TIERRA SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED COMMENTS ON THE …semspub.epa.gov/work/02/240930.pdf · Comments -...

TIERRA SOLUTIONS, INC.

September 22,2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Emergency and Remedial Response Division 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, Room W-20 New York, NY 10007-1866

Attention: Ms. Alice L. Yeh Remedial Project Manager

Subject: Comments Lower Passaic River Restoration Project [Draft] Pathways Analysis Report - July 2005

Dear Ms. Yeh:

Tierra Solutions, Inc. (Tierra) reviewed and is submitting the enclosed comments on the [draft] Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Pathways Analysis Report - July 2005 ("LPRRP PAR"), which was obtained from the www.ourpassaic.org project website. Although there was no formal request by the Government Partners (US Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, NJ Office of Maritime Resources, and the Trustees) for comments, the LPRRP PAR is very important in that it should be expected to impact greatly the design of major segments of the field investigations, data analyses, and interpretations. Therefore, Tierra feels it important that the LPRRP PAR undergo rigorous review and that the Government Partners accept comments. We trust that Tierra's comments will be duly considered and that corresponding changes will be made to the LPRRP PAR as deemed appropriate by EPA and the other Government Partners.

The following paragraphs highlight some of the more significant observations from our review of the LPRRP PAR.

There is no description of the integrated nature of the CERCLA/WRDA/NRDA process contemplated for the LPRRP. Certainly, it is essential that every document prepared by the Government Partners recognize, highlight, and accommodate the unique partnership that has been formed to address the degraded conditions of the Passaic River.

As explained in many of Tierra's comments, the LPRRP PAR does not follow EPA guidance for developing either the human health or the ecological risk assessment. This is a serious flaw which, if not rectified, could be fatal to the legitimacy and acceptability of related work. The details of this flaw are described, and examples provided as appropriate, throughout the enclosed comments. The LPRRP PAR should be a roadmap to the development of accurate risk assessments. Therefore, to have flaws in the development of this roadmap is a fundamental issue that must be addressed. The EPA

i 240930

i iiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiuiiii TwoTowerCenterBlvd.EastBrunswick,NewJersey08816 '

10thfloor

A. Yeh Comments - [Draft] Pathways Analysis Report September 22,2005

guidance documents for human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment are quite clear and are followed routinely by environmental practitioners. It is essential that the LPRRP PAR clearly reflect that the EPA guidance will be followed.

There is a wealth of literature and data that have not been considered in developing the draft LPRRP PAR. This is troubling in that one of the primary objectives of a pathways analysis report is to perform just such a literature and data review to understand what relevant information and data are available, what preliminary conclusions can be developed based upon those data, and what data gaps exist. Such a review is performed so that further investigations, i f needed, can be designed properly to f i l l any data gaps. The authors need to review the information cited in the enclosed comments and, in addition, need to perform a thorough search of the available literature and data either to confirm that all available data and information have been identified already or to obtain relevant information and data not previously obtained and incorporate it into the next version of the LPRRP PAR. Through the Government Partners, the project team should avail itself of information and data sources that might not otherwise be available to it (e.g., the NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Program's Contaminant Assessment Reduction Project; results of investigations from Stevens Institute of Technology, Rutgers; monitoring data required of the Passaic Valley Sewage Commissioners).

The Conceptual Site Model contained in the LPRRP PAR is not developed as completely as possible based upon available data. It is essential that each new document developed for this project expand on the documents/products previously developed. Otherwise, each document represents a stand-alone effort conducted in a vacuum, which is contrary to the intent of the process, inconsistent with meeting the needs of the Government Partners, and wasteful of the limited financial resources available for this demanding project.

In light of the volume and substance of Tierra's enclosed comments, we request a formal opportunity for review and comment be provided after our enclosed comments have been duly considered and corresponding changes made. Further, the title of the LPRRP PAR should be changed to incorporate the term(s) "Preliminary" and/or "Draft" preceding "Pathways Analysis Report" until the revised document is finalized following adequate time for review and comment and proper consideration of comments by the Government Partners. As documented in the attached comments, the current version of the LPRRP PAR is not sufficiently developed to be characterized as a final product. In addition, its "sister" document, the Newark Bay Study Draft Pathways Analysis Report June 2005 (Bay PAR), which exhibits a nature and degree of refinement and underlying support similar to that of the LPRRP PAR, was correctly titled "Draft" to inform readers that it is not final.

In addition, due to the close relationship between the LPRRP PAR and the Bay PAR, we also are enclosing comments developed for the Bay PAR. It is clear from our review of these "sister" reports that the documents are quite similar and much of their respective text

- A. Yeh Comments - [Draft] Pathways Analysis Report September 22,2005

is identical. Therefore, it is important that EPA's LPRRP team review our Bay PAR comments as well.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the LPRRP PAR and to provide substantive input. I f you have any questions regarding the topics raised in this letter or regarding any of the enclosed comments, please contact me at (732) 246-5849. We look forward to reviewing a revised draft of the LPRRP PAR before it is finalized.

Please include a copy of this letter and enclosures in the Administrative Record for the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site.

Richard P. McNutt Manager Remediation On behalf of Occidental Chemical Corporation (as successor to Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company)

Enclosures: • Comments on [Draft] LPRRP Pathways Analysis Report. July 2005. • Comments on Newark Bay Study Draft Pathways Analysis Report. June 2005.

Copy to: Lisa Baron-NJOMR S. Nicholson-USACE R. Romagnoli - BBL

Sincerely,

Tierra Solutions, Inc. Comments September 22, 2005

Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Pathways Analysis Report

Tierra's Comments on [Draft] LPRRP Pathways Analysis Report September 22,2005

General Comments on LPRRP Pathways Analysis Report

1. There is no explicit description of the integrated CERCLA/WRDA/NRDA process for the LPRRP

There is no explicit description of the CERCLA/WRDA/NRDA process for the LPRRP. The LPRRP PAR should include a description of the integrated planning process, and one or more of Dr. Jonathon Deason's papers appropriately summarize the integrated project objectives and, at least in an abbreviated form, could be included in the PAR to address this oversight (see Deason 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002; Fuglevand and Deason 2001).

2. The role of the PAR in the EPA's eight-step superfund ecological risk assessment process is^unclear

It appears that the primary (ecological) objectives of the PAR were to develop the conceptual site model (CSM) and to lay out a plan for conducting the screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA). However, these objectives are not stated clearly, and the discussion (or lack of adequate discussion) of the overall role of the PAR in the ecological risk assessment process is confusing. The function of the PAR in the EPA eight-step process should be made clear at the beginning of this document. In addition, an explanation should be given for each ecological element of the PAR and how it links to the SLERA and/or base line ecological risk assessment (BERA) process.

3. Site classification At various locations throughout the report, data groups or geographically defined reaches such as the entire river, the lower river, and the upper river are identified. The purpose(s) for this classification scheme is/are unclear. Please provide definitions of the precise geographical extent of each of these categories and explain the reason(s) for their creation. Additionally, it is unclear if this scheme will make a difference from the standpoint of COPCs/COPECs. It is important to note that this classification agrees neither with the ACOE system nor the river reach system used by the State of New Jersey and the USEPA for Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory purposes.

4. A comprehensive literature review of environmental conditions and human activities has not been performed for the Lower Passaic River. Such a review should be used to serve as a foundation for the preparation of a pathways analysis report and is required by EPA risk assessment guidance {Section 3.0 pages 11-12; Section 4.0 pages 15-17; Section 5.0 pages 19-44)

With regard to the preparation of a conceptual model as one of the preliminary steps in a baseline risk assessment, EPA guidance clearly requires a careful review of all historical data and all information relevant to understanding human receptors (EPA

Page 1 of38


1989, 1991). The EPA Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessment States (1991):

"Data collection begins with a statement of the risk assessment purpose and a conceptual model of the current understandings of the problems to be addressed for the site under investigation. This model draws from all available historical data."

EPA RAGS Part A also emphasizes the importance of compiling all available historical data:

"All available information (i.e., information existing at the start of the RI/FS) should be reviewed in accordance with Stage 1 of the DQO process. "

While it must be acknowledged that the lower six miles of the LPRRP study area have much more historical information available than the upper 11 miles, a careful review of the available information would provide the essential foundation for understanding human exposure over the entire 17-mile stretch. In instances where credible, peer-reviewed sources of site-specific information have been published, the PAR should acknowledge these resources and either incorporate their findings or explain in detail why such resources have been rejected.

It is important to note that site-specific citations have not been provided in the PAR for any of the exposure scenarios or exposure factors. The report indicates that the conceptual site model has been developed from the site description. However, the site description provides only a limited discussion of the 17-mile stretch of river and does not address features of the river specific to human receptors such as the prevalence of mudflats accessible to humans, areas of the river most frequented by humans, or specific areas where sediment contact or mudflat contact is known to occur. A summary of the important historical information which has not been considered in the development of the PAR is summarized in the subsections below:

4.1 Designated use of Passaic River (Section 5.2.1 page 31)

When characterizing potentially exposed populations in accordance with the EPA RAGS (1989) guidance, there are several sources of information which should be utilized. As part of determining current use, the guidance recommends the following:

• Site visit • State or local zoning or other land use-related laws and regulations • Aerial photographs and topographic maps

With regard to land-use related laws and current use of the Lower Passaic River, the PAR should draw upon the 2005 NJ Surface Water Quality Standards. This regulation defines the designated use for the Passaic River, and specific water quality

Page 2 of38

Tierra's Comments on [Draft] LPRRP Pathways Analysis Report September 22, 2005

criteria standards which correspond to the designated use. The regulations define the following terms:

• "Designated use" - those surface water or ground water uses, both existing and potential, that have been established by the Department for waters of the State.

• "Primary contact recreation" - water related recreational activities that involve significant ingestion risks and includes, but is not limited to, wading, swimming, diving, surfing, and water skiing.

• "Secondary contact recreation" means recreational activities where the probability of water ingestion is minimal and includes, but is not limited to, boating and fishing.

The Passaic River designations are shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1: NJDEP Passaic River Designations Segment Designation* Explanation Recreational

Contact Fecal coliform criteria

Confluence with Second River to mouth

SE3 Saline estuarine waters

Secondary SE3- 1500/100 ml

Dundee Lake dam to confluence with Second River

SE2/FW2-NT Saline estuarine waters; Non-trout fresh water

Saline portion-Secondary Fresh water portion -Primary and Secondary

SE2- 770/100 ml FW2-200/100 ml

*For definitions of Water Quality Classifications, SE3, SE2 and FW2-NT, see N.J.A.C. 7:9B.

