PROBLEM FORMULATION SUMMARY FOR …webottawa/documents/pdf/mdaw/mdkz/...6.2 Special Considerations for Ground Water Standards ... engineerwill support the development of a risk management

PROBLEM FORMULATION SUMMARY FOR LANSDOWNE PARK & SYLVIA HOLDEN

COMMEMORATIVE PARK ST. CATHARINES, ONTARIO

Submitted to:

Director Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

Ontario Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A

Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5

Submitted by:

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure A Division of AMEC Americas Limited

300-210 Colonnade Road South Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7L5

On Behalf of:

City of Ottawa Realty Services

110 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1

SEPTEMBER, 2011

TZ10100102.3000

��

City of Ottawa Problem Formulation Lansdowne Park, Ottawa, Ontario September 2011

TZ10100102.3000 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0� SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS/FINDINGS .......................................................... 4�

1.1� Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4�

1.2� Risk Assessment Objectives and Approach .......................................................... 4�

1.3� Deviations from Pre-submission Form ................................................................... 4�

1.4� Risk Assessment Standards ................................................................................... 4�

1.5� Risk Assessment Assumptions .............................................................................. 4�

1.6� Risk Management Requirements ........................................................................... 4�

2.0� RISK ASSESSMENT TEAM MEMBERSHIP .................................................................... 5�

3.0� PROPERTY INFORMATION, SITE PLAN AND GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION .... 6�

3.1� Property Information ............................................................................................... 6�

3.2� Overview of Previous Investigations ...................................................................... 6�

3.3� Site Plan and Hydrogeological Interpretation of RA Property ................................ 6�3.3.1� Stratigraphy ............................................................................................ 6�3.3.2� Hydrogeology ......................................................................................... 6�

3.4� Contaminants of Concern (COC) ........................................................................... 6�

3.5� Sampling Programs .............................................................................................. 15�

4.0� HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 16�

4.1� Problem Formulation ............................................................................................ 16�4.1.1� Human Health Conceptual Site Model ................................................ 16�4.1.2� Further Screening of COCs With Respect to Human Health .............. 18�4.1.3� Risk Assessment Objectives ............................................................... 22�4.1.4� Data Quality .......................................................................................... 23�

4.2� Exposure Assessment .......................................................................................... 23�

4.3� Toxicity Assessment ............................................................................................. 23�

4.4� Risk Characterization ............................................................................................ 23�

5.0� ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 24�

5.1� Problem Formulation ............................................................................................ 24�5.1.1� Ecological Conceptual Site Model ....................................................... 24�5.1.2� Further Screening of COCs With Respect to Ecological Health ......... 26�5.1.3� Risk Assessment Objectives ............................................................... 31�5.1.4� Data Quality .......................................................................................... 31�

5.2� Receptor Characterization .................................................................................... 31�

5.3� Exposure Assessment .......................................................................................... 32�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


TG101125 Page ii

5.4� Hazard Assessment .............................................................................................. 32�

5.5� Risk Characterization ............................................................................................ 32�

6.0� CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 33�

6.1� Recommended Standards .................................................................................... 33�

6.2� Special Considerations for Ground Water Standards .......................................... 33�

7.0� RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................................... 33�

8.0� PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PLAN ................................................................................. 33�

9.0� CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................... 34�

10.0� REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 35�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


TG101125 Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont) PAGE

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Risk Assessment Team ............................................................................................... 5�

Table 3-1. Chemicals of Concern Identified in Soil ....................................................................... 8�

Table 3-2. Chemicals of Concern Identified in Ground Water .................................................... 12�

Table 4-1. Human Health Chemical Screening of Soil COCs .................................................... 19�

Table 4-2. Human Health Chemical Screening of Ground Water COCs .................................... 21�

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Human Health Conceptual Site Model Without Risk Management Figure 2 - Human Health Conceptual Site Model With Risk Management Figure 3 - Ecological Conceptual Site Model Without Risk Management Figure 4 - Ecological Conceptual Site Model With Risk Management

LIST OF APPENDICES

��

��

��

��

��


TG101125 Page 4

1.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS/FINDINGS

1.1 Introduction

AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited (‘AMEC’), was retained by the City of Ottawa (the ‘City’) to prepare a Risk Assessment (RA) in support of the redevelopment plan for Lansdowne Park and Sylvia Holden Commemorative Park. The risk assessment will be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions and mandatory requirements of Schedule C – Risk Assessment of Ontario Regulation 153/04 (‘O.Reg. 153/04’), Records of Site Condition (‘RSC’) as amended by Ontario Regulation 511/09 (‘O.Reg. 511/09’). The following Problem Formulation has been developed in advance of the risk assessment report to identify the proposed approach for the human health risk assessment (HHRA) and the ecological risk assessment (ERA).

1.2 Risk Assessment Objectives and Approach

**To be completed in further submissions**

1.3 Deviations from Pre-submission Form


1.4 Risk Assessment Standards


1.5 Risk Assessment Assumptions


1.6 Risk Management Requirements



TG101125 Page 5

2.0 RISK ASSESSMENT TEAM MEMBERSHIP

The risk assessment is being prepared by AMEC staff. The AMEC team has extensive resources and experience in the areas of human and ecological toxicology, hydrogeology and engineering, which are all required in the completion of risk assessment and the implementation of remedial actions or risk management measures or controls. A list of the project team members and their disciplines/roles is presented in Table 2-1. The risk assessment is being prepared under the overall direction of Mr. Stuart Bailey, a Qualified Person for risk assessment (‘QPRA’’) as defined under Section 6 of O.Reg 153/04 as amended by O.Reg. 511/09. Ms. Patricia Videla and Ms. Cindy Smithwill be conducting the human health and ecological risk assessment portions of the report. Mr. Stephen Hodgsonand Mr. Kevin Hicks will provide the hydrogeologic interpretation at the Site. Steven Gable, a professional engineerwill support the development of a risk management plan. The project is being managed by Mr. Kevin Hicks, who is also the QPESA.

Table 2-1. Risk Assessment Team Team Member Discipline / Role

Stuart Bailey, PhD (QPRA) HumanHealth and Ecological Risk Assessment/ Toxicology

Patricia Videla

Cindy Smith

Stephen Hodgson Hydrogeology

Steven Gable Environmental Engineering/ Risk Management

Kevin Hicks(QPESA) Hydrogeology and Project Manager

Per Section 6.1 of O. Reg. 153/04, the QPRA does not have a conflict of interest with the Site as neither she nor her employer holds a direct or indirect interest in the property. ��


TG101125 Page 6

3.0 PROPERTY INFORMATION, SITE PLAN AND GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

3.1 Property Information


3.2 Overview of Previous Investigations

**To be completed in further submissions** 3.3 Site Plan and Hydrogeological Interpretation of RA Property


3.3.1 Stratigraphy


3.3.2 Hydrogeology


3.4 Contaminants of Concern (COC)

3.4.1.1 Identification of Contaminants of Concern in Soil

To identify COCs in soil, the maximum concentration for each parameter was compared to the MOE (2011) Table 3 SCS (Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition) assuming parkland land use and coarse-textured soils. Since soil from other portions of the Site, outside of the RA portion of the Site will be excavated and moved to the RA portion of the Site, the maximum concentration from the entire Site (including outside of the RA portion of the Site) was used. Consistent with O. Reg. 143/04, as amended by O.Reg. 511/09, a parameter was considered a COC and given further consideration if:

• The parameter exceeded the Table 3 SCS; and

• The parameter was detected and is considered to be associated with potentially contaminating activity but there is no Table 3 SCS.

