Appendix E - HHRC with Appendices Sept-20201.pdf

Human Health Risk Characterization Buffalo Outer Harbor Buffalo, New York

Submitted to:

LiRo Engineers, Inc.

690 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14209

Submitted by:

GEI Consultants, Inc.

400 Unicorn Park Drive Woburn, MA 01801 781-721-4000

September 2020 Project 1905693

Deborah Murray, M.S.

Senior Risk Assessment Scientist

Consulting

Engineers and

Scientists

Buffalo, New York

GEI Consultants, Inc. ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary v

1. Introduction 1

2. Site Description 3

2.1 Previous Site Investigations for AOCs 3

2.1.1 Area D AOC 4

2.1.2 Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC 4

2.1.3 Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC 5

2.1.4 Bell Slip AOC 5

2.1.5 Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC 5

3. Hazard Identification 7

3.1 Soil Data Evaluation 7

3.2 COPC Selection 7

3.2.1 Area D AOC 8

3.2.2 Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC 8

3.2.3 Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC 8

3.2.4 Bell Slip AOC 9

3.2.5 Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC 9

4. Exposure Assessment 10

4.1.1 Identification of Human Receptors 10

4.1.2 Exposure Scenarios 10

4.1.2.1 Recreational Visitor 11

4.1.2.2 Outdoor Worker 11

4.1.2.3 Construction Worker 12

4.1.3 Exposure Points 12

4.1.4 Exposure Point Concentrations 13

4.1.4.1 Fugitive Dust Exposure Point Concentrations 13

4.1.5 Quantitative Estimates of Exposure 13

5. Toxicity Assessment 15

5.1.1 Carcinogenic Health Effects 15

5.1.2 Noncarcinogenic Health Effects 16

5.1.3 Route-to-Route Extrapolation of Slope Factors and Reference

Doses 16

5.1.4 Risk Characterization for Lead in Soil 17

6. Risk Characterization 18

6.1.1 Cumulative Cancer Risk Evaluation 18

GEI Consultants, Inc. iii

6.1.2 Cumulative Noncancer Risk Evaluation 18

6.1.3 Cumulative Cancer/Noncancer Risk Limits 19

6.1.4 Cancer and Non-Cancer Risk Summary 19

6.1.4.1 Area D AOC 19

6.1.4.2 Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC 20

6.1.4.3 Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC 21

6.1.4.4 Bell Slip AOC 23

6.1.4.5 Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC 24

7. Uncertainty Analysis 26

7.1 Uncertainties in Hazard Identification 26

7.2 Uncertainties in Exposure Assessment 26

7.3 Uncertainties in Toxicity Assessment 27

7.3.1 Carcinogenic Toxicity Assessment Assumptions 27

7.3.2 Non-carcinogenic Toxicity Assessment Assumptions 27

7.3.3 Route-to-Route Extrapolation of Slope Factors and Reference

Doses 28

7.4 Uncertainties in Risk Characterization 28

8. Summary and Conclusions 29

9. References 31

List of Tables Table 1 Summary of COPCs and Exposure Point Concentrations Table 2 Summary of Human Health Cancer and Non-Cancer Risk from Exposure to

Surface Soil (0 to 1 feet bgs) Table 3 Summary of Human Health Cancer and Non-Cancer Risk from Exposure to

Surface and Subsurface Soil (0 to 10 feet bgs)

List of Figures Figure 1 Areas of Concern (AOC) for Human Health Risk Characterization Figure 2 Conceptual Site Model for Human Exposure Pathways Figure 3 Soil Management Plan

List of Appendices Appendix A Soil Analytical Data

Appendix A-1 Area D AOC Appendix A-2 Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC Appendix A-3 Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC Appendix A-4 Bell Slip AOC Appendix A-5 Wilkeson Pointe - Undeveloped Portion AOC

GEI Consultants, Inc. iv

Appendix B Risk Calculation Reports and Supporting Material Appendix B-1 Area D AOC Appendix B-2 Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC Appendix B-3 Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC Appendix B-4 Bell Slip AOC Appendix B-5 Wilkeson Pointe - Undeveloped Portion AOC

B:\Working\LIRO ENGINEERS\1905693 Buffalo Outer Harbor Risk Characterization\Draft HHRC materials\Final Report September 2020\Final September 2020 BOH HHRC 09-21-2020.docx

GEI Consultants, Inc. v

Executive Summary

GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI), on behalf of LiRo Engineers, Inc. (LiRo), prepared this Human Health Risk Characterization (HHRC) for a portion of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, located west of Fuhrmann Boulevard and comprising the area from the newly constructed bike park to the south to Wilkeson Pointe Park to the north, in Buffalo, NY (the Site). The Site excludes the Greenway Nature Trail Easement located along the Lake Erie shoreline adjacent to the Site, which was constructed with a cover system under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Brownfield Cleanup Program. The Site has been the subject of several environmental investigations that reported the presence of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and metals in surface and subsurface soil to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). This HHRC was prepared to evaluate the results of soil sampling and to characterize risk to human health from potential exposure to remaining contamination in surface and subsurface soil at the following five Areas of Concern (AOC) at the Site:

• Area D

• Area C – Cottonwood Copse

• Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse

• Bell Slip

• Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion

The objective of the HHRC is to determine whether soil contamination present at each AOC poses unacceptable risk to human receptors based on proposed redevelopment, and to aid in decisions regarding the need to implement engineering controls or institutional controls to prevent exposure of future Site users and workers to remaining soil contamination. The Site was largely created as a result of land reclamation and filling that has occurred over the past 100 years. Fill materials have been reported to consist of dredge spoils from US Army Corps of Engineers and miscellaneous filling from human activities, including storage of construction fill, operation of a landfill/transfer station, and disposal of incinerator ashes and noncombustible rubbish (i.e., municipal waste) from the City of Buffalo.

