Preliminary Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment...

Preliminary Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Part of Mooney’s Bay Park Ottawa, Ontario Revision: 0 (Final)

Prepared for: City of Ottawa Real Estate Partnerships & Development Office Realty Initiatives & Development Branch 110 Laurier Avenue West, 5th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Prepared by:

Document ID: 15-200-6_Preliminary HHERA_Mooney's Bay_R0

June 2, 2016

Preliminary Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report Part of Mooney’s Bay Park, Ottawa Doc ID: 15-200-6_Preliminary HHERA_Mooney's Bay_R0

June 2, 2016 i

Title: Preliminary Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Part of Mooney’s Bay Park, Ottawa, Ontario

Client: City of Ottawa Document ID: 15-200-6_Preliminary HHERA_Mooney's Bay_R0 Revision Number: 0 Date: June 2, 2016 Prepared by: Kenneth Raven, Drew Paulusse

Reviewed by: Sean Sterling

Approved by:

Kenneth Raven, P.Eng., P.Geo., QPRA


June 2, 2016 ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Geofirma Engineering Ltd. was retained by the City of Ottawa to complete a preliminary human health and ecological risk assessment (HHERA) of a part of Mooney’s Bay Park, City of Ottawa. Part of the Mooney’s Bay property is proposed by the City, in conjunction with various other stakeholders, for construction of a 50,000 square-foot playground. The land is owned by several federal government departments, including Parks Canada and the National Capital Commission (NCC), and is leased and maintained by the City. The part of the Mooney’s Bay Park that is the subject of this preliminary HHERA is called herein the Mooney’s Bay Study Area. The Mooney’s Bay Study Area is located immediately west of the large fill mound and was recently investigated by Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (2016) to assess surficial and deeper soil quality associated with historical fill placement, and to identify any constraints to the proposed playground construction and development.

The preliminary HHERA addresses soil contamination by contaminants of potential concern (CoPCs) of metals, PAHs and PHCs identified by Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (2016) based on exceedences of applicable CCME guidelines and MOECC standards for residential/parkland use. Because parts of the site are within 30 m of the Rideau River, MOECC Table 9 standards are applicable. There are no CoPCs in site groundwater based on lack of consistent exceedences of applicable guidelines and standards, lack of completed human and terrestrial receptors exposure pathways, and lack of impact to aquatic life in the adjacent Rideau River. The preliminary HHERA is completed as a Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA) for human health risk assessment (HHRA) following Health Canada guidance and as a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) following CCME and Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan guidance.

The results of the HHRA show that health risks to Park Visitors/Users and Park Maintenance Workers meet safe risk target levels defined by Health Canada and MOECC. The HHRA also shows that health risk to Park Utility/Construction Workers meet safe risk target levels defined by Health Canada, but slightly exceed safe risk target levels defined by MOECC. Implementation of worker protection measures including avoidance of soil ingestion and skin contact with subsurface soil during excavation activities (i.e., wearing of gloves and appropriate work clothing) would reduce the exposure and estimated risk to safe target levels.

The results of the SLERA show minor localized risks to terrestrial plants and soil organisms posed by maximum concentrations of metals, PAHs and PHCs in site soil. However, given that the calculated risks are low, that some of the measured maximum concentrations are close to or less than MOECC-defined background concentrations (e.g., chromium, copper), and that the number of soil samples showing risks are small, the overall site risks to plants and soil organisms posed by metals, PAHs and PHCs in site soil are considered to be minor in nature and not significant. The SLERA shows that there are no risks to mammals and birds at the site and to freshwater aquatic life in the adjacent Rideau River.

The overall conclusion of the preliminary HHERA is that identified soil quality exceedences of applicable CCME guidelines and MOECC standards do not pose unacceptable human health risks to park visitors, park utility/construction workers or park maintenance workers, or unacceptable ecological health risks to terrestrial mammals, birds and plants and soil organisms at the site and to aquatic life in the adjacent Rideau River. The preliminary HHERA does not identify any constraints to the proposed playground construction and use.


June 2, 2016 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Summary of Previous Work ..................................................................................................... 4

1.4.1 2006 Phase I ESA of Mooney’s Bay Park ....................................................................... 4 1.4.2 2008 Phase II ESA of Fill Mound, Mooney’s Bay Park ................................................... 4 1.4.3 2010 SLRA of Fill Mound, Mooney’s Bay Park .............................................................. 4 1.4.4 2011 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring of Mooney’s Bay Park ...................... 5 1.4.5 2012 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring of Mooney’s Bay Park ...................... 6 1.4.6 2013 Surface Water Monitoring of Mooney’s Bay Park ................................................... 6 1.4.7 2016 Soil Investigation and Characterization, Mooney’s Bay Park ................................. 6

2 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Land Use and Physical Setting ................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Site Stratigraphy ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Evaluation of Applicable Site Guidelines and Standards ................................................... 10 2.4 Soil Conditions and Quality ................................................................................................... 10 2.5 Groundwater Conditions and Quality ................................................................................... 13 2.6 Surface Water Conditions and Quality ................................................................................. 13 2.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................................................... 14 2.8 Contaminants of Potential Concern ...................................................................................... 14

3 PRELIMINARY HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 16

3.1 Approach ................................................................................................................................. 16 3.2 Initial Screening of CoPCs ..................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations ..................................................................................... 19 3.4 Exposure Scenarios, Receptors and Receptor Characteristics ......................................... 19 3.5 Human Health Toxicity Reference Values ............................................................................ 21

3.5.1 TRV Sources ................................................................................................................. 21 3.5.2 Lead .............................................................................................................................. 21 3.5.3 Carcinogenic PAHs ....................................................................................................... 23

3.6 Risk Calculations and Targets ............................................................................................... 26 3.7 Summary and Interpretation of Results ................................................................................ 26

4 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................... 29

4.1 Approach ................................................................................................................................. 29 4.2 Species at Risk ........................................................................................................................ 30 4.3 Initial Screening of CoPCs ..................................................................................................... 30 4.4 Soil Exposure Concentrations and Secondary Screening .................................................. 33 4.5 VEC Characteristics and Exposure Assessment ................................................................. 34

4.5.1 VEC Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 34 4.5.2 Pathway Analysis .......................................................................................................... 35 4.5.3 Exposure Estimates ...................................................................................................... 35

4.6 Ecological Health Toxicity Reference Values ...................................................................... 37


June 2, 2016 iv

4.7 Risk Calculations and Targets ............................................................................................... 38 4.8 Summary and Interpretation of Results ................................................................................ 38

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RISK MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 40

6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 42

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Location of Mooney’s Bay Study Area .............................................................................. 2 Figure 1.2 Mooney’s Bay Study Area and Sampling Locations .......................................................... 3 Figure 2.1 Location of Site Photographs ............................................................................................ 9 Figure 2.2 Surficial Soil Exceedences (CCME and MOECC) ........................................................... 11 Figure 2.3 Subsurface Soil Exceedences (CCME and MOECC) ..................................................... 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Summary of Contaminants of Potential Concern in Soil for Further Assessment in Preliminary HHERA ......................................................................................................... 15

Table 3.1 Screening of CoPCs in Surficial and Subsurface Soil Against CCME and MOECC Human Health Components of Direct Soil Contact ......................................................... 17

Table 3.2 Summary of CoPCs Carried Forward in Preliminary HHRA ............................................ 18 Table 3.3 Maximum and Soil Exposure Point Concentrations of CoPCs in Surficial and All Soil ... 19 Table 3.4 Summary of Receptor Exposure Assumptions ............................................................... 20 Table 3.5 Summary of Receptor Characteristics ............................................................................. 20 Table 3.6 Potency Equivalence Factors (PEFs) for Carcinogenic PAH .......................................... 25 Table 3.7 Summary of Human Health Hazards and Risks – Mooney’s Bay Study Area ................ 27 Table 4.1 Screening of CoPCs in All Soil Against CCME and MOECC Ecological Health

Components .................................................................................................................... 31 Table 4.2 Summary of CoPCs Carried Forward in SLERA from Initial Screening .......................... 33 Table 4.3 Summary of Soil Exposure Concentrations for CoPCs Carried Forward in SLERA ........ 33 Table 4.4 Secondary Screening of Soil Lead EPC to Representative Mammalian and Avian

Species ............................................................................................................................ 34 Table 4.5 Ecological Receptor Characteristics and Assumptions Used in the SLERA ................... 35 Table 4.6 Lead Uptake Factors for Ecological Exposure Estimates ............................................... 36 Table 4.7 Summary of Average Daily Dose for American Robin .................................................... 37 Table 4.8 Summary of Ecological TRVs Used in SLERA ................................................................ 37 Table 4.9 Summary of Ecological Health Hazards and Risks – Mooney’s Bay Study Area ............ 39

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B Soil Quality and Surface Water Quality Tables Appendix C ProUCL Calculations for Soil EPCs Appendix D Input and Output Data Sheets – Health Canada PQRA Spreadsheet Model


June 2, 2016 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Geofirma Engineering Ltd. was retained by the City of Ottawa to complete a preliminary Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) of part of Mooney’s Bay Park with identified presence of metals, petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in site soil at concentrations exceeding applicable federal (CCME) soil quality guidelines or provincial (MOECC) soil quality standards. Mooney’s Bay Park is located adjacent to the Rideau River in south Ottawa (Figure 1.1).

The HHERA work described in this report was completed in accordance with Geofirma proposal 15-200-6 dated April 27, 2016, submitted in response to City of Ottawa e-mail request from Mr. David Kiar, Advisor, Environmental Remediation, Real Estate Partnerships & Development Office on April 26, 2016 under City of Ottawa Standing Offer Agreement RFSO 19614-91843-S01. Authorization to proceed with this work was provided by Mr. David Kiar via e-mail on April 27, 2016.

1.1 Background

The part of Mooney’s Bay that is the subject of this preliminary HHERA (Mooney’s Bay Study Area, Figure 1.2) is proposed by the City, in conjunction with various other stakeholders, for construction of a 50,000 square-foot playground. The land is owned by several federal government departments, including Parks Canada and the National Capital Commission (NCC), and is leased and maintained by the City.

The Mooney’s Bay Study Area which is about 2.1 hectare in size is located immediately west of the large fill mound adjacent to the Terry Fox Athletic Facility. This same study area was recently investigated by Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (2016) to assess surficial and deeper soil quality associated with historical fill placement, and to identify any constraints to the proposed playground construction and use.

Photographs of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area taken during a site inspection specifically for the HHERA on May 4, 2016 are shown in Appendix A.

1.2 Study Objectives

The preliminary human health and ecological risk assessment is intended to assess potential human and ecological health concerns and any necessary risk management or mitigation measures that are associated with construction and use of the property as a proposed playground, based on the identification of contaminants of potential concern (CoPCs) as heavy metals, PHCs and PAHs in site soil.

1.3 Scope of Work

As per the Geofirma proposal, the scope of work for this study includes the following four tasks:

1) Review and compilation of existing soil, groundwater and surface water quality data for the site and surrounding area including historical reports undertaken for the NCC by Geofirma Engineering Ltd. and others.

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250M e te rs

1:40,000Sc ale

³

PROJECT No. 15-200-6

DESIGN: ADGCAD/GIS: ADGCHECK: KGRREV : 0

Figure 1.1Location of

Mooney's Bay Study Area

PROJECTPre lim inary Hum an He alth and Ec ologic al Ris k As s e s s m e nt, M oone y’s Bay, Ottawa, ON

G:\Data\Project\MooneysBay\Maps\15-200-6_MooneysBayHHERA\15-200-6-Figure1_1_Location.mxd

DATE: 02/06/2016

LEGENDM oone y's Bay Study Are a

Coord inate Sys te m : NAD 1983 M TM 9Sourc e : City of Ottawa ge oOttawa 2007 air photo

TOWN OF MISSISSIPPI

MILLS

TOWNSHIP OF

MONTAGUE

CITY OF CLARENCE-ROCKLAND

TOWNSHIP OF

DRUMMOND/NORTH ELMSLEY

MUNICIPALITY OF NORTH GRENVILLE

TOWNSHIP OF EDWARDSBURGH/

CARDINAL

VILLAGE OF MERRICKVILLE-

WOLFORDTOWNSHIP OF

ELIZABETHTOWN-KITLEY

^CITY OF OTTAWA

TOWNSHIP OF TAY VALLEY

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH DUNDAS

MUNICIPALITY OF SOUTH DUNDAS

TOWNSHIP OF LANARK

HIGHLANDSTOWNSHIP

OF BECKWITH

TOWNSHIP OF

RUSSELL

Ontario

Quebec

0 20 4010 Km

INDEX M AP

Se rvic e Laye r Cre d its : Sourc e s : Es ri, HERE, De Lorm e ,Inte rm ap, inc re m e nt P Corp., GEBCO, U SGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, Ge oBas e , IGN, Kadaste r NL, Ord nanc e Surve y,Es ri Japan, M ETI, Es ri China (Hong Kong), swis stopo,M apm yInd ia, © Ope nStre e tM ap c ontributors , and the GISU s e r Com m unity

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

EDED

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

#

#

#

#

CB

CB

CB

@A

@A

@A

FillMound

SW11-1

SW11-3

SW11-2

SW11-4

PZ11-1

PZ11-2

PZ11-3

TP16-11

TP16-12

TP16-15

TP16-14

TP16-13

TP16-16

TP16-05 TP16-18

TP16-19

TP16-06

TP16-17

TP16-04

TP16-03 TP16-02TP16-01

TP16-07

TP16-09

TP16-10

TP16-08

BH/MW2

BH/MW3

BH/MW1

0 10 20 30 405Meters

1:1,300Sc ale

³

P ROJECT No. 15-200-6

DESIGN: ADGCAD/GIS: ADGCHECK: KGRREV: 0

Figure 1.2Mooney's Bay Study Areaand Sampling Locations

P ROJECTP relim inary Hum an Health and Ec ologic al Risk Assessm ent, Mooney’s Bay, Ottawa, ON

G:\Data\Project\MooneysBay\Maps\15-200-6_MooneysBayHHERA\15-200-6-Figure1_2_SamplingLocations.mxd

DATE: 02/06/2016

LEGENDMooney's Bay Study Area

@AHistoric al Monitoring WellLoc ations

CBHistoric al P iez om eterLoc ations

# Historic al Surfac e WaterSam pling Loc ations

ED 2016 Test P it Loc ations

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 MTM 9Sourc e: City of Ottawa geoOttawa 2007 air ph oto


June 2, 2016 4

2) Completion of a preliminary human health risk assessment (HHRA) to address park visitor, park maintenance worker and park utility/construction worker potential exposure to site CoPCs in surficial and subsurface soil of the site. The preliminary HHRA was completed as a preliminary quantitative risk assessment.

3) Completion of a preliminary ecological risk assessment (ERA) to address terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors at the site. The preliminary ERA was completed as a screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA).

4) Compilation of all findings in a draft report to be submitted to the Real Estate Partnerships & Development Office no later than two weeks following receipt of City notice to proceed.

The required preliminary HHERA has been prepared for City use and due diligence purposes. It has not been prepared in support of an MOECC Record of Site Condition under O. Regulation 153/04 (as amended).

1.4 Summary of Previous Work

1.4.1 2006 Phase I ESA of Mooney’s Bay Park

Genivar (2006) completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Mooney’s Bay Park for the NCC. The Phase I ESA identified a large mound of unknown fill material located immediately south of the Terry Fox Athletic Facility and east of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area that is the subject of this preliminary HHERA. The Phase I ESA recommended a Phase II ESA be competed to investigate soil and groundwater quality of the fill mound and surrounding area.

1.4.2 2008 Phase II ESA of Fill Mound, Mooney’s Bay Park

The Phase II ESA of the large fill mound located east of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area was investigated by Intera Engineering Ltd (2008) for the NCC. The Phase II ESA included collection of groundwater seeps, excavation of 11 test pits, and drilling four boreholes with the installation of 4 monitoring wells (see Figure 1.2 for monitoring wells proximate to the Mooney’s Bay Study Area), surficial soil and deeper soil sampling and shallow groundwater sampling. The Phase II ESA identified poor quality fill including asphalt, brick, concrete and landfill debris and refuse within the mound.

Testing of groundwater seeps at the base of the fill mound showed various metal parameter exceedences of CCME and PWQO guidelines for protection of aquatic life. Testing of groundwater also showed some metal exceedences of MOE Table 3 standards. Testing of poor quality fill within the mound showed exceedences of CCME guidelines and MOE Table 3 standards for metals, PHCs and PAHs assuming parkland use. As the groundwater seeps were temporary, they were not part of an aquatic environment and were not recommended for further investigation.

A screening level risk assessment (SLRA) was recommended to address the elevated concentrations of metals, PHCs and PAHs in site soil, and metals exceedences in site groundwater.

1.4.3 2010 SLRA of Fill Mound, Mooney’s Bay Park

The screening level risk assessment (SLRA) of the fill mound was completed by Intera Engineering Ltd. (2010). The SLRA included supplementary site investigations with a surficial soil sampling program and a follow-up groundwater sampling program for existing groundwater monitoring wells at the fill mound.


June 2, 2016 5

The results of the surficial soil sampling program indicated the surficial soil overlying the fill mound at the site met all human health risk-based component values for metals and PAHs. Contaminants of potential concern (CoPCs) identified in subsurface soil included lead, mercury, acenaphthylene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, fluoranthene, naphthalene and F3 PHCs. CoPCs in site groundwater included cadmium, copper, iron, mercury, zinc, chloride, nitrate as N, sulphate, fluoranthene, phenanthrene and pyrene.

The results of the SLRA concluded that there was no unacceptable risk to human receptors (Park Visitors and Park Maintenance Workers) exposed to contaminated soil at the site. As no risk to human health based on the current land use and configuration of the site was identified, no further action regarding soil quality was recommended in the SLRA. For ecological receptors the results of the SLRA concluded there was low to negligible risk present for plants based on contact with PAH parameters in the soil, and low risk present for soil invertebrates based on contact with PAH parameters and PHC F3 in site soil within the mound.

The SLRA identified a potential risk to aquatic organisms based on various metals, PAH and general chemistry parameters detected in site groundwater at concentrations above the federal guidelines and provincial standards intended to protect freshwater aquatic life. The SLRA recommended installation and sampling/testing of piezometers close to the shoreline and testing of samples of surface water of the Rideau River where it would receive groundwater discharge from the fill mound be conducted. Samples were recommended to be analyzed for metals, PAHs and general chemistry.

1.4.4 2011 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring of Mooney’s Bay Park

The recommendations of the 2010 SLRA were implemented by Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (2011). As part of this work Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (2011) installed three shoreline mini-piezometers along the Rideau River and established four surface water sampling locations within the Rideau River downgradient of the fill mound. Figure 1.2 shows the locations of shoreline mini-piezometers and the surface water sampling locations. The three mini-piezometers were located at the downgradient end of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area that is the subject of this HHERA. The four surface water sampling points were located within the near-shore part of the Rideau River immediately downgradient of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area.

Water levels measured in groundwater monitoring wells constructed in the fill mound, in the mini-piezometers installed near the Rideau River and in the Rideau River confirmed shallow groundwater flow directions across the Mooney’s Bay Study Area as being to the west-southwest and the Rideau River with average hydraulic gradient of 0.014 m/m.

The 2011 sampling of groundwater within the fill mound and adjacent to the Rideau River showed low level exceedences of several metals (copper, cadmium, zinc), inorganics (nitrate, sulphate) and PAHs (anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, fluoranthene and pyrene) against Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines (FIGQGs, Environment Canada, 2010) and/or MOE Table 9 Standards intended to protect freshwater aquatic life. However, sampling and testing of near-shore surface water of the Rideau River did not identify any metals or inorganics exceedences of available CCME guidelines or PWQOs intended to protect fresh water aquatic life. PAHs were not detected in any surface water samples. The 2011 sampling concluded that groundwater from the site, with contaminants above


June 2, 2016 6

federal guidelines and provincial standards were not impacting surface water quality adjacent to the site.

1.4.5 2012 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring of Mooney’s Bay Park

2012 sampling and testing of groundwater and surface water at the Mooney’s Bay Park in the sampling network established in 2001 was completed by Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited (2012). The results of this sampling confirmed results and conclusions of the 2011 sampling and testing. In particular, the sampling of groundwater in mini-piezometers installed in proximity to the Rideau River showed no exceedences of FIGQGs or MOE Table 9 standards for metals, inorganics and PAHs. Sampling of surface water in the Rideau River was shown to meet both federal (CCME) and provincial (PWQO) guidelines for protection of freshwater aquatic life.

1.4.6 2013 Surface Water Monitoring of Mooney’s Bay Park

Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited (2013) completed surface water sampling of the Rideau River at Mooney’s Bay Park downgradient of the fill mound and the Mooney’s Bay Study Area that is the subject of this preliminary HHERA. Results from 2013 sampling for metals, inorganics and PAHs were comparable to 2012 results confirming the lack of adverse effect to Rideau River surface water quality and aquatic life due to low level exceedences of FIGQGs and MOE Table 9 standards in fill mound groundwater.

1.4.7 2016 Soil Investigation and Characterization, Mooney’s Bay Park

Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (2016) was retained by the City of Ottawa to undertake an investigation and characterization of soil and fill quality in the Mooney’s Bay Study Area as part of an assessment of constraints to development of the area as a large playground. This area of Mooney’s Bay had not previously been investigated for soil quality. The 2016 soil investigation included excavation of 19 test pits, logging of soil/fill stratigraphy and visual, olfactory and instrument (CGI/PID) evidence of contamination, collection of 16 surficial soil samples (0-0.15 m depth) for metals and PAH analyses, collection of 20 subsurface (>0.15 m depth) for metals and PAHs analyses, and collection of eight subsurface soil samples for BTEX and PHC analyses.

The results of the 2016 soil investigation and characterization study show the site stratigraphy consists of approximately 0.1 to 0.3 m of sandy topsoil, with varying amounts of silt and gravel, underlain by fill. Native till (grey sandy silt with clay and gravel) was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 1.2 to 2.3 metres below ground surface (mBGS). The fill material can be divided into two units: Unit 1 is a visually clean sandy fill with gravel and silt; Unit 2 is a poor quality gravelly sand fill with construction related debris such as concrete, rebar, asphalt, brick, lumber and lesser amounts of rubber, aluminum cans and plastic. Fill Unit 2 was primarily encountered in areas of the site assumed to be filled ornamental ponds.

The property is owned by federal agencies (National Capital Commission and Parks Canada) but is leased and operated by the City of Ottawa, therefore all soil quality results are compared to both CCME Soil Quality Guidelines (SQGs) and MOE Table 9 Standards as portions of the study area are within 30 metres of the Rideau River.


June 2, 2016 7

The results of the surficial soil quality testing show PAH exceedences of applicable CCME guidelines and MOE Table 9 standards for parkland use with coarse-textured soil. No metals exceedences of CCME guidelines and MOE standards were found in surficial soil. Subsurface soil (fill) showed metals, PAHs and PHCs exceedences of CCME guidelines and MOE standards.

Based on the reported concentrations of metals, PAHs and PHCs in surficial soil and subsurface soil, the 2016 soil investigation and characterization study recommended completion of a preliminary HHERA for City due diligence purposes.


June 2, 2016 8

2 SITE DESCRIPTION

Description of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area provided herein is based on the results of the SLRA (Intera Engineering Ltd., 2010), the recent soil investigation and characterization study (Geofirma Engineering Ltd., 2016) and site inspection completed on May 4, 2016. Photographs taken during the May 4 2016 site inspection are provided in Appendix A. The location of the May 4, 2016 site photographs are shown on Figure 2.1.

2.1 Land Use and Physical Setting

The Mooney’s Bay Study Area, municipally addressed as 2960 Riverside Drive, is a 2.1 hectare parcel of Mooney’s Bay Park located adjacent to the Rideau River, west of the large fill mound and north of the beach area (see Figure 1.2). The Mooney’s Bay Study Area includes an outdoor gym area (Photo 10) and several bridge structures (Photos 5, 7, 17 and 20) that historically spanned a network of ornamental ponds/creeks that crossed the site. These water features were infilled in the 1980’s with fill material of variable quality. A set of pedestrian paths and walkways traverse the central part of the site (Figure 2.1, Photos 1, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20). Park benches are also present in the central part of the site (Photos 10 and 11). The large fill mound (Photos 7, 13 and 16) rises about 17 m above the surrounding land and provides the elevation gain driving groundwater flow at the site toward the Rideau River.