If a parameter was not detected but the method detection limit (MDL) exceeded the Table 3 SCS it was considered a COC if it has the potential to be present at concentrations greater than the Table 3 SCS.

Where a MOE Table 3 SCSwas not available, the maximum soil concentration was compared to a background concentration, as obtained from the following documents in order of preference:


TG101125 Page 7

• The MOE (2011) updated Ontario Typical Range (OTR98) soil ranges for old urban parks and rural parks, which is the 97.5th percentile of a distribution of a database of uncontaminated, background surface soils in Ontario; and

• Dragun and Chiasson (1991) soil ranges for elements in North American Soils.

Based upon this information, the COCs in soil identified for the Site based on a comparison to Table 3 SCS are summarized in Table 3-1.

��The proponent needs to provide a fulsome rationale to support the use of this reference in the COC selection.


TG101125 Page 8

Table 3-1. Chemicals of Concern Identified in Soil

Contaminant

Maximum Measured

Concentration Units

MOE (2011) Table 3 SCS

Parkland/Non-Potable/Coarse-

Textured Soil

Retained as a COCfor

RA?1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons PHC F1 (C6-C10) <10 µg/g 55 no PHC F2 (>C10-C16) 88 µg/g 98 no PHC F3 (>C16-C34) 600 µg/g 300 yes PHC F4 (>C34) 1000 µg/g 2800 no Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene* 2.58 µg/g 7.9 no Acenaphthylene* 9.19 µg/g 0.15 yes Anthracene 10.9 µg/g 0.67 yes Benzo(a)anthracene* 21.5 µg/g 0.5 yes Benzo(a)pyrene* 22.2 µg/g 0.3 yes Benzo(b)fluoranthene* 30.3 µg/g 0.78 yes Benzo(g,h,i)perylene* 10.4 µg/g 6.6 yes Benzo(k)fluoranthene* 14.2 µg/g 0.78 yes Biphenyl-1,1 0.06 (<1) µg/g 0.31 yes Chrysene* 31 µg/g 7 yes Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene* 2.47 µg/g 0.1 yes Fluoranthene* 38.6 µg/g 0.69 yes Fluorene 4.79 µg/g 62 yes Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene* 10.4 µg/g 0.38 yes Methylnaphthalene, 1- 0.96 (<1.00) µg/g

0.99 yes Methylnaphthalene, 2- 1.0 µg/g Naphthalene 2.62 µg/g 0.6 yes Phenanthrene 25.9 µg/g 6.2 yes Pyrene* 32.2 µg/g 78 no Inorganics Antimony 17.5 µg/g 7.5 yes Arsenic 24.8 µg/g 18 yes Barium 452 µg/g 390 yes Beryllium 1.0 µg/g 4 no Boron (available) 2.2 µg/g 1.5 yes Boron 11.4 µg/g 120 no Cadmium 6.0 µg/g 1.2 yes

Calcium 53000 µg/g rganic

o 54000a no Chromium (total) 58 µg/g 160 no Chromium (VI) 3.5 µg/g 8 no Cobalt 15 µg/g 22 no Copper 424 µg/g 140 yes Cyanide <0.03 µg/g 0.051 no


TG101125 Page 9

Contaminant

Maximum Measured

Concentration Units



Textured Soil


RA?1 Lead 1600 µg/g 120 yes

Magnesium 6400 µg/g 15000 to 19000a no

Mercury 1.0 µg/g 0.27 yes Molybdenum 10 µg/g 6.9 yes Nickel 40 µg/g 100 no Selenium 6.5 µg/g 2.4 yes Silver 2.3 (<5) µg/g 20 no Sodium 1000 µg/g 690 to 1000a no Thallium 0.4 (<1) µg/g 1 no Tin 1100 µg/g 0.1-10b yes Uranium 1 µg/g 23 no Vanadium 58 µg/g 86 no Zinc 2400 µg/g 340 yes Polychlorinated Biphenyls Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.22 µg/g 0.35 no Volatile Organic Compounds Acetone < 0.5 µg/g 16 no Benzene <0.2 µg/g 0.21 no Bromodichloromethane < 0.05 µg/g 13 no Bromoform < 0.05 µg/g 0.27 no Bromomethane < 0.05 µg/g 0.05 no Carbon Tetrachloride < 0.05 µg/g 0.05 no Chlorobenzene < 0.05 µg/g 2.4 no Chloroethane < 0.05 µg/g NV no Chloroform < 0.05 µg/g 0.05 no Chloromethane < 0.2 µg/g NV no Dibromochloromethane < 0.05 µg/g 9.4 no Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.05 µg/g 16 no 1,2-Dibromoethane < 0.05 µg/g NV no 1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 0.05 µg/g 3.4 no 1,3-Dichlorobenzene < 0.05 µg/g 4.8 no 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 0.05 µg/g 0.083 no 1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.05 µg/g 3.5 no 1,2-Dichloroethane < 0.05 µg/g 0.05 no 1,1-Dichloroethylene < 0.05 µg/g 0.05 no cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.05 µg/g 3.4 no trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene < 0.05 µg/g 0.084 no 1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.05 µg/g 0.05 no 1,3-Dichloropropene, total < 0.05 µg/g 0.05 no Ethylbenzene <0.2 µg/g 2 no


TG101125 Page 10

Contaminant

Maximum Measured

Concentration Units



Textured Soil


RA?1 Hexane < 0.05 µg/g 2.8 no Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) < 0.5 µg/g 16 no Methyl Butyl Ketone (2-Hexanone) < 2.0 µg/g NV no Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 0.5 µg/g 1.7 no Methyl tert-butyl ether < 0.05 µg/g 0.75 no Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane) < 0.05 µg/g 0.1 no Styrene <0.2 µg/g 0.7 no 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane < 0.05 µg/g 0.058 no 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 0.05 µg/g 0.05 no Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) < 0.05 µg/g 0.28 no Toluene 0.001 (<0.2) µg/g 2.3 no 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 0.05 µg/g 0.36 no 1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.05 µg/g 0.38 no 1,1,2-Trichloroethane < 0.05 µg/g 0.05 no Trichloroethylene (TCE) < 0.05 µg/g 0.061 no Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.05 µg/g 4 no 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene < 0.05 µg/g NV no Vinyl Chloride < 0.02 µg/g 0.02 no Total Xylenes 0.001 (<0.6) µg/g 3.1 no General Chemistry Conductivity 0.35 mS/cm 0.7 no Sodium Absorption Ratio 2.86 -- 5 no 1Contaminant retained as a chemical of concern to be analyzed in the RA if the maximum concentration found on-Site exceeded the MOE (2011) Table 3 SCS for residential/parkland/institutional property use with coarse-textured soil; non-potable ground water condition unless otherwise noted. NV - No Value identified for the specific parameter. * Carcinogenic PAH a 97.5th Percentile Ontario Typical Range for Soil Concentrations in Old Urban Parks & Rural Parks, available in MOE (2011). MOE. 2011. Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. April 15, 2011. Prepared by: Standards Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. b From Dragun and Chiasson (1991). Elements in North American Soils.

