Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario Risk Assessment
June 2017 – 16-3774
i
Table of Contents 1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Summary of Recommendations and Findings
1
1.1
Risk Assessment Objectives and Approach........................................................................... 1
1.2
Deviations from Pre-submission Form ................................................................................. 1
1.3
Risk Assessment Standards .................................................................................................. 2
1.4
Risk Assessment Assumptions ........................................................................................... 15
1.5
Risk Management Requirements ....................................................................................... 15
Risk Assessment Team Membership
16
2.1
Required Areas of Expertise............................................................................................... 16
2.2
Team Member Qualifications ............................................................................................ 16
2.2.1
Brent Loney, M.Sc., P.Geo., QPRA ....................................................................................... 16
2.2.2
Ashkan Arefi, M.Sc., P.Eng. ................................................................................................ 17
2.2.3
Shawn Forster ................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.4
Darin Burr, P.Geo., QPESA.................................................................................................... 17
2.2.5
Tom Grimminck, P.Eng. ..................................................................................................... 18
Property Information, Site Plan and Geological Interpretation
19
3.1
Property Information......................................................................................................... 19
3.2
Site History ........................................................................................................................ 19
3.3
Description of Off-Site Sources of Contaminants of Concern and Off-Site Receptors .......... 21
3.4
Site Plan and Hydrogeological Interpretation of RA Property ............................................. 21
3.5
Applicable Site Condition Standard .................................................................................... 22
3.6
Contaminants of Concern .................................................................................................. 22
3.6.1
Sampling Programs............................................................................................................ 23
3.6.2
Data Sufficiency ................................................................................................................. 24
3.6.3
Selection of COCs in Soil .................................................................................................... 24
3.6.3.1
Excluded Soil Data ............................................................................................................. 28
3.6.4
Selection of COCs in Groundwater ..................................................................................... 29
3.6.4.1
Excluded Groundwater Data .............................................................................................. 34
3.6.5
Vinyl Chloride (Future Condition)....................................................................................... 35
3.6.6
Effects of pH Levels on COCs Fate and Transport ............................................................... 36
3.6.7
COC Summary ................................................................................................................... 37
Human Health Risk Assessment 4.1
40
Problem Formulation......................................................................................................... 40
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
ii
5.0
4.1.1
Human Health Conceptual Site Model (CSM) ..................................................................... 42
4.1.2
Risk Assessment Objectives ............................................................................................... 44
4.2
Exposure Assessment ........................................................................................................ 46
4.2.1
Receptor Characteristics .................................................................................................... 46
4.2.2
Pathway Analysis ............................................................................................................... 50
4.2.2.1
Soil COCs Criteria Component Screening............................................................................ 51
4.2.2.2
Groundwater COCs Criteria Component Screening ............................................................ 56
4.2.2.3
Inhalation of Vapours from Impacted Groundwater in Outdoor Air ................................... 59
4.2.2.4
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 62
4.2.3
Exposure Estimates ........................................................................................................... 63
4.3
Toxicity Assessment........................................................................................................... 75
4.3.1
Nature of Toxicity (Hazard Assessment) ............................................................................. 75
4.3.2
Dose Response Assessment ............................................................................................... 75
4.3.3
Discussion of Uncertainties................................................................................................ 89
4.4
Risk Characterization ......................................................................................................... 90
4.4.1
Interpretation of Health Risks ............................................................................................ 90
4.4.2
Quantitative Interpretation of Health Risks........................................................................ 90
4.4.2.1
Resident (Toddler and Composite)..................................................................................... 98
4.4.2.2
Indoor Worker ................................................................................................................... 98
4.4.2.3
Outdoor Worker ................................................................................................................ 99
4.4.2.4
Subsurface Worker ............................................................................................................ 99
4.4.3
Qualitative Interpretation of Health Risks .......................................................................... 99
4.4.4
Proposed Human Health Candidate Property Specific Standards (PSSs) ........................... 101
4.4.5
Special Considerations for Environmentally Sensitive Area .............................................. 110
4.4.6
Interpretation of Off-Site Health Risks ............................................................................. 110
4.4.6.1
Residential/Institutional (East and South) ........................................................................ 110
4.4.6.2
Commercial (West/Southwest) ........................................................................................ 114
4.4.6.3
Commercial/Institutional (Northwest) ............................................................................. 118
4.4.7
Discussion of Uncertainty ................................................................................................ 123
Ecological Risk Assessment
125
5.1
Problem Formulation....................................................................................................... 125
5.1.1
COCs in Soil ..................................................................................................................... 125
5.1.2
COCs in Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 130
5.1.3
Ecological Conceptual Site Model .................................................................................... 133
5.1.4
Risk Assessment Objectives ............................................................................................. 137
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
iii
6.0
5.2
Receptor Characterization ............................................................................................... 139
5.2.1
VECs in the Terrestrial Environment ................................................................................ 141
5.2.2
VECs in the Aquatic Environment (off-site) ...................................................................... 143
5.3
Exposure Assessment ...................................................................................................... 144
5.3.1
Pathway Analysis ............................................................................................................. 144
5.3.2
Exposure Estimates ......................................................................................................... 145
5.3.2.1
Chemicals of Concern in Soil ............................................................................................ 146
5.3.3
Discussion of Uncertainty in the Exposure Assessment .................................................... 146
5.4
Hazard Assessment.......................................................................................................... 147
5.4.1
Benchmark Concentrations for Terrestrial Plants and Soil Organisms............................... 148
5.4.2
Benchmark Concentrations for Birds and Mammals......................................................... 149
5.4.3
Benchmark Concentrations for Off-site Aquatic Receptors............................................... 151
5.4.4
Discussion of Uncertainty in the Hazard Assessment ....................................................... 153
5.5
Risk Characterization ....................................................................................................... 154
5.5.1
Interpretation of Ecological Risks ..................................................................................... 156
5.5.2
Interpretation of Ecological Risks to Terrestrial Plants and Soil Invertebrates................... 156
5.5.2.1
COCs in Soil ..................................................................................................................... 156
5.5.2.2
COCs in Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 158
5.5.3
Interpretation of Ecological Risks to Avian and Small Mammal Receptors ........................ 160
5.5.3.1
American Woodcock........................................................................................................ 160
5.5.3.2
Red-winged Blackbird ...................................................................................................... 161
5.5.3.3
Meadow Vole .................................................................................................................. 163
5.5.3.4
Short-Tailed Shrew .......................................................................................................... 165
5.5.4
Interpretation of Ecological Risks to Off-Site Aquatic Receptors ....................................... 166
5.5.4.1
COCs in Soil ..................................................................................................................... 167
5.5.4.2
COCs in Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 169
5.5.5
Qualitative Interpretation of Ecological Risks ................................................................... 173
5.5.6
Special Considerations for Environmentally Sensitive Area .............................................. 174
5.5.7
Proposed Ecological Candidate Property Specific Standards (PSSs) .................................. 175
5.5.8
Interpretation of Off-Site Ecological Risks ........................................................................ 183
5.5.9
Discussion of Uncertainty ................................................................................................ 186
Conclusions and Recommendations
188
6.1
Recommended Standards ................................................................................................ 188
6.2
Special Considerations for Soil Standards......................................................................... 200
6.3
Special Considerations for Groundwater Standards ......................................................... 202
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
iv 7.0
Risk Management Plan
204
7.1
Risk Management Plan .................................................................................................... 204
7.1.1
Risk Management Performance Objectives...................................................................... 208
7.1.2
Exposure Reduction Objectives........................................................................................ 208
7.1.3
Risk Management Measures............................................................................................ 212
7.1.3.1
Engineered Barriers ......................................................................................................... 212
7.1.3.2
Vapour Intrusion RMM .................................................................................................... 214
7.1.3.3
Site Specific Health and Safety Plan ................................................................................. 217
7.1.3.4
Soil and Groundwater Management Plan ........................................................................ 218
7.1.3.5
Off-Site Implications of Proposed RMMs ......................................................................... 220
7.1.4
Duration of Risk Management Measures ......................................................................... 220
7.1.4.1
Duration of Administrative RMMs ................................................................................... 220
7.1.4.2
Duration of Engineered Barriers ...................................................................................... 220
7.1.4.3
Duration of Vapour Intrusion RMM ................................................................................. 220
7.1.5
Requirements for Monitoring and Maintenance .............................................................. 221
7.1.5.1
Engineered Barriers ......................................................................................................... 221
7.1.5.2
Vapour Intrusion RMM .................................................................................................... 221
7.1.5.3
Groundwater/LNAPL Monitoring ..................................................................................... 223
7.1.5.4
Reporting ........................................................................................................................ 224
7.1.6
Financial Assurance ......................................................................................................... 224
8.0
Public Communication Plan
225
9.0
References
226
10.0
Limitations
230
Figures Figure 4-1:
Human Health Conceptual Site Model Without Risk Management Measures
Figure 5-1a:
Terrestrial Ecological Conceptual Site Model Without Risk Management Measures
Figure 5-1b:
Aqua c Ecological Conceptual Site Model Without Risk Management Measures
Figure 7-1:
Human Health Conceptual Site Model With Risk Management Measures
Figure 7-2a:
Terrestrial Ecological Conceptual Site Model With Risk Management Measures
Figure 7-2b:
Aqua c Ecological Conceptual Site Model With Risk Management Measures
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
v Tables Table 1-1:
Proposed Property Specific Standard (PSS) - Soil ......................................................... 4
Table 1-2:
Proposed Property Specific Standard (PSS) - Groundwater ........................................ 10
Table 2-1:
Risk Assessment Team Members............................................................................... 16
Table 3-1:
Maximum Measured COC Concentrations in Soil ....................................................... 24
Table 3-2:
Maximum Measured COC Concentrations in Groundwater........................................ 30
Table 3-3:
Theoretical Contribution of Parent Compounds to Future Vinyl Chloride Concentration ........................................................................................................... 36
Table 3-4:
Summary of Contaminants of Concern ...................................................................... 37
Table 4-1:
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractionation in Soil ............................................................ 40
Table 4-2:
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractionation in Groundwater ............................................. 41
Table 4-3:
Summary of Receptor Characteristics ........................................................................ 49
Table 4-4:
Quantitative Evaluation Screenings for Soil Pathways................................................ 52
Table 4-5:
Quantitative Evaluation Screenings for Groundwater Pathways ................................ 57
Table 4-6:
Required Dilution Factors for Vapour Concentrations to Meet HBIAC ........................ 60
Table 4-7:
Summary of Pathways Evaluated Quantitatively in the HHRA .................................... 62
Table 4-8:
Soil Exposure Estimates – Direct Contact ................................................................... 64
Table 4-9:
Groundwater Exposure Estimates – Direct Contact ................................................... 65
Table 4-10:
Soil Exposure Estimates – Soil Particulate Inhalation ................................................. 67
Table 4-11:
Measured and Predicted Soil Vapour Concentrations ................................................ 68
Table 4-12:
Exposure Estimates – Indoor Inhalation..................................................................... 70
Table 4-13:
Default Vapour Attenuation Factors .......................................................................... 72
Table 4-14:
Soil and Groundwater Exposure Estimates – Vapour Inhalation in a Trench ............... 72
Table 4-15:
Summary of Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) for Human Receptors ................. 77
Table 4-16:
Bioavailability Factors................................................................................................ 88
Table 4-17:
Summary of Risk (HQ/ILCR) – Resident, Indoor Worker and Outdoor Worker ............ 91
Table 4-18:
Summary of Risk (HQ/ILCR) – Subsurface Worker ...................................................... 95
Table 4-19:
Qualitative Selection of Soil PSS Value Protective of Human Health for Lead ........... 100
Table 4-20:
Soil PSS Values Protective of Human Health ............................................................ 102
Table 4-21:
Groundwater PSS Values Protective of Human Health ............................................. 106
Table 4-22:
Off-Site Screening for Residential/Parkland/Institutional Land Use .......................... 110
Table 4-23:
Off-Site Screening for Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use ........................ 114
Table 4-24:
Off-Site Screening for Residential/Parkland/Institutional Land Use .......................... 119
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
vi Table 5-1:
Exposure Point Concentrations (REM) for Soil Used in the Exposure Assessment for the ERA. ............................................................................................................. 126
Table 5-2:
Comparison of COC REM Concentrations in Soil to Ecological Component Values. ... 128
Table 5-3:
Exposure Point Concentrations (REM) for Groundwater Used in the Exposure Assessment for the ERA........................................................................................... 131
Table 5-4:
Comparison of COC REM Concentrations in Groundwater to GW3 Component Values. .................................................................................................................... 132
Table 5-5:
Soil Benchmarks for Terrestrial Plants and Soil Organisms. ...................................... 148
Table 5-6:
Soil Benchmarks for Bird and Small Mammal Receptors. ......................................... 150
Table 5-7:
Groundwater to Surface Water Benchmarks for Aquatic Receptors. ........................ 152
Table 5-8:
HQ for Terrestrial Plants and Soil Invertebrates. ...................................................... 156
Table 5-9:
HQ Estimates for Deep Rooting Terrestrial Plants. ................................................... 158
Table 5-10:
HQ Estimates for the American woodcock. .............................................................. 160
Table 5-11:
HQ Estimates for the Red-winged blackbird............................................................. 162
Table 5-12:
HQ Estimates for the Meadow Vole......................................................................... 163
Table 5-13:
HQ Estimates for the Short-Tailed Shrew................................................................. 165
Table 5-14:
Comparison of Soil Concentrations to Sediment Quality Component Values............ 167
Table 5-15:
HQ Estimates for Aquatic Receptors. ....................................................................... 170
Table 5-16:
Soil PSS Values Protective of Ecological Health ........................................................ 176
Table 5-17:
Groundwater PSS Values Protective of Ecological Health ......................................... 180
Table 5-18:
Off-Site Screening for Ecological Risks ..................................................................... 183
Table 6-1:
Proposed Property Specific Standard (PSS) - Soil ..................................................... 189
Table 6-2:
Proposed Property Specific Standard (PSS) - Groundwater ...................................... 195
Table 6-3:
Screening for Soil COCs against Free Phase Threshold ............................................. 200
Table 6-4:
Screening for Groundwater COCs against 50% Solubility Concentration .................. 202
Table 7-1:
Soil COC Concentration Reduction........................................................................... 209
Table 7-2:
Groundwater COC Concentration Reduction ........................................................... 210
Table 7-3:
Soil Vapour COC Concentration Reduction .............................................................. 210
Table 7-4:
Soil Vapour COC Concentration Reduction – Subsurface Worker in a Trench ........... 211
Table 7-5:
Proposed Risk Management Measures.................................................................... 212
Appendices A
PSF and Responses to MOECC Comments
B
Summary of Site Condi ons
B.1
Summary of Previous Environmental Inves ga ons
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
vii B.2 B.3 B-4 B.5 C D E F G H
Phase Two Conceptual Site Model Sumamry Tables Free Phase Petroleum Hydrocarbon Product Extrac on No fica on of Non-Potable Groundwater Condi ons Risk Assessment Sample Calcula ons Soil Vapour Assessment Risk Management Plan Mandatory Cer fica ons CVs Property Ownership Documents
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
1
1.0
Summary of Recommendations and Findings
1.1
Risk Assessment Objectives and Approach Dillon Consul ng Limited (Dillon) was retained by Hamilton Waterfront Trust, on behalf of the City of Hamilton, to conduct a site-specific human health and ecological risk assessment (RA) for the majority of Pier 8, the “Site”, as shown on Figure No. 1 in Appendix B.2. Land in the northwest corner of Pier 8 that was formerly owned by the federal government and subsequently redeveloped was excluded from the RA. The RA was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regula on 153/04 (O.Reg.153/04) to support filing of a Record of Site Condi on (RSC) for redevelopment of the Site (the RSC property). The current land use on the Site is commercial and community. The proposed future land use of the Site is expected to include a mixture of residen al, commercial and recrea onal/community proper es. The objec ve of this risk assessment was to iden fy and quan fy poten al risks to both human and ecological receptors that may be exposed to Contaminants of Concern (COCs) in soil and groundwater within the Site. The COCs were iden fied as contaminants that are present at concentra ons greater than the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Table 1 Site Condi on Standards (SCS) for a residen al/parkland/ins tu onal/ industrial/commercial/community property use (MOECC, 2011a). The property specific standards (PSS) that are protec ve of human and ecological receptors were determined, and risk management measures (RMMs) were proposed where necessary. Given the variety of poten al future land uses at the Site, the risk assessment and PSS assumed that the most sensi ve land use and associated receptors would apply (i.e., residen al/parkland), and RMMs protec ve of these land uses were proposed. The risk assessment objec ves were achieved through qualita ve and quan ta ve assessment approaches where applicable.
1.2
Deviations from Pre-submission Form Copies of the Pre-submission Form (PSF), the MOECC’s comments on the PSF, and Dillon’s responses to the MOECC’s comments are included in Appendix A. Devia ons from the submi ed PSF are described below: 1. The site boundaries were expanded to include the Brewers Marine Supply building complex, located at the south end of Pier 8. The Survey Plan of the property was updated (Appendix H) to include this property. In addi on, the updated Survey Plan includes minor changes to the west property boundary adjacent to Pier 7. A drilling program was completed at the Brewers property including the drilling of four interior boreholes, all completed as monitoring wells, and
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
2
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
1.3
installa on of three interior vapour pins in December 2016. The results of this inves ga on were used to update the Phase Two Conceptual Site Model (P2CSM) and support the risk assessment. No new COCs were iden fied during this supplemental inves ga on. As part of the Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and consistent with MOECC comments, a supplemental drilling program including the drilling of three deep boreholes, all of which were completed as monitoring wells, was completed in February 2017. The boreholes were drilled into the bedrock to achieve ver cal delinea on for groundwater exceedances. An addi onal groundwater sampling program was completed including the sampling of the newly installed bedrock monitoring wells and selected exis ng monitoring wells. The results of these inves ga ons were used to update the P2CSM and support the risk assessment. No new COCs were iden fied during the addi onal groundwater sampling program. The analy cal soil results obtained from a geotechnical inves ga on completed on the Site in 2016 by Terraprobe of Hamilton, Ontario, were used to further update the P2CSM and support the risk assessment. In total, 24 soil samples were collected from 14 geotechnical boreholes and analyzed for VOCs, PHCs, PAHs, metals, and/or inorganics. No new COCs were iden fied during this inves ga on. A soil vapour sampling program was completed on the Site in December 2016 and January 2017 to address poten al vapour intrusion concerns to the future on-site buildings related to the vola le COCs iden fied in soil and groundwater. The soil vapour assessment report is provided in Appendix D. A free phase petroleum hydrocarbon product recovery program was completed on the Site between March and April 2017. The program included the installa on of 10 extrac on wells within Shed 6 (former marine terminal building) where free phase petroleum product (light nonaqueous phase liquid, or LNAPL) was iden fied on groundwater, and extrac on of the product using vacuum trucks. The results of the product recovery program indicated that the recoverable LNAPL was removed to the extent prac cable. A summary of the remedia on ac vi es and results are provided in Appendix B.4. The outdoor maintenance worker was evaluated quan ta vely as an on-site receptor consistent with MOECC comments. Poten al erosion of soils from the Site to the adjacent aqua c environment (Hamilton Harbour) was included for evalua on in the RA.
Risk Assessment Standards Based on the findings of the RA, the final PSS for soil and groundwater (Tables 1-1 and 1-2) were derived to achieve at least the same level of protec on for each receptor (human and ecological) as is intended to be achieved by the applicable full depth generic site condi on standards, taking into account the RMMs proposed for the Site. The PSSs were derived based on the reasonable es mate of the maximum (REM) concentra on for each COC in soil and groundwater. The REM concentra ons were calculated
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
3
from the sum of 20% variance and the maximum iden fied on-site concentra on for each COC (i.e., maximum concentra on + 20%). In cases where poten al risk was iden fied, RMMs have been recommended to block or mi gate exposure pathways and reduce risks to acceptable levels.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
4
Table 1-1: Proposed Property Specific Standard (PSS) - Soil Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REM (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Antimony
8.5
1.3
10.2
10.2
Arsenic
36.4
18
43.7
43.7
Barium
441
220
529.2
529.2
Beryllium
6.08
2.5
7.3
7.3
Boron
92.2
36
110.6
110.6
Boron (HWS)
5.5
nv
6.6
6.6
Cadmium
13.2
1.2
15.8
15.8
Chromium (III+VI)
164
70
196.8
196.8
Chromium (VI)
0.74
0.66
0.89
0.89
Cobalt
32.5
21
39
39
COC
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
b
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Mammals and Birds) Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? c SCS? Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Max + 20%
No
No
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact)
Yes
No
Max + 20% Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors)
5
COC
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Copper
1,140
92
1,368
1,368
Lead
2,480
120
2,976
2,976
Mercury
4.08
0.27
4.9
4.9
Molybdenum
12
2
14.4
14.4
Selenium
2.2
1.5
2.6
2.6
Silver
30.7
0.5
36.8
36.8
Zinc
3,860
290
4,632
4,632
Electrical Conductivity
3.52
0.57
4.2
4.2
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
68.9
2.4
82.7
82.7
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Mammals and Birds) Max + 20% (Mammals and Birds) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? SCS?c
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
6
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Basis of PSS
Benzene
1.43
0.02
1.7
1.7
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
No
Toluene
1.4
0.2
1.7
1.7
Max + 20%
No
No
Ethylbenzene
26.4
0.05
31.7
31.7
No
No
Xylenes
96
0.05
115.2
115.2
Yes
No
PHC F1
1,180
25
1,416
1,416
Yes
No
PHC F2
19,700
10
23,640
23,640
Yes
No
PHC F3
13,700
240
16,440
16,440
Yes
No
PHC F4
44,100
120
52,920
52,920
Yes
No
1,1-dichloroethane
0.064
0.05
0.08
0.08
Max + 20%
No
No
0.8
0.05
1.0
1.0
Max + 20%
No
No
COC
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Indoor Air Inhalation, Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Plants and Soil Organism)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? SCS?c
7
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
1,2-dichloroethane
0.2
0.05
0.24
0.24
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.8
0.05
0.96
0.96
Acetone
2.5
0.5
3.0
3.0
Chloroform
0.4
0.05
0.48
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
0.2
0.05
9
COC
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? SCS?c Yes
No
Yes
No
Max + 20%
No
No
0.48
Max + 20%
No
No
0.24
0.24
Max + 20%
No
No
0.05
10.8
10.8
No
No
11.3
0.05
13.6
13.6
Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
No
2
0.5
2.4
2.4
Max + 20%
No
No
0.2
0.05
0.24
0.24
Max + 20%
No
No
0.135
0.05
0.16
0.16
Yes
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.2
0.05
0.24
0.24
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
No
trans-1,2dichloroethene
0.2
0.05
0.24
0.24
Max + 20%
No
No
Vinyl chloride
0.08
0.02
0.1
0.1
Yes
No
Acenaphthene
16.9
0.072
20.3
20.3
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact)
Yes
No
Dichloromethane Hexane Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Styrene Trichloroethylene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
8
COC
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
3.69
0.093
4.4
4.4
11
0.16
13.2
13.2
Benzo(a)anthracene
25.7
0.36
30.8
30.8
Benzo(a)pyrene
17.5
0.3
21
21
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
24.8
0.47
29.8
29.8
Benzo(ghi)perylene
8.3
0.68
10
10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
8.06
0.48
9.7
9.7
Chrysene
25.2
2.8
30.2
30.2
Acenphthylene
Anthracene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? SCS?c
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
9
COC
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.16
0.1
3.8
3.8
Fluoranthene
48.2
0.56
57.8
57.8
Fluorene
25.2
0.12
30.2
30.2
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
9.44
0.23
11.3
11.3
Methylnaphthalene, 2(1-)
440
0.59
528
528
Naphthalene
73.1
0.09
87.7
87.7
Phenathrene
64.7
0.69
77.6
77.6
39
1
46.8
46.8
Pyrene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Mammals and Birds) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation, Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? SCS?c
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
10
COC
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
3.95
PCBs
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
0.3
REMb (µg/g)
4.7
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Basis of PSS
4.7
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? SCS?c
Yes
No
Notes: a From Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act, MOECC, 2011; Table 1, Full Depth Background Site Condi on Standards for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal/Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use. b REM concentra ons were calculated by adding 20% variance to the maximum detected concentra on found on-site for each COC. c Refer to Sec ons 4.4.6 and 5.5.8 for a preliminary off-site assessment for human and ecological receptors
Table 1-2: Proposed Property Specific Standard (PSS) - Groundwater Maximum Groundwater Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
REMb (µg/L)
Recommended PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Poten al for Offsite Exceedance of c SCS?
Chloride
1,740,000
790,000
2,088,000
2,088,000
Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors)
Yes
No
Antimony
6.37
1.5
7.6
7.6
Max + 20%
No
No
Arsenic
44
13
52.8
52.8
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact)
Yes
No
Barium
1,060
610
1,272
1,272
Max + 20%
No
No
Boron
2,090
1,700
2,508
2,508
Max + 20%
No
No
Cobalt
5.27
3.8
6.3
6.3
Max + 20%
No
No
Copper
45
5
54
54
Max + 20%
No
No
COC
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
11
Maximum Groundwater Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
REMb (µg/L)
Recommended PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Poten al for Offsite Exceedance of SCS?c
6
1.9
7.2
7.2
Max + 20%
No
No
Molybdenum
192
23
230.4
230.4
Max + 20%
No
No
Selenium
13.8
5
16.6
16.6
Max + 20%
No
No
Vanadium
89.8
3.9
107.8
107.8
Yes
No
Benzene
301
0.5
361.2
361.2
Yes
No
Toluene
8.69
0.8
10.4
10.4
Max + 20%
No
No
19
0.5
22.8
22.8
Max + 20%
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
COC
Lead
Ethylbenzene
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation and Groundwater Direct Contact)
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation and Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact)
PHC F2
12,000
150
14,400
14,400
PHC F3
11,400
500
13,680
13,680
PHC F4
1,700
500
2,000
2,040
Max + 20%
No
No
1,1-dichloroethane
0.66
0.5
0.8
0.8
Max + 20%
No
No
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
12
Maximum Groundwater Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
REMb (µg/L)
Recommended PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Poten al for Offsite Exceedance of SCS?c
1,2-dichloroethane
0.53
0.5
0.6
0.6
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
No
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
3.29
1.6
3.9
3.9
Max + 20%
No
No
Styrene
1.67
0.5
2.0
2.0
Max + 20%
No
No
Trichloroethylene
1.7
0.5
2.1
2.1
Yes
No
Vinyl chloride
4.17
0.5
5
5
Yes
No
Acenaphthene
146
0.072
175.2
175.2
No
No
Acenphthylene
31.9
0.093
38.3
38.3
Yes
No
Anthracene
3.8
0.16
4.6
4.6
Yes
No
Benzo(a)anthracene
73.5
0.2
88.2
88.2
Yes
No
Benzo(a)pyrene
52.2
0.01
62.6
62.6
Yes
No
COC
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) M Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors)
13
COC
Maximum Groundwater Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
REMb (µg/L)
Recommended PSS (µg/L)
70.1
0.1
84.1
84.1
25
0.2
30
30
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
29.7
0.1
35.6
35.6
Chrysene
64.6
0.1
77.5
77.5
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
6.82
0.2
8.2
8.2
Fluoranthene
182
0.4
218.4
218.4
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors)
Risk Management Required?
Poten al for Offsite Exceedance of SCS?c
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
14
COC
Fluorene
Maximum Groundwater Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
REMb (µg/L)
Recommended PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Poten al for Offsite Exceedance of SCS?c
229
120
274.8
274.8
Max + 20%
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
29.8
0.2
35.8
35.8
Methylnapthalene, 2(1-)
3,070
2
3,684
3,684
Naphthalene
319
7
382.8
382.8
Phenathrene
449
0.1
538.8
538.8
Pyrene
204
0.2
244.8
244.8
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors)
Notes: a From Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act, MOECC, 2011; Table 1, Full Depth Background Site Condi on Standards for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal/Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use. b REM concentra ons were calculated by adding 20% variance to the maximum detected concentra on found on-site for each COC. c Refer to Sec ons 4.4.6 and 5.5.8 for a preliminary off-site assessment for human and ecological receptors
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
15
1.4
Risk Assessment Assumptions The assump ons used in determining each standard specified in the risk assessment include: ·
·
·
·
1.5
The proposed future land uses of the Site are expected to include a mixture of residen al, commercial, and recrea onal/community proper es. As such, the Site was conserva vely assumed to be residen al in nature. Based on the extent of inves ga on ac vi es completed at the Site, the characteriza on of the Site provided an adequate representa on of the soil and groundwater quality, and it is not expected that greater contaminant impacts would be present on-site. Nevertheless, as supported by the MOECC Approved Model for modified generic risk assessment model (MOECC, 2016a), a 20% variance was added to the maximum soil and groundwater concentra ons found on-site to determine the REM for each COC. It was assumed that both human and ecological receptors would be exposed to maximum COC concentra ons in environmental media at all mes while on the Site (i.e., in the absence of RMMs). This is considered a conserva ve assump on as exposure concentra ons and exposure mes would vary under actual condi ons, based on receptor mobility and poten al future development plans that will likely reduce poten al exposures. The process of natural a enua on in soil and groundwater was not considered in this risk assessment. Natural a enua on may occur for the majority of organic chemicals and some inorganic chemicals, subsequently reducing COC concentra ons over me and improving site condi ons.
Risk Management Requirements The results of the RA indicated unacceptable risk to both human and ecological health may exist at the Site. As such, the implementa on of risk management measures was considered necessary under a future residen al land use scenario. The following RMMs are required to mi gate risks to human and ecological receptors evaluated as part of the RA. The detailed descrip ons of the proposed RMMs are provided in Sec on 7. · · · · ·
Engineered Barriers (i.e., Soil/Hardscape Cap) Vapour mi ga on measures (i.e., Vehicle Storage Garage, or Sub-Slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng System) Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan Soil and Groundwater Management Plan Groundwater/LNAPL monitoring.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
16
2.0
Risk Assessment Team Membership The RA team areas of exper se and biographical details for team members are provided in Sec ons 2.1 and 2.2. Full curricula vitae for each RA team member are presented in Appendix G.
2.1
Required Areas of Expertise A list of key personnel and their roles in this risk assessment are presented in Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1: Risk Assessment Team Members
Qualifica on Area
Qualified Team Member(s)
Risk Assessment (QPRA)
Brent Loney, M.Sc., P.Geo., QPRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
Ashkan Arefi, M.Sc., P.Eng. Brent Loney, M.Sc., P.Geo., QPRA Shawn Forster, M.Eng., P.Eng.
Ecological Risk Assessment
2.2 2.2.1
Brent Loney, M.Sc., P.Geo., QPRA Ashkan Arefi, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Engineering
Ashkan Arefi, M.Sc., P.Eng. Tom Grimminck, P.Eng.
Hydrogeology, Senior ESA Review and QP ESA
Darin Burr, P.Geo., QPESA
Team Member Qualifications Brent Loney, M.Sc., P.Geo., QP RA Brent is a Senior Project Manager, Environmental Geoscien st and Risk Assessment Specialist with Dillon. He has 25 years of experience in environmental consul ng, including 20 years of experience related to contaminated site risk assessment. His educa on and training includes specializa ons in geoscience, environmental chemistry, toxicology, human health and ecological risk assessment (HHERA), standards development, and contaminant fate and transport modeling. He has managed and completed various environmental inves ga ons and HHERAs at hundreds of sites involving all land uses (residen al, commercial, industrial, recrea onal, agricultural, remote/low access sites) and in most jurisdic ons across Canada. He has conducted HHERAs to assess various contaminant impacts to mul ple media, with contaminant classes including metals, PAHs, petroleum hydrocarbons, vola le organic compounds, PCBs, dioxins/furans, pes cides/ herbicides, and perfluorinated compounds. He is also involved rou nely in using outcomes of ESA and HHERA studies to guide the development of remedial ac on and risk management (RM) plans to mi gate iden fied risks. He has also frequently served as an expert reviewer of HHERAs prepared by others, has assisted regulatory agencies in the development of
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
17 risk assessment guidance, and has acted as an expert witness to counsel in li ga on involving environmental issues. He is a Qualified Person (Risk Assessment) under O.Reg.153/04 and a Qualified Person (Environmental Site Assessment) under O.Reg.153/04. Mr. Loney provided senior guidance and review on both human health and ecological risk assessments, and is the iden fied QP RA of record for this risk assessment. 2.2.2
Ashkan Arefi, M.Sc., P.Eng. Ashkan is a risk assessment specialist with over 10 years of experience in human health and ecological risk assessment/remedia on of contaminated sites in accordance with provincial and federal regula ons. In par cular, he has experience working on O.Reg.153/04 Risk Assessments involving sites for Government Agencies and Major Integrated Oil and Gas Clients. Ashkan has a comprehensive knowledge of federal and provincial legisla on and standards and a strong knowledge of contaminant fate and transport. He also has experience in managing numerous Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment projects. Mr. Arefi completed the human health risk assessment and risk management plan, and provided technical input for the ecological risk assessment.
2.2.3
Shawn Forster Shawn has 10 years of technical experience in the assessment and management of contaminated sites at loca ons across Canada. His educa on and training includes specializa ons in biology, human health and ecological risk assessment (HHERA), and contaminant fate and transport modeling. Shawn’s HHERA experience has included projects of varying scale and complexity in rela on to contaminated lands (various land use scenarios including: residen al, commercial, industrial, recrea onal, agricultural, remote/low access) and water bodies (freshwater and marine). Shawn is also extensively involved in the management, planning and execu on of ESAs and associated site sampling and analy cal plans, and using the outcomes of ESA and HHERA studies to guide the development of remedial ac on and risk management plans (RAP and RMP) to mi gate iden fied risks. Mr. Forster completed the ecological risk assessment.
2.2.4
Darin Burr, P.Geo., QP ESA Darin is a Senior Hydrogeologist with 25 years of experience in overseeing all technical aspects of phased environmental assessments, remedia on and monitoring programs, including assessment programs to support Record of Site Condi on filings for Brownfield redevelopment projects. He specializes in structured Phase I, II and III environmental site assessments, environmental audits, groundwater monitoring programs, risk assessments and cos ng/development/implementa on of remedial ac on plans for both private and government
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
18 clients. He has provided peer review services to the MOECC as part of Dillon’s Vendor of Record contract with the Province of Ontario to conduct third party reviews of O.Reg 153/04 technical submissions. He has also been involved with regional groundwater studies, watershed characteriza on reports, watershed assessment reports, threats assessments etc. related to Ontario’s Clean Water Act (2006) source protec on program. Mr. Burr is a Qualified Person (Environmental Site Assessment) under O.Reg. 153/04. Mr. Burr was the senior reviewer for the site characteriza on and hydrogeological inves ga on and is the QPESA on record. 2.2.5
Tom Grimminck, P.Eng. Tom is an environmental remedia on engineer with 20 years of experience in detailed contaminant delinea on, remedia on of contaminated sites, and implementa on of risk management measures, landfill design and construc on and long term monitoring of contaminated sites and/or landfills. He is a Qualified Person (Environmental Site Assessment) under O.Reg.153/04. Mr. Grimminck was the senior reviewer for the risk management plan.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
19
3.0
Property Information, Site Plan and Geological Interpretation The following informa on describes the property characteris cs, historic uses of the Site, sampling programs, and selec on of COCs, as provided in Sec ons 3.1 to 3.5.
3.1
Property Information The Site is located north of the intersec on of Guise Street East and John Street North, comprising the majority of Pier 8, along the west side of the Hamilton Harbour in Hamilton, Ontario. The Site is iden fied by property iden fica on numbers (PINs) 175790061 and 175790072. The Site is currently owned by The Corpora on of the City of Hamilton. Figure No. 1 in Appendix B.2 presents the site loca on and study area. The Site occupies an area of approximately 10.48 hectares (ha) and is located near the west side of the Hamilton Harbour, in an area of predominantly residen al and commercial land use. Land use east and south of the Site is primarily residen al and ins tu onal. Land use west of the Site is predominantly commercial, consis ng of Piers 5 through 7. Lake Ontario is located north of the Site. The Site is currently used as a parking area, construc on equipment yard, commercial area (boat maintenance and boat equipment hardware supply) and community use (sea cadets). The current buildings on the Site include three vacant sheds (Sheds 4, 6, and 7), former Canadian Coast Guard building, Navy League facility, and Brewers Marine Supply building. The proposed future land uses of the Site have yet to be finalized, but are expected to include a mixture of residen al, commercial and recrea onal/community proper es. As a result of the poten al change in land use to a more sensi ve condi on (i.e., residen al and parkland), an RSC will be required as per sec on 168.3.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act.
3.2
Site History The Site was first developed in the mid-1800s and later expanded in the 1960s by land reclama on. The Site was historically used for break-bulk port ac vi es, including staging areas for on and off-loading cargo ships, warehousing and bulk storage of materials including fer lizer. Other historical ac vi es that have occurred on the Site include a power sta on in the 1800s located at the foot of Hughson Street and residen al proper es fron ng onto Guise Street (circa 1800s to early 1900s). The former Hamilton Harbour Commission operated a maintenance shop on the east side of the Site (Shed 7). In the 1960’s, the Site was expanded to its current boundaries via land reclama on. At this me, several other buildings were constructed including
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
20 Shed 4, Shed 6, and the Canadian Coast Guard Building. Other buildings were present, but have since been removed. In the 1970’s a trucking firm (Laidlaw) used a por on of the Site (Shed 4 and current Brewers Marine Supply building yard area) as a truck terminal. A sea cadet club operates the Navy League facility in the southeastern corner of the Site. Other ac vi es associated with the Site include underground petroleum fuel storage tanks associated with the former truck terminal, and above and below ground hea ng fuel storage tanks associated with several of the buildings. Currently, large por ons of the Site are used by Harbour Marina West for winter boat storage. A marine equipment supply company (Brewer’s Marine Supply) uses a por on of the Site for truck access to their adjacent warehouse. The following is a list of suppor ng environmental inves ga ons. A summary of each inves ga on is provided in Appendix B.1. · · · · · ·
· · · · ·
Peto MacCallum Ltd. 1993. Geo-Environmental Inves ga on, Baseline GeoEnvironmental Assessment, Pier 8, Hamilton, ON. May, 1993. Peto MacCallum Ltd. 1995. Geo-Environmental Inves ga on, Pier 8, Baseline Environmental Assessment, Hamilton, ON. July, 1995. Golder Associates Ltd. 2000. Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment and Geotechnical Inves ga on, Pier 8, Hamilton Harbour, Hamilton, ON. June, 2000. Terraprobe, 2001. Subsurface Inves ga on, Pier 8 – Discovery Centre, Hamilton, ON. December 10, 2001. Ecoplans Ltd., 2002. Contaminant Inves ga on, Guise Street and Harbour Patrol Access Road, Hamilton, ON. November, 2002. Thurber Engineering Ltd., 2002. Geotechnical Inves ga on, Proposed Watermain and Sewer Installa on, Harbour Patrol Access (Pier 8) Road, Hamilton, Ontario. November, 2002. XCG Consultants Limited, Site-Specific Risk Assessment, Pier 8, Hamilton Harbour, Hamilton, Ontario, Revised Final, February, 2003. Dillon Consul ng Limited, Dra Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, Piers 5 to 8 and Bayview Park, Hamilton, Ontario, June 2015. Dillon Consul ng Limited, Dra Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario, June 2016. Geotechnical Inves ga on, West Harbour Pumping Sta on and Associated Works, Hamilton, Ontario, Dra Report, Terraprobe, 2016. Dillon Consul ng Limited, Dra Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment Addendum 1 – Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario, June 2017.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
21
3.3
Description of Off-Site Sources of Contaminants of Concern and Off-Site Receptors Off-site poten ally contamina ng ac vi es (PCAs) are associated with the current and historical land uses east, west and south of the Site. Several off-site PCAs were iden fied on the adjacent property to the west (i.e., Piers 6 and 7) resul ng from historical port ac vi es. East of the Site is a naval establishment (HMCS Star, Royal Canadian Navy Reserve). Further south of the Site are several PCAs including a former landfill, former machine shop and impacted roadbed material below Guise Street. Off-site human poten ally present on adjacent proper es include resident, property visitor, indoor worker, outdoor worker, and subsurface worker. Poten al ecological receptors include plants, soil invertebrates, mammals, birds, and aqua c receptors.
3.4
Site Plan and Hydrogeological Interpretation of RA Property The topography of the Site is generally flat with a downward slope to the north towards Hamilton Harbour. Land eleva on ranges between 75 and 80 metres above sea level (masl). Surface water drainage is towards Hamilton Harbour. The principal water feature in the area is Hamilton Harbour (Lake Ontario), which borders the Site on the north, east and west sides. Subsurface condi ons at the Site consist of a coarse grained fill material overlying na ve fine grained silts and clays. The fill material, which contains a mixture of sand, gravel, clay, silt mixed with slag, coal, bricks, concrete and other debris, had a thickness which varied from approximately 1 m along Guise Street in the south, thickening northwards towards the harbour, where up to 12 m was observed at the northern edge of the Site. The fill was historically deposited as lakefill into Lake Ontario to create new harbor lands. The hydraulic conduc vity of the fill is es mated to be rela vely high (up to 10 -5 m/s) based on grain size analyses of soil samples and in-situ hydraulic conduc vity tests performed on monitoring wells. Directly underlying the fill was interbedded lacustrine silt, clay and sand. In some loca ons, especially near the south end of the Site, sand was present on top of the lacustrine deposits. Underlying the interbedded clay, silt and sand was a clay and silt unit, which extended across the en re Site. This unit, which at depth includes Halton Till, is considered a regional aquitard. The bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 28 to 33 m below the ground surface, (i.e., 44.5 to 49.5 masl). Geological cross-sec ons through the Site depic ng the generalized geology are shown as Sec ons A-A’ through E-E’ (see Figure Nos. 7.1a.1 and 7.1a.2 in Appendeix B.2). Sec on loca ons are shown on Figure No. 3 in Appendix B.2. Sec on E-E’ (Figure No. 7.1a.2 in Appendix B.2) (oriented southeast to northwest) shows the general overburden geology of the Site from the former shoreline to the maximum northern (basinward) limit of the Site. The depth to groundwater table, measured during the Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016), ranged from 0.5 to 2.9 m below the ground surface (mbgs), with depths between 1.0 and 2.0 mbgs being the most common. A map of the eleva on of the water table, and the es mated shallow
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
22 groundwater flow direc ons are presented as Figure No. 4.1 in Appendix B.2 for the December 2014 survey event and Figure No. 4.2 in Appendix B.2 for the March 2016 survey event. Addi onal details of the Site geology, stra graphy, and hydrogeology are provided in the Phase Two Conceptual Site Model (CSM) provided in Appendix B.2. 3.5
Applicable Site Condition Standard The O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 Full Depth Generic SCS (2011) for residen al/ parkland/ ins tu onal/ industrial/ commercial/ community (R/P/I/I/C/C) land use se ngs were used as the comparison Standards on the Site. The O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS were applied as the soil pH was greater than 9 in some areas, and since Sec on 41 of the Regula on has been considered applicable to the Site since por ons of the Site may provide habitat for species classified as threatened or endangered under Sec on 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Dillon completed a Species at Risk (SAR) screening for the Site in 2016 which iden fied the poten al presence of SAR. This included a high level of probability for the presence of Barn Swallow, as suitable habitat is provided by a number of the structures at the Site and since a species with similar habitat requirements (Cliff Swallow) was observed at the Site in 2012. A moderate probability for the presence of Li le Brown Myo s (bat) was also iden fied. Follow-up field survey work to assess the poten al presence of these species was completed in May of 2017, with the result that no evidence of either Barn Swallow or Li le Brown Myo s presence was observed, although poten al habitat for these species was present. As such, the property was considered to be environmentally sensi ve. Standards iden fied were used to evaluate the soil and groundwater quality condi on. These SCS are applicable as the an cipated property use will be a mixture of residen al and commercial. Although the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS do not dis nguish between soil textures, it is noted that the soils at the Site consist of both fine-grained and coarse-grained soils. As such, the coarsegrained SCS are conserva vely considered to be applicable at the Site in situa ons where other generic SCS may be applied. In addi on, the fill that covers the majority of the Site is deemed to have a coarse grained composi on, as determined from grain size analyses conducted during the Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016).
3.6
Contaminants of Concern The selec on of the contaminants of concern (COC) for the current risk assessment was based on the sampling programs completed during the Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016), as well as historical environmental inves ga ons completed on the Site as listed in Sec on 3.2. The maximum concentra on for each chemical analyzed in soil and groundwater samples collected from the Site was screened against the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal/ Industrial/Commercial/Community land use. Where the maximum concentra on for any
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
23 chemical analyzed at the Site was greater than the applicable O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS, that chemical was carried further to the human health and ecological risk assessments for comparison to the applicable criteria component values specific to human or ecological receptors, respec vely. It should be noted that the analy cal data presented in the historical environmental inves ga on reports was considered for inclusion into the current RA depending upon media and sample parameter. In general, soil data was used in the current RA, as well as groundwater data for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), and vola le organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), as this informa on was considered reliable. Groundwater data for polycyclic aroma c hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) was not used as the sampling methodology used during these inves ga ons was either unknown or not compliant with current standard methodologies, and therefore this data could not be relied upon. 3.6.1
Sampling Programs The goal of the Phase Two ESA was to define the soil and groundwater impacts present at the Site that resulted from current and/or historical site ac vi es. The Phase Two CSM is included as supplementary informa on in Appendix B.2. The Phase Two ESA scope of work included the drilling of 136 boreholes (with 82 of these completed as monitoring wells), installa on of 10 soil vapour probes, four interior vapour pins, and vapour sampling of one exis ng monitoring well. Collected soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, PHC F1 to F4, PAHs, PCBs, metals, and inorganics. Vapour samples were analyzed for one or more of VOCs, PHC F1-F2 alipha c and aroma c sub-frac ons, naphthalene, and mercury. The soil and groundwater quality comparison criteria used was the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal/Industrial/Commercial/ Community Property Use. Light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) product was iden fied in the fill unit below the floor of Shed 6 building, located on the northeast por on of the Site. The maximum measured product thickness during the Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016) was 46 cm in a monitoring well. Thicknesses of <5 cm were measured in two other monitoring wells. The iden fied LNAPL appeared to be associated with the historical leakage of a former fuel underground storage tank (UST) located adjacent to the south side of the building and the historical storage of “oil” drums in the area. Dillon conducted a product extrac on program including the installa on of 10 extrac on wells within the LNAPL area and removal of the products using a vacuum truck. Addi onal details of the products extrac on program are provided in Appendix B.4.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
24 3.6.2
Data Sufficiency The sampling program completed during the Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016) and supplementary inves ga ons is considered to be sufficient to adequately characterize on-site contamina on for the purposes of comple ng the current RA. The sampling methodologies used to confirm environmental condi ons were consistent with Part IX, Sec on 47 of O.Reg.153/04. The sampling program is considered acceptable taking into account generally accepted professional prac ces and the risk assessment process.
3.6.3
Selec on of COCs in Soil Maximum reported concentra ons for chemicals analyzed in soil at the Site are summarized in Table 3-1. These were compared to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS for Residen al/Parkland/ Ins tu onal/Industrial/Commercial/Community property use to iden fy poten al COCs. The soil data were summarized in tables provided in Appendix B.3. The laboratory cer ficates of analysis for parameters analyzed are included in the Phase Two ESA report (Dillon, 2016). Table 3-1: Maximum Measured COC Concentrations in Soil Parameter
Loca on of Max
Sample Depth (mbgs)
Maximum Measured Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCSa (µg/g)
Cyanide (Free)
Several
NA
<0.05
0.051
Electrical conductivity (lab)
MW84
0.66-1.01
3.52
0.57
Aluminum
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
10,700
nv
Antimony
MW132
3.05-3.33
8.5
1.3
Arsenic
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
36.4
18
Barium
MW211
2.13-2.44
441
220
Beryllium
MW100
0.76-1.37
6.08
2.5
Bismuth
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
1.02
nv
Boron
MW100
0.76-1.37
92.2
36
Boron (Hot Water Soluble)
MW137
3.05-3.33
5.5
nv b
BH5
0.75-1.4
13.2
1.2
Calcium
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
39,700
nv
Chloride
MW137
3.05-3.33
133
nv
Chromium (hexavalent)
MW120
0.6-0.9
0.74
0.66
Chromium (III+VI)
BH95
1.83-2.03
164
70
Cobalt
BH129
0.53-1.02
32.5
21
Copper
MW98
4.57-5.03
1140
92
Iron
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
53,000
nv
Cadmium
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
25
Parameter
Loca on of Max
Sample Depth (mbgs)
Maximum Measured Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCSa (µg/g)
Lead
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
2480
120
Lithium
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
13.7
nv
Magnesium
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
18,500
nv
Manganese
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
1,020
nv
Mercury
MW133
0.76-1.01
4.08
0.27
Molybdenum
MW18
0.86-0.99
12
2
Nickel
BH129
0.53-1.02
57.7
82
Phophorous
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
898
nv
Potassium
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
1,390
nv
b
Selenium
TP BH-G2
1.5-2.1
2.2
1.5
Silver
MW110
1.52-1.98
30.7
0.5
Sodium
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
737
nv
Sodium Absorption Ratio
MW84
1.52-1.82
68.9
2.4
Strontium
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
113
nv
Sulphur
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
<5,000
nv
Thallium
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
0.834
1
Tin
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
1,630
nv
Titanium
SHED 7
1.25-1.45
311
nv
Uranium
MW98
1.98-2.58
2.4
2.5
Vanadium
BH91
2.29-2.51
63.1
86
TP-BH17
3.1-3.5
3860
290
TP2
2-2.3
1.43
0.02
Ethylbenzene
MW211
2.13-2.44
26.4
0.05
Toluene
MW12
2.29-2.49
1.4
0.2
Xylene Total
MW211
2.13-2.44
96
0.05
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
1,1-dichloroethane
BH107
2.13-2.44
0.064
0.05
1,1-dichloroethene
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Several
NA
<0.8
0.05
Zinc Benzene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
26
Parameter
Loca on of Max
Sample Depth (mbgs)
Maximum Measured Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCSa (µg/g)
1,2-dibromoethane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
1,2-dichloroethane
Several
NA
<0.2
0.05
1,2-dichloropropane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
1,3-Dichloropropene
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Several
NA
<0.8
0.05
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (Methyl isobutyl ketone)
Several
NA
<2
0.5
Acetone
MW211
2.13-2.44
<2.5
0.5
Bromodichloromethane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
Bromoform
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
Bromomethane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
Carbon tetrachloride
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
Chlorobenzene
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
Chlorodibromomethane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
Chloroform
MW143
1.68-2.08
<0.4
0.05
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
Several
NA
<0.2
0.05
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)
BH105
5.26-5.56
<9
0.05
Hexane
MW211
2.13-2.44
11.3
0.05
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
MTBE
Several
NA
<0.05
0.05
Styrene
Several
NA
<0.2
0.05
Trichloroethylene
MW72
1.52-2.08
0.135
0.05
Tetrachloroethylene
Several
NA
<0.2
0.05
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
Several
NA
<0.2
0.05
Trichlorofluoromethane
Several
NA
<0.2
0.25
Vinyl chloride
Several
NA
<0.08
0.02
F1 (C6-C10)
MW211
2.13-2.44
1,180
25
F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons)
MW143
1.68-2.08
19700
10
F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons)
MW143
1.68-2.08
13700
240
F4 Gravimetric
MW144
1.98-2.26
44100
120
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
27
Parameter
Loca on of Max
Sample Depth (mbgs)
Maximum Measured Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCSa (µg/g)
Acenaphthene
MW143
1.68-2.08
16.9
0.072
Acenaphthylene
MW143
1.68-2.08
3.69
0.093
Anthracene
TP-BH8
4.6-5.1
11
0.16
Benz(a)anthracene
MW119
1.12-1.42
25.7
0.36
Benzo(a) pyrene
MW119
1.12-1.42
17.5
0.3
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
MW119
1.12-1.42
24.8
0.47
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
MW18
0.86-0.99
8.3
0.68
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
MW119
1.12-1.42
8.06
0.48
Chrysene
MW119
1.12-1.42
25.2
2.8
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
MW119
1.12-1.42
3.16
0.1
Fluoranthene
MW119
1.12-1.42
48.2
0.56
Fluorene
MW143
1.68-2.08
25.2
0.12
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
MW119
1.12-1.42
9.44
0.23
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
MW143
1.68-2.08
440
0.59
Naphthalene
MW143
1.68-2.08
73.1
0.09
Phenanthrene
MW143
1.68-2.08
64.7
0.69
Pyrene
TP-BH8
4.6-5.1
39
1
PCBs (Total)
MW137
0.76-1.09
3.95
0.3
Notes: Shaded: COC was carried forward for further evalua on nv: No criteria available a From Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act, MOECC, 2011; Table 1, Full Depth Background Site Condi on Standards for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal/Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use. b Maximum concentra on based on historical inves ga ons
As presented in Table 3-1, soil COCs included: · · · · · · · · ·
Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Boron (How Water Soluble) Cadmium Chromium (IV) Chromium (Total)
· · · · · · · · · ·
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes PHC F1 to F4 1,1-dichloroethane 1,2-dichlorobenzene 1,2-dichloroethane 1,4-dichlorobenzene Methyl isobutyl
· · · · · · · · · ·
Tetrachloroethylene trans-1,2-dichloroethene Vinyl Chloride Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
28 · · · · · · · · · ·
Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Molybdenum Selenium Silver Zinc Electric Conductivity Sodium Adsorption Ratio
· · · · · · ·
ketone Acetone Chloroform cis-1,2dichloroethene Methylene Chloride Hexane Styrene Trichloroethylene
· · · · · · · · · · ·
Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene PCBs
Further screening of these COCs for pathways specific to human and ecological receptors are included in Sec on 4.2.2 and Sec on 5.3.1, respec vely. For those parameters that did not have O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS, the following condi ons were used to iden fy whether the parameters could be excluded from the final list of COCs: 1. 2.