The site is flat-lying with a gentle slope to the west toward the Rideau River (Photos 1, 2, 3, 17, 18, 19 and 20). The site has maintained grass cover (Photos 1 to 20) with several species of mature deciduous trees present across the site (Photos 1 to 20). There are no signs of vegetation stress at the site.

The shoreline of the adjacent Rideau River is sandy to bouldery near the southern part of the site (Photos 6 and 8) with gabions to prevent shoreline erosion near the northern part of the site (Photo 15).

The site is not designated as an area of natural significance. The closest area of natural significance is Hogs Back Falls, a provincially significant earth science area of natural and scientific interest (ANSI) located about 200 m north and slightly west of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area.

2.2 Site Stratigraphy

The site overburden is locally mapped as glacial till including material ranging from clay to large boulders, generally sandy material underlain by Ottawa Formation limestone. Native soils encountered during site investigations at and near the site consist of sand, silt and till. Bedrock was not encountered in any of the test pits or boreholes completed at or in the vicinity of the site.

The results of the 2016 soil investigation and characterization study show the site stratigraphy consists of approximately 0.1 to 0.3 m of sandy topsoil, with varying amounts of silt and gravel, underlain by fill. Native glacial till (grey sandy silt with clay and gravel) was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 1.2 to 2.3 metres below ground surface (mBGS). The fill material can be divided into two units: Unit 1 is a visually clean sandy fill with gravel and silt; Unit 2 is a poor quality gravelly sand fill with construction related debris such as concrete, rebar, asphalt, brick, lumber and lesser amounts of

FillMound

1

15

46

19

11

20

18

27

9

14

8

13

10

5

12

3

1716

0 10 20 30 405Meters

1:1,300Scale

³

P ROJECT No. 15-200-6

DESIGN: ADGCAD/GIS: ADGCHECK: KGRREV: 0

Figure 2.1Location of Site Photographs

P ROJECTP relim inary Hum an Health and Ecological Risk Assessm ent, Mooney’s Bay, Ottawa, ON

G:\Data\Project\MooneysBay\Maps\15-200-6_MooneysBayHHERA\15-200-6-Figure2_1_PhotoLocations.mxd

DATE: 02/06/2016

LEGENDMooney's Bay Stud y AreaP hoto Locations

Coord inate System : NAD 1983 MTM 9Source: City of Ottawa geoOttawa 2007 air photo


June 2, 2016 10

rubber, aluminum cans and plastic. Fill Unit 2 was primarily encountered in areas of the site assumed to be filled ornamental ponds.

2.3 Evaluation of Applicable Site Guidelines and Standards

Surficial and subsurface soil quality data are compared against CCME (1999, 2008, 2010) Soil Quality Guidelines and MOE Table 9 Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Groundwater Condition for residential/parkland/institutional property uses and coarse textured soils (MOE, 2011a). MOE Table 9 standards are applicable for the site as soil thickness is greater than 2 m, the site is in an area serviced by municipal water supply, the site is not environmentally sensitive, and parts of the site lie within 30 m of a surface water body (i.e., Rideau River).

Soil quality data for carcinogenic PAHs (CCME, 2010) are also compared against calculated benzo(a)pyrene total potency equivalents (B(a)P TPE, CCME, 2010) assuming residential/parkland land use and the more stringent incremental lifetime cancer risks (ILCRs) of 1x10-6, consistent with current MOECC risk assessment practice (MOE, 2005). ICLRs recommended by Health Canada for contaminated federal properties are the less stringent values of 1x10-5. (Health Canada, 2010a) Additional descriptions of the calculations of B(a)P TPE are provided in Sections 3.2 and 3.5.3.

2.4 Soil Conditions and Quality

Soil quality data for the site are available from the 2016 surficial and subsurface soil sampling and testing completed in April 2016 by Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (2016). Test pit logs for the soil investigation and characterization study are provided in Appendix D to that study report. Test pits were typically excavated to depths of 1.5 to 3.4 m. Most soil samples submitted for chemical testing were collected from the upper 1.5 m of the soil column, mostly within fill material. Soil samples collected from below depths of 0.15 m are considered subsurface soil in this preliminary HHERA, although soil from 0 to 1.5 m depth is commonly considered surface soil under MOE Regulation 153/04.

Combustible gas indicator (CGI) and photoionization detector (PID) field measurements of bagged soil samples collected at 0. 6 m intervals were all low. Maximum CGI and PID readings were 25 ppm (sample TP-16-11-2) and 2 ppm (sample TP16-04-2), respectively, with most readings reported as 0 ppm. PHC and other contaminant odours were reported in samples TP16-17-2 and TP16-04-3.

Tables B.1 and B.2 in Appendix B summarize the analytical results of the 2016 sampling and testing programs for metals and PAHs in surficial soil. Tables B.3 and B.4 provide the same summary for subsurface soil. Table B.5 provides a summary of subsurface soil quality for PHCs/BTEX. Tables B.1 to B.5 list the sample identifier, sample depth, the date of soil sampling, analytical results, and a comparison of soil quality results to CCME guidelines and MOE Table 9 standards. For information purposes MOE Table 1 (Background) and MOE Table 3 (Full Depth Non-Potable) soil Standards are also provided on Tables B.1 to B.5.

Tables B.2 and B.4 also summarize the measured carcinogenic PAH concentrations and the calculations of benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) total potency equivalents (TPE) following CCME (2010) and a comparison of calculated B(a)P TPE against CCME guidelines. Carcinogenic PAHs are given in Tables B.2 and B.4 in italics. Figures 2.2 and 2.3 shows the locations of soil quality exceedences in surficial

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

EDED

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

TP16-01-1Sa m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16Sa m ple In terva l: 0 - 0.15 m BGSAn a lysis Suite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------No exceeden ces




TP16-05-1Sa m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16Sa m ple In terva l: 0 - 0.15 m BGSAn a lysis Suite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------Phen a n thren e 0.23 (CCME)




TP16-09-1Sa m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16Sa m ple In terva l: 0 - 0.15 m BGSAn a lysis Suite: Meta ls, PAHs--------------------------------------------------- Acen a phthen eAn thra cen e B[a ]P T PE Ben zo[a ]a n thra cen eBen zo[a ]pyren eBen zo[b ]fluora n then eBen zo[k]fluora n then e Iden o[1,2,3-cd]pyren eFluora n then eNa phtha len e Phen a n thren ePyren e




TP16-13-1Sa m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16Sa m ple In terva l: 0 - 0.15 m BGSAn a lysis Suite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------Na phtha len e 0.05 (CCME)Phen a n thren e 0.29 (CCME)



0.200.470.830.580.550.490.620.252.030.051.651.56

(MOE)(MOE)(CCME)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(CCME)(MOE, CCME)(MOE)

T P16-11

T P16-12

T P16-15

T P16-14

T P16-13

T P16-16

T P16-05 T P16-18

T P16-19

T P16-06

T P16-17

T P16-04

T P16-03 T P16-02T P16-01

T P16-07

T P16-09

T P16-10

T P16-08

³

G:\Data\Project\MooneysBay\Maps\15-200-6_MooneysBayHHERA\15-200-6_Figure2_2_MOECCME_SurficialSoil.mxd

LEGENDMoon ey's Ba y Study AreaApproxim a te L oca tion ofHistorica l Pon d

ED T est Pit

0 20 40 60 8010Meters

1:1,393Sca le


DESIGN: ADG/NMPCAD/GIS: ADG/NMPCHECK: SNGREV : 0

PROJECT

DAT E: 02/06/2016

Figure 2.2Surficial Soil Exceedences

(CCME and MOECC)

Prelim in a ry Hum a n Hea lth a n d Ecologica lRisk Assessm en t, Moon ey’s Ba y, Otta wa , ON

Coordin a te System: NAD 1983 MT M 9Service L a yer Credits: Source: Esri, Digita lGlob e, GeoEye, Ea rthsta rGeogra phics, CNES/Airb us DS, U SDA, U SGS, AEX, Getm a ppin g, Aerogrid,IGN, IGP, swisstopo, a n d the GIS U ser Com m un ity

ParameterCriteria (µg/g)

CCME SQG MOECC Table 9Antimony 20 1.3Barium 500 220Cadmium 10 1.2Chromium 64 70Copper 63 92Lead 140 120Acenaphthene 0.28 0.072Acenaphthylene 320 0.093Anthracene 2.5 0.22Benzo[a]anthracene 1 0.36Benzo[a]pyrene 20 0.3Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1 0.47Benzo[g,h,i]perylene NV 0.68Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1 0.48Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 1 0.1Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1 0.23B[a]P TPE 0.6**Fluoranthene 50 0.69Fluorene 0.25 0.191-Methylnaphthalene NV 0.592-Methylnaphthalene NV 0.59Methylnaphthalene (1&2) NV 0.59Naphthalene 0.013 0.09Phenanthrene 0.046 0.69Pyrene 10 1F2 PHCs (C10-C16) 150 10F3 PHCs (C16-C34) 300 240F4 PHCs (C34-C50) 2800 120

Notes1) V a lues in red in dica te a n exceeden ce of a pplica b le site sta n da rds.2) Pa ra m eters n ot exceedin g a pplica b le site sta n da rds a re n ot in cluded in this figure.3) W here duplica te wa s collected, reported va lue is highest b etween duplica te a n d sa m ple

Pa ra m etera n d V a lue (µg/g)

Sa m ple IDDa te Sa m pled Soil In terva l

Sa m pled(m etres b elowgroun d surfa ce)

Pa ra m eters An a lyzed

TP16-01-1Sa m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16Sa m ple In terva l: 0 - 0.15 mBGSAn a lysis Suite: Meta ls------------------------------------------Copper 156 (CCME, MOE) Criteria

Exceeden ce

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

EDED

ED

ED

ED

ED

ED

TP16-01-3S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.7 - 1.3 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs, PHC/BT EX-----------------------------------------No exceedences

TP16-02-3S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.8 - 1.4 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------ Lea dAcena phthene Acena phthylene Anthra cene Benzo[a ]a nthra ceneBenzo[a ]pyreneBenzo[b]fluora ntheneBenzo[g,h,i]peryleneBenzo[k]fluora nthene B[a ]P T PEDibenzo[a ,h]a nthra ceneIdeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneFluora ntheneFluorene1-Methylna phtha lene2-Methylna phtha lene Methylna phtha lene - 1,2Na phtha lene Phena nthrenePyrene

1211.390.173.422.162.041.870.961.593.040.310.947.842.621.081.592.672.8611.95.97

TP16-03-2S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.15 - 0.8 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------No exceedences

TP16-04-3S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 1.2 - 1.6 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs, PHC/BT EX------------------------------------------ CopperLea dAcena phthleneBenzo[a ]pyreneFluora ntheneNa phtha lene Phena nthrene F3 PHCs (C16-C34)F4 PHCs (C34-C50)

95.74500.120.371.300.160.99577603

TP16-05-3S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.8 - 1.2 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------Phena nthrene 0.07 (CCME)

TP16-06-3S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 1.0 - 1.6 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------Copper 65.7 (CCME)Phena nthrene 0.17 (CCME)

TP16-07-3S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 1.0 - 1.6 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs, PHC/BT EX----------------------------------------- CopperBenzo[a ]a nthra ceneBenzo[a ]pyreneBenzo[b]fluora ntheneBenzo[k]fluora nthene Dibenzo[a ,h]a nthra ceneIdeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneB[a ]P T PEFluora ntheneNa phtha lenePhena nthrenePyreneF4 PHCs (C34-C50)

68.80.470.650.700.710.130.411.022.000.020.881.50465

TP16-08-2S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.2 - 0.7 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------Copper 68.2 (CCME)Phena nthrene 0.05 (CCME)

TP16-09-2S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.2 - 0.6 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------Antim ony 3.3 (MOE)Copper 105 (CCME, MOE)Na phtha lene 0.02 (CCME)Phena nthrene 0.25 (CCME)

TP16-10-3S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.7 - 1.2 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs,PHC/BT EX------------------------------------------ Ba rium Chrom ium Acena phthene Benzo[a ]pyreneBenzo[k]fluora nthene Ideno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneB[a ]P T PE Fluora ntheneFluorene1-Methylna phtha leneMethylna phtha lene (1&2)Na phtha lene Phena nthrenePyrene F2 PHCs (C10-C16)F3 PHCs (C16-C34)F4 PHCs (C34-C50)

TP16-11-2S a m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.35 - 0.9 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs, PHC/BT EX------------------------------------------No exceedences

TP16-12-3S a m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.7 - 1.3 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------ Ba rium Chrom ium Benzo[a ]pyrene Fluora nthene Phena nthrene

TP16-13-2S a m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.2 - 0.7 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs,PHC/BT EX------------------------------------------Ba rium 359 (CCME)

TP16-14-3S a m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.8 - 1.5 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs, ------------------------------------------No exceedences

TP16-15-2S a m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.2 - 0.7 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------ Acena phthene Anthra ceneBenzo[a ]a nthra ceneBenzo[a ]pyreneBenzo[b]fluora ntheneBenzo[g,h,i]peryleneBenzo[k]fluora nthene Dibenzo[a ,h]a nthra ceneIndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneB[a ]P T PE Fluora nthene Fluorene Na phtha lene Phena nthrene Pyrene

0.481.431.961.791.630.821.420.280.832.687.810.560.346.976.10

TP16-17-2S a m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.8 - 1.4 m BGSAna lysis S uite: PHC/BT EX------------------------------------------No exceedences

22264.50.120.480.560.270.691.380.241.521.880.081.091.12326572751

(CCME, MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(CCME, MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE) (CCME)

(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(CCME)(MOE)(CCME)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(MOE)

(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(CCME)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)

(MOE)(CCME)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(CCME)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(CCME)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)

(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(CCME)(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(CCME, MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)

(MOE)(CCME, MOE)(MOE)(MOE)(CCME)

23770.30.361.230.51

TP16-16-1S a m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.2 - 0.8 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHsPHC/BT EX------------------------------------------Acena phthylene 0.10 (MOE)Phena nthrene 0.07 (CCME)

TP16-18-1S a m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.2 - 0.8 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs, PHC/BT EX ------------------------------------------Phena nthrene 0.16 (CCME)F4 PHCs (C34-C50) 433 (MOE)

TP16-19-1S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.15 - 0.7 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------Molybdenum 2.6 (MOE)Phena nthrene 0.22 (CCME)

TP16-17-1S a m ple Da te: 19-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0.15 - 0.8 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls, PAHs------------------------------------------Na phtha lene 0.04 (CCME)Phena nthrene 0.30 (CCME)

T P16-11T P16-12

T P16-15

T P16-14

T P16-13

T P16-16

T P16-05 T P16-18

T P16-19

T P16-06

T P16-17

T P16-04

T P16-03 T P16-02T P16-01

T P16-07

T P16-09

T P16-10

T P16-08

³

G:\Data\Project\MooneysBay\Maps\15-200-6_MooneysBayHHERA\15-200-6_Figure2_3_MOECCME_Subsurface.mxd

LEGENDMooney's Ba y S tudy AreaApproxim a te Loca tion ofHistorica l Pond

ED T est Pit

0 20 40 60 8010Meters

1:1,400Scale


DES IGN: ADG/NMPCAD/GIS : ADG/NMPCHECK : S NGREV : 0

PROJECT

DAT E: 02/06/2016

Figure 2.3Subsurface Soil Exceedences

(CCME and MOECC)

Pa ra m etera nd V a lue (µg/g)

S a m ple IDDa te S a m pled S oil Interva l

S a m pled(m etres belowground surfa ce)

Pa ra m eters Ana lyzed

TP16-01-1S a m ple Da te: 18-Apr-16S a m ple Interva l: 0 - 0.15 m BGSAna lysis S uite: Meta ls------------------------------------------Copper 156 (CCME, MOE)

Coordina te S ystem : NAD 1983 MT M 9S ervice La yer Credits: S ource: Esri, Digita lGlobe, GeoEye, Ea rthsta rGeogra phics, CNES /Airbus DS , U S DA, U S GS , AEX , Getm a pping, Aerogrid,IGN, IGP, swisstopo, a nd the GIS U ser Com m unity

Notes1) V a lues in red indica te a n exceedence of a pplica ble site sta nda rds.2) Pa ra m eters not exceeding a pplica ble site sta nda rds a re not included in this figure.3) Where duplica te wa s collected, reported va lue is highest between duplica te a nd sa m ple

Criteria Exceedence

ParameterCriteria (µg/g)

CCME SQG MOECC Table 9Antimony 20 1.3Barium 500 220Cadmium 10 1.2Chromium 64 70Copper 63 92Lead 140 120Acenaphthene 0.28 0.072Acenaphthylene 320 0.093Anthracene 2.5 0.22Benzo[a]anthracene 1 0.36Benzo[a]pyrene 20 0.3Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1 0.47Benzo[g,h,i]perylene NV 0.68Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1 0.48Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 1 0.1Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1 0.23B[a]P TPE 0.6**Fluoranthene 50 0.69Fluorene 0.25 0.191-Methylnaphthalene NV 0.592-Methylnaphthalene NV 0.59Methylnaphthalene (1&2) NV 0.59Naphthalene 0.013 0.09Phenanthrene 0.046 0.69Pyrene 10 1F2 PHCs (C10-C16) 150 10F3 PHCs (C16-C34) 300 240F4 PHCs (C34-C50) 2800 120

Prelim ina ry Hum a n Hea lth a nd Ecologica lRisk Assessm ent, Mooney’s Ba y, Otta wa , ON


June 2, 2016 13

and subsurface soil, respectively, at the Mooney’s Bay Study Area from the 2016 soil investigation and characterization study (Geofirma Engineering Ltd., 2016).

2.5 Groundwater Conditions and Quality

Groundwater flow and surface water drainage at the site is from the fill mound to the west-southwest toward the Rideau River (Geofirma Engineering Ltd. 2011). Groundwater depth at the site typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.5 m below ground surface. Occasional ponding of water from the fill mound and from snow melt and precipitation occurs at the site in early spring.

Groundwater samples of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area were not collected as part of the 2016 soil investigation and characterization, and no groundwater monitoring wells or mini-piezometers from historical investigations on the site or the adjacent fill mound are remnant today. The most recent groundwater quality data for the site are from groundwater sampling of three mini-piezometers installed in 2011 at the downgradient part of the site proximate to the Rideau River (see Figure 1.2). Groundwater sampling and testing of these mini-piezometers for metals, general chemistry and PAHs are reported by Geofirma Engineering Ltd (2011) and Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited (2012).

The results of this groundwater quality testing showed no exceedences of FIGQGs or MOE Table 9 standards for metals and general chemistry, and occasional sporadic low-level exceedences of FIGQGs for selected PAHs (anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, fluoranthene and pyrene). No PAH exceedences of MOE Table 9 standards were found from this groundwater sampling. Because the identified minor FIGQG PAH exceedences are protective of aquatic life in surface water and testing of adjacent surface water at the site from 2011 to 2013 (see Section 2.6) has never identified exceedences of CCME or PWQO guidelines for protection of freshwater aquatic life, groundwater quality is not considered further in this preliminary HHERA.

2.6 Surface Water Conditions and Quality

Surface water in the Rideau River approximately 10 m west of the western boundary of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area was sampled for metals, general chemistry and PAHs in 2011, 2012 and 2013 (Geofirma Engineering Ltd, 2011; Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited, 2012; 2013) at the four sampling locations shown on Figure 1.2. Surface water flow in the Rideau River is south to north opposite the site.

Tables B.6 and B.7 of Appendix B summarize the results of this surface water sampling and a comparison of results against CCME guidelines for protection of freshwater aquatic life and MOECC Aquatic Protection Values (APVs, MOE, 2011b). MOE (2001b) recommends that APVs be used in assessment of impact to surface water from contaminated sites over PWQOs. PWQOs are provided in Tables B.6 and B.7 for information purposes only.

Tables B.6 and B.7 show that there are no metals, general chemistry or PAH exceedences of CCME guidelines for surface water and MOECC APVs from 2011 to 2013 sampling. One sampling event at SW-4 in May 2012 showed two minor CCME exceedences for fluoranthene and pyrene, however subsequent sampling and other surface water sampling on that date indicate these exceedences are anomalous.


June 2, 2016 14

2.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Laboratory analyses of 2016 soil quality samples were completed by Paracel Laboratories Ltd., a CALA (Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation)-certified laboratory. Paracel completed all analyses in accordance with internal laboratory QC programs that included referenceable standardized analytical methods and procedures and use of laboratory quality control samples. Certificates of quality control were provided by Paracel for all completed analyses. These certificates summarize standardized analytical methods, and the laboratory’s results for laboratory QA/QC samples including replicate samples, process blanks, standard surrogate additions and matrix spikes. Complete laboratory analytical reports for the 2016 soil sampling program are provided in Appendix F to the 2016 soil investigation and characterization report (Geofirma Engineering Ltd., 2016). Laboratory method blank and duplicate analyses are not included on the summary analytical Tables B.1 to B.5 of Appendix B to this report, but are available for review in Appendix F of the 2016 soil investigation and characterization report.

Geofirma review of Paracel QA/QC certificates indicates that all analytical results fell within acceptable QA/QC limits for constituent recovery as defined by the protocols for the analytical methods.

The QA/QC sampling program included the submission of two blind duplicate soil samples for analysis of metals and PAHs. The following duplicate samples were collected:

TPD1 – blind field duplicate of TP16-11-1 (surficial soil sample)

TPD2 – blind field duplicate of TP16-12-2 (subsurface soil sample)

Precision is determined by the relative percent difference (RPD) between the set of duplicate samples and was calculated as follows:

RPD = |X1 – X2| X

where: X1 = concentration of original sample X2 = concentration of duplicate sample X = average concentration of original and duplicate sample

RPD values for the surficial soil sample and duplicate are low, 7% and 15% for metals and PAHs, respectively. Calculated RPD values for the subsurface sample are 18% and >200% for metals and PAHs, respectively. The relatively high RPD value for the PAH analysis is a function of the heterogeneity of the fill material. The interpretation and analysis of the laboratory results incorporated the higher value between the sample and its respective duplicate.

Based on review of the laboratory and field QA/QC documentation, the soil analytical results are considered of acceptable quality and can be used in this report without qualification.

2.8 Contaminants of Potential Concern

Based on the review of available soil quality data described in Section 2.4 above, Table 2.1 lists the contaminants of potential concern (CoPCs) in surficial and subsurface soil at the Mooney’s Bay Study Area for further evaluation in the preliminary HHERA in Sections 3 and 4. Potential CoPCs are identified in Table 2.1 based on their identified exceedence of applicable CCME guidelines and/or


June 2, 2016 15

MOECC standards and the CCME guideline for B(a)P TPE (benzo(a)pyrene total potency equivalents) for total carcinogenic PAH. Carcinogenic PAHs are given in Table 2.1 in italics.

Table 2.1 Summary of Contaminants of Potential Concern in Soil for Further Assessment in Preliminary HHERA

Surficial Soil (0 – 0.15 m Depth) Subsurface Soil (>0.15 m Depth)

Metals: None Metals: Antimony, Barium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Molybdenum

PAHs: Acenaphthene, Anthracene, Benzo[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo[b]fluoranthene, Benzo[k]fluoranthene, Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, B[a]P TPE, Fluoranthene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene

PAHs: Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benzo[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo[b]fluoranthene, Benzo[g,h,i]perylene, Benzo[k]fluoranthene, Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, B[a]P TPE, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Methylnaphthalene (1&2), Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene

PHCs/BTEX: None PHCs/BTEX: PHC F2, PHC F3, PHC F4


June 2, 2016 16

3 PRELIMINARY HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

3.1 Approach

Calculations of preliminary human exposure and health risk posed by soil CoPCs for defined human receptors were completed using the Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA) spreadsheet model (Health Canada, 2011) supplemented with MOECC-endorsed toxicological reference values (TRVs) where Health Canada TRVs are unavailable. The PQRA Model is an Excel spreadsheet developed by Health Canada to assess hazards and risk posed by federal contaminated sites in Canada. The PQRA model is described in Health Canada (2011) and is part of a series of guidance documents prepared by Health Canada (2010a; 2010b) to ensure consistency in human health risk assessment at contaminated sites in Canada.

