Response to Comments for the Hudson River Pcbs Superfund Site
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FINAL SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE FOR THE HUDSON RIVER PCBS SUPERFUND SITE Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 April 2019 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE FOR HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 1.1 The Second Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Five Year Review ...............................1 1.2 FYR Public Outreach and Engagement ............................................................................1 1.3 FYR Comment Review and Response ..............................................................................2 II. COMMENTS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF FYR ....................................................................12 III. MASTER COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................................................12 3.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................................12 3.1.1 Comment 1: Additional data are required to understand the effectiveness of the remedy.......................................................................................................................13 3.1.2 Comment 6: Consumption survey required to assess new populations eating fish ..16 3.1.3 Comment 7: Despite institutional controls people are still eating fish .....................17 3.1.4 Comment 14: EPA must reinstate suspended solids monitoring at Waterford to improve evaluation of PCB load to the Lower Hudson River ..................................18 3.1.5 Comment 31: EPA's species-weighted-average approach to estimating fish recovery rates should be updated based on the current population's diet. EPA must modify its homologue correction and use of data in developing temporal trends .........................................................................................................................19 3.1.6 Comment 54: There is no basis in the record for the estimate of mass discharged to the river by GE from the capacitor plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward (1.3 million pounds) ..................................................................................................21 3.1.7 Comment 61: Significant PCB deposits left behind are in excess of other cleanup projects ........................................................................................................21 3.2 Modeling Analysis ..........................................................................................................22 3.2.1 Comment 9: EPA models of recovery in fish, sediment, and water are overestimated and should be revisited ......................................................................22 3.2.2 Comment 15:EPA should update its models to reflect information obtained during dredging .........................................................................................................24 3.2.3 Comment 26: Conceptual site model - relationship of sediment, water, fish ...........25 3.2.4 Comment 27: EPA's model prediction that the Upper Hudson River PCB load to the Lower Hudson River is the primary factor for recovery of Lower Hudson River fish is proven incorrect by this Five-Year Review .........................................27 3.2.5 Comment 34: Water quality improvements from dredging tend to decrease with distance downriver from dredging ............................................................................28 3.2.6 Comment 44: NOAA’s models demonstrate that the EPA ROD models are flawed and should be updated to correctly reflect the role of sediment concentrations in evaluating protectiveness of the remedy ......................................28 i Final Second Five-Year Review Comment Response for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site April 2019 3.2.7 Comment 55: EPA needs to update the conceptual site model (CSM) and recalibrate and update HUDTOX and FISHRAND models in order to properly understand the impacts of the dredging on the resultant fish concentrations ...........29 3.3 Assessment ......................................................................................................................30 3.3.1 Comment 2: Adjust data treatment techniques for Aroclor data ..............................31 3.3.2 Comment 3: Assess risks of PCBs based on changes in consumption .....................34 3.3.3 Comment 4: Assess risks of PCBs in air ..................................................................35 3.3.4 Comment 8: EPA did not investigate the potential for links to autism in the first five-year review ........................................................................................................37 3.3.5 Comment 11: EPA must calculate the risks of dioxin contamination (or dioxin- like congeners) ..........................................................................................................38 3.3.6 Comment 16: EPA should finalize the study done on black bass.............................40 3.3.7 Comment 18: EPA should look for updated information on the toxicity of PCBs ...40 3.3.8 Comment 19: EPA should qualify the 2016 spring and fall data properly according to the impacts expected by the dredging ..................................................45 3.3.9 Comment 20: EPA should recalculate human health risks .......................................46 3.3.10 Comment 21: EPA should require GE to conduct an RI/FS of the Lower Hudson River ..........................................................................................................................47 3.3.11 Comment 24: EPA should indicate the current state of testing and analysis of human health impacts for users of the river ..............................................................49 3.3.12 Comment 28: EPA will not reach the target levels as anticipated in the ROD ........50 3.3.13 Comment 29: EPA's analysis of fish data is flawed .................................................52 3.3.14 Comment 30: EPA's analysis of water PCB trends must consider changes in both loading conditions and comparisons of monitoring data to model predictions when developing and interpreting trends ...............................................53 3.3.15 Comment 35: Incorporate Hudson River Reference Material in future fish analyses .....................................................................................................................60 3.3.16 Comment 36: Increase the use of congener PCB analysis and decrease use of Aroclor analysis ........................................................................................................61 3.3.17 Comment 40: The larger-than-expected mass of PCBs and higher surface sediment PCB concentrations remaining in the sediment following remediation will extend the recovery of the river .........................................................................63 3.3.18 Comment 41: Reassess air risks ................................................................................69 3.3.19 Comment 43: Resolve diverging views of data with other agencies ........................70 3.3.20 Comment 46: Use of the non-standard protocol (without rib-in vs. rib-out) impacts how the data can be used .............................................................................71 3.3.21 Comment 49: EPA's use of the data on fish body burdens to estimate the rates of recovery is highly subjective. EPA's analysis of trends does not support their conclusions about the rate of decline during the period 1995-2008 .........................75 3.3.22 Comment 50: The impact of dredging on fish tissue PCB concentrations has passed and concentrations have now reached equilibrium. Future declines in concentration will be very gradual and prolong the time to achieve ROD targets ...80 3.3.23 Comment 51: Changes in fish sampling locations result in data that is not suitable for long term PCB temporal trend analysis .................................................81 3.3.24 Comment 53: Surface PCB Concentration of the Non-Dredge Areas in RS1 has not declined ...............................................................................................................93 ii Final Second Five-Year Review Comment Response for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site April 2019 3.3.25 Comment 56: Sediment concentrations remaining in the river are higher than anticipated and sediment concentration rate of decline is overestimated .................95 3.3.26 Comment 57: Analysis of sediment PCB data outside the dredge areas miscalculated the concentration and mass located in these areas .............................96 3.3.27 Comment 60: Data incompatibilities Lead to Errors in Interpretations ....................97 3.4 Remedy ............................................................................................................................99 3.4.1 Comment 10: EPA must address whether the targets for improvements in water quality have or will be met ........................................................................................99 3.4.2 Comment 22: EPA should track the attainment of the interim fish tissue targets of 0.4 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg PCB as it assesses the success of the remedy ............100 3.4.3 Comment 33: Habitat reconstruction did not achieve the project objectives. ........105 3.4.4 Comment 38: EPA should compare data to ROD forecast regardless of implementation .......................................................................................................107