained from the study area.
Because different concentrations are found in different fish, a composite fish will be developed based on
the species that potential receptors are likely to ingest. Shellfish will not be included in this composite
fish. Similar to the methodology provided in the risk assessment for the Hudson River, the EPC will be
derived as follows:
EPC = EPC group1 xIP1 + EPC group 2 xIP2 + EPC group 3 xIP3
(1)
where
EPCgroup =
IP
=
average of the 95% UCL concentration for particular fish species (e.g., white perch)
or type of fish (e.g., bottom feeders) as determined from the composite sample
analytical results;
intake percentage for the particular fish species or type of fish.
Current exposures will be based on measured data to the extent possible; however, modeling is required
to predict contaminant concentrations at the point of exposure when measured concentrations are not
available (i.e., ambient air concentrations), as well as to predict contaminant concentrations for future
exposure scenarios. Estimation of future EPCs for sediment, surface water, and fish tissue will be based
on modeling. A fate and transport model will be used to estimate future exposure conditions. The model
will include hydrodynamic, sediment transport, sediment transport-organic carbon production,
contaminant fate and transport, and bioaccumulation components and will be calibrated (in part) using the
analytical data collected to support the risk assessment of current conditions. Details regarding the
models and parameter assumptions will be provided in the risk assessment. The EPCs for estimates of
current exposure from the Newark Bay BRA will be based on the contaminant concentrations in the area
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
46
Version 2006/05/18
of concern (i.e., Newark Bay), not their presence in and potential transport from adjacent areas (e.g., the
Passaic River). However, modeling of future EPCs may need to consider contributions from the Passaic
River and/or other contributing waters; therefore, detailed information regarding future EPC derivation is
reserved for subsequent planning documents.
5.2.3
Estimation of Chemical Intake
Intake is estimated by combining EPCs with the variables that describe exposure:
•
•
•
•
Rate of contact with the medium;
Frequency of contact;
Duration of contact; and
Body weight of the exposed individual.
Intake of a chemical as a result of exposure will be estimated following USEPA (1989, 2001a) guidance,
using standard default parameters (USEPA, 1991) and literature derived values for conservative exposure
conditions. An intake factor is the concentration of a chemical in a quantity of a medium (e.g., fish
tissue) taken into the body through an exposure route (e.g., ingestion) and available for absorption. It is
expressed in units of milligram (mg) of chemical per kilogram (kg) body weight per day (mg/kg bw-day).
Intake of a chemical that results in carcinogenic effects is calculated by averaging the dose over a lifetime
(70 years x 365 days/year). The intake factor for carcinogenic effects is termed lifetime average daily
dose (LADD). Following EPA guidance USEPA (2005a), unless there is evidence to the contrary in a
particular case, the cumulative dose received over a lifetime, expressed as average daily exposure
prorated over a lifetime, is recommended as an appropriate measure of exposure to a carcinogen.
Conversely, USEPA (2005a) also points out that for less than lifetime exposures, averaging over the
duration of a lifestage or a critical exposure period may be more appropriate. Thus, cumulative exposure
or potential dose may be replaced by a more appropriate dose metric when data are available in
accordance with USEPA (2005a). In addition, the potential for increased susceptibility to cancer from
early-life exposure, relative to comparable exposure later in life, generally warrants explicit consideration
for each assessment as indicated in USEPA (2005b) which also will be taken into consideration for the
BRA.
Intake of constituents that produce noncarcinogenic effects is averaged over the period of exposure
(Exposure Duration (ED) x 365 days/year). The intake factor for exposure durations equal to or longer
than seven years is termed the chronic average daily dose (ADD).
As discussed, doses will be estimated for the following receptors and corresponding exposure pathways:
Angler/Sportsman (separate adult, adolescent, and child exposures):
•
•
•
•
•
Ingestion of biota
Ingestion and dermal contact with sediment
Ingestion and dermal contact with surface water
Inhalation of volatiles from sediment
Inhalation of volatiles from surface water
Recreational Users (separate adult, adolescent, and child exposures):
•
•
Ingestion and dermal contact with sediment
Ingestion and dermal contact with surface water
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
47
Version 2006/05/18
•
•
•
Inhalation of volatiles from sediment
Inhalation of volatiles from surface water
Ingestion of biota
Homeless Residents (separate child, adolescent, and adult exposures):
• Ingestion and dermal contact with sediment
• Ingestion and dermal contact with surface water
• Inhalation of volatiles from sediment
• Inhalation of volatiles from surface water
• Ingestion of biota
The equations used to calculate the LADD/ADD for each scenario are as follows:
Ingestion of Biota (fish, shellfish, other):
LADD/ADD = (Ct x IR x EF x FI x (1 - CL) x ED)/(BW x AT)
where:
Ct
ED
EF
IR
FI
CL
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Biota tissue concentration (mg/kg)
Exposure duration (years)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Annualized ingestion rate (kg/day)
Fraction ingested from contaminated source (unitless)
Cooking loss (g/g)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Dermal Contact with Sediment:
LADD/ADD = (Cs x CF x SA x AF x ABSd x EV x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
(USEPA, 2004d)
where:
Cs
CF
SA
AF
EV
ABSd
ED
EF
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Chemical concentration in sediment (mg/kg)
Conversion factor (10-6 kg/mg)
Skin surface area available for contact (cm2/day)
Soil to skin adherence factor (mg/cm2)
Event Frequency (events/day)
Dermal Absorption factor (unitless)
Exposure duration (years)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
48
Version 2006/05/18
Incidental Ingestion of Sediment:
LADD/ADD = (Cs x IR x CF x FI x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
where:
Cs
ED
EF
IR
CF
FI
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Chemical concentration in sediment (mg/kg)
Exposure duration (years)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Intake rate (mg/day)
Conversion Factor (10-6 kg/mg)
Fraction ingested from contaminated source (unitless)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Inhalation of Volatile Constituents from Sediment or Surface Water:
LADD/ADD = (Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
where:
Ca
ED
EF
InR
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
Chemical concentration in air (mg/m3)
Exposure duration (years)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Inhalation rate (m3/day)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Water:
LADD/ADD = (Cw x IR x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
where:
Cw
IR
ET
ED
EF
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Chemical concentration in surface water (mg/l)
Intake rate (l/hr)
Exposure time (hrs/day)
Exposure duration (years)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Dermal Contact with Surface Water:
LADD/ADD = (DAevent x EV x SA x EF x ED)/(BW x AT), (USEPA, 2004d)
where for organic constituents:
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
49
Version 2006/05/18
If t event≤ t*, DAevent = 2 × FA × Kp × Cw ×
6 × τevent × tevent
π
⎡ tevent
⎡1 + 3 B + 3 B 2 ⎤ ⎤
+ 2( τevent )⎢
⎥⎥
2
⎣ (1 + B)
⎦⎦
⎣1 + B
If t event> t*, DAevent = FA × Kp × Cw ⎢
or
and where for inorganic constituents: DAevent = Kp x Cw x tevent
where:
DAevent
Cw
SA
FA
Kp
ED
EV
EF
B
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Tau (τ)event
tevent
t*
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
absorbed dose per event (mg/cm2-event)
Chemical concentration in surface water (mg/cm3)
Skin surface area available for contact (cm2)
Fraction of water absorbed (unitless)
Chemical-Specific dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
Exposure duration (years)
Event frequency (events/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Ratio of permeability coefficient of a compound through the
stratum corneum relative to its permeability coefficient across
the epidermis
Lag time per event (hours/event)
Event duration (hours/event)
time to reach steady state (hr), chemical-specific. 2.4 × τevent
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
5.2.3.1
Exposure Factors
The specific values for each proposed exposure parameter are presented in Attachment A, Tables 4a-4z.
These values estimate the dose to the RME and CTE for each unique exposure scenario and receptor. A
description of each of the key exposure parameters and the rationale for their selection is provided below.
It should be noted that, in some cases, USEPA standard default exposure parameters do not exist for the
adolescent receptor, which is defined in this PAR as between the ages of 10 and 18 years. In these cases,
exposure parameter values were estimated using data obtained from USEPA’s Child-Specific Exposure
Factors Handbook (2002c). Because the exposure data presented in this Handbook are a compilation of
numerous studies that were conducted over time for various purposes, the age ranges for the exposure
data may not have all been in the 10- to 18-year age range; however, data were selected as closely as
possible to this age range. For instance, for the derivation of the adolescent’s inhalation rate and body
weight, data for the 9 to 18 years and 10 to 17 years age groups were selected, respectively, because they
most closely fit the assumed age distribution of the adolescent receptor at the site. Exposure parameter
assumptions are preliminary and refinement of these parameters may be provided in the BRA as
additional information is obtained during the RI.
Ingestion Rates (IR)
Ingestion of Fish/Shellfish: Separate IRs for fish and shellfish will be derived for the BRA based on
available literature. Unfortunately, there is limited information regarding the consumption rate of crabs.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
50
Version 2006/05/18
Published literature (e.g., Drs. Joanna Burger and Kerry Kirk-Pflugh, NJDEP statewide surveys and the
Exposure Factors Handbook) for fish and crab consumption will be reviewed as will available NYSDEC
and NJDEP fishing advisories to derive more site-specific consumption rates. Consumption rates
obtained from the available literature can be combined and contrasted based on the following
characteristics:
•
•
•
•
Types of rivers such as fresh water and salt water;
Similar types of study design such as creel, diary, and surveys of licensed anglers;
Similar types of water bodies; and,
Similar types of fish species.
Because consumption rates for children are not usually reported, USEPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook
(1997b) is a source that can be consulted to provide some summary data on childhood fish consumption
rates. Or, as an alternative, survey data based on adult responses can be adjusted for bodyweight to scale
the adult consumption rates to estimated childhood consumption rates.
In addition, further consideration regarding consumption rates for women, fish shared with other
individuals, and subsistence populations will also need to be considered. Consumption rates for crabs are
expected to be developed in a similar manner as data permit. Development of the consumption rates will
be performed as part of the BRA.
Ingestion of Sediment: The sediment IR is intended to provide an estimate of incidental intake of
sediment occurring during the described activities. For the Homeless Residents, the standard residential
default of 100 mg/day for an adult and adolescent and 200 mg/day for a young child will be used for the
RME and CTE based on USEPA’s Standard Default Exposure Factors (USEPA, 1991). However, it is
assumed that the other receptors (Recreational User and Angler/Sportsman) only spend one-half the day
at the site. Therefore, the IRs are halved accordingly and the sediment IRs of 100 mg/day for children
and 50 mg/day for adults and adolescents will be applied for both the RME and the CTE exposures for
these receptors.
Ingestion of Water: USEPA (1989) suggests an IR of 0.05 l/hr while swimming; therefore this value will
be applied for both RME and CTE exposures for all receptors that may incidentally ingest water while
swimming. For the kayaker, in the absence of specific information, the IR also is assumed to be 0.05 l/hr.
Ingestion of Other Biota: Limited information is available for developing IRs for other species such as
waterfowl, turtles, and frogs. Exposures to these other biota will be evaluated qualitatively in the BRA.
Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (FI)
The fraction ingested (FI) from the contaminated source is applied to account for possible exposures to
COPCs from other sources. This is particularly relevant for the site given that the NBSA is a highly
developed urban area that supports a large population of people. It is possible that an Angler/Sportsman
catches and consumes fish from other waterbodies in the area, or that Recreational Users are exposed to
COPCs in soil or sediments from other locations. For the screening analysis, an FI of 1 (i.e., 100 %) was
used to identify COPCs. This is a conservative approach, particularly for the Recreational Users, given
the urban nature of the NBSA. However, it was assumed that many of the individuals participating in
these activities, particularly fishing, may not have access to other areas. For subsequent risk evaluations,
an FI of 1 will be used for the RME scenario and an FI of 0.5 (50 %) will be assumed for the CTE for the
Angler/Sportsman and Recreational Users. An FI of 0.75 (75%) will be used for the CTE for the
Homeless Residents to reflect the increased time those individuals are likely to spend along the banks of
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
51
Version 2006/05/18
the Bay. Based on additional information that becomes available, these fractions may be further refined
in the BRA.
Cooking Loss (CL)
There are numerous studies demonstrating the loss of some chemicals, such as PCBs, from tissues during
preparation and cooking. For the purpose of evaluating the RME, this factor will be assumed to be zero
(i.e., no loss). There are several studies conducted on PCBs that have measured up to a 50% reduction in
PCBs, depending on the cooking method. The risk assessment for the Hudson River contains an
extensive review of cooking losses for various contaminants which will be reviewed for completion of the
BRA. It is recommended that for the CTE exposures, an estimate of cooking loss will be included for
those chemicals for which sufficient data exist. For example, USEPA recommends using 20% as the
reduction factor for PCBs for the CTE. USEPA reviewed numerous studies regarding cooking loss
(TAMS Consultants, Inc., 2000) and found the rate of cooking loss ranged from 0 to 74% with most PCB
losses between 10 and 40%. The value 20% (midpoint of 0 to 40%) was selected as the central tendency
point estimate for cooking loss based on the available literature. It is recommended that for the CTE
exposures, an estimate of CL will be included for those chemicals for which sufficient data exist.
Soil-to-Skin Adherence Factor (AF)
The soil-to-skin adherence factor (AF) values are based on the USEPA’s Dermal Guidance (Exhibit 3-3
in USEPA, 2004d) and are used to evaluate dermal exposure to sediment. The AF for the adult receptor
is 030 mg/cm2 (milligrams per square centimeter) based on the values derived for reed gatherers and the
AF for adolescents and children is 0.2 mg/cm2 based on the value derived for children playing in wet soil.
USEPA (2004d) does not recommend a high-end soil contact activity be used with a high-end weighted
AF for that activity because it would not be consistent with the RME scenario. As such, the AF values
for the RME and for the CTE are the same.
Exposure Frequency (EF)
The exposure frequency (EF) is the rate at which a person is exposed to a contaminated medium. For the
ingestion pathway, the IRs for biota are annualized and presented on a daily basis. Therefore, the EF for
biota consumption is assumed to be 365 days per year (USEPA, 1989).
To estimate the EF from dermal contact and incidental ingestion of sediment and water, it is assumed that
an avid Angler/Sportsman receptor (i.e., the RME) would be present 104 days per year, which is
equivalent to four days per week for six months of the year. For Recreational Users, it is assumed that
activities would be most likely to occur during spring and summer months. Therefore, a value of 52 days
per year is suggested for the RME, assuming two days per week during the spring through fall months.
For the Homeless Residents, it will be assumed that exposures could occur on a daily basis, or 365 days
per year. The EF for the CTE will be assumed to be one-half that of the RME for all receptor scenarios.
Exposure Duration (ED)
The exposure duration (ED) is the length of time an individual is exposed to the contaminated medium.
For the adult Angler/Sportsman, an ED of 30 years will be assumed for the RME and nine years for the
CTE. These assumptions are based on recommendations by USEPA (1989) and represent upper-bound
and average residential tenure at a single location. For the adolescent Angler/Sportsman, exposure is
assumed to occur for nine years (from age 10 through 18 years of age) for the RME, and for the CTE
exposures, the RME is halved. For the child of the Angler/Sportsman, the ED is assumed to be the
standard USEPA residential default of six years (USEPA, 1989) for the RME and three years for the
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
52
Version 2006/05/18
CTE. For the adult Recreational Users, exposure is assumed to occur for a total RME exposure duration
of 30 years. For the CTE exposure under the recreational scenario, the child is anticipated to be exposed
for three years, while adult exposures are assumed to be nine years. For the adolescent Recreational User,
exposure is assumed to occur for nine years (from age 10 through 18 years of age) for the RME and for
the CTE exposures, the RME is halved. For the Homeless Resident, the exposure durations for the adult,
adolescent, and child were assumed to be five years for the RME and 2.5 years for the CTE.
These standard default or assumed ED values may be replaced with more site-specific values in the BRA.
Census data for the Newark Bay area will be examined to determine if more site-specific ED values can
be derived for any of the receptors as related to length of stay. For example, using the 5-year U.S. Census
data for the counties surrounding the NBSA, the distribution of length of time remaining until an
individual moves out of a particular region or county is given by estimating the one-year probability that
an individual moves out of the region/county, and then combining these one-year probabilities to
calculate the likelihood that an individual will move out of the area over a more extended time period.
The probability that an individual moves out of the area in exactly x years can be computed as:
P(X = x) = (1-p1) x-1 p1
x = 1,2,3,…….
where:
X
p1
=
=
duration of stay
probability of moving in a 1-year span
Exposure Time (ET)
USEPA (1989) recommends 2.6 hrs/day as an estimate for the average duration of a swimming event;
therefore, this value was used to estimate exposure time (ET) for dermal contact with surface water for
Recreational Users. For the kayaker, the exposure time is assumed to be halved (i.e., 1.3 hrs/day) because
exposure to this receptor is not really for swimming, but rather for an accidental fall into the Bay. Values
for the Angler/Sportsman receptors (4 hrs) and Homeless Residents (12 hrs) were based on assumptions
regarding the amount of time those individuals might spend along the banks.
Surface Area (SA)
To estimate dermal contact with sediment and surface water while wading (e.g., fishing, playing in the
intertidal mudflats), it is assumed that the hands, forearms, lower legs, feet, and face would be exposed
for both the RME and CTE. This results in an estimated skin surface area (SA) of 2,792 cm2 for children
and 6,073 cm2 for adults (USEPA, 2004d, 1997b). For the adolescent receptor, an SA of 4,906 cm2 is
estimated based on percentage of surface area for the face, forearms, hands, lower legs, and feet (USEPA,
2002c). In accordance with USEPA (2004d), all SA estimates are based on the 50th percentile valued to
correlate with average body weights used for all scenarios and pathways.
Inhalation Rate (InR)
The inhalation pathway will be considered if VOCs are identified in intertidal mudflat areas or in surface
water. The inhalation rate (InR) for long term exposure of 20 m3/day (USEPA, 1991) will be used for
adult receptors. A child InR of 12 m3/day (USEPA, 2002c) will be used for children. For the adolescent
receptor, an InR of 14 m3/day will be used, which is derived by averaging the recommended values for
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
53
Version 2006/05/18
inhalation of children aged 9 to 18 (USEPA, 2002c). Note that methodology for inhalation exposures
employed for the BRA will be consistent with current USEPA guidance and guidelines at that time.
Absorption Factor (ABSd)
The dermal absorption factor (ABSd) represents the amount of a chemical in contact with skin that is
absorbed through the skin and into the bloodstream. The chemical-specific ABSd values will be based on
data obtained from current USEPA sources (USEPA 2004d).
Body Weight (BW)
Age-specific body weights (BW) will be used. For the adult and child receptors, the standard default
weights of 70 kg and 15 kg will be used (USEPA, 1989). For the adolescent receptor, a BW of 54.5 kg
will be used. This was derived by averaging the mean BW estimates for males and females age 10 years
to 17 years (USEPA, 2002c).
5.3
Toxicity Assessment and Risk Characterization
The purpose of the PAR is to identify COPCs and summarize the exposure pathways and receptors based
on the preliminary CSM that was developed using available data collected to date. Future iterations of the
risk assessment will also include a toxicity assessment and a risk characterization as summarized below.
5.3.1
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment determines the relationship between the magnitude of exposure to a COPC and
the nature and magnitude of adverse health effects that may result from such exposure. For purposes of
this assessment, COPCs are classified into two broad categories: noncarcinogens and carcinogens.
Toxicity studies with laboratory animals or epidemiological studies of human populations provide the
data used to develop toxicity criteria.
The toxicity for most COPCs identified within the NBSA is relatively well-known and the toxicity criteria
have been well established. Therefore, a table summarizing the toxicity criteria, target organ, and other
relevant information for each chemical will be provided in subsequent iterations of the risk assessment.
Toxicity criteria will be selected according to the USEPA (2003) OSWER Directive 9285.7-53 that
recommends a hierarchy of human health toxicity values for use in risk assessments at Superfund sites.
The hierarchy is as follows: 1) USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS); 2) USEPA’s (Office
of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Superfund Health Risk
Technical Support Center) Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs), and 3) other sources of
information such toxicity values from the State of California’s Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA) and the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimal risk levels (MRLs)
for noncarcinogenic constituents.
For purposes of this PAR, a more 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 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
Newark Bay Study Area
54
Version 2006/05/18
During completion of the BRA, coordination with the USEPA risk assessor will occur to assist in the
decision making process for selection of appropriate toxicity values and/or for selection of surrogate
values should toxicity information not be available for a particular COPC. The most current toxicity
values and toxicological assessment approaches will be used during completion of the BRA, including the
specific approach for evaluating inhalation exposures and exposures to dioxins/furans and PCBs.
5.3.2
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization involves an estimation of the magnitude of the potential adverse health effects
associated with the identified COPCs. It also includes summary judgments about the nature of the human
health threat to the defined receptor populations. The risk characterization combines the results of the
dose-response (toxicity assessment) and exposure assessment. In accordance with USEPA’s guidelines
for evaluating the potential toxicity of complex mixtures, this assessment assumes that the effects of all
constituents are additive through a specific pathway within an exposure scenario (USEPA, 1986; 2000a).
Risks are estimated as probabilities for constituents that elicit a carcinogenic response. The excess
lifetime cancer risk is the incremental increase in the probability of getting cancer associated with
exposures to contaminated media at the site. A risk of 1 x 10-6 for example, represents the probability that
one person in one million persons exposed to a carcinogen over a lifetime (70 years) will develop cancer.
The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risks derived in this assessment will be compared to the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) risk range of 10-4 to 10-6 (USEPA,
1990).
The excess cancer risk will be estimated using the following linear dose-response relation where risk is
directly related to intake (USEPA 1989):
Risk
=
CSF x LADD
=
=
=
Excess lifetime cancer risk (probability)
Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
where:
Risk
CSF
LADD
Only LADDs are used in conjunction with cancer slope factors (CSF) to obtain excess lifetime cancer risk
estimates because slope factors are based on average lifetime exposures. CSFs are derived for specific
routes of exposure and, because the primary route of exposure to humans is ingestion, only oral toxicity
values will be applied in this assessment. Cancer risks from exposure to multiple carcinogens will be
assumed to be additive (USEPA, 1989). To estimate the total excess cancer risks from all carcinogens,
cancer risks from each compound will be summed. Excess cancer risks that are less than the acceptable
USEPA risk range will be assumed to indicate that no adverse health effects are predicted from
exposures.
The potential for noncarcinogenic health effects is estimated by comparing the ADD of a compound with
the chronic reference dose (RfD) based on the specific route of exposure (e.g., oral, inhalation). The ratio
of the intake to reference dose (ADD/RfD) for an individual chemical is termed the hazard quotient (HQ).
An HQ greater than 1 indicates the potential for adverse health effects, as the RfD is exceeded by the
intake (USEPA, 1986). These ratios are calculated for each chemical that elicits a noncarcinogenic health
effect when a RfD is available for the chemical. HQs less than 1 indicate that no adverse health effects
are predicted from exposure to COPCs. An HQ greater than 1 indicates that exposure to that contaminant
may cause adverse health effects in exposed populations. It is important to note, however, that the level
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
55
Version 2006/05/18
of concern associated with exposure to noncarcinogenic constituents does not increase linearly as the HQ
exceeds 1.
Typically, chemical-specific HQs are summed to calculate pathway hazard index (HI) values. The HI is
calculated by summing all HQs for all noncarcinogenic constituents through an exposure pathway:
HI
=
=
HQ1 + HQ2 + ... + HQj
(ADD1/RfD1) + (ADD2/RfD2) + ... + (ADDj/RfDj)
where:
HQj
=
ADDj =
RfDj =
Hazard Quotient of the jth chemical
Average Daily Dose of the jth chemical
Reference Dose for the jth chemical
This approach can result in a situation where HI values exceed 1 even though no chemical-specific HQs
exceed 1 (i.e., adverse systemic health effects would be expected to occur only if the receptor were
exposed to several contaminants simultaneously). In this case, chemicals are segregated by similar effect
on a target organ, and a separate HI value for each effect/target organ is calculated (USEPA, 1989). If
any of the separate HI values exceed 1, adverse, noncarcinogenic health effects are possible.
The risk characterization for the BRA will contain an evaluation of all uncertainties, including the
uncertainties associated with data gaps that could not be fully addressed during the Remedial
Investigation (RI). The risk characterization will be prepared in accordance with USEPA guidance for
risk characterization (USEPA, 1992a and 1995). It should be noted that the uncertainty may be
quantitatively evaluated through a sensitivity or probabilistic analysis to be determined later in the RI
process. In addition, as part of the risk characterization, risks and hazards may be derived for naturally
occurring and possibly, anthropogenic constituents associated with background conditions.
5.3.2.1
Risk Characterization for Lead
For the BRA, it is anticipated that exposure to lead in environmental media will be evaluated using
available pharmacokinetic models, such as USEPA’s Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK)
Model for lead in children and USEPA’s Adult Lead Model (ALM), as appropriate. Because lead is
absorbed by bone and not tissue, exposure to lead in fish tissue (or other biota) may be evaluated using
pharmacokinetic modeling if deemed appropriate after consulting with USEPA toxicologists.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
56
Version 2006/05/18
This page intentionally left blank
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
57
Version 2006/05/18
6.0
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH
The objective of the ecological risk assessment is to evaluate and characterize the potential for adverse
effects to ecological receptors that are exposed to contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPECs)
in environmental media within the NBSA. The PAR is intended to as a preliminary planning document to
scope out the activities to be considered in ecological risk assessment and to initate input form the
stakeholders in the planning process. The risk assessment process is intended to evaluate potential risks,
following ecological risk assessment (ERA) guidance from USEPA (1992b, 1997a); specifically a tiered
process that encompasses eight steps (see Figure 1). In the first tier, a screening-level risk assessment
(SLERA) is conducted (encompassing Steps 1 and 2 of USEPA guidance) which includes the
development of a preliminary CSM, identification of COPECs, and screening-level dose assessment using
conservative assumptions. The second tier or BERA (Steps 3 through 7 of the USEPA process) uses the
output from the SLERA to refine the problem formulation stage and further evaluate any COPECs that
may cause an adverse effect to ROCs. Exposure and effects will be assessed for all endpoints defined in
the problem formulation step and used to characterize risks to ecological receptors. The ecological risk
assessment will address both current and future exposure scenarios associated with the NBSA. The
purpose of this PAR is to set the stage for the SLERA by identifying preliminary COPECs, exposure
pathways, ROCs, and exposure parameters. As the RI/FS process moves forward and more data become
available they will be incorporated into the SLERA. It is likely that, due to the known contamination that
has occurred in the study area for centuries, the risk assessment will proceed to a BERA.
It is important to note that the exposure assessment and selection of receptors of concern (ROCs)
presented here are based on currently available information and represent a proposed approach for future
characterization of ecological risk at the site. Planned sampling and field survey activities may result in
changes to the receptors or to assumptions about complete exposure pathways. For instance, the current
boundaries for risk assessment activities do not include upland terrestrial areas (i.e., surface soil). These
areas may require additional risk assessment support to determine the need for or extent of remediation.
6.1
Preliminary Identification of Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern
For the ecological risk assessment, preliminary COPECs were identified for the surface water and
sediment media. This was based on a review of historical data that were collected by various agencies
including USEPA, USACE, and NOAA NS&T, as well as TSI, which are currently stored in an online
database at www.ourNewarkBay.org. Preliminary COPECs were identified following a four-tier
screening process that included: 1) bioaccumulation screen; 2) frequency of detection screen; 3) essential
nutrient screen; and 4) effects value screen. The sequential screening process is described below and is
depicted graphically in Figures 10 and 11 for sediment and surface water, respectively. The screening
values are presented in Tables 5 and 6 and the results of the data screen are presented in Table 7.
Attachment B presents the entire data screen. Maximum concentrations of all chemicals were used for
this screening process. As noted in Section 4, one-half the reported detection limit was used to represent
values reported as nondetect (“U” qualified data). In some instances, values based on detection limits
represent the maximum available value for an individual chemical. Please refer to the acronym list for all
technical terms used to describe the risk assessment approach.
Bioaccumulation Screen
Any detected bioaccumulative compounds, as recognized by USEPA (2000b), were retained as COPECs,
regardless of the detection frequency or results of the effects-based screening evaluation. The
constituents included in the USEPA bioaccumulative compound list are identified in Table 5.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
58
Version 2006/05/18
Frequency of Detection
In the next step in the identification of COPECs, the frequency of detection of each chemical was
evaluated. Chemicals that were detected in less than five percent of the samples were eliminated from
further consideration unless they were identified as potential bioaccumulative compounds. As part of
future data screening and the data usability assessment for the SLERA, chemicals detected in less than
five percent of the samples will be examined further to assess other factors, such as the total number of
samples (i.e., n<20), the magnitude of the concentration, and spatial relationships to potential “hotspots.”
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 COPECs. These include calcium, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium.
Effects 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 effects-based
sediment and surface water screening values. As discussed in Section 5.1, because of the conservative
nature of the screening process, some constituents that have been identified as COPECs may not be
consistent with industrial sources or may be typical of background conditions. It is anticipated that a
more thorough review of COPECs will be performed as part of the SLERA and constituents may then be
eliminated as COPECs.
Screening values for sediments were obtained from sediment quality guidelines developed for marine and
estuarine waters for NOAA by Long and Morgan (1991). These include the Effects Range Low (ER-L)
and the Effects Range Median (ER-M). The ER-L values represent the low end of a range of levels at
which adverse effects were observed in compiled studies and represent values at which toxicity may
begin to be observed in sensitive species (Long and Morgan, 1991; Long et al., 1995). Therefore,
concentrations below the ER-L are considered to be within the "no effects range." Concentrations
between the ER-L and ER-M are considered to be within the defined "possible effects range," and
concentrations above the ER-M are defined as the "probable effects range." For this COPEC screen,
NOAA ER-L values were conservatively selected as the preferred sediment screening values. The ER-L
values used in the selection of COPECs are listed in Table 5.