The PQRA model includes sets of mathematic equations to estimate fate and transport of CoPCs in various environmental media, standardized human receptors and exposure characteristics. Because the Mooney’s Bay Park is federal land, the Health Canada toxicological reference values (TRVs) contained within the PQRA are used in this preliminary quantitative human health risk assessment. If Health Canada TRVs are not available for CoPCs, TRV data from MOE (2011b) are used.

There are no CoPCs in site groundwater for inclusion in the preliminary HHRA, as there is no direct human contact with site groundwater (through ingestion) or indirect contact with site groundwater through volatilization to indoor air (no VOCs in site groundwater and no buildings constructed at the site).

3.2 Initial Screening of CoPCs

CoPCs for the HHRA are identified in Table 2.1 of Section 2.8 based on identified exceedences of applicable CCME guidelines and MOECC Table 9 standards. Screening of maximum concentrations of metal, PAH and PHC CoPCs identified in Section 2.8 is completed to identify CoPCs to carry forward in the preliminary HHRA. Screening of CoPCs for further consideration in the preliminary HHRA is undertaken by comparison of maximum CoPC concentrations against CCME and MOECC components protective of human health from direct soil contact, which is the primary route of human exposure at the site for the identified CoPCs.

Table 3.1 compares maximum concentrations of CoPCs in surficial soil and subsurface soil against CCME (1999, 2008, 2010) soil ingestion components and against MOECC S1 and S3 direct soil contact components (MOE, 2011b). CCME direct contact components that consider soil ingestion, inhalation and dermal exposures are available for B(a)P TPE, chromium, copper, lead and do not distinguish surface versus subsurface exposure scenarios. CCME direct contact components for PHCs consider ingestion and dermal contact and also do not consider surface versus subsurface exposure scenarios.

MOECC S1 components are defined by MOECC as representative of a high-frequency, high-intensity human health exposure scenario equivalent to that of surficial soil at a residential/parkland/institutional site where children and pregnant women are present. MOECC S1 components consider soil ingestion and dermal exposure. Maximum surficial soil concentrations of potential CoPCs are screened against MOECC S1 components. MOECC S3 components are defined by MOECC as a low-frequency, high


June 2, 2016 17

Table 3.1 Screening of CoPCs in Surficial and Subsurface Soil Against CCME and MOECC Human Health Components of Direct Soil Contact

Surficial Soils Maximum CCME MOECC Retained As Surficial Soil Contact Soil Contact Human Health All units in ug/g Soil S1 CoPC? PAHs Acenaphthylene 0.20 NV 7.82 No Anthracene 0.47 NV 5390 No Benzo[a]anthracene 0.58 NV 0.78 No Benzo[a]pyrene 0.55 NV 0.078 Yes Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.49 NV 0.78 No Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.62 NV 0.78 No Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.25 NV 0.78 No B[a]P TPE 0.83 0.6 0.7 Yes Fluoranthene 2.03 NV 7.8 No Naphthalene 0.05 NV 360 No Phenanthrene 1.65 NV NV No* Pyrene 1.56 NV 78.2 No Subsurface Soils Maximum CCME MOECC Retained As Subsurface Soil Contact Soil Contact Human Health All units in ug/g Soil S3 CoPC? Metals Antimony 3.3 NV 63 No Barium 222 NV 8,600 No Chromium 70.3 220 236,000 No Copper 105 1,100 5,640 No Lead 450 140 1,000 Yes Molybdenum 2.6 NV 1,240 No PAHs Acenaphthene 1.39 NV 3600 No Acenaphthylene 0.17 NV 359 No Anthracene 3.42 NV 421,000 No Benzo[a]anthracene 2.16 NV 36.0 No Benzo[a]pyrene 2.04 NV 3.6 No Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1.87 NV 36 No Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.96 NV 360 No Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.59 NV 36 No Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.31 NV 3.6 No Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.94 NV 36 No B[a]P TPE 3.04 0.6 32.4 Yes Fluoranthene 7.84 NV 360 No Fluorene 2.62 NV 56,200 No Methylnaphthalene (1&2) 2.67 NV 560 No Naphthalene 2.86 NV 28000 No Phenanthrene 11.9 NV NV No* Pyrene 5.97 NV 3,600 No PHCs PHC-F2 326 6,800 48,300 No PHC-F3 577 15,000 263,000 No PHC-F4 603 21,000 397,000 No NV – No value reported * not carried forward assuming toxicity is similarity to pyrene


June 2, 2016 18

intensity, human health exposure scenario without children present that is protective of a worker digging in the soil. MOECC S3 components consider soil ingestion, dermal exposure and particulate inhalation of subsurface soil. Maximum subsurface soil concentrations of potential CoPCs are screened against MOECC S3 components.

Carcinogenic PAHs are given in Table 3.1 in italics and shaded based on CCME (2010). Direct soil contact components for B(a)P TPE for surficial soils and subsurface soils given in Table 3.1 are determined by multiplication of MOECC S1 and S3 Components for listed carcinogenic PAH Potency Equivalent Factors (PEFs) and summing for all carcinogenic PAHs following CCME (2010) methods.

The CCME (2010) residential/parkland guideline value for B(a)P TPE of 0.6 µg/g is based on a similar human exposure scenario to that assumed for MOECC S1 Components and includes direct soil contact via ingestion, inhalation and dermal exposure pathways (CCME, 2010). The MOECC B(a)P TPE guideline for surficial soils listed in Table 3.1 at 0.7 µg/g is slightly greater than the CCME (1999) value of 0.6 µg/g because it includes an additional PAH (fluoranthene) that MOECC considers to be carcinogenic. As CCME does not distinguish between surface and subsurface soil, the CCME B(a)P TPE guideline for subsurface soil at 0.6 µg/g is the same as the guideline for surface soil. The MOECC B(a)P TPE guideline of 32.4 µg/g for subsurface soil is based on MOECC S3 components. The MOECC listed The B(a)P TPE guidelines presented in Table 3.1 for surficial and subsurface soils are based on an incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) of 1x10-6, which is the approved and acceptable ILCR for non-federal Ontario sites, as determined by MOE (2011b, 2005).

If the maximum concentration of a CoPC exceeds the MOECC or CCME components protective of direct soil contact, that CoPC is retained as a CoPC for use in the preliminary HHRA. Based on that screening, Table 3.2 summarizes the CoPCs retained for use in the preliminary HHRA for surficial and subsurface soil. Carcinogenic PAHs are given in Table 3.4 in italics.

Table 3.2 Summary of CoPCs Carried Forward in Preliminary HHRA

Surficial Soil Subsurface Soil

Metals: None Metals: Lead

PAHs: Benzo[a]pyrene, B[a]P TPE PAHs: B[a]P TPE

PHCs/BTEX: None PHCs/BTEX: None

Lead is carried forward as a CoPC for subsurface soils based on the exceedence of the CCME direct soil contact component of 140 µg/g, even though maximum detected lead concentration of 450 µg/g does not exceed the more relevant MOECC S3 component of 1000 µg/g. This is a conservative decision to retain lead in the preliminary HHRA for the subsurface soil exposure scenario.

As the PAH CoPCs carried forward in the preliminary HHRA are carcinogenic, a conservative assumption is made for these CoPCs in assessing human health risks. If any individual carcinogenic PAH is identified as CoPC in Table 3.1, the health effects of all listed carcinogenic PAHs regardless of whether they exceed MOECC Table 3 standards and MOECC S1 and S3 Components are considered through inclusion in the calculation of B(a)P TPE as a soil CoPC. If health risks due to B(a)P TPE


June 2, 2016 19

exposure are calculated, then health risks from individual carcinogenic PAHs listed in Table 3.1 are not presented in this report.

3.3 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations

Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) are the upper estimates of concentrations of CoPCs in environmental media that receptors may contact. They can be based on direct measurements, statistical treatment of measurements or estimated using various mathematical models. For this preliminary human health risk assessment, the EPCs are derived for CoPCs in surficial soil (0 to 0.15 m depth) and all soil. All soil includes surficial soil and subsurface (>0.15 m) soil from test pit sampling. Surficial soil is assessed separately from all soil, because surficial soil in a public park setting as exists for the Mooney’s Bay Study Area, is the most probable soil horizon that may create exposure for park visitors/users and park maintenance workers. Workers digging at the site would be exposed to all soil.

Soil EPCs are calculated using U.S. EPA (2013) ProUCL Version 5.0.00 software package that explicitly considers non-detect observations in quantifying upper confidence limits (UCLs) of soil quality. Determination of EPCs based on UCLs for soil is recommended by U.S. EPA (1989), Health Canada (2010a) and MOE (2005) following approved computational methods. The ProUCL data output sheets for all CoPCs listed in Table 3.2 are presented in Appendix C.

Table 3.3 summarizes maximum detected soil concentrations and calculated soil EPCs for soil CoPCs identified in Section 3.2. Soil EPCs are generally considered the most appropriate soil concentrations for use in determining human health risks from exposure to contaminated soils. Maximum concentrations provide the maximum estimate of human health risk assuming that human receptors are only exposed the maximum detected concentration over the full duration of their lifetime exposure. This is clearly an unrealistic exposure scenario, that is included for comparison to the more appropriate set of calculations based on EPCs.

Table 3.3 Maximum and Soil Exposure Point Concentrations of CoPCs in Surficial and All Soil

Soil CoPC Surficial Soil (µg/g) All Soil (µg/g)

Maximum EPC Maximum EPC

Lead NA NA 450 99.2

B(a)P TPE 0.83 0.23 3.04 1.04

NA: Not Applicable, chemical is not a preliminary HHRA CoPC in the soil.

Table 3.3 shows there are no maximum or calculated EPCs for lead in surficial soil as this CoPCs was not carried forward in the preliminary HHRA due to no exceedences of MOECC S1 Components in surficial soils.

3.4 Exposure Scenarios, Receptors and Receptor Characteristics

The preliminary HHRA of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area considers the following three major receptors and exposure scenarios, the detailed characteristics of which are given on Tables 3.4 and 3.5:

Park Visitor/User


June 2, 2016 20

Park Utility/Construction Worker

Park Maintenance Worker

Table 3.4 Summary of Receptor Exposure Assumptions

Exposure Characteristic

Receptor

Park Visitor/User



Health Canada exposure scenario

Urban Recreational

Utility/Construction User-Defined

Hours per day at site 2 10 8

Days per week at site 2 5 1

Weeks per year at site 35 13 35

Soil dermal exposure events per day

1 1 1

Exposure duration (years) 80 (Adult) 35 35

Years for carcinogen amortization

80 (Adult) 80 80

Exposure pathways Soil ingestion,

dermal contact, dust inhalation

Soil ingestion, dermal contact, dust inhalation

Soil ingestion, dermal contact, dust inhalation

Principal soil exposure Surficial All Surficial

Table 3.5 Summary of Receptor Characteristics

Receptor Infant Visitor

Toddler Visitor

Child Visitor

Teen Visitor

Adult Visitor

Ut/Const.Worker

Maint. Worker

Age 0-6 mths 7 mths – 4 yr 5-11 yr 12-19 yr >= 20 yr >= 20 yr >= 20 yr

Body Weight (kg) 8.2 16.5 32.9 59.7 70.7 70.7 70.7

Soil Ingestion Rate (g/d) 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.1

Inhalation Rate (m3/d) 2.1 9.3 14.5 15.8 15.8 33.6 (males)

30 (females)

16.6

Skin Surface Area (cm2) - hands - arms - legs

320 550 910

430 890

1,690

590

1480 3,070

800

2,230 4,970

890

2,500 5,720

890

2,500 5.720

890

2,500 NA

Soil Loading to Exposed Skin (g/cm2/event)

- hands - other surfaces

1 x 10-4 1 x 10-5

1 x 10-4 1 x 10-5

1 x 10-4 1 x 10-5

1 x 10-4 1 x 10-5

1 x 10-4 1 x 10-5

1 x 10-3 1 x 10-4

1 x 10-3 1 x 10-4


June 2, 2016 21

Table 3.4 summarizes the general exposure assumptions for these key receptors. Table 3.5 summarizes the characteristics of the human receptors based principally on Health Canada (2011, 2010a) standard receptors.

The Park Visitor/User includes all Health Canada standard receptors (i.e., infant, toddler, child, teen and adult) who occasionally visit the site under Health Canada assumed recreational urban exposure assumptions and, are exposed to soil CoPCs through inadvertent soil ingestion, dermal uptake and dust inhalation. Exposure for these receptors is from surficial soil. Dermal exposure is to hands, arms and legs assuming Park Visitors will wear short pants.

The Park Utility/Construction Worker is a standard Health Canada receptor who occasionally works at the site under Health Canada defined exposure assumptions, and is exposed to soil CoPCs through inadvertent soil ingestion, dermal uptake and dust inhalation during on-site construction activities (e.g., construction of the playground and annual repair of on-site underground utilities). Soil exposure for this receptor is from all soil. As per Health Canada assumptions, dermal exposure is to hands, arms, and legs.

The Park Maintenance Worker is a user-defined receptor who regularly visits the site and is exposed to soil CoPCs through inadvertent soil ingestion, dermal uptake and dust inhalation during routine park maintenance work including grass cutting and minor landscaping activities. Exposure for this receptor is from surficial soil. Dermal exposure is to hands and arms, assuming long pants are a requirement of park maintenance work. Soil ingestion and dermal loading/uptake rates for the Park Maintenance Worker are the same as those for the Park Utility/Construction Worker being ten times higher than those for the Park Visitors/Users.

3.5 Human Health Toxicity Reference Values

3.5.1 TRV Sources

As the site is under federal regulatory authority, toxicity reference value (TRV) data recently compiled by Health Canada (2010b) take precedence for use in the preliminary HHRA assessment for this site. However, a review of other toxicity data from other sources (e.g., MOE, 2011b) was also conducted to supplement or replace Health Canada TRV data as appropriate. Qualitative and quantitative toxicity data were preferentially gathered for human health CoPCs from the following main sources:

Current and historical Health Canada data;

Current and historical CCME data;

Current and historical MOECC data;

Current data from U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database; and

Toxicological profiles published by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR);

3.5.2 Lead

Health Canada (2013, 2011, 2010b, 1996), MOE (1994), California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) (2009, 2007) and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) (2010) have reviewed the effects of lead on human health. These agencies have


June 2, 2016 22

concluded that lead is a cumulative general poison with fetuses, infants, children up to 6 years of age, and pregnant women (due to fetuses), being the most susceptible to adverse health effects.

Lead can severely affect the central nervous system. Overt signs of acute lead poisoning include dullness, restlessness, irritability, poor attention span, headaches, muscle tremor, hallucinations and loss of memory, with alteration of brain structure occurring at lead in blood levels of 100- 120 µg/dL in adults and 80 - 100 µg/dL in children (ATSDR, 1993). Several early studies have demonstrated that both the central and peripheral nervous systems are principal targets for lead toxicity (Health and Welfare Canada, 1989).

The carcinogenicity of lead in humans has been investigated in several epidemiological studies of occupationally exposed workers (Health Canada, 1996). The evidence for carcinogenicity of lead in humans was inconclusive. Lead has been classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans according to the classification scheme of the Environmental Health Directive of Health Canada.

Up until 2011, Health Canada had adopted the provisional tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 3.6 µg/kg/day recommended by the World Health Organization for all age groups. CCME (1999) had used this provisional TDI in development of human health soil ingestion guidelines. Health Canada as of 2011 do not support the use the TDI of 3.6 µg/kg/day in human health risk assessment of contaminated sites.

MOE (1994) completed a multimedia human exposure assessment and a detailed review of the human health effects of lead. MOECC identified an intake of concern (IOC) for lead of 1.85 µg/kg/day based on a blood lead LOAEL of 10 µg/dL and that the most sensitive receptor for residential/parkland soil was a child aged 6 months to 4 years. MOE (1994) recommended a soil allocation factor (SAF) of 0.64 for lead based on a detailed multimedia exposure assessment for Ontario residents.

MOE (1996) used an Oral Reference Dose of 0.75 ug/kg/day, based on an internal Massachusetts Department of Environmental Conservation assessment from 1992. Currently MOE (2011b) does not provide any TRVs for lead, indicating updated multimedia exposure assessment and toxicological review are required. Similarly, U.S EPA IRIS (2016) does not provide an oral RfD for lead as they considered it inappropriate to do so.

JECFA (2010) in a recent re-assessment of lead toxicity concluded that the weight of evidence for effects is greatest for children and the evidence across studies is most consistent for an association of blood lead levels with impaired neurodevelopment, specifically reduction of intelligence quotient (IQ). Moreover, this effect has generally been associated with lower blood lead concentrations than those associated with other organ systems. For adults the adverse effect associated with increased blood levels is an increase in systolic blood pressure. The JECFA (2010) review concluded that the previously supported provisional tolerable weekly intake for lead of 25 µg/kg body weight (which was the basis of Health Canada provisional TDI) was no longer protective of human health.

California EPA OEHHA (2007, 2009) have developed human health soil screening levels for lead considering an incremental change in blood lead levels of 1 µg/dL and ignoring background contributions. The revised screening levels for a child resident and a pregnant adult commercial worker considering soil/dust ingestion, re-suspension and inhalation and dermal contact are 77 µg/g and 320 µg/g, respectively. For the child resident, the proposed new soil screening level is approximately one


June 2, 2016 23

half of the former soil screening level of 150 µg/g developed based on target lead blood level of 10 µg/dL considering multimedia background exposure.

Health Canada (2013) in a state of the science report on lead concluded that effects associated with blood lead levels below 10 µg/dL, down to 1-2 µg/dL, have been reported in the health effects database and include neurodevelopmental, neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, renal and reproductive effects.

Given the lack of Health Canada endorsement of a provisional TDI for lead, the provisional tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 1.85 µg/kg/day adopted by MOE (1994) is the lead TRV used in this preliminary HHRA. It is most recently reviewed and recommended lead TRV for use in human health risk assessment by Canadian federal or provincial agencies. The relative dermal absorption factor of 0.006 for lead given by Health Canada (2011) is also used.

3.5.3 Carcinogenic PAHs

Toxicity profiles are provided for the CoPCs considered in this human health risk assessment: benzo(a)pyrene and other carcinogenic PAH. The toxicity profile focuses on data for exposure routes and periods considered key to the risk assessment, primarily sub-chronic to chronic inhalation, ingestion and dermal exposure for human health.

Human exposure to PAHs has been associated with an increased risk of developing cancer in various tissues including lung, bladder, stomach and skin depending on form and mode of exposure.

CCME (2010), Health Canada (2010b, 2004, 1996), Government of Canada (1994) and MOE (2011b, 1997, 1996) have reviewed the effects of PAH on human health. Health Canada concluded that carcinogenicity was the critical effect on human health since doses of PAH that induce non-neoplastic (i.e. not tumour forming) effects in experimental animals are considerably greater than those associated with increases in tumour incidence.

Initially in the mid-1990s, Health Canada considered the available toxicological data only adequate to support an assessment of human health effects from exposure to PAH in ambient air (e.g. inhalation). At about the same time MOE (1996) proposed an interim classification of selected PAH according to their carcinogenic potency relative to benzo(a)pyrene. MOE (1997) provided a more comprehensive assessment of cancer potency of 209 PAH also based on relative potency of PAH to benzo(a)pyrene.

Although there have been increases in lung and skin tumour incidence in populations occupationally exposed to complex mixtures containing principally PAH, these epidemiological data have been considered inadequate as a basis for assessment of the weight of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1987). Moreover, it is not possible on the basis of these data to assess effects of individual PAH (Government of Canada, 1994). Consequently, potential for human carcinogenic effects have been assessed based on studies of laboratory animals exposed to various PAH.

In numerous studies with laboratory animals, various PAH have induced tumours following principally dermal exposure (e.g., ATSDR, 1995; 1990a; 1990b). Data are quite limited on induction of tumours following exposure by inhalation. The studies by Thyssen et al. (1981) and Deutsche-Wenzel et al. (1983) have been considered suitable by Health Canada to serve as a basis for estimation of carcinogenic potency of selected PAH via inhalation exposure.


June 2, 2016 24

Health Canada has classified benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(j)fluoranthene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene as probably carcinogenic to humans via inhalation. Additionally benzo(a)anthracene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene are considered by IARC to have sufficient evidence to be designated carcinogenic. U.S. EPA (i.e. IRIS) and the World Health Organization consider benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(ghi)perylene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene as probable human carcinogens. MOE (2011b, 1996) has classified benzo(a)pyrene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene as potent carcinogens; benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene and chrysene as carcinogens; and benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(ghi)perylene, fluoranthene and phenanthrene as weak to very weak carcinogens.

Health Canada (1996) expressed interim carcinogenic potency of five PAH as a toxic dose or concentration that induces a 5% increase in the incidence of relevant tumours (TD0.05). The TD0.05

calculated by Health Canada for benzo(a)pyrene in ambient air from analysis of data by Thyssen et al. (1981) was 1.57 x 103 μg/m3. Based on the data of Deutsche-Wenzel et al. (1983), Health Canada (2004) calculated carcinogenic potency factors for individual PAH relative to that for benzo(a)pyrene. The inhalation carcinogenic potency factors for benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(j)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene are 3.1 x 10-5, 1.9 x 10-6, 1.6 x 10-6, 1.3 x 10-6, 3.1 x 10-5, and 3.8 x 10-6 (µg/m3)-1, respectively.

Development of the oral cancer slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene of 2.3 (mg/kg/day)-1 by Health Canada (2004, 2010b) was derived from the drinking water guideline as outlined in the supporting documents for Canadian Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality.

MOE (1997) summarized the toxicity and dose-response assessment for 209 PAH and for benzo(a)pyrene as a surrogate for complex PAH mixtures for inhalation, ingestion and dermal exposure routes. The MOE (1997) estimates of lung cancer risk from inhalation of individual PAH are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher than those reported by Health Canada.

MOE (1996) based largely on U.S. EPA data from 1992 and 1993 used the following TRV data for benzo(a)pyrene and extended it to other PAH based on potency equivalence factors:

Oral Reference Dose = 4x10-2 mg/kg/day

Oral Slope Factor = 7.3 (mg/kg/day)-1.

Air Unit Risk (Inhalation) = 1.7x10-3 (ug/m3)-1

MOE (2011b) have provided an updated assessment of carcinogenic PAH TRVs that is current and relevant to this HHRA. They cite the same oral slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene and extend it to 11 other carcinogenic PAH used in the 1996 assessment, but do not list oral reference doses for carcinogenic PAH. MOE (2011b) cite an air unit risk factor (inhalation) of 1.1x10-3 (ug/m3)-1 for benzo(a)pyrene and extrapolate that to other carcinogenic PAH using potency equivalence factors attributed to Kalberlah et al., (1995). MOE (2011b) cite soil gastrointestinal and dermal absorption factors for benzo(a)pyrene and other carcinogenic PAHs of 1.0 and 0.13, respectively.

Although the U.S. EPA IRIS database contains entries for the carcinogenic PAHs, no revisions have been made to the database for these parameters since 1994 (U.S. EPA IRIS, 2016). A draft consultation document on human toxicity of benzo(a)pyrene to support updates to U.S. EPA IRIS was released in 2012 (U.S. EPA, 2012).


June 2, 2016 25

Because all PAH are neither known nor analyzed in environmental samples, MOE (1997) recommended use of benzo(a)pyrene concentrations as surrogates to assess health effects from exposure to complex PAH mixtures like coal tar. Provided the profile of the PAH mixture in an exposure medium is similar to the PAH profile defined by MOE (1997), MOECC had historically recommended use of the whole mixture model. MOECC does not currently support the MOE (1997) approach.

CCME has recently reassessed the toxicity of carcinogenic PAH as part of development of a Canada-wide standard (CCME, 2010). CCME identifies the following eight PAHs as known or strongly suspected to act as carcinogens in humans and other mammals: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(j)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.