In summary, soil COCs include the following: PHC

• PHC F3 (>C16-C34)

Inorganics • Antimony • Copper • Tin

• Arsenic • Lead • Zinc


TG101125 Page 11

• Barium • Mercury

• Boron (available) • Molybdenum

• Cadmium • Selenium

PAHs

• Anthracene

• Biphenyl-1,1

• Fluorene

• Methynaphthalene, 2-(1-)

• Naphthalene

• Phenanthrene

• Carcinogenic PAHs

3.4.1.2 Identification of Contaminants of Concern in Ground Water

To identify COCs in ground water, the maximum concentration for each parameter was compared to the MOE (2011) Table 3 SCS (Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition) assuming parkland land use and coarse-textured soils. Consistent with O. Reg. 143/04, as amended by O.Reg. 511/09, a parameter was considered a COC and given further consideration if:

• The parameter exceeded the Table 3 SCS; and

• The parameter was detected and is considered to be associated with potentially contaminating activity but there is no Table 3 SCS.

If a parameter was not detected but the method detection limit (MDL) exceeded the Table 3 SCS it was considered a COC if it has the potential to be present at concentrations greater than the Table 3 SCS.

Based upon this information, the COCs in ground water identified for the Site based on a comparison to Table 3 SCS are summarized in Table 3-2.


TG101125 Page 12

Table 3-2. Chemicals of Concern Identified in Ground Water

Contaminant

Maximum Measured

Concentration Units

MOE (2011) Applicable

Site Condition Standard

(SCS) Retained as a COC for RA?1

Petroleum Hydrocarbons PHC F1 (C6-C10) <200 µg/L 750 no PHC F2 (>C10-C16) <100 µg/L 150 no PHC F3 (>C16-C34) <500 µg/L 500 no PHC F4 (>C34) <500 µg/L 500 no Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene <0.06 µg/L 600 no Acenaphthylene <0.06 µg/L 1.8 no Anthracene 0.07 µg/L 2.4 no Benzo(a)anthracene 0.19 µg/L 4.7 no Benzo(a)pyrene 0.21 µg/L 0.81 no Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.17 µg/L 0.75 no Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.09 µg/L 0.2 no Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.05 (<0.06) µg/L 0.4 no Chrysene 0.21 µg/L 1 no Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <0.06 µg/L 0.52 no Fluoranthene 0.43 µg/L 130 no Fluorene 0.05 (<0.06) µg/L 400 no Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.12 µg/L 0.2 no Methylnaphthalene, 1-* 0.1 µg/L

1800 no

Methylnaphthalene, 2-* 0.12 µg/L no Naphthalene 0.16 µg/L 1400 no Phenanthrene 0.32 µg/L 580 no Pyrene 0.34 µg/L 68 no Inorganics Antimony 0.2 (<1) µg/L 20000 no Arsenic 1.4 (<10) µg/L 1900 no Barium 515 µg/L 29000 no Beryllium <2 µg/L 67 no Boron (available) 63 µg/L 45000 no Cadmium 0.03 (<1) µg/L 2.7 no Calcium 326 mg/L 431a no Chloride 518 mg/L 2300 no Chromium 59 µg/L 810 no Chromium (VI) 28 (<50) µg/L 140 no Cobalt 6.7 µg/L 66 no Copper 5.5 µg/L 87 no Cyanide <0.01 mg/L 66 no Lead 0.1 (<1) µg/L 25 no Magnesium 34.7 mg/L 134a no


TG101125 Page 13

Contaminant

Maximum Measured

Concentration Units




Manganese 1.01 mg/L 717a no Mercury <0.1 µg/L 0.29 no Molybdenum 10 µg/L 9200 no Nickel 9 (<10) µg/L 490 no Nitrate (as N) 5.7 mg/L 8.02b no Nitrite (as N) 0.05 (<0.1) mg/L 0.121a no Iron 20.1 mg/L 4.09a yes Potassium 13.1 mg/L 20.7a no Selenium 2.5 (<5) µg/L 63 no Silver <1 µg/L 1.5 no Sodium 326 mg/L 2300 no Sulphate 359 mg/L 1070a no Thallium <1 µg/L 510 no Uranium <5 µg/L 420 no Vanadium 12 µg/L 250 no Zinc 5 (<20) µg/L 1100 no Volatile Organic Compounds Acetone <5 µg/L 130000 no Benzene 0.5 µg/L 44 no Biphenyl, 1,1- 0.21 µg/L 1000 no Bromodichloromethane 0.80 µg/L 85000 no Bromoform <0.5 µg/L 380 no Bromomethane <0.7 µg/L 5.6 no Carbon Tetrachloride <0.5 µg/L 0.79 no Chlorobenzene (monochlorobenzene) <4 µg/L 630 no Chloroethane <1.0 µg/L NV no Chloroform 18.1 µg/L 2.4 yes Chloromethane <3 µg/L NV no Dibromochloromethane <0.5 µg/L 82000 no Dichlorodifluoromethane <1.0 µg/L 4400 no

Dibromoethane, 1,2- (Ethylene Dibromide) <1.0 µg/L 0.25

no (see rationale below)

Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- (o-DCB) <0.5 µg/L 4600 no Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- (m-DCB) <0.5 µg/L 9600 no Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (p-DCB) <0.5 µg/L 8 no Dichloroethane, 1,1- (1,1-DCA) <0.5 µg/L 320 no Dichloroethane, 1,2- (1,2-DCA) <0.5 µg/L 1.6 no Dichloroethylene, 1,1- (1,1-DCE) <0.5 µg/L 1.6 no Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2- (c-1,2-DCE) <0.5 µg/L 1.6 no Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2- (t-1,2-DCE) <1.0 µg/L 1.6 no


TG101125 Page 14

Contaminant

Maximum Measured

Concentration Units




Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) <5 µg/L 610 no Dichloropropane, 1,2- <0.5 µg/L 16 no Dichloropropene, total- 1,3- <0.5 µg/L 5.2 no Ethylbenzene <0.5 µg/L 2300 no Hexane <1.0 µg/L 51 no Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) <5 µg/L 470000 no Methyl Butyl Ketone (2-Hexanone) <10 µg/L NV no Methyl Isobutyl Ketone <5 µg/L 140000 no Methyl tert-butyl Ether <2 µg/L 190 no Naphthalene <0.7 µg/L 1400 no Styrene <0.5 µg/L 1300 no Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- <0.5 µg/L 3.4 no Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- <0.6 µg/L 3.2 no Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) <0.5 µg/L 1.6 no Toluene 3 (<0.5) µg/L 18000 no Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- <0.5 µg/L 180 no Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- (1,1,1-TCA) 0.2 (<0.5) µg/L 640 no Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- (1,1,2-TCA) <0.6 µg/L 4.7 no Trichloroethylene (TCE) <0.5 µg/L 1.6 no Trichlorofluoromethane <1.0 µg/L 2500 no Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5- <0.5 µg/L NV no Vinyl Chloride <0.5 µg/L 0.5 no Xylenes (total) <1.5 µg/L 4200 no Polychlorinated Biphenyls Polychlorinated Biphenyls <0.05 µg/L 7.8 no General Chemistry Ammonia 3.77 mg/L NV yes

1Contaminant retained as a chemical of concern to be analyzed in the RA if the maximum concentration found on-Site exceeded the MOE (2011) Table 3 SCS for residential/parkland/institutional property use with coarse-textured soil; non-potable ground water condition, unless otherwise noted.