Because there are a limited number of available marine screening values, freshwater screening values
from MacDonald et al. (2000)1 and Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) (Jones et al., 1997)2 were
used in addition to marine/estuarine values, to provide a comprehensive toxicological dataset. The lowest
available freshwater value was selected when there were no available marine values to ensure a
conservative data screen. Without the incorporation of these values for this initial screen, very
1
Consensus-based sediment quality guidelines have been developed for freshwater habitats (MacDonald et al., 2000). Threshold
Effect Levels (TELs) and Probable Effect Levels (PELs) were derived and interpreted as the COPEC concentration below which
adverse effects to benthic organisms are not anticipated and above which adverse effects are expected, respectively. Available
TELs are provided in Table 6.
2
Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) developed a number of sediment quality threshold concentrations based on the
assumption of equilibrium partitioning between the sediment and interstitial water compartments (Jones et al., 1997). The
sediment threshold concentrations based on the lowest chronic ambient water values for fish, daphnids, and non-daphnid
invertebrates and conservative secondary chronic values were identified and included in Table 6.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
59
Version 2006/05/18
Table 5. Sediment Screening Value Summary for the Ecological Risk Assessment.
Marine/Estuarine
Values
CAS Number
Chemical
INORGANICS (ppb)
7429905
Aluminum
7440360
Antimony
7440382
Arsenic
7440393
Barium
7440417
Beryllium
7440439
Cadmium
18540299
7440484
7440508
57125
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7487947
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440622
7440666
VOCs (ppb)
71556
79345
79005
1300216
75354
107062
540590
78875
96184
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Silicon
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
1,1,1Trichloroethane
1,1,2Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2Dichloroethylene
1,2Dichloropropane
1,2,3Trichloropropane
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
a
NOAA ER-L
Freshwater Values
ConsensusLowest
based
ORNL
TELc
Valued
Selected
Screening
Value
USEPA List of
Bioaccumulatorse
NA
2,000
8,200
NA
NA
1,200
NA
NA
9,790
NA
NA
990
58,030,000
NA
12,000
6,000
NA
592
58,030,000
2,000
8,200
6,000
NA
1,200
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
81,000
NA
34,000
NA
NA
46,700
NA
NA
150
20,900
NA
1,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
150,000
43,400
NA
31,600
NA
NA
35,800
NA
NA
180
22,700
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
121,000
26,000
NA
16,000
NA
20,000
31,000
NA
460,000
200
39,600
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
120,000
81,000
NA
34,000
NA
NA
46,700
NA
460,000
150
20,900
NA
1,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
150,000
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
NA
NA
30
30
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
N
NA
NA
1,400
1,400
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,200
27
31
250
1,200
27
31
250
N
N
N
N
NA
NA
400
400
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
N
60
Version 2006/05/18
Table 5. Sediment Screening Value Summary for the Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
Marine/Estuarine
Values
CAS Number
96128
106934
123911
110758
591786
67641
107028
107131
107051
71432
74975
75252
75150
56235
108907
124481
75003
67663
126998
156592
542756
1476115
75274
75718
75632
100414
111260596
78831
98828
126987
78933
74884
80626
74953
75092
1634044
Chemical
1,2-Dibromo-3chloropropane
1,2-Dibromomethane
1,4-Dioxane
2-Chloroethylvinylether
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl Chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
cis-1,4-dichloro-2butene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl Methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Freon
Isobutyl Alcohol
Isopropyl Benzene
Methylacrylonitrile
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Iodide
Methyl Methacrylate
Methylene Bromide
Methylene Chloride
Methyl-t-butyl Ether
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
a
NOAA ER-L
Freshwater Values
ConsensusLowest
based
ORNL
TELc
Valued
Selected
Screening
Value
USEPA List of
Bioaccumulatorse
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
160
NA
NA
0.85
47
410
NA
NA
22
NA
NA
0.051
NA
NA
NA
NA
22
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
160
NA
NA
0.85
47
410
NA
NA
22
NA
NA
0.051
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
89
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
270
NA
NA
NA
370
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
89
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
270
NA
NA
NA
370
NA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
61
Version 2006/05/18
Table 5. Sediment Screening Value Summary for the Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
Marine/Estuarine
Values
CAS Number
107120
100425
127184
109999
108883
1330207
156605
110576
542756
79016
75694
108054
75014
SVOCs (ppb)
95501
95501
106467
120821
87865
95954
88062
120832
105679
51285
121142
25321146
91587
95578
88744
88755
91941
99092
534521
101553
Chemical
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Total BTEX
Total Xylenes
Trans-1,2dichloroethylene
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2butene
Trans-1,3dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,3,4,5,6Pentachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6/2,7Dimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroanaline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl
Ether
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
a
NOAA ER-L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Freshwater Values
ConsensusLowest
based
ORNL
TELc
Valued
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
410
NA
NA
NA
50
NA
NA
NA
160
Selected
Screening
Value
USEPA List of
Bioaccumulatorse
NA
NA
NA
410
NA
50
NA
160
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.051
220
NA
0.84
NA
0.051
220
NA
0.84
NA
N
N
N
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
330
1,700
340
9,600
330
1,700
340
9,600
Y
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
Y
62
Version 2006/05/18
Table 5. Sediment Screening Value Summary for the Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
Marine/Estuarine
Values
CAS Number
59507
10672
7005723
106445
100016
100027
62533
103333
92875
65850
100516
111911
111444
108601
117817
92524
85687
86748
1861321
132649
132650
1002335
84662
131113
84742
117840
87683
77474
67721
78591
78763549
98953
62759
86306
621647
95487
1825214
Chemical
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloroanaline
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl
Ether
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Aniline
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Benzo(b)thiophene
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2Chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Biphenyl
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Carbazole
Dacthal
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Dibutyltin
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloropentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Monobutyltin
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitroso-di-phenylamine
N-nitroso-di-propylamine
O-Cresol
Pentachloroanisol
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
NOAA ER-La
NA
NA
Freshwater Values
ConsensusLowest
based
ORNL
TELc
Valued
NA
NA
NA
NA
Selected
Screening
Value
USEPA List of
Bioaccumulatorse
NA
NA
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
NA
650
1.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
NA
650
1.1
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
N
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
890,000
1,100
11,000
NA
NA
420
NA
NA
600
NA
11,000
NA
NA
NA
1,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
890,000
1,100
11,000
NA
NA
420
NA
NA
600
NA
11,000
NA
NA
NA
1,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
63
Version 2006/05/18
Table 5. Sediment Screening Value Summary for the Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
Marine/Estuarine
Values
CAS Number
Chemical
108952
110861
1461252
56359
PAHs (ppb)
90120
832699
Phenol
Pyridine
Tetrabutyltin
Tributyltin
829265
581420
91576
83329
208968
120127
56553
50328
205992
192972
191242
207089
218019
53703
206440
86737
193395
91203
198550
85018
129000
PCBs (ppb)
12674112
11104282
11141165
53469219
12672296
11097691
11096825
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylphenanthrene
2,3,5Trimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
High Molecular Weight
PAHs
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
Low Molecular Weight
PAHs
Naphthalene
PAHs, Total
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
NOAA ER-La
57
NA
NA
25b
Freshwater Values
ConsensusLowest
based
ORNL
TELc
Valued
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Selected
Screening
Value
USEPA List of
Bioaccumulatorse
57
NA
NA
25
N
N
N
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
130
NA
130
NA
N
N
NA
NA
70
16
44
85
261
430
NA
NA
NA
NA
384
63
600
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
57.2
108
150
NA
NA
NA
NA
166
33
423
77.4
NA
NA
NA
5,300
NA
27
110
140
27.2
NA
170
27.2
340
28.2
64.2
34.6
NA
NA
70
16
44
85
261
430
27.2
NA
170
27.2
384
63
600
19
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1,700
NA
NA
NA
2,900
78
1,700
78
N
Y
552
160
4,022
NA
240
665
NA
176
1,610
NA
204
195
786
32.8
3,553
NA
560
490
552
160
4,022
NA
240
665
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
120
600
170
30
60
5
7
120
600
170
30
60
5
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
64
Version 2006/05/18
Table 5. Sediment Screening Value Summary for the Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
Marine/Estuarine
Values
CAS Number
Chemical
1336363
Total PCBs
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES (ppb)
93765
2,4,5-T
93721
2,4,5-TP
94757
2,4-D
94826
2,4-DB
72548
2,4-DDD
72559
2,4-DDE
50293
2,4-DDT
72548
4,4'-DDD
12559
4,4'-DDE
50293
4,4'-DDT
50293
DDTS, total of 6 isomers
309002
Aldrin
319846
BHC-alpha
319857
BHC-beta
319868
BHC-gamma (Lindane)
57749
Total Chlordane
75990
Dalapon
1918009
Dicamba
120365
Dichloroprop
60571
Dieldrin
88857
Dinoseb
115297
Total Endosulfan
72208
Total Endrin
76448
Total Heptachlor
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
94746
MCPA
93652
MCPP
72435
Methoxychlor
2385855
Mirex
5103731
Total Nonachlor
8001352
Toxaphene
DIOXINS/FURANS (ppb)
1746016
2,3,7,8-TCDD
NOAA ER-La
22.7
Freshwater Values
ConsensusLowest
based
ORNL
TELc
Valued
59.8
31.62
Selected
Screening
Value
USEPA List of
Bioaccumulatorse
22.7
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
2
1
2
2.2
1
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.88
3.16
4.16
4.88
3.16
4.16
5.28
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.24
NA
NA
NA
1.9
NA
NA
2.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
5
8
8
5
8
7
2
6
5
3
7
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
5.5
3
5f
20
NA
NA
19
7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
2
1
2
2.2
1
1.6
2
6
5
3
0.5
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
5.5
0.02
5f
20
NA
NA
19
7
NA
NA
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
0.0036g
NA
NA
0.0036
Y
NA = not available
a
ER-L = Effects Range-Low from Long and Morgan, 1991 and Long et al., 1995; except where noted.
b
Value is an ER-M (Effects Range-Median) from Long and Morgan, 1991 and Long et al., 1995.
c
Consensus-based Threshold Effects Level based on the geometric mean of several benchmark values; from MacDonald et al., 2000.
d
Lowest ORNL value from Tables 3 and 4 of Jones et al., 1997.
e
From USEPA 2000b. Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality Assessment. USEPA-823-R-00-001.
f
Total Heptachlor is the sum of heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide; the value is for heptachlor epoxide.
g
Value based on Apparent Effects Threshold Value based on Neanthes bioassay (NOAA, 1999).
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
65
Version 2006/05/18
few contaminants would be eliminated as COPECs because of the lack of marine values. It should be
noted that more habitat-appropriate information (including possible sediment toxicity bioassays and/or
macroinvertebrate community studies) will be used to evaluate sediment quality in the subsequent
SLERA and BERA.
Chemicals for which no effects-based sediment screening value was readily available were retained as
COPECs. As part of future risk assessment activities, a literature review will be conducted to identify
appropriate screening values for chemicals currently lacking screening values.
For surface water samples (Figure 10), ecological screening values used for comparison to maximum
concentrations were the lowest of the surface water quality criteria (SWQC) obtained from USEPA’s
NRWQC (USEPA, 2002a), NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 703, “Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
Standards and Groundwater Effluent Limitations” (NYSDEC, 1999), and NJDEP Surface Water Quality
Standards (NJDEP, 2004b). These values were derived for the protection of aquatic life based on either
chronic or acute endpoints. SWQC are summarized in Table 6.
6.1.1
Preliminary COPEC Selection
6.1.1.1
Sediment
Inorganic constituents
Surface sediments were analyzed for 27 inorganic constituents; all were detected in more than five
percent of the samples. A total of ten inorganic constituents that were detected in more than five percent
of the samples are included on the USEPA list of bioaccumulative compounds and were selected as
COPECs (USEPA, 2000b). With the exception of selenium (for which no screening value is available),
the maximum detected concentration of each of these analytes exceeded the respective sediment
screening values.
Sediment screening values were not available for 15 inorganic analytes detected in surface sediment
samples. Excluding calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium, which are considered to be essential
nutrients, the remaining 11 analytes were retained as COPECs for sediment.
Sediment screening values are available for 12 inorganic analytes, all of which had maximum detected
concentrations that were greater than the selected sediment screening values.
In summary, based on this screening evaluation, 23 inorganic constituents were identified and selected as
COPECs for future planning and assessments of ecological risk (Table 1, Attachment B; Table 7).
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
A total of 16 VOCs were detected in surface sediment samples, 13 of which were detected in more than
five percent of the samples (Table 7). Sediment screening values are available for six of these 13 VOCs.
Maximum detected concentrations of carbon disulfide and toluene exceeded the selected sediment
screening values; thus these constituents were selected as COPECs. Relevant screening values are not
available for eight of the detected VOCs; therefore, these chemicals were also included on the COPEC
list. No VOC is included on the USEPA list of bioaccumulative compounds (USEPA, 2000b).
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
66
Version 2006/05/18
Table 6. Surface Water Quality Criteria Screening Values for the Ecological Risk Assessment
Chemical
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
SVOCs
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Ecological Screening Values (µg/L)
Selected
USEPA
Screening
NYSDEC
NJDEP
NRWQC
Value
100 c
NA
63 c
NA
11 c
7.7 c
NA
54 c
5c
NA
1c
300 c
8c
NA
300
0.0026 c
8.2 c
NA
4.6 c
2.3 a
NA
8c
14 c
66 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.6 c
1c
NA
24 c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36 ccc
NA
NA
8.8 ccc
NA
50 ccc
NA
3.1 ccc
1 ccc
NA
8.1 ccc
NA
NA
0.94 ccc
8.2 ccc
NA
290 ccc
1.9 cmc
NA
NA
NA
81 ccc
100
NA
36
NA
11
7.7
NA
50
5
3.1
1
300
8
NA
300
0.0026
8.2
NA
4.6
1.9
NA
8
14
66
5c
5c
30 c
5c
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.9 ccc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
5
30
5
7.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
67
Version 2006/05/18
Table 6. Surface Water Criteria Screening Values for the Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
Chemical
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloropentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
N-nitroso-di-phenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
O-Cresol
Phenol
PCBs
Total PCBs
PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Chrysene
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Ecological Screening Values (µg/L)
Selected
Screening
USEPA
NRWQC
Value
NYSDEC
NJDEP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6 c
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3 c
0.3
NA
NA
0.07 c
0.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03 c
0.03 ccc
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
68
Version 2006/05/18
Table 6. Surface Water Criteria Screening Values for the Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
Ecological Screening Values (µg/L)
Selected
Screening
USEPA
Chemical
NRWQC
Value
NYSDEC
NJDEP
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fluoranthene
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fluorene
NA
NA
NA
NA
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
NA
NA
NA
NA
Naphthalene
NA
NA
NA
NA
Phenanthrene
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pyrene
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4-DDD
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4-DDE
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4-DDT
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,4-DDD
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,4-DDE
NA
4,4-DDT
0.001 c
0.001 ccc
0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4,5-T
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4,5-TP
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4-DB
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,4-D
NA
Aldrin
1.3 a
1.3 cmc
1.3
NA
BHC
0.08 c
0.16 cmc
0.08
NA
Chlordane
0.004 c
0.004 ccc
0.004
Dieldrin
0.056 c
0.002 c
0.002 ccc
0.002
Endosulfan
0.001 c
0.009 c
0.0087 ccc
0.001
Endrin
0.036 c
0.0023 c
0.0023 ccc
0.0023
NA
Total Heptachlor
0.004 c
0.004 ccc
0.004
NA
Hexachlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
Methoxychlor
0.03 c
0.03 c
0.03 ccc
0.03
Nonachlor
NA
NA
NA
NA
Toxaphene
0.005 c
0.0002 c
0.0002 ccc
0.0002
DIOXINS/FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
NA
NA
NA
NA
a = standard for aquatic wildlife - acute effects
c = standard for aquatic wildlife - chronic effects
ccc = Criterion Continuous Concentration is an estimate of the highest concentration of a
material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed indefinitely
without resulting in an unacceptable effect.
cmc = Criteria Maximum Concentration is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in
surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed briefly without resulting in an
unacceptable effect.
NA = not available
a
2,4,5-T = Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
b
2,4,5-TP = 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxypropionic acid
c
2,4-DB = 2,4-dichlorophenoxybutyric acid
d
2,4-D = 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
69
Version 2006/05/18
Sediment chemical
concentrations in Newark Bay
Is chemical
considered to be
bioaccumulative?
Yes
COPEC
No
Not a COPEC
Yes
Is chemical an
essential nutrient?
Was
chemical infrequently
detected and results of
data evaluation indicate
no hotspot or other
(a)
groupings
No
Yes
Not a COPEC
No
Is a screening
benchmark
available?
No
COPEC
Yes
No
Not a COPEC
(a)
Is
concentration
greater than
benchmark?
Yes
COPEC
Initally based on frequency of detection of 5% and will be professionally evaluated with respect to
magnitude, hotspots, or other groups.
Figure 10. Sediment COPEC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Ecological Risk Assessment.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
70
Version 2006/05/18
Surface water chemical
concentrations in Newark Bay
Is chemical
considered to be
bioaccumulative?
Yes
COPEC
No
Not a COPEC
Yes
Is chemical an
essential nutrient?
Was
chemical infrequently
detected and results of
data evaluation indicate
no hotspot or other
(a)
groupings
No
Yes
Not a COPEC
No
Is a screening
benchmark
available?
No
COPEC
Yes
No
Not a COPEC
(a)
Is
concentration
greater than
benchmark?
Yes
COPEC
Initally based on frequency of detection of 5% and will be professionally evaluated with respect to
magnitude, hotspots, or other groups.
Figure 11. Surface Water COPEC Decision Diagram for Newark Bay Ecological Risk Assessment
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
71
Version 2006/05/18
Although several VOCs are included as COPECs for the purpose of this initial evaluation, their relevance
to the ecological risk assessment should be carefully considered in subsequent evaluations (e.g., SLERA)
due to their propensity for rapid dispersion and degradation in media (e.g., surface water, sediment,
surface soil, and biota) that is associated with ecological receptors.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Eight of the 62 SVOCs that were analyzed in sediment samples were not detected, and all but three were
detected in greater than five percent of the samples. Eleven detected SVOCs are considered to be
bioaccumulative and were categorically included as COPECs.
The maximum detected concentrations of ten SVOCs exceeded their respective sediment screening values
and were retained as COPECs. Sediment screening values are not available for 33 SVOCs that were
detected sediment samples at a frequency greater than five percent; thus they were all retained as
COPECs.
In summary, all but two of the 54 detected SVOCs were retained as COPECs for future assessments of
ecological risk (Table 7; Attachment B, Table 1). These include 11 analytes that are considered to be
bioaccumulative and ten analytes that were detected at maximum concentrations that exceeded their
respective screening values. The majority of SVOC COPECs were retained due to a lack of available
sediment screening values.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
A total of 23 individual PAHs were detected in surface sediment samples, and all of these constituents
were detected in greater than five percent of the samples, as were total benzofluoranthenes, total PAHs,
total low molecular weight (LMW) PAHs, and total high molecular weight (HMW) PAHs. Sediment
screening values are available for 22 PAHs, including total benzofluoranthenes, total PAHs, total LMW
PAHs, and total HMW PAHs. All constituents or summed totals were present at maximum
concentrations greater than the sediment screening value. No sediment screening value is available for
six of the PAHs, therefore these constituents were also retained as COPECs.
Fifteen individual PAHs, plus total benzofluoranthenes, are considered to be bioaccumulative compounds
(USEPA, 2000b). All were detected at maximum concentrations that exceeded their respective sediment
screening values and were selected as COPECs based on both potential direct toxicity and
bioaccumulation hazard criteria.
In summary, all analyzed PAH constituents were selected as COPECs in sediment for future assessments
of ecological risk (Table 1, Attachment B; Table 7).
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Total PCBs and seven discrete Aroclor mixtures were detected in NBSA sediment samples (Table 7). All
are considered to be bioaccumulative compounds and were consequently retained as COPECs. The
maximum concentrations for both total PCBs and the individual Aroclor mixtures also exceeded their
respective sediment screening values. This suggests that PCBs represent both a potential direct
toxicological hazard to benthic macroinvertebrates as well as a potential bioaccumulation hazard to
foraging fish and wildlife (USEPA, 2000b).
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
72
Version 2006/05/18
Pesticides/Herbicides
Twenty-nine pesticides and herbicides were detected in NBSA sediment (Table 1, Attachment B).
Seventeen detected pesticides are classified as potential bioaccumulators and were all retained as
COPECs. In the majority of cases, the maximum detected concentrations of these pesticides also
exceeded their respective sediment screening values. Although chlordane is not considered to have a
strong tendency to bioaccumulate, it was detected at a maximum concentration that exceeded its
screening value and was selected as a COPEC. Finally, no screening values for eight detected pesticides
were identified and all were retained as COPECs. In total, 26 pesticides were identified as COPECs in
sediment.
Dioxins/Furans
As previously discussed in Section 4.0, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was selected as an indicator for the purpose of
screening PCDD and PCDF. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in almost all the samples (98%). A relevant
effects-based sediment screening value was not identified; however, dioxins/furans are considered to be
bioaccumulative compounds (USEPA, 2000b) and were retained as a COPEC for consideration in the
SLERA.
6.1.1.2
Surface Water
Inorganic constituents
Surface water samples were analyzed for 24 inorganic constituents; of those, six were not detected in any
samples and were eliminated from further consideration (Table 2, Attachment B). Because they are
considered essential nutrients, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were also eliminated as
COPECs. A total of nine detected analytes are considered potential bioaccumulators and were retained as
COPECs in surface water. In addition to the potential bioaccumulation hazard, copper, lead, mercury,
nickel, and silver were also detected at maximum concentrations that exceeded screening values,
suggesting that the potential for direct toxicity to benthic macroinvertebrates also exists. Aluminum,
barium, and iron were also selected as COPECs in surface water because the maximum detected
concentrations either exceeded the selected screening value or no value was available (in the case of
barium).
In summary, 12 inorganic constituents were selected as COPECs based on the surface water screening
evaluation and should be included in future planning and assessments of ecological risk (Table 2,
Attachment B; Table 7).
Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Three samples of surface water were analyzed for a total of 47 SVOCs; none were detected in any
samples. Therefore no SVOCs were identified as COPECs.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Three samples of surface water were analyzed for a total of 17 PAHs; none were detected in any samples.
Therefore no PAHs were identified as COPECs.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Surface water was analyzed for total PCBs and none were detected in any NBSA surface water samples.
Therefore PCBs were not identified as a COPEC.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
73
Version 2006/05/18
Table 7. Summary COPECs for Ecological Risk Assessment.
COPEC
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Silicon
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
VOCs
1,4-Dioxane
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
Isopropyl benzene
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Toluene
Total BTEXb
SVOCs
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Sediment
Surface Water
X
X
X
Xa
Xa
X
X
Xa
X
Xa
Xa
X
X
X
X
Xa
X
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
X
X
Xa
Xa
X
Xa
Xa
X
Xa
X
Xa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
X
X
X
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
74
Version 2006/05/18
Table 7. Summary COPECs for Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
COPEC
2,6/2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroanaline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloroanaline
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Benzo(b)thiophene
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Carbazole
Dacthal
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Dibutyltin
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloropentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Monobutyltin
Nitrobenzene
N-nitroso-di-phenylamine
N-nitroso-di-propylamine
Pentachloroanisol
Sediment
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
X
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
X
Xa
Xa
X
Xa
Xa
X
Xa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
Xa
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
Phenol
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Surface Water
NA
75
Version 2006/05/18
Table 7. Summary COPECs for Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
COPEC
Tetrabutyltin
Tributyltin
PAHs
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylphenanthrene
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Total benzofluoranthenes
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
Naphthalene
PAHs, Total
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Total PCBs
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES
2,4,5-Tc
2,4,5-TPd
2,4-De
2,4-DBf
2,4-DDD
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Sediment
Xa
X
Surface Water
NA
NA
X
Xa
Xa
Xa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
X
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
Xa
Xa
Xa
X
76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Xa
X
Version 2006/05/18
Table 7. Summary COPECs for Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
COPEC
2,4-DDE
Sediment
X
Surface Water
X
2,4-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
DDTS, total of 6 isomers
Aldrin
Total BHC
Total Chlordane
Dicamba
Dichloroprop
Dieldrin
Total Endosulfan
Total Endrin
Total Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
MCPP
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Total Nonachlor
Toxaphene
DIOXINS/FURANS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
Xa
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
X
X
Xa
X
2,3,7,8-TCDD
X
X
X
NA
X
X
NA
NA
X
X
NA
NA
X
a
Indicates that the constituent was identified as a COPEC because
effects-based screening values were not available. A more thorough
review of COPCs will be performed as part of the SLERA and
constituents may be eliminated if they are not consistent with industrial
sources or are typical of background conditions.
b
BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes
c
2,4,5-T = Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
d
2,4,5-TP = 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxypropionic acid
e
2,4-D = 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
f
2,4-DB = 2,4-dichlorophenoxybutyric acid
NA – indicates that there were no data available for the constituent.
Pesticides/Herbicides
Eight pesticides and herbicides were detected in surface water samples (Table 2, Attachment B). Of
these, all but 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) are considered to be potential bioaccumulators and
were therefore retained as COPECs. 2,4-D was also retained as a COPEC because no screening value
was available. In addition to posing a potential bioaccumulation hazard, the maximum detected
concentrations of dieldrin and total heptachlor exceeded their respective screening values. All eight
detected pesticides were retained as COPECs.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
77
Version 2006/05/18
Dioxins/Furans
As previously discussed in Section 4.0, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was selected as an indicator compound for
screening PCDDs and PCDFs. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was retained as a COPEC because it was detected in all
three surface water samples, lacks a screening value, and is considered to be bioaccumulative.
6.2
Preliminary Conceptual Site Model and Exposure Pathway Analysis
The CSM is a framework for relating ecological receptors to contaminated media and determining the
degree of completion and significance of exposure pathways. In general, an exposure pathway describes
the route(s) a chemical takes from its source to a ROC. An exposure pathway analysis links the source,
location, and type of environmental release with population, location, and activity patterns to determine
the primary means of potential exposure. If potentially complete and significant exposure pathways exist
between COPECs and ROCs, an assessment of potential effects and exposure is conducted. Only those
potentially complete exposure pathways likely to contribute significantly to the total exposure will be
quantitatively evaluated. All other potentially complete exposure pathways that result in minor exposures
or for which there are no exposure models or insufficient toxicity data will not be quantitatively evaluated
in the assessment.
An exposure pathway is considered complete if all four of the following elements are present (USEPA,
1997):
•
•
•
•
A source and mechanism of chemical release to the environment;
An environmental retention or transport medium (e.g., water or sediment) for the released
chemical;
A point of potential physical contact of a receptor with the contaminated medium (exposure
point); and,
An exposure route (e.g., ingestion of contaminated prey, incidental ingestion of sediment).
In the absence of any one of these components, a complete exposure pathway cannot exist, and no risk to
ecological receptors is possible. Through the identification of complete exposure routes, a primary
function of the CSM is to define media of concern and to identify the ecological receptors with the
greatest risk of exposure at the site.
The preliminary ecological CSM for the NBSA is presented in Section 3.0, Figure 6. Potential historical
sources of contamination include a large number of industrial point sources, CSOs, and non-point source
runoff that is discharged directly into the surface waters of the Bay. Following discharge, contaminants
can partition into sediments and enter the food web via accumulation in tissues of biota exposed directly
to contaminants in the water column, in sediments and/or in the tissues of prey items. Therefore, the
media of concern identified are surface water, sediment, and the tissues of prey items. Correspondingly, a
wide range of ecological receptors are potentially at risk, including benthic invertebrates, fish, and a
variety of piscivorous or aquatic avian and mammalian predator species. In addition, reptiles may also be
at risk, depending on whether sufficient and appropriate habitat exists within the study area.
Ecological receptors may be exposed to chemical contaminants through three major pathways: oral,
dermal, and inhalation. The COPECs identified in Section 6.1 are from a range of chemical classes and
possess physicochemical properties that greatly affect their behavior (i.e., partitioning, bioaccumulation)
in the environment. These properties are important considerations in exposure pathway analysis because
they are a primary determinant of a whether a COPEC detected in site media is likely to possess a risk to
ROCs. For example, the physicochemical properties of PCBs, PAHs, dioxins/furans, most metals, and
SVOCs suggest that if these chemicals are detected in site media, receptors exposed to these media will
likely be exposed to the chemical (i.e., the exposure pathway is complete). Receptor exposure to VOCs,
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
78
Version 2006/05/18
particularly in aquatic ecosystems, is generally considered de minimus except in cases where extremely
high concentrations are present. Because detected concentrations of VOCs in the NBSA are generally
low and these constituents do not bioaccumulate, VOC exposures to ecological receptors are considered
minor. However, several VOCs are included as COPECs for the purpose of this initial evaluation, but
their relevance to the ecological risk assessment should be carefully considered in subsequent evaluations
(e.g., SLERA) due to their propensity for rapid dispersion and degradation in media (surface water,
sediment, and biota) that is associated with ecological receptors.
Dermal exposure to sediment contaminants for birds and mammals, although likely to occur, is
considered to be de minimus. Although established methods are available to assess dermal exposure to
humans, limited data are available to quantitatively assess dermal exposure to wildlife. In addition, the
presence of feathers and fur along with grooming and preening activities reduces sediment contact with
skin.
Based on a review of major exposure pathways, the significant complete exposure routes for highertrophic level organisms are associated with ingestion of contaminated prey and direct/incidental ingestion
of sediment and (to a lesser extent) surface water. For the purposes of future assessment of risk to
ecological receptors, these will be considered the primary routes of exposures for mammals and birds in
the NBSA.
6.3
Selection of Receptors of Concern (ROCs)
Selection of ROCs for evaluation in the ecological risk assessment was based on a review of available
habitat and biota surveys, including those summarized in the NBSA RIWP (TSI, 2004). The RIWP also
considered regional studies that include data from the Newark Bay estuary and other areas (e.g.,
Hackensack Meadowlands) within the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. In addition, previous studies (ChemRisk,
1995a) did not identify any state or federal rare, threatened or endangered (T&E) species inhabiting the
lower portion of the Passaic River; it is unclear whether the T&E species might be present in the NBSA.
