round 3 health questions · 2006-08-22 · kearl oil sands – mine development august 2006 page 1...

Table of Contents

August 2006 Page i HEALTH TEAM CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS ON ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Figure List

Figure 3a-1: Statistical Distributions for Antimony in Blueberry Samples.................................... 5 Figure 3a-2: Statistical Distributions for Arsenic in Blueberry Samples ....................................... 6 Figure 3a-3: Statistical Distributions for Cadmium in Blueberry Samples .................................... 6 Figure 3a-4: Statistical Distributions for Chromium in Blueberry Samples................................... 7 Figure 3a-5: Statistical Distributions for Lead in Blueberry Samples............................................ 7 Figure 3a-6: Statistical Distributions for Molybdenum in Blueberry Samples .............................. 8 Figure 3a-7: Statistical Distributions for Nickel in Blueberry Samples ......................................... 8 Figure 3a-8: Statistical Distributions for Vanadium in Blueberry Samples ................................... 9 Figure 3a-9: Statistical Distributions for Antimony in Cattail Samples ......................................... 9 Figure 3a-10: Statistical Distributions for Arsenic in Cattail Samples......................................... 10 Figure 3a-11: Statistical Distributions for Cadmium in Cattail Samples ..................................... 10 Figure 3a-12: Statistical Distributions for Chromium in Cattail Samples.................................... 11 Figure 3a-13: Statistical Distributions for Lead in Cattail Samples ............................................. 11 Figure 3a-14: Statistical Distributions for Molybdenum in Cattail Samples................................ 12 Figure 3a-15: Statistical Distributions for Nickel in Cattail Samples........................................... 12 Figure 3a-16: Statistical Distributions for Vanadium in Cattail Samples..................................... 13 Figure 3a-17: Statistical Distributions for Antimony in Labrador Tea Samples .......................... 13 Figure 3a-18: Statistical Distributions for Arsenic in Labrador Tea Samples.............................. 14 Figure 3a-19: Statistical Distributions for Cadmium in Labrador Tea Samples .......................... 14 Figure 3a-20: Statistical Distributions for Chromium in Labrador Tea Samples......................... 15 Figure 3a-21: Statistical Distributions for Lead in Labrador Tea Samples .................................. 15 Figure 3a-22: Statistical Distributions for Molybdenum in Labrador Tea Samples..................... 16 Figure 3a-23: Statistical Distributions for Nickel in Labrador Tea Samples................................ 16 Figure 3a-24: Statistical Distributions for Vanadium in Labrador Tea Samples.......................... 17 Figure 3a-25: Statistical Distributions for Antimony in Soil Samples ......................................... 17 Figure 3a-26: Statistical Distributions for Arsenic in Soil Samples ............................................. 18 Figure 3a-27: Statistical Distributions for Cadmium in Soil Samples.......................................... 18 Figure 3a-28: Statistical Distributions for Chromium in Soil Samples ........................................ 19 Figure 3a-29: Statistical Distributions for Lead in Soil Samples ................................................. 19 Figure 3a-30: Statistical Distributions for Molybdenum in Soil Samples.................................... 20 Figure 3a-31: Statistical Distributions for Nickel in Soil Samples............................................... 20 Figure 3a-32: Statistical Distributions for Vanadium in Soil Samples......................................... 21

Table List

Table 3b-1: Statistical Characteristics of the Regional Oil Sands Data and Kearl Project-Specific Data for Blueberry Samples....................................................................................... 22

Table 3b-2: Statistical Characteristics of the Regional Oil Sands Data and Kearl Project-Specific Data for Cattail Samples............................................................................................ 22

Table 3b-3: Statistical Characteristics of the Regional Oil Sands Data and Kearl Project-Specific Data for Labrador Tea Samples................................................................................. 23

Table of Contents

August 2006 Page ii

Table 3b-4: Statistical Characteristics of the Regional Oil Sands Data and Kearl Project-Specific Data for Soil Samples ................................................................................................ 23

Table 3b-5: Antimony Exposure Ratios ....................................................................................... 24 Table 3b-6: Cadmium Exposure Ratios........................................................................................ 24 Table 3b-7: Chromium Exposure Ratios ...................................................................................... 25 Table 3b-8: Lead Exposure Ratios................................................................................................ 25 Table 3b-9: Molybdenum Exposure Ratios .................................................................................. 26 Table 3b-10: Nickel Exposure Ratios ........................................................................................... 26 Table 3b-11: Vanadium Exposure Ratios ..................................................................................... 27 Table 3b-12: Arsenic Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk ............................................................. 27 Table 6b-1: Measured Baseline Moose Meat Concentrations ...................................................... 37

♦

HEALTH TEAM CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS ON ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Kearl Oil Sands – Mine Development

August 2006 Page 1 HEALTH TEAM CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS ON ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

1. Response 19a), Pages 21-23. Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited (Imperial Oil) states, “mercury-related health effects would be theoretically possible if people were consuming fish at subsistence levels. Fish consumption surveys done in the area suggest that fish consumption is much lower than fish consumption rates suggested by Health Canada…Therefore, the high fish consumption rates are likely an overestimate of exposure.”

a) What certainty is there that the high fish consumption rates are an overestimate?

b) In addition, it seems that the proponent has surveys indicating fish consumption in the region. Identify these surveys and explain why Health Canada fish consumption rates were used rather than the surveys to estimate fish consumption.

Response

a) The high fish consumption rates used in the human health assessment were based on 24-hour recall studies for fish consumers conducted in 1971 and 1972 in several Amerindian and Inuit communities (no geographic regions were identified) (Richardson 1997). Since geographic areas were not reported, data may have been used from communities that traditionally consume larger amounts of fish (e.g., coastal communities). A survey of consumptive use of traditional resources by the community of Fort McKay indicated that the “consumption of moose far exceeds that of any other species of bird, animal or fish, and is eaten by virtually every individual in the community, almost every day” (Fort McKay 1997). A survey completed by Alberta Health and Wellness in aboriginal communities in northern Alberta also indicated that the reliance on fish is low among Alberta Aboriginals (AHW 2004). In a nutrition study conducted in 1997, Alberta Health and Wellness reported fish consumption rates among adults (only age group reported) of 167 g/d for high intake, 47 g/d for medium intake, 13 g/d for low intake and 2 g/d for very low intake (AHW 2004). These fish consumption rates are lower than the 220 g/d ingestion rate (used to represent high consumers in the health assessment) from Health Canada (2004). Therefore, since northern Alberta Aboriginals are more reliant on moose than fish (especially when compared with Inuit populations, which were included in the Health Canada fish consumption rate), and since a study completed by Alberta Health and Wellness indicated lower fish consumption rates than Health Canada, there is certainty that the high fish consumption rates are an overestimate.

b) The survey that was used and referenced in the health assessment and supplemental information requests is the “Survey of Consumptive Use of Traditional Resources by the Community of Fort McKay” (Fort McKay 1997) (Volume 8, Appendix 3A, Section 3A.1.2.2.2, Table 3A-25). The information from this survey reported frequency of consumption. Therefore, the frequency information was used to represent average fish consumption and an average fish consumption rate was calculated assuming that when people ate fish, they ate at the rate reported by Health Canada (i.e., consumption of fish 85 days per year [from the survey] and assuming


Page 2 August 2006

the Health Canada fish consumption rate for adults [220 g/d], results in a fish consumption rate of 51.2 g/d). This approach has been used in previous EIAs.