NV- No Value identified for the specific parameter.

a Based on the 97.5th percentile concentrations for the Provincial Ground Water Monitoring Information System (PGMIS) for 2002 to 2007 available in MOE (2011). b Based on the 97.5th percentile concentraitons for the Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) for 1997 to 2002 available in MOE (2011).


TG101125 Page 15

Dibromomethane, 1,2- was not detected at the Site but had a maximum detection limit of 1.0 µg/L, which is greater than the MOE Table 3 SCS of 0.25 µg/L. However, dibromomethane, 1,2- is not considered to be present at a concentration greater than 0.25 µg/L based on the following:

• A detection limit of 1.0 µg/L was used during some of the 2010 sampling events. The majority of the ground water wells have been sampled on more than one occasion and have detection limits of 0.1 µg/L or 0.2 µg/L; and

• Dibromomethane, 1,2- has not been detected in ground water or in soil. As such, dibromomethane, 1,2- is not considered a COC in ground water. In summary, ground water COCs include: Inorganics

• Iron

VOCs

• Chloroform

General Chemistry

• Ammonia

3.5 Sampling Programs



TG101125 Page 16

4.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessment is a process used to assess the potential risk to receptors resulting from one or more environmental stressors. In so doing, the risk assessment takes into account the concentrations of the chemicals to be evaluated, their toxicity and the manner in which receptors may be exposed. This section examines the potential human health risk associated with the presence of COCs in soil and ground water at the Site.

4.1 Problem Formulation

The problem formulation provides the framework and methodology for the HHRA, and consists of identifying the relevant components of the HHRA. These components include a discussion on the human health CSM, how each COC will be addressed in the HHRA (i.e., qualitatively or quantitatively) and the risk assessment objectives, including providing a discussion on the risk assessment approach used and data quality based on sampling programs conducted at the Site.

4.1.1 Human Health Conceptual Site Model

As discussed, the Site will be redeveloped for parkland land use for the City of Ottawa. COCs identified in soil include PAHs, inorganics, PHC (F3 fraction) and biphenyl, 1,1- and in ground water, COCs include iron, ammonia and chloroform. Potential receptor groups that will be present on-Site include: recreational visitors, long-term indoor workers, short-term repetitive workers such as landscapers and construction workers which may be contracted for the redevelopment of the Site. Recreational visitors may include all age groups and are the primary receptor with respect to COCs in soil or volatiles in ground water. Recreational visitors may be exposed to COCsthrough:

• Direct contact with soil (e.g., dermal contact and incidental ingestion); • Inhalation of soil/dust particulates generated at the Site from soil; • Inhalation of volatiles in indoor and outdoor air (sourced from soil or ground water); and • Ingestion of garden vegetables.

Long-term workers (indoor workers) may be exposed to COCs through:

• Direct contact with soil (e.g., dermal contact and incidental ingestion); • Inhalation of soil/dust particulates generated at the Site from soil; and • Inhalation of volatiles in indoor and outdoor air (sourced from soil or ground water).

Short-terms workers (i.e. landscaper) may be exposed to COCs through:

• Direct contact with soil (e.g., dermal contact and incidental ingestion); • Inhalation of soil/dust particulates generated at the Site from soil; and


TG101125 Page 17

• Inhalation of volatiles in outdoor air (sourced from soil or ground water). • Dermal contact with vapours containing volatiles originating from soil (outdoor air).

Construction workers may be exposed to COCs through:

• Direct contact with soil (e.g., dermal contact and incidental ingestion); • Inhalation of soil/dust particulates generated at the Site from soil; • Direct contact with ground water (e.g., dermal contact and incidental ingestion); and • Inhalation of volatiles in a trench or in outdoor air (sourced from soil or ground water).

For all receptor groups, dermal contact with vapours containing volatiles originating from soil and/or ground water is another exposure pathway that is theoretically possibly. However, exposure through this pathway is considered to be minimal and will not be assessed quantitatively. In addition, off-Site receptors may also come into contact with COCs that have migrated off-Site. Potential receptor groups that will be present off-Site include: residents, recreational visitors, long-term indoor workers, short-term repetitive workers such as landscapers, and construction workers. Residents may include all age groups and are the primary receptor with respect to COCs. Off-Site receptors have the potential to come into contact with COCs in ground water that have migrated off-site as follows:

• Off-Site Residents, Recreational visitors, and Long-term workers may be exposed to through the inhalation of volatiles in indoor and outdoor air;

• Off-Site Short-term workers (i.e. landscaper) may be exposed through the inhalation of volatiles in outdoor air; and,

• Off-Site Construction workers may be exposed through direct contact with ground water (e.g., dermal contact and incidental ingestion) and through the inhalation of volatiles in a trench or in outdoor air.

For all receptor groups, exposure may also occur through:

• Inhalation of soil/dust particulates generated at the Site from soil; • Inhalation of volatiles in outdoor air (sourced from soil); and • Dermal contact with vapours containing volatiles originating from soil and/or ground

water. However, exposure through these pathways is considered to be minimal and will not be assessed quantitatively. Based upon the receptors identified and the soil and ground water COCs, the human health CSM for the Site is presented in Figure 1.


TG101125 Page 18

4.1.2 Further Screening of COCs With Respect to Human Health

In Section 3.4, COCs were identified by comparing the maximum Site concentrations to the MOE (2011) Table 3 SCS for parkland land use; coarse-textured soils. In developing the SCS, the MOE developed both human health and ecological health component values, and the lower of the two values has been selected. However, as the HHRA is restricted to evaluation of human receptors, an additional chemical screening has been conducted, whereby the maximum concentrations of the COCs previously identified have been compared to component values protective of human health where available. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the soil COC chemical screening for the HHRA. The chemical screening includes the relevant component values for human health from the Table 3 SCS for a parkland land use; coarse-textured soil; non-potable ground water. The direct contact values from the Table 3 SCS (i.e. S2 and S3) for a commercial/industrial land use; coarse-textured soil; non-potable ground water are also provided for additional context, but are not the limiting component values. Table 4-2provides a summary of the ground water COC chemical screening for the HHRA. The Site has a non-potable ground water condition; but, exposure to ground water on-Site may occur to construction workers while undergoing trench work. There are no specific ground water guidelines that address human health exposure under a non-potable ground water scenario. To further screen COCs in ground water for evaluation in the HHRA, the MOE (2011) drinking water guidelines (GW1) were employed and adjusted to account for exposure through incidental ingestion of non-potable water. In the HHRA, the construction worker will be assumed to accidently ingest 0.05 L/day of ground water while on-Site. As the GW1 values are based on a water ingestion rate of 1.5 L/day, the GW1 was multiplied by 30 to provide a value that provides equivalent protection to exposure to 0.05 L/day. Where GW1 values were not available, the US EPA (2010) RSL for tap water was used as the values derived are health-based. The US EPA (2010) tap water values were adjusted based on an ingestion rate of non-potable water of 0.05 L/day by multiplying by 40 as these tap water values are based on an ingestion rate of 2.0 L/day. Exposure to ground water via this route was considered incomplete for other receptors.

��The term “chemical screening” is not commonly used to describe a secondary screening of COCs.