In the absence of such data, therefore, the receptor groups below include discussion of potential T&E
species that may be present. Their presence within the study area will be determined prior to the SLERA
evaluation process.
Although the following receptor groups are believed to comprise the critical biological elements of
Newark Bay, additional field surveys currently being planned as part of the RI may ultimately alter the
specific representative species selected for evaluation in the SLERA.
6.3.1
Benthic Invertebrates
A total of 14 macroinvertebrate faunal studies conducted since 1990 were summarized in the Newark Bay
RIWP (TSI, 2004). Collectively, these studies suggest that the benthic invertebrate communities in
Newark Bay and adjacent waterbodies, including the lower reaches of the Passaic River, Hackensack
River, Arthur Kill, and Kill Van Kull, have been influenced by the urban and industrial nature of the
surrounding area. In general, the species composition, diversity, and abundance are characteristic of a
degraded estuarine environment. Overall, benthic invertebrate taxa are moderately abundant and
characterized by generalist species that can tolerate environmentally stressful conditions such as low
dissolved oxygen. Specifically, the survey results indicated that the benthic invertebrate community of
the NBSA is dominated by polychaete worms (e.g., Streblospio benedicti, Sabellaria vulgaris, Scoloplos
sp.) which are representatives of the family Paranoidae, bivalves (e.g., Mya lateralis and M. arenaria),
oligochaetes, and nematode worms. In various studies, the polychaetes, S. benedicti and Scoloplos sp.,
and the soft clam, M. arenaria, often represented over 25 percent of the total benthic infauna. It is
anticipated that planned future habitat and ecological surveys will provide a characterization of more
current, up-to-date site conditions.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
79
Version 2006/05/18
Blue crabs are omnivorous benthic crustaceans that consume plankton and small fish, and come into
direct contact with contaminated sediments. They are also commonly considered to be the dominant
macrofaunal species throughout the tidal Passaic River and Newark Bay estuary. For these reasons, the
blue crab has been identified as a ROC for future evaluation of ecological risk. In addition, mollusk
populations serve as food for upper-trophic wildlife and include the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis), softshelled clam (Mya arenaria), and oyster (Crassostrea virginica) which will also serve as a receptor
group.
6.3.2
Demersal and Pelagic Fish
Fish communities in the NBSA are comprised of a mixture of marine and estuarine species (Woodhead,
1991). Resident estuarine species include the mummichog and others (Table 8) that may potentially exist
throughout the Bay (PAS, 1982; USACE, 1987; ChemRisk, 1995b, 1995c). Historically, the most
common migratory species observed were the striped bass, and American eel (USFWS, 1981; USACE,
1987).
A total of 16 studies, which included characterizations of the fish and crustacean communities associated
with Newark Bay and adjacent water bodies, were compiled and reviewed in the RIWP (TSI, 2004). As
part of a monthly sampling program conducted in 1995 and 1996, Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly
Engineers, Inc. (LMS) collected a total of 25 species of fish from five shoal areas in Newark Bay and a
single station each in the Kill Van Kull and Arthur Kill (LMS, 1996). Duffy-Anderson et al. (2003)
summarized ichthyological studies conducted near man-made structures in the Arthur Kill and Kill Van
Kull and also collected a total of 25 fish species, of which silver perch and naked goby were the most
abundant. A NOAA study conducted in 1993 and 1994 collected fish and crustaceans at 17 locations in
Newark Bay (ten channel and seven shallow water trawls and gillnets). Striped bass, Atlantic tomcod,
and blue crab were the most abundant animals collected from the channel trawls. Bay anchovy, Atlantic
herring, and Atlantic tomcod were the most abundant animals collected from the shallow water trawl
samples (NOAA, 1994).
The USACE conducted monthly fish surveys between October 1998 and September 1999 throughout the
NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. Three locations were located in Newark Bay, two stations were located in the
Arthur Kill, and one station was located in the Kill Van Kull (USACE, 1999). A total of 39 species of
fish were identified in the survey. The USACE also conducted a number of fish surveys between 2001
and 2003 at eight locations within Newark Bay (five channel and three shallow water stations); these
surveys resulted in the collection of 47 species of fish (USACE, 2003a; 2003b; 2003c).
Based on these surveys, the following fish species have been identified as ROCs for future evaluations of
ecological risk (Table 8): mummichog, American eel, striped bass, winter flounder, white perch, and
Atlantic menhaden. These species represent a variety of habitat preferences and life histories that allow
assessment of a wide range of exposure scenarios, including exposures to upper-trophic level consumers
such as piscivorous birds and mammals. Data from planned habitat and ecological surveys of the NBSA
will help determine whether revisions to the receptors that have been preliminarily selected are necessary.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
80
Version 2006/05/18
Table 8. Recommended Receptors of Concern for the Ecological Risk Assessment.
Receptor
Exposure Media
Rationale for selection of receptor
and pathway
Benthic Invertebrates
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Epibenthic omnivorous invertebrate
that consumes plankton and small
fish and comes into direct contact
with contaminated sediments
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Various benthic invertebrate
populations representing different
trophic levels which are in intimate
contact with contaminated sediments
Mollusc populations
Sediment/Surface water
Residential filter feeders that have
the potential to accumulate
contaminants from the water column
and are preyed upon by upper-trophic
level wildlife.
Mummichog
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Resident planktivorous estuarine
forage species
American eel
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Seasonal predatory, catadromous
species that consumes small fish
Winter flounder
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Striped bass
Surface water/Biota
Migratory benthic predator species;
sports fish
Dominant migrant predatory species
that has sensitive early-life stages;
sports fish
White perch
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Resident omnivore species; juveniles
are important prey to commercially
significant species
Atlantic menhaden
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Migratory detritivore/omnivore;
important forage fish species
Receptor
Exposure Media
Blue crab
Benthic macroinvertebrate
community
Fish
Rationale for selection of receptor
and pathway
Reptilesa
Sensitive receptors due to their unique metabolism, physiology, and sensitive life stages; may be incorporated
pending documented occurrence in the study area.
Piscivorous Birds
Double-crested cormorant
Belted kingfisher
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Piscivorous bird potentially present
in large numbers
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Piscivorous bird potentially present .
Omnivorous Birds
Ducks/geese (e.g., Mallard
Duck)a
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Black-crowned night-heron
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
81
Omnivorous avian species that
inhabit wetlands, marshes, and other
aquatic sites throughout their
lifetime
NJ State T&E species; wading bird
Version 2006/05/18
Table 8. Recommended Receptors of Concern for the Ecological Risk Assessment (continued).
Receptor
Herring gull
Exposure Media
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Great egret
Rationale for selection of receptor
and pathway
Piscivorous bird potentially present
in large numbers
Bird potentially present in large
numbers
Benthivorous Birds
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Wading, benthivorous bird that
probes the sediment in search of
invertebrates and small fish.
Raccoon
Sediment/Surface water/Biota
Omnivorous, opportunistic mammal
that consumes a variety of food
including benthic invertebrates and
fish.
Harbor porpoise
Surface water/Biota
Piscivorous mammal whose diet is
comprised entirely of fish.
Spotted sandpiper
Mammals
a
To be determined based on future planned ecological habitat and ecological surveys.
6.3.3
Piscivorous, Omnivorous, and Benthivours Birds
A total of 48 avian species (including 28 aquatic and piscivorous species) were observed from autumn
1999 through spring 2000 along the lower reach of the Passaic River during a four season avian survey
conducted by TSI. (BBL, 2002). Although the great majority of aquatic birds observed in the survey were
gulls (great black-backed, herring, laughing and ring-billed gulls), other commonly observed species
included wading birds (egrets and herons), pelicanoformes (double-crested cormorants), shorebirds (e.g.,
killdeer, sandpiper, and yellowlegs), osprey, geese, and ducks. The numbers of these latter species were
typically greater in spring and summer, as might be expected from their largely seasonal migratory life
histories. Therefore, although it is clear that the extent of high quality nesting and foraging resources is
generally limiting throughout the estuary, the TSI study (BBL, 2002) indicates the presence of avian
species for which complete exposure pathway(s) to sediment contaminants likely exist. It is important to
note the regionally important rookery habitat on Shooter’s Island, located at the southern end of Newark
Bay, where a significant percentage of the entire breeding population of certain wading birds in New
York reside (USACE, 1997).
Birds with the greatest potential exposure to site COPECs are those species that forage in a manner that
includes mucking or straining of surface and subsurface sediments, species with limited foraging ranges
(i.e., a large percentage of their foraging time is spent within the site), and species that feed on prey items
with small home ranges. The last of these classifications is important because it suggests that even bird
species that do not forage at the site for a majority of their food may have significant exposure to site
COPECs bioaccumulated by resident prey species.
Ducks and geese forage in a manner that exposes them directly to COPECs present in prey items
(primarily benthic species) as well as COPECs present in the foraging medium (i.e., sediment) itself.
Although the piscivorous bird species identified as ROCs for the NBSA have substantial foraging ranges
(see Section 6.5), the biological survey data available for the Lower Passaic River suggest that small fish
species with limited home ranges, such as the mummichog, will also comprise a significant portion of the
prey consumed from Newark Bay.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
82
Version 2006/05/18
Based on a review of the avian survey data available for the Newark Bay estuary, it is recommended that
the following species be included in the list of ROCs for future evaluations of ecological risk (Table 8):
black-crowned night-heron (BCNH), double-crested cormorant, great egret, spotted sandpiper, and a duck
or goose species (e.g., mallard or Canada goose). These species were selected because they all are
commonly present in the study area and possess life histories (e.g., foraging behavior and prey
consumption) that maximize their potential exposure to contaminants in surface water, sediment and
biota. Specifically, all of these species feed on fish and/or sediment invertebrates. Direct (and potentially
significant) exposure to sediment contaminants is another complete exposure pathway, particularly for
ducks and geese whose foraging activities include mucking and probing for sediment dwelling organisms
and plants. Although its presence in the NBSA is currently unknown, the BCNH is listed as T&E species
by the State of New Jersey and is therefore included as a ROC. The species identified here will be
reviewed following the completion of planned habitat and ecological surveys of the NBSA. At that time a
final decision will be made as to whether inclusion of the mallard/Canada goose as a ROC is appropriate.
6.3.4
Mammals
Previous ecological surveys conducted by the USACE (USACE, 1987) and ChemRisk (1995a) reported
that terrestrial species observed along the Lower Passaic River were limited to human-tolerant species
commonly found in urban environments (ChemRisk, 1995c). It is not clear, however, whether this
characterization is reflective of current conditions, or how applicable it is to the NBSA.
To assure that mammalian wildlife are appropriately considered in the SLERA, potential risks to
piscivorous and omnivorous mammal species will be re-evaluated as potential ROCs following future
wildlife surveys. Mammals with the greatest potential exposure to site COPECs are those species that
forage in a manner that includes mucking of surface and subsurface sediments, species with limited
foraging ranges (i.e., a large percentage of their foraging time is spent within the site), and species that
feed on prey items with small home ranges. Mammalian wildlife species that could be exposed to
contaminants in the NBSA include the raccoon, and possibly harbor porpoise. These species are potential
ROCs because their life histories suggest that, if present, they will be exposed directly to COPECs via
ingestion of prey, sediment, and surface water. Dermal exposure to site COPECs in estuarine and
marshland sediments may also occur, although exposure through this route is expected to be de minimus
relative to ingestion and will not be quantified.
6.3.5
Reptiles
Although risks to potential reptiles in the study area (e.g., diamondback terrapin) should be evaluated in
future risk assessment activities, appropriate current field survey data are not available to determine the
residence of these receptors in the Bay. The selection of reptilian ROCs will be based upon the results of
habitat and ecological surveys planned as part of the RI and incorporated into future ecological risk
assessment documents such as the SLERA.
6.4
Assessment and Measurement Endpoints
The CSM also serves as the basis for identification of risk assessment endpoints (AEs). As defined by the
USEPA (1997a), AEs are formal expressions of the actual environmental values that are to be protected at
a site. AEs are defined based on technical considerations including the significance of exposure
pathways, the presence of receptors, and a COPEC’s biotic transfer pathway. Selection of AEs must
consider the ecosystem, communities, and species relevant to a particular site. The selection of AEs
depends on:
•
•
The chemicals present and their concentration;
Mechanisms of toxicity of the chemicals to different groups of organisms;
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
83
Version 2006/05/18
•
•
Ecologically relevant receptor groups that are potentially sensitive or highly exposed to the
chemicals; and,
Potentially complete exposure pathways.
The AEs proposed for quantitative evaluation in this preliminary assessment are based on protection of
the most sensitive environmental resources identified at the site (e.g., protection of the benthic-feeding
and piscivorous avian and mammalian communities that may use the site) and the primary potentially
complete exposure pathways. Receptors in other feeding guilds (e.g., sediment-dwelling organisms, fish,
reptiles/amphibians) may also come into direct contact with site contaminants (i.e., complete exposure
pathways exists), and these organisms are also considered ROCs because they may also have significant
exposure to site COPECs. The avian benthic-feeding and piscivorous guild is likely to have the highest
potential for exposure to site-related compounds potentially found in sediment, and therefore, it should
provide an upper-bound risk estimate that is protective of the lesser-exposed guilds. It is important to
note, however, that the AEs proposed here for use in future assessments of ecological risks may be
changed based on data collected as part of planned future habitat and biological surveys at the site (noting
the presence/absence of potential species) and in consultation with agency ecological risk assessors. The
discussion that follows represents a combination of screening-level and baseline risk assessment
methodologies. Specific steps to be taken in the risk assessment will be determined in consultation with
agency ecological risk assessors.
The AEs proposed to represent the resources to be protected at the NBSA are:
•
AE(1): Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of benthic
invertebrate communities that serve as a forage base for fish and wildlife populations.
•
AE(2): Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of healthy
populations of crustaceans that serve as a forage base for fish and wildlife populations.
•
AE(3): Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of healthy
populations of mollusks that serve as a forage base for fish and wildlife populations.
•
AE(4): Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of healthy fish
populations that serve as a forage base for fish and wildlife populations.
•
AE(5): Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of omnivorous
wildlife (i.e., birds and mammals).
•
AE(6): Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of piscivorous
wildlife (i.e., birds and mammals).
It is also possible that additional AEs may be identified as a result of planned habitat and ecological
surveys of the NBSA; these could include additional species of special concern.
Preliminary measurement endpoints (MEs) are presented for each AE, as discussed below.
AE-1: Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of benthic
invertebrate communities that serve as a forage base for fish and wildlife populations.
Potential risk to the benthic invertebrate communities throughout the NBSA will likely evaluated using
some combination of the following MEs:
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
84
Version 2006/05/18
1. Comparing sediment COPEC concentrations to toxicity-based screening values;
2. Comparing surface (or interstitial) water COPEC concentrations to toxicity-based screening
values;
3. Conducting in situ and/or laboratory bioassay tests using study area, background, and reference
control sediment and statistically comparing the biological responses;
4. Conducting macroinvertebrate faunal surveys and comparing taxonomic data (numbers and
abundance of species) to appropriate reference datasets using multimetric or multivariate
statistical techniques; and,
5. Comparing benthic invertebrate COPEC tissue concentrations to toxicity-based Critical Body
Residue (CBR) values.
AE-2: Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of healthy populations
of crustaceans that serve as a forage base for fish and wildlife populations
Potential risk to the crustacean communities throughout the NBSA will likely evaluated using some
combination of the following MEs:
1. Comparing sediment COPEC concentrations to toxicity-based screening values;
2. Comparing surface (or interstitial) water COPEC concentrations to toxicity-based screening
values; and,
3. Comparing crustaceans COPEC tissue concentrations to toxicity-based Critical Body Residue
(CBR) values.
AE-3: Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of healthy populations
of molluscs that serve as a forage base for fish and wildlife populations.
1. Comparing sediment COPEC concentrations to toxicity-based screening values;
2. Comparing surface (or interstitial) water COPEC concentrations to toxicity-based screening
values; and,
3. Conducting in situ and/or laboratory bioassay tests using study area, background, and reference
control sediment and statistically comparing the biological responses; and,
4. Comparing mollusc COPEC tissue concentrations to toxicity-based Critical Body Residue (CBR)
values
AE-4: Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of fish populations.
Potential risks to fish populations that occur, or could occur, throughout the NBSA will likely be
evaluated using some combination of the following MEs:
1. Comparing measured and/or modeled surface water COPEC concentrations to toxicity-based
screening values;
2. Conducting laboratory bioassay tests using study area, background, and reference control
sediment and statistically comparing the biological responses;
3. Habitat-stratified comparison of fish length-weight relationships between study area and
reference populations;
4. Comparing incidence of gross and/or histopathological lesions in study area and reference fish
populations;
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
85
Version 2006/05/18
5. Comparing demographic structure of dominant species in study area and reference fish
populations;
6. Assessing study area fish community condition (i.e., calculating Index of Biological Integrity
[IBI] or similar metric, species richness and abundance of ichthyoplankton) relative to
appropriate reference area(s); and,
7. Comparing measured concentrations or toxic equivalencies in fish tissue (including eggs) to
toxicity-based CBR values.
AE-5: Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of omnivorous
wildlife.
Potential exposures to omnivorous ROCs (e.g., mallard and raccoon) will be primarily evaluated by
modeling the daily dose to these organisms associated with ingestion of COPECs in surface water,
sediment, and prey items. Potential risk will be characterized by comparing the species-specific modeled
dose estimates to toxicity reference values (TRVs) or similar appropriate descriptors of threshold toxicity.
In addition, COPEC residues in omnivorous bird tissues (including eggs) may be measured or modeled
and compared to appropriate CBRs.
AE-6: Protection and maintenance (i.e., survival, growth, and reproduction) of
piscivorous wildlife.
Potential risks to piscivorous wildlife populations that occur, or could occur, throughout the NBSA will
likely be evaluated using the same combination of MEs discussed above for the omnivorous wildlife AE.
In addition, future field surveys may identify additional or alternative species of special concern that may
occur within the NBSA. If this is the case, potential risks to these receptors will be evaluated using
methods similar to those described above, although biological tissue from species of special concern (e.g.,
harbor porpoise) would not be collected. In the case of species of special concern receptors, the risk
assessment will focus on individual, as opposed to population-level effects.
It is also possible that field survey data may suggest that additional guilds representing other exposure
pathways (e.g., insectivorous birds) should be evaluated. In the event that additional AEs are identified,
an appropriate surrogate species will be identified and appropriate exposure factors and toxicity screening
values will be compiled.
The exposure and effects assessment approach are discussed in Sections 6.5 and 6.6, respectively. Risk
characterization (e.g., the comparison of modeled doses to TRVs, integration of field and laboratory
studies) is described in Section 6.7.
6.5
Exposure Assessment
The objective of the ecological exposure assessment is to determine the degree of co-occurrence between
environmental stressors (i.e., the COPECs) and receptors for the AEs (as summarized in Table 8) on both
spatial and temporal scales. A combination of fate and transport modeling and sampling data will be used
to characterize distribution and variability of COPECs in environmental media including surface water,
sediment, and biota tissue. Ecological field studies, interviews with resource trustees and other experts
knowledgeable of the local ecosystem, and information available in the scientific literature will be used to
identify the site-specific characteristics of species and biological communities that occur in the NBSA
that may be exposed to the chemical stressors. The integration of the stressor and receptor
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
86
Version 2006/05/18
characterizations results in an exposure profile that quantifies the magnitude and spatial and temporal
patterns of exposure as related to the AEs and risk questions discussed in Section 6.4 (USEPA, 1997a).
6.5.1
Exposure Point Concentration Calculations
The calculation of EPCs is one component of the stressor characterization. The calculated EPCs will be
derived for each identified exposure area (dependent on characteristics of individual ROCs and habitats)
and used to estimate exposures associated with direct contact by aquatic receptors (e.g., benthic
macroinvertebrates, blue crab, and fish) as well as used in food web models to estimate daily doses to
wildlife receptors (e.g., birds and mammals).
EPCs will be calculated as discussed in Section 5.2.2; however, unlike the human health evaluation,
arithmetic mean COPEC concentrations will be used to evaluate the CTE in the BERA; maximum
concentrations of COPECs or the 95 UCL, whichever is lower, are used in the SLERA for conservative
purposes. Specifics of the modeling approach used to derive EPCs for future (and possibly current)
conditions will be provided in the risk assessment, along with further detail regarding the development an
exposure profile for each selected assessment endpoint ROC.
6.5.2
Dose Calculations for ROCs
The exposure assessment estimates potential exposure of ROCs to COPECs identified at the site. An
exposure model incorporating natural history information and species characteristics (including diet
composition, ingestion rates, body weights, and foraging ranges) for each receptor was developed to
evaluate the exposure of wildlife ROCs to COPECs. It was assumed that wildlife are exposed to site
contaminants through consumption of contaminated prey, water, and incidental ingestion of sediment.
Site exposures occur as part of each ROC’s natural foraging behavior; therefore, it is necessary to make
assumptions regarding the amount of time each ROC spends at the site relative to the rest of its foraging
range. This ratio of time spent at the site verses time spent elsewhere is referred to as the site use factor
(SUF). To be conservative in the SLERA this value is set to 1, indicating that the receptor spends all of
its time foraging at the site. This parameter is further refined in the BERA, based on actual foraging
ranges and size of the study area. The following dose model is used to assess daily exposure of
contaminants to upper-trophic level ROCs and to characterize exposure at the site:
Dose = {[(Csed × IRsed)+ (Cfood × IRfood)+ (Cwater × IRwater)] × SUF }/BW
(Equation 1)
where,
Dose =
Csed
=
IRsed =
Cfood
=
IRfood =
Cwater =
IRwater =
SUF
=
BW
=
daily dose resulting from ingestion of sediment, food, and water (mg/kg)
concentration of COPEC in surface sediment (mg/kg)
estimate of receptor’s daily ingestion rate of surface sediment (kg/d)
concentration of COPEC in food tissue (mg/kg)
estimate of daily ingestion rate of food tissue (kg/d)
concentration of COPEC in water (mg/l)
estimate of receptor’s daily ingestion rate of water (l/d)
site use factor (unitless)
body weight (kg)
Prey items (food tissue) in the NBSA include forage fish and large benthic invertebrates, such as blue
crabs. The dose equations presented for each ROC assume that tissue concentrations of prey species will
be available. If tissue concentrations for prey (such as fish and benthic invertebrates) are not available,
concentrations will be calculated from the sediment concentration using biota sediment accumulation
factors (BSAFs), percent lipid in prey tissue, and percent of total organic carbon (TOC) in the sediment
(Equation 2). It is assumed that aquatic plants will not be sampled for concentration of COPECs;
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
87
Version 2006/05/18
therefore, dose models for species that ingest aquatic plants must consider unique BSAFs of each
COPEC. Similarly, dose models for some species include the ingestion of ibenthic invertebrates, which
must also incorporate BSAFs.
Because the exposure (and therefore dose) for each receptor is different, the exposure factors used in the
dose equation vary slightly based on the receptor being evaluated. For example, the estimated COPEC
concentrations in prey tissue (Cfood) will be calculated preferentially using site-specific prey tissue data or
estimated based on sediment chemistry data and chemical and media-specific BSAFs reflective of the
foraging habits of each receptor. In the absence of site-specific data, food chain exposures will be
calculated using BSAFs from the National Sediment Quality Survey (USEPA, 2001) as depicted in
Equation 2. Potential prey species are listed in Table 9. The proposed exposure factors for the SLERA
are summarized in Table 10. Specific parameters for the dose model of each receptor follow in Tables 12
though 16.
Cfish =
BSAF ∗ C sed ∗ %Lipid
%TOC
(Equation 2)
where:
Cfish
BSAF
=
=
Csed
=
% Lipid =
%TOC =
chemical concentration in tissue (mg/kg)
biota sediment accumulation factor from USEPA National Sediment
Quality Survey (2001b)(expressed as mg organic carbon dry weight/
mg lipid tissue dry weight)
maximum chemical concentration in the sediment (mg/kg)
lipid content of fish
total organic carbon content of sediment
Table 9. Prey Species Consumed by Piscivorous and Omnivorous Birds in the Newark Bay Study
Area.
Community
Benthic
Invertebrates
Fish
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Species
Various
Blue crab (shellfish)
Mummichog
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic menhaden
Bay anchovy
Atlantic tomcod
Threespined stickleback
Northern pipefish
Windowpane
Summer flounder
Winter flounder
Spot
Weakfish
Bluefish
Atlantic croaker
American eel
Striped bass
White Perch
88
Version 2006/05/18
Table 10. Preliminary Selection of ROCs and Exposure Factors.a
Species
Community
Piscivorous
Birds
Omnivorous
Bird
a
Preliminary ROC
Black-crowned night
heron
(Nycticorax nycticorax)
Great egretb (Casmerodius
albus)
Belted Kingfisher
(Ceryle alcyon)
Double-crested cormorant
(Phalacrocorax auritus)
Mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos)
Herring Gull
(Larus argentatus)
BW
(kg)
IRsediment
(kg/day)
IRfood
(kg/day)
IRwater
(kg/day)
SUF
0.883
0.003
0.16
0.05
1
0.371
0.001
0.07
0.03
1
0.136
0
0.078
0.016
1
1.81
0.001
0.097
0.088
1
1.2
0.002
0.07
0.07
1
0.95
0.0062
0.062
0.057
1
Benthivorous
Bird
Spotted Sandpiper
0.047
0.001
0..007
0.008
1
Mammals
Raccoon
Harbor seal
6.8
76.5
0.03
0.077
0.3
3.83
0.05
0.37
1
1
References for exposure factors are provided in the individual ROC table.
Exposure parameters based on the great blue heron, a similar species.
b
Dose Equation for the Black-Crowned Night Heron:
Dose =
[(Csed ∗ IRsed ) + (Cfish ∗ IRfish ) + (Cwater * IRwater )] ∗ SUF
BW
(Equation 3)
Table 11. Exposure Parameters for the Black-Crowned Night Heron.
Exposure Parameter
Values for
Source
black-crowned
night heron
0.883
Dunning, 1993
Abbreviation
Unit
Body weight
BW
kg
Daily ingestion rate of
sediment
Daily ingestion rate of fisha
IRsed
kg/day
0.003
IRfish
kg/day
0.16
Beyer et al.,
1994b
USEPA, 1993c
Daily ingestion rate of water
IRwater
kg/day
0.05
USEPA, 1993d
Site Use Factor (max of 1)
SUF
unitless
1
Most
conservative
a
Because of the piscivorous nature of this species, its diet will be considered 100% fish and/or shellfish.
The amount of sediment in its diet is modeled after the blue-winged teal and diving ring-necked duck (<2%), estimated here
as 1% and multiplied by the daily ingestion rate.
c
The ingestion rate (g/day) is based on the allometric equation for wading birds, developed by Kushlan (1978) and converted
to kilograms.
d
The daily ingestion rate of water (kg/day = 1 liter/day) is based on the allometric equation for birds (USEPA, 1993 eq. 3-15).
b
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
89
Version 2006/05/18
Dose Equation for the Great Egret:
Dose =
[(Csed ∗ IRsed ) + (Cfish ∗ IRfish ) + (Cwater * IRwater )] ∗ SUF
BW
(Equation 4)
Table 12. Exposure Parameters for the Great Egret.
Abbreviation
Unit
Body weight
BW
kg
Values for
great egret
2.336
Daily ingestion rate of
sediment
Daily ingestion rate of fisha
IRsed
kg/day
0.0021
IRfish
kg/day
0.105
Beyer et al.,
1994b
USEPA, 1993c
Daily ingestion rate of water
IRwater
kg/day
0.105
USEPA, 1993d
Site Use Factor (max of 1)
SUF
unitless
1
Most
conservative
Exposure Parameter
Source
USEPA, 1993
a
Because of the piscivorous nature of this species, its diet will be considered 100% fish and/or shellfish.
The amount of sediment in its diet is modeled after the blue-winged teal and diving ring-necked duck (2%), estimated here
as 1% and multiplied by the daily ingestion rate.
c
The ingestion rate (g/day) is based on the allometric equation for wading birds, developed by Kushlan (1978) and converted
to kilograms.
d
The daily ingestion rate of water (kg/day = 1 liter/day) is based on the allometric equation for birds (USEPA, 1993, eq. 315).
b
Dose Equation for the Belted Kingfisher:
Dose =
[(Csed ∗ IRsed ) + (Cfish ∗ IRfish ) + (Cwater * IRwater )] ∗ SUF
BW
(Equation 5)
Table 13. Exposure Parameters for the Belted Kingfisher.
kg
Values for
kingfisher
0.136
USEPA, 1993
IRsed
kg/day
0
Assumption
IRfish
kg/day
0.078
USEPA, 1993
Daily ingestion rate of water
IRwater
kg/day
0.016
USEPA, 1993
Site Use Factor (max of 1)
SUF
unitless
1
Most
conservative
Exposure Parameter
Abbreviation
Unit
Body weight
BW
Daily ingestion rate of
sediment
Daily ingestion rate of fisha
b
a
b
Source
Because of the piscivorous nature of this species, its diet will be considered 100% fish and/or shellfish.
The daily ingestion rate of water (kg/day = 1 liter/day) is based on the allometric equation for birds (USEPA, 1993, eq. 315).
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
90
Version 2006/05/18
Dose Equation for the Double-Crested Cormorant:
Dose =
[(Csed ∗ IRsed ) + (Cfish ∗ IRfish ) + (Cwater * IRwater )] ∗ SUF
BW
(Equation 6)
Table 14. Exposure Parameters for the Double-Crested Cormorant.