As mentioned in Part a of this response, the Health Canada fish consumption rate was used as a representation of high fish consumption. This approach was based on comments from previous EIA submissions at the request of Alberta Health and Wellness.

References AHW (Alberta Health and Wellness). 2004. Swan Hills Waste Treatment Center. Long-Term

Follow-Up Health Assessment Program 1997 – 2002. Edmonton, AHW.

Fort McKay (Fort McKay Environment Services Ltd.). 1997. A Survey of the Consumptive Use of Traditional Resources in the Community of Fort McKay. Prepared for Syncrude Canada Ltd. Fort McKay, AB. 16 pp. + Appendices.

Health Canada. 2004. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA) Health Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Richardson, M. 1997. Compendium of Canadian Human Exposure Factors for Risk Assessment. O’Connor Associates Environmental Inc. Ottawa, ON.

2. Response 19b), Page 23. Imperial Oil states, “The maximum median was used because it represents the project activities that result in the highest concentration of each parameter…Using the maximum median is an additional level of conservatism beyond the protocol that requires average concentrations”. Generally, a “reasonable worse-case scenario” is generated in a health risk assessment.

a) Provide assurance that the maximum median provides this reasonable worst case scenario.

Response

a) Water quality modelling predictions were simulated for several time snapshots during and after the operational phase of the project. These snapshots were determined based on a number of factors to ensure that the project in combination with other developments, was considered during the most environmentally constraining periods (see Volume 6, Section 2.2.3, Table 2-1, Page 2-9), including maximum influences from potential process-affected waters. For each snapshot, loadings and flow regimes for each waterbody (node) were modelled to represent cumulative development activity.



August 2006 Page 3

Each snapshot (and node) characterized was based on 50 years of predicted daily concentrations for a total of 18,262 days to determine the median concentrations. The input data combinations included background and mine water concentrations that were higher than observed values. Furthermore, these input concentrations were combined with high mine water seepages and low background flow conditions to predict conservatively high concentrations among the 18,262 data points. Therefore, a large, robust data set based on many scenarios (i.e., combinations of input concentrations and receiving stream characteristics) was used to model each snapshot.

The maximum median represented the highest median of all of the snapshots and nodes simulated and is therefore considered to be a conservative representation of the median predictions.

The use of the maximum median of water quality constituents has been used in previous oil sands surface mining human health EIA assessments (CNRL 2002, Golder and Cantox 2002, Shell 2005, Suncor 2005). It is considered to represent long-term human exposure even though the project activities that would result in the predicted concentrations would only occur for a limited period of time. The maximum median from that time span was used to represent long-term (i.e., lifetime) exposures estimated in the chronic human health risk assessment.

The use of the maximum median for water quality constituents is also consistent with the annual average substance concentrations used to estimate exposure via the air pathways.

References CNRL (Canadian Natural Resources Limited) 2002. Horizon Oil Sands Project Application for

approval. Volume 7. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared by CNRL in Association with Golder Associates Ltd. June 2002. Calgary, AB.

Golder (Golder Associates Limited) and Cantox. 2002. Surface Water Quality and Human, Aquatic Biota and Wildlife Health for Jackpine Mine - Phase 1. Prepared for Shell Canada Limited. 215 pp.

Shell (Shell Canada Limited). 2005. Muskeg River Mine Expansion Project. Volume 2. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. and Nichols Applied Management. March 2005. Fort McMurray, AB.

Suncor (Suncor Energy Inc.). 2005. Voyageur Project Application. Volume 3. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared by Suncor Energy Inc. Oil Sands in Association with Golder Associates Ltd., and Nichols Applied Management. March 2005. Fort McMurray, AB.



Page 4 August 2006

3. Response 21a), Pages 45-49. Imperial Oil provides a comparison of contaminant concentrations in soil from the Kearl Project (5 samples total) to other published information in the region. The 5 data points recorded generally fall within the range illustrated from the other published sources. While this is an important indication to suggest that the five samples are within the range of concentrations reported in the oil sands area, statistical evidence should be provided to substantiate the claim (i.e., distributions and confidence intervals for the chemicals assessed via the multi-media risk assessment).

a) Provide a statistical analysis of the samples collected from other oil sands sites for arsenic, mercury, antimony, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, nickel, cadmium, and lead. In other words, provide a statistical distribution of chemical concentrations in the soil in the regional study area.

b) Confirm that the 5 samples are representative of the regional study area by comparing the statistical information generated above to the results of a statistical analysis completed for the off-site samples.

c) Confirm that the 5 samples are representative of locations where people collect food.

Response

a) Histograms and statistical distributions of chemical concentrations in blueberry, cattail, Labrador tea and soil within the oil sands region are presented in Figures 3a-1 to 3a-8, 3a-9 to 3a-16, 3a-17 to 3a-24 and 3a-25 to 3a-32 respectively. Each of the figures also shows a histogram of chemical concentrations for samples collected specifically for the Kearl project. The chemicals presented in the figures are antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, molybdenum, nickel and vanadium. Mercury was not included in the statistical analysis because it was not analyzed in any of the samples collected from the site. All data used in the statistical analysis are presented in Appendix 1.

The following process was used to develop a statistical distribution for each constituent:

1) suitable probability distributions were fitted to the measured regional oil sands data;

2) goodness of fit for applicable statistical distributions was assessed; and


3) the most appropriate type of statistical distribution was determined. Non-detectable values are incorporated in the figures as half of the corresponding detection limit. Each bar in the figures represents the number of samples within a range of concentration values, and the labels in the x-axis indicate the median of the range of concentrations for a given


August 2006 Page 5

bar. For example, the first set of three bars in Figure 3a-4 represents the number of samples between 0 and 0.5μg/g for each respective data set.