No chronic or sub-chronic studies have been completed on the carcinogenicity of individual PAHs other than benzo(a)pyrene; thus it is not possible to confidently and directly develop individual cancer slope factors (CCME, 2010). Rather the international tendency has been to use benzo(a)pyrene relative potencies. These relative potencies are based on animal studies comparing tumour incidence for other PAHs under the same or similar conditions as those conducted for benzo(a)pyrene. The Potency Equivalent Factors (PEFs) adopted by CCME, are the same as those used by the World Health Organization. Table 3.6 summarizes the PEF values for PAH considered to be carcinogenic by CCME.

Table 3.6 Potency Equivalence Factors (PEFs) for Carcinogenic PAH

Carcinogenic PAH Potency Equivalence Factors

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1

Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 0.1

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.1

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.01

Chrysene 0.01

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.0

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.1

Health Canada (2010b) based on Knafla et al., (2011) have proposed use of dermal cancer slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene of 3.5 (µg/cm2-day)-1. U.S. EPA (2012) in a draft consultation toxicological review document for IRIS cites this dermal cancer slope factor. This dermal slope factor is up to 15 times more potent than oral slope factors previously used by U.S. EPA, MOECC and Health Canada to assess health effects of dermal exposure to benzo(a)pyrene. However, neither U.S. EPA IRIS, Health Canada or MOECC have formally adopted use of this more potent dermal cancer slope factor for human health assessments of dermal exposure to benzo(a)pyrene in soil at federal contaminated sites.


June 2, 2016 26

Table 3.6 PEF values from CCME (2010) in combination with a relative dermal absorption factors of 0.13 (MOE, 2011b) and 0.148 (Health Canada, 2010b) and the following MOE (2011b) and Health Canada (2010b) TRVs for benzo(a)pyrene are used to assess health effects of human exposure to total carcinogenic PAHs in this preliminary HHRA:

MOECC Oral Slope Factor = 7.3 (mg/kg/day)-1.

Health Canada Oral Slope Factor = 2.3 (mg/kg/day)-1.

The above oral slope factors are used to estimate health risks due to soil ingestion, inhalation of respirable dust and dermal exposure in this preliminary HHRA.

CCME (2010) also assessed threshold values for human health risks based on acute exposure of infants or toddlers involved in pica soil ingestion. Based on review of ATSDR data, which included minimal risk levels for intermediate exposures of some PAH parameters (acenaphthene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and fluorene), CCME developed values based on threshold-acting mechanisms of toxicity. The threshold values developed by CCME for the four individual PAH were all greater than 1,000 ug/g, thus it was deemed that acute exposure to these PAHs was not a concern.

3.6 Risk Calculations and Targets

Calculations of CoPC concentrations in various exposure media, of human uptake of CoPCs, and of resultant CoPC health hazards and risks were performed using the Health Canada PQRA spreadsheet model for maximum and calculated CoPC EPC concentrations in surficial and all site soil. The input and output sheets for these model calculations are provided in Appendix D.

The results of the hazard and risk calculations are expressed as Hazard Quotients (HQ) for individual exposure pathways and Hazard Indices (HI) for all exposure pathways for non-carcinogen CoPCs (i.e., lead). For carcinogenic CoPCs (i.e., B(a)P TPE) the health risks are expressed as Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks (ILCR) for individual and all exposure pathways for adults following both MOE and Health Canada TRVs. Early life-stage cancer risks are also assessed for the infant to teen suite of Health Canada standard receptors following Health Canada (2011, 2010a) methods.

Target acceptable HQ, HI and ILCR values considered acceptable by Health Canada include 0.2 for HQ and HI values and 1 x 10-5 for ILCRs. MOECC safe target levels for HQ and HI are also 0.2. Target ILCR values considered acceptable by MOE (2005) are 1 x10-6. This MOECC target ILCR acceptable value is ten times lower than Health Canada target acceptable ILCR value of 1 x10-5. Health Canada (2010a) has argued that 1 x 10-5 is an acceptable target level that represents essentially negligible cancer risk for use in HHRA and management of contaminated sites. U.S. EPA also considers risk levels of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-5 suitable for HHRA of contaminated sites.

3.7 Summary and Interpretation of Results

The results of the preliminary HHRA of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area expressed as HQ, HI and ILCR values are listed in the PQRA Model output sheets in Appendix D. Appendix D.1 lists the input and output sheets for the Park Visitors/Users. Appendix D.2 lists the input and output sheets for Park Utility/Construction Workers and Appendix D.3 provides the same sheets for Park Maintenance Workers for relevant maximum and EPC values for CoPCs as listed in Section 3.3.


June 2, 2016 27

Table 3.7 provides a summary of the human health risk results that are provided in Appendix D. Table 3.7 lists HI values for lead for all exposure pathways, and the cumulative ILCR values for B(a)P TPE for all exposure pathways. For the Park Visitor/User exposed to B(a)P TPE, which includes several Health Canada defined receptors of different ages for which early lifestage cancer risks are evaluated, only the ILCR for total lifetime exposure (infant through adult) is listed in Table 3.7 as this cumulative receptor has the longest exposure and hence the highest risk. For the Park Utility/Construction Worker and Park Maintenance Worker, the ILCRs are those attributed to adults. The HQ values listed for the Park Utility/Construction Worker and Park Maintenance Worker are based on adult exposure, non-adult exposure does not occur for these receptors.

Risk exceedences of safe target levels are identified by bolding of HI and ILCR values. Safe target risk levels for HI are 0.2. For ILCRs the risks calculated using Health Canada TRVs are compared to Health Canada accepted safe targets of 1 x 10-5, and risks calculated using MOECC TRVs are compared to MOECC accepted safe targets of 1 x 10-6. HI and ILCR values above safe target levels are bolded in Table 3.7.

Health risks are calculated in Table 3.7 for both maximum and EPC soil concentrations. As discussed in Section 3.3, health risks based on soil EPC values are considered the most appropriate means of assessing human health risks where receptors are potentially exposed to soils of variable quality across an entire site or area over their lifetime. Health risks based on lifetime exposure to maximum soil concentrations present a very conservative estimate of health risk that is unlikely to occur at sites with variable soil quality that is favoured by MOECC. Health risks calculated based on maximum soil concentrations are listed in Table 3.7 for reference only and for comparison to the more appropriate risks based on soil EPCs.

Table 3.7 Summary of Human Health Hazards and Risks – Mooney’s Bay Study Area

CoPC

Receptor

Park Visitor/User Park Utility/Construction Worker


Lead - Max NA HI = 0.068 NA

Lead - EPC NA HI = 0.015 NA

Health Canada B(a)P TPE - Max ILCR = 3.6x10-7 ILCR = 2.7x10-6 ILCR = 3.0x10-7

Health Canada B(a)P TPE - EPC ILCR = 9.9x10-8 ILCR = 9.3x10-7 ILCR = 8.5x10-8

MOECC B(a)P TPE - Max ILCR = 1.1x10-6 ILCR = 7.9x10-6 ILCR = 8.9x10-7

MOECC B(a)P TPE - EPC ILCR = 3.0x10-7 ILCR = 2.7x10-6 ILCR = 2.5x10-7

NA = Not Applicable, chemical is not a HHRA CoPC in the soil; HI = Hazard Index; ILCR = Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk; Bold Value = Exceeds Hazard or Risk Target Levels

Table 3.7 shows that risks to Park Visitors/Users and Park Maintenance Workers based on EPCs meet all Health Canada and MOECC defined safe target levels. The ILCR for Park Visitor/User exposure to maximum concentration of total carcinogenic PAHs (i.e., B(a) P TPE) marginally exceeds MOE defined safe target level of 1 x10-6 with a calculated ILCR of 1.1 x10-6. Given this risk is based on a maximum


June 2, 2016 28

concentration, this finding is not significant. These results show that there are no health risks to Park Visitors/Users or Park Maintenance Workers at the site posed by surficial soil quality.

Table 3.7 identifies minor potential health risks to Park Utility/Construction Workers posed by direct soil contact to carcinogenic PAH (B(a)P TPE) in all soil (i.e., surficial and subsurface soil) based on EPC values and MOECC TRVs and safe target levels. Calculated ILCRs based on EPCs are 2.7 x 10-6 for B(a)P TPE or total carcinogenic PAHs following MOECC methods. However, this calculated risk would not exceed Health Canada defined safe risk targets. Maximum and EPC concentrations of lead in site soil do not pose potential health risks to Park Utility/Construction Workers.

Review of the exposure and risk calculations for Park Utility/Construction Workers given in Appendix D.2 shows that most of the exposure and risk from total carcinogenic PAHs is due to soil ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soil. Implementation of worker protection measures including avoidance of soil ingestion and skin contact with subsurface soil during excavation (i.e., wearing of gloves and appropriate work clothing) would reduce the exposure and estimated risk to safe target levels.


June 2, 2016 29

4 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Approach

The preliminary ecological risk assessment to address health risks to terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors at and near the site is completed as a screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA). The purpose of the SLERA is to assess the general level of risk to terrestrial and aquatic receptors at and near the Mooney Bay Study Area based on ecological receptors exposure to CoPCs identified in all site soil. The SLERA is conducted using the 2016 soil quality data recently compiled for the site by Geofirma Engineering Ltd (2016) and historical (2011 to 2013) groundwater and surface water quality data collected by Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (2011) and Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited (2012, 2013).

The SLERA was completed in accordance with the general guidance provided by CCME (1996, 1997) and the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP, 2012a). Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) and representative species considered in the SLERA of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area include:

Terrestrial Mammals – Meadow vole, red fox, short-tailed shrew

Birds – American robin, red-winged blackbird, red-tailed hawk

Terrestrial Plants

Soil Organisms – earthworms

Aquatic Life – fish, invertebrates and aquatic plants.

The SLERA evaluates risk to ecological receptors as posed by ecological CoPCs identified by soil exceedences of applicable CCME and/or MOECC ecological components. For soil CoPCs with available toxicity data, ecological risks for mammalian and avian receptors are assessed by determining Hazard Quotient (HQs) using a calculated Average Daily Dose (ADD) and the Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Levels (LOAEL) benchmarks. Risks for terrestrial plants and soil organisms (e.g., litter invertebrates) are evaluated by comparison of soil exposure point concentrations against ecological terrestrial benchmarks. Benchmarks used are those established by Oak Ridge Laboratories National Laboratory (ORNL), CCME, MOECC and other agencies engaged in ecological risk assessment. The primary exposure for mammalian and avian receptors is through ingestion.

The SLERA relies on screening of maximum soil CoPC concentrations against both CCME (1999, 2008, 2010) ecological components and MOE (2011b) ecological components for plants and soil organisms, mammals and birds and aquatic life to identify CoPCs to carry forward in the SLERA.

All site soil (both surficial and subsurface soil as defined in Section 2.4) is considered in the SLERA as almost all of the soil samples submitted for metals, PAH and PHC laboratory testing were collected from the upper 1.5 m of the site soil column. The upper 1.5 m of the soil column is the depth typically defined by CCME and MOECC as having potential exposure to terrestrial receptors including plants, soil organisms (invertebrates), mammals and birds.

There are no CoPCs in site groundwater for inclusion in the SLERA, as there is no direct ecological receptor contact with site groundwater (through ingestion) and there is no adverse impact of site groundwater on adjacent surface water (see Sections 2.5 and 2.6).


June 2, 2016 30

4.2 Species at Risk

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. (2016) completed a species at risk (SAR) and migratory bird screening assessment of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area in April, 2016. This study identified the following species at risk potentially present within the study area:

Blanding’s Turtle (threatened)

Snapping Turtle (special concern)

Milksnake (special concern)

Peregrine Falcon (special concern)

Chimney Swift (threatened)

Common Nighthawk (threatened)

Although the herpetofauna SAR turtles are identified as potentially present at the site, there is a general lack of data concerning exposure and effects of CoPCs on such species which precludes assessment of exposure and risk for them in this SLERA.

Two of the three species of SAR birds identified as potentially present (Chimney Swift and Common Nighthawk) are aerial insectivores which significantly reduces their exposure to CoPCs in soil through ingestion of soil and CoPCs accumulated in plants and soil invertebrates from soil. The Peregrine Falcon is a carnivore that consumes small mammals as food. Because small mammals do not bioaccumulate lead to same amount that soil invertebrates do, the Peregrine Falcon is not sensitive to lead in site soil. This conclusion is apparent in the comparison of MOECC ecological criteria for avian carnivores versus avian omnivore provided later in Table 4.4 of this SLERA. Consequently, these SAR birds are not considered in this SLERA.

4.3 Initial Screening of CoPCs

CoPCs for the preliminary HHERA are identified in Table 2.1 of Section 2.8 based on identified exceedences of applicable CCME guidelines and MOECC Table 9 standards. Screening of maximum concentrations of metal, PAH and PHC CoPCs identified in Section 2.8 is completed to identify CoPCs to carry forward in the SLERA. Screening of potential CoPCs for further consideration in the SLERA is undertaken by comparison of maximum CoPC concentrations against CCME and MOECC components protective of ecological health.

Table 4.1 compares maximum concentrations of potential CoPCs in all soil against CCME and MOECC ecological components of direct contact with plants and soil organisms (e.g., invertebrates), soil ingestion and soil uptake to food for mammals and birds, and for protection of freshwater aquatic life including benthic invertebrates and aquatic organisms (fish, invertebrates and aquatic plants). Table 4.1 also provides a listing of MOE (2011a) Table 1 full-depth background standards, as many of the MOECC Table 9 standards applicable to the site are based on background concentrations.


June 2, 2016 31

Table 4.1 Screening of CoPCs in All Soil Against CCME and MOECC Ecological Health Components

All Soils MOECC Maximum CCME Eco Component MOECC Eco Component Retained As

Table 1

Background All Soil

Plants & Soil

Mammals Aquatic Plants &

Soil Mammals Aquatic Ecological

All units in ug/g Organisms & Birds Life Organisms & Birds Life CoPC Metals

Antimony 1.3 3.3 NV NV NV 20 25 NV No Barium 220 222 NV NV NV 750 390 NV No Chromium 70 70.3 64 NV NV 310 160 261 Yes Copper 92 105 63 NV NV 140 770 161 Yes Lead 120 450 300 NV NV 250 32 311 Yes Molybdenum 2.0 2.6 NV NV NV 40 6.9 NV No PAHs

Acenaphthene 0.072 1.39 NV 21.5* 0.28 NV 6,600 5602 No Acenaphthylene 0.093 0.17 NV NV 320 NV NV 0.152 No Anthracene 0.16 3.42 2.5 61.5* NA 2.5 38,000 0.221 Yes Benzo[a]anthracene 0.36 2.16 NV 6.2* NA 0.5 NV 0.321 Yes Benzo[a]pyrene 0.3 2.04 20 0.6* 8,800 20 1,600 0.371 No Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.47 1.87 NV 6.2* NA NV NV 7.7E+132 No Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.68 0.96 NV NV NA 6.6 NV 0.171 No Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.48 1.59 NV 6.2* NA 7.6 NV 2.5E+132 No Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.1 0.31 NV NV NV NV NV 0.061 No Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.23 0.94 NV NV NV 0.38 NV 8.6E+132 Yes Fluoranthene 0.56 7.84 50 15.4* NA 50 0.69 0.751 No Fluorene 0.12 2.62 NV 15.4* 0.25 NV NV 0.191 No Methylnaphthalene (1&2) 0.59 2.67 NV NV NV NV NV 762 No Naphthalene 0.09 2.86 NV 8.8 0.013 0.6 380 2002 Yes Phenanthrene 0.69 11.9 NV 43.0* 0.046 6.2 2,700 0.561 Yes Pyrene 1.0 5.97 NV 7.7* NA NV 4,700 0.491 No PHCs PHC-F2 10 326 150 NV 600 150 NV 2302 Yes PHC-F3 240 577 300 NV NA 300 NV NV Yes PHC-F4 120 603 2,800 NV NA 2,800 NV NV No NA – Receptor exposure pathway not applicable; NV – No value reported; * Provisional CCME component defer to MOECC component if available 1 – Based sediment quality guideline assuming soil becomes sediment; 2 - Soil leaching to groundwater to protect aquatic life (MOECC S-GW3)


June 2, 2016 32

Initial screening to identify CoPCs to carry forward in the SLERA was completed as follows:

For plants and soil organisms, CCME (1999, 2008, 2010) ecological component values for plants and soil organisms are primarily used, and if CCME components are unavailable, MOE (2011b) components are used. MOE plant and soil organism components were used for antimony, barium, molybdenum, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene and phenanthrene.

For mammals and birds, most of the CCME ecological components are unavailable (metals and PHCs) or provisional (PAHs). As a result MOECC ecological components for mammals and birds are used in the initial screening. The exception to this screening approach was for naphthalene and fluoranthene. CCME (2010) have developed non-provisional ecological component for mammals and birds. For fluoranthene the MOECC ecological component for mammals and birds is several orders of magnitude lower than all other PAHs. For naphthalene and fluoranthene, initial screening was completed using CCME ecological components.

For aquatic life, no soil CoPCs were carried forward in the SLERA based on the observations from 2011 to 2012 groundwater monitoring and surface water monitoring that showed no adverse impact to aquatic life in the Rideau River posed by CoPCs in site soil.

Because MOECC Table 9 applies to the site, the MOECC aquatic life ecological components given in Table 4.1 are typically sediment quality criteria assuming that any soil within 30 m of surface water has potential to become sediment. If sediment quality criteria are absent, the listed MOECC aquatic life ecological components are MOECC S-GW3 components intended to protect surface water from leaching of CoPCs from soil to groundwater to surface water. Neither of these components are used in initial screening based the conclusion that surface water in the adjacent Rideau River is not adversely affected by CoPCs in site soil.

Based on this initial screening approach, Table 4.2 identifies the CoPCs and the terrestrial ecological receptors of concern carried forward in the SLERA. With the exception of lead, all CoPCs carried forward in the SLERA are based on assessment of potential risk to plants and soil organisms. Lead is carried forward in the SLERA to assess potential risk to mammals and birds. Plants and soil organisms are stationary terrestrial receptors that are exposed to maximum soil CoPC concentrations. Mammals and birds are mobile terrestrial receptors that are exposed to UCL EPC estimates.


June 2, 2016 33

Table 4.2 Summary of CoPCs Carried Forward in SLERA from Initial Screening

CoPC Terrestrial Ecological Receptor of Concern

Chromium Plants and Soil Organisms

Copper Plants and Soil Organisms

Lead Plants and Soil Organisms, Mammals and Birds

Anthracene Plants and Soil Organisms

Benzo(a)anthracene Plants and Soil Organisms

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Plants and Soil Organisms

Naphthalene Plants and Soil Organisms

Phenanthrene Plants and Soil Organisms

PHC-F2 Plants and Soil Organisms

PHC-F3 Plants and Soil Organisms

4.4 Soil Exposure Concentrations and Secondary Screening

Table 4.3 summarizes the soil exposure concentrations (maximum concentrations for plants and soil organisms and UCL EPC concentrations for mammals and birds) for identified CoPCs carried forward in the SLERA. For lead exposure to mammals and birds, UCL EPCs are calculated for all soil to address plant and invertebrate ingestion pathways, and for surficial soil to address inadvertent soil ingestion during feeding at ground surface. UCL calculation sheets for lead in surficial and all soil are given in Appendix C.

Table 4.3 Summary of Soil Exposure Concentrations for CoPCs Carried Forward in SLERA

CoPC Terrestrial Ecological Receptor of

Concern Soil Exposure

Concentration (µg/g)

Chromium Plants and Soil Organisms 70.3

Copper Plants and Soil Organisms 105

Lead Plants and Soil Organisms 450

Lead Mammals and Birds – All Soil 99.2

Lead Mammals and Birds – Surficial Soil 24.6

Anthracene Plants and Soil Organisms 3.42

Benzo(a)anthracene Plants and Soil Organisms 2.16

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Plants and Soil Organisms 0.94

Naphthalene Plants and Soil Organisms 2.86

Phenanthrene Plants and Soil Organisms 11.9

PHC-F2 Plants and Soil Organisms 326

PHC-F3 Plants and Soil Organisms 577


June 2, 2016 34

A secondary screening was completed based on MOE (2011b) ecological criteria components to identify those representative species within the general category of mammals and birds that are at risk at the site due to exposure to lead in all site soil. The secondary screening was completed against representative mammalian and avian species that cover the range of trophic level in the food web and feeding habits (herbivore, carnivore and omnivore) likely to be present at the Mooney’s Bay Study Area. This secondary screening is shown in Table 4.4 and is based on comparison of soil lead EPC concentrations in all soil (99.2 µg/g) to representative species soil ecological criteria.

Table 4.4 Secondary Screening of Soil Lead EPC to Representative Mammalian and Avian Species

Representative Species MOECC Soil Ecological

Criteria Species Retained in

SLERA

Mammals

Meadow Vole – herbivore 185,000 No

Red Fox – carnivore 88,200 No

Short-tailed Shrew – omnivore 1,760 No

Birds

American Woodcock - omnivore 32 Yes

Red Winged Blackbird - herbivore 140 No

Red Tailed Hawk - carnivore 163,000 No

Based on the screening provided in Table 4.4, avian omnivores which consume large percentages of soil invertebrates in their diet should be retained for further assessment in the SLERA. The American robin, which consumes large percentages of earthworms in its diet, is the more common avian omnivore likely to be present at the site and for which receptor characteristics are available. Based on this secondary screening, if risks to the American robin posed by lead in site soil are acceptable, risks to other mammalian and avian receptors at the site will also be acceptable.

4.5 VEC Characteristics and Exposure Assessment

4.5.1 VEC Characteristics

Ecological characteristics of the mammalian and avian VECs carried forward in the SLERA (i.e., American robin) are required in order to estimate their potential exposure to CoPCs at the Mooney’s Bay Study Area. For birds, these characteristics include body weight, feeding rate, food selection, water intake, time spent in the assessment area and home-range.

As the home-range area for the American robin (0.7 ha) is smaller than the overall area of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area (2.1 ha), the American robin is assumed to spend their lifetime at the Mooney’s Bay Study Area, and therefore obtain all food from this area. Table 4.5 summarizes receptor characteristics for the American robin as recommended by FSCAP (2012b). Although water ingestion rate is listed on Table 4.5, the American robin is assumed in this SLERA to not be exposed to site groundwater.


June 2, 2016 35

Table 4.5 Ecological Receptor Characteristics and Assumptions Used in the SLERA

Parameter Value Units American Robin

Body Weight kg 0.079

Food Ingestion Rate kg wet weight/day 0.0955

Fraction of Soil in Diet unitless 0.04

Fraction of Terrestrial Plants in Diet unitless 0.6

Fraction of Soil Invertebrate in Diet unitless 0.4

Water Ingestion Rate L/day 0.014

Fraction of Diet Obtained from Site unitless 1

Home Range hectares 0.7

4.5.2 Pathway Analysis

The significant pathway for receptor exposure to site contaminants is through ingestion of soil and ingestion of food impacted by contaminated soil. Mammalian and avian receptors at the Mooney’s Bay Study Area will directly ingest soil through feeding and preening. CoPCs will also be ingested by the American robin as part of the food diet through terrestrial plants and through invertebrates (earthworms). Soil to plant uptake and soil to invertebrate uptake factors were used in the assessment to determine average daily dose of CoPCs through ingestion of food.

Inhalation and dermal exposures are not significant pathways for ecological receptors Data necessary to estimate dermal exposure are generally not available for wildlife, and feathers and fur of birds and mammals further reduce the likelihood of significant dermal exposure by limiting contact of skin with contaminated exposure. Soil ingestion rates account for dermal contact with soil through preening. At vegetated sites (such as the Mooney’s Bay Study Area), exposure of contaminated surface soils to winds and resulting aerial suspension of contaminated dust particulates is minimized (Sample et al., 1994). Inhalation exposures are negligible in comparison to ingestion exposures, thus toxicological information is generally not generated for inhalation by ecological receptors. Although surficial soils are the main exposure to most VECs, exposure to all soils is considered for all receptors.