As can be seen in Table 1, the NJ pathogen surface water standards are specific to the designated use. For SE2/SE3 waters, ingestion of surface water is expected to be minimal and the high fecal coliform standard reflects the limited recreational uses of the lower portion of the Passaic. The exposure factors and scenarios used in the risk assessment should reflect the NJDEP designated uses of the Passaic. A preliminary risk assessment evaluating exposure to pathogens detected in the effluent from a CSO along the lower Passaic River has previously been completed and submitted to EPA (Exponent, 2004). This risk assessment found elevated health risks associated with exposure to bacteria and Giardia in the river water using typical exposure scenarios. The PAR should cite this document and acknowledge that individuals that choose to wade or swim in the 17-mile tidal portion of Passaic River are at risk for pathogen-related disease. If wading and/or swimming is to be included as a pathway for the tidal portion, then pathogens must be included as a COPC, as the NJDEP pathogen indicator surface water criteria for the Lower Passaic is not protective of human health for these activities.

4.2 Creel/angler survey (Section 5.2.3.1 Exposure Factors page 39)

Page 3 of38


The PAR conceptual model identifies ingestion of fish and shellfish as a complete pathway for anglers, recreational users and homeless persons. The PAR states that the Exposure Factors Handbook, statewide surveys and mid-1990s era Burger/Pflugh angler intercept survey for Newark Bay will be used to develop fish/shellfish ingestion rate. However, a comprehensive creel/angler survey conducted specifically for the lower 6-mile stretch is publicly available (TER, 2001). As shown in Table 6.1 of the TER Report (2001), the Passaic River Study Area creel survey satisfies many more of the characteristics of a quality angler survey than either the Exposure Factors Handbook references or the Buger/Pflugh survey. This survey was completed after an expert panel was convened to develop an opinion regarding the necessity of the survey and to develop modifications to the survey plan to develop site-specific fish consumption rates (Finley et al., 2003). Because of overharvesting, loss of habitat and many sources of pollution in urban watersheds, low populations of fish and shellfish tend to decrease fishing yields. The independent third party peer review panel was formed in response to USEPA's advocacy of default generic consumptions rates, which may not be appropriate for a highly industrialized river with low angler population size (Finely et al., 2003).

The published review of the expert panel findings provides information that is essential to preparation of a credible PAR. It is recognized that the creel survey does not address the upper 11 mile stretch; however, it provides a starting point in the iterative risk assessment process for understanding site specific activity patterns and emphasizes the importance of site specific information. Some of the important key elements of the survey and peer review panel were:

• The creel/angler survey was designed to estimate factors such as annual trips per year, grams eaten per trip, number of years of fishing, and fish ingestion by sensitive subpopulations such as children, pregnant women, or nursing mothers.

• The expert panel unanimously determined that site-specific information was necessary and appropriate to support an accurate risk assessment. The panel wrote:

"It would be inappropriate to apply reported default fish consumption rates to the Passaic River Study Area. There are substantial physical and institutional differences between the Puget Sound, the Great Lakes and Maine, where existing studies have been conducted, and the Passaic River Study Area. The key differences include the species caught, catch rates and the size of fish caught, as well."

• The panel also determined that the existing published literature and data would be inadequate to complete an accurate or comprehensive risk assessment.

• Due to the small size of the angler population in this highly industrialized area, a special survey design was required to^maximize usable information.

• Repeated observations were required because the lower 6-miles study area contains only a few discrete, identifiable public-access points for fishing and

Page 4 of 38


crabbing. Many areas are restricted from public access by chain link fence or bulkheads.

• The panel concluded mat, as expected, fish yields were low. The panel wrote:

"These data show that very few fish are being caught, the fish that are caught are small, and only a small portion of the total catch is being consumed. "

• The panel concluded that the creel/angler survey would

"...significantly contribute to the Passaic River Study Area risk assessment. "

The PAR indicates that " i f a creel survey is deemed necessary," it is recommended that a survey be performed for the entire river. Given the conclusions of the expert panel, the PAR should recognize the survey that has already been completed for the lower 6 mile stretch and adopt the conclusion of the expert panel that default or generic consumption rates are not appropriate for an urban watershed; site-specific consumption rates are essential to support an accurate human health risk assessment. Furthermore, the PAR should address the limitations of the Burger and Pflugh surveys, as discussed in the TER Report (2001).

4.3 Shoreline activity survey (Section 5.2.3.1 page 39)

A review of the NBSA PAR indicates that a recently performed shoreline human activity survey (Proctor et al., 2002) was cited in regard to the homeless person scenario. However, this survey, which was performed for the lower 6-mile stretch of the Passaic River, has not been acknowledged or utilized in the Lower Passaic River'

. PAR. This shoreline survey is significant to the development of the conceptual site model because it is consistent with the NJDEP designated use for the river. In general terms, most observations of shoreline activities were of adults and of small groups of people standing away from the shoreline. Very little contact with the surface water was observed and sediment contact was restricted primarily to hands and feet. Approximately 51% of observations were at a park in Newark. People were observed to be collecting water from drain pipes (0.3%) or collecting surface water (0.7%) at a frequency only slightly less than wading in water (0.9%) or bathing (0.9%). The frequency of collection of surface water or effluent water indicates that waterborne pathogens could be an important contributor of human health risk. The findings of this survey would be relevant to determining areas of concern as well as central tendency exposure factors.

4.4 Surface water sampling (Section 4.0page 15)

The PAR states that at the time of preparation of the report, no surface water data from within the study area were publicly available. While it is true that surface water data are limited for the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River, there is historical and current surface water data, which should be considered in the initial review of available site data. Since both current and future human health and ecological

Page 5 of38


\

conditions are to be considered in the proposed analyses, these water quality data must be considered in this PAR.

First, the PAR should acknowledge the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC) long term monitoring program for the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay (PVSC, 2002). River monitoring began in the summer of 2000 and a mobile water quality sampling laboratory was added in 2001. Twelve stations are sampled within the Lower Passaic River at three locations along a transect. The parameters of ecological and/or human health interest that are monitored include dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand CBOD, orthophos-phate, total phosphorus, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, total Kjedahl nitrogen, and Secchi depth. Most importantly with respect to human health risk assessment, fecal coliform is monitored as an indicator of risk to human health. Some of the results of this sampling (PSCV, 2002) include:

• A decline of dissolved oxygen from 11.5 mg/L at Dundee Dam to 6.0 mg/L at the mouth of the Passaic indicating appreciable organic loading to the river downstream of the dam.

• Fecal coliform concentrations of 1,120 CFU / 100 ml which exceeds the NJ primary contact standard by an order of magnitude. Prior to modern waste water treatment, historical fecal coliform levels exceeded this standard by two orders of magnitude.

• An average level of suspended solids (36 mg/L) that is only slightly less than the 40 mg/L standard for NJ.

Second, the PAR should reference the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, which collects surface water data for the Passaic River upstream of the Dundee Dam. A study by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (1998) found relatively high detection frequencies and seasonal variability in several VOCs at the Passaic River at Two Bridges, N.J. Organic chemicals detected more than 50% of the time in at least one season included MTBE, Chloroform, TCE, TCA, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, and bfomodichloromethane. This citation emphasizes the importance of a high quality surface water monitoring program, because detection frequencies and variability are likely to be even greater downstream of the Dundee Dam.

Historical data (1994-1997) is also available for download from USGS from a station less than a mile upstream from Dundee Dam (Station USGS 01389880 Passaic River at Elmwood Park, NJ). The 1997 data indicate that upstream of the Dundee Dam, the geometric average enterococci level was 200 colonies per 100 ml. The EPA 1986 criteria for indicators for enterococci bacterial densities is 33/100 ml for fresh water and 35/100 ml for marine water. Using the relationship provided in the 1986 guidance for marine waters, a level of 200 colonies per 100 ml corresponds to a swimmer gastroenteritis rate of 28/1000. An enterococci result of 1100/100 ml, with an expected gastroenteritis rate of 37/1000, was obtained in July 1996. These upstream historical data indicate that there is high potential for human risk from

Page 6 of38


pathogens in the 17-mile stretch, especially for susceptible populations such as children.

4.5 Mudflat sediment sampling (Section 4,0pages 15-16)

As part of the site historical data review, all sources of data should be considered prior to screening COPCs. It does not appear that a literature review was conducted to supplement the data available in the database utilized for screening COPCs. Iannuzzi et al. (2005) and Armstrong et al. (2005) have published mudflat sediment data collected in 1999/2000. These studies are particularly relevant to ecological and human exposure because they are based on a rigorous stratified random sampling design and consider accessible sediments. The sampling was designed to properly characterize average exposure and to ensure that every mudflat habitat area was sampled. One of the conclusions for organic chemicals was that spatial variation was low for most chemicals except for SVOCs (Iannuzzi et al., 2005). This result suggests that SVOCs loadings are more localized and that different screening approaches may be required for chemicals with and without spatial variation. For metals, variability was correlated with aluminum and iron content, but not total organic carbon (Armstrong et al., 2005). Examination of these studies emphasizes the importance of utilizing data that are appropriately collected for the performance of human or ecological risk assessment. One important factor considered by these studies is spatial variability and delineating specific areas of concern. Another equally important consideration is the collection of data relevant to ecological or human exposure. Since the data sources utilized in the screening of COPCs/COPECs have not been reviewed in the PAR, it is not known to what degree the data are relevant to human and ecological exposure.

4.6 Combined sewer overflows (Section 4.0pages 15-16; Section 5.2.1 page 31)

The site description in the PAR acknowledges the presence of CSOs along the Passaic River. However, a literature review for the Passaic River indicates that CSO specific sampling has been performed in September 1994 and published in 1997 (Iannuzzi et al., 1997; Huntley et al., 1997). The primary conclusion of these papers was that CSOs are a primary source of contamination to nearby sediments and that remediation of surficial sediments will not be successful until CSOs, point sources, including storm sewer outfalls (SSOs) and permitted discharges, and non-point sources are controlled. To the extent that sediment near CSOs is accessible to biota and humans, a proper characterization of risk requires that CSO impacted sediment be quantified separately from other sediments. Although it is not apparent from the PAR, these samples are a part of the database downloaded from http://www.ourpassaic.org. This specific example shows how data have not been placed in their proper context in the COPC screening process. Because these samples corresponded to specific geographic areas, and spatial variability was observed for some analytes, it would be most appropriate to screen by specific spatial location. In this instance, samples were collected at:

Page 7 of 38


• Second River Union CSO Area • Herbert Place CSO Area • Worthington Avenue CSO Area • Ivy Street CSO Area . '

Conceptually, human receptors will be exposed at specific locations along the river. A human receptor will not randomly sample various points along the entire 17-mile stretch. Therefore, it is conceptually inaccurate to screen the COPCs, relative to human health risk assessment, for the entire 17-mile stretch or for the 6-mile and 11-mile subdivided stretches. The chemical screening should be performed for specific areas of concern that have potential for human contact, which will likely include CSO sediment areas.