The representative data sets are the regional oil sands samples (ROSS) collected for the various oil sands EIAs, ROSS excluding samples from the food study (Golder 2003) and Kearl project-specific samples. The label for the first set of bars in Figure 3a-4 is 0.25 µg/g, which is the median of the minimum and maximum values for this set of bars. The data were presented as the ROSS and the ROSS excluding samples from the food study, because some of the samples from the food study were collected in a different geological area than most of the other regional samples. Many of the food study samples were collected in Canadian shield areas. Higher concentrations of some metals in the data from the food study were noted and are likely attributable to the geology of the area. The ROSS include data collected from other project sites, including Project Millennium (Suncor 1998), Muskeg River Mine and expansion (Shell 1997, 2005), Horizon Project (CNRL 2002), Meadow Creek Project (Petro-Canada 2001), and Jackpine Mine Project (Golder and CanTox 2002) and reference locations in Fort McMurray, which were sampled during the sampling period of most of the aforementioned projects.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.01

5

0.04

5

0.07

5

0.10

5

0.13

5

0.16

5

0.19

5

0.22

5

Concentration (µg/g)

Num

ber

of s

ampl

es

Regional oil sands samples (ROSS) ROSS excluding the food study samplesKearl project-specific samples Fitted lognormal distribution

Figure 3a-1: Statistical Distributions for Antimony in Blueberry Samples



Page 6 August 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.07

0

0.08

0

0.09

0

0.10

0

0.11

0

0.12

0

0.13

0

0.14

0

0.15

0

0.16

0

0.17

0

0.18

0

0.19

0

0.20

0

0.21

0

0.22

0

0.23

0

0.24

0

0.25

0

0.26

0


Num

ber

of s

ampl

es

Regional oil sands samples (ROSS) ROSS excluding the food study samplesKearl project-specific samples

107 non-detectable values are recorded for the regional oil sands samples (51 @ <0.2µg/g and 56 @ <0.5µg/g)

5 non-detectable values are recorded for the Kearl-specific samples (all @ <0.2µg/g)

No distribution is fitted to the regional oil sands data due to the large number of non-detectable values and several detection limits for the data.

Figure 3a-2: Statistical Distributions for Arsenic in Blueberry Samples

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.01

0

0.02

0

0.03

0

0.04

0

0.05

0

0.06

0

0.07

0

0.08

0

0.09

0

0.10

0


Num

ber o

f sam

ples





Figure 3a-3: Statistical Distributions for Cadmium in Blueberry Samples



August 2006 Page 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.25

0

0.75

0

1.25

0

1.75

0

2.25

0

2.75

0

3.25

0

3.75

0

4.25

0

4.75

0

5.25

0

5.75

0

6.25

0

6.75

0

7.25

0

7.75

0

8.25

0

8.75

0

9.25

0

9.75

0


Num

ber o

f sam

ples

Regional oil sands samples (ROSS) ROSS excluding the food study samplesKearl project-specific samples Fitted delta lognormal distribution

44 non-detectable values are recorded for the regional oil sands samples (40 @ <0.2µg/g, 1 @ <0.3µg/g and 3 @ <0.5µg/g)


Figure 3a-4: Statistical Distributions for Chromium in Blueberry Samples

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0.06

3

0.18

8

0.31

3

0.43

8

0.56

3

0.68

8

0.81

3

0.93

8

1.06

3

1.18

8

1.31

3

1.43

8

1.56

3

1.68

8

1.81

3

1.93

8

2.06

3


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


48 non-detectable values are recorded for the regional oil sands samples (33 @ <0.04µg/g, 2 @ <0.1µg/g and 13 @ <0.4µg/g)


Figure 3a-5: Statistical Distributions for Lead in Blueberry Samples



Page 8 August 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.08

8

0.26

3

0.43

8

0.61

3

0.78

8

0.96

3

1.13

8

1.31

3

1.48

8

1.66

3

1.83

8

2.01

3

2.18

8

2.36

3

2.53

8

2.71

3

2.88

8

3.06

3

3.23

8

3.41

3


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


11 non-detectable values are recorded for the regional oil sands samples (all @ <0.04µg/g)

Figure 3a-6: Statistical Distributions for Molybdenum in Blueberry Samples

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0.50

0

1.50

0

2.50

0

3.50

0

4.50

0

5.50

0

6.50

0

7.50

0

8.50

0

9.50

0

10.5

00

11.5

00

12.5

00

13.5

00

14.5

00

15.5

00

16.5

00

17.5

00


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-7: Statistical Distributions for Nickel in Blueberry Samples



August 2006 Page 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.07

5

0.22

5

0.37

5

0.52

5

0.67

5

0.82

5

0.97

5

1.12

5

1.27

5

1.42

5

1.57

5

1.72

5

1.87

5

2.02

5


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


49 non-detectable values are recorded for the regional oil sands samples (all @ <0.08µg/g)


Figure 3a-8: Statistical Distributions for Vanadium in Blueberry Samples

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.03

8

0.11

3

0.18

8

0.26

3

0.33

8

0.41

3

0.48

8

0.56

3

0.63

8

0.71

3

0.78

8

0.86

3

0.93

8

1.01

3

1.08

8

1.16

3

1.23

8

1.31

3

1.38

8

1.46

3


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


48 non-detectable values are recorded for theregional oil sands samples (35 @ <0.04µg/g and 13 @ <0.1µg/g)


Figure 3a-9: Statistical Distributions for Antimony in Cattail Samples



Page 10 August 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.37

5

1.12

5

1.87

5

2.62

5

3.37

5

4.12

5

4.87

5

5.62

5

6.37

5

7.12

5

7.87

5

8.62

5

9.37

5

10.1

25

10.8

75

11.6

25

12.3

75

13.1

25

13.8

75

14.6

25


Num

ber o

f sam

ples




Figure 3a-10: Statistical Distributions for Arsenic in Cattail Samples

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.02

5

0.07

5

0.12

5

0.17

5

0.22

5

0.27

5

0.32

5

0.37

5

0.42

5

0.47

5

0.52

5

0.57

5

0.62

5

0.67

5

0.72

5

0.77

5

0.82

5

0.87

5

0.92

5

0.97

5


Num

ber o

f sam

ples




Figure 3a-11: Statistical Distributions for Cadmium in Cattail Samples



August 2006 Page 11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1.00

0

3.00

0

5.00

0

7.00

0

9.00

0

11.0

00

13.0

00

15.0

00

17.0

00

19.0

00

21.0

00

23.0

00

25.0

00

27.0

00

29.0

00

31.0

00

33.0

00

35.0

00

37.0

00

39.0

00


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-12: Statistical Distributions for Chromium in Cattail Samples