��The Ontario GW1 values make the assumption that exposure via other media will take place, and as such, a 20% allocation for non-cancer endpoints is not applied to Ontario drinking water standards. However, in cases where an Ontario value was not available, the QP will need to determine if a 20% allocation factor is required based on the methodology that was used by the US EPA in their development.

��Adopting any non-Ontario values is not an option at this point, as this is screening and to go beyond use of Ontario values would entail a discussion within the Hazard Assessment section (i.e. the substance will need to be moved forward into the HHRA and be dealt with there as a COC).

��This does not address dermal contact of construction workers with ground water. Without a component value, the Table 3 value will need to be used.

��The additional screening has not considered the soil leaching to ground water pathway. It was added to the HH CSM as requested, but there was no indication within the CSM as to how protection to the various human receptors would be provided. As such, both the CSM and this section need to be revised to address this pathway.

City

of O

ttaw

a P

robl

em F

orm

ulat

ion

Lans

dow

ne P

ark,

Otta

wa,

Ont

ario

S

epte

mbe

r 201

1

TG10

1125

Pag

e 19

Tabl

e 4-

1. H

uman

Hea

lth C

hem

ical

Scr

eeni

ng o

f Soi

l CO

Cs

Con

tam

inan

t Nam

e [M

ax]

(µg/

g)

Soi

l C

onta

ct

(S1)

(µ

g/g)

Soi

l C

onta

ct

(S2)

**

(µg/

g)

Soi

l C

onta

ct

(S3)

**

(µg/

g)

Indo

or

Air

(S

-IA

) (µ

g/g)

Indo

or

Air

O

dour

(µ

g/g)

Out

door

A

ir

(µg/

g)

Soi

l O

dour

(S

-Nos

e)

(µg/

g)

Free

P

hase

Th

resh

old

(µg/

g)

Hum

an

Hea

lth

CO

C?1

Rel

evan

t E

xpos

ure

Pat

hway

s P

etro

leum

Hyd

roca

rbon

s P

HC

F3

(>C

16-C

34)

600

5800

40

000

2600

00

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

5800

no

--

P

olyn

ucle

ar A

rom

atic

Hyd

roca

rbon

s A

cena

phth

ylen

e*

9.19

7.

8 9.

6 36

0 0.

45

NV

96

N

V

2900

ye

s S

-IA &

S1

Ant

hrac

ene

10.9

54

00

4200

0 42

0000

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

27

00

no

--

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene*

21

.5

0.78

0.

96

36

65

NV

33

0 N

V

7600

ye

s S

1 &

S2

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene*

22

.2

0.07

8 0.

096

3.6

820

NV

17

0 N

V

7600

ye

s S

1, S

2 &

S

3 B

enzo

(b)fl

uora

nthe

ne*

30.3

0.

78

0.96

36

55

00

NV

20

00

NV

76

00

yes

S1

& S

2 B

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

ne*

10.4

7.

8 9.

6 36

0 N

V

NV

N

V

NV

76

00

yes

S1

& S

2 B

enzo

(k)fl

uora

nthe

ne*

14.2

0.

78

0.96

36

67

00

NV

21

00

NV

76

00

yes

S1

& S

2 B

iphe

nyl-1

,1

0.06

(<1)

71

0 60

00

6000

11

N

V

NV

0.

31

2600

ye

s S

-Nos

e C

hrys

ene*

31

7.

8 9.

6 36

0 19

00

NV

66

00

NV

77

00

yes

S1

& S

2 D

iben

zo(a

,h)a

nthr

acen

e*

2.47

0.

078

0.09

6 3.

6 33

000

NV

43

0 N

V

7600

ye

s S

1 &

S2

Fluo

rant

hene

* 38

.6

7.8

9.6

360

250

NV

25

00

NV

76

00

yes

S1

& S

2 Fl

uore

ne

4.79

72

0 56

00

5600

0 N

V

NV

N

V

NV

28

00

no

--

Inde

no(1

,2,3

,c,d

)pyr

ene*

10

.4

0.78

0.

96

36

4600

0 N

V

4000

N

V

7600

ye

s S

1 &

S2

Met

hyln

apht

hale

ne (t

otal

) 1.

96 (<

2)

72

560

560

NV

34

N

V

0.99

36

00

yes

S-N

ose

Nap

htha

lene

2.

62

360

2800

28

000

0.65

15

0 27

0 4.

5 28

00

yes

S-IA

Phe

nant

hren

e 25

.9

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

23

00

yes

No

com

pone

nt

valu

e In

orga

nics

A

ntim

ony

17.5

7.

5 63

63

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

80

00

yes

S1

Ars

enic

24

.8

0.95

1.

3 47

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

12

000

yes

S1

& S

2 B

ariu

m

452

3800

67

0 32

000

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

7700

no

--

Bor

on (a

vaila

ble)

2.

2 N

V

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

5000

no (s

ee

ratio

nale

be

low

) --

C

adm

ium

6

0.69

7.

9 7.

9 N

V

NV

N

V

NV

18

000

yes

S1

Cop

per

424

600

3100

56

00

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

no

--

City

of O

ttaw

a P

robl

em F

orm

ulat

ion

Lans

dow

ne P

ark,

Otta

wa,

Ont

ario

S

epte

mbe

r 201

1 TG

1011

25

P

age

20

Lead

16

00

200

1000

10

00

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

2400

0 ye

s S

1

Con

tam

inan

t Nam

e [M

ax]

(µg/

g)

Soi

l C

onta

ct

(S1)

(µ

g/g)

Soi

l C

onta

ct

(S2)

**

(µg/

g)

Soi

l C

onta

ct

(S3)

**

(µg/

g)

Indo

or

Air

(S

-IA

) (µ

g/g)

Indo

or

Air

O

dour

(µ

g/g)

Out

door

A

ir

(µg/

g)

Soi

l O

dour

(S

-Nos

e)

(µg/

g)

Free

P

hase

Th

resh

old

(µg/

g)

Hum

an

Hea

lth

CO

C?1

Rel

evan

t E

xpos

ure

Pat

hway

s M

ercu

ry

1.0

9.8

67

670

0.25

N

V

36

NV

34

000

yes

S-IA

M

olyb

denu

m

10

110

1200

12

00

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

2200

0 no

--

S

elen

ium

6.

5 11

0 12

00

1200

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

no

--

Tin

1100

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

NV

ye

s

No

com

pone

nt

valu

e Zi

nc

2400

56

00

4700

0 47

000

NV

N

V

NV

N

V

1500

0 no

--

1 R

elev

ant h

uman

hea

lth C

OC

s w

ere

iden

tifie

d by

com

parin

g th

e m

axim

um c

once

ntra

tion

to th

e M

OE

(201

1) T

able

3 S

CS

Non

-Pot

able

Gro

und

Wat

er fo

r coa

rse-

text

ured

so

il an

d re

side

ntia

l/par

klan

d la

nd u

se.

Iden

tifie

d C

OC

wer

e th

en c

ompa

red

to M

OE

(201

1) T

able

3 H

uman

Hea

lth C

ompo

nent

Val

ues

Non

-Pot

able

Gro

und

Wat

er fo

r co

arse

-text

ured

soi

l and

resi

dent

ial/p

arkl

and

land

use

unl

ess

othe

rwis

e no

ted.

N

V- N

o V

alue

iden

tifie

d fo

r the

spe

cific

par

amet

er.