EPA Dermal Guidance (EPA, 2001) specifically states:

"Sediment samples must be located in areas in which individuals are likely to come into contact with the sediments. For wading and. swimming, this includes areas which are near shore and in which sediments are exposed at some time during the year. Sediments which are consistently covered by considerable amounts of water are likely to wash off before the individual reaches the shore. "

Because a literature review and description of the data used in the COPC screening have not been provided, it is impossible to evaluate the appropriateness or compliance of such with EPA guidance. In addition, to the extent that data have been discussed in peer reviewed literature or white papers, those references along with an annotated bibliography should be provided as part of Table 1 on page 16.

4.7 Dermal sediment loading for human health risk assessment (Section 5.2.3.1 page 40)

Exposure factors should be based on the most current and reliable literature. The PAR relies upon a default soil adherence value from the 2001 EPA Dermal Assessment Guidance. However, the PAR should also recognize and utilize recent research funded by the EPA, which specifically measured sediment adherence in children (Shoaf et al. 2005). This study developed sediment adherence values for the face, forearm, hands, lower legs and feet, surveyed the clothing choices, bathing practices and clothes laundering.

5. The identification of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) for human health risk assessment has not been conducted in accordance with EPA guidelines (Section 1.3.1 page 2 and Section 5.1.2 pages20 -28)

The PAR fails to evaluate the datasets for appropriateness of use during the screening of COPCs. The screening process utilizes historical data that were collected for a variety of purposes, including characterization of sediment not accessible to humans, and is not appropriate for determining COPCs representative of current conditions in

Page 8 of38


the Lower Passaic River. This historical dataset would also not be appropriate for use in calculating risk in the proposed BRA. The data were obtained from various investigations conducted from 1990 through 2000. There are many other uncertainties associated with this dataset with regard to completeness, comparability, accuracy, precision, and representativeness, which are addressed below in Comment 5.1. In addition, as discussed in Comment 5.2, the screening process itself is flawed such that there is a high likelihood of prematurely and inaccurately excluding or including individual chemicals of concern.

5.1 Inappropriate dataset for use in human health risk assessment

EPA data usability guidelines (1991) recommend that historical data be used when available to initially identify chemicals of potential concern prior to conducting an RI/FS. However, the EPA also identifies several requirements that must be met for data to be considered usable in a risk assessment. Specifically, the data must meet criteria of completeness, comparability, representativeness, precision, and accuracy (EPA, 1989; EPA, 1991). Because these topics are not addressed for any of the 19 datasets presented in Table 1 of the PAR, it is not possible to evaluate whether it was appropriate to include each dataset in the COPC screening process. Because the data collected from the sources in Table 1 were collected for specific purposes which may not have contemplated risk assessment, EPA guidelines require a detailed review of each source of data before its inclusion in any step of the risk assessment process. An initial review suggests that at this time it is not possible to complete the COPC screening process in accordance with EPA guidelines based on the following factors:

Completeness: It does not appear that there is a complete set of data to conduct a chemical screening process for the Lower Passaic River. For example, the PAR identified no surface water samples in the Lower Passaic River. While sediment and tissue have been fairly well characterized in the lower 6-mile stretch, the available data are too limited to perform COPC screening in the upper 11-mile stretch. There are 25 or less sediment samples and three or less tissue samples over the 11-mile stretch. This small number of samples cannot possibly accurately capture human exposure such that chemicals can be eliminated as COPCs with reasonable assurance that a risk is not present at some location along the 11 -mile stretch of river.

Also, the list of contaminants currently does not include biological pathogens that originate from surface runoff and CSOs. Biological contamination is an important contributor to human and ecological risk, which frequently affects the suitability for recreational use of public waterways. For example, highly publicized closures of public beaches have occurred on Lake Erie this summer due to unsafe pathogen levels as indicated by E. coli counts (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2005). Similarly, other conventional water quality parameters, which can affect ecological conditions such as total organic carbon and dissolved oxygen, were not considered in the ecological screening process.

Page 9 of38


To address the objective of completeness, Table 3 should include every chemical known to be a concern in urban waterways based on a literature review of urban waterway tissue, sediment and surface water sampling. Currently, the absence of a chemical in Table 3 does not necessarily mean that a particular chemical is not present in water, sediment, or tissue at a level of concern, especially for the upper 11-mile stretch.

Comparability: The data used in the COPC screening are derived from a number of different sources, however, the PAR does not address the degree to which these disparate sources of data are comparable for the purpose of risk assessment. For example, comparability of detection limits, sampling locations, seasonal representativeness, and sampling purpose are not discussed. One example of a comparability disparity in the database cited in the PAR is the reporting of "ND" with no detection limit in some instances versus reporting the detection limit with the "U" qualifier. Both qualifiers indicate that the chemical was not detected, however, in cases where "ND" was reported, the sample was not considered in the screening assessment because no detection limit was provided.

Representativeness: The majority of the data utilized in this screening process are not representative of current conditions. The locations of the historical surface water and sediment samples have not been discussed. Therefore, it is not known whether these samples appropriately represent locations that are relevant to human exposure. The PAR does not discuss the degree to which the Lower Passaic River contaminant loading may or may not be uniform throughout the 17-mile study area, and whether, for the purpose of chemical screening, individual areas of concern do or do not need to be identified. Although there is a greater likelihood of contact with mudflat sediment, the COPC screening process does not distinguish the sediment data between deeper river sediment and mudflat sediment. Additionally, it may be relevant to know surface water sampling locations and their proximity to CSOs. Visual plots of historical metal, TCDD, and PCB surface sediment concentrations for the Lower Passaic River clearly indicate that chemical loadings are not expected to be uniform throughout the 17-mile study area (Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2005).

With respect to the potential transient homeless population, areas of concern such as CSOs, SSOs, and mudflats that may be more relevant to exposure than other areas (e.g., due to accessibility or proximity factors) are lumped together with all other areas of the Lower Passaic River. It cannot be discerned whether the sediments sampled and screened in this PAR reflect near-shore sediments that would be relevant to human exposure, or if the data represent sediments that are in the deeper sections of the river. As noted above in General Comment 4.6, sediment samples for risk assessment must be located in areas in which individuals are likely to come in contact with the sediments (EPA, 2001). If the sediment samples in the database are not representative of potential human exposures, the chemical screening process has the potential to inappropriately include certain chemicals in or exclude certain chemicals from further Tiers of the human health risk assessment.

Page 10 of 38


It is noted in the PAR that the sediment data in the historical database "may no longer be representative of current surface conditions." As mentioned previously, much of the data used in the PAR screening process is greater than 10 years old. Various processes, including volatilization, biodegradation, and bioaccumulation, will affect the concentrations of chemicals in site media over time (as is discussed on pages 11 -12 and 54 of the PAR). In addition, the Passaic River estuary is a characteristically depositional environment; new sediment is continually deposited that carries the signature of current human activity, which in most cases is "cleaner" but may also carry contaminants still being released to the river. As mentioned above, 25 or less sediment and 3 or fewer tissue samples have been collected from the upper stretch of the Lower Passaic. Given a study area approximately 11 miles long, it is not possible to screen COPCs with such a low number of samples. The EPA RAGS guidance (EPA, 1989) provides clear guidelines for obtaining representative samples and determining appropriate sample numbers.

Accuracy: As indicated by the chemicals in bold in the screening tables in Attachment A, in many instances the maximum value was based on a non-detect result equal to one-half the detection limit. In instances where the detection limit is high relative to a screening value, the reported detection frequency cannot be considered accurate. For example, according to the PAR, analyses for hexachlorobenzene were conducted in 213 sediment samples in the 17-mile stretch with a maximum value of "less than 17,000 ppb." The selected human health screening value was 300 ppb based on a cancer endpoint. In these 213 sediment samples, the detection frequency was 0.9% and this chemical was not selected as a COPC. However, the range of detection limits of 330 to 17,000 ppb is higher than the screening value of 300 ppb for hexachlorobenzene. Therefore, this chemical should have been identified as a COPC because the data analysis was not accurate enough to detect this chemical at levels above the screening level. Given that the dataset includes detection limits above screening values, it can be concluded that at least some of the data used do not have the accuracy necessary to properly screen some chemicals.

Additionally, the PAR notes that the sediment data in the Upper River had unusually high detection limits. Use of these data resulted in maximum values (represented by Vi of the detection limit) that were actually not detected by the laboratory methods used. It would be useful to include a column with the maximum detected concentration in the Attachment A screening tables.

Before the chemical screening process can be completed, current data are required to account for changes that have occurred in pesticide use patterns, changes in sediment transport, and changes in chemical loadings to Lower Passaic River media. It is also inappropriate to use these data in a formal screening process, such that certain chemicals may be included in or eliminated from further consideration based upon an outdated, incomplete, or inadequate collection of data.

5.2 Flawed COPC selection process for human health risk assessment

Page 11 of 38


The first tier of the proposed two-tiered approach will not only potentially eliminate chemicals prematurely, but will also include many chemicals that do not need to be carried on to the second tier. Screening processes are used to focus risk assessments on those chemicals that are of real concern, and to eliminate further focus upon chemicals that are not relevant and merely time-consuming to evaluate (EPA, 1989). As such, chemical screening can be a particularly useful tool for large sites such as the Lower Passaic River site that have many potential chemicals of interest. In the PAR, COPCs were selected based on the identification of Class A carcinogens, . frequency of detection, essential nutrients, and a comparison of concentrations to screening values. Although the use of these criteria is appropriate, because of the uncertainties in the data used the screening process has questionable ability to properly discern COPCs versus non-COPCs. In addition, in certain instances, the manner in which the screening was applied is of concern, including:

• The elimination of the ND coded data will skew the detection frequencies such that they will be overestimated.

• Many VOCs and SVOCs in sediment were screened using Vi of the detection limit as the maximum concentration, and were retained as COPCs using this process. In such cases, maximum detected concentrations should have been considered or the dataset excluded due to low accuracy.

• Chromium is considered a Class A carcinogen in this assessment and screened against the screening value for hexavalent chromium. It cannot be determined in the PAR i f the data are reflective of total chromium, trivalent chromium, hexavalent chromium, or some combination of the three. Although the notation "chromium" does not suggest that the data are for hexavalent chromium, these samples are not usable unless this determination can be made. Finally, the PAR should acknowledge that hexavalent chromium is rarely, i f ever, found in sediment and the use of toxicity criteria/screening values based on such is an extremely conservative approach. ,

• Based upon the historical data presented in Table 1, there are not likely to be any volatile COPCs in surficial sediment. Two of 34 constituents were determined to be COPCs because there are no human health-based screening criteria available: total petroleum hydrocarbons - diesel range and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons. Petroleum hydrocarbons are not evaluated in human health risk assessments, rather their constituents are analyzed for and evaluated.