Based on previous environmental investigations at the Site, approximately 250 surface and subsurface soil samples from 0 to 10 feet bgs were collected within the AOCs. The following chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) were identified for surface and subsurface soil within AOCs at the Site:

• Metals – aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, silver, thallium, vanadium and zinc.

GEI Consultants, Inc. vi

• PAHs – benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and phenanthrene.

• SVOCs – hexachlorobenzene

• PCBs – aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254 and aroclor 1260

• Pesticides – aldrin, DDT, DDD, and endrin

Portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor Civic Improvements project are currently in the planning phase for redevelopment into recreational space. Recently redeveloped portions of the Area D AOC include a bike park, mountain biking trails, and a great lawn. Additional improvements being considered for the AOCs include an amphitheater, pollinator meadows, recreational lawn areas, meadow areas with walking trails or boardwalk trails, extension of mountain bike trails, beer garden/restroom facilities, and public water access. Based on proposed redevelopment, GEI evaluated the following potential human receptors at each AOC:

• Child and adult recreational visitor;

• Adult outdoor worker; and

• Adult construction worker.

We assumed a recreational visitor would only have contact with the top one foot of soil and an outdoor worker and construction worker may contact surface and subsurface soil to a depth of 10 feet as a result of landscaping, maintenance, and excavation activities.

This HHRC concluded the following for each AOC:

• There is no risk to the child and adult recreational visitor from exposure to surface soil (0 to 1 feet bgs) through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation at the following AOCs evaluated in this HHRC: Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC, Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC, Bell Slip AOC, and Area D

AOC.

• There is non-cancer risk to a child recreational visitor from exposure to surface soil (0 to 1 feet bgs) through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation at the Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC. This AOC includes the undeveloped northeastern portion of Wilkeson Pointe, currently covered with grass and trees and where a clean soil cover was not previously applied. Risk to a child recreational visitor at this AOC is primarily attributable to exposure to benzo(a)pyrene, manganese, thallium, and lead in surface soil. Risk to a recreational visitor at this AOC will be mitigated by institutional controls such as fencing implemented as part of the Site Management Plan to limit access. Wilkeson Pointe Park to the west of the undeveloped portion was already redeveloped with a 1-foot clean soil cover system.

GEI Consultants, Inc. vii

• There is non-cancer risk to a construction worker from exposure to surface and subsurface soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation at the Bell Slip AOC and the Area D AOC. Risk to a construction worker at these AOCs is primarily attributable to exposure to DDD, aroclor 1254, antimony and manganese. Risk toa construction worker will be mitigated by controls implemented as part of the Site Management Plan and Excavation Work Plan.

• There is no risk to the construction worker from exposure to surface and subsurface soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation at the following AOCs evaluated in this HHRC: Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC, Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC, and Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC.

• There is no risk to the outdoor worker from exposure to surface and subsurface soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) through incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation at all the AOCs evaluated in this HHRC, including the following: Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC, Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC, Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC, Bell Slip AOC, and Area D AOC.

Risk management strategies implemented at the Area D AOC include both engineering controls and institutional controls to mitigate exposure to surface and subsurface soil during recreational use (LiRo, 2019). These risk management strategies will be implemented at all the AOCs as needed during redevelopment of the Site for recreational use.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 1

1. Introduction

GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI), on behalf of LiRo Engineers, Inc. (LiRo), prepared this Human Health Risk Characterization (HHRC) for a portion of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, located west of Fuhrmann Boulevard and comprising the area from the newly constructed bike park to the south to Wilkeson Pointe Park to the north, in Buffalo, NY (the Site). The Site excludes the Greenway Nature Trail Easement located along the Lake Erie shoreline adjacent to the Site, which was constructed with a cover system under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Brownfield Cleanup Program. The Site has been the subject of several environmental investigations that reported the presence of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and metals in surface and subsurface soil to a depth of 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) at concentrations greater than NYSDEC Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs).

This HHRC was prepared to evaluate the results of soil sampling and to characterize risk to human health from potential exposure to remaining contamination in surface and subsurface soil at the following five Areas of Concern (AOC) at the Site:

• Area D

• Area C – Cottonwood Copse

• Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse

• Bell Slip

• Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion

Figure 1 shows the location of each AOC within the Site. The objective of the HHRC is to determine whether soil contamination present at each AOC poses unacceptable risk to human receptors based on proposed redevelopment, and to aid in decisions regarding the need to implement engineering controls or institutional controls to prevent exposure of future Site users and workers to remaining Site contamination. This HHRC was conducted in accordance with applicable risk assessment guidance developed by EPA (1989), and available NYSDEC and New York State Department of Health (NYDOH) technical guidance

(NYSDEC, 2006; 2010).