4.5.3 Exposure Estimates

The exposure routes and estimates of exposure for the VECs make assumptions on the amount of time each receptor spends at the site, and what the VECs will be exposed to. An earthworm is assumed to spend its entire life span at the site, will be exposed to all soils and has a minimal range of movement. The American robin is assumed to range the entire site, and spend it’s lifespan at the property. Although the American robin will be exposed mainly to surficial soils, the earthworm (and other invertebrates) which provide approximately half the robin’s diet will be exposed to all soils.

The UCLs (as discussed in Section 4.4) for surficial and all soils are used as exposure point concentrations for site CoPCs for the American robin. As these VECs are highly mobile, use of 95th percent UCLs provide an appropriate estimation of the exposure concentration. The estimates of exposure for these VECs are based on an average daily dose in mg/kg-day, calculated with the following equations:


June 2, 2016 36

BW

FFFIREPCADD areasoilsolidfoodsoil

soil

where: ADDsoil = average daily dose via soil pathway (mg/kg-day) EPCsoil = exposure point concentration for surficial soil from area (mg/kg) IRfood = ingestion rate of food (kg/day) Fsolid = fraction of diet represented by dry solids (unitless) Fsoil = fraction of diet represented by soil (unitless) Farea = fraction of food obtained from area (unitless) BW = body weight (kg)

BW

FFIRUPEPCADD areafoodfoodsaspsoil

food

/

where: ADDfood = average daily dose via plant/animal pathway (mg/kg-day) EPCsoil = exposure point concentration for all soil from area (mg/kg) UPsp/sa = uptake factor for soil-to-plant OR soil-to-animal (unitless) IRfood = ingestion rate of food (kg/day) Ffood = fraction of diet represented by food type (unitless) Fsoil = fraction of diet represented by soil (unitless) Farea = fraction of food obtained from area (unitless) BW = body weight (kg)

Soil to plant uptake factors (UF) for the CoPCs used in these calculations are obtained using recommended simple regression models from ORNL documents; Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC, (1998) for plants, and Sample et al (1998) for earthworms. The general regression equation used to develop UFs is as follows:

)ln(10)ln( / trationsoilconcenBBionconcentrat plantworm

Table 4.6 shows the values used in calculation of the lead uptake factors for soil to earthworm, and the median lead uptake factors for soil to plants, for CoPCs with available data.

Table 4.6 Lead Uptake Factors for Ecological Exposure Estimates

CoPC EPC B0 soil-worm B1 soil-worm UF soil-worm B0 soil-plant B1 soil-plant UF soil-plant

Lead 99.2 -0.218 0.807 0.331 -1.328 0.561 0.035

Uptake factors are based on concentration in dry weight tissue, thus conservative conversion factors (based on water content) of 0.3 for terrestrial plants and 0.16 for earthworms derived from Sample et al, (1994) were applied for use in the ADD equations above. Table 4.7 summarizes the ADD values calculated for the VEC of American robin.


June 2, 2016 37

Table 4.7 Summary of Average Daily Dose for American Robin

CoPC American Robin ADD(total)

(mg/kg-day dry wt)

Lead 4.57

4.6 Ecological Health Toxicity Reference Values

Qualitative and quantitative ecotoxicity data were gathered for CoPCs in soil from the following main sources:

MOECC and CCME documents;

U.S.EPA and Oak Ridge National Laboratory documents; and

Toxicological profiles published by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Atlanta, G.A..

Table 4.8 lists the ecological toxicity reference values (TRVs) selected for use in this SLERA. Table 4.8 summarizes the CoPC, the terrestrial ecological receptor of concern, the selected TRV and the source of the selected TRV. Most of the TRVs listed in Table 4.7 are toxicological benchmarks in µg/g derived from CCME (1999) and MOE (2011b). The TRV for lead exposure to birds is the lowest observed adverse effect (LOAEL) in mg/kg-day.

Table 4.8 Summary of Ecological TRVs Used in SLERA


TRV Source

Chromium Plants and Soil Organisms 64 µg/g CCME (1999)

Copper Plants and Soil Organisms 63 µg/g CCME (1999)

Lead Plants and Soil Organisms 300 µg/g CCME (1999)

Lead American Robin 11.3 mg/kg-day Sample et al. (1996)

Anthracene Plants and Soil Organisms 2.5 µg/g CCME (2010)

Benzo(a)anthracene Plants and Soil Organisms 0.5 µg/g MOE (2011b)

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Plants and Soil Organisms 0.38 µg/g MOE (2011b)

Naphthalene Plants and Soil Organisms 0.6 µg/g MOE (2011b)

Phenanthrene Plants and Soil Organisms 6.2 µg/g MOE (2011b)

PHC-F2 Plants and Soil Organisms 150 µg/g CCME (2008)

PHC-F3 Plants and Soil Organisms 399 µg/g CCME (2008)

The TRV for American robin exposure to lead is taken from Sample et al. (1996) over MOE (2011b) as the TRV in MOE (2011b) appears to be erroneously developed based on a no observed adverse effects level (NOAEL) TRV, instead of the LOAEL.


June 2, 2016 38

Sample et al. (1996) provide LOAEL doses for wildlife based on endpoints of reproduction in Japanese quail via chronic oral diet ingestion of lead acetate. The chronic LOAEL was 11.3 mg/kg-day. As the validity of allometric scaling has been questioned since release of this original work, this test species LOEAL is directly applied as the TRV in calculation of risk for all avian VECs.

4.7 Risk Calculations and Targets

Quantitative and semi-quantitative interpretations of ecological risks were completed in this SLERA. Quantitative interpretation is provided for the American robin exposed to metals in soil. Semi-quantitative interpretation is provided for terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates exposed to metals, PAHs and PHCs.

Risks to ecological receptors in this SLERA are expressed as Hazard Quotients (HQs) calculated as:

HQ = Soil Exposure/TRV

where: Soil Exposure is maximum soil concentration (µg/g) for plants and soil organisms; Soil Exposure is ADD(total) (µg/g) for American robin;

TRV is toxicological benchmarks (µg/g) for plants and soil organisms; and TRV is the LOAEL (µg/g) for American robin.

HQ values less than 1.0 indicate that a receptor is not at risk, while HQs greater than 1.0 suggest that a receptor may be at risk. Generally, HQs of greater than 1.0 but less than 10 indicate that risk is low and likely to be negligible because of the inherent conservatism in the risk assessment process and calculations.

4.8 Summary and Interpretation of Results

Table 4.9 shows the results of the HQ calculations for ecological receptors based on the soil exposure concentrations and ADD(total) provided in Tables 4.4 and 4.7 and the TRVs listed in Table 4.8. Table 4.9 lists the CoPC, the terrestrial ecological receptor of concern, the calculated HQ and the number of soil samples that show HQ values greater than 1.0. The number of soil samples with calculated HQ greater than one assists in the characterization of overall site-wide risks to plants and soil invertebrates at the Mooney’s Bay Study Area as the HQ values listed in Table 4.9 are determined based on the maximum CoPC concentration reported for the site.

Table 4.9 shows that the calculated HQ for American robin exposure to lead in site soil at 0.4 is less than 1.0 indicating no risk to this most sensitive of mammalian and avian receptors likely to be present at the site. As there is no risk to this most sensitive of mammalian and avian receptors, there are no risks to all mammalian and avian receptors likely to be present at the Mooney’s Bay Study Area.

Table 4.9 shows that the calculated HQ values for plants and soil organisms exposure to other metals, PAHs and PHCs are low ranging from 1.1 for chromium to 4.8 for naphthalene. Given that these HQs are all less than 10, that some of the measured maximum concentrations are close to or less than MOECC-defined background concentrations (e.g., chromium, copper), and that the number of soil samples with HQs greater than 1.0 are small (typically 1 to 5 of 36 samples for metal and PAH CoPCs), risks to plants and soil organisms posed by metals, PAHs and PHCs are minor and not significant. For


June 2, 2016 39

terrestrial plants this conclusion is supported by site observations that do not indicate any signs of vegetation stress at the site.

Table 4.9 Summary of Ecological Health Hazards and Risks – Mooney’s Bay Study Area


HQ Number (%) of Samples

with HQ > 1.0

Chromium Plants and Soil Organisms 1.1 2 of 36 (5.5%)

Copper Plants and Soil Organisms 1.7 5 of 36 (13.8%)

Lead Plants and Soil Organisms 1.5 1 of 36 (2.7%)

Lead American Robin 0.40 NA

Anthracene Plants and Soil Organisms 1.4 1 of 36 (2.7%)

Benzo(a)anthracene Plants and Soil Organisms 4.3 3 of 36 (8.3%)

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Plants and Soil Organisms 2.5 3 of 36 (8.3%)

Naphthalene Plants and Soil Organisms 4.8 1 of 36 (2.7%)

Phenanthrene Plants and Soil Organisms 1.9 2 of 36 (5.5%)

PHC-F2 Plants and Soil Organisms 2.2 1 of 8 (12.5%)

PHC-F3 Plants and Soil Organisms 1.4 2 of 8 (25%)

NA – Not applicable as soil quality distribution is captured in the calculated EPC for lead


June 2, 2016 40

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RISK MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The preliminary human health risk assessment (HHERA) of the Mooney’s Bay Study Area supports the following conclusions and risk management recommendations.

CoPCs for the preliminary HHERA based on exceedences of applicable CCME and MOECC Table 9 standards include PAHs in surficial soil and metals, PAHs and PHCs in subsurface soil. There are no CoPCs in site groundwater based on the lack of consistent exceedences of applicable guidelines and standards, lack of completed human and terrestrial receptors exposure pathways, and lack of impact to aquatic life in the adjacent Rideau River.

CoPCs carried forward in the preliminary human health risk assessment (HHRA) include carcinogenic PAHs in surficial soils, and lead and carcinogenic PAHs in subsurface soils. Human receptors considered in the preliminary HHRA include Park Visitors/Users, Park Utility/Construction Workers and Park Maintenance Workers. Characteristics of these receptors are based on Health Canada recommended values and professional judgement.

Calculations of human health risk were completed using the Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA) spreadsheet model of Health Canada. The results of the preliminary HHRA show there are no health risks to Park Visitors/Users or Park Maintenance Workers at the site posed by surficial soil quality. Calculated health risks to these receptors meet both Health Canada and MOECC safe target levels.

The results of the preliminary HHRA show there is minor potential health risk to Park Utility/Construction Workers posed by direct soil contact to carcinogenic PAH in site soil based on MOECC methods and safe target levels. However, calculated incremental lifetime cancer risks for Park Utility/Construction Workers following Health Canada methods do not exceed Health Canada defined safe risk targets. Lead in site soil does not pose health risks to Park Utility/Construction Workers based on both Health Canada and MOECC safe target levels.

Implementation of routine worker protection measures including avoidance of soil ingestion and skin contact with subsurface soil during excavation (i.e., wearing of gloves and appropriate work clothing) would reduce the exposure and estimated risk to safe target levels for the Park Utility/Construction Worker potentially exposed to carcinogenic PAHs in site soil.

Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) considered in the screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) include terrestrial mammals, birds and plants, soil organisms, and aquatic life. VECs and CoPCs carried forward in the SLERA include terrestrial plants and soil organisms exposed to chromium, copper, lead and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PAHs and PHCs in site soil. Lead exposure to mammals and birds was also carried forward in the SLERA. Secondary screening of soil lead EPC concentrations against MOECC ecological criteria for representative species identified the American robin (an avian omnivore) as the most sensitive mammalian and avian receptor for the site.

The results of the SLERA show there is are minor calculated risks to terrestrial plants and soil organisms from exposure to metals, PAHs and PHCs in site soil. However, given that the HQs are all less than 10, that some of the measured maximum concentrations are close to or less than MOECC-defined background concentrations (e.g., chromium, copper), and that the number of soil samples with HQs greater than 1.0 are small (typically 1 to 5 of 36 samples for metal and PAH CoPCs), risks to plants and soil organisms posed by metals, PAHs and PHCs in site soil are considered to be minor in nature and not significant.


June 2, 2016 41

The SLERA also shows that there is no risk to the American robin posed by lead in site soil. As there is no risk to this most sensitive of mammalian and avian receptors posed by lead in site soil, there are no risks to all mammalian and avian receptors likely to be present at the Mooney’s Bay Study Area.

The overall conclusion of the preliminary HHERA is that identified soil quality exceedences of applicable CCME guidelines and MOECC standards do not pose unacceptable human health risks to park visitors, park utility/construction workers or park maintenance workers, or unacceptable ecological health risks to terrestrial mammals, bird and plants and soil organisms at the site and to aquatic life in the adjacent Rideau River.

The preliminary HHERA does not identify any constraints to the proposed playground construction and use.

Respectfully submitted, Geofirma Engineering Ltd.

Kenneth Raven, P.Eng., P.Geo., QPRA Principal


June 2, 2016 42

6 REFERENCES

ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990a. Toxicological Profile for Benzo(a)pyrene, ATSDR/TP-88-05.

ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1990b. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, ATSDR/TP-90-20.

ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1993. Toxicological Profile for Lead. ATSDR/TP-92/12.

ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), (Update), August.

Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC, 1998. Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. September.

California EPA OEHHA, 2007. Development of Health Criteria for School Site Risk Assessment Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 901(g): Child-specific Benchmark Change in Blood Lead Concentration for School Site Risk Assessment, Final Report, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 107p.

California EPA OEHHA, 2009. Revised California Human Health Screening Level for Lead (Review Draft), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, May 14.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 1996. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance, The National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, Winnipeg.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 1997. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: Technical Appendices, The National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, Winnipeg.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 1999. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Winnipeg, Updates to 2015.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2008. Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil, Technical Supplement, Winnipeg.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, (CCME), 2010 Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines. Carcinogenic and Other Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS). Environmental and Human Health Effects. Scientific Supporting Document. Report PN 1445.

Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited, 2012. 2012 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring, Mooney’s Bay Park (NCC Property Asset #7023), Ottawa Ontario, Report prepared for National Capital Commission, December.


June 2, 2016 43

Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited, 2013. 2013 Surface Water Monitoring, Mooney’s Bay Park (NCC Property Asset #7023), Ottawa Ontario, Report prepared for National Capital Commission, October.

Deutsch-Wenzel, R.P., H. Brune, G. Grimmer, G. Dettbarn, and J. Misfeld, 1983. Experimental studies in rat lungs on the carcinogenicity and dose-response relationships of eight frequently occurring environmental polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., Vol. 71 pp. 539-544.

Environment Canada, 2010. Guidance Document on Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines for Federally Contaminated Sites. May.

Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP), 2012a. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance, ISBN No. 978-1-100-22282-0, Government of Canada, March.

Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP), 2012b. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance, Module 3: Standardization of Wildlife Receptor Characteristics, ISBN No. 978-1-100-22316-2, Government of Canada, March.

Genivar, 2006. Evaluation Environnementale, De Site Phase I, Mooney’s Bay Park, Bien Immobilier No: 7023, Ottawa, ON, Mars.

Geofirma Engineering Ltd., 2011. 2011 Groundwater Monitoring, Mooney’s Bay Park, Property Asset #7203, Ottawa, Ontario, Report prepared for National Capital Commission, October.

Geofirma Engineering Ltd., 2016. Soil Investigation and Characterization Mooney’s Bay Park, Ottawa, Ontario, Final Report prepared for City of Ottawa, June.

Government of Canada, 1994. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Priority Substances List Assessment Report ISBN 0-662-22209-1.

Health Canada, 1996. Health-Based Tolerable Daily Intakes/Concentrations and Tumorigenic Dose/Concentrations for Priority Substances. Report prepared by Environment Health Directorate, ISBN 0-662-24858-9.

Health Canada, 2004. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part II, Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs), ISBN 0-662-38245-5, September.

Health Canada, 2010a, Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part I: Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA), Version 2.0, September.

Health Canada, 2010b. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part II: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs), Version 2.0, September.

Health Canada, 2011. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part IV: User Documentation and Spreadsheet Tool for Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA), Version: July 13, 2011.

Health Canada, 2013. Final Human Health State of the Science Report on Lead, ISBN: 978-1-100-21-304-0, February.


June 2, 2016 44

Health and Welfare Canada, 1989. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality - Supporting Documentation.

Intera Engineering Ltd., 2008. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Mooney’s Bay Park, Property Asset # 7023, Ottawa Ontario. Revision: 0, Prepared for National Capital Commission. July 8.

Intera Engineering Ltd., 2010. Screening Level Risk Assessment, Mooney’s Bay Park, Ottawa, Ontario. NCC Property Asset # 7023. Revision: 0, Prepared for National Capital Commission. September 24.

IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1987. Overall Evaluations of Carcinogenicity: An Updating of IARC Monographs. Volumes 1 to 42, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, Suppl. 7, Lyon, France.

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), 2010. Summary and Conclusions, Seventy-Third Meeting Geneva, 8-17, June, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization.

Kalberlah, F., N. Frijus-Plessen and M. Hassauer, 1995. Toxicological criteria for the risk assessment of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in existing chemicals. Part 1: The use of equivalency factors, Altlasten-Spektrum, Vol. 5, pp. 231-237, (in German).

Knafla, A. S. Petrovic, M, Richardson, J. Campbell and C. Rowat, 2011. Development and application of a skin cancer slope factor for exposures to benzo(a)pyrene in soil, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 59, pp. 101-110.

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd., 2016. Species at Risk & Migratory Bird Screening Memorandum, Mooney’s Bay Park, 2690 Riverside Drive, City of Ottawa, Report prepared for City of Ottawa, April.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 1994. Scientific Criteria Document for Multimedia Environmental Standards - Lead. Queens Printers for Ontario, PIBS 2832.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 1996. Rationale for the Development and Application of Generic Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario, December.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 1997. Scientific Criteria Document for Multimedia Environmental Standards Development, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), Part 1: Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Assessment, Queens Printers for Ontario, PIBS 3518E.

Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2005. Procedures for Use of Risk Assessment under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, Standards Development Branch, PIBs 5404e, October.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2011a, Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, April 15, PIBS # 7382e01.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 2011b, Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario, Standards Development Branch, April 15.


June 2, 2016 45

Sample, B.E. and G.W. Suter II, 1994. Estimating Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to Contaminants, Report ES/ER/TM-125, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, September.

Sample, B.E., Opresko, D. M. and G.W. Suter II, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision, Report ES/ER/TM-86/R3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, June.

Sample, B.E., Beauchamp, J.J., Efroymson, R.A., Suter, II, G.W., and T.L. Ashwood, 1998. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms, Report ES/ER/TM-220, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, February.

Thyssen, J., J. Althoff, G. Kimmerle, and U. Mohr, 1981. Inhalation studies with Benzo(a)pyrene in Syrian Golden Hamsters, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., Vol. 66, pp. 575-577.

U.S. EPA IRIS, 2016. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), on-line, accessed April 28, 2016: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm.

U.S. EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 – Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., Report EPA 540-1-89-001.

U.S. EPA, 2012. Toxicological Review of Benzo(a)pyrene, In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), National Centre for Environmental Assessment, Draft Report EPA/635/R-10/006C, June.

U.S. EPA, 2013. ProUCL Statistical Support Software for Site Investigation and Evaluation, Version 5.0.00. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Environmental Sciences Division. September 2013.

Appendix A

Site Photographs

1: View of Mooney’s Bay study area from former landfill, looking west

Page 1 of 515-200-6: Preliminary HHERA, Part of Mooney’s Bay ParkAppendix A

2: Southeast portion of study area, looking north

3: South portion of study area, looking west toward Rideau River

4: Looking northwest from Mooney’s Bay beach

of 515-200-6: Preliminary HHERA, Part of Mooney’s Bay ParkAppendix A

5: Bridge structures, looking north 6: South shore of study area, looking west

7: Looking northeast toward the large fill mound east of the study area

8: Shore along Rideau River, looking northwest


9: West portion of study area, looking north 10: Outdoor gym area, looking northeast

11: West portion of study area, looking southeast toward Mooney’s Bay beach

12: Outdoor gym area and Rideau River, looking south


13: Study area with fill mound in the background, looking southeast

14: North portion of site, looking northeast

15: North shoreline with gabion wall, looking southwest

16: Pathway running along eastern edge of study area, looking southeast


17: Bridge structures, looking south 18: Central portion of site, looking south from across pathway

19: Central portion of site, from the fill mound looking southwest

20: Eastern portion of site, looking south toward Mooney’s Bay beach

Appendix B

Soil Quality and Surface Water Quality Tables

Table B.1 – Surficial Soil Analytical Results – Metals

Table B.2 – Surficial Soil Analytical Results – PAHs

Table B.3 - Subsurface Soil Analytical Results – Metals

Table B.4 – Subsurface Soil Analytical Results – PAHs

Table B.5 – Subsurface Soil Analytical Results – PHCs/BTEX

Table B.6 – Surface Water Analytical Results – Metals

Table B.7 – Surface Water Analytical Results - PAHs

Table B.1 - Surficial Soil Analytical Results - Metals

Parameter CCME MOECC MOECC MOECC TP16-01-1 TP16-02-1 TP16-03-1 TP16-04-1 TP16-05-1 TP16-06-1 TP16-07-1 TP16-08-1 TP16-09-1SQG Table 9 Table 1* Table 3* 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15

(μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16Boron, available NV 1.5 NV 1.5 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 0.5 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Chromium (VI) 0.4 0.66 0.66 5 ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2)Mercury 6.6 0.27 0.27 0.27 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1)Antimony 20 1.3 1.3 7.5 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Arsenic 12 18 18 18 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 2.9 1.7 ND (1.0) 2.1 2.1Barium 500 220 220 390 83.9 80.2 98.1 95.2 114 114 195 122 181Beryllium 4 2.5 2.5 4 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Boron NV 36 36 120 5.6 4.6 7.0 6.5 9.5 7.6 6.1 5.6 7.2Cadmium 10 1.2 1.2 1.2 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Chromium 64 70 70 160 19.8 21.5 20.7 26.8 22.9 28.7 48.9 34.4 45.0Cobalt 50 22 21 22 5.8 5.6 5.9 7.1 7.5 7.5 10.2 8.0 10.6Copper 63 92 92 140 17.2 11.4 10.5 19.2 32.8 27.0 36.1 19.2 42.4Lead 140 120 120 120 15.1 12.2 9.2 19.2 40.2 23.2 28.4 22.7 29.3Molybdenum 10 2 2 6.9 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Nickel 45 82 82 100 12.4 11.0 11.8 15.6 17.2 15.6 27.3 18.2 24.6Selenium 1 1.5 1.5 2.4 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Silver 20 0.5 0.5 20 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Thallium 1 1 1 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Uranium 23 2.5 2.5 23 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Vanadium 130 86 86 86 27.3 29.8 29.8 35.8 31.5 35.9 53.5 41.3 50.5Zinc 200 290 290 340 34.1 34.7 33.0 45.4 56.8 55.5 76.5 57.1 68.5

Notes:All units are μg/g unless otherwise notedNV = No ValueND (0.02) = Not Detected Above Method Detection LimitmBGS = Meters below ground surface* MOECC Table 1 and Table 3 are included for comparison onlyCCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, 1999 (updates to 2016) for residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soil.MOECC = Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, MOE 2011.Table 1 = Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soilTable 3 = Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soilTable 9 = Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non-Potable Groundwater Condition: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured so

Bold = indicates concentrations which exceed CCME Soil Quality GuidelinesHighlight = indicates concentrations which exceed MOE 2011 Table 9 Standards.