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.17

5

0.52

5

0.87

5

1.22

5

1.57

5

1.92

5

2.27

5

2.62

5

2.97

5

3.32

5

3.67

5

4.02

5

4.37

5

4.72

5

5.07

5

5.42

5

5.77

5

6.12

5

6.47

5

6.82

5


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-13: Statistical Distributions for Lead in Cattail Samples



Page 12 August 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1.00

0

3.00

0

5.00

0

7.00

0

9.00

0

11.0

00

13.0

00

15.0

00

17.0

00

19.0

00

21.0

00

23.0

00


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-14: Statistical Distributions for Molybdenum in Cattail Samples

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0.62

5

1.87

5

3.12

5

4.37

5

5.62

5

6.87

5

8.12

5

9.37

5

10.6

25

11.8

75

13.1

25

14.3

75

15.6

25

16.8

75

18.1

25

19.3

75

20.6

25

21.8

75

23.1

25

24.3

75


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-15: Statistical Distributions for Nickel in Cattail Samples



August 2006 Page 13

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.30

0

0.90

0

1.50

0

2.10

0

2.70

0

3.30

0

3.90

0

4.50

0

5.10

0

5.70

0

6.30

0

6.90

0

7.50

0

8.10

0

8.70

0

9.30

0

9.90

0

10.5

00

11.1

00

11.7

00


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-16: Statistical Distributions for Vanadium in Cattail Samples

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.01

8

0.05

3

0.08

8

0.12

3

0.15

8

0.19

3

0.22

8

0.26

3

0.29

8

0.33

3

0.36

8

0.40

3

0.43

8

0.47

3

0.50

8

0.54

3

0.57

8

0.61

3

0.64

8

0.68

3


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-17: Statistical Distributions for Antimony in Labrador Tea Samples



Page 14 August 2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0.05

0

0.15

0

0.25

0

0.35

0

0.45

0

0.55

0

0.65

0

0.75

0

0.85

0

0.95

0

1.05

0

1.15

0

1.25

0

1.35

0

1.45

0

1.55

0

1.65

0

1.75

0

1.85

0

1.95

0


Num

ber o

f sam

ples




Figure 3a-18: Statistical Distributions for Arsenic in Labrador Tea Samples

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.01

8

0.05

3

0.08

8

0.12

3

0.15

8

0.19

3

0.22

8


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-19: Statistical Distributions for Cadmium in Labrador Tea Samples



August 2006 Page 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.37

5

1.12

5

1.87

5

2.62

5

3.37

5

4.12

5

4.87

5

5.62

5

6.37

5

7.12

5

7.87

5

8.62

5

9.37

5

10.1

25

10.8

75

11.6

25

12.3

75

13.1

25

13.8

75

14.6

25


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-20: Statistical Distributions for Chromium in Labrador Tea Samples

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0.25

0

0.75

0

1.25

0

1.75

0

2.25

0

2.75

0

3.25

0

3.75

0

4.25

0

4.75

0

5.25

0

5.75

0

6.25

0

6.75

0

7.25

0

7.75

0

8.25

0


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-21: Statistical Distributions for Lead in Labrador Tea Samples



Page 16 August 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.06

3

0.18

8

0.31

3

0.43

8

0.56

3

0.68

8

0.81

3

0.93

8

1.06

3

1.18

8

1.31

3

1.43

8

1.56

3

1.68

8

1.81

3

1.93

8

2.06

3

2.18

8

2.31

3

2.43

8


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-22: Statistical Distributions for Molybdenum in Labrador Tea Samples

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

3.12

5

9.37

5

15.6

25

21.8

75

28.1

25

34.3

75

40.6

25

46.8

75

53.1

25

59.3

75

65.6

25

71.8

75

78.1

25

84.3

75

90.6

25

96.8

75

103.

125

109.

375

115.

625

121.

875


Num

ber

of s

ampl

es


Figure 3a-23: Statistical Distributions for Nickel in Labrador Tea Samples



August 2006 Page 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.17

5

0.52

5

0.87

5

1.22

5

1.57

5

1.92

5

2.27

5

2.62

5

2.97

5

3.32

5

3.67

5

4.02

5

4.37

5

4.72

5

5.07

5

5.42

5

5.77

5

6.12

5

6.47

5

6.82

5


Num

ber o

f sam

ples

Regional oil sands samples (ROSS) ROSS excluding the food study samplesKearl project-specific samples Fitted normal distribution

Figure 3a-24: Statistical Distributions for Vanadium in Labrador Tea Samples

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.10

0

0.30

0

0.50

0

0.70

0

0.90

0

1.10

0

1.30

0

1.50

0

1.70

0

1.90

0

2.10

0

2.30

0

2.50

0

2.70

0


Num

ber o

f sam

ples

Regional oil sands samples (ROSS) Kearl project-specific samples

42 non-detectable values are recorded for the regional oil sands samples (1 @ <0.04µg/g, 22 @ <0.1µg/g and 19 @ <5µg/g)

6 non-detectable values are recorded for the Kearl-specific samples (all @ <5µg/g)


Figure 3a-25: Statistical Distributions for Antimony in Soil Samples



Page 18 August 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.37

5

1.12

5

1.87

5

2.62

5

3.37

5

4.12

5

4.87

5

5.62

5


Num

ber o

f sam

ples

Regional oil sands samples (ROSS) Kearl project-specific samplesFitted delta lognormal distribution


Figure 3a-26: Statistical Distributions for Arsenic in Soil Samples

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.01

0

0.03

0

0.05

0

0.07

0

0.09

0

0.11

0

0.13

0

0.15

0

0.17

0

0.19

0

0.21

0

0.23

0

0.25

1

0.27

1

0.29

1

0.31

1

0.33

1

0.35

1

0.37

1

0.39

1


Num

ber o

f sam

ples

Regional oil sands samples (ROSS) Kearl project-specific samples




Figure 3a-27: Statistical Distributions for Cadmium in Soil Samples



August 2006 Page 19

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0.37

5

1.12

5

1.87

5

2.62

5

3.37

5

4.12

5

4.87

5

5.62

5

6.37

5

7.12

5

7.87

5

8.62

5

9.37

5

10.1

25

10.8

75

11.6

25

12.3

75

13.1

25

13.8

75

14.6

25


Num

ber o

f sam

ples

Regional oil sands samples (ROSS) Kearl project-specific samplesFitted lognormal distribution