Exposure Parameter
Abbreviation
Unit
BW
kg
Body weight
Values for
cormorant
1.81
b
Source
Percevia.com
Daily ingestion rate of
sediment
Daily ingestion rate of fisha
IRsed
kg/day
0.001
IRfish
kg/day
0.097
Beyer et al.,
1994
USEPA, 1993c
Daily ingestion rate of water
IRwater
kg/day
0.088
USEPA, 1993d
Site Use Factor (max of 1)
SUF
unitless
1
Conservative
assumption
a
Because of the piscivorous nature of this species, its diet will be considered 100% fish and/or shellfish.
The amount of sediment in its diet is modeled after the blue-winged teal and diving ring-necked duck (<2%), estimated here
as 1% and multiplied by the daily ingestion rate.
c
The ingestion rate (g/day, dry weight basis) is based on the allometric equation for seabirds (USEPA, 1993 eq. 3-6),
developed by Nagy (1987); the estimated daily ingestion rate was then converted to kilograms.
d
The daily ingestion rate of water (kg/day = 1 liter/day) is based on the allometric equation for birds (USEPA, 1993 eq. 3-15).
b
Dose Equation for the Mallard Duck:
Dose =
[(Csed ∗ IRsed ) + (Cfood * IRfood ) + (Cwater*IRwater )] ∗ SUF
BW
(Equation 7)
where: Cfood = (Csed*fplant*BSAFplant)+(Csed*finsect*BSAFinsect)
Table 15. Exposure Parameters for the Mallard Duck.
Exposure Parameter
kg
Values for
mallard duck
1.2
Dunning, 1993
IRfood
kg/day
0.07
USEPA, 1993b
IRsed
kg/day
0.002
Beyer et al., 1994c
fplant
unitless
0.3
USEPA, 1993
Abbreviation
Unit
Body weight
BW
Daily ingestion rate of food
Daily ingestion rate of
sediment
Fraction of diet that is aquatic
plantsa
Bioaccumulation factor from
sediment to aquatic plantsd
Fraction of diet that is insectsa
Bioaccumulation factor from
sediment to invertebratesd
Daily Ingestion rate of watere
Site Use Factor (max of 1)
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
BSAFplant
finsect
BSAFinvert
kg oc/kg lipid COPEC specific
unitless
0.7
kg oc/kg lipid COPEC specific
Source
USEPA, 2001
USEPA, 1993
USEPA, 2001
IRwater
kg/day
0.07
USEPA, 1993
SUF
unitless
1
Most conservative
91
Version 2006/05/18
a
Mallards have a seasonal diet that consists of aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants at different times throughout the year
(USEPA 1993). The fraction of its diet that is insects was estimated to be 70% and plants was estimated to be 30%, per
Swanson et al., 1985.
b
The daily ingestion rate is calculated using the allometric equation for “all birds” (USEPA, 1993 eq. 3-3).
c
The ingestion rate of sediment is calculated using 3% from Beyer et al. (1994) and multiplying it by the daily ingestion rate.
d
BSAF = Biota-sediment accumulation factor; expressed as kg organic carbon in sediment/kg lipid tissue (dry weight).
e
The daily ingestion rate of water (kg/day = 1 liter/day) is based on the allometric equation for birds (USEPA, 1993 eq. 3-15).
Dose Equation for the Herring Gull:
Dose =
[(Csed ∗ IRsed ) + (Cfood * IRfood ) + (Cwater*IRwater )] ∗ SUF
BW
(Equation 8)
where: Cfood = (Csed*ffish*BSAFfish)+(Csed*finverts*BSAFinvertes) + (Csed*fcrustaceans*BSAFcrustanceans)
Table 16. Exposure Parameters for the Herring Gull.
Exposure
Parameter
Body weight
Daily ingestion
rate of sedimenta
Daily ingestion
rate of foodb
Fraction of diet
that is fishc
Bioaccumulation
factor from
sediment to fishd
Fraction of diet
that is
invertebratesc
Bioaccumulation
factor from
sediment to
invertsd
Fraction of diet
that is crabsc
Bioaccumulation
factor from
sediment to
crabsd
Daily ingestion
rate of water
Site Use Factor
(max of 1)
a
b
Values
Source
for gull
0.95
USEPA, 1993
Abbreviation
Unit
BW
kg
IRsed
kg/day
0.0062
Assumption
IRfish
kg/day
0.062
USEPA, 1993
ffish
unitless
0.33
USEPA, 1993
BSAFfish
kg oc/kg
lipid
finverts
unitless
BSAFinverts
kg oc/kg
lipid
fcrabs
unitless
BSAFcrabs
kg oc/kg
lipid
IRwater
kg/day
0.057
SUF
unitless
1
COPEC USEPA, 2001
specific
0.33
USEPA, 1993
COPEC USEPA, 2001
specific
0.34
USEPA, 1993
COPEC USEPA, 2001
specific
USEPA,
1993e
Most
conservative
The amount of sediment is conservatively assumed to be 10% of its diet.
The ingestion rate (g/day) is based on the allometric equation for seabirds, developed by Nagy (1987) and converted to
kilograms (USEPA, 1993, eq. 3-6).
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
92
Version 2006/05/18
c
Because of the omnivorous nature of this species, its diet will be considered to consist of fish, benthic invertebrates, and
shellfish (e.g., blue crabs); diet composition estimated from Burger (1988) data provided in USEPA, 1993 for coastal
populations in the NJ/NY coastal areas.
d
BSAF = Biota-sediment accumulation factor; expressed as kg organic carbon in sediment/kg lipid tissue (dry weight).
e
The daily ingestion rate of water (kg/day = 1 liter/day) is based on the allometric equation for birds (USEPA, 1993, eq. 315).
Dose Equation for the Spotted Sandpiper:
Dose =
[(Csed ∗ IRsed ) + (Cfood * IRfood ) + (Cwater*IRwater )] ∗ SUF
BW
(Equation 9)
Table 17. Exposure Parameters for the Spotted Sandpiper.
Exposure Parameter
kg
Values for
sandpiper
0.047
USEPA, 1993
IRfood
kg/day
0.007
USEPA, 1993a
IRsed
kg/day
0.001
Beyer et al., 1994b
IRwater
kg/day
0.008
USEPA, 1993
SUF
unitless
1
Most conservative
Abbreviation
Unit
Body weight
BW
Daily ingestion rate of food
Daily ingestion rate of
sediment
Daily Ingestion rate of water
Site Use Factor (max of 1)
a
b
Source
The daily ingestion rate is calculated using the allometric equation for “all birds” (USEPA, 1993 eq. 3-3).
The ingestion rate of sediment is calculated using 18% from Beyer et al. (1994) and multiplying it by the daily ingestion rate.
Dose Equation for the Raccoon:
Dose =
[(Csed ∗ IRsed ) + (Cfood * IRfood ) + (Cwater*IRwater )] ∗ SUF
BW
(Equation 10)
Table 18. Exposure Parameters for the Raccoon.
Exposure Parameter
kg
Values for
raccoon
6.8
USEPA, 1993
IRfood
kg/day
0.3
USEPA, 1993a
IRsed
kg/day
0.03
Beyer et al., 1994b
IRwater
kg/day
0.05
USEPA, 1993
SUF
unitless
1
Most conservative
Abbreviation
Unit
Body weight
BW
Daily ingestion rate of food
Daily ingestion rate of
sediment
Daily Ingestion rate of water
Site Use Factor (max of 1)
Source
a
Raccoons are known to have extremely variable and seasonally dependent diets, estimated to be 30% fish, 30% plants, and
30% invertebrates (USEPA, 1993).
b
The ingestion rate of sediment is calculated using 2% from Beyer et al. (1994) and multiplying it by the daily ingestion rate.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
93
Version 2006/05/18
Dose Equation for the Harbor Seal:
[(Csed ∗ IRsed ) + (Cfish * IRfish ) + (Cwater*IRwater )] ∗ SUF
BW
Dose =
(Equation 11)
Table 19. Exposure Parameters for the Harbor Seal.
Exposure Parameter
Abbreviation
Unit
Values for seal
Source
BW
kg
76.5
USEPA, 1993
Daily ingestion rate of fish
IRfish
kg/day
3.83
USEPA, 1993b
Daily ingestion rate of
sediment
Daily Ingestion rate of water
IRsed
kg/day
0.077
Assumptionc
IRwater
kg/day
0.37
USEPA, 1993b
Site Use Factor (max of 1)
SUF
unitless
1
Most conservative
Body weight
a
a
The seal diet consist almost entirely of fish (estimated as 100%).
A study of eastern Canada population (Boulva and McLaren, 1979) reported a food ingestion rate of 0.05 g/g-day for adult
seals. A daily water ingestion rate (associated with saltwater consumption during feeding) of 0.0048 g/g-day was
estimated by Depocas et al., 1971. These rates were multiplied by the body weight to calculate the daily fish and water
intake rates, respectively.
c. The daily incidental sediment ingestion was calculated using an assumed 1% and multiplying it by the daily ingestion rate.
b
6.6
Ecological Effects
The potential adverse effects associated with exposure to COPECs are preliminarily evaluated in the
Ecological Effects Evaluation of the SLERA (Step 1, USEPA guidance) and then fully assessed in the
Data Analysis component of the BERA (Step 6, USEPA guidance).
6.6.1
Ecological Effects Evaluation
Conservative screening values (Section 6.1) will be used to evaluate the likelihood of adverse effects
occurring to non-wildlife receptors in the SLERA. For the purpose of evaluating the potential effects
associated with wildlife exposure to COPECs, chemical- and receptor-specific TRVs will be compared to
the calculated doses. In general, a TRV is defined as a dose level at which a particular biological effect
may be expected to occur in an organism, based on laboratory toxicological investigations. It is
noteworthy that the calculation of TRVs commonly incorporates both toxicity-based reference doses as
well as uncertainty factors to account for a wide range of limitations, including differential interspecies
sensitivities.
The USEPA Region IX Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG), in conjunction with the Navy,
has developed effects-based TRVs (DTSC, 2002). Each of these values represents a critical exposure
level from a toxicological study and is supported by a published dataset of toxicological exposures and
effects (Navy, 1998). Rather than derive a single point estimate associated with specific adverse
biological effects, high- and low-TRVs were derived for each receptor and COPEC to reflect the
variability of parameters within an ecological risk context. The low TRV is a conservative value
consistent with a chronic, no observed adverse effects level (NOAEL). It represents a level at which
adverse effects are unlikely to occur, and is used to identify sites posing little or no risk. Conversely, the
high TRV is a less conservative estimator of potential adverse effects, falling approximately mid-range of
all of the reported adverse effects. The high TRV represents a level at which adverse effects are likely to
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
94
Version 2006/05/18
occur, helping to identify sites posing immediate risks. In some cases, the high and low TRV were
derived using a NOAEL and lowest observed adverse effects level (LOAEL) from the same study; in
other cases, independent NOAELs and LOAELs were selected as the low and high TRVs, respectively.
For the purpose of the SLERA, the TRVs developed by Region IX will be scaled to account for
differences in body weights between the organism used to establish the TRVs (high and
low) and the ecological ROCs chosen for evaluation in the NBSA. This will be accomplished by using
the following allometric conversion equation (Sample and Arenal, 1999):
TRVw = TRVl * (BWs/BWr)1-a
(Equation 12)
where :
TRVw =
TRVl =
BWs =
BWr =
a=
weight-adjusted TRV (mg/kg-day)
literature-based TRV (mg/kg-day)
body weight of toxicity study receptor (kg)
body weight of ecological ROC (kg)
scaling factor (chemical and receptor specific); the scaling
factor used for birds is 1.2
Table 20 provides a summary of the available TRVs from USEPA Region IX. For those COPECs for
which TRVs have not been published, toxicity data from the literature will be used to develop the
necessary TRVs. Available toxicity data will be evaluated as described by USEPA guidance for the
SLERA. Ideally, the results of applicable chronic studies in which NOAELs were reported would be used
with the appropriate uncertainty factor to derive a toxicity threshold value. In the absence of chronic
NOAEL studies, acute NOAEL studies and acute and chronic studies with reported LOAELs would be
evaluated.
6.6.2
Ecological Effects Assessment
In Step 6, a detailed analysis of the relationship between COPEC exposures and biological response will
be conducted that describes the relationship between size, frequency, and duration of an exposure and the
magnitude of the toxicological response. In addition, the relationship between the selected AEs and their
respective MEs will be described. Further details concerning how the functional relationship between
exposure and biological response will be quantified will be provided in the in the risk assessment (Step 4,
USEPA guidance).
Table 20. A Summary of the Available TRVs for Birds from USEPA Region IX (BTAG).
Mammalsa
Birdsb
Analytes
PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
Pesticides/PCBs
Aldrin
DDE
DDT (total)
Heptachlor
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
TRV-high
TRV-low
TRV-high
TRV-low
32.8
150
1.31
50
-
-
1.0
16
6.8
0.1
0.8
0.13
0.6
1.5
-
-
95
0.009
-
Version 2006/05/18
Table 20. A Summary of the Available TRVs for Birds from USEPA Region IX (BTAG)
(continued).
Mammalsa
Birdsb
Analytes
Lindane
Methoxychlor
PCB (total)
Metals and Metalloids
Arsenic
Butyltins
Cadmium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury (total)
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
TRV-high
3.75
50
1.28
TRV-low
0.05
2.5
0.36
TRV-high
1.27
TRV-low
0.09
4.7
15
2.64
20
632
240.64
159
0.27
31.6
1.21
1.43
411
0.32
0.25
0.06
1.2
2.67
0.002
13.7
0.027
0.133
0.05
0.48
9.6
22.01
45.9
10.4
52.3
8.75
776
0.18
56.3
0.93
172
5.5
0.73
0.08
2.3
0.014
77.6
0.039
1.38
0.23
17.2
All units in mg/kg-day
- No value available
a
Test species for mammals were either a mouse (BW =0.03 kg) or rat (BW =0.35 kg), Anderson et al., 1975; or
mink (BW = 1 kg, EPA 1993).
b
Test species for birds were either mallard (BW = 1 kg, Heinz et al. 1989), quail (BW =0.15 kg, Vos et al. 1971),
chicken (BW =1.5 kg, EPA 1988), or pelican (BW =3.5kg, Dunning 1984).
6.7
Risk Characterization
The risk characterization combines the exposure and effects assessments to provide a quantitative estimate of the potential risks to the ROCs.
6.7.1
Screening-Level Ecological Risk Characterization
In the screening-level risk characterization (i.e., Step 2, USEPA, 1997a) for benthic invertebrates, EPCs
will be calculated using the maximum site media concentrations or 95% UCL, whichever is lower
(USEPA, 2002b), and then compared to appropriate screening values that represent a range of likelihood
adverse effects (e.g., ER-Ls/ER-Ms, TELs/PELs).
HQ = EPC/Screening Value
(Equation 13)
For wildlife ROCs, estimated daily dose estimates will be calculated for COPECs using the maximum site
media concentrations or 95% UCLs, whichever is lower, and then compared to the high and low TRVs
(weight-adjusted for the receptor) according to the following equation:
HQ = dose/TRV
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
96
(Equation 14)
Version 2006/05/18
Conservative exposure parameters will be used to calculate doses for each ROC and each COPEC.
These dose estimates will be used to derive two hazard quotients (HQs) for each COPEC at each sample
location, an HQlow using the low screening value/TRV and an HQhigh using the high screening value/TRV.
When the dose is lower than the low screening value/TRV (i.e., HQlow <1), it is likely that no risk is
present from the specific COPEC. When the dose exceeds the low screening value/TRV (i.e., HQlow >1)
in screening-level risk assessment, it indicates that further evaluation is warranted. According to the 8step process, there are three possible outcomes at the conclusion of Step 2 regarding the available
information: (1) it is adequate to conclude that the site poses no unacceptable risks to ecological
receptors; (2) it is not adequate and the ecological risk assessment process should continue to Step 3; and
(3) a potential for adverse ecological effects is indicated and a more thorough analysis is warranted
(USEPA, 1997a).
6.7.2
Baseline Ecological Risk Characterization.
Steps 3 through 7 comprise the BERA, in which additional data are collected to refine exposure and effect
assumptions and derive more realistic risk estimates (USEPA, 1997a). A weight-of-evidence approach
will be employed to derive risk assessment conclusions based on the outcomes of the individual lines of
evidence (MEs). The details of the study design will be presented in the data quality objectives and risk
assessment reports.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
97
Version 2006/05/18
7.0
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary objectives of this PAR were to:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Develop preliminary CSMs for both human and ecological receptors by identifying potentially
complete exposure pathways and ROCs.
Identify a preliminary list of COPCs/COPECs for further evaluation in the baseline risk
assessments.
Present proposed pathways for assessment in the human health and ecological risk assessments.
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this PAR provide a summary of historical information and present preliminary
CSMs depicting complete exposure pathways for human and ecological receptors based on the available
data. These CSMs will be updated accordingly for the BRA/BERA as new data are obtained during the
site investigation. COPCs and COPECs are identified in the human health (Section 5) and ecological
(Section 6) sections, respectively. A summary of this information is provided below.
Based on available information about current activities in the Bay, it was assumed that human exposure to
contaminants in sediments (primarily intertidal mudflat sediments) would be associated with recreational
activities such as fishing, crabbing, and boating. Human receptors identified as engaging in these
activities include a Recreational User and an Angler/Sportsman. In addition, anecdotal information
suggests that a transient community occasionally constructs temporary housing along the banks of the
NBSA. There is limited information regarding the length of their occupancy and their activities while on
the Bay, however, a residential scenario was also included in the CSM to address potential exposures to
this community and to provide an upper bound risk estimate. The receptors and exposure scenarios
associated with future use are not expected to differ significantly from those being evaluated under the
current use scenarios. Consumption of fish and shellfish is anticipated to be the primary exposure
pathway.
Based on an evaluation of the likely food web for the NBSA, complete ecological exposure routes for
higher-trophic level organisms are likely to be the ingestion of contaminated prey (mainly benthic
invertebrates and fish), and direct/incidental ingestion of sediment and (to a lesser extent) surface water.
For the purposes of future assessment of risk to ecological receptors, these will be considered the primary
routes of exposures to birds and mammals at the NBSA.
Table 4 presents the preliminary COPCs for human receptors for sediment, surface water, and tissue,
while Table 7 presents the preliminary COPEC list for ecological receptors. In general, the classes of
chemicals identified are those that would be expected based on knowledge of their persistence in the
environment and tendency to bioaccumulate. For example, total PCBs and dioxins/furans have been
identified as chemicals of concern for both ecological and human health. In addition, several metals,
including mercury and chromium, pesticides such as DDT, and numerous PAHs are selected for further
evaluation. Other chemicals are included because of uncertainties in the existing data, such as elevated
detection limits, or limited availability of toxicity information for derivation of relevant risk-based
screening values. In particular, elevated detection limits are associated with several constituents, mainly
SVOCs in sediment. Thirty-six compounds, most of them SVOCs were identified as COPCs/COPECs
because the maximum concentration for each of these compounds was based on one-half the detection
limit and it either exceeded the screening value or there was no screening value available (Table 21). In
addition, there are various compounds (mainly VOCs) that were not included as COPECs or COPCs due
to the fact that all the results were non-detects (“U” qualified) and therefore resulted in a 0% frequency of
detection. It was beyond the scope of this PAR to assess the potential sources or links to anthropogenic
activities that could account for, or discount, the presence of these compounds. However, further
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
98
Version 2006/05/18
formulation of the CSMs in conjunction with the analytical results from upcoming investigations and
proposed wildlife surveys should be used to resolve these uncertainties. As a result, these lists will be
refined as additional information is collected in subsequent tiers of the evaluation.
Table 21. Summary of SVOCs in Sediment Included as COPCs/COPECs due to
Elevated Detection Limits.
Chemical
Thallium
1,4-Dioxane
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
N-nitroso-di-phenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Phenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
a
Max.
Conc.a
8950
2100
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
No.
Samples
47
6
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
33
35
34
54
34
32
34
34
34
34
34
109
Frequency
of detection
(%)
42.6
16.7
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
8.8
5.9
8.8
5.9
5.9
8.8
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
8.8
12.1
22.9
5.9
40.7
5.9
37.5
5.9
5.9
8.8
5.9
5.9
70.6
A value of 1/2 the detection limit was used as the maximum concentration. The chemical was included as a
COPC/COPEC because this maximum concentration either exceeded the screening value or no screening
value was available.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
99
Version 2006/05/18
In developing the proposed approach for future evaluations, several data gaps were identified that will
need to be addressed before risks to humans and ecological receptors may be fully quantified. The most
significant gaps are summarized below.
Fish/Shellfish Ingestion Rate
For human health, ingestion of fish and shellfish is expected to be the primary pathway of exposure,
particularly for the bioaccumulative COPCs such as dioxins/furans and PCBs. As a result, it is important that
the uncertainties associated with this pathway be addressed. Perhaps the most critical uncertainty with this
pathway is the ingestion rate for fish and shellfish. While it is known that individuals collect fish, crabs, and
potentially other shellfish from the Bay, there is limited information regarding the frequency with which this
occurs or the amounts consumed. Previous studies have either focused on other areas or have technical
limitations. Based on these considerations, it is recommended that published literature (e.g., publications by
Belton et al. in the 1980s, Drs. Joanna Burger and Kerry Kirk-Pflugh, NJDEP statewide surveys, and the
Exposure Factors Handbook) for fish and shellfish consumption be reviewed to derive site-specific ingestion
rates. Regional and local consumption advisories, such as those for PCBs and dioxins/furans, should also be
considered. If the available published consumption information is not sufficient to derive an ingestion rate, a
creel study may be an alternative method to identify appropriate site-specific fish and shellfish ingestion rates.
The study should consist of an initial site visit to identify the modes of fishing, seasonality, and locations that
are most frequently visited by fishermen. The fish should be classified, weighed, and the fisherman should be
questioned as to the quantity they typically ingest under a specified time frame and whether the captured fish
is consumed by other family members. These data can then be used to estimate an appropriate fish and
shellfish consumption rate.
Angler/Sportsman Scenario
There is limited information to conduct a quantitative evaluation of the consumption of other biota (i.e.,
waterfowl) from the Bay. To include a quantitative estimate, surveys would be required to confirm the
existence of this pathway and to provide data for developing the appropriate exposure parameters. For
example, a survey could be conducted similar to or in conjunction with the proposed creel survey to
determine the specific types of biota hunted, how frequently these biota are captured, and whether this
activity is in compliance with hunting restrictions. In addition, data are required to verify that sufficient
habitat to support these other species exists in the Bay. This is addressed below under the discussion of the
habitat surveys required for the ecological assessment.
Current Sediment Concentrations
A large amount of surface sediment data is available; however, much of these data are historical and
reflect conditions from five to ten years ago. In addition, the quality of the data varies widely across the
numerous investigations, making it difficult to compare locations. For example, PCBs are reported as
Aroclor mixtures in some evaluations and as individual congeners in others. Similarly, some of the
available data are of limited utility because of elevated detection limits. As a result, there are a number of
compounds that may have been conservatively identified as preliminary COPCs/COPECs on the basis of
data reported as not detected, which was often the case when detection limits were unusually high.
Surface Water Data
Currently there are only limited surface water data available for the NBSA. Although exposures to
surface water are considered a minor route of exposure for most receptors, a focused survey collecting
surface water from a subset of sampling locations should be conducted to confirm whether concentrations
of COPCs/COPECs may present elevated risk to receptors. Such an evaluation could be focused on a
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
100
Version 2006/05/18
subset of COPCs/COPECs believed likely to partition or dissolve in water based on known
physicochemical characteristics.
Biota Tissue Concentrations
As reported for sediment, without up-to-date field-collected measurements of tissue concentrations, the
evaluation of human health risks from fish and shellfish consumption and the dose model supporting the
ecological risk assessment will need to rely on modeled concentrations derived from sediment data. This
will introduce an added level of uncertainty. Therefore, it is recommended that tissue concentrations be
evaluated for forage fish, sport fish, and shellfish throughout the study area. Analytical tissue data for
benthic invertebrates and blue crabs is also necessary. In addition, for the human health risk assessment,
consideration should be given to evaluation of tissue concentrations in other biota species such as
waterfowl if those species also are determined to be consumed.
Ecological Habitat Survey
Currently there is somewhat limited information regarding the available ecological habitats within the
NBSA or the species that are actually present. Additional information is needed to confirm and finalize
the list of ecological receptors of concern. Consideration should be given to a multi-season survey
designed to determine the presence/absence of relevant species or the habitats to support them. For
example, such a survey would determine whether exposure pathways such as the consumption of
waterfowl by the hypothetical Angler/Sportsman were truly relevant. Similarly, these surveys would
determine whether guilds such as mammals and reptiles should be included in the SLERA.
Presence of Homeless Resident
Currently the inclusion of Homeless Resident receptors is proposed for the human health assessment
based on information obtained by Proctor et al., (2002). Additional information is required to quantify
the exposure parameters currently proposed. Potentially, much of this information could be collected
during a creel survey.
Toxicity Information
Currently there are a number of chemicals lacking sufficient toxicity information for human health and
ecological effects to adequately perform a risk characterization. For toxicity information regarding
human health (e.g., cancer slope factors and reference doses), provisional values or surrogate values will
need to be obtained with assistance from USEPA. For ecotoxicity, additional research (i.e., literature
reviews) is required to determine if the necessary information exists to support the development of TRVs.
The risk characterization for the HHERA will contain an evaluation of all uncertainties, including the
uncertainties associated with data gaps that could not be fully addressed during the RI. The risk
characterization will be prepared in accordance with the appropriate USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1989,
1992b; 1995; and 1997a).
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
101
Version 2006/05/18
8.0
REFERENCES
Battelle. 2005. Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Pathways Analysis Report. May.
BBL. 2002. Tierra Solutions, Inc. Passaic River Study Area Avian Survey (1999-2000).
Beyer, W., E. Conner, and S. Gerould. 1994. Survey of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of Wildlife
Management 58: 375-382.
Boulva, J., and I.A., McLaren, 1979. Biology of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in eastern Canada.
Quebec, Canada: Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 200.
Burger, J., K.K. Pflugh, L. Lurig, L. Von Hagen, and S. Von Hagen. 1999. Fishing in Urban New
Jersey: Ethnicity Affects Information Sources, Perception, and Compliance. Risk Analysis Vol
19, No. 2: 217-227.
Burger, J., 1988. Foraging behavior in gulls: differences in method, prey, and habitat. Colonial
Waterbirds 11:9-23.
Burger, J. 2002. Consumption Patterns and Why People Fish. Environmental Research Section A 90,
125-135
ChemRisk. 1995a. Screening-level Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Passaic River
Study Area. Volume 1. July. Draft Report
ChemRisk. 1995b. Evaluation of Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitats within the Passaic River Study Area,
Appendix E. Prepared by ChemRisk for the Maxus Energy Corporation, Dallas, Texas. January
1995.
ChemRisk. 1995c. Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey of the Passaic River Study Area, Appendix F.
Prepared by ChemRisk for the Maxus Energy Corporation, Dallas, Texas. January 1995.
Decopas, F., J.S. Hart, and H.D. Fisher, 1971. Sea water drinking and water flux in starved and fed
harbor seals, Phoca vitulina; Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 49:53-62.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control) 2002. U.S. USEPA Region IX BTAG Recommended
Toxicity Reference Values for Mammals and Birds. Available online:
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/ScienceTechnology/ftp/Eco_Btag-mammal-bird-TRV-table.pdf
Duffy-Anderson, J.T., J.P. Manderson, and K.W. Able. 2003. A characterization of juvenile fish
assemblages around man-made structures in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. Bull. Mar. Sci.
72(3):877-889.
Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body Weights of 686 Species of North American Birds. West. Bird Banding Assoc.
Monogr. No.1. Eldon Publ. Co. Cave Crk, AZ.
Dunning, J.B. 1993. CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Gunster, D.G, N.L. Bonnevie, C.A. Gillis, and R.J. Wenning. 1993. Assessment of Chemical Loadings to
Newark Bay, New Jersey from Petroleum and Hazardous Chemical Accidents Occurring from
1986 to 1991. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 25: 202-213.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
102
Version 2006/05/18
Hackensack Riverkeeper website: http://www.hackensackriverkeeper.org/history.html. Accessed
4/21/05.
Heinz, G.H., D.J. Hoffman, and L.G. Gold. 1989. Impaired reproduction of mallards fed an organic form
of selenium. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53: 418-428.
HydroQual, Inc. 2005. Draft Modeling Work Plan Addendum. Newark Bay Study. May 2005.
Iannuzzi, T.J., Ludwig, J.M., Wallin, J.C., Kinnell, R.W., Dunford, and W.H. Desvousges. 2002. A
Common Tragedy: History of an Urban Waterway. Amherst Press, Amherst, MA.
Ivry, R. 2004. “This river is tough to love- at first”. North Jersey Media Group, Inc. September 19.
Jones D.S., G.W. Suter, and R.N. Hull. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of
Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-95/R4.
November 1997.
Kushlan. J.A. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading birds. In: Sprunt, A, J. Ogden, and S. Winckler, eds.
Wading Birds. Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 7, pp249-296.
LMS (Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers, Inc.). 1996. Biological survey of Newark Bay shoal areas
and adjacent Kill Van Kull and Arthur Kill Channels. Prepared for the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey.
Long E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program, NOAA Technical Memorandum
NOS OMA 52, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Long E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects
within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments, Environmental
Management 19(1), 81–97.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based
sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39: 2031.
Marshall, S. 2004. The Meadowlands Before the Commission: Three Centuries of Human Use and
Alteration of the Newark and Hackensack Meadows. Urban Habitats. Vol 2 (1): 4-27.
Martin, T. 2005. Activists Oppose Plan to Dredge Up Agent Orange Residue in NJ Bay. The New
Standard. January 27.
May, H and J. Buger. 1996. Fishing in a Polluted Estuary: Fishing Behavior, Fish Consumption, and
Potential Risk. Risk Analysis 16(4): 459-471.
Moss, P.D. April 22, 1993. Analysis of historical photography for the Diamond Alkali Site, operating
unit 2, in and around Newark, NJ. A letter submitted by Region 2, USEPA.
Moya, J., K.G. Garrahan, T.M. Poston, G.S. Durell. 1998. Effects of cooking on levels of PCBs in the
fillets of winter flounder. Bull. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 60:845-851.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
103
Version 2006/05/18
Mueller, J.A., T.A. Gerrish, and M.C. Casey. 1982. Contaminant Inputs to the Hudson-Raritan Estuary.
NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-21. NOAA, Boulder, CO.
Nagy, K.A. 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds. Ecol.
Monogr. 57: 111-128.
Navy (U.S. Department of the Navy). 1998. Interim Final: Development of Toxicity Reference Values
as Part of a Regional Approach for Conducting Risk Assessments at Naval Facilities in
California. Prepared by Engineering Field Activity West, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command.
NJDEP. 2004a. Guide to Health Advisories for Eating Fish and Crabs Caught in New Jersey Waters.
NJDEP. 2004b. Surface Water Quality Standards. Authority N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq., 58:11A-1 et seq.,
and 13:1D-1 et seq. Effective Date April 17, 1998 (see 30 N.J.R. 1778(a)) Amendments - May
18, 1998 (see 30 N.J.R. 1778(a)) Amendments - January 22, 2002 (see 34 N.J.R. 537(a))
Amendments - May 19, 2003 (see 35 N.J.R. 2264(b)) Amendments - November 3, 2003 (see 35
N.J.R. 5086(a)) Amendments - August 2, 2004 (see 36 N.J.R. 3565(c))
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/sgwqt/2004swqs.pdf
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1994. Results of a biological and
hydrographical characterization of Newark Bay, New Jersey, May 1993-April 1994. Report
prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries and Northeast Fisheries
Service Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available online at:
http://sh.nefsc.noaa.gov.
NOAA. 1998. Sediment Toxicity in U.S. Coastal Waters. Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Division.
NOAA. 1999. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA HAZMAT Report 99-1, Seattle WA,
Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
12 pages.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 1999. 6 NYCRR Part 703,
“Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent Limitations”
(Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law, §§ 3-0301[2][m], 15-0313, 17-0301, 170809)[Effective Date: 1967][Amended last on August 1999] Available online:
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/regs/part703.html#table2
PAS (Princeton Aquatic Sciences). 1982. Biocommunities Study Passaic River Valley Sewerage
Commission Combined Sewer Overflow Facilities Plan. Appendix H. In: Passaic River Sediment
Study, Vol. 2. New Brunswick, NJ. July 1982.
Percevia.com. 2005. Field Guide to All Birds of North America. Information on the cormorant available
at: http://www.percevia.com/explorer/db/birds_of_north_america_western/obj/68/target.aspx
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
104
Version 2006/05/18
Pflugh and Kerry. 2002. Estimate of cancer risk to consumers of crabs caught in the area of the Diamond
Alkali site and other areas of the Newark Bay Complex form 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalents. Prepared by the Division of Science, Research and Technology, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (April 25)
Pflugh, K., L. Lurig, L. Von Hagen, S. Von Hagen, and J. Burger. 1999. Urban angler’s perception of
risk from contaminated fish. The Science of the Total Environment 228 (1999) 203-218
Proctor, D.M., S. Su, and B. Finley. 2002. Multi-media exposure scenario survey for defining the
conceptual site model of a human health risk assessment for a river in a highly urbanized area.
Presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Society of Risk Analysis. December 9, 2002.
Sample, B.E. and C.A. Arenal. 1999. Allometric models for interspecies extrapolation of wildlife
toxicity data. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 62: 653-663.
Stifelman, M., L. Kissinger, and M. Watson. 2001. Lead Exposure Assessment from Columbia River
Fish. Abstract presented at the Society of Toxicology 2001 annual meeting.
Suedel, B.C., J.A. Boraczek, R.K. Peddicord, P.A. Clifford, and T.M. Dillon. 1994. Trophic transfer and
biomagnification potential of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Reviews of Environ. Contam.
And Toxicol., 136: 21-28.
Swanson, G.A., M.I. Meyer, and V.A. Adomaitis. 1985. Foods consumed by breeding mallards on
wetlands of south-central North Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49: 197-203.
TAMS Consultants and Gradient Corporation. 2000. Phase 2 Report Further Site Characterization and
Analysis Volume 2F- Revised Human Health Risk Assessment, Hudson River PCBs
Reassessment RI/FS. November.
TSI (Tierra Solutions, Inc.) 2004. Newark Bay Study Area Remedial Investigation Work Plan. Sediment
Sampling and Source Identification Program Newark Bay, New Jersey. Volume 1a of 3.
Inventory and Overview Report of Historical Data. Revision 0, June.
Urquhart, F.J. 1913. A history of the city of Newark, New Jersey: Embracing practically two and a half
centuries. Volume I. Lewis Historical Publishing Co., New York.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Passaic River Basin, New Jersey and New York Phase 1
– General Design Memorandum: Flood Protection Feasibility, Main Stem Passaic River, Main
Report and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District,
NY. December 1987.
USACE. 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Newark Bay Confined Disposal Facility;
April 1997.
USACE, 1999. Draft feasibility report for New York and New Jersey harbor investigation study. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.
USACE, 2003a. Aquatic biological sampling program 2001-2002. Final report. New York and New
Jersey Harbor navigation project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, August.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
105
Version 2006/05/18
USACE, 2003b. Aquatic biological sampling program 2002-2003. Draft. New York and New Jersey
Harbor navigation project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, August.
USACE, 2003c. Temporal-spatial distribution patterns and habitat requirements of fishes of the New
York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Interim Draft Report. New York and New Jersey Harbor
navigation project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation
Manual. USEPA/540/1-86/060. Prepared by Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC.
USEPA 1988. Recommendations for and documentation of biological values for use in risk
assessment. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. USEPA/600/687/008.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation. Manual
(Part A, Baseline Risk Assessment). USEPA/540/1-89/002. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington D.C.
USEPA. 1990. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Final Rule, codified
as amended at 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
USEPA. 1991. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: “Standard Default Exposure
Factors”. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March 25
USEPA. 1992a. A Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. Publication
9285.7-081. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1992b. Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors.
Memorandum from F. Henry Habicht, III Deputy Administrator to Assistant Administrators and
Regional Administrators. Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volumes I and II. USEPA/600/R-93/187a and
USEPA/600/R-93/187b. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
USEPA 1994. Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), Index No. II-CERCLA-0117 in the Matter of
Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (Passaic River Study Area). Occidental Chemical Corporation,
Respondant. USEPA, Region 2, New York, NY.
USEPA. 1995. USEPA Risk Characterization Program. Memorandum from Administrator Carol M.
Browner to Assistant Administrators, Associate Administrators, Regional Administrators,
General Counsel and Inspector General on March 21, 1995, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997a. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. June. USEPA 540-R-97-OCS.
USEPA. 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I-III. Office of Research and Development,
USEPA/600/P-95/002Fa, August.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
106
Version 2006/05/18
USEPA. 2000a. Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality
Assessment: Status and Needs. USEPA-823-R-00-001.
USEPA. 2000b. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical
Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, USEPA/630/R-00/002, 2000.
USEPA. 2001. National Sediment Quality Survey. Available online:
http://www.USEPA.gov/waterscience/cs/draft/survey.html
USEPA. 2002a. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002. Office of Water. USEPA-822R-02-047. November. Available online: http://www.USEPA.gov/waterscience/pc/revcom.pdf
USEPA. 2002b. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous
Waste Sites. OSWER 9285.6-10. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. December.
USEPA. 2002c. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. USEPA-600-P-00-002B. September.
Interim Report.
USEPA. 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. Memorandum from
Michael B. Cook, Director Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation to
Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1-10. OSWER Directive 9285.7-53. December 5.
USEPA. 2004a. Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. In
the Matter of Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (Newark Bay Study Area). Occidental Chemical
Corporation, Respondent. February 17, 2004. USEPA Index No. CERCLA 02-2004-2010.
USEPA. 2004b. USEPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals. 10/1/2002. Available online:
http://www.USEPA.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm
USEPA. 2004c. ProUCL Version 3.0. USEPA/RO4/079. April.
USEPA. 2004d. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim Guidance. USEPA/540/R99/005, PB99-963312. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. July.
USEPA. 2005a. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P03/001F. March.
USEPA. 2005b. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to
Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. March.
USEPA. 2006. USEPA Region III Risk-based Concentration Table. 10/8/2004. Available online:
http://www.USEPA.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rbc/rbc1004.pdf
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1981. Fish and Wildlife Resources and their
Supporting Ecosystems; Anadromous Fish Study of the Passaic River Basin, New Jersey. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Depament of the Interior, State College, PA. December.
Van den Berg, M., L. Birnbaum, A.T.C, Bosveld, B. Brunstrom, P. Cook, M. Feeley, J.P. Giesy, A.
Hanberg, R. Hasegawa, S.W. Kennedy, T. Kubiak, J.C. Larsen, F.X.R. van Leeuwen, A.K.D.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
107
Version 2006/05/18
Liem, C. Nolt, R.E. Peterson, L Poellinger, S. Safe, D. Schrenk, D. Tillitt, M. Tysklind, M.
Younes, F. Warn, and T. Zacharewski. 1998. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs,
PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives. 106:775-792.
Vos, J.G., H.L. Van Der Maas, A. Musch, and E. Ram. 1971. Toxicity of hexachlorobenzene in Japanese
quail with special reference to porphyria, liver damage, reproduction, and tissue residues.
Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 18:944-957.
Woodhead, P.M.J. 1991. Inventory and Characterization of Habitat and Fish Resources and Assessment
of Information on Toxic Effects in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary: A Report to the
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Concerning Work Tasks 3.2, 5.1 and 5.3. Marine
Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York. May 1991.
Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
108
Version 2006/05/18
ATTACHMENT A
Human Health
Screening Tables
Exposure Parameter Tables
This page intentionally left blank
Table 1. Sediment COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number Chemical
INORGANICS (ppb)
Sediment
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
7440439
7440702
16065831
7440484
7440508
57125
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7487947
7440020
7440097
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (assumes trivalent form)
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
7782492
7440224
Selenium
Silver
7440213
7440280
Silicon
Sodium
Thallium
7440315
7440326
7440622
7440666
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
71556
630206
79345
79005
75343
75354
107062
156592
78875
96184
96128
106934
123911
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromomethane
1,4-Dioxane
Maximum
Minimum
Concentration Concentrationa
(Qualifier)
(Qualifier)
465,000
100
1,000
20,800
280
45
1,240,000
7,620
3,600
200
90
2,590,000
5,300
2,150,000
74,000
0.98
900
619,000
U
U
U
U
U
80 U
108 U
NB102-NWB
Q:27NB102:9400:02
85A001
PRP-99-07-SD-1
PRP-99-07-SD-1
85A001
85A001
47C005-NWB
85A001
85A001
85A001
RCHA-SW-01
85A001
85A001
68A001
64A001
PRP-99-07-SD-1
Q:1557:9300:20
PRP-99-07-SD-1
Q:27NB111:9400:11
NB111-NWB
85A001
77,600,000
21,550
40,700
785,000
3,100
18,500
27,600,000
397,000
23,800
1,330,000
24,000
52,600,000
777,000
13,300,000
762,000
20,700
185,000
7,590,000
22,200
42,300
247,000,000
450,000,000
1,180,000
20,800,000
170 U
8,950 U
280
191,000
11,100
550 U
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
52,100
568,000
70,800
1,800,000
Detection
Number of Frequency
Samples
(%)
Range of DLs
Conc. Used for
Screening
142
142
149
34
34
197
34
149
34
183
28
129
197
34
118
54
197
34
100.0
57.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
95.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.9
21.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
66.7
100.0
100.0
NA
200-43100
NA
NA
NA
90-1600
NA
NA
NA
440
180-2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
18-240
NA
NA
77,600,000
21,550
40,700
785,000
3,100
18,500
27,600,000
397,000
23,800
1,330,000
24,000
52,600,000
777,000
13,300,000
762,000
20,700
185,000
7,590,000
134
148
63.4
95.9
160-2600
1000-2000
22,200
42,300
Q:27NB110:9400:10
NB111-NWB
85A001
PRP-99-07-SD-1
54
34
47
100.0
100.0
42.6
NA
NA
340-17900
450,000,000
20,800,000
8,950
NOAA2-11-NWB
Q:1511:9300:10
BCD3-01
PRP-99-07-SD-1
85A001
86
25
34
191
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
NA
NA
NA
1100-1300
52,100
568,000
70,800
1,800,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
RCHA-SW-01
NA
BCD1-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BCD4-01
20
6
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
6
6
6
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
11-130
11-83
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-83
22-170
11-83
560-4200
65
41.5
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
41.5
85
41.5
2100
Selected Human
Health
COPC
Screening
Flag Reason
b
c
Value (ca/nc) (Y/N) Code
7,600,000
3,100
390
540,000
15,000
3,700
NVA
10,000,000
900,000
310,000
120,000
2,300,000
40,000
NVA
180,000
2,300
160,000
NVA
nc
nc
ca
nc
nc
nc
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
3
3
5
3
4
3
6
4
4
3
4
3
3
6
3
3
3
6
39,000 nc
39,000 nc
N
Y
4
3
NVA
NVA
520 nc
Y
N
Y
1
6
3
nc
ca
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
4,700,000
10,000,000
7,800
2,300,000
nc
nc
nc
nc
N
N
Y
N
4
4
3
4
120,000
3,200
410
730
51,000
12,000
280
4,300
340
34
460
32
44,000
nc
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
ca
nc
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
VOCs (ppb)
Sediment
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
11
5.5
280
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
65
41.5
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
41.5
85
41.5
2100
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Page 1 of 6
Version 5/18/2006
Table 1. Sediment COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number
110758
591786
108101
67641
107028
107131
107051
71432
74975
75252
75150
56235
108907
124481
75003
67663
126998
156592
542756
764410
75274
75718
97632
Sediment
100414
76131
78831
98828
126987
74839
74873
78933
74884
80626
74953
75092
1634044
107120
100425
127184
109999
108883
Chemical
2-Chloroethylvinylether
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl Chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
cis-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl Methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Freon
Isobutyl Alcohol
Isopropyl benzene
Methylacrylonitrile
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl iodide
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene bromide
Methylene chloride
Methyl-t-butyl ether
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(diesel fuel range)
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(motor oil range)
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Total BTEX
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Maximum
Minimum
a
Concentration Concentration
(Qualifier)
(Qualifier)
11 U
85 U
6.5 U
85 U
6.5 U
85 U
8.5 U
6300
6U
85 U
11 U
85 U
11 U
85 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
65 U
5U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
11 U
85 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
11 U
85 U
6U
65 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
280 U
2100 U
6 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
6.5 U
74
11 U
85 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
3U
360
5.5 U
41.5 U
15000 U
8250
590000
11
5.5
5.5
280
5.5
6
U
U
U
U
U
2,300,000
2,260,000
3,600,000
85
65
65
2100
74
134
U
U
U
U
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
65A001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70A001
NA
NA
NA
70A001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70A001
NA
NA
BCD4-01
NA
NA
NA
BCD4-01
NA
NA
NA
70A001
NA
Detection
Number of Frequency
Samples
(%)
6
0.0
20
0.0
20
0.0
20
95.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
20
0.0
6
0.0
20
0.0
20
35.0
20
0.0
20
0.0
20
0.0
20
5.0
20
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
20
0.0
6
0.0
20
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
20
10.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
6
16.7
6
0.0
20
0.0
20
0.0
20
55.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
20
45.0
6
0.0
Range of DLs
22-170
13-170
13-170
17
12-170
22-170
22-170
11-130
11-83
11-130
13-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
22-170
11-83
11-130
11-83
11-130
11-83
22-170
12-130
11-83
560-4200
12-83
11-83
11-130
11-130
13-130
22-170
11-83
11-83
11-83
11-83
Conc. Used for
Screening
85
85
85
6300
85
85
85
65
41.5
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
85
41.5
65
41.5
65
41.5
85
65
42
2,100
42
42
65
65
74
85
41.5
41.5
360
41.5
Selected Human
Health
COPC
Screening
Flag Reason
b
c
Value (ca/nc) (Y/N) Code
NVA
Y
1
NVA
Y
1
530,000 nc
N
2
1,400,000 nc
N
4
10 nc
N
2
210 ca
N
2
1,700 nc
N
2
640 ca
N
2
NVA
Y
1
62,000 ca
N
2
36,000 nc
N
4
250 ca
N
2
15,000 nc
N
2
1,100 ca
N
2
3,000 ca
N
2
220 ca
N
2
360 nc
N
2
4,300 nc
N
2
780 ca
N
2
8 ca
N
2
820 ca
N
2
9,400 nc
N
2
14,000 nc
N
2
40,000 nc
N
4
560,000 nc
N
2
1,200,000 nc
N
2
57,200 nc
N
4
200 nc
N
2
390 nc
N
2
4,700 nc
N
2
2,200,000 nc
N
4
NVA
N
1
220,000 nc
N
2
6,700 nc
N
2
9,100 ca
N
4
32,000 ca
N
2
BCD4-01
86A001
6
24
16.7
79.2
30000-590000
16500-48000
2,300,000
2,260,000
NVA
NVA
Y
Y
1
1
BCD4-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BCD5-01
6
6
20
20
6
20
4
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
100.0
NA
22-170
11-130
11-130
560-4200
11-130
NA
3,600,000
85
65
65
2100
74
134
NVA
NVA
170,000
480
9,400
52,000
NVA
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
Page 2 of 6
nc
ca
ca
nc
Version 5/18/2006
Table 1. Sediment COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number
1330207
156605
110576
542756
Sediment
79016
75694
108054
75014
SVOCs (ppb)
95501
541731
106467
120821
87865
95954
88062
120832
105679
51285
121142
Sediment
Chemical
Total Xylenes
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Maximum
Minimum
a
Concentration Concentration
(Qualifier)
(Qualifier)
6U
110
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
11 U
85 U
5.5 U
65 U
25321146
91587
95578
88744
88755
91941
99092
534521
101553
59507
106478
7005723
106445
100016
100027
62533
103333
92875
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-/2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Aniline
Azobenzene
Benzidine
80
6
5.5
6
85
34
34
34
34
95
34
5
17
17
17
17
34
34
34
85
34
34
17
17
34
34
85
900
370
900
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2,150
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
23,000
170
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
7,500
3,050
7,500
95158
65850
100516
111911
111444
108601
117817
92524
Benzo(b)thiophene
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
biphenyl
1
900
370
34
17
17
435
5.2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
50
7,500
3,050
23,000
23,000
23,000
360,000
91
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
BCD5-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Detection
Number of Frequency
Samples
(%)
20
15.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
20
0.0
20
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
20
0.0
Range of DLs
12-130
11-83
11-83
11-130
11-130
11-83
22-170
11-130
Conc. Used for
Screening
110
41.5
41.5
65
65
41.5
85
65
Selected Human
Health
COPC
Screening
Flag Reason
b
c
Value (ca/nc) (Y/N) Code
27,000 nc
N
4
6,900 nc
N
2
NVA
N
1
780 ca
N
2
53 ca
N
2
39,000 nc
N
2
43,000 nc
N
2
79 ca
N
2
NA
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
Q:1511:9300:10
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
NA
NA
NA
28
40
42
40
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
8
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
6
6
6
0.0
5.0
14.3
5.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
87.5
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
8.8
5.9
8.8
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
8.8
5.9
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
160-4300
11-46000
11-46000
11-46000
170-110000
67-110000
67-46000
67-46000
67-46000
190-110000
67-46000
40
33-46000
33-46000
33-46000
33-110000
67-46000
67-46000
67-110000
170-110000
67-46000
67-46000
33-46000
33-46000
67-46000
67-110000
170-110000
1800-15000
740-6100
1800-15000
2,150
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
23,000
170
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
7,500
3,050
7,500
60,000
60,000
3,400
6,200
3,000
610,000
610
18,000
120,000
12,000
12,000
NVA
700
490,000
6,300
18,000
NVA
1,100
1,800
610
NVA
NVA
24,400
NVA
30,500
23,000
NVA
85,000
4,400
2
Q:1511:9300:10
NA
NA
65A001
65A001
65A001
R18
TIE1-C-NWB
16
11
11
34
34
34
34
67
50.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
82.4
91.0
40-100
1800-15000
740-6100
67-46000
33-46000
33-46000
870-6900
40-100
50
7,500
3,050
23,000
23,000
23,000
360,000
91
NVA
10,000,000
1,800,000
NVA
220
2,900
35,000
300,000
Page 3 of 6
nc
nc
ca
nc
ca
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
ca
nc
nc
nc
ca
nc
nc
nc
nc
ca
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
ca
ca
ca
nc
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
2
2
3
2
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
1
3
4
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
4
1
4
3
1
2
2
3
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
1
2
2
1
3
3
3
4
Version 5/18/2006
Table 1. Sediment COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number
85687
86748
1861321
132649
132650
1002335
84662
131113
84742
117840
87683
77474
Sediment
67721
78591
78763549
98953
62759
86306
621647
1825214
108952
110861
1461252
56359
PAHs (ppb)
Sediment
Chemical
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Carbazole
Dacthal
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Dibutyltin
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-Octyl phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloropentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Monobutyltin
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitroso-di-phenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachloroanisole
Phenol
Pyridine
Tetrabutyltin
Tributyltin
Maximum
Minimum
Location of
Detection
a
Concentration Concentration
Maximum
Number of Frequency
(Qualifier)
(Qualifier)
Concentration
Samples
(%)
34 U
23,000 U
65A001
34
8.8
17 U
23,000 U
65A001
33
12.1
1.4
4.4
Q:1526:9300:16
16
100.0
44
23,000 U
65A001
35
22.9
10
220
Q:1521:9300:15
17
88.2
2
747
64A001
55
81.8
34 U
23,000 U
65A001
34
5.9
6.8
23,000 U
65A001
54
40.7
34 U
23,000 U
65A001
34
5.9
34 U
23,000 U
65A001
32
37.5
6U
23,000 U
65A001
40
5.0
85 U
23,000 U
65A001
34
5.9
17 U
23,000 U
65A001
34
5.9
17 U
23,000 U
65A001
34
5.9
1
703
64A001
55
72.7
17 U
23,000 U
64A001
34
5.9
370 U
3,050 U
NA
6
0.0
17 U
23,000 U
64A001
34
8.8
17 U
23,000 U
64A001
34
5.9
0.13
0.6
Q:1511:9300:10
16
75.0
34 U
23,000 U
64A001
34
5.9
370 U
3,050 U
NA
6
0.0
0.1
62
Q:27NB106:9400:06
41
46.3
3
1,220
65A001
55
78.2
90120
832699
829265
581420
91576
83329
208968
120127
56553
50328
205992
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylphenanthrene
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
3.6
6U
6
5
6U
10
7
31
46
67
68
216
1,500
110
300
23,000
34,000
23,000
31,000
23,400
23,000
23,000
192972
191242
207089
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzofluoranthenes (total)
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
13
13
25
165
43
2U
64
11
164
47
2,600
23,000
23,000
3,700
23,500
23,000
66,000
23,000
218,000
23,000
218019
53703
206440
86737
193395
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
U
U
U
U
NOAA1-17c-NWB
NB226-NWB
NB102-NWB
NB102-NWB
65A001
47C001-NWB
65A001
47C001-NWB
DMDAT003163
65A001
65A001
NOAA2-20-NWB
65A001
65A001
Q:26NB027:9300:27
DMDAT003163
U
65A001
47C001-NWB
U
65A001
DMDAT003163
U
65A001
U
U
Page 4 of 6
Range of DLs
64-46000
33-46000
NA
150-46000
100
98.6-288
67-46000
67-46000
67-46000
67-46000
11-46000
170-46000
33-46000
33-46000
5-416
33-46000
740-6100
33-46000
33-46000
0.26
67-46000
740-6100
5-10
98.6-288
Conc. Used for
Screening
23,000
23,000
4.4
23,000
220
747
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
703
23,000
3,050
23,000
23,000
0.6
23,000
3,050
62
1,220
Selected Human
Health
COPC
Screening
Flag Reason
b
c
Value (ca/nc) (Y/N) Code
1,200,000 nc
N
4
24,000 ca
N
4
61,000 nc
N
4
15,000 nc
Y
3
NVA
Y
1
NVA
Y
1
4,900,000 nc
N
4
10,000,000 nc
N
4
610,000 nc
N
4
240,000 nc
N
4
6,200 ca
N
2
37,000 nc
N
4
35,000 ca
N
4
510,000 ca
N
4
NVA
Y
1
2,000 nc
Y
3
10 ca
Y
3
99,000 ca
N
4
69 ca
Y
3
NVA
Y
1
1,800,000 nc
N
4
6,100 nc
N
2
NVA
Y
1
1,800 nc
N
4
75
53
51
47
109
112
113
114
115
114
73
97.3
71.7
60.8
97.9
70.6
76.8
70.8
86.8
88.7
91.2
87.7
40
12-19
12-19
40
12-46000
40-46000
40-46000
570-46000
820-46000
790-46000
820-46000
216
1,500
110
300
23,000
34,000
23,000
31,000
23,400
23,000
23,000
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
370,000
NVA
2,200,000
620
62
620
79
109
74
20
116
103
114
107
108
107
100.0
85.3
77.0
100.0
91.4
67.0
94.7
78.5
100.0
86.0
NA
370-46000
370-46000
NA
820-46000
4-46000
860-46000
430-46000
NA
370-46000
2,600
23,000
23,000
3,700
23,500
23,000
66,000
23,000
218,000
23,000
NVA
NVA
6,200
620
62,000
62
230,000
270,000
NVA
620
nc
nc
ca
ca
ca
ca
CA
ca
ca
nc
nc
ca
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
3
3
3
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
1
1
3
3
4
3
4
4
1
3
Version 5/18/2006
Table 1. Sediment COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number Chemical
LMW PAHs
91203
Naphthalene
PAHs, Total
Sediment
198550
Perylene
85018
Phenanthrene
12000
Pyrene
PCBs (ppb)
12674112 Aroclor 1016
11104282 Aroclor 1221
11141165 Aroclor 1232
53469219 Aroclor 1242
Sediment
12672296 Aroclor 1248
11097691 Aroclor 1254
11096825 Aroclor 1260
1336363 Total PCBs
PESTICIDES (ppb)
93765
2,4,5-T
93721
2,4,5-TP
94757
2,4-D
94826
2,4-DB
2,4'-DDDd
53190
d
3424826 2,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDTd
784026
72548
4,4'-DDD
72559
4,4'-DDE
50293
4,4'-DDT
DDTS, total of 6 isomers
50293
309002
Aldrin
Total BHCe
f
12789036 Total Chlordane
Sediment
75990
Dalapon
1918009 Dicamba
120365
Dichloroprop
60571
Dieldrin
88857
Dinoseb
Total Endosulfang
115297
h
Total Endrin
72208
Total Heptachlori
118741
Hexachlorobenzene
94746
MCPA
93652
MCPP
72435
Methoxychlor
2385855 Mirex
j
5103731 Total Nonachlor
8001352 Toxaphene
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Maximum
Minimum
a
Concentration Concentration
(Qualifier)
(Qualifier)
48.0
250,000
6
54,000
212
406,000
13
1,900
26
89,000
57
44,800
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
47C001-NWB
47C001-NWB
47C001-NWB
NB111-NWB
47C001-NWB
DMDAT003163
Detection
Number of Frequency
Samples
(%)
102
100.0
121
78.5
109
100.0
79
100.0
114
89.5
115
94.8
Range of DLs
NA
14-46000
NA
NA
600-46000
860-46000
Conc. Used for
Screening
250,000
54,000
406,000
1,900
89,000
44,800
Selected Human
Health
COPC
Screening
Flag Reason
b
c
Value (ca/nc) (Y/N) Code
NVA
Y
1
5,600 nc
Y
3
NVA
Y
1
NVA
Y
1
NVA
Y
1
230,000 nc
N
4
19
19
19
21.65
19
21.65
21.65
11.89
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
630
1,285
630
630
5,560
810
2,010
1,435
U
U
U
U
85A001
85A001
85A001
85A001
PRP-99-07-SD-1
BCD4-01
85A001
Q:27NB102:9400:02
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
6.1
6.1
6.1
21.2
42.4
30.3
27.3
100.0
38-1260
38-2570
38-1260
43.3-1260
38-793
43.3-1260
43.3-793
NA
630
1,285
630
630
5,560
810
2,010
1,435
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.7
3.7
37
37
0.29
0.14
0.03
1.46
1.52
0.08
3.06
0.104
0.05
0.13
135
5.5
55
0.1
27
0.65
0.05
0.01
0.055
5500
5500
1.5
0.01
0.05
5
U
U
U
U
140
140
450
430
146
88
131
462
188
1615
2496
32.6
80
51.2
220
160
560
131
44.5
63
63
32.6
23,000
8,500
23,000
326
11.4
16.9
3260
U
U
RCHA-SW-01
RCHA-SW-01
BCD4-01
BCD3-01
NOAA1-17c-NWB
NB047-NWB
Q:0917:9100:B
NOAA1-17c-NWB
PRP-99-07-SD-1
Q:0917:9100:B
Q:0917:9100:B
85A001
PRP-99-02-SD-1
NB066-NWB
NA
BCD6-01
BCD6-01
85A001
NA
85A001
85A001
85A001
65A001
NA
BCD1-01
85A001
NOAA2-11-NWB
Q:1511:9300:10
85A001
11
11
11
11
69
68
67
110
111
108
100
84
100
94
6
6
6
101
6
35
98
100
99
6
6
33
67
34
33
9.1
27.3
18.2
9.1
98.6
100.0
82.1
84.5
92.8
84.3
100.0
11.9
30.0
80.9
0.0
50.0
50.0
73.3
0.0
5.7
27.6
9.0
65.7
0.0
33.3
12.1
56.7
97.1
6.1
7.4-280
7.4-280
74-672
74-510
1.08
NA
0.799-1
4.33-126
4.33-79.3
4.33-200
NA
0.208-65.2
0.11-65.2
0.26-65.2
270-440
11-17
110-170
0.2-79.3
54-89
1.3-126
0.11-126
0.11-65.2
0.11-46000
11000-17000
11000-17000
3-652
0.247-1
NA
10-6520
140
140
450
430
146
88
131
462
188
1,615
2,496
32.6
80
51.2
220
160
560
131
44.5
63
63
32.6
23,000
8,500
23,000
326
11.4
16.9
3260
61,000
49,000
69,000
49,000
2,400
1,700
1,700
2,400
1,700
1,700
1,700
29
90
1,600
180,000
180,000
NVA
30
6,110
37,000
1,800
53
300
3,000
6,110
31,000
270
NVA
442
nc
nc
nc
nc
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
4
1
3
2
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
1
3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Page 5 of 6
ca
nc
nc
nc
ca
ca
nc
nc
nc
ca
ca
Version 5/18/2006
Table 1. Sediment COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number Chemical
DIOXIN (ppb)
k
Sediment
1746016 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Maximum
Minimum
a
Concentration Concentration
(Qualifier)
(Qualifier)
0.000345 U
0.475
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
DMDAT003158
Detection
Number of Frequency
Samples
(%)
99
98.0
Range of DLs
Conc. Used for
Screening
0.00069-0.00074
0.475
Selected Human
Health
COPC
Screening
Flag Reason
b
c
Value (ca/nc) (Y/N) Code
0 ca
Y
3
a The maximum concentration reports the highest value, taking into account detected values and values associated with 1/2 the detection limit. If the value in this column is qualified with a U and the analyte is bold, then
the maximum concentration is 1/2 of the reported detection limit.
b The selected screening value is the USEPA Region IX residential soil PRG (2004c) as presented in Chapter 5 (Table 2). The selected screening value is based on an acceptable risk of 10-6 for carcinogens and a
hazard of 0.1 for non-carcinogens (all nc were multiplied by 0.1)
c Inclusion or exclusion of constituent on COPC list based on the following factors: 1. No screening value available; 2. Detected in <5% of samples; 3. Exceeds screening benchmark; 4. Does not exceed screening
benchmark; 5. Known human carcinogen; 6. Considered an essential nutrient
d Value of 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT are used for 2,4'-DDD, 2,4'-DDE, 2,4'-DDT, respectively
e. Total BHC is the sum of alpha, beta, and delta.
f Total Chlordane is the sum of chlordane, alpha chlordane, gamma chlordane, and oxy-chlordane
g Total Endosulfan is the sum of sulfate, alpha and beta.
h Total Endrin values are the sum of endrin, endrin aldehyde and endrin ketone.
i Total Heptachlor is the sum of heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide
j Total Nonachlor is the sum of cis- and trans- nonachlor.
k 2,3,7,8-TCDD exceeded screening criteria alone. The entire class of dioxins are then considered as COPCS based on the potential additive effects of the 17 2,3,7,8- substituted dioxin/furan isomers.The congeners will
be evaluated separately in future exercises if 2,3,7,8-TCDD does not exceed the criteria exclusively.