Date Sampled>Sample Depth (mBGS)>

Prepared by: SNGReviewed by: DMPDate: 22-Apr-16

Table B.1 - Surficial Metals - Page 1 of 2Residential / Parkland Soil

Table B.1 - Surficial Soil Analytical Results - Metals

Parameter CCME MOECC MOECC MOECC TP16-10-1 TP16-11-1 TP16-12-1 TP16-13-1 TP16-14-1 TP16-15-1SQG Table 9 Table 1* Table 3* 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 TPD1 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15

(μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) 18-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 Duplicate 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16Boron, available NV 1.5 NV 1.5 0.6 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 0.5 1.0 ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Chromium (VI) 0.4 0.66 0.66 5 ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2)Mercury 6.6 0.27 0.27 0.27 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1)Antimony 20 1.3 1.3 7.5 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Arsenic 12 18 18 18 1.1 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.6 3.2 1.2Barium 500 220 220 390 83.4 106 106 106 87.9 110 96.6Beryllium 4 2.5 2.5 4 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Boron NV 36 36 120 7.0 9.4 8.6 6.7 9.9 11.3 5.6Cadmium 10 1.2 1.2 1.2 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Chromium 64 70 70 160 24.0 27.3 25.4 28.1 22.3 25.9 21.4Cobalt 50 22 21 22 6.0 7.7 7.0 7.2 6.0 7.7 6.2Copper 63 92 92 140 15.2 18.4 15.6 18.7 26.5 14.3 21.1Lead 140 120 120 120 12.9 19.6 18.2 28.6 21.6 18.6 20.9Molybdenum 10 2 2 6.9 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Nickel 45 82 82 100 13.1 16.9 15.4 16.0 12.6 15.8 13.5Selenium 1 1.5 1.5 2.4 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Silver 20 0.5 0.5 20 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Thallium 1 1 1 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Uranium 23 2.5 2.5 23 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Vanadium 130 86 86 86 32.1 34.1 32.2 34.4 25.1 33.9 30.9Zinc 200 290 290 340 40.0 49.6 46.6 59.4 84.0 51.5 43.8

Notes:All units are μg/g unless otherwise notedNV = No ValueND (0.02) = Not Detected Above Method Detection LimitmBGS = Meters below ground surface* MOECC Table 1 and Table 3 are included for comparison onlyCCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, 1999 (updates to 2016) for residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soil.MOECC = Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, MOE 2011.Table 1 = Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soilTable 3 = Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soilTable 9 = Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non-Potable Groundwater Condition: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured so

Bold = indicates concentrations which exceed CCME Soil Quality GuidelinesHighlight = indicates concentrations which exceed MOE 2011 Table 9 Standards.

Sample Depth (mBGS)>Date Sampled>


Table B.1 - Surficial Metals - Page 2 of 2Residential / Parkland Soil

Table B.2 - Surficial Soil Analytical Results - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Parameter CCME CCME MOECC MOECC MOECC TP16-01-1 TP16-02-1 TP16-03-1 TP16-04-1 TP16-05-1 TP16-06-1 TP16-07-1 TP16-08-1 TP16-09-1 TP16-10-1

PEF SQG Table 9 Table 1* Table 3* 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15(μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16

Acenaphthene -- 0.28 0.072 0.072 7.9 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.20 ND (0.02)Acenaphthylene -- 320 0.093 0.093 0.15 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.05 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02)Anthracene -- 2.5 0.22 0.16 0.67 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.08 0.03 0.03 ND (0.02) 0.47 ND (0.02)Benzo[a]anthracene 0.1 1 0.36 0.36 0.5 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.13 0.05 ND (0.02) 0.02 0.58 ND (0.02)Benzo[a]pyrene 1 20 0.3 0.3 0.3 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.18 0.06 ND (0.02) 0.03 0.55 ND (0.02)Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.1 1 0.47 0.47 0.78 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.16 0.07 ND (0.02) 0.04 0.49 ND (0.02)Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.01 NV 0.68 0.68 6.6 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.10 0.04 ND (0.02) 0.02 0.25 ND (0.02)Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 1 0.48 0.48 0.78 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.19 0.07 ND (0.02) 0.04 0.62 ND (0.02)Chrysene 0.01 6.2 2.8 2.8 7 0.03 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.17 0.07 ND (0.02) 0.04 0.65 ND (0.02)Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.03 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.08 ND (0.02)Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.1 1 0.23 0.23 0.38 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.10 0.03 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.25 ND (0.02)B[a]P Total Potency Equivalents -- 0.6** NV NV NV ND (0.024) ND (0.024) ND (0.024) ND (0.024) 0.27 0.093 ND (0.024) 0.052 0.83 ND (0.024)Fluoranthene -- 50 0.69 0.56 0.69 0.04 0.04 ND (0.02) 0.05 0.41 0.16 0.05 0.08 2.03 0.05Fluorene -- 0.25 0.19 0.12 62 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.16 ND (0.02)1-Methylnaphthalene -- NV 0.59 0.59 0.99 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.03 ND (0.02)2-Methylnaphthalene -- NV 0.59 0.59 0.99 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.04 ND (0.02)Methylnaphthalene (1&2) -- NV 0.59 0.59 0.99 ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) 0.07 ND (0.04)Naphthalene -- 0.013 0.09 0.09 0.6 ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) 0.05 ND (0.01)Phenanthrene -- 0.046 0.69 0.69 6.2 0.02 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.23 0.06 0.03 0.05 1.65 0.02Pyrene -- 10 1 1 78 0.04 0.03 ND (0.02) 0.04 0.33 0.13 0.04 0.06 1.56 0.04

Notes:All units are μg/g unless otherwise notedNV = No ValueND (0.02) = Not Detected Above Method Detection LimitmBGS = Meters below ground surface* MOECC Table 1 and Table 3 are included for comparison only** B[a]P Total Potency Equivalents = CCME soil guideline for protection of human health in a direct soil contact scenarioCCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, 1999 (updates to 2016) for residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soil.MOECC = Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, MOE 2011.Table 1 = Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soilTable 3 = Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soilTable 9 = Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non-Potable Groundwater Condition: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soil

Bold = indicates concentrations which exceed CCME Soil Quality Guidelines.Highlight = indicates concentrations which exceed MOE 2011 Table 9 Standards.



Table B.2 - Surficial PAHs - Page 1 of 2Residential / Parkland Soil

Table B.2 - Surficial Soil Analytical Results - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Parameter CCME CCME MOECC MOECC MOECC TP16-11-1 TP16-12-1 TP16-13-1 TP16-14-1 TP16-15-1

PEF SQG Table 9 Table 1* Table 3* 0.0 - 0.15 TPD1 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15 0.0 - 0.15(μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) 19-Apr-16 Duplicate 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16

Acenaphthene -- 0.28 0.072 0.072 7.9 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02)Acenaphthylene -- 320 0.093 0.093 0.15 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02)Anthracene -- 2.5 0.22 0.16 0.67 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.07 ND (0.02) 0.04Benzo[a]anthracene 0.1 1 0.36 0.36 0.5 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.12 ND (0.02) 0.07Benzo[a]pyrene 1 20 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.18 ND (0.02) 0.09Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.1 1 0.47 0.47 0.78 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.22 ND (0.02) 0.09Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.01 NV 0.68 0.68 6.6 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.14 ND (0.02) 0.06Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 1 0.48 0.48 0.78 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.15 ND (0.02) 0.09Chrysene 0.01 6.2 2.8 2.8 7 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.17 ND (0.02) 0.10Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.03 ND (0.02) ND (0.02)Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.1 1 0.23 0.23 0.38 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.14 ND (0.02) 0.06B[a]P Total Potency Equivalents -- 0.6** NV NV NV 0.063 0.066 0.051 0.28 ND (0.024) 0.13Fluoranthene -- 50 0.69 0.56 0.69 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.33 ND (0.02) 0.18Fluorene -- 0.25 0.19 0.12 62 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.05 ND (0.02) ND (0.02)1-Methylnaphthalene -- NV NV NV NV ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02)2-Methylnaphthalene -- NV NV NV NV ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02)Methylnaphthalene (1&2) -- NV 0.59 0.59 0.99 ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04)Naphthalene -- 0.013 0.09 0.09 0.6 ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) 0.05 ND (0.01) ND (0.01)Phenanthrene -- 0.046 0.69 0.69 6.2 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.29 ND (0.02) 0.14Pyrene -- 10 1 1 78 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.24 ND (0.02) 0.15





Table B.2 - Surficial PAHs - Page 2 of 2Residential / Parkland Soil

Table B.3 - Subsurface Soil Analytical Results - Metals

Parameter CCME MOECC MOECC MOECC TP16-01-3 TP16-02-3 TP16-03-2 TP16-04-3 TP16-05-3 TP16-06-3 TP16-07-3 TP16-08-2 TP16-09-2 TP16-10-3SQG Table 9 Table 1 Table 3 0.7 - 1.3 0.8 - 1.4 0.15 - 0.8 1.2 - 1.6 0.8 - 1.2 1.0 - 1.6 1.0 - 1.6 0.2 - 0.7 0.15 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.2(μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16

Boron, available NV 1.5 NV 1.5 0.5 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 1.0 0.5 0.5 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Chromium (VI) 0.4 0.66 0.66 5 ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2)Mercury 6.6 0.27 0.27 0.27 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) 0.1 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1)Antimony 20 1.3 1.3 7.5 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 3.3 ND (1.0)Arsenic 12 18 18 18 ND (1.0) 5.4 ND (1.0) 2.6 2.8 2.3 7.4 7.9 3.4 2.4Barium 500 220 220 390 126 142 99.9 68.2 103 141 117 113 138 222Beryllium 4 2.5 2.5 4 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Boron NV 36 36 120 6.2 5.1 7.5 6.7 10.3 6.4 8.8 9.9 6.4 5.4Cadmium 10 1.2 1.2 1.2 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 0.7 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Chromium 64 70 70 160 28.5 25.5 20.4 27.9 20.7 31.0 19.0 19.6 27.0 64.5Cobalt 50 22 21 22 7.3 6.4 6.2 4.7 7.4 8.3 6.5 6.5 7.5 14.8Copper 63 92 92 140 12.8 18.9 10.4 95.7 38.4 65.7 68.8 68.2 105 38.3Lead 140 120 120 120 12.4 121 9.4 450 32.9 84.7 45.9 45.4 66.6 25.4Molybdenum 10 2 2 6.9 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 2.0 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Nickel 45 82 82 100 15.4 16.3 12.1 14.5 17.7 17.2 13.6 14.2 17.1 36.1Selenium 1 1.5 1.5 2.4 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Silver 20 0.5 0.5 20 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Thallium 1 1 1 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Uranium 23 2.5 2.5 23 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Vanadium 130 86 86 86 33.3 29.2 29.0 21.6 29.9 40.9 27.5 28.3 35.2 65.5Zinc 200 290 290 340 50.6 89.7 30.9 187 61.5 94.3 90.2 89.0 93.1 81.3

Notes:All units are μg/g unless otherwise notedNV = No ValueND (0.02) = Not Detected Above Method Detection LimitmBGS = Meters below ground surface* MOECC Table 1 and Table 3 are included for comparison onlyCCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, 1999 (updates to 2016) for residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soil.MOECC = Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, MOE 2011.Table 1 = Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soilTable 3 = Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soilTable 9 = Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non-Potable Groundwater Condition: residential/parkland land use, coarse textured soil




Table B.3 - Metals - Page 1 of 2Residential / Parkland Soil

Table B.3 - Subsurface Soil Analytical Results - Metals

Parameter CCME MOECC MOECC MOECC TP16-11-2 TP16-12-3 TP16-13-2 TP16-14-3 TP16-15-2 TP16-16-1 TP16-17-1 TP16-18-1 TP16-19-1SQG Table 9 Table 1 Table 3 0.4 - 0.9 0.7 - 1.3 TPD2 0.2 - 0.7 0.8 - 1.4 0.2 - 0.7 0.2 - 0.8 0.2 - 0.8 0.2 - 0.8 0.15 - 0.7(μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 Duplicate 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16

Boron, available NV 1.5 NV 1.5 1.5 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 0.6 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 0.5 ND (0.5)Chromium (VI) 0.4 0.66 0.66 5 ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2)Mercury 6.6 0.27 0.27 0.27 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) 0.1 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1)Antimony 20 1.3 1.3 7.5 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Arsenic 12 18 18 18 1.7 3.5 3.0 4.8 1.8 2.2 4.5 2.0 2.9 6.9Barium 500 220 220 390 188 204 237 359 97.1 87.7 90.9 99.5 94.3 76.3Beryllium 4 2.5 2.5 4 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Boron NV 36 36 120 8.6 5.4 5.0 9.2 6.4 4.7 9.4 4.5 8.4 8.7Cadmium 10 1.2 1.2 1.2 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Chromium 64 70 70 160 42.2 58.7 70.3 25.5 19.2 20.4 18.5 25.5 20.9 17.5Cobalt 50 22 21 22 8.0 13.6 15.7 7.1 6.5 5.9 9.7 7.3 7.0 10.2Copper 63 92 92 140 31.5 53.1 40.5 22.5 12.4 18.9 26.8 23.9 39.9 25.1Lead 140 120 120 120 18.5 89.5 62.5 55.4 9.3 56.0 34.3 28.6 30.1 26.8Molybdenum 10 2 2 6.9 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 1.8 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 2.6Nickel 45 82 82 100 18.4 32.1 39.3 15.3 12.6 12.8 22.0 15.3 17.0 22.6Selenium 1 1.5 1.5 2.4 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Silver 20 0.5 0.5 20 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5)Thallium 1 1 1 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Uranium 23 2.5 2.5 23 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)Vanadium 130 86 86 86 34.0 61.7 71.2 34.5 29.5 28.6 28.7 32.1 29.9 24.6Zinc 200 290 290 340 70.2 123 106 174 29.4 56.2 47.3 47.3 50.6 35.2





Table B.3 - Metals - Page 2 of 2Residential / Parkland Soil

Table B.4 - Subsurface Soil Analytical Results - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Parameter CCME CCME MOECC MOECC MOECC TP16-01-3 TP16-02-3 TP16-03-2 TP16-04-3 TP16-05-3 TP16-06-3 TP16-07-3 TP16-08-2 TP16-09-2 TP16-10-3

PEF SQG Table 9 Table 1* Table 3* 0.7 - 1.3 0.8 - 1.4 0.15 - 0.8 1.2 - 1.6 0.8 - 1.2 1.0 - 1.6 1.0 - 1.6 0.2 - 0.7 0.15 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.2(μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16

Acenaphthene -- 0.28 0.072 0.072 7.9 ND (0.02) 1.39 ND (0.02) 0.12 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.04 ND (0.02) 0.02 0.12Acenaphthylene -- 320 0.093 0.093 0.15 ND (0.02) 0.17 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.03 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.05Anthracene -- 2.5 0.22 0.16 0.67 ND (0.02) 3.42 ND (0.02) 0.21 0.03 0.04 0.19 ND (0.02) 0.07 0.22Benzo[a]anthracene 0.1 1 0.36 0.36 0.5 ND (0.02) 2.16 ND (0.02) 0.33 0.04 0.08 0.47 0.04 0.11 0.36Benzo[a]pyrene 1 20 0.3 0.3 0.3 ND (0.02) 2.04 ND (0.02) 0.37 0.08 0.10 0.65 0.06 0.14 0.48Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.1 1 0.47 0.47 0.78 ND (0.02) 1.87 ND (0.02) 0.39 0.09 0.10 0.70 0.07 0.12 0.40Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.01 NV 0.68 0.68 6.6 ND (0.02) 0.96 ND (0.02) 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.46 0.06 0.10 0.27Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 1 0.48 0.48 0.78 ND (0.02) 1.59 ND (0.02) 0.26 0.07 0.09 0.71 0.08 0.17 0.56Chrysene 0.01 6.2 2.8 2.8 7 ND (0.02) 2.20 ND (0.02) 0.38 0.07 0.11 0.70 0.06 0.15 0.51Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 ND (0.02) 0.31 ND (0.02) 0.06 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.13 ND (0.02) 0.02 0.04Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.1 1 0.23 0.23 0.38 ND (0.02) 0.94 ND (0.02) 0.20 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.04 0.08 0.27B[a]P Total Potency Equivalents -- 0.6** NV NV NV ND (0.024) 3.04 ND (0.024) 0.55 0.12 0.14 1.02 0.09 0.21 0.69Fluoranthene -- 50 0.69 0.56 0.69 ND (0.02) 7.84 ND (0.02) 1.30 0.13 0.23 2.00 0.11 0.38 1.38Fluorene -- 0.25 0.19 0.12 62 ND (0.02) 2.62 ND (0.02) 0.15 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.06 ND (0.02) 0.02 0.241-Methylnaphthalene -- NV NV NV NV ND (0.02) 1.08 ND (0.02) 0.21 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.05 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 1.522-Methylnaphthalene -- NV NV NV NV ND (0.02) 1.59 ND (0.02) 0.24 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.04 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.37Methylnaphthalene (1&2) -- NV 0.59 0.59 0.99 ND (0.04) 2.67 ND (0.04) 0.45 ND (0.04) ND (0.04) 0.09 ND (0.04) ND (0.04) 1.88Naphthalene -- 0.013 0.09 0.09 0.6 ND (0.01) 2.86 ND (0.01) 0.16 ND (0.01) ND (0.01) 0.02 ND (0.01) 0.02 0.08Phenanthrene -- 0.046 0.69 0.69 6.2 ND (0.02) 11.9 ND (0.02) 0.99 0.07 0.17 0.88 0.05 0.25 1.09Pyrene -- 10 1 1 78 ND (0.02) 5.97 ND (0.02) 0.98 0.11 0.19 1.50 0.09 0.30 1.12





Table B.4 - PAHs - Page 1 of 2Residential / Parkland Soil

Table B.4 - Subsurface Soil Analytical Results - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Parameter CCME CCME MOECC MOECC MOECC TP16-11-2 TP16-12-3 TP16-13-2 TP16-14-3 TP16-15-2 TP16-16-1 TP16-17-1 TP16-18-1 TP16-19-1

PEF SQG Table 9 Table 1 Table 3 0.35-0.9 0.7-1.3 TPD2 0.2-0.7 0.8-1.4 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.8 0.15-0.7(μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 Duplicate 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16

Acenaphthene -- 0.28 0.072 0.072 7.9 ND (0.02) 0.05 0.05 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.48 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.04) 0.02Acenaphthylene -- 320 0.093 0.093 0.15 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.06 ND (0.02)Anthracene -- 2.5 0.22 0.16 0.67 ND (0.02) 0.06 0.12 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 1.43 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.05Benzo[a]anthracene 0.1 1 0.36 0.36 0.5 ND (0.02) 0.06 0.31 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 1.96 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.07Benzo[a]pyrene 1 20 0.3 0.3 0.3 ND (0.02) 0.08 0.36 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 1.79 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.08Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.1 1 0.47 0.47 0.78 ND (0.02) 0.09 0.45 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 1.63 0.14 0.10 0.19 0.09Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.01 NV 0.68 0.68 6.6 ND (0.02) 0.06 0.18 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.82 0.14 0.10 0.15 0.05Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 1 0.48 0.48 0.78 ND (0.02) 0.05 0.36 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 1.42 0.12 0.10 0.16 0.09Chrysene 0.01 6.2 2.8 2.8 7 ND (0.02) 0.11 0.43 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 2.12 0.11 0.09 0.18 0.09Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.06 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.28 0.02 ND (0.02) ND (0.04) ND (0.02)Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.1 1 0.23 0.23 0.38 ND (0.02) 0.05 0.22 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.83 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.05B[a]P Total Potency Equivalents -- 0.6** NV NV NV ND (0.024) 0.12 0.56 ND (0.024) ND (0.024) 2.68 0.22 0.16 0.24 0.12Fluoranthene -- 50 0.69 0.56 0.69 ND (0.02) 0.34 1.23 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 7.81 0.17 0.24 0.26 0.22Fluorene -- 0.25 0.19 0.12 62 ND (0.02) 0.05 0.05 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.56 ND (0.02) 0.05 ND (0.04) 0.031-Methylnaphthalene -- NV NV NV NV ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.16 ND (0.02) 0.03 ND (0.04) ND (0.02)2-Methylnaphthalene -- NV NV NV NV ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.24 ND (0.02) 0.02 ND (0.04) ND (0.02)Methylnaphthalene (1&2) -- NV 0.59 0.59 0.99 ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) 0.40 ND (0.04) 0.05 ND (0.08) ND (0.04)Naphthalene -- 0.013 0.09 0.09 0.6 ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) ND (0.01) 0.34 ND (0.01) 0.04 ND (0.02) ND (0.01)Phenanthrene -- 0.046 0.69 0.69 6.2 ND (0.02) 0.18 0.51 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 6.97 0.07 0.30 0.16 0.22Pyrene -- 10 1 1 78 ND (0.02) 0.25 0.96 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 6.10 0.15 0.18 0.24 0.17





Table B.4 - PAHs - Page 2 of 2Residential / Parkland Soil

Table B.5 - Subsurface Soil Analytical Results - PHC/BTEX

Parameter CCME MOECC MOECC MOECC TP16-01-3 TP16-04-3 TP16-07-3 TP16-10-3 TP16-11-2 TP16-13-2 TP16-17-2 TP16-18-1SQG Table 9 Table 1* Table 3* 0.7 - 1.3 1.2 - 1.6 1.0 - 1.6 0.7 - 1.2 0.4 - 0.9 0.2 - 0.7 0.8-1.4 0.2 - 0.8

(μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) (μg/g) 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 18-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16 19-Apr-16Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)F1 PHCs (C6-C10) 30 25 25 55 ND (7) ND (7) ND (7) ND (7) ND (7) ND (7) ND (7) ND (7)F2 PHCs (C10-C16) 150 10 10 98 ND (4) ND (4) ND (4) 326 ND (4) ND (4) ND (4) ND (4)F3 PHCs (C16-C34) 300 240 240 300 ND (8) 577 225 572 ND (8) 33 35 63F4 PHCs (C34-C50) 2800 120 120 2800 ND (6) 603 465 751 ND (6) ND (6) 30 433BTEXBenzene 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.21 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02)Ethylbenzene 0.082 0.05 0.05 2 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05)Toluene 0.37 0.2 0.2 2.3 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05)m/p-Xylene NV NV NV NV ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05)o-Xylene NV NV NV NV ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05)Xylenes, total 11 0.05 0.05 3.1 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05)





Table B.5 - Volatiles - Page 1 of 1Residential / Parkland Soil

Table B.6 - Surface Water Analytical Results - Metals and General Chemistry

Parameter CCME MOECC PWQO*

APV Geofirma DCS Geofirma DCS Geofirma DCS Geofirma DCS(μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) 06-Jun-11 07-May-12 06-Jun-11 07-May-12 06-Jun-11 07-May-12 06-Jun-11 07-May-12

MetalsAntimony NV 1,600 20 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Arsenic 5 150 100 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Barium NV 2,300 NV 49 50 48 50 49 50 49 50Beryllium NV 5 1,100 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Boron 1,500 3,550 200 18 10 17 10 17 10 17 10Cadmium 0.09 0.21 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Chromium 8.9 64 8.9 1 2 <1 2 <1 2 <1 2Chromium, hexavalent 1 11 1 <10 <50 <10 <50 <10 <50 <10 <50Cobalt NV 5.2 0.9 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 <0.2Copper 4 6.9 5 0.7 1 0.7 1 0.6 1 0.7 1Iron 300 NV 300 <100 70 <100 200 <100 70 <100 70Lead 7 2 5* <0.1 <1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 <1Mercury 0.026 0.77 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Molybdenum 73 730 NV <0.5 <5 <0.5 <5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Nickel 150 39 25 1 <0.5 1 <5 1 <0.5 1 <0.5Selenium 1.0 5 100 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Silver 0.25 0.12 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Sodium NV 180,000 NV 12,600 17,000 12,300 18,000 13,200 16,000 12,300 16,000Thallium 0.8 40 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Vanadium NV 20 6 2.6 2 2.5 2 2.5 2 2.3 3Zinc 30 89 20 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10General ChemistryChloride NV 180,000 NV 18,000 30,000 18,000 31,000 18,000 30,000 18,000 30,000Nitrate as N 13,000 NV NV 100 190 100 300 100 30,000 100 30,000Nitrite as N 60 NV NV <50 <100 <50 <100 <50 <100 <50 <100Sulphate NV NV NV 7,000 16,000 7,000 16,000 7,000 16,000 7,000 16,000Alkalinity, total NV NV NV 157,000 155,000 155,000 157,000 154,000 158,000 154,000 157,000Conductivity (uS/cm) NV NV NV 352 412 346 418 340 416 345 415pH (pH units) 6.5-9 NV 6.5-8.5 7.98 8.21 8.10 8.2 8.08 8.21 8.09 8.23Total Dissolved Solids NV NV NV 216,000 268,000 185,000 272,000 196,000 270,000 209,000 270,000Total Organic Carbon NV NV NV 6,400 9,400 6,300 9,800 6,400 9,500 6,400 9,800Field ParameterspH 6.5-9 NV 6.5-8.5 8.16 -- 8.21 -- 8.25 -- 8.17 --Temperature (oC) NV NV NV 23.8 -- 23.6 -- 25.16 -- 24.27 --Conductivity (uS/cm) NV NV NV 376 -- 374 -- 368 -- 370 --Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) >5.5 NV >5 8.46 -- 9.95 -- 10.67 -- 9.94 --

Notes:All units are μg/L unless otherwise notedNV = No Value<0.02 = Not Detected Above Method Detection LimitCCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life Freshwater, Long Term, 1999 (updates to 2016).MOECC APV = Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario, Aquatic Protection Values, 2011PWQO* - Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Provincial Water Quality Objectives, 1994 - Included for comparison only

Bold = indicates concentrations which exceed CCME Surface Water Quality Guidelines.Highlight = indicates concentrations which exceed MOE 2011 Aquatic Protection Values (APV).