3. 4.
The maximum observed concentra on was within the range of 98th percen le of the Ontario Typical Range (OTR-98). The parameter was not found at concentra ons above the laboratory Reported Detec on Limit (RDL), or the detec on limit was elevated from the applica on of laboratory dilu on factors to allow for quan fica on of other parameters, and the parameter was not associated with the historical ac vi es at the Site; The parameter was recognized as having low toxicity because it was an essen al nutrient; or The parameter was not associated with the historical ac vi es at the Site.
Based on this evalua on, no addi onal substances were iden fied as a COC. It should be men oned that although the northwest corner of the Site (APEC 21) was formerly used for above grade storage of fer lizer, the detected potassium and phosphorus concentra ons in soil obtained from this area of the Site were deemed typical of background concentra ons; and therefore, these parameters were not considered as COCs in the RA. Addi onal details are provided in Sec on 2.3.2 of the Phase Two CSM provided in Appendix B.2. 3.6.3.1
Excluded Soil Data Available soil quality data per nent to the Site was reviewed and assessed as to data quality and applicability during the Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016). Soil data that was excluded consisted of the following:
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
29
3.6.4
•
VOC data with elevated detec on limits above the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS were excluded if the detec on limits were elevated due to dilu on for the purpose of BTEX quan ta on or due to other analy cal limita ons, if there was an adequate dataset for this parameter where the detec on limits were not elevated, and if the chemical(s) in ques on (i.e., those with detec on limits elevated above the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS) would be very unlikely to cons tute COCs at the Site. VOC parameters that were detected in either groundwater or soil at the Site were not excluded. VOC parameters that were never quan fied above detec on limits and were excluded included: 1,1,1,2tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichloropropane, bromodichloromethane, bromomethane, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, methyl ethyl ketone, and MTBE.
•
PCB data with elevated detec on limits above the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS associated with area of poten al environmental concern (APEC) 23 (Shed 6 Hea ng Oil Tank) where PCB was not detected in soil or groundwater samples was excluded, as PCBs are not iden fied as a COC at this APEC.
·
PHC data that was deemed to be representa ve of background condi ons rather than contamina on associated with anthropogenic ac vi es. This data was associated with soil samples obtained from the na ve silty clay unit where PHC F2 and F3 range hydrocarbons were observed at concentra ons marginally exceeding the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS. Data included the following samples: MW108_15.24_15.85 (PHC F2 at 11 µg/g), MW187_15.24-15.85 (PHC F2 at 11 µg/g), MW75D_9.14_9.75 (PHC F2 at 12 µg/g, duplicate sample at 11 µg/g), MW81_13.72_14.33 (PHC F2 at 13 µg/g, duplicate < 10 µg/g), TP-BH5/MW_18.3-18.9 (PHC F2 at 11 µg/g) and TP-BH6/MW_18.3-18.9 (PHC F2 at 15 µg/g). Informa on suppor ng the conclusion that the low levels of PHC F2 hydrocarbons represent background condi ons is presented in the Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016).
Selec on of COCs in Groundwater Maximum reported concentra ons for chemicals analyzed in groundwater at the Site are summarized in Table 3-2. These were compared to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal/Industrial/Commercial/Community property use to iden fy poten al groundwater COCs. The groundwater data were summarized in tables provided in Appendix B.3. The laboratory cer ficates of analysis for parameters analyzed are included in the Phase Two ESA report (Dillon, 2016).
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
30 Table 3-2: Maximum Measured COC Concentrations in Groundwater Parameter
Loca on of Max
Screened Maximum Measured Interval (mbgs) Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 a Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
Antimony
MW131
0.91-3.96
6.37
1.5
Arsenic
MW125
0.76-3.81
44
13
Barium
MW89
1.83-4.88
1,060
610
Beryllium
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
Boron
MW137
0.91-3.96
2,090
1,700
Bromide
MW181
12.19-15.24
970
nv
Cadmium
TP-BH5/MW
16.8-18.3
0.084
0.5
Chloride
MW84
0.76-3.81
1,740,000
790,000
Chromium (hexavalent)
Several
NA
<10
25
Chromium (III+VI)
Several
NA
<5
11
Cobalt
TP-BH19/MW
6.1-9.1
5.27
3.8
Copper
TP-BH5/MW
16.8-18.3
45
5
Cyanide (Free)
Several
NA
<2
5
Fluoride
MW178
0.76-3.81
433
nv
b
MW1
NA
6
1.9
Mercury
Several
NA
<0.1
0.1
Molybdenum
MW136
0.91-3.96
192
23
Nickel
MW110
1.22-4.27
21.5
14
Nitrate
MW180
15.24-18.29
379
nv
Nitrite
Several
NA
<50
nv
Selenium
MW114
0.91-3.96
13.8
5
Silver
Several
NA
<0.1
0.3
Sodium
MW84
0.76-3.81
2,290,000
490,000
Sulphate
MW180
15.24-18.29
56,400
nv
Thallium
Several
NA
<0.1
0.5
Uranium
MW17
0.91-4.57
6.6
8.9
Vanadium
MW131
0.91-3.96
89.8
3.9
TP-BH5/MW
16.8-18.3
43.1
160
Benzene
MW145
0.91-3.96
301
0.5
Ethylbenzene
MW25
1.52-5.18
19
0.5
Toluene
MW110
1.22-4.27
8.69
0.8
Lead
Zinc
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
31
Parameter
Loca on of Max
Screened Maximum Measured Interval (mbgs) Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCSa (µg/L)
Xylene Total
MW110
1.22-4.27
60.1
72
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
Several
NA
<0.5
1.1
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
1,1-dichloroethane
MW15
1.52-4.57
0.66
0.5
1,1-dichloroethene
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
1,2-dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide)
Several
NA
<0.2
0.2
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
1,2-dichloroethane
MW74
2.13-5.18
0.53
0.5
1,2-dichloropropane
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
1,3-Dichloropropene
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (Methyl isobutyl ketone)
Several
NA
<20
640
Acetone
MW136
0.91-3.96
111
2,700
Bromodichloromethane
Several
NA
<2
2
Bromoform
Several
NA
<5
5
Bromomethane
Several
NA
<0.5
0.89
Carbon tetrachloride
Several
NA
<0.2
0.2
Chlorobenzene
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
Chlorodibromomethane
Several
NA
<2
2
Chloroform
MW74
2.13-5.18
<1
2
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
MW115
0.8-3.8
3.29
1.6
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Several
NA
<2
590
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)
Several
NA
<5
5
Hexane
Several
NA
<1
5
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Several
NA
<20
400
MTBE
Several
NA
<2
15
Styrene
MW137
0.91-3.96
1.67
0.5
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
32
Parameter
Loca on of Max
Screened Maximum Measured Interval (mbgs) Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCSa (µg/L)
Trichloroethylene
MW126
0.76-3.81
1.7
0.5
Tetrachloroethylene
Several
NA
<0.5
0.5
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
MW112
0.76-3.81
0.79
1.6
Vinyl chloride
MW115
0.76-3.96
3.49
0.5
Trichlorofluoromethane
Several
NA
<5
150
F1 (C6-C10)
MW74
2.13-5.18
355
420
F1 (C6-C10) - BTEX
MW74
2.13-5.18
319
420
F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons)
MW25
1.52-5.18
12,000
150
F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons)
MW114
0.91-3.96
11,400
500
F4 (C34-C50)
MW25
1.52-5.18
1,700
500
Acenaphthene
MW114
0.91-3.96
146
4.1
Acenaphthylene
MW114
0.91-3.96
31.9
1
Anthracene
MW25
1.52-5.18
3.8
0.1
Benz(a)anthracene
MW114
0.91-3.96
73.5
0.2
Benzo(a) pyrene
MW114
0.91-3.96
52.2
0.01
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
MW114
0.91-3.96
70.1
0.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
MW114
0.91-3.96
25
0.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
MW114
0.91-3.96
29.7
0.1
Chrysene
MW114
0.91-3.96
64.6
0.1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
MW114
0.91-3.96
6.82
0.2
Fluoranthene
MW114
0.91-3.96
182
0.4
Fluorene
MW114
0.91-3.96
229
120
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
MW114
0.91-3.96
29.8
0.2
Methylnaphthalenes
MW114
0.91-3.96
3,070
2
Naphthalene
MW114
0.91-3.96
319
7
Phenanthrene
MW114
0.91-3.96
449
0.1
Pyrene
MW114
0.91-3.96
204
0.2
PCBs (total)
Several
Several
<0.2
0.2
Notes: Shaded: COC was carried forward for further evalua on NA: Not Applicable a From Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act, MOECC, 2011; Table 1, Full Depth Background Site Condi on Standards for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal/Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use. b Maximum concentra on based on historical inves ga ons
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
33 As presented in Table 3-2, groundwater COCs included: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Chloride Cobalt Copper Lead Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Sodium Vanadium Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
PHC F2 to F4 1,1-dichloroethane 1,2-dichloroethane 1,2-dichloroethene, cisStyrene Trichloroethylene Vinyl Chloride Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene
· · · · · · · · ·
Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene
For those parameters that did not have O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCSs, the following condi ons were used to iden fy whether the parameters could be excluded from the final list of COCs: 1. 2.
3. 4.
The maximum observed concentra on was within the range of 97.5th percen le of the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Informa on System (PGMIS) data (MOECC, 2011b); The parameter was not found at concentra ons above the RDL, or the detec on limit was elevated from the applica on of laboratory dilu on factors to allow for quan fica on of other parameters and there was a sufficient dataset from other loca ons where the detec on limit was not elevated, and the parameter was not associated with the historical ac vi es at the Site; The parameter was recognized as having low toxicity because it was an essen al nutrient; or The parameter was not associated with the historical ac vi es at the Site.
Based on this evalua on, no addi onal substances were iden fied as a COC. As previously indicated, the northwest corner of the Site was formerly used for storage of fer lizer (APEC 21). However, the detected potassium, phosphorus, and nitrogen concentra ons in the groundwater samples collected from this area of the Site were deemed typical of background concentra ons; and therefore, these parameters were not considered as COCs in the RA. Addi onal details are provided in Sec on 2.3.2 of the Phase Two CSM provided in Appendix B.2.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
34 3.6.4.1
Excluded Groundwater Data Available groundwater quality data per nent to the Site was reviewed and assessed as to data quality and applicability during the Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016). Groundwater data that was excluded consisted of the following: •
•
•
Metal data for beryllium and silver were excluded where detec on limits were elevated above the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS as a result of analy cal limita ons. These parameters have not been quan fied in groundwater at the Site and there is considered to be a sufficient dataset from loca ons where the detec on limits were not elevated, and therefore are not considered a COC. VOC data with elevated detec on limits above the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS were excluded if the detec on limits were elevated due to dilu on for the purpose of BTEX quan ta on or due to other analy cal limita ons and there is considered to be a sufficient dataset from loca ons where the detec on limits were not elevated, and if the chemical(s) in ques on (i.e., those with detec on limits elevated above the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS) would be very unlikely to cons tute COCs at the Site. VOC parameters that were detected in either groundwater or soil at the Site were not excluded. VOC parameters that were not quan fied above the RDLs in groundwater and were excluded included: 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2trichloroethane, 1,2-dibromo-ethane, and bromodichloromethane. PAH data were excluded for two situa ons: a) Suspected posi ve bias because of elevated turbidity in the water sample, where the monitoring well screen was posi oned in the low permeability silty clay unit. The ra onale is that the presence of turbidity resulted in soil par cles containing PAH compounds to be incorporated into the water sample thereby ac ng as a source of bias in the quan fica on of dissolved PAHs in the groundwater. The low permeability and fine grain size (silt and clay size par cles) of the screened media limited the ability to remove turbidity even a er well development and sampling using low flow sampling methodology was conducted. The source of the PAH in the soil par cles is a ributed to either contamina on from higher stra graphic units (such as impacted fill), or from PAHs associated with natural PHCs in the screened strata. Data exclusion only occurred where more mobile COCs associated with the APEC were not detected in the monitoring well (i.e., PAHs with higher solubility and lower Koc), suppor ng the conclusion that the detected PAH levels in the sample were biased high. b) Situa ons where the detected PAHs are a ributed to natural elevated petroleum hydrocarbons in the water sample. For this situa on, the PAHs were only excluded if PHCs were also detected in the water sample, and there was chemical evidence that the PHCs are from natural sources (i.e., PHC F2 and F3 frac on concentra ons were lowered significantly a er silica-gel clean-up). This ra onale is further supported by the presence of natural PHCs in the na ve silty
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
35
•
clay (Halton Till) that overlies the shale bedrock and within the shale bedrock. This exclusion scenario applies to the parameters benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene and phenanthrene, which are low solubility PAHs, observed in monitoring well MW217 which is screened in the top por on of the shale bedrock. PCB data for sample MW180 having elevated detec on limits above the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS, but below the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS in an unfiltered sample. Ra onale for exclusion is the same as the exclusion explana on for PAHs in exceedance of the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS where sample turbidity is an issue. An analy cal result for an ini al sample for PCB at MW131 was also excluded following a resampling event where sample turbidity was reduced via enhanced well purging, and the analy cal results for the repeat sample met the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS for PCBs.
All parameters that were detected above the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS and parameters where RDLs > Table 1 SCS are presented in summary tables (Appendix B.3) and on the figures that show tes ng results (both plan views and cross-sec ons). For transparency purposes, excluded data is also shown and highlighted, but is not used in the evalua on. 3.6.5
Vinyl Chloride (Future Condi on) Biodegrada on of contaminants in the environment can reduce the concentra ons of the contaminants through the produc on of breakdown products. In most circumstances, breakdown products are less toxic than the original parent compound, with the excep on of some chlorinated compounds. The anaerobic biodegrada on of highly chlorinated compounds such as tetrachloroethylene to vinyl chloride is a mechanism that does not follow this general pa ern. Future degrada on of the vinyl chloride parent compounds (i.e., tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, and trans-1,2dichloroethylene) may result in elevated concentra ons of vinyl chloride. On this basis, the MOECC (2011b) advocates the “10% rule” when developing the generic SCS, which assumed that 10% of the sum of all parent compounds is converted to vinyl chloride. The maximum measured concentra ons of vinyl chloride parent compounds, as well as vinyl chloride itself, are provided in Table 3-3. The sum of these compounds was mul plied by 0.1 (10%) to determine the poten al vinyl chloride concentra on.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
36 Table 3-3: Theoretical Contribution of Parent Compounds to Future Vinyl Chloride Concentration Maximum Measured Theore cal Contribu on to Future Chemical Parameter a Concentra on (µg/L) Vinyl Chloride Concentra on (µg/L) Tetrachloroethylene
<0.5
0.05
Trichloroethylene
1.7
0.17
1,1-Dichloroethylene
<0.5
0.05
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
3.29
0.329
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
0.79
0.079
Vinyl Chloride
3.49
3.49
-
4.17
Vinyl Chloride (future condi on) a
Vinyl chloride concentra on (future condi on) is based on the detected maximum concentra on plus 10% of the maximum concentra on for each parent compound
3.6.6
Effects of pH Levels on COCs Fate and Transport Elevated pH levels above 9 in surface soil (i.e., < 1.5 mbgs) and above 11 in subsurface soil (i.e., > 1.5 mbgs) were detected at a few loca ons on the Site. Out of 251 soil samples analyzed for pH, elevated pH levels were measured at only 3% of the loca ons, including five samples collected from surface soil (i.e., MW99, BH104, BH107, BH116, and MW174) and two loca ons collected from the subsurface soil (i.e., MW98 and BH117). Elevated pH levels in surface soil ranged from 9.14 to 10.7, and elevated pH levels in subsurface soil were 11.01 and 11.34. The iden fied elevated pH condi ons on the Site are likely related to the fill and hence do not represent a recent condi on. The extent of areas with elevated pH levels are shown in Figure No. 5.1a and Figure No. 6.1a in Appendix B.2. Under elevated pH (alkaline) condi ons most metals become more strongly adsorbed to soils with the possible excep on of the oxyanions (i.e., arsenates and chromates) which can mobilize under certain redox condi ons, and for select metals (i.e., copper, lead and zinc) when organic ligands may complex and increase solubility at higher pH (Evanko and Dzombak, 1997). A er review of the groundwater data for the loca ons with elevated pH and comparison of the arsenic, chromium, copper, lead and zinc concentra ons, it does not appear as though there is any correla on that would suggest mobiliza on of these metals is occurring, with many concentra ons generally low and near detec on, or were below the detec on limits (refer to Figure No. 5.1a and Figure No. 6.1a in Appendix B.2). Given the age of the fill at the Site, chemical equilibrium between fill contaminants and groundwater would have been reached, and dispersion/advec on processes ac ve during the last 55 or more years would have allowed any related groundwater impacts to reach steady state condi ons. Therefore, it is considered unlikely that these condi ons will change. The elevated pH noted at these select loca ons may inhibit biodegrada on, however biodegrada on is generally more sensi ve to low pH (acidic) condi ons than elevated (alkaline)
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
37 pH condi ons and while the pH is elevated in the select loca ons it is generally below 10 and consistently below the threshold of 12.1 where most biodegrada on is inhibited (Aburto, 2009). Based on the above informa on, and considering that elevated pH condi ons in soil only occur sporadically across the Site with an average level (i.e., 8.1, calculated as a geometric mean) which was not elevated, it is not expected that the iden fied elevated pH levels would significantly affect COCs fate and transport on the Site. Therefore, using the component values associated with the generic standards is considered appropriate for the Site. Table 7 SCS and Table 9 SCS were used as secondary screening in the HHRA (Sec on 4.2.2.1) and ERA (Sec on 5.1), respec vely. 3.6.7
COC Summary A summary of soil and groundwater COCs and detected maximum and REM concentra ons are presented in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Summary of Contaminants of Concern Soil
Groundwater
Parameter
Maximum REM Maximum REM COC Concentra on Concentra ona COC Concentra on Concentra ona (µg/g) (µg/g) (µg/L) (µg/L)
An mony
Yes
8.5
10.2
Yes
6.37
7.6
Arsenic
Yes
36.4
43.7
Yes
44
52.8
Barium
Yes
441
529.2
Yes
1,060
1,272
Beryllium
Yes
6.08
7.3
No
-
-
Boron
Yes
92.2
110.6
Yes
2,090
2,508
Boron (Hot Water Soluble)
Yes
5.5
6.6
No
-
-
Cadmium
Yes
13.2
15.8
No
-
-
Chloride
No
-
-
Yes
1,740,000
2,088,000
Chromium (VI)
Yes
0.74
0.9
No
-
-
Chromium (Total)
Yes
164
196.8
No
-
-
Cobalt
Yes
32.5
39
Yes
5.27
6.3
Copper
Yes
1,140
1,368
Yes
45
54
Lead
Yes
2,480
2,976
Yes
6
7.2
Mercury
Yes
4.08
4.9
No
-
-
Molybdenum
Yes
12
14.4
Yes
192
230.4
Nickel
No
-
-
Yes
21.5
25.8
Selenium
Yes
2.2
2.6
Yes
13.8
16.6
Silver
Yes
30.7
36.8
No
-
-
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
38
Parameter
Soil
Groundwater
Sodium
No
-
-
Yes
2,290,000
2,748,000
Vanadium
No
-
-
Yes
89.8
107.8
Zinc
Yes
3,860
4,632
No
-
-
Electrical Conduc vity
Yes
3.52 (mS/cm)
4.2 (mS/cm)
No
-
-
Sodium Adsorp on Ra o
Yes
68.9 (unitless) 82.7 (unitless)
No
-
-
Benzene
Yes
1.43
1.7
Yes
301
361.2
Toluene
Yes
1.4
1.7
Yes
8.69
10.4
Ethylbenzene
Yes
26.4
31.7
Yes
19
22.8
Xylenes
Yes
96
115.2
No
-
-
1,1-dichloroethane
Yes
0.064
0.08
Yes
0.66
0.8
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Yes
<0.8
0.96
No
-
-
1,2-dichloroethane
Yes
<0.2
0.24
Yes
0.53
0.6
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Yes
<0.8
0.96
No
-
-
Acetone
Yes
<2.5
3
No
-
-
Chloroform
Yes
<0.4
0.48
No
-
-
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
Yes
<0.2
0.24
Yes
3.29
3.9
Hexane
Yes
11.3
13.6
No
-
-
Methylene chloride
Yes
<9
10.8
No
-
-
Methyl Isobutyl ketone
Yes
<2
2.4
No
-
-
Styrene
Yes
<0.2
0.24
Yes
1.67
2
Trichloroethylene
Yes
0.135
0.16
Yes
1.7
2.1
Tetrachloroethylene
Yes
<0.2
0.24
No
-
-
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
Yes
<0.2
0.24
No
-
-
Vinyl chloride
Yes
<0.08
0.1
Yes
4.17
5
F1 (C6-C10)
Yes
1,180
1,416
No
-
-
F2 (C10-C16)
Yes
19,700
23,640
Yes
12,000
14,400
F3 (C16-C34)
Yes
13,700
16,440
Yes
11,400
13,700
F4 (C34-C50)
Yes
44,100
52,920
Yes
1,700
2,040
Acenaphthene
Yes
16.9
20.3
Yes
146
175.2
Acenaphthylene
Yes
3.69
4.4
Yes
31.9
38.3
Anthracene
Yes
11
13.2
Yes
3.8
4.6
Benz(a)anthracene
Yes
25.7
30.8
Yes
73.5
88.2
Benzo(a) pyrene
Yes
17.5
21
Yes
52.2
62.6
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
Yes
24.8
29.8
Yes
70.1
84.1
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
39
Parameter
Soil
Groundwater
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Yes
8.3
10
Yes
25
30
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Yes
8.06
9.7
Yes
29.7
35.6
Chrysene
Yes
25.2
30.2
Yes
64.6
77.5
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Yes
3.16
3.8
Yes
6.82
8.2
Fluoranthene
Yes
48.2
57.8
Yes
182
218.4
Fluorene
Yes
25.2
30.2
Yes
229
274.8
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Yes
9.44
11.3
Yes
29.8
35.8
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
Yes
440
528
Yes
3,070
3,684
Naphthalene
Yes
73.1
87.7
Yes
319
382.8
Phenanthrene
Yes
64.7
77.6
Yes
449
538.8
Pyrene
Yes
39
46.8
Yes
204
244.8
PCBs (Total)
Yes
3.95
4.7
No
-
-
Notes: a
REM concentra ons were calculated by adding 20% variance to the maximum detected concentra on found on-site for each COC.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
40
4.0
Human Health Risk Assessment
4.1
Problem Formulation The Problem Formula on step is an informa on gathering and interpreta on stage that serves to plan and focus the approach of the risk assessment. This stage of the HHRA determines the poten al human receptors that will be using the Site and the pathways through which they may come into contact with COCs. As discussed in Sec on 3.5, the Site was considered environmentally sensi ve due to the presence of pH levels in shallow soil greater than 9 in some areas and since por ons of the Site may provide habitat for threatened or endangered species. Therefore, the ini al selec on of COCs included a comparison of the maximum measured concentra ons to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS for a residen al/parkland/ins tu onal/industrial/commercial/community property use (Sec ons 3.6.3 and 3.6.4). Those chemical parameters found in excess of the O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS will be evaluated in the HHRA as REM concentra ons to represent a more conserva ve es ma on of the maximum concentra ons at the Site. The REM concentra ons for soil and groundwater COCs are provided in Table 3-4. The REM PHC F1 to F4 values were sub-frac onated for soil and groundwater according to the MOECC (2011b) default frac ona on values and provided in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Table 4-1: Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractionation in Soil PHC Frac on
F1
F2
Soil Sub-Frac ona on Percentagea (%)
Soil SubFrac ona on Results (µg/g)
Alipha c >C6-C8
55
649
778.8
Alipha c >C8-C10
36
424.8
509.8
Aroma c >C8-C10
9
106.2
127.4
TOTAL
100
1,180
1,416
Alipha c >C10-C12
36
7,092
8,510.4
Alipha c >C12-C16
44
8,668
10,401.6
Aroma c >C10-C12
9
1,773
2,127.6
Aroma c >C12-C16
11
2,167
2,600.4
TOTAL
100
19,700
23,640
Sub-frac on
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
REM Soil SubFrac ona on Resultsb (µg/g)
41
PHC Frac on
F3
F4
Soil Sub-Frac ona on Percentagea (%)
Soil SubFrac ona on Results (µg/g)
Alipha c >C16-C21
56
7,672
9,206.4
Alipha c >C21-C34
24
3,288
3,945.6
Aroma c >C16-C21
14
1,918
2,301.6
Aroma c >C21-C34
6
822
986.4
TOTAL
100
13,700
16,440
Alipha c >C34
80
35,820
42,336
Aroma c >C34
20
8,820
10,584
TOTAL
100
44,100
52,920
Sub-frac on
REM Soil SubFrac ona on b Results (µg/g)
Notes: a PHC sub-frac on ra os were obtained from the MOECC (2011b) Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. b REM concentra ons were calculated by adding 20% variance to the maximum detected concentra on found on-site.
Table 4-2: Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractionation in Groundwater Groundwater SubGroundwater SubFrac ona on PHC Frac on Sub-frac on Frac ona on Results Percentagea (µg/L) (%)
F1
F2
F3
REM Groundwater Sub-Frac ona on Resultsb (µg/L)
Alipha c >C6-C8
60.5
193
231.6
Alipha c >C8-C10
6.3
20
24.1
Aroma c >C8-C10
33.2
106
127.1
TOTAL
100
319
382.8
Alipha c >C10-C12
2.4
288
345.6
Alipha c >C12-C16
0.2
24
28.8
Aroma c >C10-C12
60.3
7,236
8,683.2
Aroma c >C12-C16
37.1
4,452
5,342.4
TOTAL
100
12,000
14,400
Alipha c >C16-C21
56
6,384
7,660.8
Alipha c >C21-C34
24
2,736
3,283.2
Aroma c >C16-C21
14
1,596
1,915.2
Aroma c >C21-C34
6
684
820.8
100
11,400
13,680
TOTAL
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
42
PHC Frac on
F4
Sub-frac on
Groundwater SubGroundwater SubFrac ona on Frac ona on Results a Percentage (µg/L) (%)
REM Groundwater Sub-Frac ona on b Results (µg/L)
Alipha c >C34
80
1,360
1,632
Aroma c >C34
20
340
408
TOTAL
100
1,700
2,040
Notes: a PHC sub-frac on ra os were obtained from the MOECC (2011b) Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. b REM concentra ons were calculated by adding 20% variance to the maximum detected concentra on found on-site.
4.1.1
Human Health Conceptual Site Model (CSM) A human health CSM is a physical descrip on of the poten al contamina on problem to be assessed from a human exposure and health risk perspec ve (MOECC, 2005). The CSM indicates the poten al source and transport mechanisms of contaminants, the source media, the poten al human receptors on- and off-site via applicable exposure routes. Figure 4-1 provides the human health CSM in the absence of risk management. The pathways and receptors iden fied in Figure 4-1 include all pathways considered reasonable for the Site taking into account the proposed and surrounding land uses. Based on the outcome of the HHRA, a CSM with proposed risk management measures is provided in Sec on 7 (Figure 7-1).
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
43
FIGURE 4-1 HUMAN HEALTH CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL WITHOUT RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES POTENTIAL ON-SITE HUMAN RECEPTORS
PRIMARY IMPACTED MEDIUM
TRANSPORT MECHANISM
SOIL
EXPOSURE MEDIUM
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES
RESIDENTS (all ages)
INDOOR WORKER (long-term)
PROPERTY VISITORS
OUTDOOR WORKER (long-term)
CONSTRUCTION/ REMED. WORKER
RESIDENTS (all ages)
PROPERTY VISITORS
INDOOR WORKER (long-term)
CONSTRUCTION/ REMED. & OUTDOOR WORKERS
SOIL (surface and subsurface soil)
INCIDENTAL INGESTION
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
¡
INFILTRATION AND LEACHING NON-POTABLE GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER
POTENTIAL OFF-SITE HUMAN RECEPTORS
DERMAL CONTACT
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
¡
PARTICULATE INHALATION
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
INHALATION OF INDOOR AIR
ü
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
INHALATION OF OUTDOOR AIR
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
INHALATION OF TRENCH AIR
NA
NA
NA
NA
ü
NA
NA
NA
NA
UPTAKE BY GARDEN PRODUCE / INGESTION
ü
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
DERMAL CONTACT
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
¡
¡
¡
¡
INCIDENTAL INGESTION
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
¡
¡
¡
¡
INHALATION OF INDOOR AIR
ü
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
INHALATION OF OUTDOOR AIR
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
INHALATION OF TRENCH AIR
NA
NA
NA
NA
ü
NA
NA
NA
NA
DERMAL CONTACT
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ü
ü
NA
NA
INCIDENTAL INGESTION
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ü
ü
NA
NA
EROSION NON-POTABLE SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
Notes: ü
- Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway
ü
- Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway, but minimal
¡
- Indicates pathway incomplete
NA - Indicates pathway not applicable
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
44 Based on the intended future site use (i.e., mixture of residen al, commercial and recrea onal/community), receptors expected to be on the Site include: · · · · ·
Residents (all ages) Indoor worker (long term) Outdoor worker (long term) Subsurface (construc on/remedia on) worker Property visitor (will be assessed qualita vely)
Off-site receptors have been evaluated in Sec on 4.4.6. Adjacent and surrounding land uses are: residen al and ins tu onal to the east and south, and commercial to the west. The expected offsite receptors include residents, indoor worker, outdoor worker, property visitor, and subsurface worker. Based on the current and proposed future site uses, the following exposure pathways may be relevant to the iden fied receptors: · · · · · · ·
Direct contact (incidental inges on and dermal contact) with impacted soil (all receptors) Direct contact (incidental inges on and dermal contact) with impacted groundwater (subsurface worker only) Inhala on of soil par culates (residents, property visitors, outdoor workers, and subsurface workers) Inhala on of indoor air (residents, indoor workers, and property visitors) Inhala on of outdoor air (all receptors) Inhala on of trench air (subsurface workers) Inges on of garden produce (residents)
Exposure pathways to be considered for off-site receptors are limited to par culate inhala on and outdoor air inhala on (residents and subsurface worker) and groundwater migra on towards the commercial property on the northwest located cross-gradient/down-gradient from the Site. No other off-site proper es with occupied structures are sufficiently proximal to the Site to pose a poten al concern. A detailed descrip on of exposure pathways is included in Sec on 4.2.2. 4.1.2
Risk Assessment Objec ves The objec ves of the HHRA are to evaluate the on-site human health risks associated with exposure to impacted soil and groundwater, using either quan ta ve or qualita ve methods, and to derive PSS for soil and groundwater that are protec ve of human health. The proposed PSS values were derived based on the REM concentra ons that represent an upper es mate of
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
45 the actual maximum COC concentra ons at the Site. The approach used was for a risk assessment other than those iden fied in Schedule C Part II of O.Reg.153/04, as amended. The quality and quan ty of data provided for environmental media were considered sufficient to meet the objec ves of the HHRA. Sec ons 3.2 and 3.6 present the data relied upon in the HHRA and confirm that the data was considered of suitable quality to meet the risk assessment’s data quality objec ves as: · · · ·
The data used for the HHRA was recent; The sampling programs provided sufficient coverage for the Site; The sampling programs followed MOECC (2004) recommended sampling and analy cal procedures; and A sampling quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program was conducted for both field sampling and laboratory analysis.
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures were undertaken as part of the sampling programs conducted during Dillon’s Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016). These measures included field duplicate sampling and analyses. Field duplicate samples for each media at the Site were collected at a minimum rate of 10% (one in ten samples). Trip blank samples were also submi ed for analysis to assess the handling and packaging procedures throughout the sampling programs. The analy cal laboratory also conducted its own internal QA/QC tes ng (e.g., percentage recovery of matrix spike, spiked blanks, surrogate recovery analyses, and laboratory duplicates). All laboratory cer ficates of analysis are provided in the Phase Two ESA report (Dillon, 2016). The analy cal data is considered to be adequate with respect to precision and accuracy indicated in laboratory analy cal cer ficates and is considered reliable for use in the risk assessment. Addi onal informa on concerning the QA/QC programs conducted is provided in the Phase Two ESA report (Dillon, 2016). Similarly, appropriate QA/QC measures were implemented in the collec on of other data relied upon in the conduct of the RA (e.g., Dillon, 2017; Terraprobe, 2016), as outlined in Appendix B. Uncertainty associated with the problem formula on exists due to a finite number of samples available for soil and groundwater analyses, although the sampling program undertaken during the Phase Two ESA was concluded to be sufficiently comprehensive to characterize condi ons adequately across the en re Site. One assump on made in order to fulfill the HHRA objec ves was that the REM soil and groundwater concentra ons used in the HHRA are representa ve of the en re Site. While this is not expected to be the case, in order to be conserva ve and in accordance with MOECC prac ce, REM soil and groundwater concentra ons were selected to be representa ve of the en re Site to ensure that poten al risks were not underes mated. The resul ng probable overes ma on of
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
46 risks is considered to be appropriate in the assessment to ensure that the PSS and accompanying RMMs are adequately protec ve to compensate for inherent uncertain es in the characteriza on and assessment of contaminated sites. 4.2
Exposure Assessment The primary objec ve of the exposure assessment is to determine the extent of exposure from the COCs to human receptors via the pathways iden fied in the CSM, while taking into account the dura on and frequency of exposure events.
4.2.1
Receptor Characteris cs All receptor characteris cs used in this risk assessment were selected from MOECC (2011b). A descrip on of each receptor considered in this HHRA is provided below. It should be noted that the Modified Generic Risk Assessment User Guide (2016b) specifies that the number of frozen ground days per year for Hamilton is 50 days (approximately 44 weeks of free frost period) and this value was used to characterize the exposure dura on for all receptors expected to come into contact with on-site soils. Resident (Toddler and Composite Receptor) Under the residen al scenario, it was assumed that a resident (i.e., toddler and composite receptor) could poten ally be exposed to COCs in soil (i.e., via direct contact, inhala on of soil par culates, inhala on of outdoor air, and inhala on of soil vapours in indoor air) and groundwater (i.e., via inhala on of vapours in indoor air) while on-site. For COCs with non-carcinogenic endpoints, the toddler was selected to be representa ve of all non-adults since this life stage is generally regarded as being the most sensi ve due to the elevated soil inges on rate and other characteris cs assumed for this age group. The toddler receptor is assumed to be exposed for 4.5 years (age 6 months to 5 years). For COCs with carcinogenic endpoints, the assessment of the risks involves an es mate of the average daily exposure over a receptor’s life me. Therefore, a composite receptor was selected to incorporate exposure over a 76 year life me. The resident receptor was assumed to be in contact with soil for seven days a week during the frost free period (44 weeks per year). Exposure to indoor air contaminant vapours for toddlers may occur for 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, for 50 weeks/year. The composite receptor was assumed to spend 22.5 hour/day, 7 days/week, 50 weeks/year exposed to COCs in indoor air. For the assessment of risks from inhala on of soil par culates, residents (i.e., toddler and composite) were assumed to spend 1.5 hours/day, 7 days/week, for 44 weeks/year exposed to COCs outdoors. For the assessment of risks from inhala on of outdoor air, residents (i.e., toddler and composite) were assumed to spend 1.5 hours/day, 7 days/week, for 50 weeks/year exposed
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
47 to COCs outdoors. Dermal contact with groundwater was not assumed to occur for the residen al receptor. Indoor Worker (long term) An adult commercial employee was assumed to work indoors at the Site for 8.8 hours/day, and outdoors 1 hour/day, 5 days/week. For direct contact exposure scenarios, a 44 weeks/year exposure is assumed to account for snow covered days. The receptor was assumed to be exposed to COCs in indoor air for 50 weeks/year. Teens may also be present as commercial workers at the Site; however, the exposure assump ons applied to the toddler resident receptor are considered to be conserva ve rela ve to what could be experienced by a teen commercial worker, such that the toddler resident would experience a greater degree of exposure. The assessment of risks from soil par culate inhala on pathway for the indoor worker receptor should be also covered by evalua ng resident and outdoor worker as these receptors would experience a greater degree of exposure. Dermal contact with groundwater was not assumed to occur for this receptor. Outdoor Worker (long term) Under the outdoor worker scenario, it was assumed that an adult maintenance worker, responsible for daily landscaping, could poten ally be exposed to COCs in soil. The receptor was assumed to be exposed while working for 9.8 hours/day, 5 days/week, 44 weeks/year for 56 years. It should be noted that the post-development groundwater depth at the Site is expected to be deeper than the shallowest groundwater depth encountered during the Phase Two ESA (i.e., 0.5 mbgs locally at the Site). Based on this informa on and considering that any plan ng and gardening is expected to be done at a depth above the groundwater level (i.e., since plan ngs will necessarily occur in the unsaturated zone to avoid drowning or roots), dermal contact with groundwater was not assumed to occur for the maintenance worker receptor. Subsurface (Construc on/Remedia on) Worker The subsurface worker receptor was assumed to have a workday of 9.8 hours/day, 5 days/week, 44 weeks/year, over a period of 1.5 years. Incidental inges on of groundwater while working in a trench was also quan ta vely addressed. It was assumed that the subsurface worker works in a trench for 2 hours/day, 5 days/week for two weeks during which me the worker would come into direct contact with groundwater and vapours. Inhala on of vola les while not in a trench was considered negligible. Considera on of Other Poten al Receptor Scenarios Due to the proposed future land use of residen al, commercial, and recrea onal, property visitors (e.g., store patron) are poten al receptors that frequent the Site. However, assessment of this receptor was not necessary, as the assessment of the toddler and composite residents
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
48 was considered to be conserva ve rela ve to this receptor and therefore protec ve. While each age category possesses the same receptor characteris cs (i.e., body weight, inhala on rate, etc.), the resident was assumed to be on-site for a considerably longer period of me (assuming a longer period of me indoors for the resident, and the same dura on outdoors for both receptors). Hence, any risk to a property visitor would be captured by the risk assessment of the resident receptor. Off-site Receptors Land use east and south of the Site is primarily residen al and ins tu onal, and to the west is predominantly commercial. Poten al off-site receptors include residents, property visitors, indoor workers (commercial employee), outdoor workers (maintenance worker), and subsurface workers. Hamilton Harbour also borders por ons of the Site to the east, north and west and would be u lized by recrea onal visitors and future residents. It is expected that on-site receptors will experience a greater degree of exposure via outdoor air and soil par culate inhala on pathways than the off-site receptors; and therefore, any risk to offsite receptors via these exposure pathways would be captured by the risk assessment of the onsite receptors. In addi on, no off-site building is located in sufficiently close proximity of on-site contamina on for the soil vapour migra on pathway. The off-site buildings to the west, south, and east are located more than 60 m from the on-site contamina on which is greater than the MOECC’s (MOECC, 2013) distance criterion of 15 m (for biodegradable chemicals) and 30 m (for recalcitrant chemicals) between the contamina on and the building. The off-site buildings to the northwest are located within 30 m of the site boundaries but more than 30 m from the on-site contamina on. Therefore, on-site contamina on is not expected to pose unacceptable risks to occupants of off-site buildings via vapour intrusion. In order to iden fy areas posing a poten al risk to off-site receptors, the on-site PSSs have been screened to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 3 SCS for the applicable neighbouring land use. The results of this screening are presented in Sec on 4.4.6. Summary of Receptor Characteris cs Table 4-3 summarizes the generic characteris cs applicable to the on-site receptors.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
49 Table 4-3: Summary of Receptor Characteristics Toddler Composite Receptor Characteris cs Resident Resident Age Range
Indoor Worker
Outdoor Worker
Subsurface Worker
6 m – 4 yrs
0 – 76 yrs
>20 yrs
>20 yrs
>20 yrs
Years within an Age Group
4.5
76
56
56
56
Body Weight (kg)
16.5
62.4a
70.7
70.7
70.7
-
63.1
63.1
63.1
63.1
24 indoors; 1.5 outdoors
22.5 indoors; 1.5 outdoors
8.8 indoors; 1 outdoors
9.8 outdoors
9.8 outdoors
7
7
5
5
5
4.5
76
56
56
1.5
200
a
50
100
100
Body Weight for Developmental Effects (kg) Exposure Time (hours/day) Exposure Frequency (days/week) Exposure Dura on (Years) Soil Inges on Rate (mg/day) 3
Inhala on Rate (m /day)
60
a
b
8.3
15.7
16.6
16.6
24.7
-
-
-
-
0.1c
1,745
3,977a
4,343
3,400
3,400
-
3,988
3,988
3,988
3,988
2.0E-04
9.0E-05a
7.0E-05
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
Soil Loading to Skin for Developmental Effects (g/cm2/day)
-
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
Averaging Time (noncarcinogens) (years)
4.5
56
56
56
1.5
-
76
56
56
56
Incidental Water Inges on Rate (L/day) Average Skin Surface Area Exposed (cm2) Average Skin Surface Area Exposed for Developmental Effects (cm2) Soil Loading to Skin (g/cm2/day)
Averaging me (carcinogens (years)
Notes: a Receptor characteris cs for composite resident were adjusted using a weigh ng method based on dura on of each age category. The weighted exposures were then summed to derive a composite value. b Inhala on rate for subsurface worker receptor was calculated based on MOECC’s recommended inhala on rate of 3 3 1.5 m /hour during work me and 20 m /day for the reminder of the day. c US EPA (1989) incidental surface water inges on rate of 0.05 L/hr (i.e., for 2hr/days) was assumed as the incidental groundwater inges on rate for subsurface worker.
In the absence of an MOECC incidental groundwater inges on rate for the subsurface worker receptor, an incidental surface water inges on rate of 0.05 L/hr was obtained from the US EPA (1989a) as referenced in US EPA (1989b) and used in this RA. This inges on rate is approximately
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
50 equivalent to the mean rate for children under the age of 18 engaged in swimming (i.e., 0.049 L/hr) iden fied in the US EPA (2011), which further validates the inges on rate applied as less incidental inges on would be expected for the subsurface worker. It was conserva vely assumed that the subsurface worker would ingest 0.05 L/hr of groundwater for 2 hr/day. Developmental Toxicants MOECC (2011b) has indicated that pro-ra ng of exposure should not be applied for chemicals that act as prenatal developmental toxicants (i.e., chemicals that interfere with proper growth or health any me between concep on and birth). As a result, exposure to the developmental COCs for pregnant adult receptor were not adjusted for less than con nuous exposure, because in theory even a single exposure to a developmental toxicant may be sufficient to cause an adverse developmental effect (MOECC, 2011b). 4.2.2
Pathway Analysis The path that a chemical travels to reach an environmental medium (e.g., soil, water, air) that a person may come into contact with is referred to as an exposure pathway. The path that a chemical moves from the environmental medium into the body is referred to as an exposure route (i.e., inhala on, inges on, and dermal absorp on through skin). The pathway analysis iden fies the exposure pathways and routes that were considered in the HHRA. Based upon the human health CSM, the following exposure pathways and routes were iden fied: · · · ·
Soil dermal contact and incidental inges on Groundwater dermal contact and incidental inges on Inhala on of soil par culates Inhala on of soil and groundwater vapours (i.e., indoor air, outdoor air, and trench air)
The exposure to vola les via dermal absorp on is an cipated to be insignificant rela ve to inhala on of vapours and dermal contact with soil and groundwater. Exposure via consump on of home garden produce was also not assessed in the HHRA. There is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the uptake of many of the soil COCs as well as uncertainty associated with consump on rate of home garden produce. Further, it is not an cipated that a significant por on of a resident’s regular diet would be composed of home garden produce. Therefore, exposure to COCs via this pathway would likely be minor rela ve to other applicable pathways. Nevertheless, in the absence of reliable exposure es mates via this pathway, it was conserva vely assumed that unacceptable risks may occur and that RMMs for the Site should address this pathway. The exposure poten al for off-site recrea onal receptors u lizing Hamilton Harbour was considered to be insignificant considering the rela vely low groundwater gradients and hydraulic
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
51 conduc vity (k) of the fill unit at the Site (i.e., geometric mean k of 2.6 x 10 -6 m/s), which would result in a low rate of groundwater discharge to the harbour. Any discharging groundwater containing COCs from the Site would be rapidly a enuated due to the rela vely high dilu on poten al afforded by the harbour. It is noted that many of these COCs would also be expected to occur in the surface water of the harbour as a background condi on unrelated to the Site. 4.2.2.1
Soil COCs Criteria Component Screening The soil screening conducted in Sec on 3.6.3 indicated that sixty (60) parameters were found at concentra ons in excess of the applicable O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS or were without SCS, and therefore were retained as COCs. As a secondary step for the HHRA, the REM concentra ons for these parameters were compared to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 7 component values protec ve of human health (Table 4-4). The selec on of the O.Reg.153/04 Table 7 component values was due to the presence of shallow groundwater condi ons (i.e., < 3 mbgs) at the Site. Since the O.Reg.153/04 Table 7 component values are the same as the O.Reg.153/04 Table 3 component values for soils, the REM concentra ons were compared against the O.Reg.153/04 Table 3 human health component values for residen al/parkland/ins tu onal land use with coarse textured soils. Specifically, the REM concentra ons were compared to the component values protec ve of direct soil contact (S1), inhala on of vapours migra ng from soil to indoor air (S-IA) and outdoor air (S-OA). In order to evaluate poten al risks for the subsurface worker, the REM concentra ons were also compared to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 3 human health component values protec ve of direct contact by construc on/trench worker (S3) for industrial/commercial/community land use with coarse textured soils. Soil COCs were carried forward to the quan ta ve risk assessment if found to exceed any of the above criteria components. Soil COCs that were not carried forward were determined to be present at the Site at concentra ons less than levels that would pose a risk to human health.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
52 Table 4-4: Quantitative Evaluation Screenings for Soil Pathways Direct Soil c Contact (S3)
Vapour b Inhala on (S-IA)
Vapour b Inhala on (S-OA)
7.5
63
nv
nv
43.7
0.95
47
nv
nv
441
529.2
3,800
8,600
nv
nv
Beryllium
6.08
7.3
38
60
nv
nv
Boron
92.2
110.6
4,300
24,000
nv
nv
Boron (HWS)
5.5
6.6
nv
nv
nv
nv
Maximum Concentra on (µg/g)
REM Concentra on (µg/g)
Antimony
8.5
10.2
Arsenic
36.4
Barium
COC
d
a
Direct Soil Contact (S1)
b
Cadmium
13.2
15.8
0.69
7.9
nv
nv
Chromium (III+VI)
164
196.8
28,000
240,000
nv
nv
Chromium (VI)
0.74
0.9
160
40
nv
nv
Cobalt
32.5
39.0
22
2,500
nv
nv
Copper
1,140
1,368.0
600
5,600
nv
nv
Lead
2,480
2,976.0
200
1,000
nv
nv
Mercury
4.08
4.9
9.8
670
0.25
36
12
14.4
110
1,200
nv
nv
Molybdenum
d
Selenium
2.2
2.6
110
1,200
nv
nv
Silver
30.7
36.8
77
490
nv
nv
Zinc
3,860
4,632.0
5,600
47,000
nv
nv
Electrical Conductivity
3.52
4.2
nv
nv
nv
nv
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
68.9
82.7
nv
nv
nv
nv
Benzene
1.43
1.7
9.3
480
0.21
17
Toluene
1.4
1.7
1,700
180,000
6.2
34,000
Ethylbenzene
26.4
31.7
2,100
22,000
2
7,600
Xylenes
96
115.2
4,200
88,000
3.1
4,900
PHC F1
1,180
1,416.0
6,900
100,000
130
26,000
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
53
Maximum Concentra on (µg/g)
REM Concentra ona (µg/g)
Direct Soil Contactb (S1)
Direct Soil c Contact (S3)
Vapour b Inhala on (S-IA)
Vapour b Inhala on (S-OA)
PHC F2
19,700
23,640.0
3,100
48,000
98
25,000
PHC F3
13,700
16,440.0
5,800
260,000
nv
nv
PHC F4
44,100
52,920.0
6,100
400,000
nv
nv
1,1-dichloroethane
0.064
COC
1,2-dichlorobenzene 1,2-dichloroethane 1,4-dichlorobenzene Acetone Chloroform cis-1,2-dichloroethene Dichloromethane Hexane Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Styrene Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene trans-1,2-dichloroethene
0.1
840
88,000
3.5
1,500
e
0.96
6,300
130,000
35
9,200
e
0.24
8.7
450
0.025
1.4
e
0.96
47
2,400
0.083
18
e
3.0
19,000
660,000
720
120,000
e
0.48
26
1,300
0.032
8.9
e
0.2
0.24
630
66,000
3.4
1,300
e
9
10.8
110
5,500
0.1
2,200
11.3
13.6
nv
21,000,000
2.8
130,000
2
2.4
21,000
110,000
6.6
23,000
0.2
0.24
25,00
26,000
16
3,400
0.135
0.8 0.2 0.8 2.5 0.4
e
0.16
31
160
0.061
24
e
0.24
290
31,000
0.28
2,300
e
0.24
420
44,000
0.084
700
0.2 0.2
e
Vinyl chloride
0.08
0.1
0.57
29
0.0021
14
Acenaphthene
16.9
20.3
78
3,600
7.9
1,300
Acenphthylene
3.69
4.4
7.8
360
0.45
96
11
13.2
5,400
420,000
nv
nv
Benzo(a)anthracene
25.7
30.8
0.78
36
65
330
Benzo(a)pyrene
17.5
21.0
0.078
3.6
820
170
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
24.8
29.8
0.78
36
5,500
2,000
Anthracene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
54
Maximum Concentra on (µg/g)
REM Concentra ona (µg/g)
Direct Soil Contactb (S1)
Direct Soil c Contact (S3)
Vapour b Inhala on (S-IA)
Vapour b Inhala on (S-OA)
Benzo(ghi)perylene
8.3
10.0
7.8
360
nv
nv
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
8.06
9.7
0.78
36
6,700
2,100
Chrysene
25.2
30.2
7.8
360
1,900
6,600
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.16
3.8
0.078
3.6
33,000
430
Fluoranthene
48.2
57.8
7.8
360
250
2,500
Fluorene
25.2
30.2
720
56,000
nv
nv
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
9.44
11.3
0.78
36
46,000
4,000
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
440
528
72
560
nv
nv
Naphthalene
73.1
87.7
360
28,000
0.65
270
Phenathrene
64.7
77.6
nv
nv
nv
nv
39
46.8
78
3,600
1,900
23,000
3.95
4.7
0.35
4.1
3.1
120
COC
Pyrene PCBs
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC carried through for quan ta ve evalua on nv: No criteria component value a 20% variance was added to the maximum concentra ons found on-site to determine the REM for each COC b MOECC 2011 Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario – Table 3 Component Values for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal Land Use with Coarse Textured Soils c MOECC 2011 Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario – Table 3 Component Values for Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use with Coarse Textured Soils d Based on historical inves ga ons completed on-site e Assumed presence at maximum laboratory detec on limit
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
55 Based on Table 4-4, a total of 36 COCs in soil were in excess of one or more O.Reg.153/04 Table 3 component values designed to be protec ve of human health, as summarized below: ·
·
·
·
·
The REM concentra ons of an mony, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, PHC F2 to F4, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b/j)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene, methylnaphthalene, and PCBs exceeded the S1 criteria component values and will be carried forward for the quan ta ve risk assessment. The REM concentra ons of cadmium, lead, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and PCBs exceeded the S3 criteria component values and will be carried forward for the quan ta ve risk assessment. The REM concentra ons of mercury, benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, PHC F1, PHC F2, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, chloroform, dichloromethane, hexane, trichloroethylene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, naphthalene, and PCBs exceeded the S-IA criteria component values and will be carried forward for the quan ta ve risk assessment. No criteria components were available to screen for soil vapour inhala on for a subsurface worker in a trench; consequently, all vola le soil COCs will be carried forward in the risk assessment for quan ta ve evalua on. The REM concentra ons for all vola le COCs were less than the soil to outdoor air (S-OA) component values; and therefore, this exposure pathway was not further evaluated in the RA.