Furthermore, volatile chemicals generally do not bind to sediment. The third and final volatile COPC in sediment, benzene, was retained because it is considered to be a Class A carcinogen. This should be reconsidered because 1) benzene was detected in 3.3% of 120 samples, 2) its maximum concentration (300 ug/kg with and M qualifier) is well below the screening criteria of 640 ug/kg, and 3) due to the volatile nature of benzene, this old concentration is not likely to be representative of current conditions.

Page 12 of 38


6. The PAR should discuss the lack of consideration of information specific to the Lower Passaic River and be titled "Preliminary Pathways Analysis Report" [emphasis added] to emphasize the iterative approach to risk assessment and considerable data gaps for concentration data and site specific exposure factors (Title Page, Section 7.0page 77)

The summary in Section 7.0 acknowledges that the objectives of this report were to develop a preliminary CSM and preliminary list of COPCs/COPECs. In fact, the development of exposure scenarios for the current version of the PAR is in many instances not based on site-specific observations or surveys. EPA (1989) recommends development of preliminary exposure pathways prior to sampling and analysis; however, prior to determination of areas of concern and site specific conditions, it is often not possible or is premature to assign specific and definitive exposure factors. Many preliminary exposure factors have been assigned for each of the three scenarios; however, in many instances it is not clear to what degree these factors accurately represent central tendency and upper bound exposures specific to the Lower Passaic River. Examples of exposure parameters that are currently based on assumptions, but should more appropriately be based on a site-specific data, include the: angler/sportsman sediment contact exposure frequency, angler/sportsman

' wading frequency, angler/sportsman surface water ingestion rate, homeless individual exposure frequency, presence of homeless children, recreational wading, and swimming frequency. As indicated previously, there appear to be a number of literature references, which should be considered as part of the pathways assessment and exposure analysis. In addition, the complete absence of consideration of any surface water data seems to indicate that the COPC screening process should not have been performed at this early stage.

7. The PAR does not justify treatment of the Lower Passaic River as one uniform area of concern or as two subdivided reaches (Section 4.0page 13)

Given the large distance represented by the Passaic River (which is longer than the entire island of Manhattan, New York) and variety of upstream, downstream, point and non-point sources; seasonal changes in waste load to the river; CSOs, SSOs, and other point sources, and the available data, it is clear that the sediment concentrations and surface water quality are not likely uniform. EPA guidance (1989) requires that areas of concern be selected based on locations of potentially exposed populations. Depending on the site conditions and human exposure access locations, concentrations in the Passaic River may vary substantially based on local sources. The degree to which the conditions are heterogeneous or homogeneous also influences the number of samples that are required to properly characterize risk. There is no evidence in the PAR that any consideration of site-specific conditions has been taken into account with regard to areas of interest/concern. It is not even known whether the sediment concentrations are representative of areas of interest/concern, or whether the tissue concentrations used are relevant to angler exposure potential (e.g., edible species). Proper documentation and determination of areas of concern should include review and analysis of representative and complete historical data, photo

Page 13 of 38


documentation, interviews with local residents, and creel surveys, any or all of which may reveal significant differences among different geographic areas of the study area - factors that would be of significance to identifying legitimate areas of concern.

8. The PAR does not address important contributions of waterborne pathogen contamination to human health risk (Section 5.1.1 pages 34 - 35)

As noted above concerning completeness of the data set, the presence of biological pathogens frequently causes governmental agencies to deem public waterways unsuitable for recreational use. Biological pathogens are frequently one of the primary public health concerns following a flooding event, with some deaths attributed to pathogen exposure (Bromberg, 1995). For example, one death of a volunteer firefighter was reported after Hurricane Ivan related flooding because of a blood-borne infection that resulted from exposure to bacteria in floodwaters (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2004). The presence of bacterial and viral contamination is expected in the Passaic River due to the presence of CSOs, SSOs, urban runoff, and the various accidental spills that occur. It should also be noted that pathogen exposure can also result from ingestion of biota, such as exposure to Salmonella due to ingestion of contaminated fish or shellfish (Broomberg, 1995).

In April 1998, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) initiated the New Jersey Comparative Risk Project, with a final report issued in March 2003. The central question addressed by NJDEP was: "What is the relative importance of environmental problems in New Jersey?" As part of this project, environmental stressors (chemical, physical, or biological) were ranked as having high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or low levels of impact to human health. A summary of the rankings for human health, is presented in Table 2 below. As can be observed in this table, waterborne pathogens in recreational areas are designated at a medium level of risk. Remarkably, these pathogens are considered to have a greater potential for adverse impact to human health than non-carcinogenic VOCs, MTBE, PAHs, and radionuclides, and similar impact to human health as arsenic, chromium, disinfection byproducts, endocrine disruptors, pesticides in food, and UV radiation. This table clearly shows that an accurate human health risk assessment of the Passaic River cannot be completed without considering exposure to pathogens, especially for an urban watershed such as the one in which Passaic River is situated.

Table 2: NJDEP Comparative Risk Project Human Health Stressor by Importance (NJDEP, 2003) High Medium-High Medium Medium-Low Low •Lead •CO-indoor • 1,3-butadiene •Airborne •Cadmium •Ozone •Dioxins/furans •Acrolein pathogens •Cryptosporidium-•Particulate •Asthma •Arsenic •CO-outdoor drinking water Matter inducers-indoor •Chromium •Cryptosporidium- •Electromagnetic •PCBs •Pesticides- •Disinfection recreational water radiation •Radon indoor byproducts •SOx •Greenhouse •Secondhand •Radium •Endocrine •VOCs- gases

Page 14 of 38


Tobacco •VOCs- disruptors noncarcinogenic •Hanta virus Smoke carcinogenic •Formaldehyde •Indoor microbial

•Legionella pollution •Mercury •Lyme disease •NOx •MTBE •Pesticides- •Nickel food •Nitrogen-water •Pesticides- •Noise water •Pfiesteria •Pesticides- •PAHs outdoor •Radionuclides •UV radiation •Waterborne •Waterborne pathogens-pathogens- drinking water recreational •West Nile Virus water

Additionally, a preliminary risk assessment evaluating exposure to pathogens detected in the effluent from a CSO along the lower Passaic River has previously been completed and submitted to EPA (Exponent, 2004). This risk assessment found elevated health risks associated with exposure to bacteria and Giardia in the river water using typical exposure scenarios. This is a compelling reason for the EPA to include an evaluation of pathogens in the risk assessment.

9. The conceptual site model (CSM) is very generic and is not robust in terms of fate and transport pathways, sources, and linkages that are presented (Section 3.0 pages 11-14)

A more appropriate CSM should be provided that is expanded to include a detailed diagram and description of the fate and transport pathways in the Lower Passaic River. A good model for this is the detailed CSM that is included in the Newark Bay RIWP. In addition, the ecological exposure data and information that is provided in Section.6.2 should be included in the CSM write-up in Section 3.0 as this information is critical towards justifying the exposure routes and potential receptors listed in Figure 6.

Page 15 of 38


Technical Comments on LPRRP Pathways Analysis Report

1. Objectives and purpose {Section 1.1 page 1)

Does the study area include all tributaries associated with the lower 17 miles? Does this include the full length of all of these tributaries?

2. Human health approach (Section 1.3.1 page 2)

The "key parameters" referred to are not clearly defined. The authors should provide unambiguous descriptions of their intent.

3. Ecological approach (Section 1.3.2 page2) '

This section describes a methodological approach from PAR to SLERA to data collection to fill data gaps and then to the baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA). Later in the report, however, it is clear that plans are already in place for a BERA, which may, or may not be appropriate. Further, this PAR could be considered to have proceeded beyond a PAR and some/most of the way through the SLERA. The document should be revised to accurately state what has been done and will be done, and the appropriate sequence of events to achieve a defensible ERA at the conclusion of these efforts.

In reference to the statement below, i f chemical data in tissues of ecological receptors is lacking, what conservative assumptions will be made with respect to those data?

"In the SLERA, conservative assumptions will be used where site-specific data [sic] is lacking."

This statement should either be clarified to explain what data is being referred to and what conservative assumptions will be made with respect to those data or shortened to just say that conservative assumptions will be used in the SLERA. Under the EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (USEPA, 1997), the use of conservative assumptions in SLERAs is required.

4. Site description (Figure 2, Section 2,1 pages 5 and 6)

What is the purpose of showing the area identified as "Other Targeted GIS Areal Coverage" differently from the surrounding areas?

According to NOAA NOS Chart number 12337 (Nov. 1997) there is no reach in the lower Passaic River named "Upstream Reach." After Arlington Reach, proceeding upriver, the reaches are: Belleville, Nutley, Rutherford, and Wallington. Please modify the text to accurately reflect the navigation reaches, or provide a reference that indicates the upper four reaches have been consolidated into "Upstream Reach."

Page 16 of 38


The identified restoration study area does not seem to include any part of the Hackensack River system. This may unnecessarily restrict project restoration options, which may become problematic in the near- or long-term. A comment to expand the area of potential restoration options should be provided.

5. Historical sources of contamination (Section 2.4 page 7)

Surface runoff is not included as a non-point source of contamination to the Passaic River. This important contributor should be added.

The so-called "PVSC pipeline" is identified by the PVSC as the "trunk line," "trunk sewer," and/or "main interceptor." The PAR should use the same terminology as the PVSC to avoid possible confusion.

It is unclear i f there are exactly 73 CSOs. Different documents have identified different numbers of CSOs. The PAR should cite specific references to frame the cited number correctly.

6. Fish ingestion rate (Attachment A Tables 7c, 7f-7g, 7j, 7m, 7p, 7t, 7w, 7z)

There are several inconsistencies in these exposure parameters and within the text. First, Table 4 of the PAR indicates that for the angler, recreational user, and homeless person that fish/shellfish ingestion will be evaluated qualitatively and that ingestion of other species will be evaluated semi-qualitatively. The text in Section 5.2.1 indicates that the angler fish and shellfish consumption will be evaluated quantitatively. The text for the recreational user is convoluted, but seems to indicate that ingestion of fish will be evaluated qualitatively:

"Ingestion offish will be quantitatively evaluated for the angler because their exposure will be highter [sic] than those for the recreational user "

The text does not indicate whether the homeless person's fish ingestion will be . evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively.

The table below summarizes the ingestion rate and exposure frequencies from the Attachment A exposure parameter tables. As can be seen in this table, the angler adult and adolescent exposure frequencies are based on fish consumption on an annualized basis. However, exposure frequencies have also been provided for the recreational user and homeless person. With the exception of the angler adult and adolescent, the meaning of the remaining exposure frequencies is not clear. With respect to the homeless person, the PAR acknowledges that there is'no evidence of subsistence fishing.