**S

2 &

S3

Hum

an H

ealth

Com

pone

nt V

alue

s N

on-P

otab

le G

roun

d W

ater

for c

oars

e-te

xtur

ed s

oil a

nd in

dust

rial/c

omm

erci

al la

nd u

se.

* C

arci

noge

nic

PA

H


TG81026 Page 21

Table 4-2. Human Health Chemical Screening of Ground Water COCs

Contaminant Name Units [Max]

Construction Worker

Scenario (GW1 x 30)

Residential GW2

(health-based) HH COC?1

Relevant Exposure Pathway

Inorganics

Iron µg/L 20,100 1,040,000a NV no --

Volatile Organic Compounds

Chloroform µg/L 18.1 69 2.37 yes GW2 General Chemistry

Ammonia µg/L 3770 1,400,000b NV no -- NV - No Value identified for the specific parameter.

1 Relevant human health COCs identified by comparing the maximum concentration to an adjusted MOE (2011) GW1 Human Health Component Values Potable Ground Water for coarse-textured soil and residential/parkland land use (i.e., multiplied by a factor of 30 based on a water ingestion rate of 1.5L/day under a potable water scenario and an assumed ingestion rate of 50 mL/day for a construction worker). In cases where the maximum ground water concentration was compared to the US EPA RSL tapwater values, the US EPA (2010) tapwater values were adjusted based on an ingestion rate of non-potable water of 0.05 L/day by multiplying by 40 as these tapwater values are based on an ingestion rate of 2.0 L/day. COCs were also compared to the GW2 value which is protective of the migration of volatiles from ground water to indoor air for a residential setting. a Based on the US EPA (2010) Regional Screening Levels for tapwater. Although the MOE has a value of 0.3 mg/L which is more conservative than the 26 mg/L outlined by the US EPA, it is not a health-based number, but rather an aesthetic objective.

b Based on the taste threshold of 35 mg/L as outlined by WHO (2011). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. World Health Organization. This value has no direct relevance to health at this level. In addition, this value was adjusted to 1400 mg/L based on an ingestion rate of non-potable water of 0.05 L/day multiplied by 40 as these values are based on an ingestion rate of 2.0 L/day.

4.1.2.1 Soil

Soil COCs that exceed the human health component values and the exposure pathways that require evaluation with regards to exposure within the RA include: Direct Contact

• PAHs- carcinogenic PAHs, naphthalene and phenanthrene; and

• Inorganics- antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and lead.

Soil to Indoor Air (S-IA) • PAHs- carcinogenic PAHs, naphthalene and mercury.

Soil Odour (S-nose) • PAHs- methylnaphthalene (total); and, biphenyl-1,1.

In addition, no component values were available tin and phenanthrene. Therefore, tin and phenanthrene will be carried forward as COCs in the assessment.

��As ammonia is a volatile COC, this pathway cannot be dismissed because there is no value available. It will need to move forward for calculation within the HHRA.


TG101125 Page 22

Boron (available) was not carried forward as it not a relevant measure for human health compared to boron (total) which is relevant to human health which met the MOE (2011) Table 3 SCS.

4.1.2.2 Ground Water

The only ground water COC that exceeds the human health component value and requires evaluation within the HHRA is chloroform, for the ground water to indoor air (GW2) exposure pathway.

4.1.2.3 Consideration of Additional Exposure Pathways

Exposure pathways that may occur at the Site that are not explicitly addressed through the screening process identified above include:

• Construction worker - inhalation of volatiles in a trench; and • Construction worker - direct contact with ground water (e.g., dermal contact and

incidental ingestion). Construction worker exposure through the inhalation of volatiles in a trench will be evaluated quantitatively for volatile COCs (i.e., carcinogenic PAHs, naphthalene, mercury and biphenyl-1,1 in soil and chloroform in ground water). Based on the chemical screening provided in Table 4.2, the direct contact to ground water by construction workers exposure pathway does not require further consideration.

4.1.3 Risk Assessment Objectives

The objective of the HHRA is to assess the potential risks, if any, related to COCs present at the Site with and without risk management measures. Risks will be assessed based on a parkland land use and a non-potable ground water condition. On-Site receptor groups that will be assessed within the HHRA include recreational visitors, long-term workers, short-term repetitive workers (i.e., landscapers) and construction workers. Off-Site receptors include the same receptor groups as on-Site, in addition to residents. Relevant exposure pathways for each receptor group are depicted in Figure 1. All COCs (as per Section 3.4) that are not human health COCs (as per Section 4.1.2) will be address qualitatively. Potential risks to human health COCs in soil and ground water (as per Section 4.1.2) will be assessed quantitatively, where data permits.

��See note above regarding the GW2 pathway for ammonia.

��Need to add ammonia.

��Table 4.2 includes an evaluation of incidental ingestion of ground water by the construction worker, but not dermal contact. The dermal contact route will need to move forward for evaluation within the HHRA.


TG101125 Page 23

The risk assessment approach is considered “a risk assessment other than those identified in O. Reg. 153/04 Schedule C Part II”. The outcome of the risk assessment will be the development of PSSs for all identified COCs that are protective of all human and ecological receptors with the presence of risk management. The risk assessment will also outline the required risk management measures that will mitigate any unacceptable risks to human and ecological health, as necessary based on the results of the risk assessment. The human health CSM, based on the presence of anticipated risk management measures at the Site, is provided in Figure 2.

4.1.4 Data Quality


4.2 Exposure Assessment


4.3 Toxicity Assessment


4.4 Risk Characterization


��Should be restricted to the HH RA at this stage.

��These should be identified as candidate PSSs that are protective of human receptors.

��As above, restrict this to human health.


TG101125 Page 24

5.0 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Ecological Risk Assessment (‘ERA’) is an iterative process for evaluating the likelihood that adverse effects may occur or are occurring because of exposure to one or more environmental stressors. The ERA has been conducted following the framework described in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment’s Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment guidance (CCME 1996; 1997), the MOE Procedures (MOE, 2005) and the MOE Rationale (MOE, 2011). Conceptually, the ERA consists of the following steps: 1) Problem Formulation: The Problem Formulation step of the ERA defines the issues at the Site as they relate to ecological receptors. In this step, COCs for the ERA are identified, and an Ecological CSM is developed that describes basic assumptions regarding fate and transport of COCs, ecological receptors, and exposure pathways. The objectives of the ERA are also presented in this section. 2) Receptor Characterization: The Receptor Characterization is designed to characterize potential ecological receptors, identify potential exposure pathways by which ecological receptors may be exposed, and determine the appropriate assessment and measurement endpoints. 3) Exposure Assessment: In Exposure Assessment, exposure pathways identified in the Ecological CSM are described, and chemical exposures are estimated by considering major exposure pathways. 4) Hazard Assessment: Reference values for ecological receptors are determined based on a review of information provided by regulatory agencies, and the primary ecotoxicology literature, as necessary. Ecological effects that could potentially result from exposure to the COCs are also identified. 5) Risk Characterization: In this step, potential ecological risks are determined by either a quantitative assessment (i.e., comparing the estimated rates of exposure from the Exposure Assessment to the acceptable exposure levels from the Hazard Assessment for each of the COCs) or a qualitative assessment.

5.1 Problem Formulation

5.1.1 Ecological Conceptual Site Model

As discussed, the Site will be redeveloped for parkland land use for the City of Ottawa. COCs identified in soil include PAHs and inorganics and in ground water, COCs include iron, chloroform and ammonia. Terrestrial receptor groups that may be present on-Site include soil invertebrates, plants, terrestrial mammals and birds. Possible pathways of exposure are outlined in the Ecological Conceptual Site Model (CSM) (Figure 3) and are discussed below.


TG101125 Page 25

Terrestrial receptors may be exposed to COCs in soil through:

• Soil ingestion and direct contact by soil invertebrates;

• Root uptake from soil by terrestrial plants;

• Incidental ingestion of soil by small mammals and birds; and,

• Ingestion of impacted food/prey by small mammals and birds.

These exposure pathways will be assessed quantitatively. Additional exposure pathways include the following:

• Inhalation of soil by soil invertebrates, mammals and birds;

• Dermal contact by mammals and birds; and,

• Inhalation of outdoor air (sourced from soil or ground water) by soil invertebrates, mammals and birds and foliar uptake by terrestrial plants.

Although exposure via these additional pathways may occur, the contribution to the total exposure is thought to be minimal. Therefore, these pathways will be evaluated qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Based on the current understanding of the hydrogeology at the Site, it is considered that ground water does not discharge to the Rideau Canal, located to the east. As such, exposure to off-Site aquatic receptors is considered incomplete. Ground water at the Site was measured at depths greater than 1.9 metres below ground surface (mbgs). In general, few plants would extend roots into soils to depths greater than 1 mbgs and the majority of the mass of root systems is typically found within the top 30 cm of soil (Suter II et al., 2000). As such, exposure to ground water through root uptake is considered incomplete. Off-Site terrestrial receptors may be exposed to COCs from the Site via the following pathways:

• Inhalation of soil particulates and ingestion of soil containing COCs that are found off-Site via soil erosion by soil invertebrates, mammals and birds; and,

• Ingestion of impacted food/prey by small mammals and birds; and

• Inhalation of ambient air/foliar uptake by terrestrial receptors.

However, exposure via these pathways is thought to be minimal and will be assessed

��Should show this as root uptake/root contact, as not all COCs affect plants via root uptake.

��What is the nearest downgradient surface water body where GW is likely to discharge? A discussion regarding the nearest surface water receptor should be added.

��Should show this as root uptake/contact.


TG101125 Page 26

qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Additionally, no Species at Risk were found to be present on-Site or in the vicinity of the Site.

5.1.2 Further Screening of COCs With Respect to Ecological Health

In Section 3.4, COCs were identified by comparing the maximum Site concentrations to the MOE (2011) Table 3 SCS for parkland land use; coarse-textured soils. In developing the SCS, the MOE developed both human health and ecological health component values, and the lower of the two values has been selected. However, as the ERA is restricted to evaluation of ecological receptors, an additional chemical screening has been conducted, whereby the maximum concentrations of the COCs previously identified have been compared to component values protective of ecological health where available. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the soil COC chemical screening for the ERA. The chemical screening includes the relevant component values for ecological health from the Table 3 SCS for a parkland land use; coarse-textured soil; non-potable ground water.

��As for the HHRA, the additional screening has not considered the soil leaching to ground water pathway. It was added to the Eco CSM as requested, but there was no indication within the CSM as to how protection to the various ecological receptors would be provided. As such, both the CSM and this section need to be revised to address this pathway.

City

of O

ttaw

a P

robl

em F

orm

ulat

ion

Lans

dow

ne P

ark,

Otta

wa,

Ont

ario

S

epte

mbe

r 201

1 TG

8102

6

Pag

e 27

Tabl

e 5-

1. S

cree

ning

of S

oil C

OC

s fo

r Te

rres

tria

l Rec

epto

rs

Con

tam

inan

t Nam

e

Max

imum

C

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

g)

Com

pone

nt

Val

ue fo

r P

lant

s &

Soi

l O

rgan

ism

s (µ

g/g)

Eco

logi

cal

CO

C fo

r P

lant

s &

Soi

l O

rgan

ism

s?1

Com

pone

nt

Val

ue fo

r M

amm

als

&

Bir

ds

(µg/

g)

Eco

logi

cal

CO

C o

r M

amm

als

&

Bir

ds?1

Rel

evan

t Exp

osur

e P

athw

ay

Pet

role

um H

ydro

carb

ons

PH

C F

3 (>

C16

-C34

) 60

0 30

0 ye

s N

V

yes

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

&

mam

mal

s &

bird

s P

olyn

ucle

ar A

rom

atic

Hyd

roca

rbon

s

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

9.19

N

V

yes

NV

ye

s pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s &

m

amm

als

& b

irds

Ant

hrac

ene

10.9

2.

5 ye

s 38

000

no

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene

21.5

0.

5 ye

s N

V

yes

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

&

mam

mal

s &

bird

s B

enzo

(a)p

yren

e 22

.2

20

yes

1600

no

pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s

Ben

zo(b

)flu

oran

then

e 30

.3

NV

ye

s N

V

yes

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

&

mam

mal

s &

bird

s

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

10

.4

6.6

yes

NV

ye

s pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s &

m

amm

als

& b

irds

Ben

zo(k

)flu

oran

then

e 14

.2

7.6

yes

NV

ye

s pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s &

m

amm

als

& b

irds

Bip

heny

l-1,1

0.

06 (

<1)

NV

ye

s N

V

yes

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

&

mam

mal

s &

bird

s

Chr

ysen

e 31

7

yes

NV

ye

s pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s &

m

amm

als

& b

irds

Dib

enzo

(a,h

)ant

hrac

ene

2.47

N

V

yes

NV

ye

s pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s &

m

amm

als

& b

irds

Flu

oran

then

e 38

.6

50

no

0.69

ye

s m

amm

als

& b

irds

Flu

oren

e 4.

79

NV

ye

s N

V

yes

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

&

mam

mal

s &

bird

s

Inde

no(1

,2,3

,c,d

)pyr

ene

10.4

0.

38

yes

NV

ye

s pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s &

m

amm

als

& b

irds

City

of O

ttaw

a P

robl

em F

orm

ulat

ion

Lans

dow

ne P

ark,

Otta

wa,

Ont

ario

S

epte

mbe

r 201

1 TG

1011

25

P

age

28

Met

hyln

apht

hale

ne (t

otal

) 1.

96 (

<2)

NV

ye

s N

V

yes

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

&

mam

mal

s &

bird

s N

apht

hale

ne

2.62

0.

6 ye

s 38

0 no

pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s

Con

tam

inan

t Nam

e

Max

imum

C

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

g)

Com

pone

nt

Val

ue fo

r P

lant

s &

Soi

l O

rgan

ism

s (µ

g/g)

Eco

logi

cal

CO

C fo

r P

lant

s &

Soi

l O

rgan

ism

s?1

Com

pone

nt

Val

ue fo

r M

amm

als

&

Bir

ds

(µg/

g)

Eco

logi

cal

CO

C o

r M

amm

als

&

Bir

ds?1

Rel

evan

t Exp

osur

e P

athw

ay

Phe

nant

hren

e 25

.9

6.2

yes

2700

no

pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s In

orga

nics

A

ntim

ony

17.5

20

no

25

no

--

A

rsen

ic

24.8

20

ye

s 51

no

pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s B

ariu

m

452

750

no

390

yes

mam

mal

s &

bird

s

Bor

on (a

vaila

ble)

2.