Figure 3a-28: Statistical Distributions for Chromium in Soil Samples

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.62

5

1.87

5

3.12

5

4.37

5

5.62

5

6.87

5

8.12

5

9.37

5

10.6

25

11.8

75

13.1

25

14.3

75

15.6

25

16.8

75

18.1

25

19.3

75

20.6

25


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-29: Statistical Distributions for Lead in Soil Samples



Page 20 August 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.06

0

0.18

0

0.30

0

0.42

0

0.54

0

0.66

0

0.78

0

0.90

0

1.02

0

1.14

0

1.26

0

1.38

0

1.50

0


Num

ber o

f sam

ples

Regional oil sands samples (ROSS) Kearl project-specific samplesFitted delta lognormal distribution

13 non-detectable values are recorded for the regional oil sands samples (10 @ <0.1µg/g and 5 @ <1µg/g)

Figure 3a-30: Statistical Distributions for Molybdenum in Soil Samples

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2.00

0

6.00

0

10.0

00

14.0

00

18.0

00

22.0

00

26.0

00

30.0

00

34.0

00

38.0

00

42.0

00

46.0

00

50.0

00

54.0

00

58.0

00

62.0

00

66.0

00

70.0

00

74.0

00

78.0

00


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-31: Statistical Distributions for Nickel in Soil Samples



August 2006 Page 21

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1.00

0

3.00

0

5.00

0

7.00

0

9.00

0

11.0

00

13.0

00

15.0

00

17.0

00

19.0

00

21.0

00

23.0

00

25.0

00

27.0

00

29.0

00

31.0

00

33.0

00

35.0

00

37.0

00

39.0

00


Num

ber o

f sam

ples


Figure 3a-32: Statistical Distributions for Vanadium in Soil Samples

b) Figures 3a-1 to 3a-8, 3a-9 to 3a-16, 3a-17 to 3a-24 and 3a-25 to 3a-32 show that the

Kearl project-specific chemical concentration data for blueberry, cattail, Labrador tea and soil fall within the data range for the corresponding statistical distributions representing data in the oil sands region.

Tables 3b-1 to 3b-4 show the minimum, mean and maximum concentrations using the Kearl project-specific data, the ROSS data and the ROSS excluding the food study. In general, the range of data was greater in the ROSS data than the concentrations measured in the Kearl project-specific samples. This might be an indication of regional specific variances due to geological conditions. Comparisons for each of the media types are presented below.



Page 22 August 2006

Table 3b-1: Statistical Characteristics of the Regional Oil Sands Data and Kearl Project-Specific Data for Blueberry Samples

Kearl Project–Specific Blueberry Concentration

(mg/kg) ROSS Values(a)ROSS Values Excluding Food

Study Samples Parameter Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean(b) Maximum Minimum Mean(b) Maximum Antimony <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.038 0.16 <0.04 0.033 0.16

Arsenic <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

less than analytical detection

limits <0.5 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Cadmium <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.02 0.025 0.09 <0.08 0.041 0.09 Chromium <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.03 0.76 8.9 <0.2 0.14 0.6

Lead <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.11 2 <0.04 0.054 0.41 Molybdenum 0.02 0.07 0.12 <0.04 0.22 3.44 <0.04 0.11 0.335

Nickel 0.08 0.13 0.2 <0.08 1.14 17 <0.08 0.37 2.26 Vanadium <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 0.25 1.8 <0.08 0.047 0.3

NOTES: (a) ROSS stands for regional oil sands samples. (b) In the cases of datasets composed of detectable and non-detectable values, the mean is calculated by considering the non-

detectable values as equal to 0.5 times their detection limit.

Table 3b-2: Statistical Characteristics of the Regional Oil Sands Data and Kearl Project-Specific Data for Cattail Samples

Kearl Project–Specific Cattail

Concentration (mg/kg) ROSS Values(a)ROSS Values Excluding Food Study

Samples Parameter Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean(b) Maximum Minimum Mean(b) Maximum

Antimony <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.066 1.4 <0.04 0.025 0.13 Arsenic <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 1.58 13.1 <0.2 1.31 7.6 Cadmium <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.02 0.066 0.94 <0.08 0.045 0.17 Chromium <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 5.9 39.2 <0.2 2.86 34.8 Lead <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.02 0.95 6 0.02 0.77 3.81 Molybdenum 0.15 0.53 0.66 0.18 1.18 20.1 0.20 0.92 3.07 Nickel 0.04 0.14 0.48 0.19 5.48 23.8 0.19 4.07 23.8 Vanadium 0.04 0.05 0.1 <0.08 1.97 11.1 <0.08 1.70 7.16 NOTES: (a) ROSS stands for regional oil sands samples (b) In the cases of datasets composed of detectable and non-detectable values, the mean is calculated by considering the non-





Table 3b-3: Statistical Characteristics of the Regional Oil Sands Data and Kearl Project-Specific Data for Labrador Tea Samples

Kearl Project–Specific Labrador

Tea Concentration (mg/kg) ROSS Values(a)ROSS Values Excluding Food

Study Samples Parameter Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean(b) Maximum Minimum Mean(b) Maximum

Antimony <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.13 0.68 <0.04 0.089 0.68 Arsenic 0.1 0.12 0.2 <0.2 0.21 1.6 <0.2 0.14 1.6 Cadmium <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.02 0.032 0.66 <0.08 0.053 0.66 Chromium 0.3 0.8 2.8 <0.03 1.83 13.3 <0.2 1.13 6.8 Lead 0.02 0.08 0.33 <0.04 0.36 7.99 <0.04 0.63 7.99 Molybdenum 0.23 0.49 0.84 0.02 0.21 2.36 0.04 0.13 1.38 Nickel 0.45 1.20 3.02 0.15 3.8 122 0.15 4.99 122 Vanadium 0.065 0.31 1.23 <0.08 0.52 6.37 <0.08 0.46 6.37 NOTES: (a) ROSS stands for regional oil sands samples. (b) In the cases of datasets composed of detectable and non-detectable values, the mean is calculated by considering the non-


Table 3b-4: Statistical Characteristics of the Regional Oil Sands Data and Kearl Project-Specific Data for Soil Samples

Kearl Project–Specific Soil

Concentration (mg/kg) ROSS Values(a)

Parameter Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean(b) Maximum Antimony <5 <5 <5 <0.04 1.27 2.5 Arsenic 0.2 0.9 2.3 <0.1 0.78 3.9 Cadmium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.083 0.4 Chromium 0.2 3.5 12.1 0.35 3.8 14.6 Lead 0.25 2.1 5.8 0.25 3.09 20 Molybdenum 0.05 0.16 0.4 <0.1 0.25 1.37 Nickel 0.25 1.8 6.7 <0.5 3.79 76.99 Vanadium 0.5 6.9 18.3 1.5 8.78 26.3 NOTES: (a) ROSS stands for regional oil sands samples. (b) In the cases of datasets composed of detectable and non-detectable values, the mean is calculated

by considering the non-detectable values as equal to 0.5 times their detection limit.