Page 17 of 38


Table 3: Fish Ingestion Exposure Parameters Scenario Ingestion

Rate Exposure Frequency -Days / Year (CT/RME)

Exposure Duration -Years (CT/RME)

Angler Adult TBD 365 / 365 9/30 Angler Adolescent TBD 365/365 5/9. Angler Child TBD 365/ 183 3/6 Recreational Adult TBD 52/26 3/24 Recreational Adolescent TBD 52/26 5/9 Recreational Child TBD 52/26 6/6 Resident Adult TBD 365/ 183 2.5/5 Resident Adolescent TBD 365/ 183 2.5/5 Resident Child TBD 365 / 365 2.5/5

7. Conceptual site model (Section 3.0 pages 11-14)

The discussion of the physico-chemical characteristics of the system does not describe the fact that the river is a demonstrated net depositional environment. This needs to be incorporated into the CSM, along with the impact on chemical fate and transport since many COPCs and COPECs adsorb to fine particulates.

While PAHs can be both ingested and inhaled, the toxicity is primarily from breakdown products of PAHs in an organism. The specific mechanism of toxicity depends on the type of organism and specific PAH making the statement below incorrect.

"PAH toxicity generally occurs via direct ingestion or inhalation."

This sentence should be revised accordingly.

Figure 5 in the PAR indicates that groundwater does not migrate to surface water. This is inconsistent with other LPRRP documents and work plans and a justification for this incomplete pathway should be discussed in the PAR. Also, it is of note that sediment and mudflat sediment are identified as separate media in Figure 5, and should be evaluated as such throughout the PAR. In Figure 5, sediment should be connected to incidental ingestion as a complete pathway. In addition, the connections between primary sources, secondary sources, and receptors are not precise. For example, direct ingestion of CSO water is potentially a complete pathway for homeless persons, but using the pathway connections as drawn, it is not possible to link primary sources to potential receptors. Full descriptions and references to support the categorization of a Potential Receptor as qualitative, quantitative, or, for the human health risk assessment CSM, Potentially Complete, are necessary.

Additional questions about the CSM include:

Page 18 of 38


a. How is ingestion of other species different from ingestion of fish/shellfish?

b. What other species are being modeled, and why is the model different from the Fish/Shellfish model?

c. What is the difference between a Municipal Point Source and a Storm Water Source (i.e., why are they both included in the Primary Source category?)

d. I f groundwater is shown to impact mudflats and sediments, why is surface water not shown to influence these categories also, and vice-versa?

e. Why is incidental ingestion not ah exposure route for sediment? When a boater pulls an anchor, his hands touch sediment, which can then be incidentally ingested.

f. Although included, apparently, to minimize reader Confusion, it is misleading to repeat the three Potential Exposure Routes: Dermal Contact, Incidental Ingestion, and Inhalation at the bottom of the column in the figure without some graphical indication to show they are repeated. This repetition should be made clearer.

8. Summary of available data and data manipulations (Section 4.0pages 14 through 17)

Assuming that "ND" means Non Detect and that "R" means Rejected, what is the rationale for discarding Non Detects along with Rejected data? Non-detects are important to consider since they demonstrate that a particular constituent is below the ability of the laboratory to detect it, not that there was a problem with the analysis and therefore whatever the value, the result is unreliable. Further, NDs would seem to be essential data points to include in calculations of detection frequency - the justification cited for removing NDs and Rs.

The surface sediment layer that affects biota is defined to be 0-0.5 ft. However, it is premature to define such a layer pending the planned efforts to define the biologically active zone (BAZ) in the lower Passaic River. The PAR should make clear that the data evaluated between zero and 0.5 ft are a result of the data availability, not the result of a scientifically based definition of a biologically active zone.

The authors indicate that they have assumed that all sediment concentration data are in dry weight units while all biotic tissue concentrations are in wet weight units. The extent of this issue should be discussed and include the percent of data lacking this information.

Page 19 of 3 8


The following note is insufficient to mitigate the impact of ignoring the time-dependence of surface data over a 10-year time span by performing an analysis that presumes these data are from a single time-period. The authors should provide additional discussion on the impact of using data that are between 15 and 5 years old.

"It should be noted, however, that these data are old (1990-2000) and what was once considered "surface " sediment may no longer be representative of current surface conditions. "

9. Screening process (Section 5.1.1 pages 19-20)

A table should be included that shows how the screening value was selected from among the various values considered (e.g., EPA Region IX PRG versus NDJEP Soil Remediation Standards). Inclusion of such a table will increase the transparency of the screening process.

The PAR should provide justification or a citation for establishing a 5% detection rate as the cutoff for retaining non-carcinogenic COPCs.

Please provide an explanation/justification or a reference for the reductions by a factor of 10 cited in these paragraphs.

10. COPC selection table (Table 2, Section 5.1.1 pages 25 - 26)

As stated in the general comments, the historical data do not appear to be sufficient to conduct the COPC screening process, especially for the upper 11-mile stretch. More data exist for the lower 6-mile stretch, but these data have not been analyzed with respect to spatial variability. Table 2 on page 25 and Table 3 on page 29 indicate with an "X" the COPCs for sediment and tissue samples. However, what is not clear from this table is whether the entire universe of chemicals relevant to an urban watershed have been considered since this list is simply a subset of the list of analytes available in the database and was derived based on a consideration of sources to the river.

Due to the limited number of samples for the upper 11-mile stretch of river, it is not appropriate to eliminate COPCs from the upper river that were identified in the lower 6-miles of river. It would be appropriate for Tables 2 and 3 to indicate COPCs that were excluded when the detection limit was frequently above the screening level as well as instances where a COPC was included based on a non-detect value of half the detection limit. In addition, Table 4 should indicate instances where COPCs where excluded based on data with a very low sample count (e.g., three tissue samples).

11. Inorganic constituents (Section 5.1.2.2page 27)

The text states that higher concentrations of metals appeared to be collected from tissue samples of biota in the lower river versus the upper river. Given the severe

Page 20 of 3 8


limitations of the data collected from the upper river, including a poor understanding of sediment concentrations near CSOs or point sources, it is not possible to credibly compare relative levels of constituents between the upper and lower river.

12. Screening values - risk assessment utility (Section 5.1.2 Table 2 pages 20 to 28)

Some chemical groups were included in the screening process for which toxicity criteria are not available to conduct a risk assessment. In general, these chemical groupings have little utility in a risk assessment; rather their individual constituents (which possess toxicity criteria) are • evaluated. These include petroleum hydrocarbons, high molecular weight PAHs, low molecular weight PAHs, and total PCBs. Additionally, an explanation as to why the evaluation of congener PCB and dioxin-like PCB data are being deferred to the BRA should be included

13. Screening values - selection of criteria (Section 5.1.1. page 20, Appendix A Tables K

1 through 3)

The text states that sediment screening criteria will be selected based upon the lower of the NJDEP or Region 9 residential soil criteria; however, it does not appear that this was the process used for screening. For example, the sediment screening criteria for naphthalene of 5,600 ppb is the Region 9 PRG divided by 10 to account for potential additive noncarcinogenic effects from multiple chemicals. However, the NJDEP inhalation-based criterion is lower: 3,400 ppb (with the 0.10 adjustment factor). This may be because NJDEP inhalation-based criteria were not considered, although it was stated in the text that the screening criteria are based on ingestion, dermal contact, and/or inhalation. The selection of screening criteria should be clarified and the screening values used should be corrected accordingly.

14. Screening values - chromium (Appendix A Tables 1 through 3)

As mentioned in Comment 1.2, chromium is screened using Cr(VI). Use of Cr(IV) criteria rather than trivalent or total chromium criteria should be justified.

15. Screening values - pesticides (Section 4.0 page 15, Section 6.1.1 page 55, Appendix A Tables 1 through 6)

The rationale for screening total chlordane, total endosulfan, total endrin, and total heptachlor in lieu of screening the individual constituents is atypical and should be justified. Soil and tissue screening criteria are available for each of these constituents and it appears that there are sampling results for each of these constituents as well. Thus, it is unclear why this was done:

16. Exposure pathways and populations (Section 5.2.1 page 31)

The recreational user scenario includes swimming and wading scenarios. Inclusion of this pathway may not be consistent with the NJDEP designated use of the Passaic

Page 21 of 3 8


r. '. •

River as defined in the 2005 NJ Surface Water Quality Standards and the results of the Proctor et al. (2002) shoreline activity survey (See General Comments 4.1 and 4.3). It should be noted that the Passaic River pathogen indicator standards are not intended to be protective of human health for swimming, wading, or any use with potential for substantive water ingestion.

17. Exposure pathways and populations (Section 5.2.1 pages 31, 33) (

Sediment exposure is assumed to occur for the angler, recreational user, and homeless person. However, differences in exposure to river sediment and mudflat sediment are not considered (other than their separation in the CSM). It is not clear whether the sediment exposure pathway refers to mudflat sediment, deeper river sediments, or a combination of both, or how differences in exposure potential to each type of sediment will be accounted for in the pathways analysis. In addition, it is not clear whether the historical data reflect deeper river sediments or mudflat sediment or a combination of both.

18. Selection of human health exposure pathways (Table 4 pages 32-34)

The "source medium" column in Table 4 identifies the source medium for all media including biota tissue and surface water as sediment. This table should be revised to indicate the primary sources for each pathway, including industrial point sources, CSOs, SSOs, non-point runoff, and municipal point sources to emphasize the sources of contaminants that will need to be considered when future conditions are modeled. In addition, it is well known that effluent discharges, CSOs and storm water runoff (as SSOs or direct overland discharge) to the Passaic River are an important source of contamination to the river (Crawford et al., 1995), and it would be inaccurate to characterize the sediment as the sole source of contaminant load to tissue and water.

19. Determination of exposure point concentrations (Section 5.2.2 page 35)

It is noted in the text that the RME is defined as the lower of the 95% UCL of the mean or the maximum concentration, whichever is lower. It should also be noted that that the EPA ProUCL User's Guide (EPA, 2004) specifically recommends that the maximum observed value NOT be used as an estimate of EPC term. Additionally, the use of a composite fish concept to develop a model for future EPCs is questionable. and probably unnecessary. The authors should provide additional rationale on why they feel the construction of a composite fish for risk assessment purposes is necessary.

20. Exposure factors (Section 5.2.3.1 page 41)

The text indicates that the angler exposure duration "may" be replaced with a more site-specific value. An expert panel (Finley et al., 2003) has concluded that site-specific exposure factors for the angler are mandatory for an accurate and defensible human health risk assessment.

Page 22 of 3 8


21. Exposure factors (Section 5.2.3.1 page 39-42, Attachment A Tables 7a -7z)

It is relevant to reiterate in this section that the exposure factors presented in the PAR are preliminary. They should be refined based on the collection of site-specific information, some of which is already available in published, peer-reviewed literature. Some of the suggested factors seem unnecessarily conservative. For example, the Exposure Frequency for the Sportsman/Angler is "assumed" to be 104 days per year. This translates to 4 days per week for six months of the year. Most people cannot afford that frequency of attendance for a sport. What is the basis for this assumption? Similarly, what is the basis for the adolescent Angler/Sportsman Exposure Duration?