BOLD: The maximum concentration for the analytes in bold is based on 1/2 the detection limit
Definitions: U = The material was analyzed for, but not detected. For purposes of the screen, 1/2 of the detection limit is used as the screening value in instances where this is the maximum concentration.
NVA = No Value Available
ND = Not detected
NA = Not applicable
ca = carcinogen
nc = non carcinogen
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Page 6 of 6
Version 5/18/2006
Table 2. Tissue COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium
Cas #
118741
2385855
5103731
8001352
DIOXINS/FURANS (ppb)
Tissue
Chemical
Total Heptachlorh
Hexachlorobenzene
Mirex
Total Nonachlori
Toxaphene
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
1.34
5U
5U
1.075 U
15 U
Maximum
Concentrationa
(Qualifier)
48.3
10
5U
130
25 U
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
DMDAT004679
125507_NY080
NA
129238_NY086
NA
Number
of
Samples
64
24
24
44
24
Detection
Frequency
(%)
79.7
58.3
0.0
50.0
0.0
Range of
DLs
2.68-11.5
10
10
2.15-10
30-50
Conc. Used
for
Screening
48.3
10
5.0
130
25.0
Screening
Benchmarkb
(nc/ca)
1.05 ca
2 ca
27 nc
NVA
3.0 ca
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Reason
Codec
3
3
2
1
3
j
Tissue
1746016 2,3,7,8-TCDD
0.0018
610000
DMDAT004675
17
100.0
NA
610000
0.000021 ca
Y
3
a. The maximum concentration reports the highest value, taking into account detected values and values associated with 1/2 the detection limit. If the value in this column is qualified with a U and the analyte is bold, then the
maximum concentration is 1
b Risk-based concentrations for fish tissue from Region III RBC table (February 2006) for an acceptable risk of 10-6 for carcinogens and a hazard of 0.1 for non-carcinogens.
c Inclusion or exclusion of constituent on COPC list based on the following factors: 1. No screening value available; 2. Detected in <5% of samples; 3. Exceeds screening benchmark; 4. Does not exceed screening benchmark; 5.
Known Human Carcinogen; 6. Essential nutrien
d Value of 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT are used for 2,4'-DDD, 2,4'-DDE, 2,4'-DDT, respectively
e Total BHC is the sum of alpha, beta, delta, gamma
f Total Chlordane is the sum of alpha (cis), gamma (trans), and oxyg Total endosulfan is the sum of endosulfan sulfate, alpha, and beta
h Total heptachlor is the sum of heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide
i Total nonachlor is the sum of cis- and transj 2,3,7,8-TCDD exceeded screening criteria alone. The entire class of dioxins are then considered as COPCS based on the potential additive effects of the 17 2,3,7,8- substituted dioxin/furan isomers.The congeners will be
evaluated separately in future exercises if 2,3,7,8-TCDD does not exceed the criteria exclusively.
U = The material was analyzed for, but not detected. For purposes of the screen, 1/2 of the detection limit is used as the screening value in instances where this is the maximum
* = The inorganic duplicate analysis was not within the QC control limit specified by the laboratory.
NVA = No Value Available
NA = Not applicable
ca = carcinogen
nc = non carcinogen
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Page 2 of 2
Version 5/18/2006
Table 2. Tissue COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium
Cas #
INORGANICS (ppb)
7440382
7440439
18540299
7440508
Tissue
7439921
7487947
7440020
7440224
7440666
SVOCs (ppb)
106467
Tissue
PAHs (ppb)
83329
208968
120127
56553
50328
205992
191242
207089
218019
Tissue
53703
206440
86737
193395
91203
85018
129000
Screening
Benchmarkb
(nc/ca)
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentrationa
(Qualifier)
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Number
of
Samples
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Range of
DLs
Conc. Used
for
Screening
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (assumes trivalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
290
5U
907
7183
50
25 U
1260
50 U
74510
180,000
9800
47400
161300
49800
1300
30000
1690
2310000
DMDAT004678
DMDAT004679
DMDAT004675
DMDAT005256
DMDAT004678
DMDAT004678
DMDAT004675
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004679
36
52
40
40
50
64
40
40
40
97.2
96.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.8
100.0
92.5
100.0
1800
10
NA
NA
NA
50
NA
100
NA
180,000
9800
47400
161300
49800
1300
30000
1690
2310000
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
18.55 U
94.7
DMDAT004674
20
15.0
37.1-49.5
94.7
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benz(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
HMW PAHs
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
LMW PAHs
Naphthalene
PAHs, total
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
709
101
243
222
87.2
166
43.25
179
411
52.5
550
190
6560
48.65
1970
93.2
8510
255
663
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
DMDAT004674
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
20
19
20
19
20
19
21
20
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
85.0
100.0
100.0
85.0
95.2
100.0
100.0
85.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
95.2
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
86.5-109
NA
NA
105-136
1100
NA
NA
97.3-126
NA
NA
NA
1100
NA
28100
693
329000
31300
10300
15000
2110
4590
26900
521
189000
245000
423000
2460
195000
1450
613000
136000
147000
8100
NVA
41000
4.3
0.43
4.3
NVA
43
430
0.43
5400
5400
NVA
4.3
NVA
2700
NVA
NVA
4100
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
Chemical
U
U
U
U
U
28100
693
329000
31300
10300
15000
2110
4590
26900
521
189000
245000
423000
2460
195000
1450
613000
136000
147000
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Reason
Codec
ca
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
130 ca
N
4
nc
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
4
1
1
3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
3
3
3
3
3
13
9.3
9.3
13
9.3
9.3
0.2000
0.5
9
0.2
810
41
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
68
200000
5400
50
41
2700
680
41000
nc
nc
ca
ca
ca
ca
nc
PCBs (ppb)
53469219 Aroclor 1242
12672296 Aroclor 1248
Tissue
11097691 Aroclor 1254
11096825 Aroclor 1260
1336363 Total PCBs
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES (ppb)
2,4'-DDDd
53190
d
3424826 2,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDTd
784026
72548
4,4'-DDD
72559
4,4'-DDE
50293
4,4'-DDT
Tissue
309002
Aldrin
Total BHCe
f
12789036 Total Chlordane
60571
Dieldrin
115297
Total Endosulfang
72208
Endrin
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
15
15
15
15
30
U
U
U
U
25 U
6300
3800
1400
10920
NA
129240_NY086
129240_NY086
129239_NY086
129240_NY086
24
24
24
24
24
0.0
58.3
83.3
54.2
100.0
30-50
30-50
30
30-50
NA
25
6300
9100
1400
10920
3.5
1.1
5
5
5
5
1.61
5
5
2.865
4.38
5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
222
148
10.9
710
510
209
102
5U
150
79.1
6.2 U
5U
DMDAT004679
DMDAT004678
DMDAT004679
125507_NY080
125507_NY080
DMDAT004675
DMDAT004679
NA
129238_NY086
DMDAT004675
NA
NA
44
44
44
44
44
44
20
43
44
44
20
24
31.8
20.5
45.5
84.1
95.5
56.8
95.0
0.0
59.1
63.6
0.0
0.0
6.99-10
2.2-10
10
10
10
10
3.22
10
10
5.73-10
8.76-12.4
10
222
148
10.9
710
510
209
102
5.0
150
79.1
6.2
5.0
Page 1 of 2
Version 5/18/2006
Table 3. Surface Water COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Cas
Medium
Number
INORGANICS (ppb)
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
Chemical
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
260
12.5
5.0
30.5
0.85
Maximum
a
Concentration
(Qualifier)
U
U
U
U
7440439
7440702
16065831
7440484
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (assumes trivalent)
Cobalt
0.053
247,000
0.803
2.75 U
7440508
57125
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7487947
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
2.4
2U
200
1.82
770,000
93
0.0055
Water
7440020
7440097
7782492
7440224
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
7440280 Thallium
1.53
243,000
8.85 U
0.03 U
6,810,000
15 U
7440622 Vanadium
7440666 Zinc
4.5
9.2
95501
541731
106467
120821
87865
95954
88062
120832
105679
51285
121142
25321146
91587
95578
88744
88755
91941
99092
534521
101553
59507
10672
7005723
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
7.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
Location of Maximum
Concentration
450
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NA
100 U
6.9
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
50
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
5U
NA
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
5
255,000
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
15
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NA
25 U
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
12.5
5U
NA
950
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
56
DMDAT002449
834,000
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
110
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
0.12
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
25
328,000
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NA
12.5 U
10
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
6,970,000
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NA
125 U
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
10
30
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
Number
of
Samples
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Range of
DLs
Conc. Used
for
Screening
3
3
3
3
3
66.7
0.0
33.3
33.3
0.0
520
25-200
10
100
1.7-10
450
100
6.9
50
5
12
3
12
3
75.0
100.0
75.0
0.0
1.7-10
NA
5.4-30
5.5-50
12
3
3
14
3
3
12
83.3
0.0
100.0
78.6
100.0
100.0
83.3
12
3
3
12
3
3
Selected Human
Health Screening
b
Value (ca/nc)
3650
1.5
0.04
260
7.3
COPC
Flag Reason
c
(Y/N) Code
nc
nc
ca
nc
nc
N
N
Y
N
N
4
2
5
4
2
5
255,000
15
25
1.8 nc
NVA
5,500 nc
73 nc
Y
N
N
N
3
6
4
2
25
4-10
NA
7-15
NA
NA
0.2
12.5
5
950
56
834,000
110
0.12
150
73
1100
NVA
NVA
87.6
1.1
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
4
2
4
1
6
3
4
75.0
100.0
0.0
25.0
100.0
0.0
5.4-50
NA
NA
0.006-20
NA
NA
25
328,000
12.5
10
6,970,000
125
73
NVA
18.2
18.2
NVA
0.24
nc
N
N
N
N
N
Y
4
6
2
4
6
3
3
12
33.3
83.3
20
25-36
10
30
3.6 nc
1100 nc
Y
N
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
3-24
2-10
2-10
1-10
1-10
15-49
1-10
2-10
1-10
1-10
2-10
1-10
2-10
2-10
5-24
2-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
25
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
37
18.3
0.5
0.7
0.6
360
0.365
11
73
7.3
7.3
3.6
48.6
3
11
NVA
0.15
3.2
0.365
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
SVOCs (ppb)
Water
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
25
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Page 1 of 3
nc
nc
ca
nc
ca
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
nc
ca
ca
nc
Version 5/18/2006
Table 3. Surface Water COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium
Water
Cas
Number
106445
100016
100027
111911
111444
108601
117817
85687
86748
132649
84662
131113
84742
117840
87683
77474
67721
78591
98953
86306
621647
95487
108952
Chemical
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-Octyl phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloropentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
N-nitroso-di-phenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
O-cresol
Phenol
PCBs (ppb)
1336363 Total PCBs (18 congeners x 2)
Water
PAHs (ppb)
91576 2-Methylnaphthalene
83329 Acenaphthene
208968 Acenaphthylene
120127 Anthracene
56553 Benz[a]anthracene
50328 Benzo[a]pyrene
205992 Benzo[b]fluoranthene
191242 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Water
207089 Benzo[k]fluoranthene
218019 Chrysene
53703 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
206440 Fluoranthene
86737 Fluorene
193395 Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
91203 Naphthalene
85018 Phenanthrene
129000 Pyrene
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES (ppb)
53190 2,4'-DDD
3424826 2,4'-DDE
784026 2,4'-DDT
72548 4,4'-DDD
Water
72559 4,4'-DDE
50293 4,4'-DDT
93765 2,4,5-T
93721 2,4,5-TP
94757 2,4-D
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
1.5
1.0
5.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0.00012 U
Maximum
a
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5
5
24.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0.00012 U
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.0005
0.0004
0.0004
0.00014
0.0004
0.00025
0.005
0.005
0.24
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0.004
0.0004
0.0004
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.024
0.024
0.72
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Location of Maximum
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number
of
Samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Detection
Frequency
(%)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Range of
DLs
3-10
2-10
10-49
1-10
1-10
1-10
2-10
2-10
2-10
1-10
2-10
2-10
2-10
2-10
2-10
5-24
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
Conc. Used
for
Screening
5
5
24.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NA
9
0.0
0.00024
0.00012
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
12
12
12
3
3
3
22.2
0.0
0.0
25.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.001
NA
NA
0.0003-0.22
0.0008-0.22
0.0005-0.22
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.05
0.48
0.004
0.0004
0.004
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.024
0.024
0.72
DMDAT002324
NA
NA
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
U
NA
U
NA
U
NA
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
U
U
Page 2 of 3
Selected Human
Health Screening
b
Value (ca/nc)
18.2 nc
3.2 ca
NVA
NVA
0.01 ca
0.27 ca
4.8 ca
730 nc
3.36 ca
1.2 nc
2920 nc
36500 nc
365 nc
146 nc
0.86 ca
21.9 nc
4.8 ca
71 ca
0.34 nc
14 ca
0.01 ca
180 nc
1100 nc
0.034 ca
NVA
36.5
NVA
182.5
0.092098
0.0092098
0.092098
NVA
0.9209799
9.2097991
0.0092098
146
24.3
0.092098
0.62
NVA
18.3
0.28
0.2
0.2
0.28
0.2
0.2
36.5
29.2
36.5
COPC
Flag Reason
c
(Y/N) Code
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
N
2
nc
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
nc
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
4
nc
nc
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
nc
nc
ca
nc
Version 5/18/2006
Table 3. Surface Water COPC Screen for the Human Health Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium
Cas
Number Chemical
94826 2,4-DB
309002 Aldrin
d
Total BHC
12789036 Chlordanee
60571 Dieldrin
f
115297 Total Endosulfan
Water
72208 Total Endring
h
Total Heptachlor
118741 Hexachlorobenzene
72435 Methoxychlor
5103731 Total Nonachlor
8001352 Toxaphene
DIOXIN (ppb)
1746016 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Water
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
0.05
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
1
0.01
0.0003
0.1
0.0000039
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Maximum
a
Concentration
(Qualifier)
0.24
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.055
5
0.55
0.0003
5.5
0.0000044
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Location of Maximum
Concentration
NA
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NA
NA
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number
of
Samples
3
12
3
12
12
12
3
12
3
3
9
3
Detection
Frequency
(%)
0.0
8.3
33.3
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
8.3
0
0
0
0
Range of
DLs
0.1-0.48
0.002-0.11
0.002-0.11
0.002-0.11
0.004-0.22
0.02-0.22
0.004-0.22
0.002-0.11
2-10
0.02-1.1
0.0006
0.19-11
Conc. Used
for
Screening
0.24
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.055
5
0.55
0.0003
5.5
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
3
100.0
NA
0.0000044
Selected Human
Health Screening
b
Value (ca/nc)
29.2 nc
0.004 ca
0.037 ca
0.19 ca
0.0042 ca
22 nc
1.1 nc
0.015 ca
0.04000 ca
18.2 nc
NVA
0.061000 ca
0.00000045 ca
COPC
Flag Reason
c
(Y/N) Code
N
2
Y
3
Y
3
N
2
Y
3
N
2
N
2
Y
3
Y
3
N
2
Y
1
Y
3
Y
3
a The maximum concentration reports the highest value, taking into account detected values and values associated with 1/2 the detection limit. If the value in this column is qualified with a U and the analyte is bold, then the
maximum concentration is 1/2 of the reported detection limit.
b The selected screening value is the USEPA Region IX PRG for tapwater (Table 3) in Section 5.0 of the text.
c Inclusion or exclusion of constituent on COPC list based on the following factors: 1. No screening value available; 2. Detected in <5% of samples; 3. Exceeds screening benchmark; 4. Does not exceed screening
benchmark; 5. Known Human Carcinogen; 6. Considered an essential nutrient
d Total BHC represents alpha, beta, delta, and gamma BHC
e Total Chlordane represents alpha (cis) and gamma (trans) chlordane.
f Total Endosulfan represents endosulfan sulfate, alpha,and beta.
g Total Endrin represents endrin, endrin aldehyde, and endrin keytone
h Total Heptachlor represents heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide
BOLD: The maximum concentration for the analytes in bold is based on 1/2 the detection limit
Definitions: U = The material was analyzed for, but not detected. For purposes of the screen, 1/2 of the detection limit is used as the screening value in instances where this is the maximum concentration.
NVA = No Value Available
NA = Not applicable
ca = carcinogen
nc = non carcinogen
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Page 3 of 3
Version 5/18/2006
This page intentionally left blank
TABLE 4a
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Angler/Sportsman Adult
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Cs
IRs
Rationale/
Reference
Units
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Sediment
mg/day
50
U.S. EPA, 1997
50
0.5
Assumes one-have the RME
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
U.S. EPA, 1989
U.S. EPA, 1997
FI
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-NC
Body Weight
kg
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
10950
ED (years) x 365 days/year
mg/kg
Site-specific
Site-specific
Dermal Absorption Factor
unitless
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
AF
Adherence Factor
mg/cm 2
0.3
U.S. EPA, 2004d
0.3
U.S. EPA, 2004d
EV
Event Frequency
events/day
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
SA
Surface Area
cm2/event
6,073
U.S. EPA, 1997b
6,073
U.S. EPA, 1997b
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
U.S. EPA, 1989
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
10950
ED (years) x 365 days/year
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
AT-NC
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
20
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
52
U.S. EPA, 1991
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
Assumed to be one-half RME (Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
U.S. EPA, 1989
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
10950
ED (years) x 365 days/year
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Body Weight
(Cs x CF x SA x AF x ABSd x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
kg
Exposure Duration
AT-NC
Dermal Absorbed Dose (mg/kg/day) =
years
ED
BW
AT-C
(1)
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
(CS x IRs x CF x FI x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Cs
ABSd
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Site-specific
EF
AT-C
Inhalation
CT
Value
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
BW
Dermal
Rationale/
Reference
CT
RME
Value
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4b
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Angler/Sportsman Adult
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Units
RME
Value
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Cw
Chemical Concentration in Water
mg/l
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Surface Water
L/hr
0.05
Assumed
0.05
Assumed
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
ET
Exposure Time
hours/day
1.3
Assumed
1.3
Assumed
(Cw x IRw x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration
(1)
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
U.S. EPA, 1989
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Site-specific
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
10950
ED (years) x 365 days/year
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
DAevent
EV
Absorbed Dose per Event
Event Frequency
mg/cm2-event
events/day
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
LADD/ADD = (DAeventxEVxSAxEFxED)/(BWx AT)
-mg/l
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
where for organic constituents:
cm/hr
hours/event
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
If t event≤ t*,
hours/event
4
[2.4 x tau-event].
Site Assumption
4
Site Assumption
U.S. EPA, 2004d
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
FA
Cw
Fraction Absorbed Water
Chemical Concentration in Water
Permeability Constant
Kp
tau-event Lag Time per Event
t-event
Event Duration
t*
time to reach steady state
B
Ratio of Permeability Coefficient of a Compound
through the Stratum Corneum Relative to its
Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
hour
Chemical-specific
--
SA
Surface Area (1)
EF
Exposure Frequency
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
CF
Volumetric Conversion Factor
BW
Body Weight
If t event> t*,
U.S. EPA, 1997
6,073
U.S. EPA, 1997
104
Assumed
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
U.S. EPA, 1989
l/cm3
0.001
--
0.001
--
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
6,073
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
10950
ED (years) x 365 days/year
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m3
Chemical-specific
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
U.S. EPA, 1989
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Exposure Duration
(1)
⎡ tevent
⎡1+ 3B+ 3B2 ⎤⎤
+ 2(τevent)⎢
DAevent= FA× Kp × Cw⎢
⎥⎥
2
+
1
B
⎣ (1+ B) ⎦⎦
⎣
and for inorganic constituents: DAevent = Kp x Cw x tevent
Chemical-specific
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
10950
ED (years) x 365 days/year
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Body Weight
6 × τevent × tevent
π
U.S. EPA, 2004d
days/year
Wading
DAevent = 2 × FA × Kp× Cw ×
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
cm2/event
Wading
Inhalation
Rationale/
Reference
IRw
AT-C
Dermal
Parameter Definition
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
TABLE 4c
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Angler/Sportsman Adult
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
RME
Exposure Route Parameter
Code
Ingestion
Parameter Definition
Cf
Chemical Concentration in Fish
IRf
Ingestion rate of Fish (1)
Units
RME
Value
mg/kg wet
weight
Site-specific
g/day
TBD
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Site-specific
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
TBD
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
182.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (2)
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
U.S. EPA, 1989
Chemical-specific
1.00E-03
FI
Loss
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Cooking Loss
g/g
0
Assumes 100% chemical
remains in fish
Conversion Factor
kg/g
1.00E-03
--
Body Weight
kg
70
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
10950
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Mean adult body weight,
males and females (U.S. EPA,
1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
0.5
70
25550
3285
Assumed to be one-half RME (Cf x IRf x (1-Loss) x FS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x
AT)
-Mean adult body weight,
makes and females (U.S.
EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
TBD - To be determined
(1) Ingestion of fish, crab, or other biota will be evaluated separately because the ingestion rates for each of these differs. Available literature will be reviewed to determine an
appropriate consumption rate for each group of biota during completion of the BRA.
(2) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4d
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Angler/Sportsman Adolescent
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Cs
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Site-specific
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Assumed to be equal to the
adult
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
mg/day
50
FS
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
0.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration
(1)
Assumed to be one-half RME
CF
Conversion Factor
BW
Body Weight
Cs
ABSd
AF
50
(CS x IRs x CF x FI x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
years
9
Assumed
4.5
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Dermal Absorption Factor
unitless
Adherence Factor
mg/cm
2
Site-specific
Site-specific
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
0.2
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Dermal Absorbed Dose (mg/kg/day) =
0.2
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
EV
Event Frequency
events/day
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
1
SA
Surface Area
cm2/event
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
Assumed to be one-half RME
(1)
years
9
Assumed
4.5
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
54.5
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
ED
Exposure Duration
CF
Conversion Factor
BW
Body Weight
AT-C
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
14
U.S. EPA, 2002
14
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
52
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
9
Assumed
4.5
BW
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
54.5
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
AT-C
AT-NC
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Site-specific
Assumed to be equal to the
adult
Ingestion rate of Sediment
AT-NC
Inhalation
mg/kg
Rationale/
Reference
IRs
AT-C
Dermal
Units
RME
Value
(Cs x CF x SA x AF x ABSd x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
-Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2002
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
Assumed to be one-half RME (Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Assumed to be one-half RME
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4e
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Angler/Sportsman Adolescent
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Units
RME
Value
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Cw
Chemical Concentration in Water
mg/l
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Surface Water
l/hr
0.05
Assumed
0.05
Assumed
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
ET
Exposure Time
hours/day
1.3
Assumed
1.3
Assumed
(Cw x IRw x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration
(1)
BW
Body Weight
Site-specific
years
9
Assumed
4.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
DAevent
EV
Absorbed Dose per Event
Event Frequency
mg/cm 2-event
events/day
Chemical-specific
FA
Cw
Fraction Absorbed Water
Chemical Concentration in Water
Permeability Constant
Kp
tau-event Lag Time per Event
t-event
B
SA
Event Duration
Ratio of Permeability Coefficient of a Compound
through the Stratum Corneum Relative to its
Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
LADD/ADD = (DAeventxEVxSAxEFxED)/(BWx AT)
-mg/l
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
where for organic constituents:
cm/hr
hours/event
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
If t event≤ t*,
hours/event
4
Assumed
4
Assumed
DAevent = 2 × FA × Kp × Cw ×
Chemical-specific
--
Exposure Frequency
ED
Exposure Duration
CF
Volumetric Conversion Factor
BW
Body Weight
U.S. EPA, 2002c
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
days/year
Wading
AT-NC
If t event> t*,
4,906
EF
AT-C
U.S. EPA, 2004d
2
cm /event
Surface Area
104
Assumed
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
years
9
Assumed
4.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
l/cm3
0.001
--
0.001
--
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
(1)
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
14
U.S. EPA, 2002c
14
U.S. EPA, 2002c
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
104
Assumed
52
Assumed to be one-half RME
years
9
Assumed
4.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
ED
Exposure Duration
BW
Body Weight
AT-C
AT-NC
(1)
6 × τevent × tevent
π
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Wading
Inhalation
Rationale/
Reference
IRw
AT-C
Dermal
Parameter Definition
⎡ tevent
⎡1+ 3B+ 3B2 ⎤⎤
DAevent= FA× Kp ×Cw⎢
+ 2(τevent)⎢
⎥⎥
2
+
1
B
⎣ (1+ B) ⎦⎦
⎣
and for inorganic constituents: DAevent = Kp x Cw x tevent
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
TABLE 4f
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Angler/Sportsman Adolescent
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
RME
Exposure Route Parameter
Code
Ingestion
Parameter Definition
Cf
Chemical Concentration in Fish
IRf
Ingestion rate of Fish (1)
Units
RME
Value
mg/kg wet
weight
Site-specific
g/day
TBD
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Site-specific
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
TBD
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
182.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (2)
years
9
Assumed
4.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
Chemical-specific
1.00E-03
FI
Loss
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Cooking Loss
g/g
0
Assumes 100% chemical
remains in fish
Conversion Factor
kg/g
1.00E-03
--
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
0.5
54.5
25550
1825
Assumed to be one-half RME (Cf x IRf x (1-Loss) x FS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x
AT)
-Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
TBD - To be determined
(1) Ingestion of fish, crab, or other biota will be evaluated separately because the ingestion rates for each of these differs. Available literature will be reviewed to determine an
appropriate consumption rate for each group of biota during completion of the BRA.
(2) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4g
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Angler/Sportsman Child
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
RME
Exposure Route Parameter
Code
Ingestion
Parameter Definition
Cf
Chemical Concentration in Fish
IRf
Ingestion rate of Fish (1)
Units
RME
Value
mg/kg wet
weight
Site-specific
g/day
TBD
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Site-specific
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
TBD
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (2)
years
6
Assumed
3
Assumed
Chemical-specific
1.00E-03
FI
Loss
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Cooking Loss
g/g
0
Assumes 100% chemical
remains in fish
Conversion Factor
kg/g
1.00E-03
--
Body Weight
kg
15
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
2190
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
0.5
Assumed to be one-half RME (Cf x IRf x (1-Loss) x FS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x
AT)
15
25550
1095
-Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
TBD - To be determined
(1) Ingestion of fish, crab, or other biota will be evaluated separately because the ingestion rates for each of these differs. Available literature will be reviewed to determine an
appropriate consumption rate for each group of biota during completion of the BRA.