SW11-4

Date Sampled>

SW11-1 SW11-2 SW11-3

Prepared by: ADGReviewed by: DMPDate: 04-May-16

Table B.6 - SW Metals - Page 1 of 1Protection of Aquatic Life

Table B.7 - Surface Water Analytical Results - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)


APV SW11-1

Geofirma DCS DCS DCS DCS - Dup DCS DCS - Dup

(μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) 06-Jun-11 07-May-12 15-Oct-12 01-Aug-13 01-Aug-13 14-Sep-13 14-Sep-13

Acenaphthene 5.8 520 NV <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Acenaphthylene NV 0.14 NV <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Anthracene 0.012 0.1 0.0008 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[a]anthracene 0.018 0.18 0.0004 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[a]pyrene 0.015 0.21 NV <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[b]fluoranthene NV 0.42 NV <0.05 -- <0.02 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene NV 0.02 0.0002 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Benzo[k]fluoranthene NV 0.14 0.0002 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Biphenyl NV 170 0.2 <0.05 -- -- -- -- -- --

Chrysene NV 0.07 0.0001 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene NV 0.04 0.002 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene NV 0.14 NV <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Fluoranthene 0.04 7.3 0.0008 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Fluorene 3.0 29 0.2 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

1-Methylnaphthalene NV NV 2 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02


Methylnaphthalene (1&2) NV 146 NV <0.1 <0.04 <0.04 <0.2 <0.2 <0.04 <0.04

Naphthalene 1.1 620 7 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Phenanthrene 0.4 38 0.03 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Pyrene 0.025 0.57 NV <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

Notes:

All units are μg/L unless otherwise noted

NV = No Value<0.02 = Not Detected Above Method Detection Limit

CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Water Quality Guidelines

for the Protection of Aquatic Life Freshwater, Long Term, 1999 (updates to 2016).

MOECC APV = Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at

Contaminated Sites in Ontario, Aquatic Protection Values, 2011

PWQO* - Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Provincial Water Quality Objectives, 1994 - Included for comparison only

Bold = indicates concentrations which exceed CCME Surface Water Quality Guidelines.

Highlight = indicates concentrations which exceed MOE 2011 Aquatic Protection Values (APV).

Date Sampled>

SW-1

Prepared by: ADG

Reviewed by: DMP

Date: 04-May-16

Table B.7 - SW PAHs - Page 1 of 3

Protection of Aquatic Life



APV SW11-2 SW11-3

Geofirma DCS DCS DCS Geofirma DCS DCS

(μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) 06-Jun-11 07-May-12 01-Aug-13 14-Sep-13 06-Jun-11 07-May-12 15-Oct-12

Acenaphthene 5.8 520 NV <0.05 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Acenaphthylene NV 0.14 NV <0.05 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Anthracene 0.012 0.1 0.0008 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[a]anthracene 0.018 0.18 0.0004 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[a]pyrene 0.015 0.21 NV <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[b]fluoranthene NV 0.42 NV <0.05 -- <0.05 <0.02 <0.05 -- <0.02

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene NV 0.02 0.0002 <0.05 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Benzo[k]fluoranthene NV 0.14 0.0002 <0.05 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Biphenyl NV 170 0.2 <0.05 -- -- -- <0.05 -- --

Chrysene NV 0.07 0.0001 <0.05 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene NV 0.04 0.002 <0.05 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene NV 0.14 NV <0.05 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Fluoranthene 0.04 7.3 0.0008 <0.01 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02

Fluorene 3.0 29 0.2 <0.05 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02



Methylnaphthalene (1&2) NV 146 NV <0.1 <0.04 <0.2 <0.04 <0.1 <0.04 <0.04

Naphthalene 1.1 620 7 <0.05 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Phenanthrene 0.4 38 0.03 <0.05 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02

Pyrene 0.025 0.57 NV <0.01 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02

Notes:










Date Sampled>

SW-2 SW-3

Prepared by: ADG

Reviewed by: DMP

Date: 04-May-16





APV SW11-4

Geofirma DCS DCS DCS DCS

(μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) 06-Jun-11 07-May-12 15-Oct-12 01-Aug-13 14-Sep-13

Acenaphthene 5.8 520 NV <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Acenaphthylene NV 0.14 NV <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Anthracene 0.012 0.1 0.0008 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01

Benzo[a]anthracene 0.018 0.18 0.0004 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01

Benzo[a]pyrene 0.015 0.21 NV <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo[b]fluoranthene NV 0.42 NV <0.05 <0.02 -- <0.05 <0.02

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene NV 0.02 0.0002 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Benzo[k]fluoranthene NV 0.14 0.0002 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.05 <0.02

Biphenyl NV 170 0.2 <0.05 -- -- -- --

Chrysene NV 0.07 0.0001 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene NV 0.04 0.002 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene NV 0.14 NV <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Fluoranthene 0.04 7.3 0.0008 <0.01 0.1 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Fluorene 3.0 29 0.2 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

1-Methylnaphthalene NV NV 2 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

2-Methylnaphthalene NV NV 2 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Methylnaphthalene (1&2) NV 146 NV <0.1 <0.04 <0.04 <0.2 <0.04

Naphthalene 1.1 620 7 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Phenanthrene 0.4 38 0.03 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Pyrene 0.025 0.57 NV <0.01 0.07 <0.02 <0.1 <0.02

Notes:










Date Sampled>

SW-4

Prepared by: ADG

Reviewed by: DMP

Date: 04-May-16



Appendix C

ProUCL Calculations for Soil EPCs

- B(a)P TPE in Surficial Soil

- B(a)P TPE in All Soil

- Lead in Surficial Soil

- Lead in All Soil

UCL Statistics for B[a]P Total Potency Equivalents Surficial Soil 15‐200‐6 Mooney's Bay, Ottawa, ON

16 11

9 7

9 2

0.061 0.048

0.83 0.049

0.0612 43.75%

0.211 0.247

0.103 1.175

2.386 6.076

-1.974 0.887

0.659

0.829

0.279

0.295

0.14 0.0511

0.193 0.233

0.229 0.226

0.224 0.368

0.293 0.362

0.459 0.648

0.746

0.737

0.225

0.285

1.343 0.97

0.157 0.217

24.18 17.45

0.211 0.214

0.524 16.77

8.511 7.848

0.275 0.298

Date/Time of Computation 05/05/2016 1:08:19 PM

Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations

Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects

Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects

General Statistics

Confidence Coefficient 95%

Mean Detects SD Detects

Median Detects CV Detects

Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects

Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect

Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect

Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test

5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level

Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects

Normal GOF Test on Detects Only

Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test

95% KM (t) UCL 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL

95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL

90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL

Detected Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level

Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs

Mean Standard Error of Mean

SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL

5% A-D Critical Value Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

K-S Test Statistic Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF

5% K-S Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL

Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only

A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling GOF Test

nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected)

MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)

Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics

Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level

Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only

k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE)

Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE)

k hat (KM) nu hat (KM)

Approximate Chi Square Value (16.77, α) Adjusted Chi Square Value (16.77, β)

95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50)

Created By: ADGDate: May 5, 2016P:\Projects\2015\15‐200 City of Ottawa Env Engineering Services ‐ REPDO SOA#19614‐91843‐S01\15‐200‐6 Mooneys Bay HHERA\Tables\15‐200‐6_UCLM_BaPTPE_and_Lead.xlsx

UCL Statistics for B[a]P Total Potency Equivalents Surficial Soil 15‐200‐6 Mooney's Bay, Ottawa, ON

0.01 0.123

0.83 0.062

0.208 1.692

0.601 0.53

0.205 0.232

19.22 16.95

0.123 0.169

0.0335

8.638 7.969

0.241 0.261

0.867

0.829

0.196

0.295

0.125 -3.041

0.207 1.47

0.215 0.218

0.242 0.346

0.53

-2.439 0.205

0.82 2.439

0.217

0.129 -2.741

0.204 1.108

0.219 0.271

0.229 0.226

Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects

GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs

GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1

For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs

For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates




Minimum Mean

Maximum Median

SD CV

95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50)

Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only



Adjusted Level of Significance (β)


Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects

Mean in Original Scale Mean in Log Scale

SD in Original Scale SD in Log Scale

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level


5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally Distributed

KM Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log)

KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log)

95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL

95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL

95% H-UCL (Log ROS)



95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% H-Stat UCL

KM Standard Error of Mean (logged)

DL/2 Statistics

DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.


Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons

Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics

Detected Data appear Approximate Normal Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Suggested UCL to Use


UCL Statistics for B[a]P Total Potency Equivalents All Soil (Surface and Subsurface) 15‐200‐6 Mooney's Bay, Ottawa, ON

36 24

24 12

22 2

0.061 0.048

3.04 0.049

0.599 33.33%

0.497 0.774

0.19 1.556

2.682 6.769

-1.405 1.106

0.575

0.916

0.319

0.181

0.348 0.111

0.654 0.554

0.536 0.551

0.531 0.826

0.682 0.833

1.043 1.455

1.611

0.779

0.247

0.184

0.836 0.759

0.595 0.655

40.12 36.44

0.497 0.571

0.282 20.34

11.1 10.79

0.637 0.655



Number of Detects Number of Non-Detects

Number of Distinct Detects Number of Distinct Non-Detects

Minimum Detect Minimum Non-Detect

General Statistics


Median Detects CV Detects

Skewness Detects Kurtosis Detects

Mean of Logged Detects SD of Logged Detects

Maximum Detect Maximum Non-Detect

Variance Detects Percent Non-Detects

Mean Detects SD Detects


5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Normal GOF Test on Detects Only


5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

95% KM (z) UCL 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL

90% KM Chebyshev UCL 95% KM Chebyshev UCL

97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 99% KM Chebyshev UCL

Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLs

Mean Standard Error of Mean

SD 95% KM (BCA) UCL


K-S Test Statistic Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF

5% K-S Critical Value Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only

A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling GOF Test

5% A-D Critical Value Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level


Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics

k hat (KM) nu hat (KM)

Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only





95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50)


UCL Statistics for B[a]P Total Potency Equivalents All Soil (Surface and Subsurface) 15‐200‐6 Mooney's Bay, Ottawa, ON

0.01 0.335

3.04 0.117

0.669 1.999

0.466 0.446

0.718 0.751

33.57 32.1

0.335 0.502

0.0428

20.15 19.72

0.533 0.545

0.914

0.916

0.161

0.181

0.338 -2.315

0.668 1.637

0.526 0.538

0.596 0.792

0.914

-1.949 0.472

1.172 2.585

0.199

0.34 -2.179

0.667 1.427

0.527 0.633

1.043

GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs

GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1

For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs

For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates

Minimum Mean

Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects




Maximum Median

SD CV


Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only


5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Adjusted Level of Significance (β)


95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50)

Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects



95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL


5% Lilliefors Critical Value Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

KM Mean (logged) 95% H-UCL (KM -Log)

KM SD (logged) 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log)

KM Standard Error of Mean (logged)

95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap t UCL

95% H-UCL (Log ROS)

UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally Distributed


95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 95% H-Stat UCL

DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons

DL/2 Statistics

DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed



Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.


Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal Distributed at 5% Significance Level


97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL


UCL Statistics for Lead in Surficial Soil 15‐200‐6 Mooney's Bay, Ottawa, ON

16 16

0

9.2 21.24

40.2 20.25

7.716 1.929

0.363 0.788

0.951

0.887

0.15

0.222

24.63 24.82

24.69

0.214

0.74

0.127

0.215

8.169 6.679

2.6 3.181

261.4 213.7

21.24 8.22

180.9

0.0335 177.5

25.1 25.59

0.977

0.887

0.152

0.222

2.219 2.994

3.694 0.371

25.72 27.31

30.04 33.83

41.28 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL

Assuming Lognormal Distribution

95% H-UCL 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL

95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL

Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Lognormal Statistics

Minimum of Logged Data Mean of logged Data

Maximum of Logged Data SD of logged Data

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test

5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50)

Lognormal GOF Test

Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test

Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)

Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value

Assuming Gamma Distribution




5% K-S Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Gamma Statistics


A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test

5% A-D Critical Value Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

K-S Test Statistic Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test

95% Student's-t UCL 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)

95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)

Gamma GOF Test

5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level

Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution

95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)


5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level


SD Std. Error of Mean

Coefficient of Variation Skewness

Normal GOF Test

Number of Missing Observations

Minimum Mean

Maximum Median

General Statistics





UCL Statistics for Lead in Surficial Soil 15‐200‐6 Mooney's Bay, Ottawa, ON

24.42 24.63

24.33 25.16

25.67 24.41

24.82

27.03 29.65

33.29 40.44

24.63

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and Iaci (2002)

and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets.

For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.


95% Student's-t UCL


95% BCA Bootstrap UCL

90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL

Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs

95% CLT UCL 95% Jackknife UCL

95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap-t UCL

95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL


Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level


UCL Statistics for Lead in All Soil (Surface and Subsurface) 15‐200‐6 Mooney's Bay, Ottawa, ON

36 35

0

9.2 45.68

450 27.6

73.69 12.28

1.613 5.006

0.43

0.935

0.31

0.148

66.43 76.83

68.14

2.01

0.77

0.198

0.15

1.294 1.205

35.3 37.92

93.17 86.74

45.68 41.62

66.27

0.0428 65.46

59.79 60.54

0.93

0.935

0.131

0.148

2.219 3.388

6.109 0.799

54.64 58.15

66.25 77.48

99.55



Assuming Lognormal Distribution

95% H-UCL 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL

95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL

99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL

Lognormal Statistics

Minimum of Logged Data Mean of logged Data

Maximum of Logged Data SD of logged Data

Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test

5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Lognormal GOF Test

Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value

Assuming Gamma Distribution

95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50)



Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)

Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Gamma Statistics



5% A-D Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

K-S Test Statistic Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test

5% K-S Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)

Gamma GOF Test

A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test

Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution

95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)

95% Student's-t UCL 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level


5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Coefficient of Variation Skewness

Normal GOF Test


Minimum Mean

Maximum Median

SD Std. Error of Mean

General Statistics


Number of Missing Observations


UCL Statistics for Lead in All Soil (Surface and Subsurface) 15‐200‐6 Mooney's Bay, Ottawa, ON

65.88 66.43

65.67 103.9

141.5 67.56

80.47

82.53 99.22

122.4 167.9

99.22

For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL


These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and Iaci (2002)

and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets.

90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL


95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap-t UCL

95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL

95% BCA Bootstrap UCL


Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level

Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs

95% CLT UCL 95% Jackknife UCL


Appendix D

Input and Output Data Sheets – Health Canada PQRA Spreadsheet Model

Appendix D.1

Park Visitors/Users

- B(a)P TPE by Health Canada

- B(a)P TPE by MOECC

HEALTH CANADA PQRA SPREADSHEETUSER INPUT SHEET

User Name: Site:Proponent: File #:Date: Comment:

PROBLEM FORMULATION

Potential Land Uses (Yes/No) Default Operative Pathways (Yes/No) DefaultAgricultural No Yes Inadvertent ingestion of soil Yes YesResidential/urban parkland No Yes Inhalation of fugitive dust Yes YesCommercial with daycare No Yes Inhalation of indoor contaminant vapours No YesCommercial without daycare No Yes Inhalation of outdoor contaminant vapours No YesIndustrial No Yes Ingestion of drinking water No YesIndustrial - outdoors No Yes Dermal contact with soil Yes YesUrban recreational Yes Yes Dermal contact with water No YesRemote wild lands No Yes Ingestion of contaminated food No NoConstruction/utility work No YesOther No Vapour Transport Modelling

specify: Vapour source for exposure calculations Most Conservative

Exposure Scenario Urban Recreational Active Critical Receptors (Yes/No) DefaultInfant Yes YesToddler Yes Yes

Receptor Groups (Yes/No) Default Child Yes YesGeneral public or residents Yes Yes Teen Yes YesEmployees No Yes Adult Yes YesCanadian native communities No No Construction/Utility Worker No NoOther No No Other No No

specify: specify:

Contaminant ConcentrationsChemical Name required HC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPCSoil (mg/kg) required 0.83 0.23Groundwater - source (mg/L) optionalDrinking water (mg/L) optionalBathing/swimming water (mg/L) optionalIndoor air - vapours (mg/m3) optionalOutdoor air - vapours (mg/m3) optionalOutdoor air - particulate (mg/m3) optionalRoot vegetables (mg/kg wet weight) optionalOther vegetables (mg/kg wet weight) optionalFish (mg/kg wet weight) optionalWild game (mg/kg wet weight) optional

Risk Assessment Endpoints DefaultAcceptable hazard index: 0.2 0.2Acceptable cancer risk: 1.00E-05 1.00E-05Evaluate Early Lifestage Cancer Risks? Yes No

Precluding Conditions for Fate and Transport ModelsAre non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) present? NoIs groundwater contamination present in fractured bedrock? NoIs groundwater contamination migrating through a confined aquifer? NoIs there active pumping or drawdown of groundwater at the site? NoIs contamination present within 1 m of building foundation? NoDo any buildings within 5 m of contamination have earthen foundations? NoAre any buildings constructed on very high permeability media? NoAre there preferential vapour flow pathways connecting contamination to a building? No

Ken RavenGeofirma Engineering Ltd. / City of Ottawa

Mooney's Bay Park15-200-6

05-May-16

Urban Recreational

Park Visitor/User

FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL INPUT

Value Default Models Affected

Soil Type coarse-grained coarse-grained PS, V-I, V-O, GWSignificant vehicle traffic on unpaved roads? No No P-O

Site CharacteristicsDepth to Groundwater (m) 3 GW, V-ODepth from Surface to Contamination (m) 0 GW, V-ODistance - Contaminated Soil to Building (m) 1 V-IDistance - Contaminated GW to Building (m) 1 V-IDistance to potable water user (m) 0 GWDistance to Bathing/Swimming Water (m) 0 GWParticulate Concentration in Air (ug/m3) 0.76 P-OApply biodegradation during GW transport? No GW

Building Type Residential V-I

OPTIONAL SECTIONS

User-defined ChemicalsNOTE: user-defined chemicals should be named in this section before being selected in the 'Contaminant Concentrations' table above

Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3Name HC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPCCAS NumberChemical class (organic/inorganic)Tolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - infantTolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - toddlerTolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - childTolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - teenTolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - adultTolerable concentration (mg/m3)Oral slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1 2.3 2.3Dermal slope factor (µg/cm2/d)-1

Inhalation slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1

Inhalation unit risk (mg/m3)-1

Relative dermal absorption factor 0.148 0.148Relative retention factor from soilViable epidermal thickness factorTest animal skin area (cm2)Organic carbon partitioning coefficient (mL/g) - KocLog Kow (unitless)Henry's Law constant at 25oC (unitless) - H'Henry's Law constant at 25oC (atm-m3/mol) - HWater Solubility at 25oC (mg/L)Molecular Weight (g/mol)Vapour Pressure at 25oC (atm)

NOTE: values in grayed cells will not be used; Health Canada default values are applied.

User-defined Receptor User-defined Land-Use / Exposure ScenarioName Defaults Scenario name User-Defined DefaultsAge group Toddler Hours per day at site 24Lifestage duration (y) 4.5 Hours per day (outdoors)Body weight (kg) 16.5 Days per week 7Soil ingestion rate (g/d) 0.08 Weeks per year 52Inhalation rate (m3/d) 8.3 Dermal exposure events/day 1Water ingestion rate (L/d) 0.6 Water contact events per day 1Time spent outdoors (h/d) 1.5 Duration of water contact event (h) 1Skin surface area (cm2) Days/year contaminated food ingestion 365 - hands 430 Exposure duration (years) 60 - arms 890 Years for carcinogen amortization 60 - legs 1690 - total 6130Soil loading to exposed skin (g/cm2/event) - hands 0.0001 - surfaces other than hands 0.00001Soil monolayer loading rate (mg/cm2) 5Food ingestion (g/d) - root vegetables 105 - other vegetables 67 - fish 56 - wild game 0

Enter all applicable and appropriate toxicity benchmarks; values must be referenced and justified in the PQRA report.

SUMMARY OF PQRA RESULTS Version: July 13, 2011

User Name: Ken Raven Site: Mooney's Bay ParkProponent: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. / City of Ottawa File #: 15-200-6Date: 05-May-16 Comment: Park Visitor/User

Maximum Hazard/Risk EstimatesHC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPC

Hazard Quotient - Oral/Dermal NA NA NA NA NA NAHazard Quotient - Inhalation NA NA NA NA NA NAHazard Index - Total NA NA NA NA NA NATarget Hazard Index: 0.2

Cancer Risk - Oral 1.00E-07 2.77E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Dermal 9.87E-08 2.73E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Oral + Dermal 1.77E-07 4.89E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Inhalation 4.09E-12 1.13E-12 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total 1.77E-07 4.89E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total Lifetime 3.58E-07 9.91E-08 NA NA NA NATarget Cancer Risk: 1.00E-05

Critical ReceptorsHC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPC

Oral/Dermal - non-cancer effects NA NA NA NA NA NAInhalation - non-cancer effects NA NA NA NA NA NATotal - non-cancer effects NA NA NA NA NA NA

Oral - cancer effects Toddler Toddler NA NA NA NADermal - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NAOral + Dermal - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NAInhalation - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NATotal - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NA

Source of indoor air vapours NA NA NA NA NA NAModel used for vapour transport NA NA NA NA NA NA

Key Calculated Model ParametersVapour Intrusion Model Parameters NOTE: parameters show as "NA" if relevant exposure pathways are inoperative or if user-input concentration is used instead of modelled valueQsoil/Qbuilding NA NA NA NA NA NASoil alpha NA NA NA NA NA NAGroundwater alpha NA NA NA NA NA NAGroundwater model dilution factorsDF1 (soil → leachate) NA NA NA NA NA NADF2 (leachate at source → water table): NA NA NA NA NA NADF3 (leachate at water table → groundwater): NA NA NA NA NA NADF4 (source to receptor) → drinking water: NA NA NA NA NA NADF4 (source to receptor) → bathing/swimming water: NA NA NA NA NA NA

NOTES/COMMENTS

Vapour Intrusion Model

Chemical InteractionsAll chemicals of concern present at the site should be evaluated for potential additive effects based on target organs and mechanisms of effect.