2 1.

5 ye

s N

V

no (

see

ratio

nale

be

low

) pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s

Cad

miu

m

6.0

12

no

1.9

yes

mam

mal

s &

bird

s C

oppe

r 42

4 14

0 ye

s 77

0 no

pl

ants

& s

oil o

rgan

ism

s

Lead

16

00

250

yes

32

yes

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

&

mam

mal

s &

bird

s M

ercu

ry

1.0

10

no

20

no

--

Mol

ybde

num

10

40

no

6.

9 ye

s m

amm

als

& b

irds

Sel

eniu

m

6.5

10

no

2.4

yes

mam

mal

s &

bird

s

Tin

11

00

NV

ye

s N

V

yes

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

&

mam

mal

s &

bird

s

Zin

c 24

00

400

yes

340

yes

plan

ts &

soi

l org

anis

ms

&

mam

mal

s &

bird

s 1 R

elev

ant E

RA

CO

Cs

wer

e id

entif

ied

by c

ompa

ring

max

imum

con

cent

ratio

ns to

the

MO

E (2

011)

Tab

le 3

Eco

logi

cal H

ealth

Com

pone

nt V

alue

s N

on-P

otab

le G

roun

d W

ater

for c

oars

e-te

xtur

ed s

oil a

nd re

side

ntia

l/par

klan

d la

nd u

se u

nles

s ot

herw

ise

note

d.

NV

- N

o V

alue

iden

tifie

d fo

r the

spe

cific

par

amet

er.


TG81026 Page 29

In the assessment of risks to mammals, all COCs that do not exceed the MOE component criteria will be assessed qualitatively in Section 5.5.4. All other COCs identified in Table 5-1 will be assessed quantitatively where appropriate exposure and toxicity values are available. To summarize, the following chemicals have been identified as COCs for assessing risks to plants and soil organisms: PHCs

• PHC F3 (>C16-C34)

PAHs • Acenaphthylene • Chrysene

• Anthracene • Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

• Benzo(a)anthracene • Fluorene

• Benzo(a)pyrene • Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

• Benzo(b)fluoranthene • Methylnaphthalene (total)

• Benzo(g,h,i)perylene • Naphthalene

• Benzo(k)fluoranthene

• Biphenyl-1,1

• Phenanthrene

Inorganics

• Arsenic

• Boron (available)

• Copper

• Lead

• Tin

• Zinc


TG101125 Page 30

The following chemicals have been identified as COCs for assessing risks to mammals and birds: PHCs

• PHC F3 (>C16-C34)

PAHs • Acenaphthylene • Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

• Benzo(a)anthracene • Fluoranthene

• Benzo(b)fluoranthene • Fluorene

• Benzo(g,h,i)perylene • Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

• Benzo(k)fluoranthene • Methylnaphthalene (total)

• Biphenyl-1,1

• Chrysene

Inorganics

• Barium

• Cadmium

• Lead

• Molybdenum

• Selenium

• Tin

• Zinc


TG101125 Page 31

5.1.3 Risk Assessment Objectives

The property will be redeveloped for parkland land use for the City of Ottawa. VECs at the Site include soil invertebrates, plants, terrestrial mammals and birds. Exposure pathways for on-Site receptors that will be assessed quantitatively within the ERA, where data permits, include:

• Soil ingestion and direct contact by soil invertebrates;

• Root uptake from soil by terrestrial plants;

• Incidental ingestion of soil by small mammals and birds; and,

• Ingestion of impacted food/prey by small mammals and birds.

Assessment endpoints in an ERA are explicit expressions of the environmental value that is to be protected. Assessment endpoints to be evaluated in this ERA are survival, growth, and reproduction of plants, soil invertebrates, small mammals and birds. In addition to the assessment endpoints, measurement endpoints are identified that are conceptually related to assessment endpoints but are quantifiable using standard toxicological methods such as laboratory exposures. The measurement endpoints for plants and invertebrates were based on the MOE plant and soil organism component values. The component values for a residential land use are commonly established by selecting the 25th percentile of a data set that contains no effect no-observed-effect-concentrations (NOECs) and lowest-observed-effect-concentrations (LOECs). The measurement endpoints for birds and mammals are based on the MOE TRV used in the MOE (2011) rationale, where available. The TRV are based on lowest observed effect levels (LOELs). The ecological CSM, based on the presence of anticipated risk management measures at the Site, is provided in Figure 4.

5.1.4 Data Quality


5.2 Receptor Characterization


��The ERA objectives is missing information on the development of candidate PSSs and RMM. It should follow a format similar to what was presented for the HHRA.


TG101125 Page 32

5.3 Exposure Assessment


5.4 Hazard Assessment


5.5 Risk Characterization



TG101125 Page 33

6.0 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Recommended Standards


6.2 Special Considerations for Ground Water Standards


7.0 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

**To be completed in further submissions** 8.0 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PLAN A public communication plan is not required per O. Reg. 153/04.


TG101125 Page 34

9.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared and the work referred to in this report has been undertaken by AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, a division of AMEC Americas Limitedfor the City of Ottawa. It is intended for the sole and exclusive use of the City of Ottawa. Any use, reliance on or decision made by any person other than the City of Ottawa based on this report is the sole responsibility of such other person. AMEC makes no representation or warranty to any such other person with regard to this report and the work referred to in this report and accepts no duty of care to any person and any liability or responsibility whatsoever for any losses, expenses, damages, fines, penalties or other harm that may be suffered or incurred by any other person as a result of the use of, reliance on, any decision made or any action taken based on this report or the report of the work referred to in this report (see AppendixJ). This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of St. Ottawafor specific application to the Site. Any conclusions or recommendations made in this report reflect AMEC’s best judgment based on information available at the time of the report’s preparation based, in part, on monitoring at various locations of the site, and specific analysis of specific chemical parameters and materials during a specific time interval, all as described in this report and other reports referenced herein. Other than by the City of Ottawa, copying or distribution of this report or use of or reliance on the information contained herein, in whole or in part, is not permitted without the express written permission of the City of Ottawa. Nothing in this report is intended to constitute or provide a legal opinion.


TG101125 Page 35

10.0 REFERENCES

ATSDR. 2005. Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual. 2005 Update. Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry. Atlanta, GA., USA. Available online at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/toc.html (accessed September, 2011).

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1996. A Framework for Ecological

Risk Assessment: General Guidance. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria, Winnipeg, MB. Pub No. 1195.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1997. A Framework for Ecological

Risk Assessment: Technical Appendices. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria, Winnipeg, MB. Pub No. En108-4/10-1-1997E

Dragun, J., and Chiasson, A. 1991. Elements in North American Soils. Hazardous Materials

Control Resources Institute. Greenbelt, Maryland. MOE. 2011. Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at

Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Revised Version April 15, 2011. Standards Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Toronto, ON.

Suter G.W., II, Efroymson, R.A., Sample, B.E., Jones, D.S. 2000. Ecological risk assessment for

contaminated sites. Lewis Publishers. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Regional Screening Level

(RSL) Supporting Table, November 2010. WHO. 2011. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Fourth edition. Geneva, Switzerland.

World Health Organization.

Documents

PROBLEM FORMULATION SUMMARY FOR …webottawa/documents/pdf/mdaw/mdkz/...6.2 Special Considerations for Ground Water Standards ... engineerwill support the development of a risk management