All Scenarios: The exposure duration footnotes in Attachments 7a through 7z note that it was assumed that the receptor lives along the "river" throughout a lifetime. The footnote should be deleted because none of the scenarios identified in the PAR are residential scenarios, nor has documentation been provided of permanent residences along the shore of the river. Furthermore, where appropriate, exposure durations should be adjusted to reflect more representative exposure durations, rather than residential exposure durations.

Adherence Factor: The selection of this parameter should be documented and explanation should be given for the use of the same value for RME and CT exposure. Exhibit 3-3 in RAGS E provides a geometric mean and a 95% UCL value. Shoaf et al. (2005) provide a child-specific adherence factor for children.

Water Ingestion Rate: The text on page 39 presents surface water ingestion rates for swimming. However, in some scenarios such as the recreational adult (Attachment A, Table 7i), it is not clear whether the swimming surface water ingestion rate of 0.05 L/hr applies to both the swimming and wading scenario or just the swimming scenario. Given that wading in water would result in less face contact with water than swimming, the incidental ingestion rate of water during wading should be less than the rate during swimming. It should also be noted that the units of ingestion rate in the Attachment A appear to be noted incorrectly as L/day and should be revised to L/hr. An ingestion rate should also be derived for direct ingestion of effluent or surface water for homeless persons. If water ingestion is to be considered a complete pathway, then pathogen risk must be considered, as the NJDEP pathogen standard for the Passaic River is not designed to be protective of human health.

Exposure Time: Separate exposure times for water exposure are not derived for central tendency and RME exposure to surface water (e.g., Table 7b adult angler ET of 4 hours for CT and RME). The contact times assigned in the PAR for anglers and homeless residents appear to be high when compared to the observations of limited contact with the Passaic River by Proctor et al. (2002). The contact time of 4 hours for anglers and sportsmen may not be reasonable for central tendency exposure given that hip boots or other protective gear would likely be used for comfort reasons.

Page 23 of 3 8


Similarly, given seasonal differences in temperature and general comfort considerations, it is unlikely that a maximally exposed homeless person could sustain 12 hours per day of water contact for 365 days per year.

Inhalation Rate: For each of the scenarios that evaluate inhalation exposures, the inhalation rates assume exposure occurs over the course of the entire day. The inhalation rates need to be adjusted to account for that amount of time that is spent at the site. For example, on Table 7a, the inhalation rate for the adult angler/sportsman is 20 m3/day; however, with an exposure time of 4 hours/day as indicated on Table 7b, the inhalation rate should be 3.3 m3/day (20 m3/day/24 hours/day x 4.hours/day).

Surface Area: A distinction is not made between central tendency and RME surface area of exposure (e.g., Table 7a SA of 6,073 for both CT and RME). The survey conducted by Proctor et al. (2002) for the Passaic River indicates that typical exposures are most probably limited to feet and hands.

Fraction from Source: In the absence of a demonstrated subsistence fishing pathway for the Passaic River and given the low fishing yields, it is unlikely that the fraction of fish or shellfish from the river would be 100%, even for the RME exposure.

Table 4K: The CT body weight is incorrect.

22. Toxicity assessment (Section 5.3.2 page 43)

For noncarcinogenic effects, the PAR states that all pathways will be evaluated using the oral RfD. This approach is not correct, because when inhalation exposure exists, inhalation toxicity criteria should be utilized. Furthermore, in some instances, an oral adjustment factor must be applied to the RfD to account for the absorbed vs. administered dose (EPA, 2001).

23. Ecological evaluation (Section 6.0page 45)

While there is detailed discussion regarding the USEPA eight-step ecological risk assessment process that will be followed, there is no discussion about how this PAR fits into this process. This discussion should be added in this paragraph.

24. Identification of COPECs (Section 6.1 pages 45 and 46, Section 6.1.1 pages 48, 53, 54, 55 and 58)

The title of this section should be "Preliminary Identification of Contaminants of ' Potential Ecological Concern (COPECs)" since this PAR does not represent the formal sediment screen that will be conducted during the SLERA process. This correction should also be made throughout Section 6.1.

Text justifying the use of or citations establishing 5% as the cutoff for effects values and bioaccumulation screens should be included.

Page 24 of 38


Given the very conservative nature of this preliminary COPEC screen, we believe that the arbitrary 5% detection frequency requirement should be eliminated. The purpose of the preliminary screen appears to be a very conservative estimate of the list of COPECs for the Study Area. As such, no decision should be made on detection frequency at this point. If a chemical was detected in any samples from the Study Area, then it should be included in the preliminary screen. That will ensure, to the extent possible, that no contaminants are screened out inappropriately at this early stage in the process.

Clarification of what "n<20" means in context should be provided as well as justification for setting n less than 20.

It is unclear what is meant by "...spatial relationship to potential 'hot spots'" in the sentence below. If this is the distance from a so-called hot spot to a sample, then "spatial relationship" should be replaced with "distance." If not, text to clarify this point should be included.

"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 (i.e., n<20), the magnitude of the concentration, and spatial relationship to'potential 'hot spots'.'1''

Attachment B shows the screening of sediment concentrations against the screening values that were selected. As such, Attachment B should be referenced up front in this section. Similarly, Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening and should be referenced up front in this section.

The preliminary sediment screen in this PAR is conducted for the entire river, and two individual sections of the river: upper and lower river. When providing the interpretation of the results for each chemical group, some perspective should be given in terms of the number of data points that were available in the upper versus lower section of the River. The differences that are suggested between the two sections of the River may be directly related to the disproportionately smaller dataset in the upper section, relative to the lower section. For instance, on Page 58 the statement is made that "fewer pesticides were detected in the Upper River and, in general, detected concentrations were lower than in the Lower River samples." However, this may be an artifact of the differences in sample numbers and spatial characterization. There were only between 1 and 24 samples collected and sampled for specific pesticides/herbicides in the Upper River, while there were between 135 and 191 pesticide/herbicide samples in the Lower River.

25. CSM and exposure pathway analysis (Section 6.2 page 59)

The elimination of VOCs as COPECs is premature at this stage of the ecological risk assessment process. VOCs may be found to be present at high concentrations in local

Page 25 of 3 8


areas of the study area during the current field sampling program. Therefore, they should not be eliminated until the conduct of the SLERA or BERA.

Surface • water should not be considered a "lesser extent" incidental ingestion pathway. The surface water in the Passaic River is contaminated with not just chemicals, but also a number of potentially harmful pathogens. As such, this should be considered just as significant an exposure pathway as direct/incidental ingestion of sediment and prey items.

The list of potential historical sources of contamination should include SSOs.

26. Selection of ROCs (Section 6.3 page 59, Section 6.3.1 page 60, Section 6.3.3 page 62, Section 6.3.4 pages 62 and 63, Section 6.3.5 page 63)

This section of the PAR does not take into account a substantial amount of ecological data and information that were collected as part of the 1999/2000 Ecological Sampling Program (ESP) performed under the CERCLA RI/FS for the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River. The ESP represents the single largest set of ecological data for the lower Passaic River to date. As such, these data should be evaluated, cited, and included in the decisions regarding receptors of concern (ROCs).

The data on benthic invertebrates from the 1999/2000 CERCLA ESP for the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River should be included in the assessment and selection of benthic invertebrate ROCs.

The data on fish from the. 1999/2000 CERCLA ESP for the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River should be included in the assessment and selection of fish ROCs. It is likely that the ESP data will change or amend the list of specific fish ROCs that are selected.

The sentence dealing with the exposure of piscivorous bird species in the lower Passaic River is unclear. First, to this point in the report, no bird ROCs are identified as is intimated here. The bird ROCs are selected in the following paragraph. Second, there were no biological survey data collected to determine the food of birds that forage in the River. Instead, this needs to be inferred based on knowledge of the life history of the birds, and the data on the potential prey in the River. This sentence should be re-written to cover these points.

The selection of the snowy egret and American bittern as bird ROCs is not appropriate. American bitterns are a species that require large expanses of emergent marsh habitat. These habitats do not exist in the lower Passaic River. Neither were bitterns sighted in any of the extensive bird surveys that were conducted in 1999 and 2000. The snowy egret, while present, was much less abundant than the great egret and the great blue heron. The latter two birds would make much more appropriate ROCs than the snowy egret.

Page 26 of 3 8

Tierra's Comments on [Draft! LPRRP Pathways Analysis Report September 22, 2005

No sightings of river otter have been documented in the ecological surveys of the lower Passaic River. Therefore, this is not an appropriate ROC. A more appropriate urban habitat mammalian species for evaluation is the muskrat, which is known to be present along the banks of the River. Comparison of the Passaic habitats to those found in the NJ Meadowlands is inappropriate. The systems are completely different in terms of their available habitat, and physico-chemical conditions.

The discussion regarding the foraging ranges of river otters and the prey items in the lower Passaic River needs to be clarified. The authors seem to be suggesting that because prey are available that the river otter could eat, then it should be assumed that otter are in the system and foraging extensively there. This is not appropriate, especially given the lack of shoreline habitat, and urban nature of the system.

There is no evidence that reptiles and amphibians are more sensitive to contaminants in general, than other groups of organisms. While there may be specific species that are relatively sensitive to a chemical or class of chemicals, this broad statement is unfounded and should be removed.

27. Assessment and measurement endpoints (Section 6.4 pages 63, 64, 65 and 66)

The inference that avian and mammalian receptors are more sensitive to all chemical contaminants than other organisms is unsupportable. While specific mammals and birds may be more sensitive to specific chemicals or classes of chemicals, this broad statement is unfounded and should be removed. There are fish and invertebrates that may be much more sensitive to specific chemicals than birds or mammals. These types of sensitivities cannot and should not be generalized.

The inclusion of growth as an assessment endpoint is not appropriate. Few i f any toxicological thresholds are available relative to "growth," whereas many are available for survival and reproduction. In addition, reduction or impairment of growth of individuals may not be reflected in ecological populations or communities, the biological level appropriate for management decisions not involving endangered or threatened species (EPA OSWER Directive 9285.7-29 P).

The statement "Specific steps to be taken in the risk assessment will be determined in consultation with agency ecological risk assessors'1'' requires additional description. For example, the PAR should discuss, what documents will be utilized by the ecological risk assessors, when meetings to discuss appropriate specific steps will take place (e.g., at certain, milestones in the project etc.), and what entities will have the opportunity to provide input to this process.

Measurement endpoints 5. and 6 are not appropriate for the lower Passaic River because of the confounding habitat/physical variables that substantially affect the stated endpoint, and the fact that a suitable reference area cannot be found to test differences in both chemical contamination and habitat variables. This issue was addressed thoroughly with USEPA during the CERCLA sampling process for the

Page 27 of 3 8


lower 6 miles of the River. Such tests/comparisons would require finding a relatively non-contaminated river system that has essentially no wetlands habitats associated with it. Only then could the habitat versus chemical impacts to the stated population endpoints be evaluated. As such, these endpoints should be removed from this PAR.