(2) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4h
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Adult
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Cs
IRs
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Sediment
mg/day
50
Derived from U.S. EPA, 1997b
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
50
0.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
Assumed
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
Derived from U.S. EPA, 1997b Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
(CS x IRs x CF x FI x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
1095
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-NC
Body Weight
kg
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
8760
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Site-specific
Site-specific
Dermal Absorption Factor
unitless
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
AF
Adherence Factor
mg/cm 2
0.3
U.S. EPA, 2004d
0.3
U.S. EPA, 2004d
EV
Event Frequency
events/day
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
SA
Surface Area
cm2/event
6,073
U.S. EPA, 1997b
6,073
U.S. EPA, 1997b
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
Assumed
Cs
ABSd
Dermal Absorbed Dose (mg/kg/day) =
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
30
Assumed
9
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
8760
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1095
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
AT-NC
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
20
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
years
30
Assumed
9
Assumed
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
8760
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1095
ED (years) x 365 days/year
ED
Exposure Duration
BW
Body Weight
AT-C
AT-NC
(1)
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Site-specific
FS
AT-C
Inhalation
Units
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
BW
Dermal
Rationale/
Reference
CT
RME
Value
(Cs x CF x SA x AF x ABSd x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 1991
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
Assumed to be one-half RME (Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4i
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Adult
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Units
RME
Value
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Cw
Chemical Concentration in Water
mg/l
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Surface Water
l/hr
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
ET
Exposure Time
hours/day
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
(Cw x IRw x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Assumed to be one-half RME
Site-specific
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
8760
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1095
mg/cm -event
events/day
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
-mg/l
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
where for organic constituents:
cm/hr
hours/event
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
If t event≤ t*,
hours/event
2.6
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 1989
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
U.S. EPA, 2004d
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
AT-C
DAevent
EV
FA
Cw
Absorbed Dose per Event
Event Frequency
Fraction Absorbed Water
Chemical Concentration in Water
Permeability Constant
Kp
tau-event Lag Time per Event
t-event
Event Duration
t*
time to reach steady state
B
Ratio of Permeability Coefficient of a Compound
through the Stratum Corneum Relative to its
Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
2
hour
Chemical-specific
--
Surface Area
EF
Exposure Frequency
ED
Exposure Duration
CF
Volumetric Conversion Factor
BW
Body Weight
l/cm
3
Assumed to be one-half RME
9
Assumed
0.001
--
0.001
days
25550
8760
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
EF
Exposure Frequency
70
25550
1095
--
⎡ tevent
⎡1+ 3B+ 3B2 ⎤⎤
+ 2(τevent)⎢
DAevent= FA× Kp ×Cw⎢
⎥⎥
2
⎣ (1+ B) ⎦⎦
⎣1+ B
and for inorganic constituents: DAevent = Kp x Cw x tevent
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Chemical-specific
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
30
kg
70
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
8760
Body Weight
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Chemical-specific
years
Exposure Duration
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
days/year
Wading
AT-C
26
days
InR
AT-NC
Assumed
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
ED
U.S. EPA, 1997b
U.S. EPA, 1989
Averaging Time (Cancer)
BW
6,073
52
70
(1)
U.S. EPA, 1997b
30
kg
3
6 × τevent × tevent
π
U.S. EPA, 2004d
days/year
years
DAevent = 2 × FA× Kp× Cw ×
If t event> t*,
6,073
(1)
LADD/ADD = (DAeventxEVxSAxEFxED)/(BWx AT)
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Wading
AT-C
ED (years) x 365 days/year
cm /event
SA
AT-NC
Assumed
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
2
Wading
Inhalation
Rationale/
Reference
IRw
AT-NC
Dermal
Parameter Definition
U.S. EPA, 1989
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
9
70
25550
1095
Assumed
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4j
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Adult
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
RME
Exposure Route Parameter
Code
Ingestion
Parameter Definition
Cf
Chemical Concentration in Fish
IRf
Ingestion rate of Fish (1)
Units
RME
Value
mg/kg wet
weight
Site-specific
g/day
TBD
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Site-specific
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
TBD
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (2)
years
30
Assumed
9
Assumed
Chemical-specific
1.00E-03
FI
Loss
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Cooking Loss
g/g
0
Assumes 100% chemical
remains in fish
Conversion Factor
kg/g
1.00E-03
--
Body Weight
kg
70
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
8760
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Mean adult body weight,
males and females (U.S. EPA,
1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
0.5
Assumed to be one-half RME (Cf x IRf x (1-Loss) x FS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x
AT)
70
25550
1095
-Mean adult body weight,
makes and females (U.S.
EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
TBD - To be determined
(1) Ingestion of fish, crab, or other biota will be evaluated separately because the ingestion rates for each of these differs. Available literature will be reviewed to determine an
appropriate consumption rate for each group of biota during completion of the BRA.
(2) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4k
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Adolescent
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Cs
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Site-specific
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Assumed to be equal to the
adult
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
mg/day
50
FS
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
0.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
U.S. EPA, 1989
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration
(1)
Assumed to be one-half RME
CF
Conversion Factor
BW
Body Weight
Cs
ABSd
AF
50
(CS x IRs x CF x FI x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
years
9
Assumed
4.5
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002)
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Dermal Absorption Factor
unitless
Adherence Factor
mg/cm
2
Site-specific
Site-specific
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
0.2
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Dermal Absorbed Dose (mg/kg/day) =
0.20
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
EV
Event Frequency
events/day
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
1
SA
Surface Area
cm2/event
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
Assumed to be one-half RME
(1)
years
9
Assumed
4.5
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
54.5
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
ED
Exposure Duration
CF
Conversion Factor
BW
Body Weight
AT-C
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
14
U.S. EPA, 2002
14
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
9
Assumed
4.5
BW
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
54.5
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
AT-C
AT-NC
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Site-specific
Assumed to be equal to the
adult
Ingestion rate of Sediment
AT-NC
Inhalation
mg/kg
Rationale/
Reference
IRs
AT-C
Dermal
Units
RME
Value
(Cs x CF x SA x AF x ABSd x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
-Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2002
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
Assumed to be one-half RME (Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Assumed to be one-half RME
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4l
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Adolescent
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Units
RME
Value
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Cw
Chemical Concentration in Water
mg/l
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Surface Water
l/hr
0.05
U.S. EPA. 1997b
0.05
U.S. EPA. 1997b
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
ET
Exposure Time
hours/day
2.6
U.S. EPA. 1989
2.6
U.S. EPA. 1989
(Cw x IRw x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
9
Assumed
4.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
BW
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002)
Site-specific
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
DAevent
EV
Absorbed Dose per Event
Event Frequency
mg/cm2-event
events/day
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
LADD/ADD = (DAeventxEVxSAxEFxED)/(BWx AT)
-mg/l
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
where for organic constituents:
cm/hr
hours/event
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
If t event≤ t*,
hours/event
2.6
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA 2002c
2.6
U.S. EPA 2002c
U.S. EPA, 2004d
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
FA
Cw
Fraction Absorbed Water
Chemical Concentration in Wate
Permeability Constant
Kp
tau-event Lag Time per Event
t-event
Event Duration
t*
time to reach steady state
B
Ratio of Permeability Coefficient of a Compound
through the Stratum Corneum Relative to its
Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
SA
Surface Area
hour
Chemical-specific
--
EF
Exposure Frequency
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
CF
Volumetric Conversion Factor
BW
Body Weight
AT-C
AT-NC
π
If t event> t*,
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
days/year
years
3
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
9
Assumed
4.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
l/cm
0.001
--
0.001
--
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m3
Chemical-specific
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
14
U.S. EPA, 2002
14
U.S. EPA, 2002
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
Wading
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
BW
Body Weight
AT-C
AT-NC
6 × τevent × tevent
U.S. EPA, 2004d
cm /event
Wading
DAevent = 2 × FA × Kp × Cw ×
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
2
Wading
Inhalation
Rationale/
Reference
IRw
AT-C
Dermal
Parameter Definition
⎡ tevent
⎡1+ 3B+ 3B2 ⎤⎤
+ 2(τevent)⎢
DAevent= FA×Kp ×Cw⎢
⎥⎥
2
1
B
+
⎣ (1+ B) ⎦⎦
⎣
and for inorganic constituents: DAevent = Kp x Cw x tevent
Chemical-specific
years
9
Assumed
4.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
TABLE 4m
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Adolescent
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
RME
Exposure Route Parameter
Code
Ingestion
Parameter Definition
Cf
Chemical Concentration in Fish
IRf
Ingestion rate of Fish (1)
FI
Units
RME
Value
mg/kg wet
weight
Site-specific
g/day
TBD
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Site-specific
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
TBD
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
0.5
Assumed to be one-half RME (Cf x IRf x (1-Loss) x FS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x
AT)
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (2)
years
9
Assumed
4.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
Chemical-specific
1.00E-03
Loss
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Cooking Loss
g/g
0
Assumes 100% chemical
remains in fish
Conversion Factor
kg/g
1.00E-03
--
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3285
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
54.5
25550
1825
-Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
TBD - To be determined
(1) Ingestion of fish, crab, or other biota will be evaluated separately because the ingestion rates for each of these differs. Available literature will be reviewed to determine an
appropriate consumption rate for each group of biota during completion of the BRA.
(2) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4n
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Child
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Cs
IRs
Rationale/
Reference
Units
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Sediment
mg/day
100
U.S. EPA, 1989
100
0.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
Assumed
U.S. EPA, 1989
FS
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
6
U.S. EPA, 1989
6
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-NC
Body Weight
kg
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Site-specific
Site-specific
unitless
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
AF
Adherence Factor
mg/cm 2
0.2
U.S. EPA, 2004d
0.2
U.S. EPA, 2004d
EV
Event Frequency
events/day
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
SA
Surface Area
cm2/event
2,792
U.S. EPA, 1997b
2,792
U.S. EPA, 1997b
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
Assumed
Dermal Absorbed Dose (mg/kg/day) =
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
6
U.S. EPA, 1989
6
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
BW
Body Weight
kg
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
AT-NC
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
12
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
12
26
U.S. EPA, 2004b
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
Assumed to be one-half RME (Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
6
U.S. EPA, 1989
6
Assumed
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Body Weight
AT-NC
U.S. EPA, 2004b
kg
Exposure Duration
(Cs x CF x SA x AF x ABSd x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
years
ED
BW
AT-C
(1)
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
(CS x IRs x CF x FI x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Dermal Absorption Factor
Cs
ABSd
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Site-specific
EF
AT-C
Inhalation
CT
Value
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
BW
Dermal
Rationale/
Reference
CT
RME
Value
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4o
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Child
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Units
RME
Value
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Cw
Chemical Concentration in Water
mg/l
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Surface Water
l/hr
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
ET
Exposure Time
hours/day
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
(Cw x IRw x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Assumed to be one-half RME
Site-specific
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
13
Assumed
6.5
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
6
U.S. EPA, 1989
6
Assumed
BW
Body Weight
kg
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
mg/cm -event
events/day
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
-mg/l
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
where for organic constituents:
cm/hr
hours/event
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
If t event≤ t*,
AT-C
DAevent
EV
FA
Cw
Absorbed Dose per Event
Event Frequency
Fraction Absorbed Water
Chemical Concentration in Water
Permeability Constant
Kp
tau-event Lag Time per Event
t-event
Event Duration
t*
time to reach steady state
B
Ratio of Permeability Coefficient of a Compound
through the Stratum Corneum Relative to its
Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
SA
2
hours/event
2.6
U.S. EPA 2002c
2.6
U.S. EPA 2002c
hour
chemical-specific
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
chemical-specific
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
--
EF
U.S. EPA, 1997b
2,792
U.S. EPA, 1997b
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
6
U.S. EPA, 1989
6
Assumed
3
0.001
--
0.001
--
kg
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
2,792
Exposure Frequency
(1)
ED
Exposure Duration
CF
Volumetric Conversion Factor
BW
AT-NC
Body Weight
years
l/cm
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
EF
Exposure Frequency
AT-C
AT-NC
Exposure Duration
π
If t event> t*,
(1)
Body Weight
⎡ tevent
⎡1+ 3B + 3B2 ⎤⎤
DAevent= FA× Kp × Cw⎢
+ 2(τevent)⎢
⎥⎥
2
⎣ (1+ B) ⎦⎦
⎣1+ B
years
and for inorganic constituents: DAevent = Kp x Cw x tevent
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
12
U.S. EPA, 2004b
12
U.S. EPA, 2004b
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
6
U.S. EPA, 1989
6
Assumed
days/year
Wading
ED
6 × τevent × tevent
days/year
InR
BW
DAevent = 2 × FA × Kp× Cw ×
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Wading
AT-C
LADD/ADD = (DAeventxEVxSAxEFxED)/(BWx AT)
cm2/event
Surface Area
Wading
Inhalation
Rationale/
Reference
IRw
AT-NC
Dermal
Parameter Definition
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
kg
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
2190
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4p
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Child
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
RME
Exposure Route Parameter
Code
Ingestion
Parameter Definition
Cf
Chemical Concentration in Fish
IRf
Ingestion rate of Fish (1)
FI
Units
RME
Value
mg/kg wet
weight
Site-specific
g/day
TBD
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Site-specific
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
TBD
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
0.5
Assumed to be one-half RME (Cf x IRf x (1-Loss) x FS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x
AT)
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (2)
years
6
U.S. EPA, 1989
6
Assumed
Chemical-specific
1.00E-03
Loss
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Cooking Loss
g/g
0
Assumes 100% chemical
remains in fish
Conversion Factor
kg/g
1.00E-03
--
Body Weight
kg
15
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
2190
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
15
25550
2190
-Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
TBD - To be determined
(1) Ingestion of fish, crab, or other biota will be evaluated separately because the ingestion rates for each of these differs. Available literature will be reviewed to determine an
appropriate consumption rate for each group of biota during completion of the BRA.
(2) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4q
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Recreational Adult Skuller
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Units
RME
Value
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Cw
Chemical Concentration in Water
mg/l
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Surface Water
l/hr
0.05
Assumed
0.05
Assumed
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
ET
Exposure Time
hours/day
1.3
Assumed
1.3
Assumed
(Cw x IRw x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration
(1)
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
U.S. EPA, 1989
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Site-specific
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
8760
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1095
ED (years) x 365 days/year
DAevent
EV
Absorbed Dose per Event
Event Frequency
mg/cm2-event
events/day
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
LADD/ADD = (DAeventxEVxSAxEFxED)/(BWx AT)
-mg/l
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
where for organic constituents:
cm/hr
hours/event
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
FA
Cw
Fraction Absorbed Water
Chemical Concentration in Water
Permeability Constant
Kp
tau-event Lag Time per Event
t-event
Event Duration
t*
time to reach steady state
B
Ratio of Permeability Coefficient of a Compound
through the Stratum Corneum Relative to its
Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
SA
EF
Assumed
1.3
Site Assumption
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
DAevent = 2 × FA × Kp × Cw ×
U.S. EPA, 2004d
If t event> t*,
⎡ tevent
⎡1+ 3B+ 3B2 ⎤⎤
+ 2(τevent)⎢
DAevent= FA× Kp × Cw⎢
⎥⎥
2
+
1
B
⎣ (1+ B) ⎦⎦
⎣
Chemical-specific
--
U.S. EPA, 1997b
18,150
U.S. EPA, 1997b
days/year
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
U.S. EPA, 1989
CF
Volumetric Conversion Factor
l/cm3
0.001
--
0.001
--
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
1095
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Swimming
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
8760
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m3
Chemical-specific
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
52
Assumed
26
Assumed to be one-half RME
years
30
U.S. EPA, 1989
9
U.S. EPA, 1989
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Exposure Duration
(1)
and for inorganic constituents: DAevent = Kp x Cw x tevent
Chemical-specific
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
8760
ED (years) x 365 days/year
1095
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Body Weight
π
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
18,150
Exposure Frequency
6 × τevent × tevent
1.3
hour
cm2/event
Surface Area
If t event≤ t*,
hours/event
Swimming
Inhalation
Rationale/
Reference
IRw
AT-C
Dermal
Parameter Definition
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
TABLE 4r
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Resident Adult
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Cs
IRs
FS
Units
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Sediment
mg/day
100
U.S. EPA, 1989
0.75
Rationale/
Reference
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
100
U.S. EPA, 1989
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumed
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Cs
AF
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Site-specific
Site-specific
Dermal Absorption Factor
unitless
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
Adherence Factor
mg/cm 2
0.3
U.S. EPA, 2004d
0.3
Dermal Absorbed Dose (mg/kg/day) =
U.S. EPA, 2004d
EV
Event Frequency
events/day
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
1
SA
Surface Area
cm2/event
6,073
U.S. EPA, 1997b
6,073
U.S. EPA, 1997b
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
ED
Exposure Duration
CF
Conversion Factor
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
(1)
Body Weight
kg
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
20
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
20
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
Assumed to be one-half RME (Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Mean adult body weight, males
and females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Body Weight
AT-NC
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
kg
Exposure Duration
(Cs x CF x SA x AF x ABSd x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
U.S. EPA, 2004d
years
ED
BW
AT-C
(1)
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
Assumes <100% sediment
exposure but reflects increased
time on the Newark Bay Study
Area
(CS x IRs x CF x FI x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Exposure Duration (1)
ABSd
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Site-specific
EF
AT-C
Inhalation
CT
Value
ED
AT-NC
Dermal
Rationale/
Reference
CT
RME
Value
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4s
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Resident Adult
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Units
RME
Value
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Cw
Chemical Concentration in Water
mg/l
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Surface Water
l/hr
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
ET
Exposure Time
hours/day
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
(Cw x IRw x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Assumed to be one-half RME
Site-specific
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
mg/cm -event
events/day
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
-mg/l
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
where for organic constituents:
cm/hr
hours/event
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
If t event≤ t*,
hours/event
12
[2.4 x tau-event].
Site Assumption
12
Site Assumption
U.S. EPA, 2004d
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
AT-C
DAevent
EV
FA
Cw
Absorbed Dose per Event
Event Frequency
Fraction Absorbed Water
Chemical Concentration in Water
Permeability Constant
Kp
tau-event Lag Time per Event
t-event
Event Duration
t*
time to reach steady state
B
Ratio of Permeability Coefficient of a Compound
through the Stratum Corneum Relative to its
Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
SA
Surface Area
(1)
2
hour
Chemical-specific
--
EF
Swimming
39
20
Assumed to be one-half RME
Wading
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
l/cm3
0.001
--
0.001
--
(1)
Exposure Duration
AT-NC
Body Weight
6,073
U.S. EPA, 199b
days/year
kg
70
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
3
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
70
25550
912.5
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
20
U.S. EPA, 1991
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
kg
70
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
and for inorganic constituents: DAevent = Kp x Cw x tevent
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Ca
ED
⎡ tevent
⎡1+ 3B+ 3B2 ⎤⎤
+ 2(τevent)⎢
DAevent= FA× Kp ×Cw⎢
⎥⎥
2
⎣ (1+ B) ⎦⎦
⎣1+ B
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
InR
(1)
6 × τevent × tevent
If t event> t*,
Assumes 3 days/week for 13 weeks of
summer
Volumetric Conversion Factor
DAevent = 2 × FA × Kp× Cw ×
π
U.S. EPA, 1997b
Exposure Frequency
LADD/ADD = (DAeventxEVxSAxEFxED)/(BWx AT)
U.S. EPA, 2004d
6,073
CF
BW
ED (years) x 365 days/year
cm2/event
ED
AT-C
Assumed to be one-half RME
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Wading
Inhalation
Rationale/
Reference
IRw
AT-NC
Dermal
Parameter Definition
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
70
25550
912.5
Mean adult body weight, males and
females (U.S. EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives along the river througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
TABLE 4t
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Resident Adult
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
RME
Exposure Route Parameter
Code
Ingestion
Parameter Definition
Cf
Chemical Concentration in Fish
IRf
Ingestion rate of Fish (1)
Units
RME
Value
mg/kg wet
weight
Site-specific
g/day
TBD
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Site-specific
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
TBD
0.75
Assumes <100% sediment
exposure but reflects
increased time on the Newark (Cf x IRf x (1-Loss) x FS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x
AT)
Bay Study Area
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (2)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
Cooking Loss
g/g
0
Assumes 100% chemical
remains in fish
Chemical-specific
Conversion Factor
kg/g
1.00E-03
--
1.00E-03
FI
Loss
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Body Weight
kg
70
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Mean adult body weight,
males and females (U.S. EPA,
1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
70
25550
912.5
-Mean adult body weight,
makes and females (U.S.
EPA, 1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
TBD - To be determined
(1) Ingestion of fish, crab, or other biota will be evaluated separately because the ingestion rates for each of these differs. Available literature will be reviewed to determine an
appropriate consumption rate for each group of biota during completion of the BRA.
(2) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4u
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Resident Adolescent
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Cs
IRs
FS
Ingestion rate of Sediment
mg/kg
Site-specific
mg/day
100
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
100
0.75
Assumed to be equal to the adult Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
Assumes <100% sediment
exposure but reflects increased
time on the Newark Bay Study
Area
(CS x IRs x CF x FI x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
Exposure Duration (1)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
BW
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Cs
ABSd
AF
mg/kg
Site-specific
Site-specific
Dermal Absorption Factor
unitless
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
Adherence Factor
mg/cm2
0.2
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Dermal Absorbed Dose (mg/kg/day) =
0.20
U.S. EPA, 2004d
EV
Event Frequency
events/day
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
SA
Surface Area
cm2/event
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
BW
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
AT-NC
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m3
Chemical-specific
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
14
U.S. EPA, 2002
14
U.S. EPA, 2002
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
BW
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
AT-NC
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Site-specific
Assumed to be equal to the
adult
EF
AT-C
Inhalation
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Units
RME
Value
ED
AT-NC
Dermal
Parameter Definition
(Cs x CF x SA x AF x ABSd x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Chemical-specific
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4v
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Resident Adolescent
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Units
RME
Value
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Cw
Chemical Concentration in Water
mg/l
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Surface Water
l/hr
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
ET
Exposure Time
hours/day
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
(Cw x IRw x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
39
Assumes 3 days per week for 13
weeks of summer
19.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
BW
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
DAevent
EV
FA
Cw
Absorbed Dose per Event
Event Frequency
Fraction Absorbed Water
Chemical Concentration in Wate
Permeability Constant
Kp
tau-event Lag Time per Event
t-event
Event Duration
t*
time to reach steady state
B
Ratio of Permeability Coefficient of a Compound
through the Stratum Corneum Relative to its
Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
SA
2
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
LADD/ADD = (DA eventxEVxSAxEFxED)/(BWx AT)
-mg/l
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
where for organic constituents:
cm/hr
hours/event
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
If t event≤ t*,
hours/event
12
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA 2002c
12
U.S. EPA 2002c
U.S. EPA, 2004d
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2001
Chemical-specific
hour
--
Surface Area
If t event> t*,
14,869
U.S. EPA, 2002c
14,869
U.S. EPA, 2002c
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
4,906
U.S. EPA, 2002c
Assumes one-half the RME value
days/year
Swimming
Wading
39
Assumes 3 days per week for 13
weeks of summer
19.5
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
CF
Volumetric Conversion Factor
l/cm
0.001
--
0.001
--
BW
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
3
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
Chemical-specific
InR
Inhalation Rate
3
m /day
14
U.S. EPA, 2002
14
U.S. EPA, 2002
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
BW
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
54.5
Mean weight, males and females
age 10-17 (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
AT-NC
(1)
6 × τevent × tevent
π
cm /event
Exposure Frequency
DAevent = 2 × FA × Kp× Cw ×
U.S. EPA, 2001
2
Wading
EF
Site-specific
mg/cm -event
events/day
Swimming
Inhalation
Rationale/
Reference
IRw
AT-NC
Dermal
Parameter Definition
⎡ tevent
⎡1+ 3B+3B2 ⎤⎤
+ 2(τevent)⎢
DAevent= FA×Kp ×Cw⎢
⎥⎥
2
⎣ (1+ B) ⎦⎦
⎣1+ B
and for inorganic constituents: DA event = Kp x Cw x tevent
Chemical-specific
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
TABLE 4w
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Resident Adolescent
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
RME
Exposure Route Parameter
Code
Ingestion
Parameter Definition
Cf
Chemical Concentration in Fish
IRf
Ingestion rate of Fish (1)
Units
RME
Value
mg/kg wet
weight
Site-specific
g/day
TBD
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Site-specific
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
TBD
0.75
Assumes <100% sediment
exposure but reflects
increased time on the Newark (Cf x IRf x (1-Loss) x FS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x
AT)
Bay Study Area
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (2)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
Cooking Loss
g/g
0
Assumes 100% chemical
remains in fish
Chemical-specific
Conversion Factor
kg/g
1.00E-03
--
1.00E-03
FI
Loss
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Body Weight
kg
54.5
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
54.5
25550
912.5
-Mean weight, males and
females age 10-17 (U.S. EPA,
2002c)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
TBD - To be determined
(1) Ingestion of fish, crab, or other biota will be evaluated separately because the ingestion rates for each of these differs. Available literature will be reviewed to determine an
appropriate consumption rate for each group of biota during completion of the BRA.
(2) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4x
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Residential Child
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Cs
IRs
Rationale/
Reference
Units
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
mg/kg
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Sediment
mg/day
200
U.S. EPA, 1989
200
0.75
Assumed to be one-half RME
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
U.S. EPA, 1989
FS
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-NC
Body Weight
kg
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
mg/kg
Site-specific
Site-specific
Dermal Absorption Factor
unitless
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
AF
Adherence Factor
mg/cm 2
0.2
U.S. EPA, 2004d
0.20
U.S. EPA, 2004d
EV
Event Frequency
events/day
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
SA
Surface Area
cm2/event
2,792
U.S. EPA, 1997b
2,792
U.S. EPA, 1997b
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
Assumes one-half the RME value
Dermal Absorbed Dose (mg/kg/day) =
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
CF
Conversion Factor
kg/mg
1.00E-06
--
1.00E-06
--
BW
Body Weight
kg
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
AT-NC
3
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
12
U.S. EPA, 2004b
12
U.S. EPA, 2004b
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration
(1)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
BW
Body Weight
kg
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
AT-C
AT-NC
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
(CS x IRs x CF x FI x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
Cs
ABSd
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Site-specific
EF
AT-C
Inhalation
CT
Value
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
BW
Dermal
Rationale/
Reference
CT
RME
Value
(Cs x CF x SA x AF x ABSd x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4y
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Residential Child
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
RME
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Parameter
Code
Units
RME
Value
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Cw
Chemical Concentration in Water
mg/l
Site-specific
Ingestion rate of Surface Water
l/hr
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
0.05
U.S. EPA, 1997b
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
ET
Exposure Time
hours/day
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
2.6
U.S. EPA, 1989
(Cw x IRw x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
13
Assumed
7
Assumes one-half the RME value
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
BW
Body Weight
kg
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
mg/cm2-event
AT-C
DAevent
Absorbed Dose per Event
EV
Event Frequency
FA
Cw
Fraction Absorbed Water
Chemical Concentration in Wate
Permeability Constant
Kp
tau-event Lag Time per Event
t-event
Event Duration
t*
time to reach steady state
B
Ratio of Permeability Coefficient of a Compound
through the Stratum Corneum Relative to its
Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
SA
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
1
U.S. EPA, 2004d
-mg/l
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
1
Chemical-specific
cm/hr
hours/event
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
hours/event
12
[2.4 x tau-event].
hour
LADD/ADD = (DAeventxEVxSAxEFxED)/(BWx AT)
where for organic constituents:
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
If t event≤ t*,
U.S. EPA 2002c
12.0
U.S. EPA 2002c
U.S. EPA, 2004d
[2.4 x tau-event].
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Exposure Frequency
(1)
CF
Volumetric Conversion Factor
BW
Body Weight
years
3
π
If t event> t*,
6,880
U.S. EPA, 1997b
6,880
U.S. EPA, 1997b
2,792
U.S. EPA, 1997b
2,792
U.S. EPA, 1997b
13
Assumed
7
Assumed to be one-half RME
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
l/cm
0.001
--
0.001
--
kg
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
AT-NC
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Chemical-specific
AT-C
⎡ tevent
⎡1+ 3B + 3B2 ⎤⎤
DAevent = FA × Kp × Cw ⎢
+ 2(τevent)⎢
⎥⎥
2
⎣ (1+ B) ⎦⎦
⎣1+ B
and for inorganic constituents: DAevent = Kp x Cw x tevent
Ca
Chemical Concentration in Air
mg/m3
InR
Inhalation Rate
m3/day
12
U.S. EPA, 2004b
12
U.S. EPA, 2004b
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
(Ca x InR x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)
Swimming
13
Assumed
7
Assumed to be one-half RME
Wading
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
183
Assumed to be one-half RME
ED
Exposure Duration (1)
BW
Body Weight
AT-C
AT-NC
6 × τevent × tevent
U.S. EPA, 2004d
days/year
Wading
DAevent = 2 × FA × Kp× Cw ×
Chemical-specific
cm2/event
Surface Area
Exposure Duration
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Swimming
ED
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
U.S. EPA, 2004d
Chemical-specific
--
Wading
EF
Site-specific
events/day
Swimming
Inhalation
Rationale/
Reference
IRw
AT-NC
Dermal
Parameter Definition
Chemical-specific
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
kg
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
ED (years) x 365 days/year
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
TABLE 4z
VALUES FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
Newark Bay Study Area - Residential Child
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish/other Biota
RME
Exposure Route Parameter
Code
Ingestion
Parameter Definition
Cf
Chemical Concentration in Fish
IRf
Ingestion rate of Fish (1)
Units
RME
Value
mg/kg wet
weight
Site-specific
g/day
TBD
Rationale/
Reference
CT
CT
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Site-specific
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
TBD
Fraction from Source
unitless
1
Assumes 100% sediment
exposure is from Newark Bay
Study Area
EF
Exposure Frequency
days/year
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
365
U.S. EPA, 1989
ED
Exposure Duration (2)
years
5
Assumed
2.5
Assumes one-half the RME value
Cooking Loss
g/g
0
Assumes 100% chemical
remains in fish
Chemical-specific
Conversion Factor
kg/g
1.00E-03
--
1.00E-03
--
15
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
25550
70-year lifetime exposure x 365
days/year (U.S. EPA, 1989)
912.5
ED (years) x 365 days/year
FI
Loss
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-NC
Body Weight
kg
15
Averaging Time (Cancer)
days
25550
Averaging Time (Noncancer)
days
1825
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Mean child weight (U.S. EPA,
1989)
70-year lifetime exposure x
365 days/year (U.S. EPA,
1989)
ED (years) x 365 days/year
0.5
Assumed to be one-half RME
(Cf x IRf x (1-Loss) x FS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x
AT)
TBD - To be determined
(1) Ingestion of fish, crab, or other biota will be evaluated separately because the ingestion rates for each of these differs. Available literature will be reviewed to determine an appropriate
consumption rate for each group of biota during completion of the BRA.