Environmental investigations conducted at the AOCs as well as remedial activities and risk management strategies conducted during redevelopment are discussed in Section 2.

Compounds of Potential Concern (COPCs) are identified in Section 3. The Exposure Assessment is presented in Section 4, which discusses remaining sources of contamination, affected media, potential routes of exposure, and potential human receptors under future conditions at the AOCs. Section 5 presents the Toxicity Assessment for COPCs identified

GEI Consultants, Inc. 2 at the Site. Section 6 presents the HHRC for potentially complete exposure pathways.

Section 7 presents potential sources of uncertainty in this HHRC. Section 8 presents the conclusions of this HHRC, and references are listed in Section 9.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 3

2. Site Description

The Site is located in the Buffalo “Outer Harbor” section of the City’s waterfront and is situated along the Lake Erie shoreline within a protected harbor. For this HHRC, the Site is defined as the portion of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, located west of Fuhrmann Boulevard and comprising the area from the newly constructed bike park to the south to Wilkeson Pointe Park to the north (Fig. 1). The Site excludes the Greenway Nature Trail Easement located along the Lake Erie shoreline adjacent to the Site, which was constructed with a cover system under the NYSDEC Brownfield Cleanup Program. The area surrounding the Site is generally flat with a very gentle slope to the southwest towards Lake Erie. The Site was largely created as a result of land reclamation and filling that has occurred over the past 100 years. Fill materials have been reported to consist of dredge spoils from US Army Corps of Engineers and miscellaneous filling from human activities, including storage of construction fill, operation of a landfill/transfer station, and disposal of incinerator ashes and noncombustible rubbish (i.e., municipal waste) from the City of Buffalo. Fill material has been identified from 0 to 26 feet bgs and includes the following: landfill deposits; hydraulic fill with a silt and clay matrix; sand fill; construction debris fill; and industrial process fill consisting of crushed concrete, asphalt, brick, wood, ash, glass, plastic, slag, coal, and cinder.

Much of the Site is currently vacant, vegetated with urban or secondary growth grasses, shrubs, and some trees. Area C contains rubble piles, gravel drives and some foundations from previous buildings. The southernmost portion of the Site (Area D) was recently opened to the public for recreational use following the installation of a clean soil/pavement cover system ensuring the area is safe for recreational use. Likewise, the Greenway Nature Trail has a cover system. Wilkeson Pointe Park, the northernmost portion of the Site, also has a clean soil cover system in place, except for the northeastern portion of the park that was not intended for recreational use when the park was constructed.

2.1 Previous Site Investigations for AOCs

The following environmental investigations were conducted at the Site and included soil sampling at each of the AOCs:

• Limited Human Health Exposure Assessment for Portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, prepared by URS, dated February 2012, which provided the results of the “Phase I/Phase II Remedial Investigation Report – Buffalo Outer Harbor Site”, prepared by Dvirka and Bartilucci, dated December 1995;

• Phase II Environmental Site Investigation Report – Area D, prepared by LiRo, dated November 2017;

GEI Consultants, Inc. 4

• Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Buffalo Outer Harbor, Cottonwood Copse, prepared by Ravi Engineering, dated October 2018;

• Draft Phase II Environmental Site Investigation Report – Area C, prepared by LiRo, dated April 2018; and

• Supplemental Soil Investigation for Portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, conducted by LiRo in October 2019.

Based on these environmental investigations, approximately 250 surface and subsurface soil samples from 0 to 10 feet bgs were collected across the Site within the AOCs. A description of the soil analytical data evaluated in this HHRC for each AOC is presented below and soil analytical data tables for each AOC are provided in Appendix A.

2.1.1 Area D AOC

The Area D AOC includes the majority of Area D south of the Bell Slip AOC (Fig. 1).

Undeveloped portions of the Area D AOC consist of vacant land with secondary vegetative growth (trees, shrubs, and grasses). Under the Outer Harbor Access & Activation Civic Project Phase 1B, Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC) and their contractors completed numerous Area D improvements. These improvements include the creation of a great lawn in the central portion of the parcel, a bike activity park in the east portion of the parcel, a mountain bike trail, multiple paved bicycle/walking paths, and designated habitat zones. Remedial work conducted in conjunction with these improvements consisted of construction of a cover system with a demarcation layer, including 1 to 2 feet of a clean soil cover in portions of Area D programmed for recreational use (LiRo, 2019).

Analytical soil data for the Area D AOC includes 35 surface soil samples collected from 0 to 1 feet bgs and 53 subsurface soil samples collected from 1 to 10 feet bgs between August 2017 and October 2019. The Area D AOC surface soil data set (0 to 1 feet bgs) excludes surface soil samples located beneath clean cover material installed as part of the Area D redevelopment to prevent contact with soil. Soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. GEI evaluated all 88 soil samples for this HHRC. Analytes detected in soil samples collected from 0 to 10 feet bgs included VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. Soil analytical data for the Area D AOC evaluated in this HHRC is presented in Appendix A-1.

2.1.2 Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC

Area C is the section of the Site north of the Bell Slip. The Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC includes a central portion of Area C located adjacent to the Outer Harbor, vegetated with grasses, shrubs, and cottonwood trees (Fig. 1). Analytical soil data for the Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC includes 25 surface soil samples collected from 0 to 1 feet bgs and 17 subsurface soil samples collected from 1 to 10 feet bgs between July 1989 and

GEI Consultants, Inc. 5

October 2018. Soil samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. GEI evaluated all 42 soil samples for this HHRC. Analytes detected in soil samples collected from 0 to 10 feet bgs included VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. No redevelopment or remedial activities have been conducted at the Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC. Soil analytical data for the Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC evaluated in this HHRC is presented in Appendix A-2.

2.1.3 Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC

The Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC includes the portion of Area C bordering the Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC to the south and east, north of the Bell Slip AOC (Fig. 1). This AOC is primarily grass-covered with limited shrubs and trees.

Analytical soil data for the Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC includes 38 surface soil samples collected from 0 to 1 feet bgs and 29 subsurface soil samples collected from 1 to 10 feet bgs between July 1989 and October 2019. Soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. GEI evaluated all 67 soil samples for this HHRC. Analytes detected in soil samples collected from 0 to 10 feet bgs included VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. No redevelopment or remedial activities have been conducted at the Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC.

Soil analytical data for the Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC evaluated in this HHRC is presented in Appendix A-3.

2.1.4 Bell Slip AOC

The Bell Slip AOC includes portions of Area C and Area D east of Bell Slip (Fig. 1). This AOC is primarily grass-covered with limited shrubs and trees. A portion of this AOC is paved and includes a parking lot with access to the Greenway Nature Trail. Analytical soil data for the Bell Slip AOC includes 26 surface soil samples collected from 0 to 1 feet bgs and 15 subsurface soil samples collected from 1 to 10 feet bgs between July 1989 and October 2019. Soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. GEI evaluated all 41 soil samples for this HHRC. Analytes detected in soil samples collected from 0 to 10 feet bgs included VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. No redevelopment or remedial activities have been conducted at the Bell Slip AOC. Soil analytical data for the Bell Slip AOC evaluated in this HHRC is presented in Appendix A-4.

2.1.5 Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC

The Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC consists of the grass-covered northeastern portion of Wilkeson Pointe (Fig. 1). This portion of Wilkeson Pointe was not intended for recreational use when the Wilkeson Pointe Park was constructed. Analytical soil data for the Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC includes six surface soil samples collected from 0 to 1 feet bgs and six subsurface soil samples collected from 1 to 5 feet bgs in October 2019. Soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. GEI evaluated

GEI Consultants, Inc. 6 all 12 soil samples for this HHRC. Analytes detected in soil samples collected from 0 to 5 feet bgs included SVOCs, PAHs, pesticides, and metals. No redevelopment or remedial activities have been conducted at the Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC. Soil analytical data for the Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC evaluated in this HHRC is presented in Appendix A-5.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 7

3. Hazard Identification

The Hazard Identification section summarizes the type and concentrations of chemicals detected in soil at each AOC and identifies chemicals of potential concern (COPC) in soil for each AOC.

3.1 Soil Data Evaluation

Consistent with EPA risk assessment guidance, chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are identified for further evaluation in this HHRC. Chemicals that were never detected in soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) were eliminated as COPCs. Maximum detected concentrations of all chemicals detected in soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) within each AOC were compared to the NYSDEC Restricted Residential Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs), current through January 2020 as well as the EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential soil dated November 2019. The Restricted Residential SCOs are appropriate soil objectives for selecting COPCs at the Site because according to NYSDEC technical guidance (2006 and 2010), the restricted residential category is intended for sites with active recreational uses with a reasonable potential for soil contact, including designated picnic areas, playgrounds, or natural grass sports playing fields, including surrounding unpaved spectator areas.

Chemicals were included as COPCs in this HHRC if the maximum detected concentration in soil at an AOC exceeded the NYSDEC Restricted Residential SCO value or EPA’s conservative human health risk-based residential soil RSLs (EPA, 2019) when an SCO value was not available. Appendices A-1 through A-5 present the comparison of maximum detected concentrations of chemicals in soil to residential soil standards for the identification of soil COPCs at each AOC. Table 1 presents soil COPCs identified for each AOC.

Soil analytical results were qualified with a “J” to identify reported results less than the analytical Reporting Limit (RL) but greater than or equal to the Method Detection Limit (MDL), which represents the lower limit of the analytical method of analysis. Therefore, for those chemicals reported as non-detect in samples with elevated RLs, chemicals were not measured above the MDLs. We conservatively included all J qualified data in this HHRC to evaluate potential risk to human health.

3.2 COPC Selection

Soil COPCs identified for each AOC are presented below and summarized in Table 1. Soil COPCs identified for each AOC were further evaluated in this HHRC.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 8

3.2.1 Area D AOC

The following soil COPCs were identified for surface and subsurface soil at the Area D

AOC:

• Metals – aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, silver, thallium, vanadium and zinc.

• PAHs – benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and phenanthrene.

• SVOCs - hexachlorobenzene

• PCBs – aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254 and aroclor 1260

• Pesticides – aldrin, DDT, DDD, and endrin

VOCs were excluded as COPCs in soil at the Area D AOC because they were either not detected or were detected at concentrations below residential soil screening levels.

3.2.2 Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC

The following soil COPCs were identified for surface and subsurface soil at the Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC:

• Metals – aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, thallium, and zinc.

• PAHs – benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.

• SVOCs – N-nitrosodiphenylamine

• PCBs – aroclor 1260

VOCs and pesticides were excluded as COPCs in soil at the Area C – Cottonwood Copse AOC because they were either not detected or were detected at concentrations below residential soil screening levels.

3.2.3 Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC

The following soil COPCs were identified for surface and subsurface soil at the Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC:

• Metals – aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, thallium, and zinc.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 9

• PAHs – benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.

VOCs, PCBs and pesticides were excluded as COPCs in soil at the Area C – South and East of Cottonwood Copse AOC because they were either not detected or were detected at concentrations below residential soil screening levels.

3.2.4 Bell Slip AOC

The following soil COPCs were identified for surface and subsurface soil at the Bell Slip

AOC:

• Metals – aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, silver, thallium, vanadium and zinc.

• PAHs – benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and phenanthrene.

• PCBs – aroclor 1254 and aroclor 1260

• Pesticides – DDT, DDD, and endrin

VOCs were excluded as COPCs in soil at the Bell Slip AOC because they were either not detected or were detected at concentrations below residential soil screening levels.

3.2.5 Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC

The following soil COPCs were identified for surface and subsurface soil at the Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC:

• Metals – aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, and thallium.

• PAHs – benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.

VOCs, PCBs, and pesticides were excluded as COPCs in soil at Wilkeson Pointe – Undeveloped Portion AOC because they were either not detected or were detected at concentrations below residential soil screening levels.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 10

4. Exposure Assessment

The exposure assessment identifies and describes human receptors that may come into contact with chemicals present in soil at the AOCs under future land use following redevelopment for recreational use. GEI characterized potentially complete exposure pathways and exposure profiles for each receptor. As part of the exposure assessment, GEI estimated the amount of each chemical that can potentially reach a receptor defined as the exposure point concentration, or (EPC) and developed exposure scenarios to represent conservative estimates of exposure by sensitive receptors. These exposure scenarios consist of information about the amount, frequency, duration, and route of exposure to each chemical. GEI integrated the exposure profile and EPC to yield exposure doses or concentrations. In this assessment, dose estimates are protective in that they are more likely to overestimate than to underestimate exposure.

4.1.1 Identification of Human Receptors

Portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor Civic Improvements project are currently in the planning phase for redevelopment into recreational space. The Greenway Nature Trail/bicycle path extends the entire length of the Site bordering Lake Erie. Recently redeveloped portions of the Area D AOC include a bike park, mountain biking trails, and a great lawn. Additional improvements being considered for the AOCs include an amphitheater, pollinator meadows, recreational lawn areas, meadow areas with walking trails or boardwalk trails, extension of mountain bike trails, beer garden/restroom facilities, and public water access. As a result of redevelopment, potential human receptors at the AOCs include visitors, outdoor workers, and construction workers. GEI evaluated the following receptors at each AOC:

• Child and adult recreational visitor;

• Adult outdoor worker; and

• Adult construction worker.

4.1.2 Exposure Scenarios

Human receptors that may be present at the AOCs and their potential exposures to remaining contamination in surface soil and subsurface soil are described below. The Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for exposures, presented as Figure 2, provides a diagrammatic representation of the human receptors evaluated in this HHRC and their potentially complete exposure pathways. In the following subsections, we describe potential exposure pathways for each human receptor identified at the AOCs.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 11

4.1.2.1 Recreational Visitor

A child and adult recreational visitor may be exposed to surface soil (0 to 1 feet bgs) while recreating at AOCs. Consistent with EPA guidance (1989), we conservatively evaluated a recreational visitor at each AOC based on EPA’s default residential soil exposure assumptions used to develop EPAs human health risk-based screening levels (RSL) (EPA, 2019). The only exception to this is we assumed an exposure frequency of 94 days per year instead of 350 days per year to account for the reduced exposure frequency for a recreational visitor compared to a resident. Consistent with NYSDEC (2006), we assumed soil contact only occurs during the warmer months of the year defined as the 31-week period from early April to early November, based on the latest date for the first fall frost (after November 10) and the earliest date for the last spring frost (April 10) in New York. Also consistent with NYSDEC (2006) technical guidance, we assumed that activity patterns of children and adults will further limit the number of days on which soil contact may occur. We assumed that children and adults are not outdoors visiting the Site every day and that they contact soil at the AOCs three days per week for three hours each day resulting in an assumed soil exposure frequency of 94 days per year.

A child and adult recreational visitor may be exposed to COPCs in soil from incidental ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation of fugitive dust. We assumed a child and adult recreational visitor may be exposed to soil 94 days per year, for up to 26 years, consistent with EPA guidance for residential exposure duration. We assumed a child recreational visitor ingests 200 mg/day of soil and an adult ingests 100 mg/day of soil (EPA, 2019). For the dermal exposure route, we assumed exposed skin surface area for a child and adult recreational visitor is 2,373 cm2 and 6,032 cm2, respectively (EPA, 2019), representative of a residential exposure scenario where exposed skin includes the face, arms, hands, legs and feet. We assumed a child skin-soil adherence factor of 0.2 mg/cm2, which is the EPA skin-soil adherence factor for a child resident (EPA, 2019) and an adult skin-soil adherence factor of

0.07 mg/cm2, which is the EPA skin-soil adherence factor for an adult resident (EPA, 2019).

4.1.2.2 Outdoor Worker

An outdoor worker may be exposed to surface soil (0 to 1 feet bgs) and subsurface soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) while conducting landscaping and maintenance activities at AOCs. We conservatively evaluated an outdoor worker at each AOC based on EPA’s default outdoor worker soil exposure assumptions used to develop EPAs human health risk-based screening levels (RSL) (EPA, 2019). The only exception to this is we assumed an exposure frequency of 124 days per year consistent with NYSDEC (2006) technical guidance, which is based on the assumption that soil contact only occurs during the warmer months of the year defined as the 31-week period from early April to early November, based on the latest date for the first fall frost (after November 10) and the earliest date for the last spring frost (April 10) in New York. Consistent with NYSDEC (2006) technical guidance, we assumed an outdoor

GEI Consultants, Inc. 12 worker may contact soil at the AOCs four days per week for eight hours each day resulting in an assumed soil exposure frequency of 124 days per year.

An outdoor worker may be exposed to COPCs in soil from incidental ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation of fugitive dust. We assumed an outdoor worker may be exposed to soil 124 days per year, for up to 25 years. We assumed an outdoor worker ingests 100 mg/day of soil (EPA, 2019). For the dermal exposure route, we assumed exposed skin surface area for an outdoor worker is 3,527 cm2, respectively (EPA, 2019), representative of an outdoor worker exposure scenario where exposed skin includes the face, arms, hands, and lower legs. We assumed an adult skin-soil adherence factor of 0.12 mg/cm2, which is the EPA skin-soil adherence factor for an outdoor worker (EPA, 2019).

4.1.2.3 Construction Worker

A construction worker may be exposed to surface soil and subsurface soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) while conducting excavation activities at AOCs. We conservatively evaluated a construction worker at each AOC based on EPA’s default construction worker soil exposure assumptions (EPA, 2019). We assumed a construction worker may contact soil at the AOCs five days per week for eight hours each day for a 50-week construction project, consistent with EPA guidance.

A construction worker may be exposed to COPCs in soil from incidental ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation of fugitive dust. We assumed a construction worker may be exposed to soil 5 days per week, for up to 50 weeks. We assumed a construction worker ingests 330 mg/day of soil (EPA, 2019). For the dermal exposure route, we assumed exposed skin surface area for a construction worker is 3,527 cm2, respectively (EPA, 2019), representative of a construction worker exposure scenario where exposed skin includes the face, arms, hands, and lower legs. We assumed an adult skin-soil adherence factor of 0.3 mg/cm2, which is the EPA skin-soil adherence factor for a construction worker (EPA, 2019).

4.1.3 Exposure Points

An exposure point refers to a location of potential contact between a human receptor and contaminated media. The following soil exposure points were evaluated for each AOC in this HHRC:

• Surface soil from 0 to 1 feet bgs for a recreational visitor and an outdoor worker; and

• Surface and subsurface soil from 0 to 10 feet bgs for an outdoor worker and a construction worker.

We assumed a recreational visitor would only have contact with the top one foot of soil and an outdoor worker and construction worker may contact surface and subsurface soil to a depth of 10 feet as a result of landscaping, maintenance, and excavation activities.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 13

4.1.4 Exposure Point Concentrations

GEI estimated EPCs for each COPC in surface soil and subsurface soil at each AOC. EPCs provide a conservative estimate of the concentration a receptor may come in contact with over the period of exposure. Soil sampling locations provided adequate spatial coverage within each AOC as shown in Figure 1; therefore, we assumed analytical data for the surface soil and subsurface soil exposure points approximates the spatial distribution of chemicals in surface soil (0 to 1 feet bgs) and subsurface soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) within each AOC.

In accordance with EPA risk assessment guidance, to obtain an appropriately conservative estimate of human exposure to COPC concentrations in surface soil (0 to 1 foot bgs) and subsurface soil (0 to 10 feet bgs), we calculated the 95 percent upper confidence limit (95UCL) on the mean as the EPC for each COPC within each AOC using EPA Pro-UCL software (EPA, 2016). The 95UCL on the mean represents an upper-bound average concentration to which a receptor may potentially be exposed. USEPA’s ProUCL Version 5.1 software was used to calculate the 95UCL on the mean values. The 95UCL on the mean value recommended by ProUCL was used. Where too few samples or detects were available, the maximum detected concentration was used. Setting soil EPCs for some COPCs equal to the maximum detected concentration will likely overestimate potential exposure to this COPC in surface soil and subsurface soil within each AOC.

Lead was evaluated separately in this HHRC because risk assessment for lead is based on a blood lead level, discussed in more detail in the Risk Characterization Section below. In accordance with EPA (1994) guidance on characterizing risk from exposure to lead, the average, or arithmetic mean soil lead concentration from a representative exposure area was used in this HHRC. Estimated EPCs for each COPC in surface soil (0 to 1 feet bgs) and subsurface soil (0 to 10 feet bgs) are presented in Table 1 for each AOC.

4.1.4.1 Fugitive Dust Exposure Point Concentrations

In accordance with EPA risk assessment guidance (1989), we assumed receptors at each AOC may inhale COPCs in surface soil that volatilize to ambient air or are re-suspended as fugitive dust during recreational activities. Concentrations of COPCs in fugitive dust and ambient air were modeled based on levels in the soil, because there are no measured concentrations of COPCs in fugitive dust or ambient air for the Site. Soil EPCs were used to model fugitive dust EPCs based on EPA’s calculated particulate emission factor (PEF) and ambient air EPCs based on EPA’s calculated volatilization factor (VF) using EPA default input parameters.

4.1.5 Quantitative Estimates of Exposure

The purpose of a quantitative estimate of exposure is to estimate the average daily exposure to each COPC by a receptor for each exposure pathway, averaged over an appropriate time period for non-cancer effects and/or for cancer effects. Doses for ingestion

GEI Consultants, Inc. 14 and dermal pathways are estimated as a daily dose rate per unit body weight (milligrams per kilogram per day [mg/kg-day]). Exposures for inhalation pathways are estimated as a daily exposure (mg/m3).

The “Average Daily Dose” (ADD) and “Lifetime Average Daily Dose” [(L)ADD] are the general parameters used to quantify exposure doses for the ingestion and dermal pathways in risk assessments. The ADD is used to characterize long-term non-carcinogenic effects and the (L)ADD, which is averaged over a 70-year human lifetime; is used in estimating potential carcinogenic risks. The “Average Daily Exposure” (ADE) and “Lifetime Average Daily Exposure” [(L)ADE] are the general parameters used to quantify exposure doses for the inhalation pathway in risk assessments. The ADE is used to characterize long-term non-carcinogenic effects and the (L)ADE, which is averaged over a 70-year human lifetime; is used in estimating potential carcinogenic risks.

The EPA RSL Website (2019) (http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/equations.htm) provides a calculator tool, including risk equations and calculations for ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation exposure routes for a recreational visitor, outdoor worker, and construction worker exposure to soil, which was used to estimate cancer and non-cancer risk for receptors at each AOC in this HHRC. Appendix B provides the risk equation inputs for soil, including exposure assumptions, and chemical specific parameters from the EPA RSL website (EPA, 2019) as well as the risk estimate results generated by the calculator tool for the recreational visitor, outdoor worker, and construction worker, respectively.

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/equations.htm http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/equations.htm

GEI Consultants, Inc. 15

5. Toxicity Assessment

The Toxicity Assessment or Dose-Response Assessment is a process that results in a quantitative estimate or index of toxicity for each COPC. For carcinogens, this index is the cancer slope factor (CSF) or unit risk factor (URF). For noncarcinogens, it is the reference dose (RfD) or reference concentration (RfC). There are three categories of dose-response information:

• Toxicity values associated with threshold (non-carcinogenic) health effects;

• Toxicity values associated with carcinogenicity, either from human epidemiological studies or laboratory studies; and

• Absorption factors that are used to relate the toxicity values identified in the literature to the exposure pathways of concern.

Toxicity values are available in many on-line databases and publications. The primary sources for toxicity values used in this evaluation include the following:

• The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (http://www.epa.gov/iris) (EPA, 2020); and

• USEPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) Tables (EPA, 2019).

5.1.1 Carcinogenic Health Effects

CSFs (for ingestion and dermal exposures) or URFs (for inhalation exposure) are used to predict the potential number of excess cancers that will arise in response to lifetime exposure to a chemical. These values are predominantly based on animal bioassay data, although human epidemiological data are preferred and used when available.

In evaluating chemicals for carcinogenicity, EPA developed a two-part assessment involving a weight-of-evidence classification and a quantitative determination of carcinogenic potency (i.e., slope factors and unit risks). The weight-of-evidence classification reflects available data, adequacy of studies, types of studies, and observed responses.

The following classifications are used (EPA, 1986):

• Group A: human carcinogens

• Group B1: probable human carcinogens (limited human data)

• Group B2: probable human carcinogens (sufficient evidence in animals; limited or no evidence in humans) http://www.epa.gov/iris

GEI Consultants, Inc. 16

• Group C: possible human carcinogens (limited evidence in animals; limited or no evidence in humans)

• Group D: not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity

• Group E: evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans

CSFs and/or URFs have typically been developed for Group A, B1, and B2 carcinogens and some Group C carcinogens. Toxicity summaries for carcinogenic COPCs are available on IRIS (http://www.epa.gov/iris) (EPA, 2020). CSFs and URFs for COPCs used in this HHRC are presented in Appendix B as cited on the EPA RSL website (EPA, 2019).

The carcinogenic PAHs included as COPCs in this HHRC are considered carcinogenic by a mutagenic mode of action (EPA, 2019). According to EPA, these COPCs may exhibit a greater effect in early-life verses later-life exposure. Therefore, EPA (2019) provides separate cancer risk equations for mutagens that consider early-life exposures that may result in the occurrence of cancer during childhood and early-life exposures that may contribute to cancers later in life.

5.1.2 Noncarcinogenic Health Effects

Noncarcinogenic effects are assessed by comparing the estimated average daily dose or exposure to the acceptable daily dose, referred to as the RfD or in the case of inhalation exposure, the RfC. The RfD is an estimate (with about an order of magnitude uncertainty) of a daily exposure to a human population, including sensitive subgroups, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a portion of their lifetime, in the case of a subchronic RfD, or during a whole lifetime, in the case of a chronic RfD (EPA, 1989).

The RfC is an estimate of the inhalation exposure concentration (with about an order of magnitude uncertainty) to which a human population, including sensitive subgroups, could be exposed without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a portion of their lifetime, in the case of a subchronic RfC, or during a whole lifetime, in the case of a chronic RfC (EPA, 1989). Toxicity summaries for noncarcinogenic COPCs are available on IRIS (http://www.epa.gov/iris) (EPA, 2020). Chronic RfDs and RfCs used in this HHRC are presented in Appendix B as cited on the EPA RSL website (EPA, 2019).

5.1.3 Route-to-Route Extrapolation of Slope Factors and Reference Doses

CSFs and RfDs for the dermal route of exposure have not been developed by the EPA.

As a result, oral CSFs and RfDs are typically used to evaluate dermal exposures to chemicals (EPA, 1989). Following the absorption of chemicals via the oral or dermal routes, their distribution, metabolism, and elimination patterns (biokinetics) are usually assumed independent of the route of absorption. However, in order to use oral toxicity values (i.e., extrapolate toxicological effects from the oral rout to the dermal route), it is necessary

GEI Consultants, Inc. 17 to adjust the estimated dermal absorbed dose to account for differences in a chemical’s absorption between the oral and dermal routes of exposure.

Chemical-specific absorption factors provided by EPA (2019) are used to account for differences in the absorption of a COPC under assumed exposure conditions at a site relative to the absorption of the COPC under the experimental conditions upon which a toxicity value is based. Chemical-specific absorption factors (ABS) evaluated in this HHRC are provided in Appendix B as cited on the EPA RSL website (EPA, 2019).

Subchronic RfDs and RfCs were used in this risk characterization, where available, to evaluate short-term exposure scenarios identified for the construction worker. These toxicity values were derived based on potential non-carcinogenic effects associated with exposure durations ranging from a few weeks to seven years (EPA, 1989). In the absence of subchronic toxicity values, GEI used chronic toxicity values. However, the use of chronic toxicity values to assess short-term exposure likely overestimates subchronic hazards to receptors of concern. Subchronic RfDs and RfCs used in this HHRC are presented in Appendix B as cited on the EPA RSL website (EPA, 2019).

5.1.4 Risk Characterization for Lead in Soil

Risk assessment for lead is substantially different than for other COPCs. USEPA does not provide non-cancer toxicity values for lead. Risk assessment for lead is based on a blood lead level. USEPA cleanup levels for lead are derived so that blood lead levels of almost all children exposed would be below levels of concern for blood lead in young children between 6 months and 7 years of age. The USEPA residential soil lead standard for bare soil of play areas and the NYSDEC residential lead SCO is 400 mg/kg. This lead standard was derived using USEPA’s Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model, which relates soil lead levels and blood lead levels in young children. The residential soil lead standard of 400 mg/kg was multiplied by a factor of 1.7 to account for the difference in exposure frequency between a resident exposed 5 days a week and a child recreational visitor exposed 3 days a week at the Site. Therefore, the Site-specific screening level derived for lead in surface soil for a child recreational visitor is 670 mg/kg. Comparison to this derived lead screening level for soil may be a conservative evaluation for AOCs because it is based on residential exposures to soil which is likely to be more intense than exposures to soil in a passive recreational setting. The USEPA and NYSDEC industrial soil lead standard of 800 mg/kg (USEPA, 2019) was considered an acceptable lead screening level for soil for an outdoor worker and a construction worker at the AOCs.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 18

6. Risk Characterization

The characterization of risk is the final step in the risk assessment process. In this step, the toxicity and exposure assessments are combined into quantitative estimates of risk to each human receptor of concern from exposure to COPCs at a site. Human health risk from exposure to COPCs is estimated separately for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic COPCs:

1. To characterize potential carcinogenic effects, lifetime average daily doses or exposures are compared to chemical-specific CSFs or URFs. Specifically, the estimated lifetime average daily dose or exposure is multiplied by the CSF or URF.

Risk is expressed as the probability of that exposure resulting in an excess incidence of cancer; that is, the occurrence of more cancers than would normally be expected in the exposed population.

2. To characterize potential noncarcinogenic effects, average daily doses are compared to chemical-specific RfDs or RfCs. Specifically, the estimated average daily dose or exposure is divided by the RfD or RfC. This ratio is called the Hazard Index.

6.1.1 Cumulative Cancer Risk Evaluation

Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) from ingestion (oral), dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure were calculated using the following equation:

× + ×∑ , ,…