Page 24 August 2006 HEALTH TEAM CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS ON ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Table 3b-5: Antimony Exposure Ratios

Average Fish Consumer (Consumes Fish 85 Days/Year) High Fish Consumer (Consumes Fish 365 Days/Year) 3 Months of Vegetation

Consumption 100% Year-Round Vegetation

Consumption 3 Months of Vegetation


Consumption

Data Source EAC Project Case PDC EAC

Project Case PDC EAC


Project Case PDC

Toddler - Maximum H/T location Kearl project-specific data 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 Regional mean 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 Regional mean (without food study) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 Adult - Maximum H/T location Kearl project-specific data 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 Regional mean 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Regional mean (without food study) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 NOTES: H/T = Hunter/Trapper ; EAC = Existing and Approved Case ; PDC = Potential Development Case.

Table 3b-6: Cadmium Exposure Ratios





Consumption




Project Case PDC




Table 3b-7: Chromium Exposure Ratios





Consumption




Project Case PDC


Table 3b-8: Lead Exposure Ratios





Consumption




Project Case PDC



Page 26 August 2006 HEALTH TEAM CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS ON ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Table 3b-9: Molybdenum Exposure Ratios





Consumption




Project Case PDC


Table 3b-10: Nickel Exposure Ratios





Consumption




Project Case PDC



August 2006 Page 27





Consumption




Project Case PDC






Consumption




Project Case PDC

Kearl project-specific data 13 13 13 28 28 28 21 21 21 36 36 36

Regional mean 61 61 61 212 212 212 69 69 69 220 221 221

Regional mean (without food study) 49 49 49 171 171 171 57 58 58 179 179 179

Sensitivity Analysis – ILCR without cattail ingestion pathway included in ILCR

Regional Mean without Cattail 12 12 12 17 17 17 20 20 20 25 25 25 Regional Mean (without food study) without Cattail 10 10 10 13 13 13 17 18 18 21 21 21 NOTES: EAC = Existing and Approved Case ; PDC = Potential Development Case; ILCR = Incremental Lifetime Cancer.

Table 3b-12: Arsenic Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk


Table 3b-11: Vanadium Exposure Ratios


Page 28 August 2006

The statistical distributions for the blueberry samples are presented in Figures 3a-1 to 3a-8 and Table 3b-1. Out of the 70 samples collected throughout the region and the project area, 53 samples were less than the analytical detection limit for antimony (i.e., 76% of all the samples collected were less than analytical detection limits). The detection limits were 0.04 µg/g and 0.1 µg/g. Since some samples were at the analytical detection limit of 0.04 , Figure 3a-1 should not be misconstrued since many of the samples identified in the 0.045 µg/g block are less than the detection limit (i.e., half of 0.1 µg/g or 0.05 µg/g). Likewise, Table 3b-1 should not be misconstrued because the mean concentration based on the ROSS data is slightly below the analytical detection limit obtained from the Kearl project-specific data. The situation is similar with arsenic and cadmium concentrations in blueberries. All samples (112) were less than the analytical detection limits for arsenic and all but one sample in 112 were less than analytical detection limits for cadmium. Concentrations of lead, molybdenum and vanadium were higher in the ROSS and the concentrations measured in blueberry samples from the food study were particularly higher. However, the concentrations measured in samples from the Kearl project area are still within the range measured elsewhere and the Kearl sample concentrations fit within the majority of the samples collected in the region (Figures 3a-5 to 3a-8).

The statistical distributions for cattail samples are presented in Figures 3a-9 to 3a-16 and Table 3b-2. There was substantial variation in concentrations of most parameters in cattail throughout the region. There are several factors that might account for the high variance: 1) difference in the age of the rhizomes (older rhizomes have more storage tissue and tend to have many surficial fissures that can trap sediment; 2) differences in washing efficiency to remove surficial sediment (rhizomes were rinsed in the field); and 3) variability in sediment quality with respect to background arsenic concentrations. Regardless, concentrations of all parameters were higher in the ROSS than measured in the Kearl project-specific samples. However, the concentrations measured in samples from the Kearl project area are still within the range measured in the region and the Kearl sample concentrations fit within the majority of the samples collected in the region (Figures 3a-9 to 3a-16).

The statistical distributions for Labrador tea samples are presented in Figures 3a-17 to 3a-24 and Table 3b-3. As indicated for the blueberry samples, the food study typically had higher analytical detection limits than the regional data and also concentrations were typically higher because of the difference in geology in the Fort Chipewyan area. Mean concentrations of molybdenum were higher in the Kearl project-specific data than the ROSS data. All other means were lower in the Kearl project-specific data than the ROSS data. However, the concentrations measured in samples from the Kearl project area are still within the range measured elsewhere and the Kearl sample concentrations fit within the majority of the samples collected in the region (Figures 3a-17 to 3a-24).

Concentrations of the parameters of concern in soil from the Kearl project area are within the range measured in the region. Mean values used in the EIA (i.e., Kearl project-specific) for antimony and arsenic are higher than the means based on the



August 2006 Page 29

ROSS. However, all other means were lower in the Kearl project-specific data than the ROSS data. The concentrations measured in samples from the Kearl project area are still within the range measured elsewhere.

All of the Kearl project-specific samples of soil, Labrador tea, blueberry, cattail and soil are within the range measured in the ROSS. The concentrations measured in samples from the Kearl project area are still within the range measured elsewhere and the Kearl sample concentrations fit within the majority of the samples collected in the region.

Since many of the means from the Kearl project-specific data were less than the means from the ROSS data, at the request of Alberta Health and Wellness, the Exposure Ratio (ER)and Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) values for the chemicals of potential concern were reassessed using the regional means. The reassessment was completed using the exact inputs as presented in response to SIR 6 of this document. The only difference was the use of regional means for the cattail, blueberry, Labrador tea and soil concentrations. The regional means were calculated by including the Kearl dataset with the remainder of the regional data. ER values based on the Kearl project-specific data only, using the regional mean and the regional mean excluding the food study data are presented in Tables 3b-5 to 3b-12. Minor differences in ER values were noted for all parameters, except arsenic; however, the characterization of the risks does not change as a result of the use of regional mean data (note: characterization of risks is presented in the response to SIR 6 below).

Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks for arsenic change substantially based on the regional means. This increase is driven primarily by cattail arsenic concentrations (see sensitivity analysis presented in Table 3b-12). Cattail arsenic concentrations were less than the analytical detection limits in the Kearl project-specific samples. The ROSS ranged in concentration from less than analytical detection limit (detection limit of 0.2 mg/kg) to 7.6 mg/kg. Possible reasons for the variability in cattail concentrations are noted above. In the risk assessment, it was also conservatively assumed that people eat cattail at rates equivalent to root vegetables (i.e., rates ranging from 104g/d to 230 g/d depending on life stage [Health Canada 2004]). This was a conservative assumption because it is unlikely that cattail rhizome concentrations represent root vegetable concentrations (e.g., carrots and potatoes). This is because cattails are perennials whereas root vegetables are annuals, and because cattails are grown in sediment. Therefore, it would be expected that cattail rhizomes would have higher concentrations than root vegetables. On their own, it is unlikely that cattails are consumed daily for a year or even for three months, especially at the rate of root vegetables. In the Traditional Land Use Setting Report for the Suncor Voyaguer Project (Golder 2005), cattail use by aboriginals was ranked as low. Cattail rhizomes were not among the most commonly used plants as reported in the Fort McKay traditional resource use study (Fort McKay 1997). They likely are only consumed infrequently while camping in the area. Therefore, the contribution of cattail to the ILCR likely substantially over estimates the risk.



Page 30 August 2006

c) The sample locations within the Kearl project area are within the traditional plant harvesting area of Fort McKay First Nation (McKillop 2002) and Athabasca Chipewyan and Mikisew Cree First Nations. Plants from within this area are collected for food and medicinal purposes. Thus, the sample locations within the Kearl project area are representative of locations where local people collect food. The sample collection locations were based on the abundance of the plant species in the area. People who traditionally use areas for harvesting plants are typically unwilling to share their primary collection areas. When questioned, traditional users indicate that they collect berries and plants from areas where berries and plants are abundant. Therefore, the sample collection was focused on areas where berries, Labrador tea and cattails were abundant. In addition, samples were collected in areas that are relatively easy to access via road or all-terrain vehicle when possible.

References: CNRL (Canadian Natural Resources Limited) 2002. Horizon Oil Sands project application for

approval. Volume 7. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared by CNRL in Association with Golder Associates Ltd. June 2002. Calgary, AB.

Fort McKay (Fort McKay Environment Services Ltd.). 1997. A Survey of the Consumptive Use of Traditional Resources in the Community of Fort McKay. Prepared for Syncrude Canada Ltd. Fort McKay, AB. 16 pp. + Appendices.

Golder (Golder Associates Limited) and Cantox. 2002. Surface Water Quality and Human, Aquatic Biota and Wildlife Health for Jackpine Mine - Phase 1. Prepared for Shell Canada Limited. 215 pp.

Golder 2003. Trace Metals in Traditional Foods within the Athabasca Oil Sands Area. Prepared for Fort McKay Environment Services and the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association, Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring Subcommittee.

Golder 2005. Traditional Land Use Setting Report for the Suncor Voyageur Project. Submitted to Suncor Energy Inc. March 2005.

Health Canada. 2004. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA). Health Canada. Ottawa, ON.

McKillop, J. 2002. Toward Culturally Appropriate Consultation: An Approach for Fort McKay First Nation. Master’s Degree Project. Faculty of Environmental Design. University of Calgary. Calgary, AB.

Petro–Canada (Petro-Canada Oil and Gas). 2001. Application for the Approval of the Meadow Creek Project. Volume 3. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. November 2001.



August 2006 Page 31

Shell (Shell Canada Limited). 1997. Application for the Approval of Muskeg River Mine Project. Environmental Impact Assessment. Volumes 3. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. December 1997. Calgary, AB.

Shell. 2005. Muskeg River Mine Expansion Project. Volume 2. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd and Nichols Applied Management. March 2005. Fort McMurray, AB.

Suncor (Suncor Energy Inc.). 1998. Project Millennium Application. Volume 2D. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared by Suncor Energy Inc. Oil Sands in Association with Golder Associates Ltd., Klohn-Crippen Consultants Ltd. and Nichols Applied Management. April 1998. Fort McMurray, AB.

Suncor (Suncor Energy Inc.). 2005. Voyageur Project Application. Volume 3. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared by Suncor Energy Inc. Oil Sands in Association with Golder Associates Ltd., and Nichols Applied Management. March 2005. Fort McMurray, AB.

4. Response 27a), Page 66. Imperial Oil states, “Specifically, based on diesel combustion…emissions during construction and therefore, concentrations during construction would be approximately 2 to 5 times less than during operations”. While this might be the case for contaminants that arise as a result of diesel combustion, it would not necessarily be true for contaminants such as PM2.5.

a) Provide an estimate of contaminant concentrations for those compounds that do not specifically arise due to diesel combustion (including but not limited to PM2.5).

Response

a) The sources of airborne emissions during construction are vehicle exhaust due to combustion and fugitive road dust, which is the only expected non-combustion compound. The only compound that does not specifically arise due to diesel combustion is particulate matter. Particulate matter emissions associated with fugitive road dust were not provided for either construction or operations due to the high uncertainty in quantifying fugitive road dust emissions and the localized influence of road dust from the Kearl project activities. This approach is consistent with those used for previous oil sands EIAs, including Canadian Natural Horizon, Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1, Fort Hills Oil Sands Project, Suncor Voyageur Project and Albian Sands Muskeg River Mine Expansion.

Mine fleet vehicles travelling over dry, unpaved roads do have the potential to generate fugitive dust emissions. However, available methodologies result in over-estimates of impacts of vehicles travelling on paved or unpaved surfaces. This conclusion has been supported through numerous studies on fugitive road dust



Page 32 August 2006

showing that actual impacts of fugitive road dust emissions on the regional scale ambient air quality are less than estimates based on emission rates (Etyemezian et al. 2003; Countess et al. 2001; Countess 2003; Fitz et al. 2002; Watson and Chow 2000). In a recent U.S. EPA document, Pace (2005) states the following:

“For a number of years air quality analysts have recognized that the ambient impact of fugitive dust sources is substantially lower than emissions inventories would suggest. Analysis of the chemical species collected by ambient air samplers suggests that the modeling process may overestimate PM2.5 from fugitive dust sources by as much as an order of magnitude.”