While ingestion models for birds are commonplace in ecological risk assessment, it is not appropriate to model chemical residues in bird eggs. The uncertainties are substantial; there are few data in the literature to verify the accuracy of the results. Also, actual egg data can be collected during field studies for birds that may nest along the River. For these reasons, modeling of bird egg residues should be removed as a measurement endpoint from this PAR.

28. Exposure assessment {Section 6.5 page 66, Section 6.5.2 page 67)

The fate and transport model and food web model to be used for this approach should be specified along with references to accepted modeling methods.

If BSAFs are used as surrogates for actual field data, the BSAFs should be derived (to the extent practicable) from data from comparable river systems, as opposed to national averages or non-comparable systems.

29. Ecological effects assessment (Section 6.6.1 pages 72 and 74)

The use of the EPA Region IX/U.S. Navy TRVs for the SLERA is not sufficiently justified in this PAR. There is no explanation as to what data were compiled into the database used to develop these TRVs, and i f these data were region-specific to the western U.S., or encompassed a thorough review of national data, including data appropriate for the ROCs in the lower Passaic River. The purpose of a SLERA is to gather the available and relevant data to conduct a site-specific risk assessment, and then to conduct the assessment and make a determination as to whether a BERA is required. Part of this determination is whether appropriate toxicity information exists for the ROCs and COPECs at a site. As such, TRVs that are applicable to the ROCs in the River should be compiled and used for the SLERA. If such TRVs exist in the EPA Region LX/U.S. Navy data, then they should be so justified in this PAR in terms of why they are relevant to the site-specific ROCs. TRVs from other sources should also be considered and included in this assessment.

TRV databases are typically developed with a very limited dataset that includes studies that were conducted on non-related species, with several non-related endpoints, and under various laboratory test conditions—many of which have no relevance to population impacts. The result is that there are typically very few studies in the database that end up being used to develop the TRV for a particular type of organism (i.e., birds, mammals, etc.) As such, the uncertainties associated with the TRVs are very large and the relevance of a given TRV to specific ROCs and appropriate population-based toxicological endpoints is often questionable. Based on this, the statement below is unfounded.

Page 28 of 38


"The high TRV represents a level at which adverse effects are highly likely to occur, helping to identify sites posing immediate risks. "

While it is necessary to use such TRVs in SLERAs and BERAs due to the absence of appropriate measures of population impacts from COPECs, these TRVs by no means demonstrate "highly likely" effects or "sites posing immediate risks." This language should be modified to recognize the large uncertainties in using existing TRVs to determine actual risks.

It is stated "For those COPECs for which TRVs have not been published, toxicity data from the literature would be used to develop the necessary TRVs." Such a literature review should be conducted as part of the SLERA for all of the preliminary COPECs and ROCs identified for the lower Passaic River.

In addition, the focus on the search for/use of studies with unbounded NOAELs is not appropriate. Studies with relevant toxicological data for the ROCs or species that are as closely related as possible, and relevant endpoints that get at effects that may impact populations of those ROCs, should be the focus of the literature review for TRVs. Reported effects data (i.e., LOAELs, or dose-response relationships) are much more relevant than unbounded NOAELs, which do not account for the level at which effects actually occur. Uncertainty factors can be used in conjunction with actual effects data to get the conservatism that the EPA seeks for the SLERA. This paragraph should be re-written to focus the literature search on appropriate toxicological effects data for the COPECs and ROCs in the lower Passaic River.

30. Risk characterization (Section 6.7.1 page 74)

This screening step has already been performed in this PAR. Will there be additional screening of sediment data in the SLERA? If not, this should, be clarified. In addition, this sediment screening is only appropriate for benthic invertebrates, not for fish. The databases used to develop the screening values that are listed (i.e., ER-Ls/ER-Ms, TELs, etc.) only include toxicological data for benthic invertebrates. Fish are exposed primarily through food web interactions and, therefore, should be screened using a TRV approach (i.e., Equation 10).

31. Summary and conclusions (Section 7.0pages 77 and 80)

The primary objectives listed for this PAR are confusing and not in line with the information that is contained in many sections of the document. This revisits the fact that the objectives of this PAR and how it fits into the EPA risk assessment process are not clearly defined in the introductory sections, nor specified in individual sections of the report (see General Comments). . First, the preliminary list of COPCs/COPECs is a pre-SLHRA/SLERA set of data. They are supposed to be further evaluated in the SLHRA/SLERA. The second bulleted objective states that they will be carried into the BHHRA/BERA. Yet, per the EPA guidance, screening risk assessments have not yet been performed to make the determination on the need

Page 29 of 3 8


for baseline risk assessments. In addition, the third bulleted objective suggests that this PAR is a work plan for conducting the risk assessments. Yet, this is not the case. The PAR is confusing in that it presents pieces of the plans for screening risk assessments, and pieces of plans for baseline risk assessments. It then defers to the Field Sampling Plan, Volume 2 as the document that will specify the remaining pieces of the work plan for the screening and baseline risk assessments. The PAR needs to be re-written to have a defined set of objectives/goals, and then lay out the study elements/plans to meet those goals.

The text indicates that it is "anticipated" that an uncertainty analysis would be included in the BRA. An uncertainty analysis is typically a mandatory component of an EPA risk assessment.

32. Lead risk characterization (Section 5.3.2.1 page 44)

The text should provide a discussion of which lead models are being considered for . lead risk characterization.

33. Summary and recommendations - data gaps (Section 7.0page 95)

The text regarding sediment data gaps indicates that some COPCs/COPECs may have conservatively been identified as COPCs/COPECs due to:

• Length of time since sample was collected; • Elevated detection limits; and • Varying quality of investigations.

These points appear to argue that the COPC/COPEC screening process is flawed because these factors are just as likely to result in exclusion of COPCs/COPECs as they are to result in conservative inclusion of COPCs/COPECs. For example, the occurrence of elevated detection limits could decrease the apparent detection frequency. This could result in a seriously flawed screening process for those chemicals where detection limits are frequently greater than the screening level.

The summary presents a number of data gaps for scenarios and. parameters. Due to the lack of site-specific knowledge, there also appear to be substantial gaps in the understanding of receptors in the River.

34. Summary and recommendations - modeling (Section 7.0page 96)

The text regarding biota tissue concentrations indicates that in the absence of new data, biota concentrations will have to be modeled. Since the COPC/COPEC screening process appears to be flawed with regard to data quality objectives, it would be difficult to credibly model current or future biota and sediment concentrations. Furthermore, it is not known to what degree modeling would properly account for the

Page 30 of 38


primary sources including industrial point sources, CSOs, SSOs, non-point source runoff, and municipal point sources.

35. Data presentations (Figures 4, 5, 6, and 9; Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16)

Figure 4 is incomplete and does not characterize all of the 17-mile study area. The source of the figure should be referenced. Additionally, the meaning of each of the discharge types in the legend should be included along with a discussion of discharge types and the impact of them on the PAR. The "other discharge types" should be described as well as their locations. *

It is misleading to repeat the three potential exposure routes at the bottom of the column in Figure 5 without some graphical indication to show they are repeated. This repetition should be made clearer.

It appears that large invertebrates such as the blue crab are lumped in with benthic macroinvertebrates. This is not appropriate. These larger organisms have different exposures than infaunal invertebrates and, therefore, require different exposure risk assessment methods. They should be identified and discussed separately.

It is unclear what the footnote in Figure 9 means. Specific details should be provided.

The exposure media for mummichog and carp should include sediment. Carp are inherently associated with the sediment. Mummichog reside on intertidal flats where they are often buried in sediment for long periods of time. As such, both species likely are exposed to contaminants from incidental ingestion of sediments. Additionally, the statement that reptile are "sensitive receptors" is not supported. This statement should be removed as it is generic (i.e., infers that this group of organisms are all sensitive to all chemical contaminants) and unsupportable.

The data on fish from the 1999/2000 CERCLA ESP for the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River should be included in the assessment and selection of fish ROCs. It is likely that the ESP data will change or amend the list of specific fish ROCs that are selected. This table should be modified accordingly.

As previously stated, the selection of the snowy egret and American bittern as bird ROCs are not appropriate (Tables 9, 10, 11, and 16). American bitterns are a species that requires large expanses of emergent marsh habitat. These habitats do not exist in the lower Passaic River. No bitterns were sighted in any of the extensive bird surveys that were conducted in 1999 and 2000. The snowy egret, while present, was much less abundant than the great egret and the great blue heron. The latter two birds would make much more appropriate ROCs than the snowy egret. These tables should be modified accordingly.

Table 15 should be expanded to indicate the species, study(ies), and toxicological endpoints for each TRV that is listed.

Page 31 of 38


Administrative Comments on LPRRP Pathways Analysis Report

1. Multiple versions of LPRRP PAR

The LPRRP Draft Work Plan (April 2005) cites a Draft Pathways Analysis Report dated June 2004 [emphasis added] and the LPRRP Work Plan (August 2005) cites a Pathways Analysis Report dated May 2005. What is the relationship between these two earlier PARs and the July 2005 version? Assuming the dates of the citations are correct, the LPRRP Work Plan (August 2005) will need to be updated to reflect the latest (i.e., July 2005) version of the PAR. However, that effort should now await the modifications to the July 2005 version of the PAR resulting from these and other stakeholders' comments.

2. Introduction - references/wording (Section 1.2 page 1, Section 1.3.2 page 2)

The factual statements regarding obligations, WRDA funding, etc., should all have appropriate references cited.

The last sentence regarding the BERA is awkward and unclear in that it sounds as i f USEPA will limit the BERA to new data that are going to be "compiled during the site investigation." This statement should be expanded to explain that the BERA will include both existing data and data that will be collected under the LPRRP data collection activities (as opposed to the "site investigation").

3. RCRA and contaminated site locations (Figure 3 page 8)

This figure should not single out and label one facility on the map when there are obviously numerous contaminated sites along the river and many PRPs.

4. Conceptual site model - improper/incorrect wording (Figure 5 and throughout the report, Section 3.0 page 11)

Use of the term "residential" for the homeless person is misleading because of the transient nature of this population and seasonal preferences for habitation.

The phrase "high levels of contaminated sediments" in the sentence "The expansion of industry and subsequent release of chemicals to the Passaic River has resulted in high levels of contaminated sediments within the river" should be changed to "high levels of contaminants in sediments."

The sentence "The primary contaminants of concern (see Sections 5.0 and 6.0) represent a variety of different contaminant classes such as heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and dioxins" should be changed to say ".. .including, but not limited to ..."

Page 32 of 3 8


The term "dioxins" should be changed to "dioxins/furans." This should apply to the rest of this section of the report as well.