(2) Exposue duration assumes the receptor lives in the area througout a lifetime. This number may be revised in the risk assessment depending on an evaluation of the Census data for the study area.
ATTACHMENT B
Ecological Screening Tables
This page intentionally left blank
Table 1. Sediment COPEC Screen for the Ecological Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number Chemical
INORGANICS (ppb)
Sediment
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
7440439
7440702
18540299
7440484
7440508
57125
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7487947
7440020
7440097
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
465,000
100
1,000
20,800
280
45
1,240,000
7,620
3,600
200
90
2,590,000
5,300
2,150,000
74,000
0.98
900
619,000
7782492
7440224
Selenium
Silver
80 U
108 U
7440213
7440280
Silicon
Sodium
Thallium
247,000,000
1,180,000
170 U
7440315
7440326
7440622
7440666
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
71556
630206
79345
79005
75343
75354
107062
156592
78875
96184
96128
106934
123911
110758
591786
108101
67641
107028
107131
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromomethane
1,4-Dioxane
2-Chloroethylvinylether
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
U
U
U
U
U
280
191,000
11,100
550 U
Maximum
Concentrationa
(Qualifier)
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Number of Frequency
Samples
(%)
NB102-NWB
Q:27NB102:9400:02
85A001
PRP-99-07-SD-1
PRP-99-07-SD-1
85A001
85A001
47C005-NWB
85A001
85A001
85A001
RCHA-SW-01
85A001
85A001
68A001
64A001
PRP-99-07-SD-1
Q:1557:9300:20
PRP-99-07-SD-1
Q:27NB111:9400:11
NB111-NWB
85A001
77,600,000
21,550
40,700
785,000
3,100
18,500
27,600,000
397,000
23,800
1,330,000
24,000
52,600,000
777,000
13,300,000
762,000
20,700
185,000
7,590,000
22,200
42,300
Range of DLs
Conc. Used
for Screening
Selected
Ecological
Screening
Valueb
US EPA List of
Bioaccumulators
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Reason
Codec
58,030,000
2,000
8,200
6,000
NVA
1,200
NVA
81,000
NVA
34,000
NVA
NVA
46,700
NVA
460,000
150
20,900
NVA
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
3
3
5
3
1
5
6
5
1
5
1
1
5
6
3
5
5
6
142
142
149
34
34
197
34
149
34
183
28
129
197
34
118
54
197
34
100.0
57.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
95.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.9
21.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
66.7
100.0
100.0
NA
200-43100
NA
NA
NA
90-1600
NA
NA
NA
440
180-2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
18-240
NA
NA
77,600,000
21,550
40,700
785,000
3,100
18,500
27,600,000
397,000
23,800
1,330,000
24,000
52,600,000
777,000
13,300,000
762,000
20,700
185,000
7,590,000
134
148
63.4
95.9
160-2600
1000-2000
22,200
42,300
NVA
1,000
Y
Y
Y
Y
5
5
NVA
NVA
NVA
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
1
6
1
NVA
NVA
NVA
150,000
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1
1
1
5
30
NVA
1,400
1,200
27
31
250
400
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
22
33
NVA
NVA
NVA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
450,000,000
20,800,000
8,950 U
Q:27NB110:9400:10
NB111-NWB
85A001
PRP-99-07-SD-1
54
34
47
100.0
100.0
42.6
NA
NA
340-17900
450,000,000
20,800,000
8,950
52,100
568,000
70,800
1,800,000
NOAA2-11-NWB
Q:1511:9300:10
BCD3-01
PRP-99-07-SD-1
85A001
86
25
34
191
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
NA
NA
NA
1100-1300
52,100
568,000
70,800
1,800,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
RCHA-SW-01
NA
BCD1-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BCD4-01
NA
NA
NA
65A001
NA
NA
20
6
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
6
6
6
6
6
20
20
20
6
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
95.0
0.0
0.0
11-130
11-83
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-83
22-170
11-83
560-4200
22-170
13-170
13-170
17
12-170
22-170
65
41.5
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
41.5
85
41.5
2100
85
85
85
6300
85
85
VOCs (ppb)
Sediment
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
11
5.5
280
11
6.5
6.5
8.5
6
11
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
65
41.5
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
41.5
85
41.5
2100
85
85
85
6300
85
85
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Page 1 of 5
Version 5/18/2006
Table 1. Sediment COPEC Screen for the Ecological Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number
107051
71432
74975
75252
75150
56235
108907
124481
75003
67663
126998
156592
542756
764410
75274
75718
75632
100414
76131
78831
98828
126987
74839
74873
Sediment
78933
74884
80626
74953
75092
1634044
1330207
156605
110576
542756
79016
75694
108054
75014
Chemical
Allyl Chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
cis-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl Methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Freon
Isobutyl Alcohol
Isopropyl benzene
Methylacrylonitrile
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl iodide
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene bromide
Methylene chloride
Methyl-t-butyl ether
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
fuel range)
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
range)
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Total BTEX
Total Xylenes
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
95501
541731
106467
120821
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
107120
100425
127184
109999
108883
Maximum
Minimum
Concentration Concentrationa
(Qualifier)
(Qualifier)
11 U
85 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
65 U
5U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
11 U
85 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
11 U
85 U
6U
65 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
280 U
2100 U
6 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
65 U
5.5 U
65 U
6.5 U
74
11 U
85 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
5.5 U
41.5 U
3U
360
5.5 U
41.5 U
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
70A001
NA
NA
NA
70A001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70A001
NA
NA
BCD4-01
NA
NA
NA
BCD4-01
NA
NA
NA
70A001
NA
Detection
Number of Frequency
Samples
(%)
6
0.0
20
0.0
6
0.0
20
0.0
20
35.0
20
0.0
20
0.0
20
0.0
20
5.0
20
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
20
0.0
6
0.0
20
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
20
10.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
6
16.7
6
0.0
20
0.0
20
0.0
20
55.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
20
45.0
6
0.0
Range of DLs
22-170
11-130
11-83
11-130
13-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
11-130
22-170
11-83
11-130
11-83
11-130
11-83
22-170
12-130
11-83
560-4200
12-83
11-83
11-130
11-130
13-130
22-170
11-83
11-83
11-83
11-83
Conc. Used
for Screening
85
65
41.5
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
85
41.5
65
41.5
65
41.5
85
65
42
2,100
42
42
65
65
74
85
41.5
41.5
360
41.5
Selected
Ecological
Screening
Valueb
NVA
160
NVA
NVA
0.85
47
410
NVA
NVA
22
NVA
NVA
0.051
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
89
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
270
NVA
NVA
NVA
370
NVA
US EPA List of
Bioaccumulators
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Reason
Codec
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
4
2
(diesel
15000 U
8250
2,300,000
2,260,000
BCD4-01
86A001
6
24
16.7
79.2
30000-590000
16500-48000
2,300,000
2,260,000
NVA
NVA
N
N
Y
Y
1
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
BCD4-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BCD5-01
BCD5-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
6
20
20
6
20
4
20
6
6
20
20
6
6
20
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
100.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
22-170
11-130
11-130
560-4200
11-130
NA
12-130
11-83
11-83
11-130
11-130
11-83
22-170
11-130
3,600,000
85
65
65
2100
74
134
110
41.5
41.5
65
65
41.5
85
65
NVA
NVA
NVA
410
NVA
50
NVA
160
NVA
NVA
0.051
220
NVA
0.84
NVA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
U
U
U
U
NA
65A001
65A001
65A001
28
40
42
40
0.0
5.0
14.3
5.0
160-4300
11-46000
11-46000
11-46000
2,150
23,000
23,000
23,000
330
1,700
340
9,600
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
2
5
5
5
(motor oil
590000
11
5.5
5.5
280
5.5
6
6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
11
5.5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
3,600,000
85
65
65
2100
74
134
110
41.5
41.5
65
65
41.5
85
65
80
6
5.5
6
U
U
U
U
2,150
23,000
23,000
23,000
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SVOCs (ppb)
Sediment
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Page 2 of 5
Version 5/18/2006
Table 1. Sediment COPEC Screen for the Ecological Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number
87865
95954
88062
120832
105679
51285
121142
Sediment
25321146
91587
95578
88744
88755
91941
99092
534521
101553
59507
106478
7005723
106445
100016
100027
62533
103333
92875
Chemical
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-/2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Aniline
Azobenzene
Benzidine
95158
65850
100516
111911
111444
108601
117817
92524
85687
86748
1861321
132649
132650
1002335
84662
131113
84742
117840
87683
77474
67721
78591
78763549
98953
62759
86306
621647
1825214
Benzo(b)thiophene
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
biphenyl
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Carbazole
Dacthal
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Dibutyltin
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-Octyl phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloropentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Monobutyltin
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitroso-di-phenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachloroanisole
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
85 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
95 U
34 U
5U
17 U
17 U
17 U
17 U
34 U
34 U
34 U
85 U
34 U
34 U
17 U
17 U
34 U
34 U
85 U
900 U
370 U
900 U
1
900
370
34
17
17
435
5.2
34
17
1.4
44
10
2
34
6.8
34
34
6
85
17
17
1
17
370
17
17
0.13
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Maximum
Concentrationa
(Qualifier)
55,000 U
55,000 U
23,000 U
23,000 U
23,000 U
55,000 U
23,000 U
170
23,000 U
23,000 U
23,000 U
55,000 U
23,000 U
23,000 U
55,000 U
55,000 U
23,000 U
23,000 U
23,000 U
23,000 U
23,000 U
55,000 U
55,000 U
7,500 U
3,050 U
7,500 U
50
7,500
3,050
23,000
23,000
23,000
360,000
91
23,000
23,000
4.4
23,000
220
747
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
703
23,000
3,050
23,000
23,000
0.6
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
Q:1511:9300:10
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
NA
NA
NA
Detection
Number of Frequency
Samples
(%)
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
8
87.5
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
8.8
34
5.9
34
8.8
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
5.9
34
8.8
34
5.9
34
5.9
6
0.0
6
0.0
6
0.0
Q:1511:9300:10
NA
NA
65A001
65A001
65A001
R18
TIE1-C-NWB
65A001
65A001
Q:1526:9300:16
65A001
Q:1521:9300:15
64A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
65A001
64A001
64A001
NA
64A001
64A001
Q:1511:9300:10
Page 3 of 5
16
11
11
34
34
34
34
67
34
33
16
35
17
55
34
54
34
32
40
34
34
34
55
34
6
34
34
16
50.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
82.4
91.0
8.8
12.1
100.0
22.9
88.2
81.8
5.9
40.7
5.9
37.5
5.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
72.7
5.9
0.0
8.8
5.9
75.0
Range of DLs
170-110000
67-110000
67-46000
67-46000
67-46000
190-110000
67-46000
40
33-46000
33-46000
33-46000
33-110000
67-46000
67-46000
67-110000
170-110000
67-46000
67-46000
33-46000
33-46000
67-46000
67-110000
170-110000
1800-15000
740-6100
1800-15000
Conc. Used
for Screening
55,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
23,000
170
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
55,000
55,000
7,500
3,050
7,500
40-100
1800-15000
740-6100
67-46000
33-46000
33-46000
870-6900
40-100
64-46000
33-46000
NA
150-46000
100
98.6-288
67-46000
67-46000
67-46000
67-46000
11-46000
170-46000
33-46000
33-46000
5-416
33-46000
740-6100
33-46000
33-46000
0.26
50
7,500
3,050
23,000
23,000
23,000
360,000
91
23,000
23,000
4.4
23,000
220
747
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
23,000
703
23,000
3,050
23,000
23,000
0.6
Selected
Ecological
Screening
Valueb
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
1.7
NVA
650
1.1
NVA
NVA
NVA
890,000
1,100
11,000
NVA
NVA
420
NVA
NVA
600
NVA
11,000
NVA
NVA
NVA
1,000
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
US EPA List of
Bioaccumulators
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Reason
Codec
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
Version 5/18/2006
Table 1. Sediment COPEC Screen for the Ecological Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number
108952
110861
Sediment
1461252
56359
PAHs (ppb)
90120
832699
829265
581420
91576
83329
208968
120127
56553
50328
205992
192972
191242
Sediment
207089
218019
53703
206440
86737
193395
91203
198550
85018
12000
Chemical
Phenol
Pyridine
Tetrabutyltin
Tributyltin
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylphenanthrene
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzofluoranthenes (total)
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
HMW PAHs
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
LMW PAHs
Naphthalene
PAHs, Total
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
34 U
370 U
0.1
3
3.6 U
6
6
5
6U
10
7
31
46
67
68
13
13
25
165
43
2U
64
11
164
47
48.0
6
212
13
26
57
Maximum
Location of
Detection
Maximum
Number of Frequency
Concentrationa
Concentration
Samples
(%)
(Qualifier)
23,000 U
64A001
34
5.9
3,050 U
NA
6
0.0
62
Q:27NB106:9400:06
41
46.3
1,220
65A001
55
78.2
216
1,500
110
300
23,000
34,000
23,000
31,000
23,400
23,000
23,000
2,600
23,000
23,000
3,700
23,500
23,000
66,000
23,000
218,000
23,000
250,000
54,000
406,000
1,900
89,000
44,800
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Range of DLs
67-46000
740-6100
5-10
98.6-288
Conc. Used
for Screening
23,000
3,050
62
1,220
Selected
Ecological
Screening
Valueb
57
NVA
NVA
25
US EPA List of
Bioaccumulators
N
N
N
Y
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
N
Y
Y
Reason
Codec
3
2
1
5
NOAA1-17c-NWB
NB226-NWB
NB102-NWB
NB102-NWB
65A001
47C001-NWB
65A001
47C001-NWB
DMDAT003163
65A001
65A001
NOAA2-20-NWB
65A001
65A001
Q:26NB027:9300:27
DMDAT003163
65A001
47C001-NWB
65A001
DMDAT003163
65A001
47C001-NWB
47C001-NWB
47C001-NWB
NB111-NWB
47C001-NWB
DMDAT003163
75
53
51
47
109
112
113
114
115
114
73
79
109
74
20
116
103
114
107
108
107
102
121
109
79
114
115
97.3
71.7
60.8
97.9
70.6
76.8
70.8
86.8
88.7
91.2
87.7
100.0
85.3
77.0
100.0
91.4
67.0
94.7
78.5
100.0
86.0
100.0
78.5
100.0
100.0
89.5
94.8
40
12-19
12-19
40
12-46000
40-46000
40-46000
570-46000
820-46000
790-46000
820-46000
NA
370-46000
370-46000
NA
820-46000
4-46000
860-46000
430-46000
NA
370-46000
NA
14-46000
NA
NA
600-46000
860-46000
216
1,500
110
300
23,000
34,000
23,000
31,000
23,400
23,000
23,000
2,600
23,000
23,000
3,700
23,500
23,000
66,000
23,000
218,000
23,000
250,000
54,000
406,000
1,900
89,000
44,800
130
NVA
NVA
NVA
70
16
44
85
261
430
27.2
NVA
170
27.2
NVA
384
63
600
19
1,700
78
552
160
4,022
NVA
240
665
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
3
1
1
1
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
1
5
5
85A001
85A001
85A001
85A001
PRP-99-07-SD-1
BCD4-01
85A001
Q:27NB102:9400:02
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
6.1
6.1
6.1
21.2
42.4
30.3
27.3
100.0
38-1260
38-2570
38-1260
43.3-1260
38-793
43.3-1260
43.3-793
NA
630
1,285
630
630
5,560
810
2,010
1,435
7
120
600
170
30
60
5
22.7
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
RCHA-SW-01
RCHA-SW-01
BCD4-01
BCD3-01
NOAA1-17c-NWB
NB047-NWB
Q:0917:9100:B
NOAA1-17c-NWB
PRP-99-07-SD-1
Q:0917:9100:B
Q:0917:9100:B
85A001
11
11
11
11
69
68
67
110
111
108
100
84
9.1
27.3
18.2
9.1
98.6
100.0
82.1
84.5
92.8
84.3
100.0
11.9
7.4-280
7.4-280
74-672
74-510
1.08
NA
0.799-1
4.33-126
4.33-79.3
4.33-200
NA
0.208-65.2
140
140
450
430
146
88
131
462
188
1,615
2,496
32.6
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
2
2.2
1
2
2.2
1
1.6
2
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
PCBs (ppb)
12674112 Aroclor 1016
11104282 Aroclor 1221
11141165 Aroclor 1232
53469219 Aroclor 1242
Sediment
12672296 Aroclor 1248
11097691 Aroclor 1254
11096825 Aroclor 1260
1336363 Total PCBs
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES (ppb)
93765
2,4,5-T
93721
2,4,5-TP
94757
2,4-D
94826
2,4-DB
53190
2,4'-DDD
3424826 2,4'-DDE
Sediment
784026
2,4'-DDT
72548
4,4'-DDD
72559
4,4'-DDE
50293
4,4'-DDT
50293
DDTS, total of 6 isomers
309002
Aldrin
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
19
19
19
21.65
19
21.65
21.65
11.89
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
630
1,285
630
630
5,560
810
2,010
1,435
3.7
3.7
37
37
0.29
0.14
0.03
1.46
1.52
0.08
3.06
0.104
U
U
U
U
140 U
140 U
450
430
146
88
131
462
188
1615
2496
32.6 U
U
U
U
U
U
Page 4 of 5
Version 5/18/2006
Table 1. Sediment COPEC Screen for the Ecological Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium Cas Number Chemical
Total BHCd
Sediment
12789036
75990
1918009
120365
60571
88857
115297
72208
Total Chlordanee
Dalapon
Dicamba
Dichloroprop
Dieldrin
Dinoseb
Total Endosulfanf
Total Endring
Total Heptachlorh
Hexachlorobenzene
MCPA
MCPP
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Total Nonachlori
Toxaphene
118741
94746
93652
72435
2385855
5103731
8001352
DIOXINS/FURANS (ppb)
g
Sediment
1746016 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
0.05 U
0.13
135
5.5
55
0.1
27
0.65
0.05
0.01
0.055
5500
5500
1.5
0.01
0.05
5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Maximum
Concentrationa
(Qualifier)
80
U
51.2
220
160
560
131
44.5
63
63
32.6
23,000
8,500
23,000
326
11.4
16.9
3260
0.000345 U
0.475
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
PRP-99-02-SD-1
Detection
Number of Frequency
Samples
(%)
100
30.0
NB066-NWB
NA
BCD6-01
BCD6-01
85A001
NA
85A001
85A001
85A001
65A001
NA
BCD1-01
85A001
NOAA2-11-NWB
Range of DLs
0.11-65.2
Conc. Used
for Screening
80
Selected
Ecological
Screening
Valueb
3
US EPA List of
Bioaccumulators
Y
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Reason
Codec
5
85A001
94
6
6
6
101
6
35
98
100
99
6
6
33
67
34
33
80.9
0.0
50.0
50.0
73.3
0.0
5.7
27.6
9.0
65.7
0.0
33.3
12.1
56.7
97.1
6.1
0.26-65.2
270-440
11-17
110-170
0.2-79.3
54-89
1.3-126
0.11-126
0.11-65.2
0.11-46000
11000-17000
11000-17000
3-652
0.247-1
NA
10-6520
51.2
220
160
560
131
44.5
63
63
32.6
23,000
8,500
23,000
326
11.4
16.9
3260
0.5
NVA
NVA
NVA
0.02
NVA
5.5
0.02
5
20
NVA
NVA
19
7
NVA
NVA
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
3
2
1
1
5
2
5
5
5
5
2
1
5
5
1
5
DMDAT003158
99
98.0
0.00069-0.00074
0.475
0.0036
Y
Y
5
a The maximum concentration reports the highest value, taking into account detected values and values associated with 1/2 the detection limit. If the value in this column is qualified with a U and the analyte is bold, then the maximum concentration is 1/2 of
the reported detection limit.
b The selected screening value is presented in Chapter 6 (Table 6)
c Inclusion or exclusion of constituent on COPC list based on the following factors: 1. No screening value available; 2. Detected in <5% of samples; 3. Exceeds screening benchmark; 4. Does not exceed screening benchmark; 5. Detected and considered a
bioaccumulative constituent; 6. Considered an essential nutrient
d Total BHC is the sum of alpha, beta, and delta.
e Total Chlordane is the sum of chlordane, alpha chlordane, gamma chlordane, and oxy-chlordane
f Total Endosulfan is the sum of sulfate, alpha and beta.
g Total Endrin values are the sum of endrin, endrin aldehyde and endrin ketone.
h Total Heptachlor is the sum of heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide
i Total Nonachlor is the sum of cis- and trans- nonachlor.
j 2,3,7,8-TCDD exceeded screening criteria alone. The entire class of dioxins are then considered as COPCS based on the potential additive effects of the 17 2,3,7,8- substituted dioxin/furan isomers. The congeners will be evaluated separately in future
exercises if 2,3,7,8-TCDD does not exceed the criteria exclusively.
BOLD: The maximum concentration for the analytes in bold is based on 1/2 the detection limit
Definitions: U = The material was analyzed for, but not detected. For purposes of the screen, 1/2 of the detection limit is used as the screening value in instances where this is the maximum concentration.
NVA = No Value Available
ND = Not detected
NA = Not applicable
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Page 5 of 5
Version 5/18/2006
This page intentionally left blank
Table 2. Surface Water COPEC Screen for the Ecological Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
a
Exposure
Cas
Medium
Number
INORGANICS (ppb)
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
260
12.5
5.0
30.5
0.85
U
U
U
U
450
100 U
6.9
50
5 U
7440439
7440702
18540299
7440484
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
0.053
247,000
0.803
2.75 U
5
255,000
15
25 U
7440508
57125
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7487947
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
2.4
2 U
200
1.82
770,000
93
0.0055
12.5
5 U
950
56
834,000
110
0.12
1.53
243,000
8.85 U
0.03 U
6,810,000
15 U
25
328,000
12.5 U
10
6,970,000
125 U
Water
Chemical
7440020
7440097
7782492
7440224
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
7440280 Thallium
7440622 Vanadium
7440666 Zinc
4.5
9.2
95501
541731
106467
120821
87865
95954
88062
120832
105679
51285
121142
25321146
91587
95578
88744
88755
91941
99092
534521
101553
59507
10672
7005723
106445
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
7.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
Concentration
(Qualifier)
10
30
Location of Maximum
Concentration
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NA
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NA
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NA
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NA
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
DMDAT002449
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NA
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NA
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-01-1-NWB
Detection
Number of Frequency
(%)
Samples
Range of DLs
Conc. Used
for
Screening
Selected
Ecological
Screening
Valueb
USEPA List of
Bioaccumulators
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Reason
Codec
3
3
3
3
3
66.7
0.0
33.3
33.3
0.0
520
25-200
10
100
1.7-10
450
100
6.9
50
5
100
NVA
36
NVA
11
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
3
2
5
1
2
12
3
12
3
75.0
100.0
75.0
0.0
1.7-10
NA
5.4-30
5.5-50
5
255,000
15
25
7.7
NVA
50
5
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
5
6
5
2
12
3
3
14
3
3
12
83.3
0.0
100.0
78.6
100.0
100.0
83.3
25
4-10
NA
7-15
NA
NA
0.2
12.5
5
950
56
834,000
110
0.12
3.1
1
300
8
NVA
300
0.0026
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
5
2
3
5
6
4
5
12
3
3
12
3
3
75.0
100.0
0.0
25.0
100.0
0.0
5.4-50
NA
NA
0.006-20
NA
NA
25
328,000
12.5
10
6,970,000
125
8.2
NVA
4.6
1.9
NVA
8
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
5
6
2
5
6
2
3
12
33.3
83.3
20
25-36
10
30
14
66
N
Y
N
Y
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
3-24
2-10
2-10
1-10
1-10
15-49
1-10
2-10
1-10
1-10
2-10
1-10
2-10
2-10
5-24
2-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
3-10
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
25
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
30
5
7.9
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SVOCs (ppb)
Water
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,3,4,5,6-Pentachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
25
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Page 1 of 3
Version 5/18/2006
Table 2. Surface Water COPEC Screen for the Ecological Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Exposure
Medium
Water
Cas
Number
100016
100027
111911
111444
108601
117817
85687
86748
132649
84662
131113
84742
117840
87683
77474
67721
78591
98953
86306
621647
95487
108952
Chemical
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-Octyl phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloropentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
N-nitroso-di-phenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
O-cresol
Phenol
PCBs (ppb)
1336363 Total PCBs (18 congeners x 2)
Water
PAHs (ppb)
91576
2-Methylnaphthalene
83329
Acenaphthene
208968 Acenaphthylene
120127 Anthracene
56553
Benz[a]anthracene
50328
Benzo[a]pyrene
205992 Benzo[b]fluoranthene
191242 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Water
207089 Benzo[k]fluoranthene
218019 Chrysene
53703
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
206440 Fluoranthene
86737
Fluorene
193395 Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
91203
Naphthalene
85018
Phenanthrene
129000 Pyrene
PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES (ppb)
53190
2,4'-DDD
3424826 2,4'-DDE
784026 2,4'-DDT
72548
4,4'-DDD
12559
4,4'-DDE
50293
4,4'-DDT
93765
2,4,5-T
93721
2,4,5-TP
Water
94757
2,4-D
94826
2,4-DB
309002 Aldrin
d
Total BHC
57749
Chlordanee
60571
Dieldrin
f
115297 Total Endosulfan
Total Endring
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
1.0 U
5.0 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
0.5 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
2.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.5 U
0.00012 U
Maximum
Concentrationa
(Qualifier)
5 U
24.5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
12 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
0.00012 U
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.0005
0.0004
0.0004
0.00014
0.0004
0.00025
0.005
0.005
0.24
0.05
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0.004
0.0004
0.0004
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.024
0.024
0.72
0.24
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.11
0.11
0.11
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Location of Maximum
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Detection
Number of Frequency
(%)
Samples
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
Range of DLs
2-10
10-49
1-10
1-10
1-10
2-10
2-10
2-10
1-10
2-10
2-10
2-10
2-10
2-10
5-24
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
Conc. Used
for
Screening
5
24.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Selected
Ecological
Screening
Valueb
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
0.6
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
0.3
0.07
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
USEPA List of
Bioaccumulators
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Reason
Codec
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NA
9
0.0
0.00024
0.00012
0.03
Y
N
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
9
9
12
12
12
3
3
3
3
12
3
12
12
12
3
22.2
0.0
0.0
25.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
8.3
33.3
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.001
NA
NA
0.0003-0.22
0.0008-0.22
0.0005-0.22
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.05
0.48
0.1-0.48
0.002-0.11
0.002-0.11
0.002-0.11
0.004-0.22
0.02-0.22
0.004-0.22
0.004
0.0004
0.004
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.024
0.024
0.72
0.24
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.11
0.11
0.11
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
0.001
NVA
NVA
NVA
NVA
1.3
0.08
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.0023
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
5
2
2
5
5
2
2
2
1
2
5
5
2
5
2
2
DMDAT002324
NA
NA
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NA
NA
NA
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NA
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
NA
NA
Page 2 of 3
Version 5/18/2006
Table 2. Surface Water COPEC Screen for the Ecological Risk Assessment for Newark Bay Study Area
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
0.001 U
1 U
0.01 U
0.0003 U
0.1 U
Maximum
Concentrationa
(Qualifier)
0.055
5 U
0.55 U
0.0003 U
5.5 U
Detection
Number of Frequency
(%)
Samples
12
8.3
3
0
3
0
9
0
3
0
Conc. Used
for
Screening
0.055
5
0.55
0.0003
5.5
Selected
Ecological
Screening
Valueb
0.004
NVA
0.03
NVA
0.0002
USEPA List of
Cas
Location of Maximum
Bioaccumulators
Range of DLs
Number Chemical
Concentration
h
Total Heptachlor
76448
NB99RASW-02-1-NWB
0.002-0.11
Y
118741 Hexachlorobenzene
NA
2-10
Y
Water
72435
Methoxychlor
NA
0.02-1.1
Y
5103731 Total Nonachlor
NA
0.0006
N
8001352 Toxaphene
NA
0.19-11
Y
DIOXINS/FURANS (ppb)
1746016 2,3,7,8-TCDD
0.0000039
0.0000044
NB99RASW-04-1-NWB
3
100.0
NA
0.0000044
NVA
Y
Water
a. The maximum concentration reports the highest value, taking into account detected values and values associated with 1/2 the detection limit. If the value in this column is qualified with a U and the analyte is bold, then the maximum
concentration is 1/2 of the reported detection limit.
b. The selected screening value is the lowest of EPA NRWQC, NYDEC, and NJDEP surface water quality criteria which are presented in Chapter 6 (Table 7)
Exposure
Medium
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
N
N
N
N
Reason
Codec
5
2
2
2
2
Y
5
c Inclusion or exclusion of constituent on COPC list based on the following factors: 1. No screening value available; 2. Detected in <5% of samples; 3. Exceeds screening benchmark; 4. Does not exceed screening benchmark; 5. Detected and
considered a bioaccumulative constituent; 6. Considered an essential nutrient
d Total BHC represents alpha, beta, delta, and gamma BHC
e Total Chlordane represents alpha (cis) and gamma (trans) chlordane.
f Total Endosulfan represents endosulfan sulfate, alpha and beta.
g Total Endrin represents endrin, endrin aldehyde, and endrin keytone
h Total Heptachlor represents heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide
BOLD: The maximum concentration for the analytes in bold is based on 1/2 the detection limit
Definitions: U = The material was analyzed for, but not detected. For purposes of the screen, 1/2 of the detection limit is used as the screening value in instances where this is the maximum concentration.
NVA = No Value Available
NA = Not applicable
Draft Pathways Analysis Report
Newark Bay Study Area
Page 3 of 3
Version 5/18/2006