Given the uncertain es in the toxicology of lead and a lack of regulatory guidance available for evalua ng oral and dermal exposures, risks resul ng from oral and dermal contact with lead could not be evaluated quan ta vely and were assessed qualita vely in Sec on 4.4.3. Carcinogenic PAHs The MOECC has selected a Toxicity Equivalency Factor (TEF) approach to evaluate the cumula ve toxicity of carcinogenic PAHs. As such, if any one carcinogenic PAH exceeded its respec ve human health component value, then all carcinogenic PAHs are to be evaluated since risks resul ng from exposure to the carcinogenic PAHs are considered addi ve (MOECC, 2005). Since acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b/j)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene exceeded the lowest of O.Reg.153/04 Table 3 component values for S1, S3, and S-IA exposure pathways, all remaining carcinogenic PAHs (i.e., pyrene) were retained for further evalua on. The sum of carcinogenic risks for all carcinogenic PAHs should not exceed 1x10-6 consistent with MOECC guidance (2005).
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
56 4.2.2.2
Groundwater COCs Criteria Component Screening The groundwater screening conducted in Sec on 3.6.4 indicated that forty two (42) parameters were found at concentra ons in excess of the applicable O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS, and therefore were retained as COCs. As a secondary step for the HHRA, the REM concentra ons for these parameters were compared to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 7 component values protec ve of human health for residen al/parkland/ins tu onal land use with coarse textured soils (Table 45). Specifically, the REM concentra ons were compared to the component values protec ve of inhala on of vapours migra ng from groundwater to indoor air (GW2). Further, due to the presence of shallow groundwater at the Site, the subsurface worker may contact groundwater while working in a trench. Therefore, GW1 was also selected for use in screening for poten al direct contact with groundwater COCs. The GW1 criteria component does not consider dermal contact, but for this assessment COCs exceeding the GW1 criteria component were conserva vely carried forward to evaluate dermal exposure pathways. As Table 7 SCS does not include the GW1 pathway, these values were drawn from Table 2 SCS (applicable to sites with potable groundwater usage). In the absence of criteria component values for the groundwater to outdoor air exposure pathway, this pathway was evaluated based on the measured soil vapour criteria as discussed in Sec on 4.2.2.3. Groundwater COCs were carried forward to the quan ta ve risk assessment if in exceedance of any of the above criteria components. Groundwater COCs that were not carried forward were determined to be present at concentra ons less than levels that would pose a risk to human health.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
57 Table 4-5: Quantitative Evaluation Screenings for Groundwater Pathways a Maximum Concentra on REM Concentra on COC (µg/L) (µg/L)
b
Potable Groundwater (GW1)
Vapour Inhala on (GW2)
Chloride
1,740,000
2,088,000
250,000
nv
Antimony
6.37
7.6
6
nv
Arsenic
44
52.8
25
nv
Barium
1,060
1,272.0
1,000
nv
Boron
2,090
2,508.0
5,000
nv
Cobalt
5.27
6.3
3
nv
Copper
45
54.0
1,000
nv
6
7.2
10
nv
Molybdenum
192
230.4
70
nv
Nickel
21.5
25.8
100
nv
Selenium
13.8
16.6
10
nv
2,290,000
2,748,000.0
200,000
nv
Vanadium
89.8
107.8
6.2
nv
Benzene
301
361.2
5.0
0.17
Ethylbenzene
19
22.8
2.4
54
Toluene
8.69
10.4
24
320
1,1-dichloroethane
0.66
0.8
5
11
1,2-dichloroethane
0.53
0.6
5
0.07
cis-1,2,-dichloroethene
3.29
3.9
20
1.6
Styrene
1.67
2.0
100
43
Trichloroethylene
1.7
2.1
5
0.072
Vinyl chloride
4.17
5.0
2
0.0072
F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons)
12,000
14,400
300
5.7
F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons)
11,400
13,680
1,000
nv
Lead
Sodium
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
d
c
58
Maximum Concentra on (µg/L)
REM Concentra ona (µg/L)
Potable Groundwaterb (GW1)
Vapour Inhala onc (GW2)
1,700
2,040
1,100
nv
Acenaphthene
146
175.2
4.1
17
Acenaphthylene
31.9
38.3
0.45
0.96
Anthracene
3.8
4.6
890
nv
Benz(a)anthracene
73.5
88.2
1
3.8
Benzo(a) pyrene
52.2
62.6
0.01
14
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
70.1
84.1
0.1
81
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
25
30.0
1
nv
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
29.7
35.6
0.1
100
Chrysene
64.6
77.5
0.1
95
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
6.82
8.2
0.01
140
Fluoranthene
182
218.4
0.4
44
Fluorene
229
274.8
120
nv
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
29.8
35.8
0.1
190
Methylnaphthalenes
3,070
3,684.0
12
nv
Naphthalene
319
382.8
59
4.4
Phenanthrene
449
538.8
1
nv
Pyrene
204
244.8
4
340
COC F4 (C34-C50)
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC carried through for quan ta ve evalua on nv: No criteria component value a 20% variance was added to the maximum concentra ons found on-site to determine the REM for each COC b MOECC 2011 Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario – Table 2 Component Values for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal Land Use with Coarse Textured Soils c MOECC 2011 Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario – Table 7 Component Values for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal Land Use with Coarse Textured Soils d Based on historical inves ga ons completed on-site
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
59 Based on Table 4-5, a total of 32 COCs in groundwater were in excess of one or more of the O.Reg.153/04 Table 7 (GW2) and/or Table 2 (GW1) component values designed to be protec ve of human health, as summarized below: ·
·
·
·
The REM concentra ons of an mony, arsenic, barium, cobalt, molybdenum, selenium, vanadium, PHC F2 to F4, benzene, ethylbenzene, vinyl chloride, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b/j)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorine, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene exceeded the GW1 criteria component values and will be carried forward for the quan ta ve risk assessment. The REM concentra ons of sodium and chloride exceeded the GW1 criteria component values; however, the GW1 component values for these parameters are based on aesthe c objec ves and these parameters are not considered toxic elements to humans. As a result, chloride and sodium will not be carried forward for further evalua on in the human health risk assessment. The REM concentra ons of benzene, PHC F2, 1,2-dichloroethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b/j)fluoranthene, fluoranthene, and naphthalene exceeded the GW2 criteria component values and will be carried forward for the quan ta ve risk assessment. No criteria components were available to screen for groundwater vapour inhala on for a subsurface worker in a trench; consequently, all vola le soil COCs will be carried forward in the risk assessment for quan ta ve evalua on.
Carcinogenic PAHs The MOECC has selected a TEF approach to evaluate the cumula ve toxicity of PAHs. As such, if any one carcinogenic PAH exceeded its respec ve human health component value, then all carcinogenic PAHs are to be evaluated since risks resul ng from exposure to the carcinogenic PAHs are considered addi ve (MOECC, 2005). As indicated in Table 4-5, all carcinogenic PAHs exceeded the lowest of the O.Reg.153/04 Table 7 component values for GW1 and GW2 exposure pathways, and will be retained for further evalua on for both direct contact and inhala on exposure pathways. The sum of carcinogenic risks for all carcinogenic PAHs should not exceed 1x10-6 consistent with MOECC guidance (2005). 4.2.2.3
Inhala on of Vapours from Impacted Groundwater in Outdoor Air In the absence of component values for the groundwater to outdoor air exposure pathway, the maximum measured soil vapour concentra ons on the Site were conserva vely compared to the MOECC’s Health-Based Indoor Air Criteria (HBIAC) established in the Modified Generic Risk Assessment (MGRA) Tier 2 Model for residen al land use (MOECC, 2016a) to es mate the dilu on required for soil vapours to meet the HBIAC. The maximum soil vapour concentra ons
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
60 and es mated dilu on factors are summarized in Table 4-6. It should be noted that for the calcula on of maximum soil vapour concentra ons only vapour data collected from the exterior vapour probes were considered. Due the presence of an impermeable layer (i.e., floor slab) for the interior vapour probe (i.e., VP8) and vapour pin (i.e., VP16 and MW211) loca ons, the vapour concentra ons obtained at these loca ons would represent overly conserva ve es mates for evalua on of vapour migra on from groundwater to outdoor air. Table 4-6: Required Dilution Factors for Vapour Concentrations to Meet HBIAC Maximum Vapour Health-Based Indoor Required Dilu on Factor for a b COC Concentra on Air Criteria Vapour Concentra on to 3 3 (µg/m ) (µg/m ) Meet Criteriac F1-BTEX, C6-C10 (as Toluene)
10,400
2.49E+03
4.2
Aliphatic >C6-C8
3,320
9.59E+03
0.3
Aliphatic >C8-C10
1,630
5.21E+02
3.1
Aromatic >C8-C10
203
1.04E+02
1.9
F2, C10-C16 (as Decane)
18,000
4.71E+02
38.2
Aliphatic >C10-C12
3,170
5.21E+02
6.1
Aliphatic >C12-C16
270
5.21E+02
0.5
Aromatic >C10-C12
517
1.04E+02
5.0
Aromatic >C12-C16
101
1.04E+02
1.0
2-Propanone
41.4
2.50E+03
0.02
Vinyl Chloride
3.48
1.26E-01
27.5
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
9.78
1.00E+03
0.01
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
14.2
6.02E+02
0.02
Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)
1.05
4.28E+00
0.2
0.597
1.46E+01
0.04
4.91
3.13E+01
0.2
0.793
1.25E+01
0.1
d
4.84E+01
0.04
2.09E+01
2.4
0.629
4.17E-01
1.5
5.43
3.44E+01
0.2
1,1-Dichloroethylene
d
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
d
2.08
Methylene Chloride
50
Chloroform Carbon Tetrachloride
d
1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane
0.758
4.28E-02
Ethylene Dibromide
0.768
d
1.85E-03
17.7 414.3
77.3
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1,2-Dichloropropane
2.09E+02
0.4
d
6.95E-02
7.9
d
1.92E-02
35.8
d
2.78E-01
1.6
d
2.78E-01
1.6
d
8.34E-01
0.6
0.546 0.687 0.454 0.454 0.462
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
61
COC
Maximum Vapour Concentra ona 3 (µg/m ) 0.388d
Health-Based Indoor Required Dilu on Factor for Air Criteriab Vapour Concentra on to 3 c (µg/m ) Meet Criteria 1.04E+00
0.4
2.07
1.01E+00
2.0
Trichloroethylene
13
2.71E-01
47.9
Tetrachloroethylene
241
4.28E+00
56.3
Benzene
63.8
5.06E-01
126.2
Toluene
235
1.04E+03
0.2
Ethylbenzene
41.4
2.09E+02
0.2
Styrene
0.759
5.42E+01
0.01
Chlorobenzene
d
0.46
2.09E+02
0.002
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1.09
2.78E-01
3.9
0.601
1.25E+02
0.005
d
1.67E+00
2.2
d
5.33
5.06E-02
105.4
Hexane
600
5.21E+02
1.2
Naphthalene
8.02
7.72E-01
10.4
Total Xylenes
193
1.46E+02
1.3
Bromomethane
d
Bromoform
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
d
3.71
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene
d
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.687
1.50E-01
4.6
Acid Extractable Mercury
4.5
1.88E-02
239.7
Notes: a Maximum soil vapour concentra on measured at exterior soil vapour probe loca ons b MOECC Health-Based Indoor Air Criteria (HBIAC) established in the MGRA Tier 2 Model (MOECC, 2016a) for residen al land use scenario. c Dilu on factors calculated by dividing the maximum soil vapour concentra ons by the HBIAC d Laboratory detec on limit. Parameter was not detected in any samples.
As indicated in Table 4-6, the required dilu on for soil vapours to meet the HBIAC ranges from 0.01 to 239.7, excluding the parameters which were not detected in any of the analyzed vapour samples and were not considered COCs in soil and/or groundwater on the Site (e.g., ethylene dibromide). The required maximum dilu on factor of 239.7 is considerably lower than the dilu on that would be expected as contaminant vapours are released to outdoor air due to the large dilu on poten al and mixing due to ambient winds/air currents. Therefore, the inhala on of vapours migra ng from groundwater to outdoor air is considered negligible and this exposure pathway was not further evaluated in the RA.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
62 4.2.2.4
Summary A summary of the COCs and the exposure pathways that require addi onal quan ta ve assessment are presented in Table 4-7. Table 4-7: Summary of Pathways Evaluated Quantitatively in the HHRA Soil Pathways COC
Groundwater Pathways
Direct Contact
Vola les Inhala on
Direct Contact
An mony
Yes (S1 only)
-
Yes
-
Arsenic
Yes (S1 only)
-
Yes
-
Barium
No
-
Yes
-
Yes (S1 and S3)
-
No
-
Cobalt
Yes (S1 only)
-
Yes
-
Copper
Yes (S1 only)
-
No
-
Yes (S1 and S3)
-
No
-
Mercury
No
Yes
No
No
Molybdenum
No
-
Yes
-
Selenium
No
-
Yes
-
Vanadium
No
-
Yes
-
Benzene
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Toluene
No
Yesa
No
Yesa
Ethylbenzene
No
Yes
Yes
Yesa
Xylenes
No
Yes
No
No
PHC F1
No
Yes
No
No
PHC F2
Yes (S1 only)
Yes
Yes
Yes
PHC F3
Yes (S1 only)
-
Yes
-
PHC F4
Yes (S1 only)
-
Cadmium
Lead
Vola les Inhala on
Yes
-
a
No
Yesa
1,1-dichloroethane
No
Yes
1,2-dichloroethane
No
Yes
No
Yes
1,2-dichlorobenzene
No
Yes
a
No
No
1,4-dichlorobenzene
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
a
No
No
a
No
No
4-Methyl-2-pentanone Acetone
No
Yes
Chloroform
No
Yes
No
No
Dichloromethane
No
Yes
No
No
No
a
No
Yes
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Yes
63 COC
Soil Pathways
Groundwater Pathways
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
No
Yes
No
No
Hexane
No
Yes
No
No
Styrene
No
Yes
a
No
Yesa
Trichloroethylene
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
a
No
No
Tetrachloroethylene Vinyl Chloride Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
b
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
Yes
Yes
b
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
b
Yes
Yes
Yes
b
Yes
Yes
b
Yes
Yes
Yes (S1 and S3)
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Yes (S1 and S3)
-
Yes
-
Yes
Yesb
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
b
Chrysene
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
b
Yes
Yes
b
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
b
Yes
Yes
b
Fluoranthene
Yes (S1 and S3)
No
Yes
Yes
No
-
Yes
-
Yes
Yesb
Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Methylnaphthalene 2-(1-)
b
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
Yes (S1 only)
-
Yes
-
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
-
Naphthalene Phenanthrene b
Yes
-
b
Yes
Yesb
No
No
Pyrene
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
PCBs
Yes (S1 and S3)
Yes
Notes: “ – “ Pathway not applicable for this COC a COC was carried forward in the RA for the evalua on of vapour inhala on in trench b COC was carried forward in the RA to evaluate the addi ve cancer risks of carcinogenic PAHs
4.2.3
Exposure Es mates The previously discussed frequency and dura ons of poten al exposure for each receptor were used in the calcula on of es mated Average Daily Doses (ADD). The ADD is an es mate of the amount of each COC that is taken up by a receptor via the iden fied exposure pathways. For pathways that were not assessed using doses (i.e., inhala on), an average daily exposure concentra on, in units of mg/m 3 was calculated. A detailed descrip on of all equa ons relied upon to calculate exposure es mates, have been included in Appendix C.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
64 Exposure to COCs via Direct Contact Pathways Direct contact with and incidental inges on of COCs in soil and groundwater, was evaluated using equa ons provided in the MOECC (2011b) Ra onale Document and the applicable exposure values for the respec ve receptors. The resident (toddler and composite), indoor worker, outdoor worker, and subsurface worker were each assumed to be exposed to COCs via soil dermal contact and incidental inges on while spending me on-site. The subsurface worker was also assumed to be exposed to COCs in groundwater via dermal contact and incidental inges on pathways while working in a trench/excava on. The permeability coefficients assumed for COCs via direct dermal contact pathway are provided in Appendix C. Table 4-8 provides es mated direct contact (i.e., incidental inges on and dermal contact) exposure to COCs through direct contact with soil for each receptor. Table 4-8: Soil Exposure Estimates – Direct Contact COC
Toddler
Composite
Indoor Worker
Outdoor Worker
Subsurface Worker
a
Direct Contact (mg/kg-day) An mony
1.2E-04
1.3E-05
7.0E-06
1.5E-05
-
Arsenic
2.5E-04
2.4E-05
1.3E-05
2.6E-05
-
Cadmium
1.6E-04
1.3E-05
7.1E-06
1.4E-05
1.4E-05
Copper
1.5E-02
1.5E-03
8.0E-04
1.6E-03
-
Cobalt
4.1E-04
3.3E-05
1.8E-05
3.6E-05
-
Acenaphthylene
5.5E-05
6.3E-06
2.7E-06
7.1E-06
Acenaphthene
2.5E-04
2.9E-05
1.2E-05
3.3E-05
Fluoranthene
7.3E-04
8.2E-05
4.4E-05
9.3E-05
Pyrene
5.9E-04
6.6E-05
2.9E-05
7.5E-05
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
6.6E-03
7.5E-04
4.0E-04
8.5E-04
Benzo(a)anthracene
3.9E-04
4.4E-05
2.4E-05
4.9E-05
Benzo(a)pyrene
2.6E-04
3.0E-05
1.6E-05
3.4E-05
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
3.7E-04
4.2E-05
2.3E-05
4.8E-05
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1.3E-04
1.4E-05
7.6E-06
1.6E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1.2E-04
1.4E-05
7.4E-06
1.6E-05
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
7.1E-06 1.4E-07 (carc) 3.3E-05 6.4E-07 (carc) 9.3E-05 1.8E-06 (carc) 7.5E-05 1.5E-06 (carc) 4.9E-05 1.3E-06 (carc) 3.4E-05 9.0E-07 (carc) 4.8E-05 1.3E-06 (carc) 1.6E-05 4.3E-07 (carc) 1.6E-05 4.2E-07 (carc)
65 Toddler
Composite
Indoor Worker
Outdoor Worker
Chrysene
3.8E-04
4.3E-05
2.3E-05
4.9E-05
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
4.8E-05
5.4E-06
2.9E-06
6.1E-06
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
1.4E-04
1.6E-05
8.6E-06
1.8E-05
PHC F2 Alipha c C10-12
1.2E-01
1.5E-02
8.0E-03
1.7E-02
-
PHC F2 Alipha c C12-16
1.4E-01
1.8E-02
9.8E-03
2.1E-02
-
PHC F2 Aroma c C10-12
2.9E-02
3.7E-03
2.0E-03
4.3E-03
-
PHC F2 Aroma c C12-16
3.6E-02
4.6E-03
2.5E-03
5.2E-03
-
PHC F3 Alipha c C16-21
1.3E-01
1.6E-02
8.7E-03
1.9E-02
-
PHC F3 Alipha c C21-34
5.4E-02
6.9E-03
3.7E-03
7.9E-03
-
PHC F3 Aroma c C16-21
3.2E-02
4.0E-03
2.2E-03
4.6E-03
-
PHC F3 Aroma c C21-34
1.4E-02
1.7E-03
9.3E-04
2.0E-03
-
PHC F4 Alipha c C>34
5.8E-01
7.4E-02
4.0E-02
8.5E-02
-
PHC F4 Aroma c C>34
1.5E-01
1.9E-02
1.0E-02
2.1E-02
-
PCBs
6.0E-05
6.9E-06
3.7E-06
7.8E-06
7.8E-06
COC
Subsurface Worker 4.9E-05 1.3E-06 (carc) 6.1E-06 1.6E-07 (carc) 1.8E-05 4.9E-07 (carc)
Notes: “ – “ Not applicable for this COC or pathway carc = carcinogenic dose a Amor za on of 1.5/56 for carcinogens was applied for the subsurface worker. A cancer amor za on was not applied for the resident, indoor worker, and outdoor worker receptors as per MOECC (2011b).
Table 4-9 provides es mated direct contact exposure to COCs through direct contact with groundwater (i.e., incidental inges on and dermal contact) for the subsurface worker receptor. Table 4-9: Groundwater Exposure Estimates – Direct Contact COC
Subsurface Worker a
Direct Contact (mg/kg/day)
An mony
5.4E-07
Arsenic
3.7E-06 1.0E-07 (carc)
Barium
9.0E-05
Cobalt
3.3E-07
Molybdenum
1.6E-05
Selenium
1.2E-06
Vanadium
3.3E-04
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
b
66 COC
Subsurface Worker
Benzene
1.8E-04 4.9E-06 (carc)
Ethylbenzene
3.6E-05
Vinyl chloride
1.1E-06
PHC F2 Alipha c C10-12
8.1E-03
PHC F2 Alipha c C12-16
2.9E-03
PHC F2 Aroma c C10-12
1.5E-02
PHC F2 Aroma c C12-16
1.0E+00
PHC F3 Alipha c C16-21
7.5E+00
PHC F3 Alipha c C21-34
1.3E-04
PHC F3 Aroma c C16-21
5.6E-03
PHC F3 Aroma c C21-34
3.2E-05
PHC F4 Alipha c C>34
6.3E-05
PHC F4 Aroma c C>34
1.6E-05
Phenanthrene
2.5E-03
Fluorene
9.7E-04
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
1.1E-02
Naphthalene
5.8E-04
Acenaphthylene
1.1E-04 2.9E-06 (carc) 4.7E-04 1.3E-05 (carc) 1.5E-03 4.1E-05 (carc) 1.5E-03 4.1E-05 (carc)
Acenaphthene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene
3.5E-05 (carc)
Benzo(a)pyrene
3.7E-05 (carc)
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
5.0E-05 (carc)
Benzo(ghi)perylene
2.8E-05 (carc)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2.0E-05 (carc)
Chrysene
3.1E-05 (carc)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1.0E-05 (carc)
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
3.0E-05 (carc)
Notes: carc = carcinogenic dose a Amor za on of 1.5/56 for carcinogens was applied b Vanadium is a developmental toxicant via the oral/dermal pathways. Therefore, the calculated exposure concentra on was not adjusted for less than con nuous exposure.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
67 Exposure to COCs via Inhala on of Soil Par culates Airborne par culates origina ng from on-site soils are available for uptake through inhala on. Therefore, it was conserva vely assumed that 100% of the soil par culates inhaled while spending me on-site originated from on-site soils and contained COCs at REM concentra ons. This pathway was quan fied for the resident, outdoor worker, and subsurface worker receptors. Table 4-10 provides es mated inhala on exposure to COCs through inhala on of soil par culates for these receptors. Table 4-10: Soil Exposure Estimates – Soil Particulate Inhalation COC
Toddler
Composite
Outdoor Worker
Subsurface Worker
Soil Par culate Inhala ona (mg/m3) 5.0E-08
5.0E-08
2.3E-07
2.3E-07 6.2E-09 (carc)
Acenaphthylene
-
1.4E-08 (carc)
6.5E-08 (carc)
1.7E-09 (carc)
Acenaphthene
-
6.4E-08 (carc)
3.0E-07 (carc)
8.0E-09 (carc)
Benzo[ghi]perylene
-
3.2E-08 (carc)
1.5E-07 (carc)
4.0E-09 (carc)
Fluoranthene
-
1.8E-07 (carc)
8.5E-07 (carc)
2.3E-08 (carc)
Pyrene
-
1.5E-07 (carc)
6.9E-07 (carc)
1.9E-08 (carc)
Benz[a]anthracene
-
9.7E-08 (carc)
4.5E-07 (carc)
1.2E-08 (carc)
Benzo[a]pyrene
-
6.6E-08 (carc)
3.1E-07 (carc)
8.3E-09 (carc)
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
-
9.4E-08 (carc)
4.4E-07 (carc)
1.2E-08 (carc)
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
-
3.1E-08 (carc)
1.4E-07 (carc)
3.8E-09 (carc)
Chrysene
-
9.6E-08 (carc)
4.5E-07 (carc)
1.2E-08 (carc)
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
-
1.2E-08 (carc)
5.6E-08 (carc)
1.5E-09 (carc)
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
-
3.6E-08 (carc)
1.7E-07 (carc)
4.5E-09 (carc)
1.5E-08
1.5E-08
6.9E-08
6.9E-08 1.9E-09 (carc)
Cadmium
PCBs
Notes: “ – “ Not applicable for this COC or pathway carc = carcinogenic dose a Amor za on of 1.5/56 for carcinogens was applied
Exposure to COCs via Vapour Intrusion to Indoor Air The vapour intrusion to indoor air pathway was assessed by using measured soil vapour concentra ons as well as a conserva ve assessment of phase par oning of COCs from soil and groundwater into the vapour phase, as described below. A soil vapour assessment program was completed on the Site by Dillon between December 2016 and January 2017. The purpose of the soil vapour assessment was to evaluate if the iden fied impacted soil and groundwater pose a poten al vapour intrusion concern to occupants of any
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
68 future buildings (i.e., poten al health concern due to vapour intrusion to indoor air). The results of the soil vapour assessment program were documented in a separate report en tled ”Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment, Piers 6 to 8, Hamilton, Ontario”, provided in Appendix D. The maximum soil vapour concentra on for each COC detected during the soil vapour assessment program is provided in Table 4-11. For comparison purposes, the theore cal soil gas concentra ons from the maximum COCs concentra ons in soil and groundwater were es mated using standard phase par oning equa ons. The es mated soil gas concentra ons using the par oning equa ons are also provided in Table 4-11. Table 4-11: Measured and Predicted Soil Vapour Concentrations
COC
Maximum Measured Soil Vapour Concentra on (µg/m3)
Es mated Theore cal Es mated Theore cal Soil Soil Gas Gas Concentra on from Concentra on from Groundwater Data Soil Data (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
PHC F1 Aliphatic C6-C8
535,000
152,000,000
5,440,000
PHC F1 Aliphatic C8-C10
53,100
16,800,000
783,000
PHC F1 Aromatic C8-C10
21,400
1,570,000
24,900
PHC F2 Aliphatic C10-C12
3,170
1,680,000
1,680,000
PHC F2 Aliphatic C12-C16
920
127,000
127,000
PHC F2 Aromatic C10-C12
9,860
1,560,000
451,000
PHC F2 Aromatic C12-C16
920
121,000
92,700
51,400
120
2-Propanone Vinyl Chloride Methyl Ethyl Ketone Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE) 1,1-Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene Methylene Chloride Chloroform Carbon Tetrachloride 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane Ethylene Dibromide 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
a
262
a
47
160,300
3,100
a
10,400
29
a
46,100
66
a
109 151 133
9,200
33
a
71,900
380
a
73 73
44,900
363
a,b
100,000
207
a,b
23,500,000
457
a
99,500
100
a,b
56,000
148
a
23,700
102
a
12,800
16
a,b
1,600
3.1
a
37,700
229
146 383
89.8 116
74.5 74.5 141
100
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
69 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1,2-Dichloropropane Bromomethane Bromoform
100a,b
1,400
10
a,b
380
4.2
a,b
5,150
44
a,b
5,150
44
126
83.5 83.5
a,b
5,000
36
a,b
44,800
95
a,b
1,600
60
a
85
71.4 380
Trichloroethylene
98.9
45,100
431
Tetrachloroethylene
241
72,500
215
a
Benzene
799
121,900
44,000
Toluene
437
83,900
1,430
5,800
Ethylbenzene Styrene Chlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexane
928,700
3,510
a
2,400
105
a,b
1,400
37
a
9,700
26
a,b
7,300
20
a,b
-
-
a,b
-
-
50,291,100
48,600
78.4 84.7
111 111 683 981
102,000 a
Naphthalene
193
34,800
2,790
Total Xylenes
16,600
3,300,000
9,280
126
3,000
31
4.5
0.61
20
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Mercury
a,b
Notes: “ – “: Parameter was not considered to be COC and was not analyzed in soil and groundwater samples. a Based on raised laboratory detec on limit. b Parameter was not detected in any of the analyzed soil vapour samples.
As indicated in Table 4-11, the measured soil vapour concentra ons are orders of magnitude less than the theore cal soil gas concentra ons. This was expected due to the conserva ve assump ons used in the phase par oning equa ons (e.g., steady state condi on) which may lead to an overes ma on of soil gas concentra ons. It should also be noted that maximum COCs concentra ons in soil and groundwater were mostly detected in the LNAPL impacted area (i.e., Shed 6); however, no soil vapour samples were collected from this area of the Site and the maximum soil vapour concentra ons are mostly from the south por on of the Site (i.e., Brewers building), related to lower COCs concentra ons in soil and groundwater. Based on the above informa on, the measured soil vapour concentra ons were used for predic on of indoor air concentra ons in the RA rather than the theore cal soil gas concentra ons. Es ma on of indoor air concentra ons from the theore cal vapour concentra ons is considered overly conserva ve and would generally result in the es ma on of unacceptable risks to indoor occupants, a conclusion that would not be valid given the stronger
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
70 line of evidence provided by the measured soil vapour concentra ons. However, given the lack of soil vapour data in the vicinity of Shed 6 and since LNAPL is present in this area, the occurrence of unacceptable risks has been assumed in this area, as described in Sec on 4.4.3. In order to predict the COCs concentra ons in indoor air, the MOECC (2011b) default residen al building a enua on factor of 0.02 was applied to the maximum measured soil vapour concentra ons to predict the COCs concentra ons in indoor air. The exposure concentra ons for each receptor were then calculated based on the frequency and dura on of exposure. The resident (toddler and composite) and indoor worker were each assumed to be exposed to COCs via indoor air inhala on. Table 4-12 provides es mated inhala on exposure to COCs through indoor air inhala on from the measured soil vapour concentra ons. Table 4-12: Exposure Estimates – Indoor Inhalation COC
Toddler
Composite
Indoor Worker
Indoor Air Inhala ona (mg/m3) PHC F1 Aliphatic C6-C8
1.03E+01
9.65E+00
2.69E+00
PHC F1 Aliphatic C8-C10
1.02E+00
9.57E-01
2.67E-01
PHC F1 Aromatic C8-C10
4.12E-01
3.86E-01
1.08E-01
PHC F2 Aliphatic C10-C12
6.10E-02
5.72E-02
1.60E-02
PHC F2 Aliphatic C12-C16
1.77E-02
1.66E-02
4.63E-03
PHC F2 Aromatic C10-C12
1.90E-01
1.78E-01
4.97E-02
PHC F2 Aromatic C12-C16
1.77E-02
1.66E-02
4.63E-03
2-Propanone
5.04E-03
4.72E-03
1.32E-03
Vinyl Chloride
9.04E-04
8.47E-04
2.37E-04
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
2.10E-03
b
2.18E-03
2.18E-03b
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
2.90E-03
3.02E-03
b
3.02E-03
Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)
2.56E-03
2.40E-03
6.70E-04
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1.40E-03
1.32E-03
3.68E-04
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1.40E-03
1.32E-03
3.68E-04
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
2.81E-03
2.63E-03
7.35E-04
Methylene Chloride
7.37E-03
6.91E-03
1.93E-03
Chloroform
1.73E-03
1.62E-03
4.52E-04
Carbon Tetrachloride
2.23E-03
2.09E-03
5.84E-04
1,1-Dichloroethane
1.43E-03
1.34E-03
3.75E-04
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.43E-03
1.34E-03
3.75E-04
Ethylene Dibromide
2.71E-03
2.54E-03
7.10E-04
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1.92E-03
1.80E-03
5.04E-04
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1.92E-03
1.80E-03
5.04E-04
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
2.42E-03
2.27E-03
6.35E-04
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
b
71 Toddler
Composite
Indoor Worker
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
1.61E-03
1.51E-03
4.21E-04
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
1.61E-03
1.51E-03
4.21E-04
1,2-Dichloropropane
1.63E-03
1.53E-03
4.28E-04
Bromomethane
1.37E-03
1.29E-03
3.60E-04
Bromoform
7.31E-03
6.85E-03
1.91E-03
Trichloroethylene
1.90E-03
b
1.98E-03
1.98E-03b
Tetrachloroethylene
4.63E-03
4.34E-03
1.21E-03
Benzene
1.54E-02
1.44E-02
4.02E-03
Toluene
8.40E-03
7.88E-03
2.20E-03
Ethylbenzene
1.12E-01
1.05E-01
2.92E-02
Styrene
1.51E-03
1.41E-03
3.95E-04
Chlorobenzene
1.63E-03
1.53E-03
4.27E-04
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2.13E-03
2.00E-03
5.59E-04
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2.13E-03
2.00E-03
5.59E-04
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.31E-02
1.23E-02
3.44E-03
Hexachlorobutadiene
1.89E-02
1.77E-02
4.94E-03
Hexane
1.96E+00
1.84E+00
5.14E-01
Naphthalene
3.71E-03
3.48E-03
9.72E-04
Total Xylenes
3.19E-01
2.99E-01
8.36E-02
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
2.42E-03
2.27E-03
6.35E-04
Mercury
8.65E-05
8.11E-05
2.27E-05
COC
Notes: a A cancer amor za on was not applied for the resident and indoor worker receptors as per MOECC (2011b). b Methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, and trichloroethylene are developmental toxicants via inhala on pathway. Therefore, the calculated exposure concentra ons were not adjusted for less than con nuous exposure.
Exposure to COCs via Inhala on of Vapours from Impacted Soil and Groundwater within an OnSite Trench Subsurface workers could be exposed to COCs via inhala on of vapours migra ng from impacted soil and groundwater while working within an on-site trench. A par cular concern is that workers in trenches may have a higher degree of exposure to soil and groundwater vapours than workers at the ground surface. The concentra ons of trench vapours from soil and groundwater were es mated using the default a enua on factors developed by Meridian Environmental Inc. (Meridian, 2012), on behalf of the Society of Contaminated Sites Approved Professionals of Bri sh Columbia (CSAP). The es mated a enua on factors were based on a model published by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). The model considers diffusion of vapours from the vapour source or point of vapour measurement to the exposed trench base or wall, followed by mixing
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
72 and dilu on within the trench. The influen al parameters in the determina on of vapour a enua on factors were iden fied to be the trench air exchange rate and depth of vapour source below the trench base. As a result, Meridian defined four scenarios for the determina on of default vapour a enua on factors, involving combina ons of trench width less than or greater than trench depth (i.e. narrow or wide trench) and vapour source depth (i.e. shallow or deep vapour source). The recommended default a enua on factors are provided in Table 4-13. Table 4-13: Default Vapour Attenuation Factors Default Vapour A enua on Factors Model Scenarios
a
Narrow Trench (Width < Depth)
Wide Trench (Width > Depth)
Shallow Vapour Source (Source Depth < Trench Depth)
0.09
0.0005
Deep Vapour Source (Source Depth minus Trench Depth > 30 cm)
0.003
0.00002
Notes: a Soil Vapour A enua on Factors for Trench Worker Exposure, Meridian Environmental Inc. (December 2012)
Based on the depth of the soil vapour probes on the Site (i.e., ranging from approximately 1.0 to 1.5 mbgs) and future u lity maintenance and installa on on the Site, the vapour a enua on factor of 0.09, associated with the shallow vapour source and narrow trench, was used in this risk assessment. The maximum soil vapour concentra ons measured on the Site were mul plied by the a enua on factor of 0.09 to calculate the es mated vapour concentra ons in trench air. Table 4-14 provides es mated inhala on exposure to COCs through inhala on of soil and groundwater vapours inside a trench for the subsurface worker receptor. Table 4-14: Soil and Groundwater Exposure Estimates – Vapour Inhalation in a Trench Subsurface Worker COC Vapour Inhala ona (mg/m3) PHC F1 Aliphatic C6-C8
1.10E-01
PHC F1 Aliphatic C8-C10
1.09E-02
PHC F1 Aromatic C8-C10
4.41E-03
PHC F2 Aliphatic C10-C12
6.53E-04
PHC F2 Aliphatic C12-C16
1.90E-04
PHC F2 Aromatic C10-C12
2.03E-03
PHC F2 Aromatic C12-C16
1.90E-04
2-Propanone
5.40E-05
Vinyl Chloride
9.68E-06 2.59E-07 (carc)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
9.81E-03b
73 COC Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)
Subsurface Worker 1.36E-02b 2.74E-05 7.34E-07 (carc)
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1.50E-05
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1.50E-05
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
3.01E-05
Methylene Chloride(Dichloromethane)
7.89E-05 2.11E-06 (carc)
Chloroform
1.85E-05
Carbon Tetrachloride
2.39E-05
1,1-Dichloroethane
1.54E-05
1,2-Dichloroethane Ethylene Dibromide 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
1.54E-05 4.11E-07 (carc) 2.91E-05 7.78E-07 (carc) 2.06E-05 2.06E-05 5.52E-07 (carc) 2.60E-05 6.95E-07 (carc) 1.72E-05 4.61E-07 (carc) 1.72E-05 4.61E-07 (carc)
1,2-Dichloropropane
1.75E-05
Bromomethane
1.47E-05
Bromoform
7.83E-05
Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene Benzene
8.90E-03b 2.38E-04b (carc) 4.97E-05 1.33E-06 (carc) 1.65E-04 4.41E-06 (carc)
Toluene
9.00E-05
Ethylbenzene
1.20E-03
Styrene
1.62E-05
Chlorobenzene
1.75E-05
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2.29E-05 6.13E-07 (carc)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2.29E-05
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.41E-04
Hexachlorobutadiene
2.02E-04
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
74 COC
Subsurface Worker 5.41E-06 (carc)
Hexane
2.10E-02
Naphthalene
3.98E-05
Total Xylenes
3.42E-03
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
2.60E-05 6.95E-07 (carc) 9.27E-07
Mercury
Notes: carc = carcinogenic dose a Amor za on of 1.5/56 for carcinogens was applied b Methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, and trichloroethylene are developmental toxicants via inhala on pathway. Therefore, the calculated exposure concentra ons were not adjusted for less than con nuous exposure.
Uncertain es in the Exposure Assessment It is important to define uncertainty in the exposure assessment process in order to quan fy the range of possible results. The following conserva ve assump ons were employed in the exposure assessment. ·
·
·
A number of conserva ve assump ons associated with the exposure dura on and other exposure factors were adopted. These assump ons include, for example, the assump on that the residents are on-site for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 50 weeks per year, or that the subsurface worker spends 2 weeks on-site working in a trench. These are considered to be conserva ve and likely represent an overes ma on of the actual me that the receptors would spend on the Site. Exposure es mates were calculated using the REM concentra ons and assuming that the receptors would spend 100% of their me in the vicinity of the area with REM concentra ons. This represents a higher concentra on than what the receptor would be exposed to over me on the Site and will over-es mate exposures. Exposure to indoor air via soil and/or groundwater vola liza on assumed that the maximum measured soil vapour concentra ons, and/or soil and groundwater concentra ons, existed below the en re footprint of any future building constructed on the Site. Since it is more likely that a range of concentra ons will exist within the zone of influence, it is an cipated the predicted indoor air concentra ons were overes mated. In addi on, the predicted indoor air concentra ons were calculated assuming infinite source of contamina on beneath the building over 76-year life me; however, in reality due to biodegrada on, the concentra ons are expected to vary over me.
Overall, the exposure assessment adopted in this HHRA was considered a conserva ve es mate of poten al exposures on the Site, and was concluded to not underes mate poten al risk to receptors.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
75 4.3
Toxicity Assessment The toxicity assessment details the relevant toxicological informa on for each COC evaluated for poten al health risks, and the Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) selected for use in the RA. For non-carcinogenic (threshold) substances, there is a specific dose or concentra on below which no adverse effects would be expected. This threshold is commonly referred to as a reference dose (RfD) or reference concentra on (RfC). RfD/RfCs are specifically developed to be protec ve of chronic (long term) exposure periods, though some values are also available for sub-chronic exposures. Poten al hazards associated with exposures to substances associated with carcinogenic (nonthreshold) effects are assessed based on the assump on that there is no safe exposure dose or concentra on; therefore any level of exposure could result in adverse health effects. In this case, a slope factor or unit risk (SF/UR) is used to es mate carcinogenic risk per unit of dose or per concentra on unit, based on a predetermined acceptable incidental increase in cancer risk in a popula on (i.e., one-in-one-million, 1 x 10-6).
4.3.1
Nature of Toxicity (Hazard Assessment) The poten al adverse health effects associated with exposure to COCs considered in the development of exposure limits are provided in Table 4-15, along with an evalua on of the carcinogenicity of each COC. As presented in Table 4-15, some COCs may produce both threshold and carcinogenic toxic effects. Where this was the case, both were evaluated in the HHRA.
4.3.2
Dose Response Assessment The selected exposure limits used in this risk assessment are those endorsed by the MOECC within the 2011 Ra onale Document (2011b) with the excep on of copper, ethylbenzene, 1,1dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride. For these COCs, the more recent exposure limits reviewed and endorsed by the MOECC Human Toxicology and Air Standards (HTAS) Sec on, Standards Development Branch (SDB), were used (MOECC, 2017). Toxicity values sourced from MOECC (2011b) originate from Health Canada (HC), United States Environmental Protec on Agency (US EPA) Integrated Risk Informa on System (IRIS) database, California Environmental Protec on Agency (CalEPA), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), The Netherlands Na onal Ins tute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM), World Health Organiza on (WHO), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG), among others. For non-carcinogenic, or threshold response chemicals, TRVs were provided as RfCs and RfDs for inhala on and oral exposures, respec vely. For non-threshold chemicals, the measurement of carcinogenic potency, were provided as URs and SFs for inhala on and oral exposures, respec vely.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
76 Given that the exposure dura on for the subsurface worker scenario is not considered to be a chronic exposure (MOECC 2011b), non-cancer TRVs developed for sub-chronic exposure dura ons were used for non-carcinogens for this receptor when available. In the absence of subchornic TRVs, chronic TRVs were used. Table 4-15 summarizes the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic TRVs selected for use in this risk assessment. Bioavailability factors used in this risk assessment are provided in Table 4-16.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
77 Table 4-15: Summary of Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) for Human Receptors COC
Route
Type
Value
An mony
Oral
RfD
4.0E-04 (mg/kg/d)
Arsenic
RfD
3.0E-04 (mg/kg/d)
Oral SF
1.5E+00 (mg/kg/d)
RfD
2.0E-01 (mg/kg/d)
IUR
9.8E+00 (mg/m )
RfC
3.0E-05 (mg/m3)
RfD
3.2E-05 (mg/kg/d)
RfD
1.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)
Sub-chronic RfD
1.0E-02 (mg/kg/d)
Oral
RfD
1.0E-02 (mg/kg/d)
Inhalation
RfC
9.0E-05 (mg/m3)
Oral
RfD
3.0E-04 (mg/kg/d)
Oral
RfD
5.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)
Barium
Oral
Inhalation Cadmium Oral
Cobalt
Copper
Mercury
Molybdenum
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Endpoint
-1
3 -1
Oral
Source
Decreasing blood glucose levels and MOECC, 2011b (IRIS changes in cholesterol levels (rats) 1991) Skin hyperpigmentation and MOECC, 2011b (IRIS keratosis 1993, CalEPA 2000) MOECC, 2011b Skin cancer (CalEPA ATH 2005) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Nephrotoxicity 2005) MOECC, 2011b (HC Lung tumours (rats) 2010) MOECC, 2011b Nephrotoxicity (modified from MOE AAQC) MOECC, 2011b Nephrotoxicity (modified from CalEPA DW 2006) MOECC, 2011b Increased levels of (modified from erythrocytes ATSDR 2004) MOECC, 2011b Development of polycythemia (ATSDR 2004) MOECC 2017 Hepatotoxicity (ATSDR 2004) Impairment of neurobehavioral MOECC, 2011b functions (CalEPA 2000) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Autoimmune effects (rats) 1995) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Increased uric acid levels 1993)
78
COC
Route
Type
Value
Selenium
Oral
RfD
5.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)
RfD
2.1E-03 (mg/kg/d)
Vanadium
Oral Sub-chronic RfD
2.1E-03 (mg/kg/d)
IUR
2.2E-03 (mg/m )
RfC
3.0E-02 (mg/m3)
SF
8.5E-02 (mg/kg/d)-1
RfD
4.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)
Inhalation
RfC
5.0E+00 (mg/m3)
Inhalation
RfC
1.9E+00 (mg/m3)
Oral
RfD
1.0E-01 (mg/kg/d)
Xylenes
Inhalation
RfC
7.0E-01 (mg/m )
PHC F1 Aliphatic C6-C8
Inhala on
RfC
18E+00 (mg/m3)
PHC F1 Aliphatic C8-C10
Inhala on
RfC
1.0E+00 (mg/m3)
Inhalation
Benzene
Endpoint
3 -1
Oral
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
3
Source
Clinical signs and certain biochemical MOECC, 2011b (IRIS alterations in blood and urine 1991) MOECC, 2011b Developmental toxicity (CalEPA DW 2000) MOECC, 2011b Developmental toxicity (CalEPA DW 2000) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Leukemia 2000) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Decreased lymphocyte cell count 2003) Malignant lymphomas, bone MOECC, 2011b (HC marrow DW 2007) hematopoietic hyperplasia MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Decreased lymphocyte cell count 2003) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Neurotoxicity 2005) MOECC 2017 (TCEQ Histopathological effects 2010) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Hepatotoxicity, Nephrotoxicity 1991) Nervous & respiratory MOECC, 2011b systems; eyes (CalEPA 2005) MOECC 2011a Neurotoxicity (TPHCWG 1997) Hepatic and MOECC 2011a haematological (TPHCWG 1997) changes
79
COC
Route
Type
Value
Inhala on
RfC
2.0E-01 (mg/m )
Inhala on
RfC
1.0E+00 (mg/m3)
Oral
RfD
5.0E+00 (mg/kg/d)
Inhala on
RfC
1.0E+00 (mg/m3)
Oral
RfD
1.0E-01 (mg/kg/d)
Inhala on
RfC
2.0E-01 (mg/m3)
Oral
RfD
4.0E-02 (mg/kg/d)
Inhala on
RfC
2.0E-01 (mg/m )
Oral
RfD
1.0E-01 (mg/kg/d)
PHC F3 Alipha c C16-21
Oral
RfD
2.0E+00 (mg/kg/d)
PHC F3 Alipha c C21-34
Oral
RfD
2.0E+00 (mg/kg/d)
PHC F3 Aroma c C16-21
Oral
RfD
3.0E-02 (mg/kg/d)
Nephrotoxicity
PHC F3 Aroma c C21-34
Oral
RfD
3.0E-02 (mg/kg/d)
Nephrotoxicity
PHC F4 Alipha c C>34
Oral
RfD
2.0E+01 (mg/kg/d)
Hepatic and hematological changes
PHC F1 Aromatic C8-C10
PHC F2 Alipha c C10-12
PHC F2 Alipha c C12-16
PHC F2 Aroma c C10-12
3
3
PHC F2 Aroma c C12-16
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Endpoint
Source
Decreased body weight Hepatic and haematological changes
MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997)
Neurotoxicity Hepatic and haematological changes Hepatic and hematological changes Decreased body weight Decreased body weight Decreased body weight Hepatic and hematological changes Hepatic and hematological changes Hepatic and hematological changes
MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997)
80
COC PHC F4 Aroma c C>34 Acetone
Route
Type
Value
Oral
RfD
3.0E-02 (mg/kg/d)
Inhalation
RfC
1.2E+01 (mg/m )
IUR
8.8E-03 (mg/m3)-1
RfC
3.0E-03 (mg/m )
SF
1.5E+00 (mg/kg/d)-1
RfD
3.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)
Inhalation Vinyl Chloride
Endpoint
3
3
Oral
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Inhalation
RfC
5.0E+00 (mg/m3)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Inhalation
RfC
3.0E+00 (mg/m3)
IUR
2.6E-04 (mg/m3)-1
RfC
3.0E+00 (mg/m3)
Methyl t-butyl ether
Inhalation
Source
MOECC 2011a (TPHCWG 1997) MOECC, 2011b Neurotoxicity* (MOE AAQC) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Hepatotoxicity 2000) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Hepatotoxicity 2000) Hepatocellular carcinoma, MOECC, 2011b angiosarcoma & neoplastic nodules (WHO DW (rats) 2004/2011) MOECC, 2011b Liver cell polymorphism (ATSDR 2006) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Developmental toxicity 2003) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Developmental toxicity 2003) Kidney adenomas and carcinomas, MOECC, 2011b leukemia and lymphomas (rats) (CalEPA 2005) Increased kidney and liver weights MOECC, 2011b (IRIS increased severity of spontaneous 1993) renal lesions (rats) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Hepatotoxicity 2002) Nephrotoxicity
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Inhalation
RfC
2.0E-01 (mg/m3)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Inhalation
RfC
6.0E-02 (mg/m3)**
Liver and long effects (rats)
RIVM, 2009
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Inhalation
RfC
6.0E-02 (mg/m3)
Liver and long effects (rats)
MOECC, 2011b (modified from RIVM 2001)
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
81
COC
Methylene Chloride
Route
Type
Value
Endpoint
Source
IUR
2.3E-05 (mg/m )
Not provided
MOECC, 2011b (HC 1996)
RfC
4.0E-01 (mg/m3)
Significantly elevated carboxyhemoglobin levels (occupational exposure)
MOECC, 2011b (CalEPA 2000)
Inhalation
3 -1
Chloroform
Inhalation
RfC
1.0E-01 (mg/m3)
Liver effects (occupational exposure)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Inhalation
RfC
2.0E-03 (mg/m3)
Hepatotoxicity
1,1-Dichloroethane
Inhalation
RfC
1.7E-01 (mg/m )
IUR
2.6E-02 (mg/m )
RfC
4.0E-01 (mg/m )
IUR
6.0E-01 (mg/m )
RfC
8.0E-04 (mg/m3)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Ethylene Dibromide
Inhalation
3
3 -1
3
3 -1
Inhalation
3
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Inhalation
RfC
1.0E+00 (mg/m )
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Inhalation
IUR
1.6E-02 (mg/m3)-1
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Inhalation
IUR
5.8E-02 (mg/m3)-1
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Nephrotoxicity Route extrapolation from oral carcinogenicity assessment Hepatotoxicity
MOECC, 2011b (ATSDR 1997) MOECC, 2011b (USEPA Region III 2004) MOECC, 2011b (modified from HEAST 1984) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 1991) MOECC, 2011b (CalEPA 2000)
Nasal cavity tumours, MOECC, 2011b (IRIS hemangiosarcomas mesotheliomas 2004) (rats) Reproductive toxicity (adverse MOECC, 2011b effects on sexual function) (CalEPA 2001) MOECC, 2011b Neurotoxicity (CalEPA 2000) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Hepatocellular carcinomas (mice) 1994) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS Hepatocellular carcinomas (mice) 1994)
82
COC
1,3-Dichloropropene
Route
Type
Value
IUR
4.0E-03 (mg/m )
RfC
2.0E-02 (mg/m )
Inhalation
Endpoint 3 -1
3
1,2-Dichloropropane
Inhalation
RfC
4.0E-03 (mg/m3)
Bromomethane
Inhalation
RfC
5.0E-03 (mg/m )
Bromoform
Inhalation
IUR
1.1E-03 (mg/m )
IUR
4.1E-03 (mg/m )
RfC
2.0E-03 (mg/m )
IUR
2.6E-04 (mg/m )
RfC
4.0E-02 (mg/m3)
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Inhalation
Inhalation
3
3 -1
3 -1
3
3 -1
Styrene
Inhalation
RfC
2.6E-01 (mg/m3)
Chlorobenzene
Inhala on
RfC
1.0E+00 (mg/m3)
IUR
4.0E-03 (mg/m3)-1
RfC
6.0E-02 (mg/m3)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Inhala on
Bronchioalveolar adenoma (mice)
Source MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 2000) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 2000) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 1991)
Hypertrophy/hyperplasia of nasal respiratory epithelium (mice) Hyperplasia of the nasal mucosa (rats) Degenerative and proliferative MOECC, 2011b (IRIS lesions of the olfactory epithelium of 1992) the nasal cavity (rats) Neoplastic lesions in the large MOECC, 2011b (IRIS intestine (rats) 1991) MOECC 2017 (IRIS Renal cell carcinoma 2011) Route extrapolation from oral MOECC 2017 (IRIS exposure. Congenital effects – fetal 2011, ATSDR 2013) heart malformations (rats) Hepatocellular adenomas or MOECC 2017 (IRIS carcinomas (mice) 2012) MOECC 2017 (IRIS Neurotoxicity 2012) Neurotoxicity - Subtle reductions in MOECC, 2011b visuomotor accuracy and verbal (modified from learning skills (occupational WHO 2000) exposure) Increased liver weights, MOECC, 2011b hepatocellular hypertrophy, renal (CalEPA 2000) degeneration (rats) Hepatocellular adenomas and MOECC, 2011b (IRIS carcinomas (mice) 2006) MOECC, 2011b Incidence of nasal lesions (rats) (ATSDR 2006)
83
COC
Route
Type
Value
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Inhala on
RfC
6.0E-01 (mg/m )
Decreased spleen weights
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Inhala on
RfC
8.0E-03 (mg/m3)
Nephrotoxicity, Neurotoxicity***
Hexachlorobutadiene
Inhala on
IUR
2.2E-02 (mg/m3)-1
Hexane
Inhalation
RfC
2.5E+00 (mg/m3)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Inhalation
IUR
7.4E-03 (mg/m )
Inhala on
IUR
1.1E-03 (mg/m3)-1
SF
7.3E-03 (mg/kg/d)-1
Renal tubular adenomas and adenocarcinomas Polyneuropathy (occupational exposure) Hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma (mice) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.001 and inhalation unit risk recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.001 and oral slope factor recommended by MOECC (2011)
RfD
6.0E-02 (mg/kg/d)
Acenaphthene Oral
Inhala on Acenaphthylene Oral
IUR SF RfD
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Endpoint 3
3 -1
Hepatotoxicity
Source MOECC, 2011b (RIVM 2001) MOECC, 2011b (modified from WHO EHC 1991) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 1991) MOECC, 2011b (MOE AAQC 2005) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 1991) MOECC, 2011b (CalEPA 2005) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 1992) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 1994)
Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.01 MOECC, 2011b and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.01 MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 7.3E-02 (mg/kg/d)-1 and oral slope factor recommended 1992) by MOECC (2011) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 6.0E-02 (mg/kg/d) Proxy value based on acenaphthene 1994 proxy) 3 -1
1.1E-02 (mg/m )
84
COC
Route
Type
Value
Endpoint
Inhala on
IUR
1.1E-01 (mg/m3)-1
Oral
SF
7.3E-01 (mg/kg/d)
Inhala on
IUR
1.1E+00 (mg/m )
Oral
SF
7.3E+00 (mg/kg/d)
Inhala on
IUR
1.1E-01 (mg/m )
Oral
SF
7.3E-01 (mg/kg/d)-1
Inhala on
IUR
1.1E-02 (mg/m )
Oral
SF
7.3E-02 (mg/kg/d)-1
Inhala on
IUR
1.1E-01 (mg/m3)-1
Oral
SF
7.3E-01 (mg/kg/d)-1
Benzo(a)anthracene -1
3 -1
Benzo(a)pyrene
-1
3 -1
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
3 -1
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Source
Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.1 MOECC, 2011b and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.1 MOECC, 2011b (IRIS and oral slope factor recommended 1992) by MOECC (2011) MOECC, 2011b Respiratory tract tumour (hamsters) (CalEPA 2005) Forestomach, squamous cell MOECC, 2011b (IRIS papillomas and carcinomas (mice) 1992) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.1 MOECC, 2011b and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.1 MOECC, 2011b (IRIS and oral slope factor recommended 1992) by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.01 MOECC, 2011b and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.01 MOECC, 2011b (IRIS and oral slope factor recommended 1992) by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.1 MOECC, 2011b and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.1 MOECC, 2011b (IRIS and oral slope factor recommended 1992) by MOECC (2011)
85
COC
Route
Inhala on Chrysene Oral Inhala on Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Oral Inhala on Fluoranthene Oral
Fluorene
Oral
Inhala on Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Oral
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Type
Value
Endpoint
Source
Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.01 MOECC, 2011b and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.01 MOECC, 2011b (IRIS -1 SF 7.3E-02 (mg/kg/d) and oral slope factor recommended 1992) by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 1 MOECC, 2011b IUR 1.1E+00 (mg/m3)-1 and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 1 MOECC, 2011b (IRIS -1 SF 7.3E+00 (mg/kg/d) and oral slope factor recommended 1992) by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.01 MOECC, 2011b IUR 1.1E-02 (mg/m3)-1 and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.01 MOECC, 2011b (IRIS -1 SF 7.3E-02 (mg/kg/d) and oral slope factor recommended 1992) by MOECC (2011) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS RfD 4.0E-02 (mg/kg/d) Nephrotoxicity 1993) MOECC, 2011b (IRIS RfD 4.0E-02 (mg/kg/d) Decreased red blood cells (mice) 1990) MOECC, 2011b Sub-chronic RfD 4.0E-01 (mg/kg/d) Decreased red blood cells (mice) (modified from IRIS 1990) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.1 MOECC, 2011b IUR 1.1E-01 (mg/m3)-1 and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of 0.1 MOECC, 2011b (IRIS SF 7.3E-01 (mg/kg/d)-1 and oral slope factor recommended 1992) by MOECC (2011) IUR
1.1E-02 (mg/m3)-1
86
COC Methylnaphthalene 2-(1-)
Route
Type
Value
Oral
RfD
4.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)
Inhalation
RfC
3.7E-03 (mg/m3)
RfD
2.0E-02 (mg/kg/d)
Sub-chronic RfD
2.0E-01 (mg/kg/d)
Inhalation Oral
-
NV NV
Inhala on
IUR
1.1E-03 (mg/m3)-1
SF
7.3E-03 (mg/kg/d)-1
RfD
3.0E-02 (mg/kg/d)
IUR
1.0E-01 (mg/m )
RfC
5.0E-04 (mg/m )
RfD
2.0E-05 (mg/kg/d)
Sub-chronic RfD
3.0E-05 (mg/kg/d)
Naphthalene
Endpoint
Oral
Phenanthrene
Pyrene Oral
3 -1
Inhalation PCBs
3
Oral Notes: NV = No TRV available IUR: Inhala on Unit Risk; SF: Oral Slope Factor; RfC: Reference Concentra on; RfD: Reference Dose.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Source
Pulmonary alveolar proteinosis MOECC, 2011b (IRIS (mice) 2003) Non-neoplastic lesions in nasal MOECC, 2011b olfactory and respiratory epithelium (ATSDR 2005) (rats) Decreased mean terminal body MOECC, 2011b (IRIS weight (rats) 1998) MOECC, 2011b Decreased mean terminal body (modified from IRIS weight (rats) 1998) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of MOECC, 2011b 0.001 and inhalation unit risk (CalEPA 2005) recommended by MOECC (2011) Based on benzo(a)pyrene TEF of MOECC, 2011b (IRIS 0.001 and oral slope factor 1992) recommended by MOECC (2011) Renal tubular pathology and MOECC, 2011b (IRIS decreased kidney weights (mice) 1993) Liver hepatocellular adenomas, MOECC, 2011b (IRIS carcinomas, cholangiomas, or 1997) cholangiocarcinomas MOECC, 2011b Not reported (RIVM 2001) Decreased antibody response and MOECC, 2011b immunotoxicity (ATSDR 2000) Decreased antibody response and MOECC, 2011b immunotoxicity (ATSDR 2000)
87 * assumed endpoint based on cri cal effect reported by ATSDR (ATSDR, 1994 – Toxicological Profile for Acetone) ** RIVM recommends applying the value for trans-1,2-dichloroethylene as a surrogate (RIVM report no. 711701092, Tiesjema B and AJ Baars. 2009. Re-evalua on of some human-toxicological Maximum Permissible Risk levels earlier evaluated in the period 1991 – 2001) *** assumed endpoint based on cri cal effect reported by ATSDR (ATSDR, 2010 – Toxicological Profile for Trichlorobenzenes)
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
88 Table 4-16: Bioavailability Factors COC
Rela ve Absorp on Factors Oralsoil
Dermalsoil
Oralwater
Dermalwater
An mony
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
Arsenic
0.5
0.03
1.0
1.0
Barium
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
Cadmium
1.0
0.01
1.0
1.0
Copper
1.0
0.06
1.0
1.0
Cobalt
1.0
0.01
1.0
1.0
Molybdenum
1.0
0.01
1.0
1.0
Selenium
1.0
0.01
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F2 Alipha c C10-12
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F2 Alipha c C12-16
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F2 Aroma c C10-12
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F2 Aroma c C12-16
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F3 Alipha c C16-21
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F3 Alipha c C21-34
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F3 Aroma c C16-21
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F3 Aroma c C21-34
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F4 Alipha c C>34
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
PHC F4 Aroma c C>34
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
Vinyl Chloride
1.0
0.03
1.0
1.0
Benzene
1.0
0.03
1.0
1.0
Ethylbenzene
1.0
0.03
1.0
1.0
Acenaphthylene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Acenaphthene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Fluoranthene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Fluorene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Pyrene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Phenanthrene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Benz[a]anthracene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Vanadium PHC F2 (Total)
PHC F3 (Total)
PHC F4 (Total)
a
a
a
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
89 COC
Rela ve Absorp on Factors
Benzo[a]pyrene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Chrysene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
Naphthalene
1.0
0.13
1.0
1.0
PCBs
1.0
0.14
1.0
1.0
Notes: Source: MOECC (2011b)
4.3.3
Discussion of Uncertain es The following conserva ve assump ons were employed in the toxicity assessment that contributed to uncertainty in the health risk calcula ons. ·
·
·
Given that toxicity assays are not generally conducted on humans, animal data, toxicological models and epidemiological studies are relied on by regulatory agencies to es mate the effects of chemicals on human receptors. The primary sources of uncertainty in the toxicity assessment relate to interspecies variability in responses to the various chemicals of concern, and to the difficul es in interpre ng the high-to-low dose extrapola ons necessary to provide TRVs for chronic exposures. To account for this uncertainty, various conserva ve assump ons and/or methodologies are applied in the development of the TRV. For example, TRVs for threshold toxicants typically incorporate uncertainty factors to account for the applicability and quality of the available toxicological data. In cases where a TRV for a threshold toxicant is based upon animal studies, the chemical concentra on associated with either no effects or no adverse effects in the animal test subjects are further reduced through division by uncertainty factors which account for such considera ons as inter-species (i.e. animal to human) extrapola on.The toxicity reference values used for the purposes of this assessment are inherently conserva ve since they have been developed by regulatory agencies to provide es mates of threshold doses that will be protec ve for virtually all popula ons (including sensi ve subgroups), and to provide upper-bound es mates of cancer potency. A conserva ve approach is maintained in the applica on of toxicity reference values by ensuring the most sensi ve toxicological endpoint was selected for each chemical from the available scien fic literature. Conserva ve Rela ve Absorp on Factors were applied in the assessment, with full uptake assumed for all oral exposures and dermal contact with groundwater. As
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
90 incomplete absorp on would be expected for many of these exposures, the actual absorbed dose would be expected to be lower than assumed in most cases. 4.4 4.4.1
Risk Characterization Interpreta on of Health Risks The risk characteriza on stage provides an evalua on of the magnitude and nature of risk origina ng from the routes of exposure. Specifically, during this stage, it is determined whether COCs exposures have the poten al to cause adverse human health risks. Both a quan ta ve and qualita ve evalua on of risk to human receptors was undertaken, the results of which are presented in Sec ons 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, respec vely.
4.4.2
Quan ta ve Interpreta on of Health Risks Non-carcinogenic risks are characterized by determining the ra o of the es mated exposure to the toxicity reference value for each contaminant (i.e., Hazard Quo ent): = The MOECC considers a target quo ent of 0.2 for each pathway taking into considera on nonsite related exposures. This value was applied in this assessment for all non-carcinogenic COCs with the excep on of trichloroethylene (TCE) and PHCs in soil. Instead, a soil alloca on factor of 0.5 was used for TCE for non-potable sites in accordance with recent direc on provided by the MOECC’s Approved Model for MGRA (2016b). Further, a soil alloca on factor of 0.5 was adopted for all PHC frac ons, consistent with CCME (2008). This approach is consistent with a mul media approach allowable under O.Reg.153/04. For non-threshold ac ng chemicals, incremental life me cancer risk (ILCR) is es mated as the product of the predicted exposure and the cancer slope factor (SF) or unit risk (UR): =
(
)×
An ILCR of greater than one-in-one million (1 x 10-6) is the MOECC benchmark indica ve of a poten al health concern that should be more closely examined. A summary of es mated HQ and ILCR values are presented in Table 4-17 and Table 4-18.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
91
Table 4-17: Summary of Risk (HQ/ILCR) – Resident, Indoor Worker and Outdoor Worker Toddler Resident COC Soil Direct Contact
Composite Resident
Soil Indoor Air Par culate Inhala on Inhala on
Indoor Worker
Outdoor Worker
Soil Direct Contact
Indoor Air Inhala on
Soil Par culate Inhala on
Soil Direct Contact
Indoor Air Inhala on
Soil Direct Contact
Soil Par culate Inhala on
NV
-
1.7E-02
NV
3.7E-02
-
An mony
3.1E-01
NV
-
-
Arsenic
8.2E-01
NV
-
3.5E-05
NV
-
4.2E-02 1.9E-05c
NV
8.7E-02 3.9E-05c
-
Cadmium
5.1E+00
NV
1.7E-03
-
NV
1.7E-03 4.9E-07c
2.2E-01
NV
4.5E-01
7.8E-03 2.3E-06c
Copper
1.5E+00
NV
-
-
NV
-
8.0E-02
NV
1.6E-01
-
Cobalt
4.1E-01
NV
-
-
NV
-
1.8E-02
NV
3.6E-02
-
NV
9.6E-01
-
NV
-
-
NV
2.5E-01
NV
-
PHC F1 (Total)
NV
3.7E+00
-
NV
-
-
NV
9.6E-01
NV
-
PHC F1 Alipha c C6-8
NV
5.7E-01
-
NV
-
-
NV
1.5E-01
NV
-
PHC F1 Alipha c C8-10
NV
1.0E+00
-
NV
-
-
NV
2.7E-01
NV
-
PHC F1 Aroma c C8-10
NV
2.1E+00
-
NV
-
-
NV
5.4E-01
NV
-
4.2E+00
1.1E+00
-
-
-
-
2.9E-01
2.9E-01
6.2E-01
-
PHC F2 Alipha c C10-12
1.2E+00
6.1E-02
-
-
-
-
8.0E-02
1.6E-02
1.7E-01
-
PHC F2 Alipha c C12-16
1.4E+00
1.8E-02
-
-
-
-
9.8E-02
4.6E-03
2.1E-01
-
PHC F2 Aroma c C10-12
7.3E-01
9.5E-01
-
-
-
-
5.0E-02
2.5E-01
1.1E-01
-
PHC F2 Aroma c C12-16
9.0E-01
8.8E-02
-
-
-
-
6.1E-02
2.3E-02
1.3E-01
-
PHC F3 (Total)a
1.6E+00
NV
-
-
NV
-
1.1E-01
NV
2.3E-01
-
PHC F3 Alipha c C16-21
6.4E-02
NV
-
-
NV
-
4.3E-03
NV
9.3E-03
-
Mercury a
PHC F2 (Total)
a
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
c
92
COC
Toddler Resident
Composite Resident
Indoor Worker
Outdoor Worker
PHC F3 Alipha c C21-34
2.7E-02
NV
-
-
NV
-
1.9E-03
NV
4.0E-03
-
PHC F3 Aroma c C16-21
1.1E+00
NV
-
-
NV
-
7.2E-02
NV
1.5E-01
-
PHC F3 Aroma c C21-34
4.5E-01
NV
-
-
NV
-
3.1E-02
NV
6.6E-02
-
4.9E+00
NV
-
-
NV
-
3.4E-01
NV
7.1E-01
-
PHC F4 Alipha c C>34
2.9E-02
NV
-
-
NV
-
2.0E-03
NV
4.3E-03
-
PHC F4 Aroma c C>34
4.9E+00
NV
-
-
NV
-
3.3E-01
NV
7.1E-01
-
2-Propanone
NV
4.2E-04
-
NV
-
-
NV
1.1E-04
NV
-
Vinyl Chloride
NV
1.5E-02
-
NV
7.5E-06
c
-
NV
3.9E-03 2.1E-06c
NV
-
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
NV
4.2E-04
-
NV
4.4E-04
b
-
NV
4.4E-04
b
NV
-
b
PHC F4 (Total)
a
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
NV
9.7E-04
-
NV
b
1.0E-03
-
NV
1.0E-03
NV
-
-
NV
2.2E-04 c 1.7E-07
NV
-
Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)
NV
8.5E-04
-
NV
6.2E-07
1,1-Dichloroethylene
NV
7.0E-03
-
NV
-
-
NV
1.8E-03
NV
-
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
NV
2.3E-02
-
NV
-
-
NV
6.1E-03
NV
-
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
NV
4.7E-02
-
NV
-
-
NV
1.2E-02
NV
-
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
NV
1.8E-02
-
NV
1.6E-07c
-
NV
4.8E-03 4.4E-08c
NV
-
Chloroform
NV
1.7E-02
-
NV
-
-
NV
4.5E-03
NV
-
Carbon Tetrachloride
NV
1.1E+00
-
NV
-
-
NV
2.9E-01
NV
-
1,1-Dichloroethane
NV
8.4E-03
-
NV
-
-
NV
2.2E-03
NV
-
1,2-Dichloroethane
NV
3.6E-03
-
NV
3.5E-05c
-
NV
9.4E-04 9.8E-06c
NV
-
Ethylene Dibromide
NV
3.4E+00
-
NV
1.5E-03c
-
NV
8.9E-01 c 4.3E-04
NV
-
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
NV
1.9E-03
-
NV
-
-
NV
5.0E-04
NV
-
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
c
93
COC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Toddler Resident NV
NV
Composite Resident -
NV
2.9E-05c c
Indoor Worker -
Outdoor Worker
NV
8.1E-06c
NV
-
c
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NV
NV
-
NV
1.3E-04
-
NV
3.7E-05
NV
-
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NV
8.0E-02
-
NV
6.0E-06c
-
NV
2.1E-02 c 1.7E-06
NV
-
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NV
8.0E-02
-
NV
6.0E-06c
-
NV
2.1E-02 c 1.7E-06
NV
-
1,2-Dichloropropane
NV
4.1E-01
-
NV
-
-
NV
1.1E-01
NV
-
Bromomethane
NV
2.7E-01
-
NV
-
-
NV
7.2E-02
NV
-
Bromoform
NV
NV
-
NV
NV
-
NV
NA
NV
-
b
Trichloroethylene
NV
9.5E-01
-
NV
9.9E-01 8.1E-06b,c
-
NV
9.9E-01 8.1E-06b,c
NV
-
Tetrachloroethylene
NV
1.2E-01
-
NV
1.1E-06c
-
NV
3.0E-02 3.2E-07c
NV
-
Benzene
NV
5.1E-01
-
NV
3.2E-05c
-
NV
1.3E-01 8.9E-06c
NV
-
Toluene
NV
1.7E-03
-
NV
-
-
NV
4.4E-04
NV
-
-
NV
1.5E-02
NV
-
b
Ethylbenzene
NV
5.9E-02
-
NV
-
Styrene
NV
5.8E-03
-
NV
-
-
NV
1.5E-03
NV
-
Chlorobenzene
NV
1.6E-03
-
NV
-
-
NV
4.3E-04
NV
-
1,4-Dichloroben-zene
NV
3.6E-02
-
NV
8.0E-06
-
NV
9.3E-03 2.2E-06c
NV
-
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
NV
3.6E-03
-
NV
-
-
NV
9.3E-04
NV
-
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
NV
1.6E+00
-
NV
-
-
NV
4.3E-01
NV
-
c
c
c
Hexachlorobutadiene
NV
NV
-
NV
3.9E-04
-
NV
1.1E-04
NV
-
Hexane
NV
7.8E-01
-
NV
-
-
NV
2.1E-01
NV
-
Naphthalene
NV
1.0E+00
-
NV
-
-
NV
2.6E-01
NV
-
Total Xylenes
NV
4.6E-01
-
NV
-
-
NV
1.2E-01
NV
-
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
94
COC 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toddler Resident NV
NV
Composite Resident -
1.7E-05c
NV
Indoor Worker -
4.7E-06c
NV
c
c
NV
1.5E-10
2.0E-07
c
Outdoor Worker NV
-
c
c
NV
1.0E-08
7.1E-10c
c
Acenaphthylene
NV
NV
-
4.6E-07
Acenaphthene
NV
NV
-
2.1E-07
c
NV
7.1E-11
9.0E-08
c
NV
4.7E-09
3.3E-10
Benzo(ghi)perylene
NV
NV
-
1.0E-06c
NV
3.5E-09c
5.6E-07c
NV
1.2E-06c
1.6E-08c
1.8E-02
NV
-
6.0E-06c
NV
2.0E-09c
1.1E-03 3.2E-06c
NV
2.3E-03 1.3E-07c
9.4E-09c
Pyrene
NV
NV
-
4.9E-07c
NV
1.6E-10c
2.1E-07c
NV
1.1E-08c
7.6E-10c
Benz[a]anthracene
NV
NV
-
3.2E-05
c
NV
1.1E-08
c
NV
3.6E-05
Benzo[a]pyrene
NV
NV
-
2.2E-04
c
NV
7.3E-08
c
NV
2.5E-04
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
NV
NV
-
3.1E-05
c
NV
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
NV
NV
-
1.0E-05c
Chrysene
NV
NV
-
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
NV
NV
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
NV
Total Carcinogenic PAHs
Fluoranthene
c
1.7E-05
c
1.2E-04
1.0E-08
c
1.7E-05
c
NV
NV
3.4E-09c
5.4E-06c
3.1E-06
c
NV
1.1E-09
-
3.9E-05c
NV
NV
-
1.2E-05c
NV
NV
-
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
1.7E+00
NV
PCBs
3.0E+00
NV
c
5.0E-08
c
3.4E-07
3.5E-05
c
4.8E-08
NV
1.1E-05c
1.6E-08c
1.7E-06
c
NV
3.5E-06
4.9E-09
1.3E-08c
2.1E-05c
NV
4.5E-05c
6.2E-08c
NV
3.9E-09c
8.8E-06c
NV
1.3E-05c
1.8E-08c
3.5E-04c
NV
1.2E-07c
1.9E-04c
NV
3.9E-04c
5.7E-07c
-
-
NV
-
1.0E-01
NV
2.1E-01
-
3.0E-05
-
NV
3.0E-05 1.5E-09c
1.9E-01
NV
3.9E-01
1.4E-04 6.9E-09c
c
Notes: Bold and Shaded values are in excess of the target quo ent of 0.2 or 0.5 for TCE and PHCs, or acceptable ILCR level of 1.0E-06 NV = Not considered COC for this pathway or receptor “ – “: Non-carcinogenic risks for resident were evaluated for the toddler receptor. a Risk es mate is the sum of the risk es mates for each sub-frac on cons tuent b Risk es mate is based on a developmental endpoint for pregnant adult receptors c Iden fied value is ILCR associated with carcinogenic risk characteriza on
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
c
c
c c c
c
95
Table 4-18: Summary of Risk (HQ/ILCR) – Subsurface Worker Subsurface Worker COC
Soil Direct Contact
Groundwater Direct Soil Par culate Contact Inhala on
Trench Air Inhala on
An mony
NV
1.3E-03
NV
NV
Arsenic
NV
1.2E-02 c 1.5E-07
NV
NV
Barium
NV
4.5E-04
NV
NV
4.5E-01
NV
7.8E-03 c 6.1E-08
NV
Copper
NV
NV
NV
NV
Cobalt
NV
3.3E-05
NV
NV
Mercury
NV
NV
NV
1.0E-02
Molybdenum
NV
3.2E-03
NV
NV
Selenium
NV
2.3E-04
NV
NV
NV
b
1.6E-01
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
3.9E-02
PHC F1 Alipha c C6-8
NV
NV
NV
6.1E-03
PHC F1 Alipha c C8-10
NV
NV
NV
1.1E-02
PHC F1 Aroma c C8-10
NV
NV
NV
2.2E-02
NV
2.6E+01
NV
1.2E-02
PHC F2 Alipha c C10-12
NV
8.1E-02
NV
6.5E-04
PHC F2 Alipha c C12-16
NV
2.9E-02
NV
1.9E-04
PHC F2 Aroma c C10-12
NV
3.7E-01
NV
1.0E-02
PHC F2 Aroma c C12-16
NV
2.6E+01
NV
9.5E-04
NV
3.9E+00
NV
NV
PHC F3 Alipha c C16-21
NV
3.8E+00
NV
NV
PHC F3 Alipha c C21-34
NV
6.4E-05
NV
NV
PHC F3 Aroma c C16-21
NV
1.9E-01
NV
NV
PHC F3 Aroma c C21-34
NV
1.1E-03
NV
NV
NV
5.3E-04
NV
NV
PHC F4 Alipha c C>34
NV
3.2E-06
NV
NV
PHC F4 Aroma c C>34
NV
5.3E-04
NV
NV
2-Propanone
NV
NV
NV
4.5E-06
Cadmium
Vanadium PHC F1 (Total)
PHC F2 (Total)
PHC F3 (Total)
PHC F4 (Total)
a
a
a
a
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
96
COC
Subsurface Worker
Vinyl Chloride
NV
3.6E-04 c 4.3E-08
NV
1.6E-04 c 2.3E-09
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
NV
NV
NV
2.0E-03b
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
NV
NV
NV
4.5E-03b
Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE)
NV
NV
NV
9.1E-06 1.9E-10c
1,1-Dichloroethylene
NV
NV
NV
7.5E-05
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
NV
NV
NV
2.5E-04
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
NV
NV
NV
5.0E-04
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
NV
NV
NV
2.0E-04 c 4.9E-11
Chloroform
NV
NV
NV
1.9E-04
Carbon Tetrachloride
NV
NV
NV
1.2E-02
1,1-Dichloroethane
NV
NV
NV
9.0E-05
1,2-Dichloroethane
NV
NV
NV
3.8E-05 1.1E-08c
Ethylene Dibromide
NV
NV
NV
3.6E-02 4.7E-07c
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
NV
NV
NV
2.1E-05
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
NV
NV
NV
8.8E-09c
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
NV
NV
NV
4.0E-08c
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
NV
NV
NV
8.6E-04 1.8E-09c
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
NV
NV
NV
8.6E-04 c 1.8E-09
1,2-Dichloropropane
NV
NV
NV
4.4E-03
Bromomethane
NV
NV
NV
2.9E-03
Bromoform
NV
NV
NV
NV
Trichloroethylene
NV
NV
NV
4.5E+00b 9.8E-07c
Tetrachloroethylene
NV
NV
NV
1.2E-03 3.5E-10c
Benzene
NV
4.6E-02 c 4.2E-07
NV
5.5E-03 c 9.7E-09
Toluene
NV
NV
NV
1.8E-05
Ethylbenzene
NV
9.1E-05
NV
6.3E-04
Styrene
NV
NV
NV
6.2E-05
Chlorobenzene
NV
NV
NV
1.7E-05
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
97
COC
Subsurface Worker
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
NV
NV
NV
3.8E-04 c 2.5E-09
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
NV
NV
NV
3.8E-05
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
NV
NV
NV
1.8E-02
Hexachlorobutadiene
NV
NV
NV
1.2E-07c
Hexane
NV
NV
NV
8.4E-03
Naphthalene
NV
2.9E-03
NV
1.1E-02
Total Xylenes
NV
NV
NV
4.9E-03
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
NV
NV
NV
5.1E-09c
Acenaphthylene
1.0E-08
c
Acenaphthene
4.7E-09
c
Benzo(ghi)perylene
3.1E-08c
Fluoranthene Fluorene Pyrene Phenanthrene Benz[a]anthracene Benzo[a]pyrene Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Total Carcinogenic PAHs Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-) PCBs
1.8E-03 2.1E-07c 7.9E-03 9.2E-08c
1.9E-11
c
NV
8.8E-12
c
NV
2.1E-06c
4.4E-10c
NV
1.3E-07c
3.8E-02 3.0E-06c
2.5E-10c
NV
NV
2.4E-03
NV
NV
1.1E-08
c
NV c
9.7E-07
c
6.6E-06
c
9.4E-07
c
3.0E-07
c
9.5E-08
c
1.2E-06
c
3.5E-07
c
5.0E-02 3.0E-07c
2.0E-11
NV
NV c
2.6E-05
c
2.7E-04
c
3.6E-05
c
1.5E-05
c
2.3E-06
c
7.6E-05
c
2.2E-05
c
c
NV NV
c
NV
c
NV
c
NV
c
NV
c
NV
c
NV
c
NV
c
1.3E-09 9.1E-09 1.3E-09 4.2E-10 1.3E-10 1.7E-09 4.9E-10
1.1E-05
4.5E-04
7.6E-08
NV
NV
2.6E+00
NV
NV
2.6E-01
NV
1.4E-04 1.9E-10c
NV
Notes: Bold and Shaded values are in excess of the target quo ent of 0.2 or 0.5 for TCE and PHCs, or acceptable ILCR level of 1.0E-06 NV = Not considered COC for this pathway or receptor a Risk es mate is the sum of the risk es mates for each sub-frac on cons tuent b Risk es mate is based on a developmental endpoint for pregnant adult receptors c Iden fied value is ILCR associated with carcinogenic risk characteriza on
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
98 4.4.2.1
Resident (Toddler and Composite) The resident scenario (toddler and composite receptors) was evaluated for soil direct contact (i.e., dermal contact and incidental inges on), soil par culate inhala on, and indoor air inhala on pathways. Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed for the toddler, and carcinogenic risks were assessed for the composite receptor. Non-carcinogenic risks associated with developmental toxicants were assessed for a pregnant adult resident. As indicated in Table 4-17, poten al non-carcinogenic risks were iden fied for the toddler resident from an mony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, cobalt, PHC F2 to F4, methylnaphthalene, and PCBs from the soil direct contact pathway. Poten al carcinogenic risks were iden fied for the composite receptor from arsenic, fluoranthene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and total carcinogenic PAHs from the soil direct contact pathway. Poten al non-carcinogenic risks were also iden fied for the toddler resident from benzene, xylenes, trichloroethylene, hexane, naphthalene, PHC F1, PHC F2, and mercury from the indoor air inhala on pathway. Poten al carcinogenic risks were iden fied for the composite receptor from benzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and vinyl chloride from the indoor air inhala on pathway. The calculated HQ and/or ILCR for carbon tetrachloride, ethylene dibromide, 1,1,2trichloroethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2-dichlropropane, 1,3dichlropropene, bromomethane, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, and hexachlorobutadiene exceeded the acceptable non-carcinogen and carcinogen benchmarks for resident (i.e., toddler) and indoor worker via the indoor air inhala on pathway; however, these parameters were not detected in any of the soil vapour samples collected on the Site and these results are due to the raised laboratory detec on limits. As indicated in the soil vapour intrusion report (Appendix D), these parameters are not expected to pose unacceptable risks to occupants of future on-site buildings via vapour intrusion.
4.4.2.2
Indoor Worker The indoor worker scenario was evaluated for soil direct contact (i.e., dermal contact and incidental inges on) and indoor air inhala on pathways. As indicated in Table 4-17, poten al non-carcinogenic risk from cadmium and carcinogenic risks from arsenic, fluoranthene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and total carcinogenic PAHs were iden fied for the indoor worker receptor from the soil direct contact pathway.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
99 Poten al non-carcinogenic risks from trichloroethylene, hexane, naphthalene, PHC F1, PHC F2, and mercury and carcinogenic risks from benzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride were also iden fied for the indoor worker receptor from the indoor air inhala on pathway. 4.4.2.3
Outdoor Worker The outdoor worker scenario was evaluated for soil direct contact (i.e., dermal contact and incidental inges on) and soil par culate inhala on pathways. As indicated in Table 4-17, poten al non-carcinogenic risks from cadmium, PHC F2 to F4, methylnaphthalene, and PCBs and carcinogenic risks from arsenic, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and total carcinogenic PAHs were iden fied for the outdoor worker receptor from the soil direct contact pathway. Further, poten al carcinogenic risks from cadmium via the soil par culate inhala on pathway were iden fied for the outdoor worker receptor.
4.4.2.4
Subsurface Worker The subsurface worker scenario was evaluated for soil and groundwater direct contact (i.e., dermal contact and incidental inges on), soil par culate inhala on, and trench air inhala on pathways. As indicated in Table 4-18, poten al non-carcinogenic risks from cadmium and PCBs and carcinogenic risks from benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and total carcinogenic PAHs were iden fied for the subsurface worker receptor from the soil direct contact pathway. Poten al non-carcinogenic risks from methylnaphthalene, PHC F2, and PHC F3 and carcinogenic risks from fluoranthene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene, and total carcinogenic PAHs were iden fied for the subsurface worker receptor from the groundwater direct contact pathway. Addi onally, poten al non-carcinogenic risk was iden fied for the subsurface worker receptor from trichloroethylene via the trench air inhala on pathway.
4.4.3
Qualita ve Interpreta on of Health Risks As indicated in Sec on 4.2.2, human health component value screening was conducted as a qualita ve interpreta on of health risks. REM that did not exceed the applicable human health criteria components were not quan ta vely evaluated for that exposure pathway in the HHRA.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
100 This was considered acceptable because the MOECC’s (2011b) criteria components are sufficiently protec ve of all human health receptors likely to frequent the Site. However a qualita ve assessment was completed for lead in soil due to the general uncertain es in the toxicology of lead and lack of regulatory guidance for evalua ng poten al exposure. The REM concentra on for lead in soil was in excess of the O.Reg.153/04 Table 7 human health component values protec ve of direct contact (i.e., S1 and S3); and therefore, the REM concentra on was compared to Ontario background soil concentra on of 120 µg/g (i.e., O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS) as indicated in Table 4-19. Table 4-19: Qualitative Selection of Soil PSS Value Protective of Human Health for Lead COC
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
REM Concentra on (µg/g)
Lead
2,480
2,976
Ontario Background Human Health Concentra on (µg/g) PSS (µg/g) 120
2,976
Basis of PSS Max + 20% variance
The REM concentra on for lead in soil is higher than the Ontario background concentra on of 120 µg/g; and therefore, poten al exposure to lead in soil at the Site is assumed to pose an unacceptable risk, and risk management measures protec ve of oral and dermal contact exposure pathways for the resident, indoor, outdoor, and subsurface worker receptors from soil impacted by lead are recommended. Exposure via consump on of home garden produce was also qualita vely assessed in the HHRA. There is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the uptake of many of the soil COCs as well as uncertainty associated with consump on rate of home garden produce. Further, it is not an cipated that a significant por on of a resident’s regular diet would be composed of home garden produce. Therefore, exposure to COCs via this pathway would likely be minor rela ve to other applicable pathways. Nevertheless, in the absence of reliable exposure es mates via this pathway, it was conserva vely assumed that unacceptable risks may occur and that RMMs for the Site should address this pathway. As described in Sec on 4.2.3, unacceptable risks related to vapour intrusion have been assumed for indoor occupants (resident and indoor worker) in the vicinity of Shed 6 (including development Blocks 2 and 3, as referenced in the RMP). This was assumed given the lack of soil vapour data in the vicinity of Shed 6, and considering the presence of LNAPL in this area. Poten al health risks to off-site receptors (i.e., residents, property visitors, indoor workers, outdoor workers, and subsurface workers) from on-site impacted soil and groundwater were also qualita vely assessed in the HHRA. It is expected that on-site receptors experience a greater degree of exposure via outdoor air and soil par culate inhala on pathways than the off-site receptors; and therefore, any risk to off-site receptors via these exposure pathways would be
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
101 captured by the risk assessment of the on-site receptors. The results of the HHRA indicated that impacted soil and groundwater on the Site are unlikely to present risk to on-site receptors via outdoor air inhala on pathway; however, there is poten al carcinogenic risk from cadmium via the soil par culate inhala on pathway for the on-site outdoor worker receptor. Given the conserva ve assump ons used in the es ma on of the health risk for the outdoor worker (e.g., exposure frequency of 9.8 hr/day, 5 days/week, for the dura on of 56 years) and since it is expected for on-site receptors to experience a greater degree of exposure compared to off-site receptors, it is unlikely that the impacted soil on the Site poses an unacceptable risk to off-site receptors via the soil par culate inhala on pathway. Nevertheless, the implementa on of onsite RMMs (i.e., Soil Cap/Hard Cap) will mi gate poten al health risks to on-site and off-site receptors via this exposure pathway. In addi on, no off-site building is located in sufficiently close proximity of on-site contamina on to pose a concern via the soil vapour migra on pathway. The off-site buildings to the west, south, and east are located more than 60 m from the on-site contamina on which is greater than the MOECC’s (MOECC, 2013) distance criterion of 15 m (for biodegradable chemicals) and 30 m (for recalcitrant chemicals) between the contamina on and the building. The off-site buildings to the northwest are located within 30 m of the site boundaries but more than 30 m from the on-site contamina on. Therefore, on-site contamina on is not expected to pose unacceptable risks to occupants of off-site buildings via vapour intrusion. 4.4.4
Proposed Human Health Candidate Property Specific Standards (PSSs) Based on the quan ta ve and qualita ve evalua on of poten al human health risks associated with soil and groundwater COCs, a number of COCs may be present at the Site at concentra ons that pose unacceptable risk to human receptors. Recommended soil and groundwater candidate PSSs for the protec on of human health for each COC are presented in Table 4-20 and Table 421, respec vely. These values have been set based on the maximum concentra on found on-site plus an applicable 20% variance, and are considered protec ve of on-site receptors with the applica on of risk management measures. The final PSS for the Site consider both the candidate values for human health and ecological health. It should be noted that for COCs with poten al risks only via the indoor air inhala on pathway, the PSS value was proposed for the medium (i.e., soil and/or groundwater) in which the COC concentra on exceeded the S-IA and/or GW2 component values.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
102
Table 4-20: Soil PSS Values Protective of Human Health COC
Maximum Soil O.Reg.153/04 Human Health Basis of Human Recommended Concentra on Table 1 SCS Component Health Component Human Health PSS (µg/g) (µg/g) Value (µg/g) Value (µg/g)
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact)
Risk Management Required?
Antimony
8.5
1.3
7.5
Direct Soil Contact
10.2
Arsenic
36.4
18
0.95
Direct Soil Contact
43.7
Barium
441
220
3,800
Direct Soil Contact
529.2
Max + 20%
No
Beryllium
6.08
2.5
38
Direct Soil Contact
7.3
Max + 20%
No
Boron
92.2
36
4,300
Direct Soil Contact
110.6
Max + 20%
No
Boron (HWS)
5.5
nv
nv
-
6.6
Max + 20%
No
Cadmium
13.2
1.2
0.69
Direct Soil Contact
15.8
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact)
Yes
Chromium (III+VI)
164
70
28,000
Direct Soil Contact
196.8
Max + 20%
No
Chromium (VI)
0.74
0.66
40
Direct Soil Contact
0.89
Max + 20%
No
Cobalt
32.5
21
22
Direct Soil Contact
39
Copper
1,140
92
600
Direct Soil Contact
1,368
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact)
Lead
2,480
120
120
Ontario Background
2,976
Max + 20%
Yes
Mercury
4.08
0.27
0.25
Indoor Air Inhalation
4.9
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
Molybdenum
12
2
110
Direct Soil Contact
14.4
Max + 20%
No
Selenium
2.2
1.5
110
Direct Soil Contact
2.6
Max + 20%
No
Silver
30.7
0.5
77
Direct Soil Contact
36.8
Max + 20%
No
Zinc
3,860
290
5,600
Direct Soil Contact
4,632
Max + 20%
No
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
103
COC
Maximum Soil O.Reg.153/04 Human Health Basis of Human Recommended Concentra on Table 1 SCS Component Health Component Human Health PSS (µg/g) (µg/g) Value (µg/g) Value (µg/g)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Electrical Conductivity
3.52
0.57
nv
-
4.2
Max + 20%
No
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
68.9
2.4
nv
-
82.7
Max + 20%
No
Benzene
1.43
0.02
0.21
Indoor Air Inhalation
1.7
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
Toluene
1.4
0.2
6.2
Indoor Air Inhalation
1.7
Max + 20%
No
Ethylbenzene
26.4
0.05
2
Indoor Air Inhalation
31.7
Max + 20%
No
Xylenes
96
0.05
3.1
Indoor Air Inhalation
115.2
PHC F1
1,180
25
130
Indoor Air Inhalation
1,416
PHC F2
19,700
10
98
Indoor Air Inhalation
23,640
PHC F3
13,700
240
5,800
Direct Soil Contact
16,440
PHC F4
44,100
120
6,100
Direct Soil Contact
52,920
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact)
1,1-dichloroethane
0.064
0.05
3.5
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.08
Max + 20%
No
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.8
0.05
35
Indoor Air Inhalation
1.0
Max + 20%
No
1,2-dichloroethane
0.2
0.05
0.025
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.24
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.8
0.05
0.083
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.96
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Acetone
2.5
0.5
720
Indoor Air Inhalation
3.0
Max + 20%
No
Chloroform
0.4
0.05
0.032
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.48
Max + 20%
No
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
0.2
0.05
3.4
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.24
Max + 20%
No
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
104
COC
Maximum Soil O.Reg.153/04 Human Health Basis of Human Recommended Concentra on Table 1 SCS Component Health Component Human Health PSS (µg/g) (µg/g) Value (µg/g) Value (µg/g)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
9
0.05
0.1
Indoor Air Inhalation
10.8
Max + 20%
No
11.3
0.05
2.8
Indoor Air Inhalation
13.6
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
2
0.5
6.6
Indoor Air Inhalation
2.4
Max + 20%
No
0.2
0.05
16
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.24
Max + 20%
No
0.135
0.05
0.061
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.16
Tetrachloroethylene
0.2
0.05
0.28
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.24
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
0.2
0.05
0.084
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.24
Max + 20%
Vinyl chloride
0.08
0.02
0.0021
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.1
Acenaphthene
16.9
0.072
7.9
Indoor Air Inhalation
20.3
Acenphthylene
3.69
0.093
0.45
Indoor Air Inhalation
4.4
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact)
11
0.16
5,400
Direct Soil Contact
13.2
Benzo(a)anthracene
25.7
0.36
0.78
Direct Soil Contact
30.8
Benzo(a)pyrene
17.5
0.3
0.078
Direct Soil Contact
21
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
24.8
0.47
0.78
Direct Soil Contact
29.8
Benzo(ghi)perylene
8.3
0.68
7.8
Direct Soil Contact
10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
8.06
0.48
0.78
Direct Soil Contact
9.7
Dichloromethane Hexane Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Styrene Trichloroethylene
Anthracene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Max + 20% Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact)
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
105
COC
Maximum Soil O.Reg.153/04 Human Health Basis of Human Recommended Concentra on Table 1 SCS Component Health Component Human Health PSS (µg/g) (µg/g) Value (µg/g) Value (µg/g)
Chrysene
25.2
2.8
7.8
Direct Soil Contact
30.2
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.16
0.1
0.078
Direct Soil Contact
3.8
Fluoranthene
48.2
0.56
7.8
Direct Soil Contact
57.8
Fluorene
25.2
0.12
720
Direct Soil Contact
30.2
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
9.44
0.23
0.78
Direct Soil Contact
11.3
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
440
0.59
72
Direct Soil Contact
528
Naphthalene
73.1
0.09
0.65
Indoor Air Inhalation
87.7
Phenathrene
64.7
0.69
nv
-
77.6
39
1
78
Direct Soil Contact
46.8
3.95
0.3
0.35
Direct Soil Contact
4.7
Pyrene PCBs
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact)
Risk Management Required? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
106 Table 4-21: Groundwater PSS Values Protective of Human Health COC
Maximum O.Reg.153/04 Human Health Basis of Human Groundwater Table 1 SCS Component Health Component Concentra on (µg/L) Value (µg/L) Value (µg/L)
Recommended Human Health PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
6.37
1.5
6
Groundwater Direct Contact
7.6
Max + 20%
No
Arsenic
44
13
25
Groundwater Direct Contact
52.8
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact)
Yes
Barium
1,060
610
1,000
1,272
Max + 20%
No
Boron
2,090
1,700
5,000
2,508
Max + 20%
No
Cobalt
5.27
3.8
3
6.3
Max + 20%
No
Copper
45
5
1,000
54
Max + 20%
No
Lead
6
1.9
10
7.2
Max + 20%
No
Molybdenum
192
23
70
230.4
Max + 20%
No
Selenium
13.8
5
10
Groundwater Direct Contact Groundwater Direct Contact Groundwater Direct Contact Groundwater Direct Contact Groundwater Direct Contact Groundwater Direct Contact Groundwater Direct Contact
16.6
Max + 20%
No
Vanadium
89.8
3.9
6.2
Groundwater Direct Contact
107.8
Benzene
301
0.5
0.17
Indoor Air Inhalation
361.2
Toluene
8.69
0.8
24
Indoor Air Inhalation
10.4
Max + 20%
No
19
0.5
2.4
Indoor Air Inhalation
22.8
Max + 20%
No
Antimony
Ethylbenzene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation and Groundwater Direct Contact)
Yes
Yes
107
COC
Maximum O.Reg.153/04 Human Health Basis of Human Groundwater Table 1 SCS Component Health Component Concentra on (µg/L) Value (µg/L) Value (µg/L)
Recommended Human Health PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation and Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact)
Risk Management Required?
PHC F2
12,000
150
5.7
Indoor Air Inhalation
14,400
PHC F3
11,400
500
1,000
Groundwater Direct Contact
13,680
PHC F4
1,700
500
1,100
2,040
Max + 20%
No
1,1-dichloroethane
0.66
0.5
5
Groundwater Direct Contact Groundwater Direct Contact
0.8
Max + 20%
No
1,2-dichloroethane
0.53
0.5
0.07
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.6
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
3.29
1.6
1.6
Indoor Air Inhalation
3.9
Max + 20%
No
Styrene
1.67
0.5
43
Indoor Air Inhalation
2.0
Max + 20%
No
Trichloroethylene
1.7
0.5
0.072
Indoor Air Inhalation
2.1
Tetrachloroethylene
0.5
0.5
0.072
Indoor Air Inhalation
0.6
Vinyl chloride
4.17
0.5
0.0072
Indoor Air Inhalation
5
Acenaphthene
146
0.072
4.1
175.2
Max + 20%
No
Acenaphthylene
31.9
0.093
0.45
Groundwater Direct Contact Groundwater Direct Contact
38.3
Max + 20%
No
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes
108
COC
Maximum O.Reg.153/04 Human Health Basis of Human Groundwater Table 1 SCS Component Health Component Concentra on (µg/L) Value (µg/L) Value (µg/L)
Recommended Human Health PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Max + 20%
No
Anthracene
3.8
0.16
890
Groundwater Direct Contact
4.6
Benzo(a)anthracene
73.5
0.2
1
Groundwater Direct Contact
88.2
Benzo(a)pyrene
52.2
0.01
0.01
Groundwater Direct Contact
62.6
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
70.1
0.1
0.1
Groundwater Direct Contact
84.1
25
0.2
1
Groundwater Direct Contact
30
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
29.7
0.1
0.1
Groundwater Direct Contact
35.6
Chrysene
64.6
0.1
0.1
Groundwater Direct Contact
77.5
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
6.82
0.2
0.01
Groundwater Direct Contact
8.2
Fluoranthene
182
0.4
0.4
Groundwater Direct Contact
218.4
Fluorene
229
120
120
Groundwater Direct Contact
274.8
Max + 20%
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
29.8
0.2
0.1
Groundwater Direct Contact
35.8
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact)
Yes
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) M Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
109
COC
Maximum O.Reg.153/04 Human Health Basis of Human Groundwater Table 1 SCS Component Health Component Concentra on (µg/L) Value (µg/L) Value (µg/L)
Recommended Human Health PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Risk Management Required?
3,070
2
12
Groundwater Direct Contact
3,684
Naphthalene
319
7
4.4
Indoor Air Inhalation
382.8
Phenanthrene
449
0.1
1
538.8
Max + 20%
No
Pyrene
204
0.2
4
Groundwater Direct Contact Groundwater Direct Contact
244.8
Max + 20%
No
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Yes Yes
110
4.4.5
Special Considera ons for Environmentally Sensi ve Area Sec on 41 of the Regula on has been considered applicable to the Site since the soil pH was greater than 9 in some areas and since por ons of the Site may provide habitat for species classified as threatened or endangered. As indicated in Sec on 3.6.6, based on the iden fied pH levels in soil (generally below 10), the localized areas with elevated pH levels, and the age of the fill at the Site, it is not expected that the iden fied elevated pH levels would significantly affect COCs fate and transport on the Site. As a result, the proposed human health PSSs are considered appropriate. Further discussion related to the proposed ecological PSSs considering the poten al presence of species at risk at the Site is provided in Sec on 5.5.4.
4.4.6
Interpreta on of Off-Site Health Risks Land use east and south of the Site is primarily residen al and ins tu onal. Land use west/southwest of the Site is predominantly commercial, while to the northwest is a mixture of commercial and ins tu onal. The proposed PSSs for each COC were screened to the applicable SCS associated with off-site land uses (i.e., residen al/ins tu onal and commercial) in order to determine whether the human health standard being proposed for the RA property is likely to result in a concentra on greater than the applicable full depth site condi on standard at the nearest human receptor located off the RA property.
4.4.6.1
Residen al/Ins tu onal (East and South) Poten al off-site receptors include residents, site visitors, outdoor workers (long term), and subsurface workers. The proposed soil and groundwater PSSs were screened against the O.Reg.153/04 Table 3 full-depth SCS for residen al/parkland/ins tu onal land use to assess the poten al off-site impacts. The screening results are provided in Table 4-22. Table 4-22: Off-Site Screening for Residential/Parkland/Institutional Land Use Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed COC Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor?
Nearest off-site receptor
SOIL (µg/g) Antimony
10.2
7.5
No
Arsenic
43.7
18
No
Cadmium
15.8
1.2
No
39
22
No
Cobalt
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
111
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor?
Copper
1,368
140
No
Lead
2,976
120
No
Mercury
4.9
0.27
No
Benzene
1.7
0.21
No
Xylenes
115.2
3.1
No
PHC F1
1,416
55
No
PHC F2
23,640
98
No
PHC F3
16,440
300
No
PHC F4
52,920
2,800
No
1,2-dichloroethane
0.24
0.05
No
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
0.083
No
Hexane
13.6
2.8
No
Trichloroethylene
0.16
0.061
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.24
0.28
No
Vinyl chloride
0.1
0.02
No
Acenaphthene
20.3
7.9
No
Acenphthylene
4.4
0.15
No
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
0.5
No
21
0.3
No
29.8
0.78
No
10
6.6
No
Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene Benzo(ghi)perylene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Nearest off-site receptor
Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
112
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor?
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
0.78
No
Chrysene
30.2
7
No
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
0.1
No
Fluoranthene
57.8
0.69
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
0.38
No
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
528
0.99
No
Naphthalene
87.7
0.6
No
Pyrene
46.8
78
No
PCBs
4.7
0.35
No
Nearest off-site receptor
Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
GROUNDWATER (µg/L) Arsenic
52.8
1,900
No
Vanadium
107.8
250
No
Benzene
361.2
44
No
PHC F2
14,400
150
No
PHC F3
13,680
500
No
1,2-dichloroethane
0.6
1.6
No
Trichloroethylene
2.1
1.6
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.6
1.6
No
5
0.5
No
Benzo(a)anthracene
88.2
4.7
No
Benzo(a)pyrene
62.6
0.81
No
Vinyl chloride
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
113
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor? 84.1
0.75
No
30
0.2
No
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
35.6
0.4
No
Chrysene
77.5
1
No
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
8.2
0.52
No
Fluoranthene
218.4
130
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
35.8
0.2
No
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
3,684
1,800
No
Naphthalene
382.8
1,400
No
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene Benzo(ghi)perylene
Nearest off-site receptor
Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Resident, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
Notes: R/P/I: Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal Land Use
As indicated in Table 4-22, it is not an cipated that the proposed human health PSS could result in concentra ons greater than the applicable full depth site condi on standards at the nearest human receptors located on the east and south of the RA property. The soil par culate inhala on pathway is unlikely to result in any significant altera on in off-site soil concentra ons or the occurance of off-site human health risks at the nearest receptor loca on. Further, the majority of the Site is paved or under the footprint of one of the current on-site buildings and based on the need for RMMs to prevent direct contact with impacted soil on-site, the future surfaces at the Site will be predominantly covered by clean soil, paved surfaces, and/or buildings. Therefore, the poten al exposure via the soil par culate inhala on pathway for off-site receptors is considered to be negligible. The neighbouring proper es to the east and south are located up-gradient/cross-gradient of the Site; and therefore, groundwater migra on to these off-site neighbouring proper es is not expected. Further, the results of the soil vapour sampling program indicated that the measured soil vapour concentra ons on the Site were generally low with the excep on of the vapour data collected at the southwest por on of the Site (i.e., vapour probe VP2). However, VP2 is located approximately 100 m from the nearest off-site buildings which is more than the MOECC’s
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
114 distance criteria of 15 m and 30 m for biodegradable and recalcitrant chemicals, respec vely. The iden fied LNAPL products on the Site are present beneath Shed 6 building which is located more than 100 m from the nearest off-site building. Based on this informa on and considering that soil vapours would likely be significantly a enuated prior to reaching off-site buildings, it is unlikely that the on-site soil vapours would pose health risks to off-site human receptors. 4.4.6.2
Commercial (West/Southwest) Poten al off-site receptors include indoor workers, site visitors, outdoor workers (long term), and subsurface workers. The proposed soil and groundwater PSSs were screened against the O.Reg.153/04 Table 3 full-depth SCS for industrial/commercial/community land use to assess the poten al off-site impacts. The screening results are provided in Table 4-23. Table 4-23: Off-Site Screening for Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed COC Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS Nearest off-site receptor PSS (I/C/C) at nearest offsite receptor? SOIL (µg/g) Antimony
10.2
40
No
Arsenic
43.7
18
No
Cadmium
15.8
1.9
No
Cobalt
39
80
No
Copper
1,368
230
No
Lead
2,976
120
No
Mercury
4.9
3.9
No
Benzene
1.7
0.32
No
Xylenes
115.2
26
No
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
115
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (I/C/C) at nearest offsite receptor?
PHC F1
1,416
55
No
PHC F2
23,640
230
No
PHC F3
16,440
1,700
No
PHC F4
52,920
3,300
No
1,2-dichloroethane
0.24
0.05
No
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
0.2
No
Hexane
13.6
46
No
Trichloroethylene
0.16
0.91
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.24
4.5
No
Vinyl chloride
0.1
0.032
No
Acenaphthene
20.3
96
No
Acenphthylene
4.4
0.15
No
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
0.96
No
21
0.3
No
29.8
0.96
No
Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Nearest off-site receptor
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
116
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (I/C/C) at nearest offsite receptor?
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10
9.6
No
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
0.96
No
Chrysene
30.2
9.6
No
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
0.1
No
Fluoranthene
57.8
9.6
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
0.76
No
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
528
76
No
Naphthalene
87.7
9.6
No
Pyrene
46.8
96
No
PCBs
4.7
1.1
No
Nearest off-site receptor
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
GROUNDWATER (µg/L) Arsenic
52.8
1,900
No
Vanadium
107.8
250
No
Benzene
361.2
44
No
PHC F2
14,400
150
No
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
117
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (I/C/C) at nearest offsite receptor? 13,680
500
No
1,2-dichloroethane
0.6
1.6
No
Trichloroethylene
2.1
1.6
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.6
1.6
No
5
0.5
No
Benzo(a)anthracene
88.2
4.7
No
Benzo(a)pyrene
62.6
0.81
No
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
84.1
0.75
No
30
0.2
No
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
35.6
0.4
No
Chrysene
77.5
1
No
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
8.2
0.52
No
Fluoranthene
218.4
130
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
35.8
0.2
No
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
3,684
1,800
No
PHC F3
Vinyl chloride
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Nearest off-site receptor
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
118
COC
Naphthalene
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (I/C/C) at nearest offsite receptor? 382.8
1,400
No
Nearest off-site receptor
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
Notes: I/C/C: Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use
As indicated in Table 4-23, it is not an cipated that the proposed human health PSS could result in concentra ons greater than the applicable full depth site condi on standards at the nearest human receptors located on the west/southwest of the RA property. The soil par culate inhala on pathway is unlikely to result in any significant altera on in off-site soil concentra ons or the occurance of off-site human health risks at the nearest receptor loca on. Further, the majority of the Site is paved or under the footprint of one of the current on-site buildings and based on the need for RMMs to prevent direct contact with impacted soil on-site, the future surfaces at the Site will be predominantly covered by clean soil, paved surfaces, and/or buildings. Therefore, the exposure via the soil par culate inhala on pathway for off-site receptors is considered to be negligible. The neighbouring property to the west/southwest (i.e., Pier 7) is located cross-gradient of the Site. Based on the interpreted groundwater flow direc on on the Site, groundwater migra on to this off-site neighbouring property is not expected. Further, the nearest building on the neighbouring property to the west/southwest is located more than 100 m from the on-site contamina on which is greater than the MOECC’s distance criteria of 15 m and 30 m for biodegradable and recalcitrant chemicals, respec vely (MOECC, 2013). Based on this informa on and considering that soil vapours would likely be significantly a enuated prior to reaching offsite buildings, it is unlikely that the on-site soil vapours would pose health risks to occupants of off-site buildings on the west/southwest neighbouring property via vapour intrusion. 4.4.6.3
Commercial/Ins tu onal (Northwest) Poten al off-site receptors include indoor workers, site visitors, outdoor workers (long term), and subsurface workers. Due to the presence of an ins tu onal building on this neighbouring property, the proposed soil and groundwater PSSs were screened against the O.Reg.153/04 Table 3 full-depth SCS for residen al/parkland/ins tu onal land use to assess the poten al risk to the off-site human receptors. The screening results are provided in Table 4-24.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
119 Table 4-24: Off-Site Screening for Residential/Parkland/Institutional Land Use Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed COC Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS Nearest off-site receptor PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor? SOIL (µg/g) Antimony
10.2
7.5
No
Arsenic
43.7
18
No
Cadmium
15.8
1.2
No
Cobalt
39
22
No
Copper
1,368
140
No
Lead
2,976
120
No
Mercury
4.9
0.27
No
Benzene
1.7
0.21
No
Xylenes
115.2
3.1
No
PHC F1
1,416
55
No
PHC F2
23,640
98
No
PHC F3
16,440
300
No
PHC F4
52,920
2,800
No
0.24
0.05
No
1,2-dichloroethane
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
120
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor?
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
0.083
No
Hexane
13.6
2.8
No
Trichloroethylene
0.16
0.061
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.24
0.28
No
Vinyl chloride
0.1
0.02
No
Acenaphthene
20.3
7.9
No
Acenphthylene
4.4
0.15
No
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
0.5
No
21
0.3
No
29.8
0.78
No
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10
6.6
No
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
0.78
No
Chrysene
30.2
7
No
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
0.1
No
Fluoranthene
57.8
0.69
No
Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Nearest off-site receptor
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
121
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor?
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
0.38
No
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
528
0.99
No
Naphthalene
87.7
0.6
No
Pyrene
46.8
78
No
PCBs
4.7
0.35
No
Nearest off-site receptor
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
GROUNDWATER (µg/L) Arsenic
52.8
1,900
No
Vanadium
107.8
250
No
Benzene
361.2
44
No
PHC F2
14,400
150
Yes
PHC F3
13,680
500
Yes
1,2-dichloroethane
0.6
1.6
No
Trichloroethylene
2.1
1.6
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.6
1.6
No
5
0.5
No
Vinyl chloride
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
122
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Human Health Table 3 SCS applicable SCS PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor?
Benzo(a)anthracene
88.2
4.7
No
Benzo(a)pyrene
62.6
0.81
No
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
84.1
0.75
No
30
0.2
No
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
35.6
0.4
No
Chrysene
77.5
1
No
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
8.2
0.52
No
Fluoranthene
218.4
130
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
35.8
0.2
No
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
3,684
1,800
No
Naphthalene
382.8
1,400
No
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Nearest off-site receptor
Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker Indoor Worker, Site Visitor, Outdoor Worker, and Subsurface Worker
Notes: R/P/I: Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal Land Use
As indicated in Table 4-24, it is not an cipated that the proposed human health PSS could result in concentra ons greater than the applicable full depth site condi on standards at the nearest human receptors located on the northwest of the RA property, with the excep on of some poten al for migra on of PHC impacted groundwater. The soil par culate inhala on pathway is unlikely to result in any significant altera on in off-site soil concentra ons or the occurance of off-site human health risks at the nearest receptor
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
123 loca on. Further, the majority of the Site is paved or under the footprint of one of the current on-site buildings and based on the need for RMMs to prevent direct contact with impacted soil on-site, the future surfaces at the Site will be predominantly covered by clean soil, paved surfaces, and/or buildings. Therefore, the exposure via soil par culate inhala on pathway for offsite receptors is considered to be negligible. Based on the groundwater flow direc on, the neighbouring property to the northwest is located down-gradient/cross-gradient of the Site. Groundwater data collected from the monitoring wells located near/along the northwest site boundary (i.e., MW133, MW134, MW137, and MW181) showed no exceedances of Table 3 SCS for PHCs, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, metals, and inorganics, with the excep on of PHC F2 and F3 at MW137. However, considering the steady state condi on of groundwater on the Site, it is not expected that the iden fied PHC impacted groundwater on the Site would pose health risks to off-site receptors. The off-site buildings to the northwest are located within 30 m of the site boundaries but more than 30 m from the on-site contamina on. The soil vapour data collected from the soil vapour probes located near the northwest property boundary (i.e., VP1, VP5, and VP10) showed poten al exceedances of the HBIAC for tetrachloroethylene at VP1 and benzene at VP5. Both tetrachloroethylene and benzene were detected in soil vapour at concentra ons slightly greater than the HBIAC values. VP1 is located approximately 50 m from the nearest off-site building which is more than the MOECC’s distance criteria of 30 m for recalcitrant chemicals (MOECC, 2013). VP5 is located approximately 25 m from the nearest off-site building which is also greater than the MOECC’s distance criteria of 15 m for biodegradable chemicals (MOECC, 2013). Based on this informa on and considering that soil vapours would likely be significantly a enuated, both prior to reaching off-site buildings and between the subsurface and the indoor environemnt, it is unlikely that the on-site soil vapours would pose health risks to occupants of off-site buildings on the northwest neighbouring property via vapour intrusion. 4.4.7
Discussion of Uncertainty The following discussion describes areas of uncertainty in the risk characteriza on. Overall, the uncertain es in the exposure and toxicity assessments contribute to the uncertain es in the risk characteriza on. Given the general tendency in the assump ons for exposure and toxicity assessments to overes mate both exposure and toxicity, it is considered likely that the overall risk characteriza on may have overes mated actual risks but is unlikely to have underes mated poten al health risks. ·
Use of the REM concentra ons to predict exposure to human receptors likely resulted in overes ma on of exposure given that receptors are not expected to spend 100% of their me in the areas with maximum COC concentra ons in soil and groundwater. In addi on, the collected soil and groundwater data does not account for possible
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
124
·
·
·
a enua on of compounds a er sampling, par cularly PHCs, VOCs, and to a lesser degree PAHs. Therefore, measured concentra ons at the me of the sampling are expected to be conserva ve es mates of future exposure concentra ons to poten al receptors (it is noted that the poten al degrada on of chlorinated ethene compounds to vinyl chloride was explicitly considered in the RA). Uncertainty factors have been incorporated in the deriva on of TRVs. TRVs represent one of the largest sources of uncertainty in the risk es mates (the uncertainty factors typically applied to the TRVs by the regulatory agencies for threshold contaminants range between 2 and 1000). The characteriza on of risks to non-carcinogenic COCs assumed that the acceptable HQ was 0.2 for each environmental medium for all COCs except PHCs. This approach allocates 80% of the TRV for non-site related sources of exposure (e.g., food, consumer products). For many chemicals, sources of exposure other than contaminated environmental media may be negligible; therefore, alloca ng only 20% of the TRV to site-related COC exposures may be highly conserva ve. The exposure es mates for each of the receptors on the Site were based on siteoccupancy assump ons. The occupancy mes used in the HHRA were conserva ve and would overes mate poten al exposures to most receptors.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
125
5.0
Ecological Risk Assessment As required by O. Reg. 153/04, an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) was conducted as part of the current RA. The purpose was to evaluate the poten al impacts of chemicals in groundwater and soil to ecological receptors. The ERA focused on the poten al for chemicals in the soil and groundwater within the Site to have deleterious effects on wildlife indigenous to the Site and the surrounding area, including poten al aqua c receptors within adjacent por ons of Hamilton Harbour. Within the property boundaries, poten al risks to terrestrial biota are generally limited to those associated with soil quality. Chemicals in the on-site groundwater are not expected to represent a poten al risk to indigenous terrestrial biota other than deeper roo ng plants, since the opportunity for direct contact was considered to be negligible. Thus, the poten al risks with the groundwater were considered only for terrestrial plants and the scenario where it discharges to the adjacent surface water of Hamilton Harbour.
5.1
Problem Formulation The Problem Formula on for the ERA includes an ecological conceptual site model (CSM) and the ERA objec ves. As discussed in Sec on 3.5, the Site is considered to be an environmentally sensi ve area due to the presence of pH levels in shallow soil greater than 9 in some areas and since por ons of the Site may provide habitat for threatened or endangered species. Addi onally, a permanent water body (Hamilton Harbour) is located north of the Site. The ini al selec on of COCs included a comparison of the maximum measured concentra ons to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 ecological component values.
5.1.1
COCs in Soil The soil screening conducted in Sec on 3.6.3, indicated that sixty (60) chemicals/parameters in soil were in excess of the applicable O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS or without SCS, and therefore were retained as COCs in soil for further evalua on in the RA. Determining an appropriate EPC (i.e., the concentra on of a chemical in any environmental medium to which a receptor could reasonably be expected to be exposed over an extended period of me) is important to the overall exposure assessment. In order to provide a conserva ve, yet reasonable es mate of the EPC, a soil concentra ons equal to the maximum measured concentra on mul plied by 1.2, representa ve of analy cal variance of 20% (i.e., REM concentra ons), was used to assess exposure for the ERA (Table 5-1). This value is within the
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
126 range of analy cal variability deemed acceptable by the MOECC for the deriva on of propertyspecific standards (PSSs). Table 5-1: Exposure Point Concentrations (REM) for Soil Used in the Exposure Assessment for the ERA. Maximum Measured COC REM (ug/g)a Concentration (ug/g) Antimony
8.5
10.2
Arsenic
36.4
43.7
Barium
441
529.2
Beryllium
6.08
7.3
Boron
92.2
110.6
Boron (HWS)
5.5
6.6
Cadmium
13.2
15.8
Chromium (III+VI)
164
196.8
Chromium (VI)
0.74
0.9
Cobalt
32.5
39
Copper
1140
1368
Lead
2480
2976
Mercury
4.08
4.9
Molybdenum
12
14.4
Selenium
2.2
2.6
Silver
30.7
36.8
Zinc
3860
4632
Electrical Conductivity
3.52
4.2
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
68.9
82.7
Benzene
1.43
1.7
Toluene
1.4
1.7
Ethylbenzene
26.4
31.7
Xylenes
96
115.2
PHC F1
1180
1416.0
PHC F2
19700
23640
PHC F3
13700
16440
PHC F4
44100
52920
1,1-dichloroethane
0.064
0.08
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.8
0.96
1,2-dichloroethane
0.2
0.24
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.8
0.96
2
2.4
Acetone
2.5
3.0
Chloroform
0.4
0.5
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
127
Maximum Measured Concentration (ug/g)
REM (ug/g)
0.2
0.24
9
10.8
Hexane
11.3
13.6
Styrene
0.2
0.24
0.135
0.16
Tetrachloroethene
0.2
0.24
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
0.2
0.24
Vinyl chloride
0.08
0.1
Acenaphthene
16.9
20.3
Acenaphthylene
3.69
4.4
11
13.2
Benzo(a)anthracene
25.7
30.8
Benzo(a)pyrene
17.5
21.0
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
24.8
29.8
Benzo(ghi)perylene
8.3
10.0
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
8.06
9.7
Chrysene
25.2
30.2
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.16
3.8
Fluoranthene
48.2
57.8
Fluorene
25.2
30.2
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
9.44
11.3
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
440
528.0
Naphthalene
73.1
87.7
Phenathrene
64.7
77.6
39
46.8
3.95
4.7
COC cis-1,2-dichloroethene Dichloromethane
Trichloroethene
Anthracene
Pyrene PCBs
a
Notes: a 20% variance was added to the maximum concentra ons found on-site to determine the REM for each COC.
Table 5-2 provides a comparison of the REM concentra ons of the sixty (60) COCs to the ecological component values for residen al/parkland proper es with coarse textured soil to determine which COCs will be retained for evalua on in the ERA (Table 5-2).
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
128 Table 5-2: Comparison of COC REM Concentrations in Soil to Ecological Component Values. REM a (ug/g)
Plants and Soil Org. b (ug/g)
Mammals & Birds b (ug/g)
S-GW3 b (ug/g)
Sediment Quality b (ug/g)
Antimony
10.2
20
25
nv
nv
Arsenic
43.7
20
51
nv
6
Barium
529.2
750
390
nv
nv
7.3
4
13
nv
nv
110.6
nv
120
nv
nv
Boron (HWS)
6.6
1.5
nv
nv
nv
Cadmium
15.8
12
1.9
nv
0.6
Chromium (III+VI)
196.8
310
160
nv
26
Chromium (VI)
0.9
8
910
nv
nv
Cobalt
39
40
180
nv
50
Copper
1368
140
770
nv
16
Lead
2976
250
32
nv
31
Mercury
4.9
10
20
1.20E+14
0.2
Molybdenum
14.4
40
6.9
nv
nv
Selenium
2.6
10
2.4
nv
nv
Silver
36.8
20
nv
nv
0.5
Zinc
4632
400
340
nv
120
Electrical Conductivity
4.2
0.7
nv
nv
nv
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
82.7
5
nv
nv
nv
Benzene
1.7
25
370
14
nv
Toluene
1.7
150
140
68
nv
Ethylbenzene
31.7
55
90
17
nv
Xylenes
115.2
95
96
26
nv
PHC F1
1416
210
nv
55
nv
PHC F2
23640
150
nv
230
nv
PHC F3
16440
300
nv
nv
nv
PHC F4
52920
2800
nv
nv
nv
1,1-dichloroethane
0.08
8.4
nv
1600
nv
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.96
3.4
nv
60
nv
1,2-dichloroethane
0.24
48
29
180
nv
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
3.6
nv
59
nv
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2.4
nv
nv
150
nv
Acetone
3.0
nv
56
16
nv
Chloroform
0.5
34
81
9.5
nv
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
0.24
nv
84
130
nv
COC
Beryllium Boron
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
129
REM (ug/g)a
Plants and Soil Org. (ug/g)b
Mammals & Birds (ug/g)b
S-GW3 b (ug/g)
Sediment Quality (ug/g)b
Dichloromethane
10.8
0.78
350
7.4
nv
Hexane
13.6
nv
nv
54
nv
Styrene
0.24
17
nv
66
nv
Trichloroethene
0.16
100
8.1
300
nv
Tetrachloroethene
0.24
3.8
4.5
18
nv
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
0.24
nv
84
220
nv
Vinyl chloride
0.1
3.4
12
270
nv
Acenaphthene
20.3
nv
6600
560
nv
Acenaphthylene
4.4
nv
nv
0.15
nv
Anthracene
13.2
2.5
38000
0.67
0.22
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
0.5
nv
5.10E+11
0.32
Benzo(a)pyrene
21.0
20
1600
3.80E+13
0.37
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
29.8
nv
nv
7.70E+13
nv
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10.0
6.6
nv
1.20E+13
0.17
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
7.6
nv
2.50E+13
0.24
Chrysene
30.2
7
nv
3.60E+11
0.34
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
nv
nv
2.40E+13
0.06
Fluoranthene
57.8
50
0.69
40000
0.75
Fluorene
30.2
nv
nv
62
0.19
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
0.38
nv
8.60E+13
0.2
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
528.0
nv
nv
76
nv
Naphthalene
87.7
0.6
380
200
nv
Phenanthrene
77.6
6.2
2700
270
0.56
Pyrene
46.8
nv
4700
2600
0.49
PCBs
4.7
33
1.1
9.90E+11
0.07
COC
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC carried through for quan ta ve evalua on nv: No criteria component value a 20% variance was added to the maximum concentra ons found on-site to determine the REM for each COC b MOECC Table 9 Component Values (2011) - Ra onale for the Development and Applica on of Generic Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario
Plant and Soil Organisms: Based on the comparison provided in Table 5-2, the REM concentra ons for twenty six (26) COCs are in excess of the “Plants and Soil Organisms” component values. Addi onally, thirteen (13) COCs were without component values protec ve of plants and soil organisms. These thirty nine (39) COCs were retained for further evalua on of risks to plants and soil organisms in the ERA. For those COCs where REM concentra ons were below the component value protec ve of plants
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
130 and soil organisms, a semi-quan ta ve assessment is provided in Sec on 5.5.2 to establish a property-specific standard (PSS). Mammals and Birds: Component values for PHCs were not provided for the protec on of mammals and birds. Most PHCs are readily metabolized by vertebrates and modified into forms that can be readily excreted (CCME, 2008). As a result, PHCs do not show a tendency for accumula on within animal ssues, nor are they readily absorbed and accumulated within the ssues of plants. Mammalian and avian receptors will not receive significant levels of exposure through food chain pathways. Therefore, PHC F1, F2, F3 and F4 in soil were excluded from considera on for mammalian and avian receptors in the ERA. Based on the comparison provided in Table 5-2, the REM concentra ons for eleven (11) COCs are in excess of the “Mammals and Birds” component values. Addi onally, twenty four (24) COCs were without component values protec ve of mammals and birds. These thirty five (35) COCs were retained for further evalua on of risks to mammals and birds in the ERA. For those COCs where REM concentra ons were below the component value protec ve of mammals and birds, a quan ta ve assessment is provided in Sec on 5.5.3 to establish a PSS. Aqua c Receptors Exposed to Chemicals in Soil: As shown in Table 5-2, the REM concentra ons of eight (8) COCs are in excess of the S-GW3 component values. The S-GW3 component value is a soil concentra on designed to be protec ve of aqua c receptors exposed to those chemicals in soil that have leached into groundwater and subsequently migrated through the sub-surface, eventually entering surface water. These COCs were retained for further evalua on of risks to aqua c life. Aqua c receptors may also be exposed to COC in soil via surface runoff of soils to sediments. As shown in Table 5-2, concentra ons of twenty one (21) were in excess of the sediment quality component values. These COCs were retained for further evalua on of risks to off-site aqua c life (Sec on 5.5.6). 5.1.2
COCs in Groundwater The groundwater screening conducted in Sec on 3.6.4, indicated that forty two (42) parameters were found at concentra on in excess of the applicable O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS, and therefore were retained as COCs in groundwater for further evalua on in the RA. The EPCs that were used in the ERA are presented in Table 5-3.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
131 Table 5-3: Exposure Point Concentrations (REM) for Groundwater Used in the Exposure Assessment for the ERA. Maximum Measured COC REM (ug/L) Concentration (ug/L) Chloride
1740000
2088000
Antimony
6.37
7.6
Arsenic
44
52.8
Barium
1060
1272.0
Boron
2090
2508
Cobalt
5.27
6
Copper
45
54.0
Lead
6
7.2
Molybdenum
192
230.4
Nickel
21.5
25.8
Selenium
13.8
16.6
2290000
2748000
Vanadium
89.8
107.8
Benzene
301
361.2
Ethylbenzene
19
22.8
Toluene
8.69
10.4
1,1-dichloroethane
0.66
0.8
1,2-dichloroethane
0.53
0.6
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
3.29
3.9
Styrene
1.67
2.0
Trichloroethene
1.7
2.0
Vinyl chloride
4.17
5.0
F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons)
12000
14400.0
F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons)
11400
13680.0
F4 (C34-C50)
1700
2040.0
Acenaphthene
146
175.2
Acenaphthylene
31.9
38.3
Anthracene
3.8
4.6
Benz(a)anthracene
73.5
88.2
Benzo(a) pyrene
52.2
62.6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
70.1
84.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
25
30.0
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
29.7
35.6
Chrysene
64.6
77.5
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
6.82
8.2
Fluoranthene
182
218.4
Sodium
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
132
Maximum Measured Concentration (ug/L)
REM (ug/L)
Fluorene
229
274.8
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
29.8
35.8
Methylnaphthalenes
3070
3684
Naphthalene
319
383
Phenanthrene
449
539
Pyrene
204
245
COC
Notes: a 20% variance was added to the maximum concentrations found on-site to determine the REM for each COC.
Table 5-4 provides a comparison of the REM concentra ons of the forty two (42) COCs to the GW3 groundwater component values for non-potable water shallow soil scenario with coarse textured soil to determine which COCs will be retained for quan ta ve evalua on in the ERA (Table 5-4). Table 5-4: Comparison of COC REM Concentrations in Groundwater to GW3 Component Values. COC
REM (ug/L)
a
GW3 (10xAPV) (ug/L)
Chloride
2088000
1800000
Antimony
7.6
16000
Arsenic
52.8
1500
Barium
1272.0
23000
Boron
2508
36000
Cobalt
6
52
Copper
54.0
69
Lead
7.2
20
Molybdenum
230.4
7300
Nickel
25.8
390
Selenium
16.6
50
2748000
1800000
Vanadium
107.8
200
Benzene
361.2
4600
Ethylbenzene
22.8
1800
Toluene
10.4
14000
1,1-dichloroethane
0.8
2000000
1,2-dichloroethane
0.6
200000
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
3.9
140000
Styrene
2.0
7200
Trichloroethene
2.0
220000
Vinyl chloride
5.0
360000
F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons)
14400.0
170
F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons)
13680.0
nv
Sodium
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
b
133
COC
REM (ug/L)a
GW3 (10xAPV) (ug/L)b
F4 (C34-C50)
2040.0
nv
Acenaphthene
175.2
5200
Acenaphthylene
38.3
1.4
Anthracene
4.6
1
Benz(a)anthracene
88.2
1.8
Benzo(a)pyrene
62.6
2.1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
84.1
4.2
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
30.0
0.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
35.6
1.4
Chrysene
77.5
0.7
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
8.2
0.4
Fluoranthene
218.4
73
Fluorene
274.8
290
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
35.8
1.4
Methylnaphthalenes
3684
1500
Naphthalene
383
6200
Phenanthrene
539
380
Pyrene 245 5.7 Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC carried through for quan ta ve evalua on nv: No criteria component value APV: Aqua c protec on value a 20% variance was added to the maximum concentra ons found on-site to determine the REM for each COC b MOECC Table 9 Component Values (2011) - Ra onale for the Development and Applica on of Generic Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario
As shown in Table 5-4, the REM concentra ons of seventeen (17) COCs are in excess of the GW3 component values protec ve of aqua c life. The GW3 component values are also considered to be protec ve of terrestrial receptors that may have direct exposure to chemicals/parameters in shallow groundwater. These COCs were retained for further evalua on of risks to aqua c life and terrestrial ecological receptors that may have exposure to shallow groundwater. 5.1.3
Ecological Conceptual Site Model As previously indicated in Sec on 3.1., the Site occupies an area of approximately 10.48 hectares (ha) and is located near the west side of the Hamilton Harbour, in an area of predominantly residen al and commercial land use. Land use east and south of the Site is primarily residen al and ins tu onal. Land use south-west of the Site and west of the northern por on of the Site is predominantly commercial, consis ng of Piers 5 through 7, and the western (off-site) por on of Pier 8. Hamilton Harbour is located north and west of the Site. The Site is currently used as a parking area, construc on equipment yard, commercial area (boat maintenance and boat equipment hardware supply) and community use (sea cadets). The
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
134 current buildings on the Site include three vacant sheds (Sheds 4, 6, and 7), former Canadian Coast Guard building, Navy League facility, and Brewers Marine Supply building. The proposed future land uses of the Site has yet to be determined, but is expected to include a mixture of residen al, commercial and recrea onal/community proper es. The ecological CSMs provide an outline of the general exposure scenarios to be evaluated by bringing together the COCs, receptors and exposure pathways into one overall conceptual framework. Figures 5-1a and 5-1b, provide CSMs for terrestrial and aqua c receptors, respec vely, in the absence of risk management. Based on the outcome of the ERA, a CSM with risk management is provided in Sec on 7.0.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
135 Figure 5-1a Terrestrial Ecological Conceptual Site Model Without Risk Management Measures FIGURE 5-1a TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL WITHOUT RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES
POTENTIAL ONSITE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS*
PRIMARY IMPACTED MEDIUM
TRANSPORT MECHANISM
EXPOSURE MEDIUM
SOIL
SECONDARY SOURCE
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES
PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
INCIDENTAL INGESTION / DIRECT CONTACT & ROOT UPTAKE
ü
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
INGESTION OF PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
¡
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
TERRESTRIAL PREY
INGESTION OF TERRESTIAL PREY
¡
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
INCIDENTAL INGESTION / DIRECT CONTACT & ROOT UPTAKE
ü
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
INGESTION OF PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
¡
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
TERRESTRIAL PREY
INGESTION OF TERRESTIAL PREY
¡
ü
ü
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
ü
ü
SURFACE SOIL
SUB-SURFACE SOIL
VOLATILIZATION, FUGITIVE DUST/ PARTICULATES
SOIL INHALATION & STEM/FOLIAR UPTAKE
AMBIENT AIR
INFILTRATION AND LEACHING NON-POTABLE GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER
DISCHARGE
SURFACE WATER
Notes: ü ü ¡ *
- Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway - Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway, but minimal - Indicates pathway incomplete or not applicable - ecological receptors may also include reptiles and amphibians, but these have not been evaluated in the ERA (see Section 5.2.1)
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
POTENTIAL OFFSITE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS*
ü
(plants only)
ü
(plants only)
INCIDENTAL INGESTION / DIRECT CONTACT & ROOT UPTAKE
ü
¡
¡
ü
¡
¡
PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
INGESTION OF PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTIBRATES
¡
ü
ü
¡
ü
ü
TERRESTRIAL PREY
INGESTION OF TERRESTIAL PREY
¡
ü
ü
¡
ü
ü
DIRECT CONTACT
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
136 Figure 5-1b Aquatic Ecological Conceptual Site Model Without Risk Management Measures FIGURE 5-1b AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL WITHOUT RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES
POTENTIAL ONSITE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
PRIMARY IMPACTED MEDIUM
TRANSPORT MECHANISM
EXPOSURE MEDIUM
SOIL
SURFACE WATER
leaching
GROUNDWATER
discharge
POTENTIAL OFFSITE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES
AQUATIC PLANTS
AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
FISH
AQUATIC PLANTS
AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
FISH
DIRECT CONTACT
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
ü
INGESTION OF AQUATIC PLANTS
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
INGESTION OF AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
DIRECT CONTACT
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
ü
INGESTION OF AQUATIC PLANTS
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
INGESTION OF AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
soil erosion
sorption
Notes: ü ¡
- Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway - Indicates pathway incomplete or not applicable - minor pathway
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
SEDIMENT
137 In soil, thirty nine (39) COCs were retained for evalua on based on their poten al to adversely affect plants and soil organisms through direct contact with impacted soil. In addi on, thirty five (35) COCs were retained to assess poten al risks to mammals and birds. Eight (8) COCs were retained to assess poten al risks to aqua c life via the leaching of COCs from soil to groundwater and the subsequent migra on of groundwater to surface water (Sec on 5.5.6). Twenty one (21) COCs were retained to assess poten al risks to aqua c life via surface runoff soils to sediment. As the transport of soils origina ng from the Site to off-site areas is expected to be transient and minimal (i.e., windblown dusts), the only terrestrial receptors with chronic exposures to the iden fied COCs in soil are those present on the Site (this may include off-site receptors who forage on the Site). In groundwater, the REM concentra ons of seventeen (17) COCs in groundwater were in excess of the generic MOECC GW3 component values protec ve of aqua c life. Therefore, the seventeen (17) COCs in groundwater were retained for assessment of risks to aqua c life in Sec on 5.5.4. Although the majority of the Site is paved or under the footprint of one of the many current or former buildings on-site, the current assessment considered risks to ecological receptors assuming that receptors have poten al to have direct contact with all on-site soils without barriers or restric ons. However, as later discussed in Sec on 5.5, risk management measures protec ve of plants, soil invertebrates or organisms, birds, mammals and off-site aqua c receptors were recommended to block direct contact exposures to impacted soils and to prevent surface runoff of soils to sediments. Therefore, a risk management plan (Sec on 7.0) was developed to be u lized in areas with the poten al to support plants and soil invertebrates or organisms, such as manicured lawns or ornamental gardens. 5.1.4
Risk Assessment Objec ves The objec ves of the current ERA were to evaluate ecological risks associated with exposure to impacted soil and groundwater, and to derive PSSs that are protec ve of ecological receptors. Since the proposed future land uses of the Site has yet to be determined, but is expected to include a mixture of residen al, commercial and recrea onal/community proper es, as such the redevelopment is not likely to include the establishment of natural habitat, but may include ornamental gardens and landscaping. The protec on of plants, soil invertebrates or organisms, mammals and birds at a community level was considered to be the most appropriate assessment endpoint, with the intent of suppor ng survival, growth and reproduc on of the valued ecological components (VECs) described in Sec on 5.2. VECs are those wildlife elements that poten ally inhabit or u lize the Site or surrounding area and thus are deemed to require considera on within the ERA. It is noted that addi onal ecological protec on goals beyond those described here are not considered necessary even though the Site was considered
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
138 poten ally environmentally sensi ve due to the poten al presence of threatened or endangered species (see Sec on 5.2). Risk to the iden fied terrestrial VECs (i.e., plants; soil invertebrates or organisms; birds; mammals; off-site aqua c receptors) were evaluated quan ta vely or semi-quan ta vely for those COCs that were in excess of the applicable ecological component values. For those COCs that were below the component values or for which there was insufficient informa on to allow for quan ta ve assessment, risks were evaluated qualita vely. In the ERA, the avian species that was quan ta vely assessed was the American woodcock (Scolopax minor). The American woodcock was selected to represent passerine birds near the top of the food chain or web, which is important for evalua ng the poten al for chemicals to bioaccumulate. The American woodcock also acts as a surrogate species for other birds. The mammalian species that were quan ta vely assessed were the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) and the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). The short-tailed shrew and the meadow vole were chosen to represent insec vorous and herbivorous mammals, respec vely, that may frequent the Site. These also act as surrogate species for other small mammals. In order to quan ta vely evaluate risks to these terrestrial receptors, the REM concentra ons (i.e., maximum measured concentra on +20%) represen ng levels of COCs in soil currently found on-site were compared to available soil quality benchmark concentra ons for these receptors, which in the case of birds and mammals, consider both the consump on of food items and the incidental inges on of surface soils. Risk to the iden fied aqua c VECs were assessed through a comparison of the soil and groundwater REM concentra ons to S-GW3 and GW3 values, respec vely. In addi on, concentra ons and the distribu on of COCs in soil were also used to assess risks to aqua c life based on the poten al surface runoff of soil to sediment. The quality and quan ty of data provided for environmental media were considered sufficient to meet the objec ves of the ERA. Sec ons 3.2 and 3.6 present the data relied upon in the ERA and confirm that the data was considered of suitable quality to meet the risk assessment’s data quality objec ves as: · · · ·
The data used for the ERA was recent; The sampling programs provided sufficient coverage for the Site; The sampling programs followed MOECC recommended sampling and analy cal procedures; and A sampling quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program was conducted for both field sampling and laboratory analysis.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
139 Quality assurance/quality control measures were undertaken as part of the sampling programs conducted during Dillon’s Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016). These measures included field duplicate sampling and analyses. Field duplicate samples for each media at the Site were collected at a minimum rate of 10% (one in ten samples). Trip blank samples were also submi ed for analysis to assess the handling and packaging procedures throughout the sampling programs. The analy cal laboratory also conducted its own internal QA/QC tes ng (e.g., percentage recovery of matrix spike, spiked blanks, surrogate recovery analyses, and laboratory duplicates). All laboratory cer ficates of analysis are provided in the Phase Two ESA report (Dillon, 2016). The analy cal data is considered to be adequate with respect to precision and accuracy indicated in laboratory analy cal cer ficates and is considered reliable for use in the risk assessment. Addi onal informa on concerning the QA/QC programs conducted is provided in the Phase Two ESA report (Dillon, 2016). Uncertainty associated with the problem formula on exists due to a finite number of samples available for soil and groundwater analyses, although the sampling program undertaken during the Phase Two ESA was concluded to be sufficiently thorough to adequately characterize condi ons across the en re Site. One assump on made in order to fulfill the ERA objec ves was that the REM soil and groundwater concentra ons used in the ERA are representa ve of the en re Site. While this would not be the case for the Site, in order to be conserva ve and in accordance with MOECC prac ce, REM soil and groundwater concentra ons were selected to be representa ve of the en re Site to ensure that poten al risks were not underes mated. The resul ng probable overes ma on of risks is considered to be appropriate in the assessment to ensure that the PSS and accompanying RMMs are adequately protec ve to compensate for inherent uncertain es in the characteriza on and assessment of contaminated sites. 5.2
Receptor Characterization For the purpose of the ERA, the VECs are those wildlife elements that poten ally inhabit or u lize the Site or surrounding area and thus are deemed to require considera on within the ERA. The VECs have been selected based on the poten al pathways of exposure. Since this will be confined to the direct contact with on-property soil, the selec on of receptors has been limited to on-site terrestrial and avian biota (this may include off-site receptors who forage on the Site), and off-site aqua c species in Hamilton Harbour. For the purposes of ERA, it is neither prac cal nor necessary to assess each and every species that may poten ally occupy or u lize a site. Instead, it is common prac ce to iden fy a selected subset of species as the VECs for the assessment. There are many considera ons when iden fying VECs for an ERA, which include the following:
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
140 • • •
•
• • •
• • • • • • •
• •
General site characteris cs (e.g., surface coverings, habitat types present, observed species) as determined from environmental site inves ga ons. Representa on from the various trophic levels, habitats, and feeding guilds that are appropriate for the site. Behavioural and physiological characteris cs that would increase or decrease the poten al for chemical exposure (e.g., diet and habitat preferences; feeding behaviour; home/foraging/breeding ranges; mobility; body weights, etc.). Habitat quality, suitability and preferences for receptors that may occur on or u lize a site (e.g., does the site meet habitat requirements or preferences for receptors of interest?). Whether species of interest are resident biota or migratory (and other seasonal factors, such as species that may hibernate). The availability of biological data describing receptor characteris cs, life history and behaviour. The physical-chemical, environmental fate/behaviour, and toxicological proper es of COCs (such as persistence and poten al to bioaccumulate and/or biomagnify in terrestrial and/or aqua c food webs; known sensi vity of certain wildlife species to certain chemicals). Availability of reliable ecotoxicological data for the receptor or receptor group. Availability of appropriate measurement endpoints for the VEC. Availability of regional and local habitat surveys or species inventories. Poten al or documented presence of species that are at risk (e.g., listed as rare or endangered), or have some similar status within provincial jurisdic ons). Socioeconomic considera ons (such as: is a species commercially important? Is a species valued by humans, or is it considered a pest or vermin?). Availability of informa on from local experts and residents of the area or surrounding proper es. Poten al presence of domes c animals (e.g., livestock, cats, dogs); domes c animals may have different protec on goals or biological endpoints of interest than wildlife, and the presence of domes c animals may serve as key ecological stressors for wildlife species that may occur on a given site. A site visit to visually confirm habitat types, exposure pathways, and the poten al for certain wildlife species to occur on or u lize the site. Professional judgment.
As described in Sec on 3.5, por ons of the Site may provide habitat for species classified as threatened or endangered under Sec on 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Dillon completed a SAR screening for the Site which iden fied the poten al presence of SAR. This included a high level of probability for the presence of Barn Swallow, as suitable habitat is provided by a number of the structures at the Site and since a species with similar habitat requirements (Cliff Swallow) was observed at the Site in 2012. A moderate probability for the
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
141 presence of Li le Brown Myo s (bat) was also iden fied. Follow-up field survey work to assess the poten al presence of these species was completed in May of 2017, with the result that no evidence of either Barn Swallow or Li le Brown Myo s presence was observed (i.e., no observa on of individuals or nests), although poten al habitat for these species was present. Further, both of these species are aerial insec vores that nest or roost in structures and thus have no significant direct exposure poten al rela ve to contaminated soils or groundwater at the Site, and minimal exposure poten al via the inges on of food items while foraging at the Site (with diets consis ng of flying insects that are themselves dominantly insec vorous or herbivorous). Thus although the poten al presence of these species can not be defini vely ruled out (due to the presence of poten al habitat), these species would be expected to experience rela vely low exposures to site related COCs even if they were present. As such, the assessment of the VECs described herein is considered to be adequately protec ve of these species as well, and risk management measures recommended for the site-related VECs will be equally protec ve of the Barn Swallow and Li le Brown Myo s, should they occur at the Site. 5.2.1
VECs in the Terrestrial Environment The Site is currently used for commercial purposes and is not an cipated to offer ecological habitat to be used by the iden fied terrestrial VECs. However, the levels of COCs in soil should be sufficiently low to allow for plants and soil invertebrates or organisms to survive, grow and reproduce. Based on the above criteria (Sec on 5.2), the exposure of poten al receptors was expected to be greatest for resident terrestrial VECs, since for these organisms, poten al exposure would be con nuous throughout their life span. As such, those species that are present throughout their life history, are present during sensi ve life stages, and are truly terrestrial (and therefore most directly and con nuously exposed) would be considered as the most sensi ve on-site/off-site receptors, respec vely. Although wildlife habitat on the Site is currently, and will likely con nue with the expected change in land use, which may include a mixture of residen al, commercial and recrea onal/community proper es, a low-density of urban-adapted wildlife may u lize por ons of the Site for foraging, breeding or res ng purposes. As such, the chemical levels in soil should be sufficiently low to allow for birds and mammals to survive, grow and reproduce at or near the Site, assuming they forage significant amounts of food from the Site. The assessment endpoints and VECs selected for evalua on in the ERA include the survival, growth and reproduc on of: • •
Soil Microbes: perform an essen al func on in maintaining both the health and viability of the soil; Soil Invertebrates: also perform important func ons within the soil, are likely to be present during sensi ve life stages, and are an important food source for higher predators such as birds and small mammals;
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
142 •
• •
Terrestrial Plants: also perform important func ons within the soil, are likely to be present during sensi ve life stages, and are an importance food source for higher predators such as invertebrates, birds and small mammals; Bird Popula ons; and Small Mammal Popula ons.
The ERA assumed that soil microbes, invertebrates (earthworms, insects and other arthropods) and terrestrial plants (mixed grasses, herbaceous plants, shrubs and both deciduous and coniferous trees) are expected to be con nuously present in areas where the concentra ons of chemicals in the soil were found to be elevated (i.e., exposed to maximum contaminant levels without considera on of risk management measures). The Site is expected to be frequented by some common bird species that would consume earthworms and other invertebrates, as well as seeds and fruit. As per MOECC guidance (2011b) the American woodcock was selected to represent birds that would consume a diet composed of a significant amount of soil invertebrates, and the Red-winged blackbird was selected to represent herbivorous birds. For the purpose of the current RA, the American woodcock was assumed to have a diet composed of 100% soil invertebrates and the Red-winged blackbird was assumed to have a diet composed of 100% plant ma er (e.g., grains and seeds). The Site is also expected to be frequented by small mammals, such as racoons and small rodents. Voles and shrews are an cipated to have increased exposures to the COCs in site surface soil as a result of their ability to build extensive underground burrows and tunnel systems within the surface soil. Addi onally, the vole and shrew are likely to receive increased exposure to the COCs in surface soil due to their ability to consume large amounts of food rela ve to their body weight and their rela vely high incidental soil inges on rates. The meadow vole was selected as a surrogate species represen ng herbivorous small mammals and the short-tailed shrew represen ng insec vorous/invertevorous small mammals. All subsequent sec ons of the ERA focus on the selected Receptors of Concern (ROCs). The selected surrogate species, which represent some of the ROC groups, are generally considered “worst case” ecological receptors. The surrogate ROCs would be expected to incur higher exposures to COCs from the subject site than most other small mammals and birds within their receptor groups would, on the basis of small body weights, small home ranges, feeding and habitat preferences, and certain behavioural characteris cs (such as burrowing). Other higher order terrestrial receptors are not expected to regularly occupy the Site, though they may occasionally frequent the Site. This could include predatory birds (e.g., Red-tailed hawk) and mammals (e.g., Red fox), as well as various rep les and amphibians. In the la er case (i.e., rep les and amphibians), there is a paucity of ecotoxicologic benchmarks and related data to allow effec ve exposure modeling and risk es mates for these receptors. It is noted however
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
143 that the Site is not expected to provide significant habitat for these receptors, such that their presence at the Site would be uncommon. With respect to predatory birds and mammals, these receptors are considered less sensi ve than the ROCs addressed herein (a review of the MOECC benchmarks for these receptors confirmed that one or more of the ROCs was more sensi ve in all cases for the COCs addressed herein). As such, the assessment of the ROCs described herein is considered to be adequately protec ve of these other species as well, and risk management measures recommended for the ROCs will be equally protec ve of predatory birds and mammals. Similarly, although rep les and amphibians may in some cases be more sensi ve than the ROCs assessed, risk management measures recommended for the ROCs are expected to also be protec ve of these receptors. 5.2.2
VECs in the Aqua c Environment (off-site) Aqua c species are assumed to be con nuously present within near-shore areas of Hamilton Harbour. As a result, exposures to these organisms were considered to be over the en re life span of the organism, including sensi ve juvenile stages. Because of this, they would also be subject to both acute and chronic exposure, and are considered in this context within this assessment. Within the current RA, the poten al risks to various species of fish, aqua c invertebrates, and aqua c plants were evaluated using a semi-quan ta ve approach through comparison to benchmarks or component values, to ensure that popula on level effects to these species are not perceived (Sec on 5.5.6). Fish represent off-site VECs as they represent higher order aqua c receptors and due to their social importance (e.g., recrea onal fishery). They may be exposed to COCs in surface water through gill uptake, or from uptake of porewater (within the sediment) across egg membranes in spawning areas. As they are mobile receptors, exposures will be integrated over rela vely large areas, and thus site-related exposures would be limited. Fish known to be present in the harbour include walleye, northern pike, rock bass, yellow perch; however, because the nearshore areas adjacent to the Site are ulikely to support significant aqua c vegeta on and are not adjacent to protected embayments, stream mouths or wetlands, lower densi es and diversity of fish species are likely to occur in these areas. An annual catch and release fishing derby is conducted from HWT’s facili es at Pier 8 (adjacent to the Site). Aqua c invertebrates (both benthic and pelagic) include various molluscs, crustaceans and insects (including larval stages). They serve as important food sources within the aqua c foodweb. They may be exposed to COCs in water, sediment and porewater. Due to the nature of the nearshore area adjacent to the Site (deeper water adjacent to the dockwall structure), the diversity and abundance of benthic and pelagic species would be expected to be lower than might occur in more naturalized areas, with the likely excep on of the invasive zebra mussel (which may occur in greater abundance along the dockwall). A study completed based on
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
144 sampling in 2002 confirmed that the diversity of benthic fauna was rela vely low at loca ons along the more industrialized southern por on of the harbour, rela ve to that observed in the more naturalized northern por on of the harbour (Dermo et al., 2007). Aqua c plants are primary producers in the aqua c ecosystem and provide both food and habitat for other aqua c organisms. They may be exposed to COCs in water, sediment and porewater. As the shoreline areas of the Site are not natural (i.e., sheet pile dockwall structure), a significant aqua c vegeta on community is not expected to occur (in terms of diversity and abundance of species). 5.3
Exposure Assessment The exposure assessment integrates informa on for each COC with informa on regarding the property and its VECs in order to quan fy the poten al exposure of each ecological receptor to each of the relevant contaminants. The details of this process are provided in the following sec ons.
5.3.1
Pathway Analysis Like human receptors, terrestrial wildlife receptors are exposed to chemicals via the inges on of food (vegeta on, or other prey species), and the incidental inges on of soil. The contribu on from these pathways will be considered for each of the mammalian and avian receptors iden fied. The poten al exposure to chemicals in soil associated with the dermal contact and the inhala on of contaminant vapours in the ambient air were assumed to be negligible for both birds and mammals. Dermal exposure is restricted due to the presence of fur and feathers that limit the contact of soil borne contaminants with the skin surface. Inhala on of dusts, origina ng from the surface soil are considered with the incidental inges on of soil. For each of the avian and mammalian receptors listed above, complete exposure pathways include the following: i. ii.
The incidental inges on of soil; and The inges on of food items.
For herbivores such as the vole and Red-winged blackbird, food items would include the consump on of grasses, berries, seeds/grains and other vegeta on growing on the soil containing the COCs. The shrew was also assumed to prey on soil invertebrates such as earthworms (i.e., in addi on to consuming vegeta on). For the woodcock, food items would include primarily soil invertebrates.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
145 For terrestrial invertebrates, soil microbes and terrestrial vegeta on, exposure pathways may include direct contact with and inges on of soil, or root uptake of COCs from soil or pore water, or from groundwater in the case of deeper roo ng trees or shrubs. The risks to VECs in were assessed semi-quan ta vely through comparison to soil quality benchmarks (Sec on 5.5). 5.3.2
Exposure Es mates The exposure assessment step of an ERA involves es ma ng the amount (quan ty) of chemicals that are received by ecological receptors. Exposure can be calculated using quan ta ve approaches (e.g., where exposures for a specific receptor are es mated using models and a variety of receptor input parameters), semiquan ta vely (e.g., where exposures are assumed to equal measured concentra ons in environmental media), or qualita vely based on more general considera ons. The degree of exposure of ecological receptors to chemicals in the environment depends on the interac ons of a number of parameters, including: ·
·
·
·
The concentra on of chemicals in various environmental media (e.g., water, soil, food) as determined by the quan es of chemicals entering the environment from various sources, their persistence in these media, and the normal ambient, or background concentra ons that exist independent of a specific source. The various exposure pathways for the transfer of the chemicals from the different environmental media to ecological receptors (e.g., inhala on of soil par cles and dusts; inges on of food items, water, soils/dusts). The physiological and behavioural characteris cs of ecological receptors that determine the actual exposures through interac ons with the various pathways (e.g., rates of respira on, water intake, food intake, soils/dusts intake, energy u liza on etc.). The various physical, chemical and biological factors that determine the ability of the ecological receptors to take the chemicals into their bodies from the exposure pathways (e.g., bioavailability of the chemicals from soil/dust par cles, foods, water and air).
For the terrestrial vegeta on and soil invertebrate VECs, poten al exposures were assessed semi-quan ta vely, wherein these receptors were assessed as broad groups of organisms (community scale) with similar biological and ecological characteris cs, and similar exposure poten al to chemicals in soil and the assump on that exposures for these VECs equal the measured COC concentra ons in the applicable Site media. A similar approach is applied to freshwater aqua c life VECs, except that the measured COC concentra ons in groundwater are compared to benchmarks that incorporate a dilu on factor accoun ng for the groundwater mixing with surface water upon discharge. Poten al effects to benthic organisms due to the
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
146 poten al contribu on of soils from the Site to sediment via erosion are also considered through comparison of soil concentra ons to sediment benchmarks. For the remaining VECs (i.e., mammals and birds), COC exposures were assessed quan ta vely, using VEC-specific benchmarks, and the assump on that exposures for these VECs equal the measured COC concentra ons in the applicable Site media. These VEC-specific benchmarks were derived taking into account both the inges on of COCs in soil, and the inges on of food items containing COCs via uptake from soil. 5.3.2.1
Chemicals of Concern in Soil For terrestrial species that are considered restricted in terms of their mobility, such as vegeta on, soil microbes and invertebrates, the MOECC has deemed the use of 95% upper confidence limit on the mean (UCLM95) not appropriate for the assessment of terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates. Therefore, the maximum soil concentra on +20% for each COC was used to predict risks to plants and soil invertebrates (i.e., REM concentra ons). Although birds and mammals can be rela vely mobile and forage from a large home range, these VECs were also conserva vely based on the maximum soil concentra on +20% for each COC. VECs are likely to receive their exposure to COCs in surface soil (i.e., top 1.5 m bgs); however, due to the Site’s poten al for redevelopment or underground u lity maintenance, which may result in a redistribu on of the soil profile, all soil samples (i.e., surface and sub-surface soils) were considered in the calcula on of soil COC EPCs. COCs present in the soil will be available for uptake by both plants and animals that will in turn be a poten al source of exposure to predatory animals if consumed.
5.3.3
Discussion of Uncertainty in the Exposure Assessment In conduc ng exposure assessment, there are typically numerous sources of uncertainty that can affect the final risk es mates. Since many of the assump ons and uncertain es cannot be readily quan fied, the exposure assessment is typically conducted in a conserva ve manner such that exposure es mates are set to a reasonable maximum. The current assessment of poten al risks to terrestrial soil borne biota was based on the assump on that these terrestrial receptors would be exposed to soil that contained concentra ons for each COC based on conserva ve es mators such as the maximum +20% concentra on at all loca ons within the Site. Thus the spa al delinea on of the various chemicals and the variability in the concentra ons found in the soil were not well represented. Given that typical concentra ons at the Site were much lower than considered by the exposure assessment, this will result in an over-es ma on of poten al exposure of terrestrial organism popula ons. The result of this is that there is a very high degree of certainty that the risks to the VECS are not under-predicted in terms of the stated ecological protec on goals for this
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
147 assessment. Even where risks are predicted, the actual poten al for deleterious effects on biota communi es or popula ons are likely to be significantly lower than indicated since the COC concentra ons at the Site are not typically representa ve of the soil quality that the popula on of plants or animals will be exposed. It is also important to note that each of the chemicals was assumed to be completely available for uptake by terrestrial and off-site aqua c organisms. The typically neutral pH, presence of organic ma er and other complexing agents in the soil and Hamilton Harbour surface water would poten ally act to reduce the bioavailability of the COCs, provide significant dilu on and thus reduce their poten al toxicity to wildlife. Again, this conserva sm compensates for a lack of data characterizing the specia on of each contaminant and is thus required in order that the poten al risks to wildlife are not underes mated. 5.4
Hazard Assessment Hazard within the ERA refers to the poten al for a chemical or agent to produce any type of damage, permanent or temporary, to the ecological receptor. The hazard associated with a chemical depends on the amount of chemical taken into the receptor (dose) and the dura on of exposure. For every chemical, there is a specific dose and dura on of exposure necessary to produce a toxic effect in the receptor (dose-response rela onship). In the hazard assessment, informa on rela ng to the dose-response rela onships of chemical exposure to poten al receptors forms the basis for the determina on of exposure limits. The exposure limits provide guidance concerning the intake of contaminants from the environment, below which no unacceptable and poten ally deleterious effects will be expected to occur. Within an ecological framework, the terms “unacceptable” and “deleterious” have a much different meaning than with human health. For ecological receptors, the assessment end-points were selected to evaluate the poten al for Site-specific effects on wildlife popula ons and communi es. Impacts to a single individual, unless rare or endangered, are typically not considered relevant assessment end-points (Suter, 1993). For this reason, ecological benchmarks for mammals and birds applied in ERAs are typically based on Lowest Observed Effects Levels (LOELs), rather than the more conserva ve No Observed Effects Levels (NOELs), which might more typically be applied if evalua ng more sensi ve receptors. As noted previously, the Site may provide habitat for two species listed as threatened or endangered (Barn Swallow and Li le Brown Myo s). While these species were not observed at the Site, their poten al presence can not be defini vely ruled out (due to the presence of poten al habitat); however, these species would be expected to experience rela vely low exposures to site related COCs even if they were present (as they are both aerial insec vores that nest or roost in buildings). As such, the assessment of poten al chemical exposures to the VECs described herein is considered to be adequately protec ve of these species as well, and risk management measures recommended for the site-related VECs will be equally protec ve of the Barn Swallow
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
148 and Li le Brown Myo s, should they occur at the site. The use of benchmarks based on LOELs does however introduce an element of uncertainty, as discussed in Sec on 5.4.4. 5.4.1
Benchmark Concentra ons for Terrestrial Plants and Soil Organisms Benchmark toxicity values that can be used to assess the poten al for COCs in soil to have deleterious impacts on terrestrial plants (phytotoxicity), soil invertebrates, and heterotrophic processes are available from various sources, including MOECC (2011) Plant and Soil Organisms component values for residen al/parkland proper es with coarse textured soil, as well as from acceptable sources of informa on from other jurisdic ons, when not available from MOECC. These values are considered to provide protec on to the target VECs during prolonged exposure and allow for the existence of healthy func oning ecosystems. A summary of the benchmark concentra ons protec ve of plants and soil organisms in provided in Table 5-5. The values were considered in the semi-quan ta ve assessment of risks provided in Sec on 5.5.2. Table 5-5: Soil Benchmarks for Terrestrial Plants and Soil Organisms. COC Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
Source
Arsenic
20
MOEC, 2011
Beryllium
4
MOEC, 2011
Boron
nv
---
Boron (HWS)
1.5
MOEC, 2011
Cadmium
12
MOEC, 2011
Copper
140
MOEC, 2011
Lead
250
MOEC, 2011
Silver
20
MOEC, 2011
Zinc
400
MOEC, 2011
Electrical Conductivity
0.7
MOEC, 2011
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
5
MOEC, 2011
Xylenes
95
MOEC, 2011
PHC F1
210
MOEC, 2011
PHC F2
150
MOEC, 2011
PHC F3
300
MOEC, 2011
PHC F4
2800
MOEC, 2011
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
nv
---
Acetone
nv
---
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
0.2
NMHSPE, 2000
Dichloromethane
0.78
MOEC, 2011
Hexane
nv
---
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
0.2
NMHSPE, 2000
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
149 COC
Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
Source
Acenaphthene
29
U.S. EPA, 2007
Acenaphthylene
29
U.S. EPA, 2007
Anthracene
2.5
MOEC, 2011
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.5
MOEC, 2011
Benzo(a)pyrene
20
MOEC, 2011
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
18
U.S. EPA, 2007
Benzo(ghi)perylene
6.6
MOEC, 2011
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
7.6
MOEC, 2011
Chrysene
7
MOEC, 2011
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
18
U.S. EPA, 2007
Fluoranthene
50
MOEC, 2011
Fluorene
29
U.S. EPA, 2007
0.38
MOEC, 2011
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
29
U.S. EPA, 2007
Naphthalene
0.6
MOEC, 2011
Phenathrene
6.2
MOEC, 2011
Pyrene
18
U.S. EPA, 2007
LMWPAHs
29
U.S. EPA, 2007
HMWPAHs
18
U.S. EPA, 2007
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Notes: NV denotes that an appropriate soil quality benchmark was not identified. Referenced sources include: 1. MOECC, 2011. Soil Component Value for Plant and Soil Organisms for Residential/Parkland properties with coarse grained soil. 2. U.S. EPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). June, 2007. The EcoSSLs for soil invertebrates for low and high molecular weight PAH compounds are 29 ug/g and 18 ug/g, respectively. For the purpose of this ERA, LMWPAH were assumed to be those compounds composed of fewer than four (4) rings and HMWPAH were assumed to be those compounds composed of more than four (4) rings. 3. NMHSPE, 2000. Dutch Target Soil Screening Benchmark. Concentrations below the selected benchmark indicate that restrictions are not warranted to be protective of ecosystem components.
5.4.2
Benchmark Concentra ons for Birds and Mammals Benchmark toxicity values that can be used to assess the poten al for COCs in soil to have deleterious impacts on avian and small mammal popula ons are available from various sources, including MOECC (2011) VEC specific benchmarks, as well as from acceptable sources of informa on from other jurisdic ons, when not available from MOECC. Reliable ecological TRVs do not exist for individual PAH compounds. In the development of ecoSSLs for PAHs, the U.S. EPA (2007a,b) recognized this inherent limita on in the terrestrial ecotoxicology database for these substances and determined that PAH TRVs are best defined for two main categories(i.e., LMWPAH and HMWPAH) at this me. These categories recognize that PAHs occur in environmental media and in biota as complex mixtures and also elicit toxicity to
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
150 terrestrial organisms as a complex mixture, through what are believed to be common modes of toxic ac on. However, there remains much about the ecotoxicology of PAHs that is poorly understood. Nonetheless, the available ERA science and tools have advanced sufficiently in the past decade such that the assessment of separate individual PAHs within an ERA can generally not be considered an ecologically or a toxicologically defensible approach anymore. Addi onally, there are no reliable or adequately robust avian TRVs for PAHs (for any individual PAH compound or PAH mixture) that can be applied to any bird species with confidence, as such soil quality guidelines have not been derived. Thus, given this current state of the science of PAH TRVs for birds, ERAs of PAHs cannot currently include the evalua on of avian receptors in any feeding guild, with any degree of accuracy or confidence. A summary of the benchmark concentra ons protec ve of the American Woodcock, Red-winged blackbird, meadow vole, and short-tailed shrew are provided in Table 5-6. The values were considered in the quan ta ve assessment of risks provided in Sec ons 5.5.3.1; 5.5.3.2; and 5.5.3.3. Table 5-6: Soil Benchmarks for Bird and Small Mammal Receptors. American Red-winged Meadow Short-tailed COC Woodcock Blackbird Vole Shrew
Source
Barium
689
672
4950
394
MOECC, 2011
Cadmium
1.9
87
4520
2.4
MOECC, 2011
Chromium (III+VI)
338
161
1000000
193000
MOECC, 2011
Copper
4080
3060
31900
772
MOECC, 2011
Lead
32
140
185000
1760
MOECC, 2011
Molybdenum
74
497
557
6.9
MOECC, 2011
Selenium
5.7
5.5
26
2.4
MOECC, 2011
Silver
4.2
69
1500
14
U.S. EPA, 2006
Zinc
337
2770
492000
5520
MOECC, 2011
Electrical Conductivity
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
Xylenes
nv
nv
47000
96
MOECC, 2011
PHC F1
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
PHC F2
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
PHC F3
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
PHC F4
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
1,1-dichloroethane
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
1,2-dichlorobenzene
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
1,4-dichlorobenzene
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
Hexane
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
151
COC
American Red-winged Woodcock Blackbird
Meadow Vole
Short-tailed Shrew
Source
Styrene
nv
nv
nv
nv
---
Acenaphthylene
nv
nv
350
100
U.S. EPA, 2007
Benzo(a)anthracene
nv
nv
39
1.1
U.S. EPA, 2007
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
nv
nv
39
1.1
U.S. EPA, 2007
Benzo(ghi)perylene
nv
nv
39
1.1
U.S. EPA, 2007
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
nv
nv
39
1.1
U.S. EPA, 2007
Chrysene
nv
nv
39
1.1
U.S. EPA, 2007
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
nv
nv
39
1.1
U.S. EPA, 2007
Fluoranthene
nv
nv
115000
0.69
MOECC, 2011
Fluorene
nv
nv
350
100
U.S. EPA, 2007
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
nv
nv
39
1.1
U.S. EPA, 2007
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
nv
nv
350
100
U.S. EPA, 2007
PCBs
1.1
19
1700
1.2
MOECC, 2011
LMWPAHs
nv
nv
350
100
U.S. EPA, 2007
HMWPAHs
nv
nv
39
1.1
U.S. EPA, 2007
Notes: NV denotes that an appropriate soil quality benchmark was not identified. Referenced sources include: 1. MOECC, 2011. Ecological benchmarks protective of the American Woodcock; meadow vole; and short-tailed shrew. 2. U.S. EPA, 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September, 2006. 3. U.S. EPA, 2007. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). June, 2007. For the purpose of this ERA, LMWPAH were assumed to be those compounds composed of fewer than four (4) rings and HMWPAH were assumed to be those compounds composed of more than four (4) rings.
5.4.3
Benchmark Concentra ons for Off-site Aqua c Receptors Benchmark toxicity values that can be used to assess the poten al for COCs discharged from groundwater to surface water, to have deleterious impacts on aqua c receptors are available from various sources, including MOECC (2011) GW3: Groundwater to Surface Water benchmarks, as well as from acceptable sources of informa on from other jurisdic ons, when not available from MOECC. A summary of the benchmark concentra ons protec ve of aqua c life are provided in Table 5-7. The values were considered in the semi-quan ta ve assessment of risks provided in Sec on 5.5.4.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
152 Table 5-7: Groundwater to Surface Water Benchmarks for Aquatic Receptors. Benchmark Concentra on COC (ug/L)
Source
Chloride
1800000
MOECC, 2011
Antimony
16000
MOECC, 2011
Arsenic
1500
MOECC, 2011
Barium
23000
MOECC, 2011
Boron
36000
MOECC, 2011
Cobalt
52
MOECC, 2011
Copper
69
MOECC, 2011
Lead
20
MOECC, 2011
Molybdenum
7300
MOECC, 2011
Nickel
390
MOECC, 2011
Selenium
50
MOECC, 2011
1800000
MOECC, 2011
Vanadium
200
MOECC, 2011
Benzene
4600
MOECC, 2011
Ethylbenzene
1800
MOECC, 2011
Toluene
14000
MOECC, 2011
1,1-dichloroethane
2000000
MOECC, 2011
1,2-dichloroethane
200000
MOECC, 2011
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
140000
MOECC, 2011
7200
MOECC, 2011
Trichloroethene
220000
MOECC, 2011
Vinyl chloride
360000
MOECC, 2011
F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons)
170
MOECC, 2011
F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons)
nv
-
F4 (C34-C50)
nv
-
5200
MOECC, 2011
1.4
MOECC, 2011
1
MOECC, 2011
Benz(a)anthracene
1.8
MOECC, 2011
Benzo(a)pyrene
2.1
MOECC, 2011
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
4.2
MOECC, 2011
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
0.2
MOECC, 2011
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1.4
MOECC, 2011
Chrysene
0.7
MOECC, 2011
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.4
MOECC, 2011
Fluoranthene
73
MOECC, 2011
Sodium
Styrene
Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
153 Benchmark Concentra on (ug/L)
Source
Fluorene
290
MOECC, 2011
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
1.4
MOECC, 2011
Methylnaphthalenes
1500
MOECC, 2011
Naphthalene
6200
MOECC, 2011
Phenanthrene
380
MOECC, 2011
Pyrene
5.7
MOECC, 2011
COC
Notes: NV denotes that an appropriate soil quality benchmark was not identified. Referenced sources include: 1. MOECC, 2011. Groundwater Component Value for the Exposure Pathway to Aquatic Biota via Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water for Residential/Parkland properties with coarse grained soil.
5.4.4
Discussion of Uncertainty in the Hazard Assessment In conduc ng the hazard assessment, there are typically numerous sources of uncertainty that can affect the final risk es mates. Since many of the assump ons and uncertain es cannot be readily quan fied, the hazard assessment is typically conducted in a conserva ve manner such that benchmarks protec ve of wildlife are set to a reasonable minimum (i.e. low concentra ons). Toxicity assessments rarely incorporate direct data about the effects of environmental chemicals on wildlife receptors. Laboratory animals and lab exposure dominate the scien fic literature. For evalua ng the poten al toxicity of contaminants to ecological receptors, uncertain es exist in terms of applying the available toxicity data towards the development of receptor specific exposure limits. In addi on, there is uncertainty associated with extrapola ng data collected in lab-based toxicology studies to field condi ons, the use of surrogate species, the interac on within chemical mixtures, and the applica on of dose scaling principles in order to extrapolate the effects observed in one species to another. Usually however, the use of safety factors considers and offsets this uncertainty. It is noted that dose scaling was not applied in the development of the benchmarks applied herein (i.e., the TRV for the most sensi ve test species was applied directly to the applicable VECs without any allowance for dose scaling). An addi onal element of uncertainty in the hazard assessment for this ERA was the lack of available wildlife toxicity benchmarks for birds and mammals for some COCs, notably boron, PHCs, and PAHs. Where this type of informa on is lacking, it is generally true that inves gators have deemed these contaminants to be a lower priority in terms of their poten al environmental effects. Furthermore, as demonstrated herein, birds and mammals tend to be less sensi ve than other terrestrial ecological receptors (i.e., the highest predicted hazards tend to be associated with plants, soil invertebrates or soil microbes). As these higher predicted hazards drive the ecological PSS, the lack of toxicity benchmarks for avian and mammalian species does not compromise the ERA’s ability to produce suitably conserva ve PSS.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
154
Addi onally, it is noted that the benchmarks applied herein do not specifically account for the poten al presence of threatened or endangered species at the site. Benchmarks based on NOELs rather than LOELs would be lower than those applied herein. For the COCs assessed, a review of the ecotoxicological data sources suggests that the NOELs from the key studies were typically 2-10 mes lower than the LOELs. As noted previously, the more sensi ve species of interest (Barn Swallow and Li le Brown Myo s) were not observed at the Site, but their poten al presence can not be defini vely ruled out (due to the presence of poten al habitat); however, these species would be expected to experience rela vely low exposures to site related COCs even if they were present (as they are both aerial insec vores that nest or roost in buildings). As such, the assessment of poten al chemical exposures to the VECs described herein is considered to be adequately protec ve of these species as well, and risk management measures recommended for the site-related VECs will be equally protec ve of the Barn Swallow and Li le Brown Myo s, should they occur at the site. 5.5
Risk Characterization In an ERA, the risk characteriza on step is the process by which the probability, magnitude, and extent of adverse ecological effects (based on the informa on obtained from the exposure and hazard assessments), is integrated and interpreted in the context of the overall poten al for ecological risk (Azimuth, 2012a). The risk characteriza on step also serves to translate the complex scien fic informa on that comprises the previous steps of the ERA process into a format that is useful, unambiguous and understandable for risk managers. Another key element of risk characteriza on in an ERA is to acknowledge, evaluate, and/or discuss the major strengths, limita ons, conserva ve assump ons and uncertain es arising from the informa on used to es mate exposure and poten al risk to the VECs (Azimuth, 2012a; CCME, 1996). For the purpose of this ERA, Hazard Quo ent (HQ) values were calculated to characterize ecological risks. These may commonly also be referred to as Exposure Ra os (ERs), but the HQ terminology has been applied herein. The ecological HQ calcula on consists of a simple ra o between the es mated exposure rate for a given ROC (i.e., EXP Total), and the applicable benchmark, as follows:
(
)=
(
(
)
)
It is standard ERA prac ce to u lize a target HQ value of 1.0. Thus, if the calculated HQ is less than 1.0, exposures are lower than the applicable benchmark, and it is typically concluded that the poten al for adverse effects is low or negligible. However, if the calculated HQ exceeds 1.0, meaning exposure is greater than the applicable benchmark, it does not necessarily indicate that
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
155 adverse effects are likely. Rather, the assump ons and data used in the ERA, for all lines of evidence, are reviewed prior to determining whether or not there is a poten al for ecological risk for a par cular VEC, and if further assessment appears warranted. Considera on of the key uncertain es, limita ons and conserva ve assump ons within the ERA are also important factors in ecological risk characteriza on. Clearly, there is more certainty and a greater margin of safety when the HQs are less than 1 but when HQ values are less than 10 it would be unreasonable to conclude the need for any Site remedia on or habitat restora on based solely on the RA. HQ values greater than 10 may also be acceptable but this may be approaching the limits of the inherent conserva sm within the ERA. Again, this does not necessarily mean that the exposure rates or contaminant concentra ons are unacceptable. It just means that there is a reasonable possibility that there is a significant poten al for adverse effects to the wildlife receptor. Once again, this alone should not be used to ra onalize poten al remedia on. An assessment of wildlife popula ons and ecosystem health provides an important valida on for the existence of deleterious impacts. If no evidence of significant contaminant related effects are found, then the unacceptable risks predicted by the RA are likely not providing a reasonable es ma on of harm to the assessment end-points (i.e. popula on and ecosystem health). It is important to note that the toxicological benchmarks for plants, invertebrates, and microbial processes focus on the most sensi ve species with the ra onale being that this will also be protec ve of species that are less sensi ve. For a natural area subject to minimal human encroachment, the diversity of soil-borne organisms would be such that both sensi ve and tolerant species would likely exist. The use of conserva ve benchmarks would be important in order to protect this diversity. However, within a highly disturbed, densely populated urban area, such as the Site, the need to capture a diverse group of sensi ve species within a soil quality standard would be less important. Most plants used in city parks and landscaped areas are chosen because of their rela ve tolerance given that they have to cope with a number of background stressors such as salinity due to road or sidewalk de-icing, organics from automobile exhaust, and a number of other airborne and waterborne contaminants associated with dense anthropogenic ac vity. It is therefore likely that the standard ecological benchmarks are overly conserva ve and do not properly reflect the poten al toxicity to the soil-borne wildlife that will be present at the site. As such, even HQs greater than 10 are unlikely to represent a significant concern. Nevertheless, in keeping with the principle of applying a high level of conserva sm in this assessment, HQ values of 1 or greater have been highlighted in the discussion presented in Sec on 5.5 rela ve to soil-borne wildlife. Risks are quan ta vely or semi-quan ta vely es mated for terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates in Sec on 5.5.2; for birds and mammals in Sec on 5.5.3; and for off-site aqua c receptors in Sec on 5.5.6. PSSs protec ve of all VECs are provided in Sec on 6.1.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
156 5.5.1
Interpreta on of Ecological Risks The risks a ributable to each COC for each VEC are assessed in Sec ons 5.5.2 through 5.5.6.
5.5.2
Interpreta on of Ecological Risks to Terrestrial Plants and Soil Invertebrates
5.5.2.1
COCs in Soil Risk es mates (i.e., HQs) were calculated for terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates by comparing on-site REM soil concentra ons (Table 5-1) to the available benchmarks as presented in Sec on 5.4.1. Table 5-8 presents a summary of the comparison of on-site REM soil concentra ons to the available benchmarks. Table 5-8: HQ for Terrestrial Plants and Soil Invertebrates. REM Concentration (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/g)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/g)
Arsenic
43.7
20
2.2
43.7
20
Beryllium
7.3
4
1.8
7.3
4
110.6
nv
---
110.6
nv
Boron (HWS)
6.6
1.5
4.4
6.6
1.5
Cadmium
15.8
12
1.3
15.8
12
Copper
1368
140
9.8
1368
140
Lead
2976
250
11.9
2976
250
Silver
36.8
20
1.8
36.8
20
Zinc
4632
400
11.6
4632
400
Electrical Conductivity
4.2
0.7
6.0
4.2
0.7
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
82.7
5
16.5
82.7
5
Xylenes
115.2
95
1.2
115.2
95
PHC F1
1416
210
6.7
1416
210
PHC F2
23640
150
157.6
23640
150
PHC F3
16440
300
54.8
16440
300
PHC F4
52920
2800
18.9
52920
2800
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2.4
nv
---
2.4
nv
Acetone
3.0
nv
---
3
nv
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
0.24
0.2
1.2
0.24
0.2
Dichloromethane
10.8
0.78
13.8
10.8
0.78
Hexane
13.6
nv
---
13.6
nv
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
0.24
0.2
1.2
0.24
0.2
Acenaphthene
20.3
29
0.7
20.3
nv
Acenaphthylene
4.4
29
0.2
4.4
nv
Anthracene
13.2
2.5
5.3
13.2
2.5
COC
Boron
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
157
REM Concentration (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/g)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/g)
30.8
0.5
61.6
30.8
0.5
21
20
1.1
21
20
29.8
18
1.7
29.8
18
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10
6.6
1.5
10
6.6
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
7.6
1.3
9.7
7.6
Chrysene
30.2
7
4.3
30.2
7
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
18
0.2
3.8
nv
Fluoranthene
57.8
50
1.2
57.8
50
Fluorene
30.2
29
1.0
30.2
29
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
0.38
29.7
11.3
0.38
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
528
29
18.2
528
29
Naphthalene
87.7
0.6
146.2
87.7
0.6
Phenanthrene
77.6
6.2
12.5
77.6
6.2
Pyrene
46.8
18
2.6
46.8
18
HMWPAHs
80.4
18
4.5
80.4
18
582.9
29
COC Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
LMWPAHs
582.9
29
a a
20.1
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC with HQ>1.0. Bold and shaded cells represent that risk management measures are required to ensure that terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates can establish healthy communi es at the Site. nv: No criteria component value a. HQ is the sum of the HQs for those PAHs where the ecoSSL (U.S. EPA, 2007) was selected as the benchmark concentra on.
HQs for thirty four (34) COCs were above the acceptable level of 1.0, which indicates the poten al for adverse effects to terrestrial plant and soil invertebrate communi es as a result of poten al exposure to soils with elevated COC concentra ons (i.e., at REM concentra ons). As a result, risk management measures (RMMs) are recommended to ensure that terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates can establish healthy communi es at the Site. A hard cap or soil cap barrier is the recommended RMM for the Site to address the poten al for adverse effects to terrestrial plant and soil invertebrate communi es due to the presence of elevated COCs in Site soil (see Sec on 7.0). The candidate ecological PSS (Eco-PSS) for all COCs was set as the REM concentra on (i.e., maximum concentra on plus an adjustment factor of 20% to account for variability in sampling and analysis).
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
158 5.5.2.2
COCs in Groundwater In addi on to being protec ve of aqua c life, the generic GW3 component values are also protec ve of deeper roo ng terrestrial plants that may be in direct contact with Site groundwater. Risk es mates (i.e., HQs) were calculated for deeper roo ng terrestrial plants that may be in direct contact with Site groundwater by comparing on-site REM groundwater concentra ons (Table 5-3) to the applicable benchmarks. Table 5-9 presents a summary of the comparison of on-site REM groundwater concentra ons to the available benchmarks. It is noted that the benchmarks listed here deviate from those applied to off-site aqua c receptors as the GW3 component values associated with the Table 3 SCS were applied (since proximity to surface water is not relevant for these receptors). Table 5-9: HQ Estimates for Deep Rooting Terrestrial Plants. REM Concentration (ug/L)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/L)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/L)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/L)
Chloride
2088000
2300000
0.9
2088000
2300000
Antimony
7.6
20000
0.0004
7.6
nv
Arsenic
52.8
1900
0.03
52.8
nv
Barium
1272
29000
0.04
1272.0
nv
Boron
2508
45000
0.06
2508
nv
Cobalt
6.3
66
0.1
6.3
nv
Copper
54.0
87
0.6
54.0
nv
Lead
7.2
25
0.3
7.2
nv
Molybdenum
230
9200
0.03
230
nv
Nickel
25.8
490
0.05
25.8
nv
Selenium
16.6
63
0.3
16.6
nv
2748000
2300000
1.2
2748000
2300000
Vanadium
108
250
0.4
108
nv
Benzene
361
5800
0.06
361
nv
Ethylbenzene
22.8
2300
0.01
22.8
nv
Toluene
10.4
18000
0.001
10.4
nv
1,1-dichloroethane
0.8
2600000
0.0000003
0.8
nv
1,2-dichloroethane
0.6
250000
0.000002
0.6
nv
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
3.9
180000
0.00003
3.9
nv
Styrene
2.0
9100
0.0002
2.0
nv
Trichloroethene
2.0
280000
0.00001
2.0
nv
Vinyl chloride
5.0
450000
0.00001
5.0
nv
COC
Sodium
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
159
REM Concentration (ug/L)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/L)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/L)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/L)
F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons)
14400
970
15.0
14400
970
F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons)
13680
nv
---
13680
nv
F4 (C34-C50)
2040
nv
---
2040
nv
Acenaphthene
175
6600
0.03
175
nv
Acenaphthylene
38.3
1.8
21.3
38.3
1.8
Anthracene
4.6
2.4
1.9
4.6
2.4
Benz(a)anthracene
88.2
88.2
nv
COC
11
1.6x10
-10
5.5x10
-11
Benzo(a) pyrene
62.6
3.4x10
1.8x10
62.6
nv
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
84.1
6.9x1012
1.2x10-11
84.1
nv
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
30.0
3.3x1011
9.1x10-11
30.0
nv
12
-11
12
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
35.6
2.3x10
1.5x10
35.6
nv
Chrysene
77.5
1.1x1011
7.1x10-10
77.5
nv
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
8.2
6.6x1011
1.2x10-11
8.2
nv
Fluoranthene
218
41000
0.005
218
nv
Fluorene
275
400
0.7
275
nv
1.6x10
35.8
nv
-11
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
35.8
2.3x1012
Methylnaphthalenes
3684
1800
2.0
3684
1800
Naphthalene
383
7800
0.05
383
nv
Phenanthrene
539
920
0.6
539
nv
Pyrene
245
2700
0.1
245
nv
Bold and shaded cells represent COC with HQ>1.0. nv: No criteria component value or surrogate benchmark iden fied.
As indicated on Table 5-9, concentra ons of sodium, PHC F2, acenaphthylene, anthracene and methylnaphthalenes in groundwater exceed the generic MOECC GW3 benchmarks. As such, these COCs represent a poten al for adverse effects to deeper roo ng terrestrial plants; however, the actual occurrence of COC concentra ons in groundwater at the Site in excess of the benchmark concentra ons was very limited, such that significant risks to plant communi es or popula ons would not be expected. Specifically, the benchmark for sodium was not actually exceeded at any loca ons (although the REM concentra on did), the benchmark for PHC F2 was exceeded at five loca ons, but these were concentrated in the vicinity of the area where LNAPL
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
160 may occur (Shed 6), and the benchmarks for the PAHs were exceeded at only one to two loca ons, both in the vicinity of the area where LNAPL may occur. Further, the results indicated that the calculated HQs were all below 10, with the exep on of a single instance (PHC F2 at MW25 in the vicinity of Shed 6). It is also noted that although direct contact with groundwater is possible for these ecological receptors (i.e., deeper roo ng trees), root systems occur predominantly in the unsaturated zone, thus limi ng poten al contact with groundwater and uptake of contaminants. 5.5.3
Interpreta on of Ecological Risks to Avian and Small Mammal Receptors
5.5.3.1
American Woodcock Risk es mates (i.e., HQs) were calculated for invertevorous avian receptors (i.e., American woodcock) by comparing on-site REM soil concentra ons (Table 5-1) to the available benchmarks as presented in Sec on 5.4.2. Table 5-10 presents a summary of the comparison of on-site REM soil concentra ons to the available benchmarks. Table 5-10: HQ Estimates for the American woodcock. REM Benchmark COC Concentration Concentration (ug/g) (ug/g)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/g)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/g)
Barium
529.2
689
0.8
529.2
nv
Cadmium
15.8
1.9
8.3
15.8
1.9
Chromium (III+VI)
196.8
338
0.6
196.8
nv
Copper
1368
4080
0.3
1368
nv
Lead
2976
32
93.0
2976
32
Molybdenum
14.4
74
0.2
14.4
nv
Selenium
2.6
5.7
0.5
2.6
nv
Silver
36.8
4.2
8.8
36.8
4.2
Zinc
4632
337
13.7
4632
337
Electrical Conductivity
4.2
nv
---
4.2
nv
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
82.7
nv
---
82.7
nv
Xylenes
115.2
nv
---
115.2
nv
PHC F1
1416
nv
---
1416
nv
PHC F2
23640
nv
---
23640
nv
PHC F3
16440
nv
---
16440
nv
PHC F4
52920
nv
---
52920
nv
1,1-dichloroethane
0.08
nv
---
0.08
nv
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv
---
0.96
nv
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv
---
0.96
nv
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2.4
nv
---
2.4
nv
Hexane
13.6
nv
---
13.6
nv
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
161 REM Concentration (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/g)
Styrene
0.24
nv
---
0.24
nv
Acenaphthylene
4.4
nv
---
4.4
nv
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
nv
---
30.8
nv
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
29.8
nv
---
29.8
nv
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10
nv
---
10
nv
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
nv
---
9.7
nv
Chrysene
30.2
nv
---
30.2
nv
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
nv
---
3.8
nv
Fluoranthene
57.8
nv
---
57.8
nv
Fluorene
30.2
nv
---
30.2
nv
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
nv
---
11.3
nv
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
528
nv
---
528
nv
PCBs
4.7
1.1
4.3
4.7
nv
COC
Effects Based Concentration (ug/g)
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC with HQ>1.0. Bold and shaded cells represent that risk management measures are required to address the poten al for adverse effects to inver vorous avian receptors (i.e., American woodcock) due to the presence of elevated COCs in Site soil. nv: No criteria component value or surrogate benchmark iden fied.
HQs for five COCs (Cadmium; Lead; Silver; Zinc; and PCBs) were above the acceptable level of 1.0, which indicates the poten al for adverse effects to inver vorous avian popula ons (i.e., American woodcock) as a result of poten al exposure to soils with elevated COC concentra ons at the REM level. As a result, RMM (i.e., hard cap or fill) is recommended for the Site to address the poten al for adverse effects to inver vorous avian popula ons due to the presence of elevated COCs in Site soil. The candidate Ecological PSS for all COCs was set as the REM concentra on (i.e., maximum concentra on plus an adjustment factor of 20% to account for variability in sampling and analysis). 5.5.3.2
Red-winged Blackbird Risk es mates (i.e., HQs) were calculated for herbivorous avian receptors (i.e., Red-winged blackbird) by comparing on-site REM soil concentra ons (Table 5-1) to the available benchmarks as presented in Sec on 5.4.2. Table 5-11 presents a summary of the comparison of on-site REM soil concentra ons to the available benchmarks.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
162 Table 5-11: HQ Estimates for the Red-winged blackbird. REM Benchmark COC Concentration Concentration (ug/g) (ug/g)
HQ
Effects Based Eco-PSS Concentration (ug/g) (ug/g)
Barium
529.2
672
0.8
529.2
nv
Cadmium
15.8
87
0.18
15.8
1.9
Chromium (III+VI)
196.8
161
1.2
196.8
nv
Copper
1368
3060
0.45
1368
nv
Lead
2976
140
21.3
2976
32
Molybdenum
14.4
497
0.03
14.4
nv
Selenium
2.6
5.5
0.5
2.6
nv
Silver
36.8
69
0.53
36.8
4.2
Zinc
4632
2770
1.67
4632
337
Electrical Conductivity
4.2
nv
---
4.2
nv
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
82.7
nv
---
82.7
nv
Xylenes
115.2
nv
---
115.2
nv
PHC F1
1416
nv
---
1416
nv
PHC F2
23640
nv
---
23640
nv
PHC F3
16440
nv
---
16440
nv
PHC F4
52920
nv
---
52920
nv
1,1-dichloroethane
0.08
nv
---
0.08
nv
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv
---
0.96
nv
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv
---
0.96
nv
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2.4
nv
---
2.4
nv
Hexane
13.6
nv
---
13.6
nv
Styrene
0.24
nv
---
0.24
nv
Acenaphthylene
4.4
nv
---
4.4
nv
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
nv
---
30.8
nv
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
29.8
nv
---
29.8
nv
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10
nv
---
10
nv
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
nv
---
9.7
nv
Chrysene
30.2
nv
---
30.2
nv
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
nv
---
3.8
nv
Fluoranthene
57.8
nv
---
57.8
nv
Fluorene
30.2
nv
---
30.2
nv
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
nv
---
11.3
nv
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
528
nv
---
528
nv
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
163
COC PCBs
REM Concentration (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
HQ
4.7
19
0.25
Effects Based Eco-PSS Concentration (ug/g) (ug/g) 4.7
nv
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC with HQ>1.0. Bold and shaded cells represent that risk management measures are required to address the poten al for adverse effects to herbivvorous avian receptors (i.e., Red-winged blackbird) due to the presence of elevated COCs in Site soil. nv: No criteria component value or surrogate benchmark iden fied.
HQs for three COCs (Chromium; Lead; Zinc) were above the acceptable level of 1.0, which indicates the poten al for adverse effects to herbivorous avian popula ons (i.e., Red-winged blackbirds) as a result of poten al exposure to soils with elevated COC concentra ons at the REM level. As a result, RMM (i.e., hard cap or soil cap) is recommended for the Site to address the poten al for adverse effects to herbivorous avian popula ons due to the presence of elevated COCs in Site soil. The candidate Ecological PSS for all COCs was set as the REM concentra on (i.e., maximum concentra on plus an adjustment factor of 20% to account for variability in sampling and analysis). 5.5.3.3
Meadow Vole Risk es mates (i.e., HQs) were calculated for herbivorous small mammal receptors (meadow vole) by comparing on-site REM soil concentra ons (Table 5-1) to the available benchmarks as presented in Sec on 5.4.2. Table 5-12 presents a summary of the comparison of on-site REM soil concentra ons to the available benchmarks. Table 5-12: HQ Estimates for the Meadow Vole. REM Concentration (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/g)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/g)
Barium
529.2
4950
0.1
529.2
nv
Cadmium
15.8
4520
0.003
15.8
4520
Chromium (III+VI)
196.8
1000000
0.0002
196.8
nv
Copper
1368
31900
0.04
1368
nv
Lead
2976
185000
0.02
2976
185000
Molybdenum
14.4
557
0.03
14.4
nv
Selenium
2.6
26
0.1
2.6
nv
Silver
36.8
1500
0.02
36.8
4.2
Zinc
4632
492000
0.01
4632
492000
Electrical Conductivity
4.2
nv
---
4.2
nv
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
82.7
nv
---
82.7
nv
COC
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
164
REM Concentration (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/g)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/g)
Xylenes
115.2
47000
0.002
115.2
nv
PHC F1
1416
nv
---
1416
nv
PHC F2
23640
nv
---
23640
nv
PHC F3
16440
nv
---
16440
nv
PHC F4
52920
nv
---
52920
nv
1,1-dichloroethane
0.08
nv
---
0.08
nv
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv
---
0.96
nv
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv
---
0.96
nv
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2.4
nv
---
2.4
nv
Hexane
13.6
nv
---
13.6
nv
Styrene
0.24
nv
---
0.24
nv
Acenaphthylene
4.4
350
0.01
4.4
nv
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
39
0.8
30.8
nv
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
29.8
39
0.8
29.8
nv
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10
39
0.3
10
nv
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
39
0.2
9.7
nv
Chrysene
30.2
39
0.8
30.2
nv
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
39
0.1
3.8
nv
Fluoranthene
57.8
115000
0.001
57.8
nv
Fluorene
30.2
350
0.09
30.2
nv
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
39
0.3
11.3
nv
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
528
350
1.5
528
nv
PCBs
4.7
1700
0.003
4.7
nv
LMWPAHs
562.6
350
1.6
562.6
350
HMWPAHs
125.6
39
3.2
125.6
39
COC
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC with HQ>1.0. Bold and shaded cells represent that risk management measures are required to address the poten al for adverse effects to small herbivorous mammals (i.e., meadow voles) due to the presence of elevated COCs in Site soil. nv: No criteria component value or surrogate benchmark iden fied. a. HQ is the sum of the HQs for those PAHs where the ecoSSL (U.S. EPA, 2007) was selected as the benchmark concentra on.
HQs for three COCs (Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-); LMWPAHs; and HMWPAHs) were above the acceptable level of 1.0, which indicates the poten al for adverse effects to herbivorous small mammal (i.e., meadow vole) popula ons as a result of poten al exposure to soils with elevated COC concentra ons. As a result RMM (i.e., hard cap or fill) is recommended for the Site to address the poten al for adverse effects to herbivorous small mammal popula ons due to the presence of elevated COCs in Site soil.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
165 The candidate Ecological PSS for all COCs was set as the REM concentra on (i.e., maximum concentra on plus an adjustment factor of 20% to account for variability in sampling and analysis). 5.5.3.4
Short-Tailed Shrew Risk es mates (i.e., HQs) were calculated for insec vorous small mammal receptors (short-tailed shrew) by comparing on-site REM soil concentra ons (Table 5-1) to the available benchmarks as presented in Sec on 5.4.2. Table 5-13 presents a summary of the comparison of on-site REM soil concentra ons to the available benchmarks. Table 5-13: HQ Estimates for the Short-Tailed Shrew. REM Concentration (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/g)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/g)
Barium
529.2
394
1.3
529.2
394
Cadmium
15.8
2.4
6.6
15.8
2.4
Chromium (III+VI)
196.8
193000
0.0010
196.8
nv
Copper
1368
772
1.8
1368
772
Lead
2976
1760
1.7
2976
1760
Molybdenum
14.4
6.9
2.1
14.4
6.9
Selenium
2.6
2.4
1.1
2.6
2.4
Silver
36.8
14
2.6
36.8
14
Zinc
4632
5520
0.84
4632
nv
Electrical Conductivity
4.2
nv
---
4.2
nv
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
82.7
nv
---
82.7
nv
Xylenes
115.2
96
1.2
115.2
96
PHC F1
1416
nv
---
1416
nv
PHC F2
23640
nv
---
23640
nv
PHC F3
16440
nv
---
16440
nv
PHC F4
52920
nv
---
52920
nv
1,1-dichloroethane
0.08
nv
---
0.08
nv
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv
---
0.96
nv
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv
---
0.96
nv
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2.4
nv
---
2.4
nv
Hexane
13.6
nv
---
13.6
nv
Styrene
0.24
nv
---
0.24
nv
Acenaphthylene
4.4
100
0.04
4.4
nv
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
1.1
28
30.8
1.1
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
29.8
1.1
27
29.8
1.1
10
1.1
9.1
10
1.1
COC
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
166
REM Concentration (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/g)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/g)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/g)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
1.1
8.8
9.7
1.1
Chrysene
30.2
1.1
27
30.2
1.1
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
1.1
3.5
3.8
1.1
Fluoranthene
57.8
0.69
83.8
57.8
0.69
Fluorene
30.2
100
0.30
30.2
nv
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
1.1
10
11.3
1.1
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
528
100
5.3
528
100
PCBs
4.7
1.2
3.9
4.7
1.2
LMWPAHs
562.6
100
5.6
562.6
100
HMWPAHs
125.6
1.1
114
125.6
1.1
COC
Bold and shaded cells represent COC with HQ>1.0. Bold and shaded cells represent that risk management measures are required to address the poten al for adverse effects to small insec vorous mammals (i.e., short-tailed shrew) due to the presence of elevated COCs in Site soil. nv: No criteria component value or surrogate benchmark iden fied. a. HQ is the sum of the HQs for those PAHs where the ecoSSL (U.S. EPA, 2007) was selected as the benchmark concentration.
HQs for 20 COCs (Barium; Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Molybdenum; Selenium; Silver; Xylenes; Benzo(a)anthracene; Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene; Benzo(ghi)perylene; Benzo(k)fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; Fluoranthene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene; Methylnapthalene, 2(1-); PCBs; LMWPAHs; and HMWPAHs) were above the acceptable level of 1.0, which indicates the poten al for adverse effects to insec vorous small mammal (i.e., short-tailed shrew) popula ons as a result of poten al exposure to soils with elevated COC concentra ons. As a result RMM (i.e., hard cap or fill) is recommended for the Site to address the poten al for adverse effects to insec vorous small mammal popula ons due to the presence of elevated COCs in Site soil. The candidate Ecological PSS for all COCs was set as the REM concentra on (i.e., maximum concentra on plus an adjustment factor of 20% to account for variability in sampling and analysis). 5.5.4
Interpreta on of Ecological Risks to Off-Site Aqua c Receptors The poten al for the discharge of contaminants from the Site to the adjacent waters of Hamilton Harbour was also evaluated as part of this assessment. It is noted that Hamilton Harbour was designated as an Area of Concern (AOC) in 1987 under the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as a result of severely degraded water and sediment quality and extremely stressed environment (ECCC, 2017). The water quality and biological community of the harbour have been impaired both from excessive nutrient and ammonia loadings from municipal
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
167 sewage from the surrounding ci es and toxic contaminants from heavy industries (Dermo al., 2007).
et
Waste from the steel industry and associated coking facili es have contaminated the harbour sediments with iron-manganese oxides; heavy metals (i.e., cadmium, copper, and zinc); coal dust; PAHs; and PCBs (Poulton 1987; Mayer and Johnson 1994; Fox et al. 1996). In several areas of the harbour, concentra ons in the sediments have historically exceed Ontario's guidelines for dredged sediment disposal (OME, 1985). Randle Reef, located approximately 1 km east of the Site, is one of the areas with the greatest contamina on of coal tar-contaminated sediments, which is a major source of PAHs and other contaminants in the sediment and water column. As such, the receiving environment of the adjacent Hamilton Harbour is less than pris ne. 5.5.4.1
COCs in Soil As discussed in Sec on 5.1.1 (Table 5-2) aqua c receptors may be exposed to soil COCs via runoff of soils to sediments. Concentra ons of 21 COCs were in excess of the sediment quality component values; however, sediment quality component values were not available for the majority of the iden fied COCs, as such the COCs lacking sediment quality component values were compared to the Ontario background soil concentra ons. Table 5-14 provides a comparison of the EPC to the Sediment Quality component value or background soil concentra on (where sediment quality benchmarks were unavailable). Table 5-14: Comparison of Soil Concentrations to Sediment Quality Component Values. REM Concentra on Benchmark Concentra on COC (ug/g) (ug/g) An mony
10.2
nv (1.3)
Arsenic
43.7
6
Barium
529.2
nv (220)
7.3
nv (2.5)
110.6
nv (36)
Boron (HWS)
6.6
NA
Cadmium
15.8
0.6
Chromium (III+VI)
196.8
26
Chromium (VI)
0.9
nv (0.66)
Cobalt
39
50
Copper
1368
16
Lead
2976
31
4.9
0.2
Beryllium Boron
Mercury
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
168 REM Concentra on (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentra on (ug/g)
Molybdenum
14.4
nv (2)
Selenium
2.6
nv (1.5)
Silver
36.8
0.5
Zinc
4632
120
Electrical Conduc vity
4.2
NA
Sodium Adsorp on Ra o
82.7
NA
Benzene
1.7
5.4
Toluene
1.7
6.1
Ethylbenzene
31.7
5
Xylenes
115.2
5.5b
PHC F1
1416
nv (25)
PHC F2
23640
nv (10)
PHC F3
16440
nv (240)
PHC F4
52920
nv (120)
1,1-dichloroethane
0.08
nv (0.05)
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv (0.05)
1,2-dichloroethane
0.24
nv (0.05)
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
nv (0.05)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2.4
nv (0.5)
3
nv (0.5)
Chloroform
0.5
nv (0.05)
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
0.24
nv (0.05)
Dichloromethane
10.8
nv (0.05)
Hexane
13.6
nv (0.05)
Styrene
0.24
nv (0.05)
Trichloroethene
0.16
nv (0.05)
Tetrachloroethene
0.24
nv (0.05)
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
0.24
nv (0.05)
Vinyl chloride
0.1
nv (0.02)
Acenaphthene
20.3
nv (0.072)
Acenaphthylene
4.4
nv (0.093)
Anthracene
13.2
0.22
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
0.32
COC
Acetone
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
b b
b
169 REM Concentra on (ug/g)
Benchmark Concentra on (ug/g)
21
0.37
29.8
nv (0.47)
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10
0.17
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
0.24
Chrysene
30.2
0.34
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
0.06
Fluoranthene
57.8
0.75
Fluorene
30.2
0.19
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
0.2
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
528
nv (0.59)
Naphthalene
87.7
nv (0.09)
Phenanthrene
77.6
0.56
Pyrene
46.8
0.49
PCBs
4.7
0.07
COC Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC with concentra on greater than the applicable sediment quality component value or the Ontario background soil concentra on. a MOECC Table 9 Component Values (2011) - Ra onale for the Development and Applica on of Generic Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. b Atlan c PIRI Tier I Sediment ESLs for the Protec on of Freshwater and Marine Aqua c Life: Other Sediment Type.
As shown in Table 5-14, concentra ons of 21 COCs were in excess of the sediment quality component values or the Ontario background soil concentra on, which indicates the poten al for adverse effects to aqua c receptor popula ons as a result of poten al exposure to COCs in soil via surface runoff of soils to sediments. As a result RMM (i.e., hard cap or fill) is recommended for the Site to address the poten al for adverse effects to aqua c receptor popula ons as a result of poten al exposure to COCs in soil via surface runoff of soils to sediments. 5.5.4.2
COCs in Groundwater Risk es mates (i.e., HQs) were calculated for aqua c receptors of the adjacent Hamilton Harbour by comparing on-site REM groundwater concentra ons (Table 5-3) to the available benchmarks as presented in Sec on 5.4.3. Table 5-15 presents a summary of the comparison of on-site REM groundwater concentra ons to the available benchmarks.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
170 Table 5-15: HQ Estimates for Aquatic Receptors. REM Concentration (ug/L)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/L)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/L)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/L)
Chloride
2088000
1800000
1.2
2088000
1800000
Antimony
7.6
16000
0.0005
7.6
nv
Arsenic
52.8
1500
0.04
52.8
nv
Barium
1272
23000
0.06
1272.0
nv
Boron
2508
36000
0.07
2508
nv
Cobalt
6.3
52
0.1
6.3
nv
Copper
54.0
69
0.8
54.0
nv
Lead
7.2
20
0.36
7.2
nv
Molybdenum
230
7300
0.03
230
nv
Nickel
25.8
390
0.07
25.8
nv
Selenium
16.6
50
0.3
16.6
nv
2748000
1800000
1.5
2748000
1800000
Vanadium
108
200
0.5
108
nv
Benzene
361
4600
0.1
361
nv
Ethylbenzene
22.8
1800
0.01
22.8
nv
Toluene
10.4
14000
0.001
10.4
nv
1,1-dichloroethane
0.8
2000000
0.0000004
0.8
nv
1,2-dichloroethane
0.6
200000
0.000003
0.6
nv
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
3.9
140000
0.00003
3.9
nv
Styrene
2.0
7200
0.0003
2.0
nv
Trichloroethene
2.0
220000
0.00001
2.0
nv
Vinyl chloride
5.0
360000
0.00001
5.0
nv
F2 (C10-C16 Hydrocarbons)
14400
150
96.0
14400
150
F3 (C16-C34 Hydrocarbons)
13680
nv
---
13680
nv
F4 (C34-C50)
2040
nv
---
2040
nv
Acenaphthene
175
5200
0.03
175
nv
Acenaphthylene
38.3
1.4
27.3
38.3
1.4
Anthracene
4.6
1
4.6
4.6
1
Benz(a)anthracene
88.2
1.8
49.0
88.2
1.8
Benzo(a) pyrene
62.6
2.1
29.8
62.6
2.1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
84.1
4.2
20.0
84.1
4.2
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
30.0
0.2
150.0
30.0
0.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
35.6
1.4
25.5
35.6
1.4
Chrysene
77.5
0.7
110.7
77.5
0.7
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
8.2
0.4
20.5
8.2
0.4
Fluoranthene
218
73
3.0
218
73
COC
Sodium
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
171
REM Concentration (ug/L)
Benchmark Concentration (ug/L)
HQ
Eco-PSS (ug/L)
Effects Based Concentration (ug/L)
Fluorene
275
290
0.9
275
nv
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
35.8
1.4
25.5
35.8
1.4
Methylnaphthalenes
3684
1500
2.5
3684
1500
Naphthalene
383
6200
0.06
383
nv
Phenanthrene
539
380
1.4
539
380
Pyrene
245
5.7
42.9
245
5.7
COC
Bold and shaded cells represent COC with HQ>1.0. nv: No criteria component value or surrogate benchmark iden fied.
Sodium and Chloride: The maximum concentra on of sodium (2,290,000 µg/L) marginally exceeds the Table 9 GW3 component value (1,800,000 µg/L) in a single sample collected from MW84, which is located approximately 100 m upgradient of Hamilton Harbour. The maximum concentra on of chloride (1,740,000 µg/L: MW84) iden fied on-site does not exceed the Table 9 GW3 component value (1,800,000 µg/L). The Table 9 GW3 values assume that impacted groundwater is found within 30 m of surface water and that minimal a enua on will occur to the concentra ons as groundwater discharges to the surface water. In reality far greater a enua on would be expected due to the significant dilu on poten al afforded by the harbour. The Table 3 GW3 values (sodium and chloride: 2,300,000 µg/L) assume a separa on distance greater than 30 m and a degree of a enua on as groundwater discharges to surface water. Sodium and chloride concentra ons iden fied in all monitoring wells sampled on-site were below their respec ve Table 3 GW3 values. Therefore, given the marginal sodium exceedance of the Table 9 GW3 value iden fied in one sample collected on-site; the lack of chloride exceedances iden fied in the on-site groundwater; that all measured concentra ons of sodium and chloride on-site were below the Table 3 GW3 values; and that concentra ons in closest proximity to Hamilton Harbour are below both the Table 3 and 9 GW3 values, it is not an cipated that sodium and chloride concentra ons in groundwater represent a poten al risk to aqua c life. Petroleum Hydrocarbon Frac on 2: The predicted HQ for the maximum PHC F2 concentra on iden fied on-site was 96.0; however, this is not considered to be representa ve of poten al risks at the majority of the Site, as more significantly elevated concentra ons of PHC F2 were limited to the vicinity of the area where LNAPL occurs at Shed 6, and at the southern end of the Site near the Brewers Marine Supply building. Much lower concentra ons were observed elsewhere at the Site, including at loca ons proximal to the lake.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
172 Although concentra ons of PHC F2 in excess of the Table 9 GW3 value (150 µg/L) were rela vely common at the Site, this GW3 value is considered to be very conserva ve given the condi ons at the Site. This is supported by the following considera ons: ·
· ·
The hydraulic conduc vity of the shallow fill materials underlying the Site where the water table aquifer occurs is significantly lower than that assumed by the MOECC in the development of the generic SCS. The geometric mean hydraulic conduc vity of the fill unit based on in-situ tes ng was determined to be 2.6 x 10 -6 m/s (approximately 12 mes lower than the value of 3 x 10 -5 m/s assumed in the deriva on of the generic SCS). Hamilton harbour (an embayment of Lake Ontario) affords significantly greater dilu on poten al than assumed in the deriva on of the generic SCS. These factors are considered to more than compensate for the addi onal conserva sm applied by the MOECC in the se ng of the GW3 component value associated with the Table 9 SCS, such that the GW3 values associated with the Table 3 SCS would be suitable for the evalua on of the Site.
It is noted that PHC F2 concentra ons in excess of the GW3 value associated with the Table 3 SCS were limited to the two areas previously iden fied (i.e., the vicinity of the area where LNAPL occurs at Shed 6, and at the southern end of the Site near the Brewers Marine Supply building). Given that groundwater condi ons at the Site currently are considered to be stable, such that appreciable migra on of contaminants from these areas to the adjacent aqua c environment of the lake is not an cipated, the poten al for unacceptable risks is expected to be low. Nevertheless, groundwater and LNAPL monitoring in these areas has been proposed as part of the Risk Management Plan (see Sec on 7) as a precau on. It is further noted that the Site is not the only poten al source of petroleum hydrocarbons to surface water. There are likely mul ple historical and current sources of hydrocarbons in Hamilton Harbour such as various fuels, Bunker C oil, lube oils, and greases that enter or have entered the harbour (e.g., steel industry, current and historical boat traffic, marinas, former use of scows, barges and tugs to transport fuel products to and from former bulk plant site(s) or other fuel storage loca ons along Hamilton Harbour; urban storm and wastewater discharges; surface runoff from roads and parking lots; natural biogenic hydrocarbons etc.). Poten al contaminant discharges from the Site would be difficult to dis nguish from these other sources. PAHs: The predicted HQ for the maximum concentra ons of the assessed PAH parameters ranged from 0.03 (Acenaphthene) to 150 (Benzo(g,h,i)perylene), which indicates for PAH parameters that the poten al for adverse effects to aqua c life as a result of exposure to surface water with elevated PAH concentra ons ranges from negligible to high. However, as was the case for PHC F2, this is not considered to be representa ve of poten al risks at the majority of the Site, as more significantly elevated concentra ons of PAHs were limited to the vicinity of the area where
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
173 LNAPL occurs at Shed 6, and at the southern end of the Site near the Brewers Marine Supply building. Much lower concentra ons were observed elsewhere at the Site, including at loca ons proximal to the lake. It is noted that PAH concentra ons in excess of the GW3 value associated with the Table 3 SCS were limited to only one or two loca ons in the vicinity of the area where LNAPL occurs at Shed 6. Given that groundwater condi ons at the Site currently are considered to be stable, such that appreciable migra on of contaminants from this area to the adjacent aqua c environment of the lake is not an cipated, the poten al for unacceptable risks is expected to be low. Nevertheless, groundwater and LNAPL monitoring in this area has been proposed as part of the Risk Management Plan (see Sec on 7) as a precau on. It is further noted that the Site is not the only poten al source of petroleum hydrocarbons to surface water. There are likely mul ple historical and current sources of hydrocarbons in Hamilton Harbour such as various fuels, Bunker C oil, lube oils, and greases that enter or have entered the harbour (e.g., steel industry, current and historical boat traffic, marinas, former use of scows, barges and tugs to transport fuel products to and from former bulk plant site(s) or other fuel storage loca ons along Hamilton Harbour; urban storm and wastewater discharges; surface runoff from roads and parking lots; natural biogenic hydrocarbons etc.). Poten al contaminant discharges from the Site would be difficult to dis nguish from these other sources. 5.5.5
Qualita ve Interpreta on of Ecological Risks As indicated in Sec ons 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, ecological component value screening was conducted as a qualita ve interpreta on of ecological risks. REM that did not exceed the applicable ecological criteria components were not quan ta vely evaluated for those exposure pathways in the ERA. This was considered acceptable because the MOECC’s (2011b) criteria components are sufficiently protec ve of all ecological receptors likely to frequent the Site. As described in Sec on 5.2.1, mammalian and avian ROCs for this assessment were limited to the Meadow vole and Short-tailed shrew, and the American Woodcock and Red-winged blackbird, respec vely. Other higher order terrestrial receptors are not expected to regularly occupy the site, though they may occasionally frequent the site. This could include predatory birds (e.g., Red-tailed hawk) and mammals (e.g., Red fox), as well as various rep les and amphibians, for which a qualita ve approach was applied. In the la er case (i.e., rep les and amphibians), there is a paucity of ecotoxicologic benchmarks and related data to allow effec ve exposure modeling and risk es mates for these receptors. It is noted however that the site is not expected to provide significant habitat for these receptors, such that their presence at the site would be uncommon. With respect to predatory birds and mammals, these receptors are considered less sensi ve than the ROCs addressed herein (a review of the MOECC benchmarks for these receptors confirmed that one or more of the ROCs was more sensi ve in all cases for the COCs addressed herein). As such, the assessment of the ROCs described herein is considered
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
174 to be adequately protec ve of these other species as well, and risk management measures recommended for the ROCs will be equally protec ve of predatory birds and mammals. Similarly, although rep les and amphibians may in some cases be more sensi ve than the ROCs assessed, risk management measures recommended for the ROCs are expected to also be protec ve of these receptors. Also, as noted in Sec on 5.3.1, the poten al exposure to chemicals in soil associated with the dermal contact and the inhala on of contaminant vapours in the ambient air were assumed to be negligible for both birds and mammals. Dermal exposure is restricted due to the presence of fur and feathers that limit the contact of soil borne contaminants with the skin surface. 5.5.6
Special Considera ons for Environmentally Sensi ve Area Sec on 41 of the Regula on has been considered applicable to the Site since the soil pH was greater than 9 in some areas and since por ons of the Site may provide habitat for species classified as threatened or endangered. As indicated in Sec on 3.6.6, based on the iden fied pH levels in soil (generally below 10), the localized areas with elevated pH levels, and the age of the fill at the Site, it is not expected that the iden fied elevated pH levels would significantly affect COCs fate and transport on the Site. As a result, the proposed human health PSSs are considered appropriate. As described herein, Dillon completed a SAR screening for the Site which identified the potential presence of SAR. This included a high level of probability for the presence of Barn Swallow, as suitable habitat is provided by a number of the structures at the Site and since a species with similar habitat requirements (Cliff Swallow) was observed at the Site in 2012. A moderate probability for the presence of Little Brown Myotis (bat) was also identified. Follow-up field survey work to assess the potential presence of these species was completed in May of 2017, with the result that no evidence of either Barn Swallow or Little Brown Myotis presence was observed (i.e., no observation of individuals or nests), although potential habitat for these species was present. Further, both of these species are aerial insectivores that nest or roost in structures above grade and thus have no significant direct exposure potential relative to contaminated soils or groundwater at the site, and minimal exposure potential via the ingestion of food items while foraging at the site (with diets consisting of flying insects that are themselves dominantly insectivorous or herbivorous). Thus although the potential presence of these species can not be definitively ruled out (due to the presence of potential habitat), these species would be expected to experience relatively low exposures to site related COCs even if they were present. As such, the assessment of the VECs described herein is considered to be adequately protective of these species as well, and risk management measures recommended for the siterelated VECs will be equally protective of the Barn Swallow and Little Brown Myotis, should they occur at the site. Additional ecological protection goals beyond those described herein are therefore not considered necessary.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
175 5.5.7
Proposed Ecological Candidate Property Specific Standards (PSSs) Based on the quan ta ve and qualita ve evalua on of poten al ecological risks associated with soil and groundwater COCs, a number of COCs may be present at the Site at concentra ons that pose unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. Recommended soil and groundwater candidate PSSs for the protec on of ecological health for each COC are presented in Table 5-16 and Table 5-17, respec vely. These values have been set based on the maximum concentra on found onsite plus an applicable 20% variance, and are considered protec ve of on-site receptors with the applica on of risk management measures. The final PSS for the Site consider both the candidate values for human health and ecological health, and are provided in Sec on 6.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
176 Table 5-16: Soil PSS Values Protective of Ecological Health COC
Maximum Soil O.Reg.153/04 Concentra on Table 1 SCS (µg/g) (µg/g)
Ecological Health Benchmark (µg/g)
Basis of Ecological Health Component Value
Recommended Ecological Health PSS (µg/g)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Plants and Soil Organism Off-site aquatic receptors
10.2
Max + 20%
No
43.7
Max + 20%
Yes
Antimony
8.5
1.3
20
Arsenic
36.4
18
6
Barium
441
220
390
Mammals and Birds
529.2
Max + 20%
Yes
Beryllium
6.08
2.5
4
Plants and Soil Organism
7.3
Max + 20%
Yes
Boron
92.2
36
120
Mammals and Birds
110.6
Max + 20%
No
Boron (HWS)
5.5
nv
1.5
6.6
Max + 20%
Yes
Cadmium
13.2
1.2
0.6
15.8
Max + 20%
Yes
Chromium (III+VI)
164
70
26
196.8
Max + 20%
Yes
Chromium (VI)
0.74
0.66
8
0.89
Max + 20%
No
Cobalt
32.5
21
40
39
Max + 20%
No
Copper
1,140
92
16
1,368
Max + 20%
Yes
Lead
2,480
120
31
2,976
Max + 20%
Yes
Mercury
4.08
0.27
0.2
4.9
Max + 20%
Yes
Molybdenum
12
2
6.9
Mammals and Birds
14.4
Max + 20%
Yes
Selenium
2.2
1.5
2.4
Mammals and Birds
2.6
Max + 20%
Yes
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Plants and Soil Organism Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Plants and Soil Organism Plants and Soil Organism Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors
177
COC
Maximum Soil O.Reg.153/04 Concentra on Table 1 SCS (µg/g) (µg/g)
Ecological Health Benchmark (µg/g)
Silver
30.7
0.5
0.5
Zinc
3,860
290
120
Electrical Conductivity
3.52
0.57
0.7
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
68.9
2.4
5
Benzene
1.43
0.02
14
Toluene
1.4
0.2
68
Ethylbenzene
26.4
0.05
17
Xylenes
96
0.05
26
PHC F1
1,180
25
55
PHC F2
19,700
10
150
PHC F3
13,700
240
300
PHC F4
44,100
120
2,800
1,1-dichloroethane
0.064
0.05
8.4
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.8
0.05
3.4
1,2-dichloroethane
0.2
0.05
29
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of Ecological Health Component Value
Recommended Ecological Health PSS (µg/g)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Plants and Soil Organism Plants and Soil Organism Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Plants and Soil Organism Plants and Soil Organism Plants and Soil Organism Plants and Soil Organism Plants and Soil Organism
36.8
Max + 20%
Yes
4,632
Max + 20%
Yes
4.2
Max + 20%
Yes
82.7
Max + 20%
Yes
1.7
Max + 20%
No
1.7
Max + 20%
No
31.7
Max + 20%
Yes
115.2
Max + 20%
Yes
1,416
Max + 20%
Yes
23,640
Max + 20%
Yes
16,440
Max + 20%
Yes
52,920
Max + 20%
Yes
0.08
Max + 20%
No
1.0
Max + 20%
No
0.24
Max + 20%
No
Mammals and Birds
178
COC
Maximum Soil O.Reg.153/04 Concentra on Table 1 SCS (µg/g) (µg/g)
Ecological Health Benchmark (µg/g)
Basis of Ecological Health Component Value
Recommended Ecological Health PSS (µg/g)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Plants and Soil Organism Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors
0.96
Max + 20%
No
3.0
Max + 20%
No
0.48
Max + 20%
No
Mammals and Birds
0.24
Max + 20%
No
10.8
Max + 20%
Yes
13.6
Max + 20%
No
2.4
Max + 20%
No
0.24
Max + 20%
No
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.8
0.05
3.6
Acetone
2.5
0.5
16
Chloroform
0.4
0.05
9.5
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
0.2
0.05
84
9
0.05
0.78
11.3
0.05
54
2
0.5
150
0.2
0.05
17
0.135
0.05
8.1
Mammals and Birds
0.16
Max + 20%
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.2
0.05
3.8
Plants and Soil Organism
0.24
Max + 20%
No
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
0.2
0.05
84
Mammals and Birds
0.24
Max + 20%
No
Vinyl chloride
0.08
0.02
3.4
0.1
Max + 20%
No
Acenaphthene
16.9
0.072
560
20.3
Max + 20%
No
Acenphthylene
3.69
0.093
0.15
4.4
Max + 20%
Yes
11
0.16
0.22
13.2
Max + 20%
Yes
25.7
0.36
0.32
30.8
Max + 20%
Yes
Dichloromethane Hexane Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Styrene Trichloroethylene
Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Plants and Soil Organism Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Plants and Soil Organism
Plants and Soil Organism Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors
179
COC
Maximum Soil O.Reg.153/04 Concentra on Table 1 SCS (µg/g) (µg/g)
Ecological Health Benchmark (µg/g)
Benzo(a)pyrene
17.5
0.3
0.37
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
24.8
0.47
7.70E+13
Benzo(ghi)perylene
8.3
0.68
0.17
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
8.06
0.48
0.24
Chrysene
25.2
2.8
0.34
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.16
0.1
0.06
Fluoranthene
48.2
0.56
0.69
Fluorene
25.2
0.12
0.19
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
9.44
0.23
0.2
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
440
0.59
76
Naphthalene
73.1
0.09
0.6
Phenathrene
64.7
0.69
0.56
39
1
0.49
3.95
0.3
0.07
Pyrene PCBs
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of Ecological Health Component Value
Recommended Ecological Health PSS (µg/g)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors
21
Max + 20%
Yes
29.8
Max + 20%
No
10
Max + 20%
Yes
9.7
Max + 20%
Yes
30.2
Max + 20%
Yes
3.8
Max + 20%
Yes
Mammals and Birds
57.8
Max + 20%
Yes
Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Plants and Soil Organism Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors
30.2
Max + 20%
Yes
11.3
Max + 20%
Yes
528
Max + 20%
Yes
87.7
Max + 20%
Yes
77.6
Max + 20%
Yes
46.8
Max + 20%
Yes
4.7
Max + 20%
Yes
180 Table 5-17: Groundwater PSS Values Protective of Ecological Health
COC
Maximum O.Reg.153/04 Groundwater Table 1 SCS Concentra on (µg/L) (µg/L)
Ecological Health Benchmark (µg/L)
Chloride
1,740,000
790,000
1,800,000
Antimony
6.37
1.5
16,000
Arsenic
44
13
1,500
Barium
1,060
610
23,000
Boron
2,090
1,700
36,000
Cobalt
5.27
3.8
52
Copper
45
5
69
Lead
6
1.9
20
Molybdenum
192
23
7,300
Selenium
13.8
5
50
Vanadium
89.8
3.9
200
Benzene
301
0.5
4,600
Toluene
8.69
0.8
14,000
19
0.5
1,800
Ethylbenzene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of Ecological Health Component Value Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors
Recommended Ecological Health PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
2,088,000
Max + 20%
Yes
7.6
Max + 20%
No
52.8
Max + 20%
No
1,272
Max + 20%
No
2,508
Max + 20%
No
6.3
Max + 20%
No
54
Max + 20%
No
7.2
Max + 20%
No
230.4
Max + 20%
No
16.6
Max + 20%
No
107.8
Max + 20%
No
361.2
Max + 20%
No
10.4
Max + 20%
No
22.8
Max + 20%
No
181
COC
Maximum O.Reg.153/04 Groundwater Table 1 SCS Concentra on (µg/L) (µg/L)
Ecological Health Benchmark (µg/L)
Basis of Ecological Health Component Value
Recommended Ecological Health PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
14,400
Max + 20%
Yes
13,680
Max + 20%
No
2,040
Max + 20%
No
0.8
Max + 20%
No
0.6
Max + 20%
No
3.9
Max + 20%
No
2.0
Max + 20%
No
2.1
Max + 20%
No
5
Max + 20%
No
175.2
Max + 20%
No
38.3
Max + 20%
Yes
4.6
Max + 20%
Yes
88.2
Max + 20%
Yes
62.6
Max + 20%
Yes
84.1
Max + 20%
Yes
PHC F2
12,000
150
170
PHC F3
11,400
500
nv
Off-site aquatic receptors -
PHC F4
1,700
500
nv
-
1,1-dichloroethane
0.66
0.5
2,000,000
1,2-dichloroethane
0.53
0.5
200,000
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
3.29
1.6
140,000
Styrene
1.67
0.5
7,200
Trichloroethylene
1.7
0.5
220,000
Vinyl chloride
4.17
0.5
360,000
Acenaphthene
146
0.072
5,200
Acenaphthylene
31.9
0.093
1.4
Anthracene
3.8
0.16
1
Benzo(a)anthracene
73.5
0.2
1.8
Benzo(a)pyrene
52.2
0.01
2.1
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
70.1
0.1
4.2
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors
182
COC
Maximum O.Reg.153/04 Groundwater Table 1 SCS Concentra on (µg/L) (µg/L)
Ecological Health Benchmark (µg/L)
25
0.2
0.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
29.7
0.1
1.4
Chrysene
64.6
0.1
0.7
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
6.82
0.2
0.4
Fluoranthene
182
0.4
73
Fluorene
229
120
290
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
29.8
0.2
1.4
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
3,070
2
1,500
Naphthalene
319
7
6,200
Phenanthrene
449
0.1
380
Pyrene
204
0.2
5.7
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of Ecological Health Component Value
Recommended Ecological Health PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
Risk Management Required?
Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors Off-site aquatic receptors
30
Max + 20%
Yes
35.6
Max + 20%
Yes
77.5
Max + 20%
Yes
8.2
Max + 20%
Yes
218.4
Max + 20%
Yes
274.8
Max + 20%
No
35.8
Max + 20%
Yes
3,684
Max + 20%
Yes
382.8
Max + 20%
No
538.8
Max + 20%
Yes
244.8
Max + 20%
Yes
183
5.5.8
Interpreta on of Off-Site Ecological Risks The proposed PSSs for each COC were screened to the applicable SCS associated with off-site land uses (i.e., residen al/ins tu onal and commercial) in order to determine whether the ecological standard being proposed for the RA property is likely to result in a concentra on greater than the applicable full depth site condi on standard at the nearest ecological receptor located off the RA property. The screening results are provided in Table 5-18. Table 5-18: Off-Site Screening for Ecological Risks
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Ecological Table 3 SCS applicable SCS Health PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor?
Nearest off-site receptor
SOIL (µg/g) Antimony
10.2
7.5
No
Arsenic
43.7
18
No
Cadmium
15.8
1.2
No
Cobalt
39
22
No
Copper
1,368
140
No
Lead
2,976
120
No
Mercury
4.9
0.27
No
Benzene
1.7
0.21
No
Xylenes
115.2
3.1
No
PHC F1
1,416
55
No
PHC F2
23,640
98
No
PHC F3
16,440
300
No
PHC F4
52,920
2,800
No
1,2-dichloroethane
0.24
0.05
No
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
0.083
No
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds
184
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Ecological Table 3 SCS applicable SCS Health PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor?
Hexane
13.6
2.8
No
Trichloroethylene
0.16
0.061
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.24
0.28
No
Vinyl chloride
0.1
0.02
No
Acenaphthene
20.3
7.9
No
Acenphthylene
4.4
0.15
No
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
0.5
No
21
0.3
No
29.8
0.78
No
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10
6.6
No
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
0.78
No
Chrysene
30.2
7
No
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
0.1
No
Fluoranthene
57.8
0.69
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
0.38
No
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
528
0.99
No
Naphthalene
87.7
0.6
No
Pyrene
46.8
78
No
PCBs
4.7
0.35
No
Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
Nearest off-site receptor
Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds
GROUNDWATER (µg/L) Chloride
2,088,000
2,300,000
No
Arsenic
52.8
1,900
No
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism;
185
COC
Poten al to Recommended O.Reg.153/04 exceed Ecological Table 3 SCS applicable SCS Health PSS (R/P/I) at nearest offsite receptor?
Vanadium
107.8
250
No
Benzene
361.2
44
No
PHC F2
14,400
150
Yes
PHC F3
13,680
500
Yes
1,2-dichloroethane
0.6
1.6
No
Trichloroethylene
2.1
1.6
No
Tetrachloroethylene
0.6
1.6
No
5
0.5
No
Benzo(a)anthracene
88.2
4.7
No
Benzo(a)pyrene
62.6
0.81
No
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
84.1
0.75
No
30
0.2
No
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
35.6
0.4
No
Chrysene
77.5
1
No
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
8.2
0.52
No
Fluoranthene
218.4
130
No
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
35.8
0.2
No
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
3,684
1,800
No
Naphthalene
382.8
1,400
No
Vinyl chloride
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Notes: R/P/I: Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal Land Use
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Nearest off-site receptor
Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds Plants and Soil Organism; Mammals and Birds
186 The re-suspoension of on-site soils and wind-blown travelling to off-site receptor loca ons is unlikely to result in any significant altera on in off-site soil concentra ons or the occurance of off-site ecological health risks. Further, the majority of the Site is paved or under the footprint of one of the current on-site buildings and based on the need for RMMs to prevent direct contact with impacted soil on-site, the future surfaces at the Site will be predominantly covered by clean soil, paved surfaces, and/or buildings. Therefore, the soil par culate travelling and surface runoff of soils to off-site sediments are not expected to pose significant health risks to the off-site terrestrial and aqua c receptors. The neighbouring proper es to the southwest, south, and east are located cross-gradient/upgradient from the Site; and therefore, groundwater migra on to these proper es is not expected. Based on the groundwater flow direc on, the neighbouring property to the northwest is located down-gradient/cross-gradient of the Site. Groundwater data collected from the monitoring wells located near/along the northwest site boundary (i.e., MW133, MW134, MW137, and MW181) showed no exceedances of Table 3 SCS for PHCs, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, metals, and inorganics, with the excep on of PHC F2 and F3 at MW137. However, considering the steady state condi on of groundwater on the Site, it is not expected that the iden fied PHC impacted groundwater on the Site pose health risks to off-site terrestrial receptors. Groundwater flow direc on on the Site is mostly towards the Hamilton Harbour which borders the Site on the north, east, and west sides. Given that groundwater condi ons at the Site currently are considered to be stable, appreciable migra on of contaminants from the Site to the adjacent aqua c environment of the lake is not an cipated. Therefore, the poten al for unacceptable risks to off-site aqua c receptors is expected to be low. 5.5.9
Discussion of Uncertainty ERA involves assigning numerical values to various parameters in order to obtain es mates of exposure and risk. Variability and uncertainty in these values leads to variability and uncertainty in the es mates of exposure and risk. The conclusions of any ERA are dependent on the data and assump ons that are evaluated within it, and thus, are greatly influenced by the variability and uncertainty associated with the data and assump ons. It is therefore important in an ERA to characterize the key areas of variability and uncertainty (and any other major study limita ons) to avoid possibly underes ma ng exposures and risks, to the extent possible, and to recognize when exposures and risks have likely been substan ally overes mated. An evalua on of uncertainty and variability provides informa on that helps risk managers make appropriate decisions regarding whether or not risks need to be managed, how the risks can best be managed, and can iden fy situa ons where the use of more sophis cated approaches and/or further data collec on can reduce or refine key sources of uncertainty and/or variability. Uncertainty should not be confused with variability. Uncertainty is a lack of confidence in a result or es mate stemming from limited data or missing informa on. Variability describes differences
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
187 in parameter values such as chemical concentra ons at different loca ons on a site, differences in body weight or food intake rates for individual animals. In other words, variability is defined by the range or “spread” of values in a given popula on, which is influenced by sample size, repeated measures and area of coverage. The inherent tendency of ERAs to overes mate exposures and risks to ecological receptors favours Type I errors (false posi ves) and reduces the probability of Type II errors (false nega ves). In the evalua on of uncertainty and variability, what is ul mately most important is confidence that one has not under-predicted exposures and risks and that the approaches and assump ons used in the ERA will avoid or reduce the occurrence of Type II errors. A key ques on that is o en raised when characterizing uncertainty and variability is: “Will the collec on of more data improve the understanding of the variability and/or reduce uncertainty?” At some point, the collec on of addi onal data will reach the point of diminishing returns, when the effort and resources that are expended to further understand variability and reduce uncertainty are no longer producing meaningful improvements. For example, if addi onal soil sampling/analysis was conducted, and the new data yielded concentra ons that fell well within the range of exis ng data, with no substan al changes to values that measure the “spread” of the data (such as variance, standard error, standard devia on, coefficient of varia on etc.), then the addi onal sampling does not provide any added value. Where variability and/or uncertainty are known to exist, it is standard ERA prac ce to make assump ons and select data that overes mate, rather than underes mate poten al exposure and risk. In general, given most ERAs make conserva ve assump ons when faced with uncertainty and variability, poten al exposures and risks tend to be overes mated (o en considerably) for the receptors, exposure pathways and chemicals evaluated. The uncertainty associated with both the exposure assessment and the hazard assessment was discussed in their respec ve sec ons (Sec ons 5.3.3 and 5.4.4, respec vely). In both cases it was felt that a suitably conserva ve approach was taken in order that the REM concentra ons represented a reasonable maximum and that the applicable benchmarks were at a reasonable minimum. Consequently, there is a high degree of certainty with the results of the risk characteriza on and any uncertain es in the approach will be unlikely to have a significant effect on the conclusions (i.e., risks would be expected to be over-es mated rather than underes mated). Overall, given the outcomes of the ERA (and the conserva ve assump ons within it) and considering the Site’s size and limited habitat quality, there is a high degree of confidence that appropriate receptors, exposure pathways and chemicals have been evaluated at this me (given the data that are available), and that exposures and risks have not been underes mated.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
188
6.0
Conclusions and Recommendations The HHRA and ERA were conducted in accordance with O.Reg.153/04 standards (MOECC, 2011a). Based on the environmental data available, the site characteris cs, and risk assessment assump ons, the concentra ons of certain COCs present in soil and groundwater at the Site may pose unacceptable risks to human health and ecological receptors in the absence of RMM.
6.1
Recommended Standards The proposed PSSs for COCs iden fied in soil and groundwater at concentra ons above O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS are summarized in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2, respec vely. For all COCs in soil and groundwater, the final PSS value is the maximum measured concentra on plus a 20% variance. These PSS values along with RMMs are considered protec ve of on-site human and ecological receptors.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
189 Table 6-1: Proposed Property Specific Standard (PSS) - Soil Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REM (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Antimony
8.5
1.3
10.2
10.2
Arsenic
36.4
18
43.7
43.7
Barium
441
220
529.2
529.2
Beryllium
6.08
2.5
7.3
7.3
Boron
92.2
36
110.6
110.6
Max + 20%
Boron (HWS)
5.5
nv
6.6
6.6
Cadmium
13.2
1.2
15.8
15.8
Chromium (III+VI)
164
70
196.8
196.8
Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Off-site aquatic receptors)
Chromium (VI)
0.74
0.66
0.89
0.89
Max + 20%
Cobalt
32.5
21
39
39
Copper
1,140
92
1,368
1,368
COC
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
b
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Mammals and Birds) Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism)
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? SCS?c Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
190
COC
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Lead
2,480
120
2,976
2,976
Mercury
4.08
0.27
4.9
4.9
Molybdenum
12
2
14.4
14.4
Selenium
2.2
1.5
2.6
2.6
Silver
30.7
0.5
36.8
36.8
Zinc
3,860
290
4,632
4,632
Electrical Conductivity
3.52
0.57
4.2
4.2
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
68.9
2.4
82.7
82.7
Benzene
1.43
0.02
1.7
Toluene
1.4
0.2
Ethylbenzene
26.4
0.05
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Mammals and Birds) Max + 20% (Mammals and Birds) Max + 20% (Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? c SCS?
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism)
No
No
1.7
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
No
1.7
1.7
Max + 20%
No
No
31.7
31.7
Max + 20% (Off-site aquatic receptors)
No
No
191
COC
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Xylenes
96
0.05
115.2
115.2
PHC F1
1,180
25
1,416
1,416
PHC F2
19,700
10
23,640
23,640
PHC F3
13,700
240
16,440
16,440
PHC F4
44,100
120
52,920
52,920
1,1-dichloroethane
0.064
0.05
0.08
0.08
1,2-dichlorobenzene
0.8
0.05
1.0
1.0
1,2-dichloroethane
0.2
0.05
0.24
0.24
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.8
0.05
0.96
0.96
Acetone
2.5
0.5
3.0
3.0
Chloroform
0.4
0.05
0.48
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
0.2
0.05
0.24
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Indoor Air Inhalation, Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Plants and Soil Organism)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? c SCS?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Max + 20%
No
No
Max + 20%
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Max + 20%
No
No
0.48
Max + 20%
No
No
0.24
Max + 20%
No
No
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
192
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
9
0.05
10.8
10.8
11.3
0.05
13.6
13.6
2
0.5
2.4
2.4
0.2
0.05
0.24
0.24
0.135
0.05
0.16
0.16
Tetrachloroethylene
0.2
0.05
0.24
0.24
trans-1,2dichloroethene
0.2
0.05
0.24
0.24
Max + 20%
Vinyl chloride
0.08
0.02
0.1
0.1
Acenaphthene
16.9
0.072
20.3
20.3
Acenphthylene
3.69
0.093
4.4
4.4
11
0.16
13.2
13.2
Benzo(a)anthracene
25.7
0.36
30.8
30.8
Benzo(a)pyrene
17.5
0.3
21
21
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors)
COC
Dichloromethane Hexane Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Styrene Trichloroethylene
Anthracene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? c SCS? No
No
Yes
No
Max + 20%
No
No
Max + 20%
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
193
COC
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
24.8
0.47
29.8
29.8
Benzo(ghi)perylene
8.3
0.68
10
10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
8.06
0.48
9.7
9.7
Chrysene
25.2
2.8
30.2
30.2
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.16
0.1
3.8
3.8
Fluoranthene
48.2
0.56
57.8
57.8
Fluorene
25.2
0.12
30.2
30.2
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
9.44
0.23
11.3
11.3
Methylnaphthalene, 2(1-)
440
0.59
528
528
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Mammals and Birds) Max + 20% (Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? c SCS? Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
194
COC
Maximum Soil Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/g)
REMb (µg/g)
Recommended PSS (µg/g)
Naphthalene
73.1
0.09
87.7
87.7
Phenathrene
64.7
0.69
77.6
77.6
39
1
46.8
46.8
3.95
0.3
4.7
4.7
Pyrene
PCBs
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation, Plants and Soil Organism) Max + 20% (Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Direct Soil Contact, Offsite aquatic receptors)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? c SCS?
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Notes: a From Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act, MOECC, 2011; Table 1, Full Depth Background Site Condi on Standards for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal/Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use. b REM concentra ons were calculated by adding 20% variance to the maximum detected concentra on found on-site for each COC. c Refer to Sec ons 4.4.6 and 5.5.8 for a preliminary off-site assessment for human and ecological receptors
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
195 Table 6-2: Proposed Property Specific Standard (PSS) - Groundwater Maximum Groundwater Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
Chloride
1,740,000
Antimony
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? SCS?c
REM (µg/L)
Recommended PSS (µg/L)
Basis of PSS
790,000
2,088,000
2,088,000
Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors)
Yes
No
6.37
1.5
7.6
7.6
Max + 20%
No
No
Arsenic
44
13
52.8
52.8
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact)
Yes
No
Barium
1,060
610
1,272
1,272
Max + 20%
No
No
Boron
2,090
1,700
2,508
2,508
Max + 20%
No
No
Cobalt
5.27
3.8
6.3
6.3
Max + 20%
No
No
Copper
45
5
54
54
Max + 20%
No
No
Lead
6
1.9
7.2
7.2
Max + 20%
No
No
Molybdenum
192
23
230.4
230.4
Max + 20%
No
No
Selenium
13.8
5
16.6
16.6
Max + 20%
No
No
Vanadium
89.8
3.9
107.8
107.8
Yes
No
Benzene
301
0.5
361.2
361.2
Yes
No
Toluene
8.69
0.8
10.4
10.4
Max + 20%
No
No
19
0.5
22.8
22.8
Max + 20%
No
No
COC
Ethylbenzene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
b
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation and Groundwater Direct Contact)
196
COC
Maximum Groundwater Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
REMb (µg/L)
Recommended PSS (µg/L)
PHC F2
12,000
150
14,400
14,400
PHC F3
11,400
500
13,680
13,680
PHC F4
1,700
500
2,000
2,040
1,1-dichloroethane
0.66
0.5
0.8
1,2-dichloroethane
0.53
0.5
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
3.29
Styrene
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation and Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? c SCS?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Max + 20%
No
No
0.8
Max + 20%
No
No
0.6
0.6
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation)
Yes
No
1.6
3.9
3.9
Max + 20%
No
No
1.67
0.5
2.0
2.0
Max + 20%
No
No
Trichloroethylene
1.7
0.5
2.1
2.1
Yes
No
Vinyl chloride
4.17
0.5
5
5
Yes
No
Acenaphthene
146
0.072
175.2
175.2
No
No
Acenphthylene
31.9
0.093
38.3
38.3
Yes
No
Anthracene
3.8
0.16
4.6
4.6
Yes
No
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors)
197
COC
Maximum Groundwater Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
REMb (µg/L)
Recommended PSS (µg/L)
Benzo(a)anthracene
73.5
0.2
88.2
88.2
Benzo(a)pyrene
52.2
0.01
62.6
62.6
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
70.1
0.1
84.1
84.1
25
0.2
30
30
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
29.7
0.1
35.6
35.6
Chrysene
64.6
0.1
77.5
77.5
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) M Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? c SCS?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
198
COC
Maximum Groundwater Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 1 SCS (µg/L)
REMb (µg/L)
Recommended PSS (µg/L)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
6.82
0.2
8.2
8.2
Fluoranthene
182
0.4
218.4
218.4
Fluorene
229
120
274.8
274.8
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
29.8
0.2
35.8
35.8
Methylnapthalene, 2(1-)
3,070
2
3,684
3,684
Naphthalene
319
7
382.8
382.8
Phenathrene
449
0.1
538.8
538.8
Pyrene
204
0.2
244.8
244.8
Basis of PSS
Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Groundwater Direct Contact, Off-site aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Indoor Air Inhalation) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors) Max + 20% (Offsite aquatic receptors)
Poten al for OffRisk Management site Exceedance of Required? c SCS?
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Notes: a From Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act, MOECC, 2011; Table 1, Full Depth Background Site Condi on Standards for Residen al/Parkland/Ins tu onal/Industrial/Commercial/Community Land Use.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
199 b c
REM concentra ons were calculated by adding 20% variance to the maximum detected concentra on found on-site for each COC. Refer to Sec ons 4.4.6 and 5.5.8 for a preliminary off-site assessment for human and ecological receptors
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
200
6.2
Special Considerations for Soil Standards In order to establish PSSs that are adequately protec ve, comparison of the O.Reg.153/04 soil component values also include considera on of the poten al for an ongoing source of contamina on being present based on a chemical’s solubility. Table 6-3 compares the REM concentra ons of soil COCs to the free phase threshold (FPT) values (MOE, 2011). Table 6-3: Screening for Soil COCs against Free Phase Threshold COC
a
REM (µg/g)
Free Phase Threshold (µg/g)
Antimony
10.2
8,000
Arsenic
43.7
12,000
Barium
529.2
7,700
7.3
3,900
110.6
5,000
Boron (HWS)
6.6
5,000
Cadmium
15.8
18,000
Chromium (III+VI)
196.8
11,000
Chromium (VI)
0.89
nv
Cobalt
39
19,000
Copper
1,368
nv
Lead
2,976
24,000
Mercury
4.9
34,000
Molybdenum
14.4
22,000
Selenium
2.6
nv
Silver
36.8
22,000
Zinc
4,632
15,000
Electrical Conductivity
4.2
nv
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
82.7
nv
Benzene
1.7
5,000
Toluene
1.7
3,300
Ethylbenzene
31.7
2,700
Xylenes
115.2
2,300
PHC F1
1,416
1,700
PHC F2
23,640
2,700
PHC F3
16,440
5,800
Beryllium Boron
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
201
REMa (µg/g)
Free Phase Threshold (µg/g)
52,920
6,900
1,1-dichloroethane
0.08
4,800
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1.0
3,100
1,2-dichloroethane
0.24
5,300
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.96
3,000
Acetone
3.0
92,000
Chloroform
0.48
6,600
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
0.24
4,600
Dichloromethane
10.8
6,400
Hexane
13.6
1,500
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
2.4
5,100
Styrene
0.24
3,500
Trichloroethylene
0.16
4,100
Tetrachloroethylene
0.24
3,700
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
0.24
4,600
Vinyl chloride
0.1
6,100
Acenaphthene
20.3
2,800
Acenphthylene
4.4
2,900
Anthracene
13.2
2,700
Benzo(a)anthracene
30.8
7,600
21
7,600
29.8
7,600
Benzo(ghi)perylene
10
7,600
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.7
7,600
Chrysene
30.2
7,700
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.8
7,600
Fluoranthene
57.8
7,600
Fluorene
30.2
2,800
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
11.3
7,600
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
528
3,600
Naphthalene
87.7
2,800
Phenathrene
77.6
2,300
COC PHC F4
Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
202
REMa (µg/g)
Free Phase Threshold (µg/g)
Pyrene
46.8
7,700
PCBs
4.7
5,000
COC
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC with REM concentra on that exceeded the free phase threshold criteria component a REM concentra ons were calculated by adding 20% variance to the maximum detected concentra on found on-site for each COC.
Although the REM concentra on of PHC F2 to PHC F4 exceeded the free phase threshold criteria components, these are related to the presence of LNAPL in the vicinity of Shed 6 where an LNAPL extrac on program was completed. The results of this program confirmed that LNAPL has been removed to the extent prac cable. 6.3
Special Considerations for Groundwater Standards In order to establish human health PSSs that are adequately protec ve, comparison of the O.Reg.153/04 groundwater component values also include considera on of the poten al for an ongoing source of contamina on being present at a par cular site, based on a chemical’s solubility. Table 6-4 compares the REM concentra ons of groundwater COCs to fi y percent of the respec ve chemicals’ solubility concentra ons (MOE, 2011) for the Site. Table 6-4: Screening for Groundwater COCs against 50% Solubility Concentration COC
a
REM (µg/L)
50% Solubility (µg/L)
Antimony
7.6
12,000,000
Arsenic
52.8
17,000,000
Barium
1,272
27,000,000
Boron
2,508
22,000,000
Cobalt
6.3
44,000,000
Copper
54
210,000,000
Lead
7.2
4,800,000
Molybdenum
230.4
38,000,000
Selenium
16.6
41,000,000
Vanadium
107.8
43,000,000
Benzene
361.2
900,000
Toluene
10.4
260,000
Ethylbenzene
22.8
85,000
14,400
150
PHC F2
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
203
COC
a
REM (µg/L)
50% Solubility (µg/L)
PHC F3
13,680
4.9E-08
PHC F4
2,040
3.9E-12
1,1-dichloroethane
0.8
2,500,000
1,2-dichloroethane
0.6
2,600,000
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
3.9
1,800,000
Styrene
2.0
160,000
Trichloroethylene
2.1
640,000
Tetrachloroethylene
0.6
100,000
Vinyl chloride
5
4,400,000
Acenaphthene
175.2
2,000
Acenphthylene
38.3
8,100
Anthracene
4.6
22
Benzo(a)anthracene
88.2
4.7
Benzo(a)pyrene
62.6
0.81
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
84.1
0.75
30
0.13
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
35.6
0.4
Chrysene
77.5
1.0
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
8.2
0.52
Fluoranthene
218.4
130
Fluorene
274.8
950
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
35.8
0.1
Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)
3,684
12,000
Naphthalene
382.8
16,000
Phenathrene
538.8
580
Pyrene
244.8
68
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Notes: Bold and shaded cells represent COC with REM concentra on that exceeded the 50% solubility criteria component a REM concentra ons were calculated by adding 20% variance to the maximum detected concentra on found on-site for each COC.
Although, the maximum concentra ons of PHC F2 to F4, and several PAHs exceeded the 50% solubility criteria components, these are related to the presence of LNAPL in the vicinity of Shed 6 where an LNAPL extrac on program was completed. The results of this program confirmed that LNAPL has been removed to the extent prac cable.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
204
7.0
Risk Management Plan
7.1
Risk Management Plan The results of the RA indicated that the resident (i.e., toddler and life me composite receptor), indoor worker (i.e., commercial worker), outdoor worker (i.e., maintenance worker), subsurface worker (e.g., construc on worker engaged in excava on ac vi es), and ecological receptors (i.e., plants and soil organisms, mammals and birds, as well as off-site aqua c receptors) could be exposed to COCs at concentra ons that may result in poten al adverse risks in the absence of risk management measures (RMMs) via one or more of the following exposure pathways: direct contact with soil, direct contact with groundwater, indoor air inhala on, soil par culate inhala on, and trench air inhala on. RMMs that are recommended to be implemented at the Site include both administra ve and physical RMMs. Administra ve RMMs include: the implementa on of site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) for subsurface workers (construc on/remedia on workers), and the implementa on of a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan for the handling and disposal of poten ally impacted soil and groundwater. Physical RMMs include the implementa on of surface barriers (Engineered Barriers) and vapour intrusion mi ga on measures below future buildings to manage or block the vapour intrusion exposure pathway (i.e., installa on of Sub-Slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on, and Ven ng system, or the presence of vehicle storage garages with separate air handling systems). The RMMs are described within the following subsec ons. The human health and ecological CSMs with proposed RMMs are presented as Figure 7-1, Figure 72a and Figure 7-2b.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
205
Figure 7- 1 Human Health Conceptual Site Model With Risk Management Measures
FIGURE 7-1 HUMAN HEALTH CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL WIT H RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES POTENTIAL ON-SITE HUMAN RECEPTORS
PRIMARY IMPACTED MEDIUM
TRANSPORT MECHANISM
SOIL
EXPOSURE MEDIUM
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES
RESIDENTS (all ages)
INDOOR WORKER (long-term)
PROPERTY VISITORS
OUTDOOR WORKER (long-term)
CONSTRUCTION/ REMED. WORKER
RESIDENTS (all ages)
PROPERTY VISITORS
INDOOR W ORKER (long-term)
CONSTRUCTION/ REMED. & OUTDOOR WORKERS
SOIL (surface and subsurface soil)
INCIDENTAL INGESTION
x
x
x
x
x
¡
¡
¡
¡
DERMAL CONTACT
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x
x x
¡
¡
¡
¡
x
x
x
x
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
PARTICULATE INHALATION INHALATION OF INDOOR AIR
INFILTRATION AND LEACHING NON-POTABLE GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER
POTENTIAL OFF-SITE HUMAN RECEPTORS
INHALATION OF OUTDOOR AIR
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
INHALATION OF TRENCH AIR
NA
NA
NA
NA
x
NA
NA
NA
NA
UPTAKE BY GARDEN PRODUCE / INGESTION
x
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
DERMAL CONTACT
¡
¡
¡
¡
x
¡
¡
¡
¡
INCIDENTAL INGESTION
¡
¡
¡
¡
x
¡
¡
¡
¡
INHALATION OF INDOOR AIR
x
x
x
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
INHALATION OF OUTDOOR AIR
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
INHALATION OF TRENCH AIR
NA
NA
NA
NA
x
NA
NA
NA
NA
DERMAL CONTACT
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ü
ü
NA
NA
INCIDENTAL INGESTION
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ü
ü
NA
NA
EROSION NON-POTABLE SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
Notes: ü
- Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway
ü
- Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway, but minimal
¡
- Indicates pathway incomplete
x
- Indicates blocked pathway
NA - Indicates pathway not applicable
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
206
Figure 7- 2a Terrestrial Ecological Conceptual Site Model with Risk Management Measures
FIGURE 7-2a TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL WITH RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES
POTENTIAL ONSITE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS*
PRIMARY IMPACTED MEDIUM
TRANSPORT MECHANISM
EXPOSURE MEDIUM
SECONDARY SOURCE
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES
PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
BIRDS
MAMMALS
INCIDENTAL INGESTION / DIRECT CONTACT & ROOT UPTAKE
x
x
x
¡
¡
¡
PLANTS AND SOIL ORGANISMS
INGESTION OF PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
¡
x
x
¡
¡
¡
TERRESTRIAL PREY
INGESTION OF TERRESTIAL PREY
¡
x
x
¡
¡
¡
INCIDENTAL INGESTION / DIRECT CONTACT & ROOT UPTAKE
x
x
x
¡
¡
¡
PLANTS AND SOIL ORGANISMS
INGESTION OF PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
¡
x
x
¡
¡
¡
TERRESTRIAL PREY
INGESTION OF TERRESTIAL PREY
¡
x
x
¡
¡
¡
SOIL INHALATION & STEM/FOLIAR UPTAKE
ü(plants only), X
ü, X
ü, X
ü(plants only), X
ü, X
ü, X
INCIDENTAL INGESTION / DIRECT CONTACT & ROOT UPTAKE
ü
¡
¡
ü
¡
¡
PLANTS AND SOIL ORGANISMS
INGESTION OF PLANTS AND SOIL INVERTEBRATES
¡
ü
ü
¡
ü
ü
TERRESTRIAL PREY
INGESTION OF TERRESTIAL PREY
¡
ü
ü
¡
ü
ü
DIRECT CONTACT
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
SURFACE SOIL/SEDIMENT
SOIL
SUB-SURFACE SOIL
VOLATILIZATION, FUGITIVE DUST/ PARTICULATES
AMBIENT AIR
INFILTRATION AND LEACHING NON-POTABLE GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER
DISCHARGE
SURFACE WATER
Notes: ü
- Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway
ü ¡ x
- Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway, but minimal - Indicates pathway incomplete or not applicable - Indicates pathway is blocked
*
- ecological receptors may also include reptiles and amphibians, but these have not been evaluated in the ERA (see Section 5.2.1) - minor pathway
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
POTENTIAL OFFSITE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS*
207
Figure 7-2b: Aquatic Ecological Conceptual Site Model With Risk Management Measures FIGURE 7-2b AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL WITH RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES
POTENTIAL ONSITE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
PRIMARY IMPACTED MEDIUM
TRANSPORT MECHANISM
EXPOSURE MEDIUM
SOIL
SURFACE WATER
leaching
GROUNDWATER
discharge
POTENTIAL OFFSITE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES
AQUATIC PLANTS
AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
FISH
AQUATIC PLANTS
AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
FISH
DIRECT CONTACT
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
ü
INGESTION OF AQUATIC PLANTS
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
INGESTION OF AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
DIRECT CONTACT
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
ü
INGESTION OF AQUATIC PLANTS
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
ü
INGESTION OF AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
ü
soil erosion
sorption
Notes: ü - Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway ü - Indicates a potentially complete exposure pathway, but minimal ¡ - Indicates pathway incomplete or not applicable X - Indicates pathway blocked - minor pathway
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
SEDIMENT
208
7.1.1
Risk Management Performance Objec ves This RMP has been developed for the Site in order to address the poten al human and ecological health risks. The on-site human receptors and exposure pathways iden fied in the risk assessment that require specific RMMs to mi gate poten al health risks include: · · · · ·
Dermal contact/incidental inges on of soil by residents (i.e., toddler and life me composite receptor), indoor workers, outdoor workers, and subsurface workers; Dermal contact/incidental inges on of groundwater by subsurface workers (in excava on/ trench); Inhala on of soil vapours in indoor air by residents (i.e., toddler and life me composite receptors) and indoor workers; Inhala on of soil par culates by outdoor workers; and Inhala on of excava on/trench air by subsurface workers.
On-site ecological receptors iden fied in the risk assessment that require specific RMM to mi gate poten al health risks based on exposure es mates are: · ·
Direct contact with soil and groundwater by plants and soil organisms; and Direct contact with soil and groundwater by mammals and birds.
The RMMs proposed herein will also serve to mi gate poten al risks to off-site aqua c receptors in Lake Ontario via poten al erosion of contaminated soil and through monitoring of contaminated groundwater. The RMP outlines the RMMs required to protect human and ecological receptors. The RMP is intended to provide op ons for redevelopment of the Site that will achieve an on-site reduc on in exposure concentra ons to levels at or below risk benchmarks considered acceptable by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). Where iden fied, soil and groundwater impacts will remain in place at the Site following implementa on of RMMs. 7.1.2
Exposure Reduc on Objec ves The proposed Engineered Barrier and HASP RMMs are intended to achieve the exposure reduc ons to the Ontario Regula on 153/04 (O.Reg.153/04) Table 7 Site Condi on Standards (SCS) for COCs in soil and groundwater with the excep on of the areas of the Site within 30 m of Lake Ontario where exposure reduc ons to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 SCS are required. Given that soil standards in the O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 SCS are more conserva ve than the O.Reg.153/04 Table 7 SCS for the iden fied COCs, the exposure reduc ons for COCs in soil were
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
209 calculated to the O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 SCS. The vapour intrusion RMM is intended to achieve the exposure reduc ons in soil vapour to the MOECC’s Health-Based Indoor Air Criteria (HBIAC) for residen al land use a er applying the a enua on factor of 0.02 for vapour migra on across the floor slab of a residen al building (MOECC, 2016b). The exposure reduc ons required for RMMs to achieve the applicable standards in soil, groundwater, and soil vapour are presented in Tables 7-1 to 7-4. The RMM exposure reduc ons are calculated as follows: Equa on 7-1:
Calcula on of RMM Exposure Reduc on Objec ves
æ COCmax - COCacc COCmax è
RMM_ Concen tration_ Re duction = ç
ö ÷ ´100% ø
Where: [COCacc] = Acceptable Concentra on [COCmax] = Maximum COC Concentra on
µg/g, µg/L, µg/m 3 µg/g, µg/L, µg/m 3
Table 7-1: Soil COC Concentration Reduction Required Risk Management Measure
Engineered Barrier – Soil direct contact and soil particulate inhalation exposure by resident, indoor worker, outdoor worker, and subsurface worker
Maximum COC Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 SCS (µg/g)
Reduc on in Concentra on Required (%)
Antimony
8.5
1.3
85%
Arsenic
36.4
18
51%
Cadmium
13.2
1.2
91%
Cobalt
32.5
22
32%
Copper
1,140
92
92%
PHC F2
19,700
10
99.9%
PHC F3
13,700
240
98%
PHC F4
44,100
120
99.7%
Benzo(a)anthracene
25.7
0.36
99%
Benzo(a)pyrene
17.5
0.3
98%
Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene
24.8
0.47
98%
Benzo(ghi)perylene
8.3
0.68
92%
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
8.06
0.48
94%
Chrysene
25.2
2.8
89%
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3.16
0.1
97%
Fluoranthene
48.2
0.69
99%
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
9.44
0.23
98%
COC
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
210
Required Risk Management Measure
COC
Maximum COC Concentra on (µg/g)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 SCS (µg/g)
Reduc on in Concentra on Required (%)
Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)
440
0.59
99.9%
PCBs
3.95
0.3
92%
Table 7-2: Groundwater COC Concentration Reduction Required Risk Management Measure
Maximum COC Concentra on (µg/L)
O.Reg.153/04 Table 7 SCS (µg/L)
Reduc on in Concentra on Required (%)
PHC F2
12,200
150
99%
PHC F3
11,400
500
96%
PHC F4
1,700
500
71%
301
0.5
99.8%
3,070
1,500
51%
73.5
1.8
98%
52.2
0.81
98%
70.1
0.75
99%
25
0.2
99%
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
29.7
0.4
99%
Chrysene
64.6
0.7
99%
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
6.82
0.4
94%
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
29.8
0.2
99%
Predicted Indoor Air Concentra ona 3 (µg/m )
Health-Based Indoor Air b 3 Criteria (µg/m )
Reduc on in Concentra on Required (%)
16* (1.3)
0.5
97% (62%)
332
146
56%
17,520
2,490
86%
1.5* (0.015)
0.04
97% (n/a)
COC
Benzene Methylnaphthalene Health and Safety Benzo(a)anthracene Plan – Groundwater Benzo(a)pyrene direct contact by Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene subsurface worker Benzo(ghi)perylene
Table 7-3: Soil Vapour COC Concentration Reduction Required Risk Management Measure
COC
Benzene
Vapour Intrusion Xylenes RMM – Indoor air inhala on by resident PHC F1 and indoor worker 1,2-dichloroethane
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
211
Required Risk Management Measure
COC
Predicted Indoor Air Concentra ona 3 (µg/m )
Health-Based Indoor Air b 3 Criteria (µg/m )
Reduc on in Concentra on Required (%)
1,4-dichlorobenzene
2.2 (0.02)
0.28
88% (n/a)
Hexane
2,040
521
75%
Trichloroethylene
2.0* (0.26)
0.27
87% (n/a)
4.8
4.28
11%
Vinyl chloride
0.9* (0.07)
0.13
86% (n/a)
Naphthalene
3.9* (0.16)
0.77
81% (n/a)
Mercury
0.09
0.019
80%
Tetrachloroethylene
Notes: a Predicted indoor air concentra on derived from the measured soil vapour concentra on and applica on of the MOECC (2011b) default residen al building a enua on factor of 0.02. b MOECC Health-Based Indoor Air Criteria (HBIAC) established in the MGRA Tier 2 Model (MOECC, 2016a) for residen al land use scenario. “ * “: Predicted indoor air concentra on based on the raised laboratory detec on limit. Predicted indoor air concentra on based on the maximum detected vapour concentra on and the required reduc on concentra on to the maximum detected concentra on are provided in brackets. n/a: Predicted indoor air concentra on based on the maximum detected concentra on is lower than the HBIAC.
Table 7-4: Soil Vapour COC Concentration Reduction – Subsurface Worker in a Trench Required Risk Management Measure
COC
Health and Safety Plan – Trench air inhala on Trichloroethylene by subsurface worker
Predicted Trench Air Health-Based Reduc on in a b Concentra on Indoor Air Criteria Concentra on (µg/m3) (µg/m3) Required (%)
8.9* (1.2)
0.87
91% (28%)
Notes: a Predicted trench air concentra on derived from the measured soil vapour concentra on and applica on of an a enua on factor of 0.09. The HBIAC was conserva vely used for calcula on of exposure reduc on. b MOECC Health-Based Indoor Air Criteria (HBIAC) established in the MGRA Tier 2 Model (MOECC, 2016a) for commercial/industrial land use scenario. “ * “: Predicted trench air concentra on based on the raised laboratory detec on limit. Predicted trench air concentra on based on the maximum detected vapour concentra on and the required reduc on concentra on to the maximum detected concentra on is provided in brackets.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
212 7.1.3
Risk Management Measures The recommended risk management measures, exposure pathways that they address, and relevant on-site receptors are outlined in Table 7-5. Table 7-5: Proposed Risk Management Measures Receptors
Risk Management Measures
Residents, indoor workers, outdoor workers, and subsurface workers, terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors
Direct contact with soil (human and ecological receptors) and soil particulate inhalation; garden produce ingestion (residents)
Residents and indoor workers
Vapour Intrusion RMM (Vehicle Storage Garage or Sub-Slab On-site vapour intrusion to indoor air Vapour Barrier, Collec on, and Ven ng system) for buildings
Subsurface worker
Direct contact with soil and groundwater, and air inhalation in trench
Health and Safety Plan
Residents, outdoor workers, and subsurface workers
Direct contact with soil and groundwater
Soil and Groundwater Management Plan
Erosion and deposition of sediment
Engineered Barrier
Groundwater discharge
Groundwater Monitoring
Off-site aquatic receptors
7.1.3.1
Exposure Pathways Addressed
Engineered Barrier (Hardscape or Soil Cap)
Engineered Barriers The risk assessment iden fied that various metals, PHCs and PAHs in soil may represent a risk via the direct contact pathway for the resident, indoor worker, and outdoor worker, as well as to terrestrial and aqua c ecological receptors. In addi on, cadmium in soil may represent a risk via soil par culate inhala on for the outdoor worker. Therefore, Engineered Barriers are required at the Site to mi gate the risk associated with the iden fied COCs in impacted soils. Engineered Barriers will consist of either a Soil Cap or a Hardscape, as described below. The Engineered Barriers will provide 100% blockage of the soil direct contact and soil par culate inhala on pathways, as well as prevent erosion of poten ally impacted materials to Lake Ontario. Unimpacted soil is soil in which no contaminant is present or in which one or more contaminants are present, but at a concentra on less than the applicable O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 SCS. Specific informa on associated with each Engineered Barrier RMM is included in the following sec ons.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
213 Hardscape Cap Where redevelopment areas will be covered by hard surfaces, including buildings, parking facili es, and other hardscape areas, the Hardscape Cap shall consist of a minimum thickness of 225 mm, as follows: ·
·
Hot mix asphalt or poured concrete of at least 75 mm thickness underlain by 150 mm or more of Granular ‘A’ and/or Granular ‘B’ aggregate or equivalent sub-base material (building slabs or building founda on and floor slabs shall also meet this requirement); and/or Other hardscape materials such as pavers or flagstone, underlain by Granular ‘A’ and/or Granular ‘B’ aggregate or equivalent sub-base material to provide a total minimum thickness of 225 mm.
Typical cross-sec onal views illustra ng Hardscape Cap barrier requirements are shown on Figure E-3 in Appendix E. Imported granular fill (base and sub-base materials) for construc on of the RMMs shall be from a commercial sand and gravel pit or quarry licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources pursuant to the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990. If not from a commercial source, then granular materials shall meet the applicable O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 SCS. Soils imported to the Site shall be sampled in accordance with the Requirements of Schedule E of O.Reg.153/04 for soils brought to an RSC property. Soil Cap Where Hardscape Cap will not be used in the redevelopment areas (e.g., landscape areas), the following Soil Cap will be required: ·
At least 1.0 m of unimpacted (clean) soil on top of the impacted soil. Imported soil (nongranular) fill shall meet the the applicable O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 SCS. Figure E-3 in Appendix E provides generic details associated with the required Soil Cap. Soils imported to the Site shall be sampled in accordance with the Requirements of Schedule E of O.Reg.153/04 for soils brought to an RSC property.
General Given the widespread presence of historical fill across the Site, it is assumed that Engineered Barriers as described herein will be required in all areas. Should it be proposed that an Engineered Barrier is not required at specific loca ons at the Site, suitable soil analy cal tes ng must be available to demonstrate that soil within the upper 1.0 m from developed grade meets the applicable O.Reg.153/04 Table 9 SCS, and tested at the frequency listed in Table 2 of Schedule E of O.Reg.153/04 for on-site reuse. It should be noted that the Engineered Barrier RMMs can be integrated with the surface treatment design specifica ons for future developments. The RMM designs illustrated in Figure E-3 in Appendix E are provided as examples of the minimum requirements for inclusion in future
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
214 detailed design specifica ons for the Site. The detailed designs for redevelopment are not currently available. These example RMMs provide the minimum requirements of the Engineered Barrier RMMs. Exis ng (Pre-Development) Condi ons Current condi ons at the Site include exis ng surface coverings with asphalt, concrete, compacted granular materials, or vegetated/landscaped areas. In addi on, much of the area has restricted access and is fenced. These exis ng surface coverings are considered to serve as adequate mi ga ve measures to serve as interim barrier caps at the Site prior to redevelopment ac vi es. Once site prepara on work begins and these exis ng surfaces are disturbed, access to the redevelopment area shall be restricted through the use of fencing (e.g., chain link fencing, construc on hoarding) un l such me as the new engineered barrier system is in place. In addi on, dust control measures shall be implemented as required to control fugi ve dust/par culate emissions from any disturbed areas. 7.1.3.2
Vapour Intrusion RMM The risk assessment iden fied that exposures to one or more of PHC F1, PHC F2, benzene, xylenes, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, hexane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,4dichlorobenzene, vinyl chloride, naphthalene, and mercury in indoor air may have the poten al to result in adverse health effects on residents (i.e., toddler and composite receptors) and indoor worker receptors in the future developmental blocks with the excep on of the southeast por on of the Site (i.e., Blocks 6, 8, and 14). Therefore, RMMs will be required in the design of any buildings constructed in the areas of the Site with poten al vapour intrusion concerns to address the poten al migra on of soil vapours to indoor air. The areas of the Site that require soil vapour intrusion RMMs for future buildings are shown on Figure E-4 in Appendix E. The recommended vapour intrusion RMMs include either the inclusion of a vehicle storage garage that includes a ven la on system that is in compliance with the applicable requirements of the Ontario Building Code (O.Reg.350/06), or a Sub-slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng system (or a combina on of the two in cases where a vehicle storage garage does not cover the full footprint of the occupied structure). Specific informa on associated with these RMMs are included in the following sec ons. It should be noted that the results of the first round of the soil vapour sampling indicated that no soil vapour criteria exceedances were iden fied at Blocks 6, 8, and 14, located on the southeast por on of the Site. A second round of vapour sampling is being completed within these blocks to assess the effects of seasonal variability on the soil vapour results and to confirm the results of the first round of the sampling. This RMP will be updated as required once the results of this second sampling event are available.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
215 Vehicle Storage Garage As an op on to mi gate the migra on of vapours to indoor air, future buildings may include a vehicle storage garage (parking garage), as defined in O.Reg.350/06 (Building Code). As required by Sec on 6.2.2.3 – Ven la on of Storage and Repair Garages of O.Reg.350/06 (Building Code), the parking garage will include a mechanical (intermi ent) ven la on system mee ng the requirements of this regula on and that will func on as a soil vapour RMM for the building. The ven la on system should have an intermi ent supply of outdoor air at a rate of not less than 3.9 L/s for each square meter of floor area. Sub-grade por ons of buildings will be used only for underground parking, and will be maintained at an air pressure less than adjoining por ons of the building that are used for residen al or commercial occupancy. According to the MOECC’s MGRA model (2016c), this is sufficient to provide a 99.5% (i.e., factor of 200) blockage of the vapour intrusion pathway for non-developmental toxicants and 91.6% (i.e., factor of 12) blockage for trichloroethylene, mee ng the reduc on requirements of Table 7-3. It is noted that the vehicle storage garage op on is not limited to the development of an underground storage garage, as it could also be developed at grade or par ally below grade, so long as it physically separates occupied commercial or residen al spaces from the ground surface, and it includes equivalent ven la on to that specified herein. Sub-Slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng System New buildings that are to be constructed on-site that do not include a vehicle storage garage are required to include a Sub-slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng system. A conceptual Subslab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng system is shown on Figure E-5 and Figure E-6 in Appendix E. The conceptual designs are provided as examples of the minimum requirements for incorpora on to future detailed building design specifica ons for the Site. The detailed designs for redevelopment are not currently available. These conceptual designs provide the minimum requirements of the Sub-slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng system. Final designs will need to consider geotechnical requirements for building founda ons and the structural and mechanical designs of the buildings. Final designs for the vapour mi ga on systems shall be completed by a Professional Engineer licensed in Ontario. The Vapour Barrier shall be a con nuous vapour proof geomembrane below the floor slab of the building(s). Joints and seams shall be water/vapour proof and welded in accordance with manufacturer’s recommenda ons. Geomembrane boots for penetra ons (e.g., vent stack risers, sewer connec ons, founda on piles) shall be welded to the con nuous geomembrane barrier and sealed around penetra ons in accordance with manufacturer’s and designer’s recommenda ons. Vapour barrier material shall be a minimum of 1 mm (40 mils) thick and have appropriate chemical resistance to the site’s COCs. Examples of industry standard vapour barriers include generic high density polyethylene (HDPE) or linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) with welded joints, and spray on barriers such as Cetco’s Liquid Boot® 500; however, a number of geomembrane barriers can provide equal protec on and chemical resistance and may be equally suitable for selec on by the building’s designers. Vapour barriers shall have the
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
216 following minimum specifica ons with respect to vapour permeability for the COCs. When tested in accordance with American Society for Tes ng of Materials (ASTM) D814, “Vapour Transmission of Vola le Liquids,” the solvent vapour permeability shall be equal to or less than 10 g/m3hr. When tested in accordance with ASTM D1434, “Determining Gas Permeability Characteris cs of Plas c Film and Shee ng,” the vapour transmission value for methane permeability shall be equal to or less than 690 mL/m 2-day. The Vapour Barrier shall be installed and joined or welded in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommenda ons by qualified installers. Following installa on, quality assurance (QA) tes ng shall be conducted on the completed installa on to evaluate the integrity of the Vapour Barrier and its seams. The QA tests will be in accordance with manufacturer’s recommenda ons for gas permeability and may include smoke tes ng or other non-destruc ve test methods. The QA test results shall be recorded and provided in the as-built documenta on for the buildings. The Vapour Barrier shall be underlain and overlain by protec ve layers that may consist of a cushioning geotex le or a sand layer protec ng the barrier from damage during the construc on of the overlying concrete floor slab and from pressures against the underlying ven ng media. With the Vapour Barrier in place, blocking the soil vapour to indoor air pathway for vola le COCs, the thickness of the concrete floor slab is not significant from an a enua on perspec ve; however, a minimum thickness of 112.5 mm is the recommended thickness, matching the default floor thickness in the MOECC Approved Model for MGRA (MOECC, 2016c). As the floor slab also serves the purpose of a hardscape cap, it must not be less than 75 mm in thickness (and minimum 225 mm total thickness including sub-base or ven ng layer). The vapour barrier will provide 100% blockage of the pathway, mee ng the reduc on requirements detailed in Table 73. The secondary Vapour Collec on and Ven ng System, underlying the Vapour Barrier, will consist of a series of perforated pipes placed on 1.2 m centres below the floor slab. Pipe materials shall have appropriate chemical resistance (in the vapour phase) to the Site’s COCs. It is envisioned that 100 mm diameter schedule 40 PVC piping will be the selected material providing adequate chemical resistance and structural stability for the sub-slab vapour collec on, but other piping materials may also be appropriate as selected by the building’s mechanical designers. Above grade piping and components must meet the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. The collec on piping will be placed mid-depth in a 300 mm thick ven ng media layer. Ver cal vent stacks extending above the floor slab and through the building shall be as true (i.e., ver cal) as possible and extend a minimum of 0.90 m above the roof. The vent stacks can also be placed along the outer building wall. There shall be a minimum of one vent stack and associated sample port for each residen al unit (on the lowest level of residen al occupancy), or one vent stack and sample port for every 1,000 m2 of commercial units (i.e., depending on whether the lowest level of occupancy is residen al or commercial). Vent stacks (running in passive mode) shall be
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
217 completed above the roof eleva on with a wind turbine to enhance the passive ven ng. Vent stacks shall be located away from any building air intake or openable windows. The ven ng media layer consists of a material with suitably high gas permeability rates and structural stability (i.e., must be able to support the floor slab and building loads). Homogenous granular materials such as pea gravel or clear stone with an average diameter of 6.3 mm (1/4”) or larger would be suitable. Alterna vely, specialty building products designed for sub-slab depressuriza on and ven la on may also be appropriate depending on final building designs. Precau on in the construc on of the ven ng media layer must be taken to minimize the migra on of materials (e.g., fines, concrete) into the ven ng media that could reduce its gas permeability. Geotex le filter cloth may need to be incorporated into the designs to address this concern. Given the presence of shallow groundwater on the Site (i.e., < 1 m below ground surface in some areas), drains or openings are required at the end of collec on pipes to ensure drainage and dewatering of the soil vapour ven ng layer, if required. The Vapour Collec on and Ven ng System can be operated as a passive or ac ve system. It is an cipated that Sub-slab Vapour Barriers and Vapour Collec on and Ven ng systems installed at the Site will ini ally operate as passive systems which are expected to provide adequate blockage of the soil vapour to indoor air pathway and protec on to the human (e.g., indoor) receptors. Should monitoring of the sub-slab vapours indicate the poten al for unacceptable indoor air impacts (see Sec on 7.1.5.2), the Vapour Collec on and Ven ng System could be converted to ac ve opera on, as a con ngent ac on, through the addi on of a blower(s) and the applica on of a slight vacuum to the sub-slab ven ng media layer. Selec on of blower specifica ons will be dependent on final sub-slab designs; however, based on guidance published by the United States Environmental Protec on Agency (Indoor Air Vapour Intrusion Mi ga on Approaches - USEPA, 2008), the reliable demonstra on of a differen al pressure of 4 to 10 pa [0.0006 to 0.0014 psi] between ambient building pressure and sub-slab pressures throughout the building is sufficient to show a nega ve pressure gradient has been achieved and the pathway blocked. 7.1.3.3
Site Specific Health and Safety Plan The risk assessment iden fied poten al risks to human health for the subsurface worker (e.g., construc on or u lity worker involved in excava on ac vi es) via direct contact with soil and groundwater (including light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL)) and inhala on of excava on/trench air under a scenario in which no RMMs are in place. Poten al subsurface worker exposures to impacted soil and groundwater will be addressed via the use of a site specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP), personal protec ve equipment (PPE), and engineering controls as required by the Ontario Occupa onal Health and Safety Act (OHSA, 1990) and associated regula ons. Specifically, O.Reg. 213/91 Construc on Projects and O.Reg. 632/05 Confined Spaces include requirements for monitoring of the breathing zone for hazardous gases,
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
218 engineering controls such as; purging/ven la on of excava ons and confined spaces, excava on dewatering, and project specific PPE such as full length clothing, waterproof boots, gloves and respiratory protec on as appropriate to the task. At the me of construc on, the landowner or tenant must communicate the known site hazards to the Constructor who is responsible for the development and implementa on of a site specific HASP. The HASP shall be prepared by a Competent Person (as defined in OHSA) in consulta on with a Qualified Person (as defined in O.Reg. 153/04) and provided to the landowner or tenant prior to any intrusive ac vi es being undertaken at the Site. The HASP shall specifically include (but is not limited to) the following: ·
·
·
Iden fica on of the required PPE and work procedures to reduce poten al dermal contact and incidental inges on exposures by subsurface workers (with soil and groundwater, and poten al LNAPL1) to acceptable levels. Iden fica on of the required monitoring, PPE and work procedures to reduce inhala on of vapours generated from poten ally impacted soil or groundwater/LNAPL by subsurface workers to acceptable levels. This includes iden fying monitoring equipment, procedures and record keeping, requirements for addi onal ven la on of excava ons, and PPE as required). Work procedures for decontamina on and hygiene shall also be iden fied.
These requirements apply both to ac vi es during redevelopment of the Site and to ac vi es completed a er site redevelopment (e.g., trenching for new u li es, etc.). For the la er scenario, these requirements do not apply to ac vi es that are limited to the depth of the Engineered Barrier (i.e., do not involve excava on or trenching into materials below the barrier cap). 7.1.3.4
Soil and Groundwater Management Plan Independent of the applica on of Engineered Barrier RMMs as described above, the development of the Site may require the excava on, short term stockpiling, reloca on and disposal of impacted soil and placement of compacted engineered fill to permit the installa on of various design features including parking lots, building foo ngs, founda ons and floors, and landscaped (green) areas. Further, during the redevelopment ac vi es, it is possible that management of groundwater from excava on/trench dewatering may be required at the Site. The management of impacted soil and groundwater shall be governed by the implementa on of a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan. A Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall be developed by a QPESA for the owner and provided to contractors undertaking subsurface site works. Site works (i.e., excava ons, soil handling, and dewatering) shall be overseen and
1
Residual light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) may be encountered in the vicinity of the former Shed 6 within development blocks 2 and 3, as well as roadways in this area.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
219 documented by a QPESA retained by the site owner or tenant. The Soil and Groundwater Management Plan shall include provisions for: ·
·
·
·
·
·
Excava ons and on-site handling to reduce the COC exposures and inadvertent reloca on of COCs, to include dust control measures (e.g., spraying with potable water) and the minimiza on of contaminant tracking in equipment tracks and treads (e.g., equipment/ re/tread wash sta ons). Temporary stockpile requirements including measures to control contact with underlying materials (e.g., liners), designa on of stockpile areas, site security and access, and storm water runoff control (e.g., silt fences, filter socks for catch-basins and u lity covers). Characteriza on of excavated materials to determine if materials exceed the PSSs and require off-site disposal in accordance with R.R.O.Reg.347, or if the material meets the appropriate SCS and is appropriate for on-site reuse based on tes ng in accordance with Schedule E of O.Reg. 153/04. Disposal requirements including that waste soils only be transported by haulers approved for waste transport in Ontario (i.e., holder of Waste Management System Cer ficate of Approval or registered with Ontario’s Environmental Ac vity Sector Registry) to waste management facili es approved in Ontario through a Waste Disposal Site Cer ficate of Approval or Environmental Compliance Approval (or appropriately approved in other jurisdic ons). Excava on dewatering requirements: in the event there is a need for temporary construc on dewatering to keep an excava on free of groundwater, dewatering ac vi es shall be conducted under Permit to Take Water approvals from the MOECC (as applicable), as well as an agreement to discharge to the City of Hamilton sanitary sewer and/or an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for Industrial Sewage Works issued by the MOECC. Temporary construc on dewatering ac vi es will not involve any discharges to the natural environment, unless an appropriate industrial sewage works Cer ficate of Approval or ECA is provided for the Site and the applicable discharge monitoring conducted. If excava on dewatering is required in areas where LNAPL may be encountered (vicinity of the former Shed 6 within development blocks 2 and 3, as well as roadways in this area), measures shall be implemented to collect and contain the LNAPL and any groundwater mixed with LNAPL, and this shall be disposed of off-site by a licensed hauler and in accordance with applicable requirements for hazardous liquid waste disposal. Record keeping requirements: dates, weather conditions, duration of the works, location and depth of excavation activities and dewatering activities, sample collection details and the implementation of the above required provisions, names and contact information for the Qualified Persons, contractors, receiving and source sites shall be recorded. Also, any complaints received related to the site’s activities including soil, storm water, and any groundwater management activities shall be recorded.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
220 7.1.3.5
Off-Site Implica ons of Proposed RMMs The implementa on of the above noted RMMs and future development of the Site will not nega vely impact off-site human health and ecological receptors. The future implementa on of RMMs will not materially change the current subsurface and hydrogeological condi ons of the Site (e.g., groundwater gradients or flow direc on) such that contaminants are adversely redistributed in groundwater or soil. Furthermore, similar impacts to soil and groundwater are known to exist on the neighbouring proper es to the west (i.e., Piers 6 and 7) and likely on the adjacent property to the east considering similar history of construc on and fill placement, and historical port ac vi es on these proper es. Notwithstanding, as documented in the Phase Two ESA (Dillon, 2016) and suppor ng documents it is believed that migra on of either dissolved impacts or LNAPL impacts on the Site are in a stable or steady state condi on. With respect to the adjacent surface water (Hamilton Harbour/Lake Ontario), implementa on of the Engineered Barrier RMM is expected to mi gate the poten al discharge of contaminants from the site via poten al soil erosion. As noted above, it is believed that migra on of either dissolved impacts or LNAPL impacts on the Site are in a stable or steady state condi on, and this will be verified through monitoring (see Sec on 7.1.5.3).
7.1.4
Dura on of Risk Management Measures This sec on describes the required dura on of the risk management measures.
7.1.4.1
Dura on of Administra ve RMMs Administra ve RMMs including site specific Health and Safety Plan and Soil and Groundwater Management Plan are required as long as COCs are present on the Site at concentra ons above the applicable SCS, or un l such me as they are revoked by the MOECC upon the request of the owner.
7.1.4.2
Dura on of Engineered Barriers Engineered Barriers are required as long as COCs are present in soils on the Site at concentra ons above the applicable SCS, or un l such me they are revoked by the MOECC upon the request of the owner.
7.1.4.3
Dura on of Vapour Intrusion RMM Vehicle Storage Garage The Vehicle Storage garage requirement shall be maintained as long as vola le COCs (mercury, PHC F1, PHC F2, vola le organic compounds) are present in soil or groundwater at the Site at concentra ons above their applicable SCS, LNAPL is present, or un l such me as the requirement for the vapour intrusion RMM is revoked by the MOECC upon the request of the owner.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
221 Sub-Slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng System The Sub-Slab Vapour Barriers and Vapour Collec on and Ven ng systems requirement shall be maintained as long as vola le COCs (mercury, PHC F1, PHC F2, vola le organic compounds) are present in soil or groundwater at the Site at concentra ons above their applicable SCS, LNAPL is present, or un l such me as they are revoked by the MOECC upon the request of the owner. Please note that either or both of these RMMs must be maintained as indicated above, depending on which RMM was selected for the building in ques on. 7.1.5
Requirements for Monitoring and Maintenance
7.1.5.1
Engineered Barriers The Site owner shall conduct semi-annual inspec ons of the Engineered Barrier RMMs. Inspec ons will take place in the spring and fall of each year and will be recorded on a form that documents, at a minimum, the inspec on date, barrier status (checklist), and the inspector’s signature. The inspec ons will check the integrity of the Hardscape or Soil Cap Engineered Barriers. Any deficiencies (e.g. excessive potholes) or breaches (e.g., unwarranted excava ons) in the barriers will be recorded and repaired in a manner consistent with the minimum RMM requirements as soon as prac cal to maintain the exposure pathway blocking and in accordance with the Soil Management Plan. Monitoring will also be required for re-development and post-development excava on ac vi es to ensure that any RMM barriers breached by planned or emergency excava ons are repaired or replaced in a manner consistent with the minimum RMM requirements for Engineered Barriers. Soil excavated from below the barriers shall not be le on surface and shall be disposed of offsite or reused at depth (below reinstated barriers) in accordance with the Soil Management Plan. This work shall be overseen by a QPESA and documented. Record documents will include the reason for excava on, the monitoring date(s), approximate quan es of materials imported or removed/reused, environmental quality of imported materials and final barrier status. The excavated soils from areas of the Site that require vapour intrusion RMM should not be reused (even below reinstated barriers) in areas where no vapour RMM is required (i.e., Blocks 6, 8 and 14).
7.1.5.2
Vapour Intrusion RMM Vehicle Storage Garage The mechanical ven la on system for the vehicle storage garage needs to be semi-annually inspected for components such as air intakes, blowers, and exhaust ducts for blockage. The inspec ons need to be recorded on a form that documents, at a minimum, the inspec on date, the status of mechanical system components (checklist), and the inspector’s signature.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
222 Sub-Slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng System Building/site owner(s) will operate the Sub-Slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng system in accordance with its Opera on & Maintenance Manual (to be prepared by the building designer(s) in associa on with a QPESA). The Manual will be developed in associa on with the design and installa on of the system and will include as-built records. In general, it is an cipated that the opera onal monitoring will include semi-annual inspec ons of the system to ensure inlet/discharge pipes are in good condi on and free of debris, and that building floor slabs remain intact. The inspec ons will be recorded on a form that documents, at a minimum, the inspec on date, system status (checklist), and the inspector’s signature. In the event that the system is upgraded to an ac ve collec on system, addi onal monitoring requirements will include verifica on of blower opera on and the collec on of vacuum readings on the blower(s) intake(s) and any other monitoring ports. Confirmatory sub-slab vapour samples will be collected semi-annually from dedicated sub-slab sample ports installed in the sand protec on layer on top of the vapour barrier (see Figure E-6 in Appendix E) and analyzed for the chemicals listed as COCs in Sec on 7.1.2. Sub-slab vapour samples shall be collected and analyzed in accordance to the MOECC’s “Dra Technical Guidance Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment” (MOECC, 2013). An ambient outdoor air sample shall also be collected during sampling events to provide data on background condi ons. Ambient weather condi ons (e.g., barometric pressure, temperature, precipita on, rela ve humidity) will also be recorded. The first monitoring round shall be conducted a er building comple on but prior to occupancy. Sub-slab vapour monitoring trigger concentra ons are provided in Table 7-3. Subslab trigger values are the MOECC HBIAC for residen al property use divided by a default a enua on factor of 0.02. Should sub-slab vapour concentra ons exceed the trigger values, the QPESA may consider the following con ngency ac ons: · · · ·
Smoke tes ng or pressure tes ng of the geomembrane vapour barrier to evaluate blockage of the pathway; Measurement of ambient pressures gradients (sub-slab vs. indoor), to evaluate poten al for migra on across vapour barrier membrane and concrete floor slab; Conversion of the passive ven ng system to an ac ve collec on system; and/or Modifica on of the building’s ven la on rates.
Sub-slab vapour sampling will be completed semi-annually for three years to assess seasonal trends. A er this ini al three year period, if stable to declining trends in sub-slab vapour concentra ons are confirmed and below the trigger concentra ons (Table 7-3) applica on can be made by a QPESA on behalf of the owner to the MOECC to remove the sub-slab sampling requirement.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
223 7.1.5.3
Groundwater/LNAPL Monitoring Ongoing groundwater monitoring will be completed to validate that the dissolved phase groundwater and LNAPL plumes are stable, and thus, interpreted to not pose a poten ally unacceptable risk to the adjacent aqua c environment in Hamilton Harbour. LNAPL and groundwater monitoring are proposed for the con nued assessment of seasonal condi ons and the poten al for LNAPL migra on, as well as dissolved contaminant migra on at concentra ons exceeding the Groundwater Trigger Concentra ons (see below). Three groundwater monitoring loca ons are proposed at loca ons down gradient of areas where LNAPL or dissolved COC concentra ons in excess of the GW3 component criteria have been observed (see Figure E-7 in Appendix E). These will consist of new water table monitoring wells proximal to the harbour dockwall. In addi on, two LNAPL monitoring loca ons have been proposed at loca ons between the LNAPL zone (former Shed 6 area) and the harbour, in order to confirm that LNAPL is not migra ng towards the surface water receiver. These would consist of exis ng loca ons MW144 and MW145, or new water table monitoring wells in the general vicinity of these loca ons. Groundwater monitoring at the iden fied monitoring wells (or equivalent replacement wells) will be completed quarterly for two years to assess seasonal trends, and semi-annually therea er. A er the ini al two year period, if stable to declining trends in COC groundwater concentra ons are confirmed and migra on of LNAPL has not been observed, applica on can be made by a QPESA on behalf of the owner to the MOECC to remove the groundwater/LNAPL monitoring requirement. Groundwater monitoring will include: sample collec on, analysis of COCs at the three groundwater monitoring loca ons, and evalua on of LNAPL presence/absence at the two LNAPL monitoring wells. The need for con ngency ac ons will be triggered through the monitoring program based on: ·
·
The presence of LNAPL at one or both of the two LNAPL monitoring loca ons (as confirmed through the presence of a measurable thickness of separate phase product); or Dissolved PHC F2 concentra ons at one or more of the three groundwater monitoring loca ons in excess of the GW3 component value associated with the Table 3 SCS (i.e., 970 µg/L – see addi onal discussion below).
If either of these condi ons is met, the implementa on of con ngency measures shall consist of the development of a groundwater management plan by a QP ESA. This shall be based on the findings of the monitoring program and any addi onal monitoring that may be required in the opinion of the QPESA, such that any change in risks to the down gradient surface water receiver is iden fied, as well as an evalua on of whether remedial measures may be required. If required,
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
224 appropriate remedial measures will be iden fied and implemented (e.g., hydraulic control by pumping, LNAPL recovery, or in-situ remedia on remedies). The GW3 component value associated with the Table 3 SCS (as opposed to the Table 9 SCS) was selected as a trigger concentra on protec ve of the adjacent aqua c environment of Hamilton Harbour based on the following ra onale: ·
· ·
The hydraulic conduc vity of the shallow fill materials underlying the Site where the water table aquifer occurs is significantly lower than that assumed by the MOECC in the development of the generic SCS. The geometric mean hydraulic conduc vity of the fill unit based on in-situ tes ng was determined to be 2.6 x 10 -6 m/s (approximately 12 mes lower than the value of 3 x 10 -5 m/s assumed in the deriva on of the generic SCS). Hamilton harbour (an embayment of Lake Ontario) affords significantly greater dilu on poten al than assumed in the deriva on of the generic SCS. These factors are considered to more than compensate for the addi onal conserva sm applied by the MOECC in the se ng of the GW3 component value associated with the Table 9 SCS.
Groundwater monitoring will be conducted under the supervision of a QP ESA in accordance with the requirements of O.Reg. 153/04 and O.Reg. 903. A minimum of one blind field duplicate quality assurance sample will be collected per sampling event. Addi onally, one trip blank sample will be prepared and analyzed per event. Groundwater samples will be analyzed by a CALA accredited laboratory. Only PHC F2 has been iden fied as a COC in groundwater for which dissolved phase groundwater sampling and analysis has been proposed as this represents the only contaminant observed at concentra ons exceeding the GW3 criteria at loca ons outside of the LNAPL zone, and is considered the most appropriate parameter for monitoring of poten al petroleum hydrocarbon related impacts at the Site. 7.1.5.4
Repor ng An annual report will be provided to the MOECC District Office within two months of collec on of the last monitoring sample for that repor ng year. The report will present the inspec on and monitoring results for the Engineered Barrier RMMs and the Sub-slab Vapour Barrier, Collec on and Ven ng system RMMs for the year (including monitoring results and an evalua on of the need for con ngency ac ons), in addi on to the results of the groundwater/LNAPL monitoring program.
7.1.6
Financial Assurance Financial Assurance requirements do not apply as the Site is owned by a municipal authority.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
225
8.0
Public Communication Plan The Site it is not classified as a wider area of abatement; therefore, no public communica on plan is considered necessary.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
226
9.0
References Aburto A. 2009. Mixed Aerobic and Anaerobic Microbial Communi es in BenzeneContaminated Groundwater. January 2009. Atlan c PIRI. 2012 (revised 2015). Atlan c Risk-Based Correc ve Ac on (RBCA) for Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlan c Canada (Version 3) User Guidance. Azimuth. 2012a. Federal Contaminated Sites Ac on Plan (FCSAP) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. Prepared for: Environment Canada. Prepared by: Azimuth Consul ng Group. Azimuth. 2012b. FINAL. Federal Contaminated Sites Ac on Plan (FCSAP) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. Module C: Standardiza on of Wildlife Receptor Characteris cs. Prepared for: Environment Canada. Prepared by: Azimuth Consul ng Group. Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1996. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. CCME Subcommi ee on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites. The Na onal Contaminated Sites Remedia on Program, Winnipeg, MB. Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2008. Canada Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scien fic Ra onale. January 2008. Dermo , R., M. Johannsson, M. Munawar, R. Bonnell, K. Bowen, M. Burley, M. Fitzpatrick, J. Gerlofsma, and H. Niblock, 2007. Assessment of Lower Food Web in Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario, 2002-2004. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aqua c Sciences 2729. Dillon Consul ng Limited, 2015, Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, Piers 5 to 8 and Bayview Park, Hamilton, Ontario, Dra Report, June 2015. Dillon Consul ng Limited, 2016, Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario, Dra Report, June 2016. Dillon Consul ng Limited, 2017, Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment Addendum 1 – Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario, June 2017. Ecoplans Ltd., 2002. Contaminant Inves ga on, Guise Street and Harbour Patrol Access Road, Hamilton, ON. November, 2002.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
227
Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2017. Hamilton Harbour Area of Concern. h p://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=3f4f0551-1 Evanko C.R. and Dzomak D.A. 1997. Remedia on of Metals-Contaminated Soils and Groundwater. October 1997. Fox, M.E., Khan, R.M., and Thiessen, P.A. 1996. Loadings of PCBs and PAHs from Hamilton Harbour to Lake Ontario. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada. 31: 593-608. Cited in: Dermo et al., 2007. Golder Associates Ltd. 2000. Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment and Geotechnical Inves ga on, Pier 8, Hamilton Harbour, Hamilton, ON. June, 2000. Mayer, T., and Johnson, M.G. 1994. History of anthropogenic ac vi es in Hamilton Harbour as determined from the sedimentary record. Envir. Poll. 86: 341-347. Cited in: Dermo et al., 2007. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, 1993. Ontario Typical Range of Chemical Parameters in Soil, Vegeta on, Moss Bags and Snow. December 1993. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2004. Protocol for Analy cal Methods Used in the Assessment of Proper es under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Assessment Act. Amended as of July 1, 2011. Available online at: h ps://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/protocol-analy cal-methods-usedassessment-proper es-under-part-xv1 Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2005. Procedures for the Use of Risk Assessment under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act. Ontario Ministry of the Environment Standards Development Branch. PIBs 5404e. October 2005. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME). 1985. Hamilton Harbour technical summary and general management op ons. 125 p. Cited in: Dermo et al., 2007. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2011a. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act, PIBS #7382e01, May 15, 2011. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2011b. Ra onal for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario, PIBS #7386e01, April 15, 2011.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
228
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2013. Dra Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment. September 2013.
Technical
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2016a. Modified Generic Risk Assessment Model, revised April 15, 2011. Ontario Ministry of Environment. PIBs 7381e01. November 2016. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). 2016b. A Guide to Using the “Approved Model” (November, 2016) When Submi ng a Modified Generic Risk Assessment (MGRA). Available online at: h ps://www.ontario.ca/page/guide-usingapproved-model-when-submi ng-modified-generic-risk-assessment Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), 2017. Human Health Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs) Selected for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Prepared by Human Toxicology and Air Standards Sec on, Standards Development Branch. January 2017. Meridian Environmental Inc. 2012. CSAP Technical Review #18. Soil Vapour A enua on Factors for Trench Worker Exposure. December 2012. Peto MacCallum Ltd. 1993. Geo-Environmental Inves ga on, Baseline Geo-Environmental Assessment, Pier 8, Hamilton, ON. May, 1993. Peto MacCallum Ltd. 1995. Geo-Environmental Inves ga on, Pier 8, Baseline Environmental Assessment, Hamilton, ON. July, 1995. Peto MacCallum Ltd. 1996. Geo-Environmental Reassessment, Pier 8 – West Por on, Hamilton, ON. July, 1996. Poulton, D.J. 1987. Trace contaminant status of Hamilton Harbour. J. Great Lakes Res. 13: 193201. Cited in: Dermo et al., 2007. Suter, G.W. II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. CRC Press LLC. ISBN 0-87371-875-5. Terraprobe, 2001. Subsurface Inves ga on, Pier 8 – Discovery Centre, Hamilton, ON. December 10, 2001. Terraprobe, 2016. Geotechnical Inves ga on, West Harbour Pumping Sta on and Associated Works, Hamilton, Ontario, Dra Report. November 11, 2016.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
229
Thurber Engineering Ltd., 2002. Geotechnical Inves ga on, Proposed Watermain and Sewer Installa on, Harbour Patrol Access (Pier 8) Road, Hamilton, Ontario. November, 2002. United States Environmental Protec on Agency (USEPA). 1989a. Exposure Factors Handbook, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/8-89/043. United States Environmental Protec on Agency (USEPA). 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I, Human Health Evalua on Manual (Part A). Interim Final. United States Environmental Protec on Agency (USEPA). 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evalua on Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). July 2004. United States Environmental Protec on Agency (USEPA). 2007a. Eco-SSL Ecological Soil Screening Levels. A achment 4-1. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). Exposure Factors and Bioaccumula on Models for Deriva on of Wildlife EcoSSLs. OSWER Direc ve 9285.7-55. United States Environmental Protec on Agency. Revised April, 2007. h ps://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/guidance-developing-ecological-soilscreening-levels. United States Environmental Protec on Agency (USEPA). 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aroma c Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Interim Final). OSWER Direc ve 9285.7-78. United States Environmental Protec on Agency. June, 2007. h ps://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-leveldocuments. United States Environmental Protec on Agency (USEPA). 2008. Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Mi ga on Approaches. October 2008. United States Environmental Protec on Agency (USEPA). 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development. XCG, 2003. Site-Specific Risk Assessment (Revised Final), Pier 8, Hamilton Harbour, Hamilton, Ontario. February 14, 2003. XCG, 2009. Groundwater Sampling Results for Parks Canada Discovery Centre, 57 Discovery Drive, Hamilton, Ontario. September 29, 2009.
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
230
10.0
Limitations Risk assessments, by their nature, have inherent limita ons and uncertain es. It is believed that these uncertain es have been addressed through the conserva ve interpreta on of sitespecific data and parameter selec on, and in the conserva sm inherent in exis ng toxicity informa on. The quan ta ve es mates of risk provided by this process are valid only for the assump ons and exposure scenarios outlined in this report. Should the site condi ons or toxicity informa on change, the risk posed by the Site may differ from that presented in this report. This report was prepared exclusively for the purposes, project, and Site loca on outlined in the report. The report is based on available informa on provided to, or obtained by Dillon as indicated in the report, and applies solely to site condi ons exis ng at the me of the site inves ga on. Where the risk assessment has relied on informa on provided to Dillon by the other par es, Dillon has, within the scope and expecta ons of the risk assessment process, reviewed this data but Dillon does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, and representa veness of this informa on. Dillon’s report represents a reasonable review of available informa on within an established work scope, work schedule, and budget. Dillon makes no representa on or warranty, expressed or implied, other than it has exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence in accordance with accepted prac ce and usual standards of thoroughness and competence for our profession in this jurisdic on (Ontario). This report was prepared by Dillon for the sole benefit and use of Hamilton Waterfront Trust and the City of Hamilton. The material in it reflects Dillon’s best judgement in light of the informa on available to it at the me of prepara on. Any use that a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decision made based on it, are the responsibili es of such third par es. Dillon accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or ac ons based on this report. Respec ully submi ed, DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED
Ashkan Arefi, M.Sc., P.Eng. Risk Assessor
DouOnishi, P.Eng. Project Manager
Pier 8 Hamilton, Ontario - Risk Assessment
Brent Loney, M.Sc., P.Geo. Qualified Person (Risk Assessment)