At this point in the report, there has not been a screen of chemical contaminants performed in order to determine primary COPCs. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase "this screening process" in the statement below.

"The primary COPCs resulting from this screening process represent a variety of different contaminant classes such as heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and dioxins."

This statement should be reworded to clarify the point being made.

5. Screening values - incorrect citations (Various locations, Reference Section)

The April 2005 version of the Region III RBC Tables was available for screening when the PAR was being prepared; however, this assessment cites that it used the October 2004 version. Additionally, the reference for the Region IX PRGs cites two dates: 2002 and 2004; the correct year is 2004.

6. Screening values - value errors (Table 5)

The following errors were found regarding the screening values in this table. Many of these errors affect the selected screening values, and therefore, may affect the results of the sediment screen (Attachment B). As such, we are providing this comment, despite the fact that we believe these freshwater values should be removed from the screening values used in this PAR.

• The lowest ORNL value for barium is 6,000 ppb. This should also be the selected screening value.

• The lowest ORNL value for chromium is 26,000 ppb. This should also be the selected screening value.

• The lowest ORNL value for copper is 16,000 ppb. This should also be the selected screening value.

• The lowest ORNL value for iron is 2%. This should be selected as a screening value.

• The lowest ORNL value for lead is 31,000 ppb. This should also be the selected screening value.

• The lowest ORNL value for manganese is 460,000 ppb. This should also be the selected screening value.

• The lowest ORNL value for mercury is 200 ppb. • The lowest ORNL value for nickel is 16,000 ppb. This should also be the

selected screening value. • The lowest ORNL value for zinc is 120,000 ppb. This should also be the selected

screening value.

Page 33 of.38


• The selected screening value for benzo[b]fluoranthene should be 27.2 ppb. • The lowest ORNL value for naphthalene is 32.8 ppb. This should also be the

selected screening value. • The consensus based TEL for total chlordane is 3.24 ppb.

7. Data summary - missing data, improper wording and grammatical errors (Table 1, Section 4.0 pages 15 and 16)

It appears that the USEPA 1998 REMAP data are missing from the list of data that were compiled for the sediment screening.

"ND," "R," and "U" are not defined.

The word "metabolite" in the sentence "Total BHC, total heptachlor, total endrin and total endosulfan values were calculated by summing the station-specific metabolite data" appears incorrect. The proper term should be "congener" or "isomer."

8. Bioaccumulation screen and inorganic constituents - terminology (Tables 5 and 6)

The screening values for PCBs are listed under the "Congeners" category, yet the 22.7 ppb value actually applies to Aroclors. We suggest combining the total PCB values into one row that states "Aroclors and/or Congeners" in parentheses.

The PESTICIDES category should be changed to PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES to reflect the range of compounds that are contained under this category in this table.

The DIOXINS category should be changed to DIOXINS/FURANS to better represent the standard categorization of these compounds.

8. Ecological evaluation - improper citations/wording and grammatical/spelling errors (Section 6.2 page58, Section 6.3 page 60, Section 6.5 page 66, Section 6.6:1 page 74, Section 6.7.1 page 74)

USEPA ecological risk assessment guidance (i.e., USEPA, 1997) should be cited for the bulleted elements that are used to determine a complete exposure pathway.

"Planed" should be changed to "planned" in the sentence "Although the receptor groups discussed below are believed to comprise the critical biological elements of the Lower Passaic River food web, field surveys currently being planed may ultimately alter the specific representative species selected for evaluation in the ecological risk assessment"

EPCs should be spelled out on first use (i.e., exposure point concentrations) in this section.

Page 34 of 38


The term "would" should be changed to "will" in the sentence "For those COPECs for which TRVs have not been published, toxicity data from the literature would be used to develop the necessary TRVs".

The word "soil" should be changed to "sediment" in the sentence "For the screening-level risk characterization (i.e., Step 2, EPA, 1997a) for benthic invertebrates and fish ROCs, exposure point concentrations (EPCs) will be calculated using the maximum site soil concentrations or 95% upper confidence limit (UCL), whichever is lower (EPA, 2002a), and then compared to appropriate screening values that represent a range of likelihood adverse effects (e.g., ER-Ls/ERMs, TELs/PELs)"

9. Summary and recommendations - incorrect wording (Section 7.0 page 77)

Per our previous comment, the term "to a lesser extent" should be removed from the sentence "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 vrater."[Emphasis added.]

10. Data tables and figures

All figures need references for information presented.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 should be cleaned up and made consistent with respect to format, decimal places, and commas. Following are specific comments:

• There should not be a decimal place after 100 in the detection frequency. • The number of samples on page3 of Table 2 should not have any decimal places. • The range of detection limits columns should use comma delimiters to match the

data reporting in other columns. • The term "PESTICIDES" should be changed to "PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES" to

more accurately reflect the chemical classes that are contained in this category. • The term "DIOXIN'should be changed to "DIOXINS/FURANS" to more

accurately state the title for this category of compounds. • The explanation associated with the reason codes (1 through 5) that are listed in

the final column of all three tables should be spelled out in the text notes at the bottom of each table.

• Text comment " i " on the bottom of each table should be changed from "the additive effects of dioxin" to "the potential additive effects of the 17 2,3,7,8-substituted dioxin/furan isomers."

Page 35 of 38


References

Bromberg, M. Preventing Waterborne Illness. University of Illinois Extension. http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~disaster/facts/waterbor.htnil

Brookhaven National Laboratory. 2005. Water Resource Development Act Environmental Status of NY/NJ Harbor. http://www.bnl. gov/wrdadcon/publications/image/statusj'pg.htm

Crawford DW, NL Bonnevie and RJ Wenning. 1995. Sources of Pollution and Sediment Contamination in Newark Bay, NJ. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 30: 85-100.

Deason, J.P. 2001a. "Passaic River Restoration Initiative: A New Model for Cleaning Up Our Nation's Contaminated Urban Rivers." Proceedings of the EPA Forum on Managing Contaminated Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites. Alexandria, Virginia: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 30, 2001.

Deason, J.P. "Urban River Restoration Initiative: Key to Brownfields Redevelopment Success in Urban River Corridors," Brownfields 2000 - Research and Regionalism: Revitalizing the American Community. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. ,

Deason, J.P. "A New Approach to Cleaning up Our Nation's Contaminated Urban River Corridors." Invited presentation to the National Capital Section, American Society of Engineering Management, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2002.

Deason, J.P. 2001b. "Passaic River Restoration Initiative: A New Approach to the Comprehensive Restoration of Aquatic Environments." Invited paper presented at the Fall Workshop of the SET AC Hudson-Delaware Regional Chapter, Newark, New Jersey, September 21, 2001.

Deason, J.P. 2001c. "An Alternative to CERCLA: Urban River Restoration Initiative." Invited paper to be presented at the American Chemistry Council Waste Network Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, June 14, 2001.

Exponent 2004. Pathogen Sampling and Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment — Saybrook Place Combined Sewer Overflow, Newark, New Jersey, prepared by Exponent, Inc., Houston, TX.

Fuglevand, P.F. and Deason, J.P. 2001. "Integration of WRDA Restoration and CERCLA Remedial Processes at Urban Waterway Superfund Sites." Invited presentation to the EPA Technical Support Project General Meeting, San Diego, California, May 10,2001.

Page 36 of 38


Finley BL, TJ. Iannuzzi, ND Wilson, JC Kinnell, VA Craven, S Lemeshow A5, CM. Teaf, EJ Calabrese and PT Kostecki. 2003. The Passaic River Creel/Angler Survey: Expert Panel Review, Findings, and Recommendations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9(3): 829-855.

S.L. Huntley et al. 1997. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) as sources of sediment contamination in the lower Passaic River, New Jersey. II. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and polychlorinated biphenyls.Chemosphere 34(2):233-250.

T.J. Ianuzzi et al. 1997. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) as sources of sediment - contamination in the lower Passaic River, New Jersey.I. Priority pollutants and inorganic chemicals, Chemosphere 34(2):213-231.

Iannizzi TJ, Armstrong TN, Thelen JB, Ludwig DF and Firstenberg CE. 2005. Characterization of Chemical Contamination in Shallow-Water Estuarine Habitats of an Industrialized River. Part 1: Organic Compounds Soil & Sediment Contamination, 14:13-33.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2005. Surface Water Quality Standards N. J. A. C. 7:9B http://www.state.ni\us/dep/wnrm/sgwqt/swqsdocs.htnil

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2003. Final Report of the New Jersey Comparative Risk Project. Project Manager: Marty Rosen, Director, Division of Science, Research and Technology, NJDEP. http://www.state.nj .us/dep/dsr/nj crp/

Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC). 2002. 2002 Lower Passaic Watershed Report. Lpwer Passaic River/Newark Bay Restoration Program. www.pvsc.com/pdf/LPWR-2002.pdf

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 2004. Death of Ross Firefighter was caused by Bacteria in Floodwater. Published July 20, 2005. www.post-gazette.com/pg/04276/389293.stm

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 2005. High Level of Bacteria Shuts Erie Beaches. Published July 20, 2005. www.post-gazette.com/pg/05201/540561.stm

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.

Page 37 of 38


Shoaf MB, Shirai JH, Kedan G, Schaum J and Kissel JC, Child Dermal Sediment Loads Following Play in a Tidal Flat. J. Exp. Anal. And Environ. Epid. [Epub ahead of print] January 2005.

Triangle Economic Research (TER), 2001. Passaic River Study Area. Creel/Angler Survey. Data Report. TER General Working Paper www.ter.com/ter/Papers/General/G-0101 Data Report.pdf

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Occurrence and seasonal variability of volatile organic compounds in seven New Jersey Streams. WRIR 98-4074. http •Jin] .us gs. gov/publications/WRIRAvrir98-4074.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. EPA440/5-84-002. January 1986. www.epa.qov/waterscience/beaches/1986crit.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I , Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/540/1-89/002. December.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1991. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part A). Office of Research and Development. EPA/540/R-92/003. December 1991.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins. EPA Region 4, originally published November 1995, Website version last updated May 2000: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/oftecser/healtbul.htm

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USEPA. 2001a. Volume I -Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments) Final December 2001 RAGS D -http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsd/tara.htm

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USEPA. 2001b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I : Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final. EPA/540/R/99/005 OSWER 9285.7-02EP PB99-963312 July 2004. www.epa.qov/superfund/proqrams/risk/raqse/

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USEPA. 2004. ProUCL Version 3.0 User's Guide. April 2004. EPA/600/R04/079.

Page 38 of 38

TIERRA SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED COMMENTS ON THE …semspub.epa.gov/work/02/240930.pdf · Comments -...

Documents

Transcript of TIERRA SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED COMMENTS ON THE …semspub.epa.gov/work/02/240930.pdf · Comments -...