Concentration Checks

Precluding Conditions

Other Notes

Early lifestage cancer assessment is operative; ensure age-specific adjustment factors are correct for all evaluated carcinogens on Chemicals tab and documented in report

HEALTH CANADA PQRA SPREADSHEET Version: July 13, 2011OUTPUT SHEET : Adult


Exposure Scenario: Urban Recreational Exposure Duration (y): 60Native population not considered

Chemical Properties Units HC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPCTolerable daily intake mg/kg/d NA NA NA NA NA NATolerable concentration mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOral slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1 2.3 2.3 NA NA NA NAInhalation slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1 2.3 2.3 NA NA NA NAInhalation unit risk (mg/m3)-1 NA NA NA NA NA NADermal slope factor (µg/cm2/d)-1 NA NA NA NA NA NACritical oral exposure benchmark oral slope factor oral slope factor NA NA NA NACritical inhalation exposure benchmark inhalation slope factor inhalation slope factor NA NA NA NACritical dermal exposure benchmark oral slope factor oral slope factor NA NA NA NARelative dermal absorption factor unitless 0.148 0.148 1 1 1 1Relative soil retention factor unitless NA NA NA NA NA NAViable epidermal thickness factor unitless NA NA NA NA NA NATest animal skin area cm-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

oral SF used for inhalation oral SF used for inhalationChemical Concentrations Units HC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPCSoil mg/kg 8.30E-01 2.30E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Drinking water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NABathing/swimming water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NAIndoor air vapours mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOutdoor air vapours mg/m3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Outdoor air particulate mg/m3 6.31E-10 1.75E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Amortized total air concentration mg/m3 1.01E-11 2.80E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Root vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedOther vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedFish mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedWild game mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated

RESULTS

Exposure (mg/kg/d unless otherwise notedHC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPC

Inadvertent ingestion of contaminated soil 3.39E-08 9.38E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Inhalation of fugitive dust 1.78E-12 4.93E-13 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Inhalation of contaminant vapours - indoor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Inhalation of contaminant vapours - outdoor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Ingestion of contaminated drinking water 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Dermal contact with contaminated soil 4.29E-08 1.19E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Dermal contact with contaminated soil (µg/cm2/d) not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculatedDermal contact with contaminated water 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Dermal contact with contaminated water (µg/cm2/d) not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculatedIngestion of contaminated food 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Total ingestion exposure 3.39E-08 9.38E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Total dermal exposure 4.29E-08 1.19E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Total dermal exposure (µg/cm2/d) not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculatedIngestion + dermal exposure 7.68E-08 2.13E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Total inhalation exposure 1.78E-12 4.93E-13 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Total Exposure (sum of all pathways) 7.68E-08 2.13E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Hazard/Risk EstimatesHC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPC


Cancer Risk - Oral 7.79E-08 2.16E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Dermal 9.87E-08 2.73E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Oral + Dermal 1.77E-07 4.89E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Inhalation 4.09E-12 1.13E-12 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total 1.77E-07 4.89E-08 NA NA NA NATarget Cancer Risk: 1.00E-05



PROBLEM FORMULATION

Potential Land Uses (Yes/No) Default Operative Pathways (Yes/No) DefaultAgricultural No Yes Inadvertent ingestion of soil Yes YesResidential/urban parkland No Yes Inhalation of fugitive dust Yes YesCommercial with daycare No Yes Inhalation of indoor contaminant vapours No YesCommercial without daycare No Yes Inhalation of outdoor contaminant vapours No YesIndustrial No Yes Ingestion of drinking water No YesIndustrial - outdoors No Yes Dermal contact with soil Yes YesUrban recreational Yes Yes Dermal contact with water No YesRemote wild lands No Yes Ingestion of contaminated food No NoConstruction/utility work No YesOther No Vapour Transport Modelling


Exposure Scenario Urban Recreational Active Critical Receptors (Yes/No) DefaultInfant Yes YesToddler Yes Yes

Receptor Groups (Yes/No) Default Child Yes YesGeneral public or residents Yes Yes Teen Yes YesEmployees No Yes Adult Yes YesCanadian native communities No No Construction/Utility Worker No NoOther No No Other No No

specify: specify:

Contaminant ConcentrationsChemical Name required MOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPCSoil (mg/kg) required 0.83 0.23Groundwater - source (mg/L) optionalDrinking water (mg/L) optionalBathing/swimming water (mg/L) optionalIndoor air - vapours (mg/m3) optionalOutdoor air - vapours (mg/m3) optionalOutdoor air - particulate (mg/m3) optionalRoot vegetables (mg/kg wet weight) optionalOther vegetables (mg/kg wet weight) optionalFish (mg/kg wet weight) optionalWild game (mg/kg wet weight) optional

Risk Assessment Endpoints DefaultAcceptable hazard index: 0.2 0.2Acceptable cancer risk: 1.00E-06 1.00E-05Evaluate Early Lifestage Cancer Risks? Yes No




05-May-16

Urban Recreational

Park Visitor/User

OPTIONAL SECTIONS


Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3Name MOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPCCAS NumberChemical class (organic/inorganic)Tolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - infantTolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - toddlerTolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - childTolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - teenTolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - adultTolerable concentration (mg/m3)Oral slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1 7.3 7.3Dermal slope factor (µg/cm2/d)-1









Maximum Hazard/Risk EstimatesMOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPC


Cancer Risk - Oral 3.18E-07 8.81E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Dermal 2.75E-07 7.62E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Oral + Dermal 5.22E-07 1.45E-07 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Inhalation 1.30E-11 3.60E-12 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total 5.22E-07 1.45E-07 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total Lifetime 1.08E-06 2.99E-07 NA NA NA NATarget Cancer Risk: 1.00E-06 Target Cancer Risk Exceeded

Critical ReceptorsMOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPC


Oral - cancer effects Toddler Toddler NA NA NA NADermal - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NAOral + Dermal - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NAInhalation - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NATotal - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NA



NOTES/COMMENTS





Other Notes

Early lifestage cancer assessment is operative; ensure age-specific adjustment factors are correct for all evaluated carcinogens on Chemicals tab and documented in report

HEALTH CANADA PQRA SPREADSHEET Version: July 13, 2011OUTPUT SHEET : Adult


Exposure Scenario: Urban Recreational Exposure Duration (y): 60Native population not considered

Chemical Properties Units MOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPCTolerable daily intake mg/kg/d NA NA NA NA NA NATolerable concentration mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOral slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1 7.3 7.3 NA NA NA NAInhalation slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1 7.3 7.3 NA NA NA NAInhalation unit risk (mg/m3)-1 NA NA NA NA NA NADermal slope factor (µg/cm2/d)-1 NA NA NA NA NA NACritical oral exposure benchmark oral slope factor oral slope factor NA NA NA NACritical inhalation exposure benchmark inhalation slope factor inhalation slope factor NA NA NA NACritical dermal exposure benchmark oral slope factor oral slope factor NA NA NA NARelative dermal absorption factor unitless 0.13 0.13 1 1 1 1Relative soil retention factor unitless NA NA NA NA NA NAViable epidermal thickness factor unitless NA NA NA NA NA NATest animal skin area cm-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

oral SF used for inhalation oral SF used for inhalationChemical Concentrations Units MOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPCSoil mg/kg 8.30E-01 2.30E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Drinking water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NABathing/swimming water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NAIndoor air vapours mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOutdoor air vapours mg/m3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Outdoor air particulate mg/m3 6.31E-10 1.75E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Amortized total air concentration mg/m3 1.01E-11 2.80E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Root vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedOther vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedFish mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedWild game mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated

RESULTS

Exposure (mg/kg/d unless otherwise notedMOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPC




Hazard/Risk EstimatesMOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPC



Appendix D.2

Park Utility/Construction Workers

- Lead





PROBLEM FORMULATION

Potential Land Uses (Yes/No) Default Operative Pathways (Yes/No) DefaultAgricultural No Yes Inadvertent ingestion of soil Yes YesResidential/urban parkland No Yes Inhalation of fugitive dust Yes YesCommercial with daycare No Yes Inhalation of indoor contaminant vapours No YesCommercial without daycare No Yes Inhalation of outdoor contaminant vapours No YesIndustrial No Yes Ingestion of drinking water No YesIndustrial - outdoors No Yes Dermal contact with soil Yes YesUrban recreational No Yes Dermal contact with water No YesRemote wild lands No Yes Ingestion of contaminated food No NoConstruction/utility work Yes YesOther No No Vapour Transport Modelling


Exposure Scenario Construction/Utility Work Active Critical Receptors (Yes/No) DefaultInfant No NoToddler No No

Receptor Groups (Yes/No) Default Child No NoGeneral public or residents No Yes Teen No NoEmployees Yes Yes Adult No YesCanadian native communities No No Construction/Utility Worker Yes YesOther No No Other No

specify: specify:

Contaminant ConcentrationsChemical Name required MOE Lead Max MOE Lead EPCSoil (mg/kg) required 450 99.2Groundwater - source (mg/L) optionalDrinking water (mg/L) optionalBathing/swimming water (mg/L) optionalIndoor air - vapours (mg/m3) optionalOutdoor air - vapours (mg/m3) optionalOutdoor air - particulate (mg/m3) optionalRoot vegetables (mg/kg wet weight) optionalOther vegetables (mg/kg wet weight) optionalFish (mg/kg wet weight) optionalWild game (mg/kg wet weight) optional

Risk Assessment Endpoints DefaultAcceptable hazard index: 0.2 0.2Acceptable cancer risk: 1.00E-06 1.00E-05Evaluate Early Lifestage Cancer Risks? No No




05-May-16

Construction/Utility Work


OPTIONAL SECTIONS


Chemical 1 Chemical 2 Chemical 3Name MOE Lead Max MOE Lead EPCCAS NumberChemical class (organic/inorganic)Tolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - infant 0.00185 0.00185Tolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - toddler 0.00185 0.00185Tolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - child 0.00185 0.00185Tolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - teen 0.00185 0.00185Tolerable daily intake (mg/kg/d) - adult 0.00185 0.00185Tolerable concentration (mg/m3)Oral slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1

Dermal slope factor (µg/cm2/d)-1







HEALTH CANADA PQRA SPREADSHEET Version: July 13, 2011OUTPUT SHEET : Construction Worker

User Name: Ken Raven Site: Mooney's Bay ParkProponent: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. / City of Ottawa File #: 15-200-6Date: 05-May-16 Comment: Park Utility/Construction Worker

Exposure Scenario: Construction/Utility Work Exposure Duration (y): 35Native population not considered

Chemical Properties Units MOE Lead Max MOE Lead EPCTolerable daily intake mg/kg/d 0.00185 0.00185 NA NA NA NATolerable concentration mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOral slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1 NA NA NA NA NA NAInhalation slope factor (mg/kg/d)-1 NA NA NA NA NA NAInhalation unit risk (mg/m3)-1 NA NA NA NA NA NADermal slope factor (µg/cm2/d)-1 NA NA NA NA NA NACritical oral exposure benchmark TDI TDI NA NA NA NACritical inhalation exposure benchmark NA NA NA NA NA NACritical dermal exposure benchmark TDI TDI NA NA NA NARelative dermal absorption factor unitless 0.006 0.006 1 1 1 1Relative soil retention factor unitless NA NA NA NA NA NAViable epidermal thickness factor unitless NA NA NA NA NA NATest animal skin area cm-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Chemical Concentrations Units MOE Lead Max MOE Lead EPCSoil mg/kg 4.50E+02 9.92E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Drinking water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NABathing/swimming water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NAIndoor air vapours mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOutdoor air vapours mg/m3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Outdoor air particulate mg/m3 3.42E-07 7.54E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Amortized total air concentration mg/m3 2.54E-08 5.61E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Root vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedOther vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedFish mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedWild game mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated

RESULTS

Exposure (mg/kg/d unless otherwise noted)MOE Lead Max MOE Lead EPC




Hazard/Risk EstimatesMOE Lead Max MOE Lead EPC

Hazard Quotient - Oral/Dermal 6.77E-02 1.49E-02 NA NA NA NAHazard Quotient - Inhalation 6.54E-06 1.44E-06 NA NA NA NAHazard Index - Total 6.78E-02 1.49E-02 NA NA NA NATarget Hazard Index: 0.2

Cancer Risk - Oral NA NA NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Dermal NA NA NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Oral + Dermal NA NA NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Inhalation NA NA NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total NA NA NA NA NA NATarget Cancer Risk: 1.00E-06



PROBLEM FORMULATION





specify: specify:






05-May-16



OPTIONAL SECTIONS













oral SF used for inhalation oral SF used for inhalationChemical Concentrations Units HC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPCSoil mg/kg 3.04E+00 1.04E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Drinking water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NABathing/swimming water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NAIndoor air vapours mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOutdoor air vapours mg/m3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Outdoor air particulate mg/m3 2.31E-09 7.90E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Amortized total air concentration mg/m3 1.72E-10 5.88E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Root vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedOther vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedFish mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedWild game mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated

RESULTS

Exposure (mg/kg/d unless otherwise noted)HC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPC









PROBLEM FORMULATION





specify: specify:






05-May-16



OPTIONAL SECTIONS













oral SF used for inhalation oral SF used for inhalationChemical Concentrations Units MOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPCSoil mg/kg 3.04E+00 1.04E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Drinking water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NABathing/swimming water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NAIndoor air vapours mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOutdoor air vapours mg/m3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Outdoor air particulate mg/m3 2.31E-09 7.90E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Amortized total air concentration mg/m3 1.72E-10 5.88E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Root vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedOther vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedFish mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedWild game mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated

RESULTS

Exposure (mg/kg/d unless otherwise noted)MOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPC






Cancer Risk - Oral 2.45E-06 8.39E-07 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Dermal 5.46E-06 1.87E-06 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Oral + Dermal 7.91E-06 2.71E-06 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Inhalation 2.61E-10 8.93E-11 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total 7.91E-06 2.71E-06 NA NA NA NATarget Cancer Risk: 1.00E-06 Target Cancer Risk Exceeded Target Cancer Risk Exceeded

Appendix D.3

Park Maintenance Workers





PROBLEM FORMULATION

Potential Land Uses (Yes/No) Default Operative Pathways (Yes/No) DefaultAgricultural No Yes Inadvertent ingestion of soil Yes YesResidential/urban parkland No Yes Inhalation of fugitive dust Yes YesCommercial with daycare No Yes Inhalation of indoor contaminant vapours No YesCommercial without daycare No Yes Inhalation of outdoor contaminant vapours No YesIndustrial No Yes Ingestion of drinking water No YesIndustrial - outdoors No Yes Dermal contact with soil Yes YesUrban recreational Yes Yes Dermal contact with water No YesRemote wild lands No Yes Ingestion of contaminated food No NoConstruction/utility work Yes YesOther Yes No Vapour Transport Modelling


Exposure Scenario Park Maintenance Worker Active Critical Receptors (Yes/No) DefaultInfant Yes YesToddler Yes Yes

Receptor Groups (Yes/No) Default Child Yes YesGeneral public or residents Yes Yes Teen Yes YesEmployees Yes Yes Adult Yes YesCanadian native communities No No Construction/Utility Worker Yes NoOther No No Other Yes Yes

specify: specify:







05-May-16






Soil Type coarse-grained PS, V-I, V-O, GWSignificant vehicle traffic on unpaved roads? No P-O



OPTIONAL SECTIONS







User-defined Receptor User-defined Land-Use / Exposure ScenarioName Park Maintenance Defaults Scenario name Park Maintenance Worke DefaultsAge group Adult Toddler Hours per day at site 8 24Lifestage duration (y) 60 60 Hours per day (outdoors) 8Body weight (kg) 70.7 70.7 Days per week 1 7Soil ingestion rate (g/d) 0.1 0.02 Weeks per year 35 52Inhalation rate (m3/d) 16.6 16.6 Dermal exposure events/day 1 1Water ingestion rate (L/d) 1.5 Water contact events per day 0 1Time spent outdoors (h/d) 1.5 Duration of water contact event (h) 0 1Skin surface area (cm2) Days/year contaminated food ingestion 0 365 - hands 890 890 Exposure duration (years) 35 60 - arms 2500 2500 Years for carcinogen amortization 80 60 - legs 0 5720 - total 3390 17640Soil loading to exposed skin (g/cm2/event) - hands 1.00E-03 0.0001 - surfaces other than hands 1.00E-04 0.00001Soil monolayer loading rate (mg/cm2) 5.00E+00 5Food ingestion (g/d) - root vegetables 0 188 - other vegetables 0 137 - fish 0 111 - wild game 0 0



User Name: Ken Raven Site: Mooney's Bay ParkProponent: Geofirma Engineering Ltd. / City of Ottawa File #: 15-200-6Date: 05-May-16 Comment: Park Maintenance Worker

Maximum Hazard/Risk EstimatesHC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPC


Cancer Risk - Oral 1.14E-07 3.15E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Dermal 1.92E-07 5.31E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Oral + Dermal 3.05E-07 8.46E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Inhalation 4.78E-12 1.32E-12 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total 3.05E-07 8.46E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total Lifetime NA NA NA NA NA NATarget Cancer Risk: 1.00E-05 Target Cancer Risk Exceeded Target Cancer Risk Exceeded

Critical ReceptorsHC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPC


Oral - cancer effects User-Defined Receptor User-Defined Receptor NA NA NA NADermal - cancer effects User-Defined Receptor User-Defined Receptor NA NA NA NAOral + Dermal - cancer effects User-Defined Receptor User-Defined Receptor NA NA NA NAInhalation - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NATotal - cancer effects User-Defined Receptor User-Defined Receptor NA NA NA NA



NOTES/COMMENTS





Other Notes

HEALTH CANADA PQRA SPREADSHEET Version: July 13, 2011OUTPUT SHEET - Park Maintenance Worker Adult


User-Defined Receptor Characteristics Skin surface area (cm2) - hands: 890Exposure Scenario: Park MaintenancBody weight (kg): 70.7 - arms: 2500 Food ingestion rates (g/d)Native population not considered Soil ingestion rate (g/d): 0.1 - legs: 0 Root vegetables: 0Lifestage for Cancer Risks Adult Inhalation rate (m3/d): 16.6 - total: 3390 Other vegetables: 0Exposure Duration (y): 35 Water ingestion rate (L/d): 1.5 Soil loading (g/cm2-event) - hands: 0.001 Fish: 0

- other: 0.0001 Wild game: 0


oral SF used for inhalation oral SF used for inhalationChemical Concentrations Units HC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPCSoil mg/kg 8.30E-01 2.30E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Drinking water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NABathing/swimming water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NAIndoor air vapours mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOutdoor air vapours mg/m3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Outdoor air particulate mg/m3 6.31E-10 1.75E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Amortized total air concentration mg/m3 2.02E-11 5.60E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Root vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedOther vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedFish mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedWild game mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated

RESULTS

Exposure (mg/kg/d unless otherwise noted)HC B[a]P TPE Max HC B[a]P TPE EPC

Inadvertent ingestion of contaminated soil 4.94E-08 1.37E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Inhalation of fugitive dust 2.08E-12 5.76E-13 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Inhalation of contaminant vapours - indoor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Inhalation of contaminant vapours - outdoor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Ingestion of contaminated drinking water 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Dermal contact with contaminated soil 8.33E-08 2.31E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Dermal contact with contaminated soil ( µg/cm2/d) not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculatedDermal contact with contaminated water 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Dermal contact with contaminated water ( µg/cm2/d) not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculatedIngestion of contaminated food 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00








PROBLEM FORMULATION

Potential Land Uses (Yes/No) Default Operative Pathways (Yes/No) DefaultAgricultural No Yes Inadvertent ingestion of soil Yes YesResidential/urban parkland No Yes Inhalation of fugitive dust Yes YesCommercial with daycare No Yes Inhalation of indoor contaminant vapours No YesCommercial without daycare No Yes Inhalation of outdoor contaminant vapours No YesIndustrial No Yes Ingestion of drinking water No YesIndustrial - outdoors No Yes Dermal contact with soil Yes YesUrban recreational Yes Yes Dermal contact with water No YesRemote wild lands No Yes Ingestion of contaminated food No NoConstruction/utility work Yes YesOther Yes No Vapour Transport Modelling


Exposure Scenario Park Maintenance Worker Active Critical Receptors (Yes/No) DefaultInfant Yes YesToddler Yes Yes

Receptor Groups (Yes/No) Default Child Yes YesGeneral public or residents Yes Yes Teen Yes YesEmployees Yes Yes Adult YesCanadian native communities No No Construction/Utility Worker Yes NoOther No No Other Yes Yes

specify: specify:







05-May-16






Soil Type coarse-grained PS, V-I, V-O, GWSignificant vehicle traffic on unpaved roads? No P-O



OPTIONAL SECTIONS







User-defined Receptor User-defined Land-Use / Exposure ScenarioName Park Maintenance Defaults Scenario name Park Maintenance Worke DefaultsAge group Adult Toddler Hours per day at site 8 24Lifestage duration (y) 60 60 Hours per day (outdoors) 8Body weight (kg) 70.7 70.7 Days per week 1 7Soil ingestion rate (g/d) 0.1 0.02 Weeks per year 35 52Inhalation rate (m3/d) 16.6 16.6 Dermal exposure events/day 1 1Water ingestion rate (L/d) 1.5 Water contact events per day 0 1Time spent outdoors (h/d) 1.5 Duration of water contact event (h) 0 1Skin surface area (cm2) Days/year contaminated food ingestion 0 365 - hands 890 890 Exposure duration (years) 35 60 - arms 2500 2500 Years for carcinogen amortization 80 60 - legs 0 5720 - total 3390 17640Soil loading to exposed skin (g/cm2/event) - hands 1.00E-03 0.0001 - surfaces other than hands 1.00E-04 0.00001Soil monolayer loading rate (mg/cm2) 5.00E+00 5Food ingestion (g/d) - root vegetables 0 188 - other vegetables 0 137 - fish 0 111 - wild game 0 0




Maximum Hazard/Risk EstimatesMOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPC


Cancer Risk - Oral 3.61E-07 9.99E-08 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Dermal 5.34E-07 1.48E-07 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Oral + Dermal 8.95E-07 2.48E-07 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Inhalation 1.52E-11 4.20E-12 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total 8.95E-07 2.48E-07 NA NA NA NACancer Risk - Total Lifetime NA NA NA NA NA NATarget Cancer Risk: 1.00E-06 Target Cancer Risk Exceeded Target Cancer Risk Exceeded

Critical ReceptorsMOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPC


Oral - cancer effects User-Defined Receptor User-Defined Receptor NA NA NA NADermal - cancer effects User-Defined Receptor User-Defined Receptor NA NA NA NAOral + Dermal - cancer effects User-Defined Receptor User-Defined Receptor NA NA NA NAInhalation - cancer effects Adult Adult NA NA NA NATotal - cancer effects User-Defined Receptor User-Defined Receptor NA NA NA NA



NOTES/COMMENTS





Other Notes

HEALTH CANADA PQRA SPREADSHEET Version: July 13, 2011OUTPUT SHEET - Park Maintenance Worker Adult


User-Defined Receptor Characteristics Skin surface area (cm2) - hands: 890Exposure Scenario: Park MaintenancBody weight (kg): 70.7 - arms: 2500 Food ingestion rates (g/d)Native population not considered Soil ingestion rate (g/d): 0.1 - legs: 0 Root vegetables: 0Lifestage for Cancer Risks Adult Inhalation rate (m3/d): 16.6 - total: 3390 Other vegetables: 0Exposure Duration (y): 35 Water ingestion rate (L/d): 1.5 Soil loading (g/cm2-event) - hands: 0.001 Fish: 0

- other: 0.0001 Wild game: 0


oral SF used for inhalation oral SF used for inhalationChemical Concentrations Units MOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPCSoil mg/kg 8.30E-01 2.30E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Drinking water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NABathing/swimming water mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NAIndoor air vapours mg/m3 NA NA NA NA NA NAOutdoor air vapours mg/m3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Outdoor air particulate mg/m3 6.31E-10 1.75E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Amortized total air concentration mg/m3 2.02E-11 5.60E-12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Root vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedOther vegetables mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedFish mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluatedWild game mg/kg wet wt not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated

RESULTS

Exposure (mg/kg/d unless otherwise noted)MOE B[a]P TPE Max MOE B[a]P TPE EPC

Inadvertent ingestion of contaminated soil 4.94E-08 1.37E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Inhalation of fugitive dust 2.08E-12 5.76E-13 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Inhalation of contaminant vapours - indoor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Inhalation of contaminant vapours - outdoor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Ingestion of contaminated drinking water 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Dermal contact with contaminated soil 7.32E-08 2.03E-08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Dermal contact with contaminated soil ( µg/cm2/d) not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculatedDermal contact with contaminated water 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Dermal contact with contaminated water ( µg/cm2/d) not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculatedIngestion of contaminated food 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00






Preliminary Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of Preliminary Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment...