Human Health Benefits from Fish Consumption vs. Risks from Inhalation Exposures Associated with Contaminated Sediment Remediation: Dredging of the Hudson River.

backgroundBillions of dollars are spent on environmental dredging (ED) to remediate contaminated sediments, with one goal being reduced human health risks. However, ED may increase health risks in unanticipated ways, thus potentially reducing net benefits.

objectivesTo assess the ways that ED may increase health risks in unanticipated ways, thus potentially reducing net benefits, we quantitatively assessed a subset of population health benefits and risks of ED, using the 2009-2015 remediation of the Hudson River Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Superfund Site as a case study. Three remediation scenarios were evaluated: No Action (NA), Source Control (SC), and ED.

methodsWe quantified health benefits for each scenario from reduced PCB levels in Hudson River fish, and health risks from ED operations due to increased inhalation exposures to PCBs and fine particulate matter (

resultsUnder NA, fish consumption would result in an estimated health burden of 112 DALYs, and ED would lead to a reduction of 15 DALYs in excess of SC. ED operations were estimated to induce a total burden of 33 DALYs, dominated by

conclusionsFor the considered impacts, ED in the Hudson River might not have led to an overall net positive human health impact. The benefits and risks of ED, however, have different degrees of uncertainty and involve different populations. Reducing long-distance transport of dredged sediment is a priority. This comparative approach could be used prospectively to better determine trade-offs involved in different remediation scenarios and to improve remediation design to maximize benefits while minimizing risks. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5034.