These studies agreed that not all of the suspendible particles (particulates with potential to become airborne) caused by vehicle movements become transportable particles. Transportable particles are considered to be “those that remain airborne and available for transport away from the vicinity of the source after localized removal has occurred” (Pace 2005). It is these transportable particles that have the potential to affect air quality beyond the mine site. Countess et al. (2001) concluded that due to the wide range of parameters required to estimate the transportable fraction of particulate emissions, specific and quantitative estimates cannot be made for the fraction of fugitive particulate emissions that remains airborne for transport beyond the first 100 m from an emission source. This high uncertainty with respect to fugitive dust emissions was the primary reason for excluding vehicle-generated fugitive dust from the estimates of construction and operation emissions.

This decision was also supported by recommendations in air quality modelling guidelines published by Texas (TNRCC 1999) and Oklahoma (ODEQ 2003). Both of these jurisdictions recommend that road emissions should not be included in permit modelling analysis for short-term averaging periods. For the annual averaging period, the guidelines further recommend that road dust emissions should not be included in the permit modelling analysis if they cannot be accurately quantified or if the applicant can demonstrate the use of best management practices to control road dust.

Since the EIA submission, the U.S. EPA has proposed a preliminary methodology to better quantify the transportable fraction of fugitive dust emissions (Pace 2005). For projects in forested areas, the U.S. EPA is proposing that 80 to 100% of the transportable fraction of road dust emissions would be captured by vegetation and that 0 to 20% of the transportable fraction would be available to travel downwind from the emission source. The U.S. EPA is recommending that regional modelling assessments assume 100% of the transportable particulate is captured by forest until the methodology is finalized. Since the Kearl project will be surrounded by boreal forest, the opportunities for particulate capture by vegetation are very high and it is unlikely that large quantities of vehicle-generated fugitive dust would travel very far through the boreal forest. This new information supports the belief that fugitive dust from construction activities should have little impact beyond the Kearl project site, including air quality in the regional communities considered in the assessment.



August 2006 Page 33

Imperial Oil also has management plans in place to aid in reducing fugitive dust emissions from mine activities. Volume 2, Section 4, Subject 2, Page 4-4 indicates that Imperial Oil will apply water to mine haul routes during dry periods to manage dust.

In conclusion, the high uncertainty related to vehicle-generated fugitive dust emissions is well documented and was the primary reason for excluding vehicle-generated fugitive dust emissions from both the construction emissions and air quality assessment. This approach is consistent with guidance from regulatory jurisdictions in North America. Irrespective of this uncertainty, the impact of vehicle-generated fugitive dust from the Kearl project site on the regional communities considered in the assessment is expected to be minor. If elevated dust conditions occur during construction, Imperial Oil has management plans in place to aid in reducing these emissions.

References Countess, R., W. Barnard, C. Claiborn, D. Gillette, D. Latimer, T. Pace and J. Watson. 2001.

Methodology for Estimating Fugitive Windblown and Mechanically Re-suspended Road Dust Emissions Applicable for Regional Air Quality Modeling. EPA Emissions Inventory Conference, Denver, CO.

Countess, R. 2003. Reconciling Fugitive Dust Emission Inventories with Ambient Measurements. Presented at the U.S. EPA EI Conference, April 2003. San Diego, CA.

Etyemezian, V., J. Gillies, H. Kuhns, D. Nikolic, J. Watson, J. Veranth, R. Laban, G. Seshadri and D. Gillette. 2003. Field Testing and Evaluation of Dust Deposition and Removal Mechanisms: Final Report. Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV. June 2003.

Fitz, D., Pankratz, R. Philbrick and G. Li. 2002. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Deposition Rates Using Lidar. U.S. EPA 11th Annual Emission Inventory Conference.

ODEQ (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality). 2003. Air Dispersion Modelling Guidelines for Oklahoma Air Quality Permits. Prepared by the Engineering Section of the Permitting Unit. July 2003.

Pace, Thompson G. 2005. Methodology to Estimate the Transportable Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

TNRCC (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission). 1999. Air Quality Modelling Guidelines. Austin, Texas: TNRCC.



Page 34 August 2006

Watson, J.G. and J. Chow. 2000. Reconciling Urban Fugitive Dust Emissions Inventory and Ambient Source Contribution Estimates: Summary of Current Knowledge and Needed Research.

5. Response 30, Page 71. Imperial Oil was asked to provide the ERs for a number of metals that screened on to the HHRA. Further to this, Imperial Oil states, “Exposure ratio values are greater than 1.0 based on the one half the analytical detection limits assumption”. However, in the same question there is a reference to “measured baseline moose meat concentrations”.

a) Clarify which methodology was used to generate the inputs used in the human health risk assessment.

Response

a) The quotations above refer to antimony. The moose meat concentrations of antimony for each of the assessment cases were estimated using the baseline concentration, which was equivalent to one half of the analytical detection limit, and adding the incremental contribution for each of the assessment cases (i.e., the estimated moose meat concentration based on incremental increases in plant, soil, and water concentrations). The reference to “measured baseline moose meat concentrations” was intended to be in reference to the measured analytical detection limits. An example calculation is provided below.

Moose MeatPROJECT (mg/kg) = baseline concentration (mg/kg) + incremental increase due to project (mg/kg)

The baseline concentration was <0.2 mg/kg wet weight (ww); therefore, the half detection limit of 0.1 mg/kg (ww) was used in the calculation. The incremental increase in moose meat concentrations for the Project Case was 0.0001 mg/kg (ww). Therefore, the total Project Case concentration used in the risk calculations was 0.1001 mg/kg (ww).

6. Response 30, Pages 70-71.

a) Similar to Q. 20c, provide a table containing all model input parameters used to determine the ERs for the chemicals presented in Table 30-1.

b) Include the dust and water pathways in the calculation of Total ERs. Characterize the potential health impacts as a result of cumulative impacts not incremental change as the result of the project alone for elevated ER values. This should also be done for the remaining chemicals assessed via the multi-media model: arsenic, mercury, antimony, molybdenum, vanadium, nickel, and cadmium (chromium and lead were presented in Tables 20-1 to 20-8).



August 2006 Page 35

i) Identify baseline concentrations that were predicted, if any.

ii) Provide a table listing the “measured baseline moose meat concentrations” used in this assessment.

a) All model input parameters for all Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) have been provided as spreadsheet tables in Appendix 2. Chromium and lead were presented in Tables 20-1 to 20-8 of Additional SIR Response 20.

b) The dust pathway has been added to the multi-media assessment for all COPC. No changes in ER values result from the inclusion of the dust pathway. The water pathway was already included in the multi-media assessment. All model input parameters are provided in Appendix 2 and the summary of the results for the multimedia risk assessment are provided in Appendix 3.

Exposure ratios were predicted to be marginally greater than 1 for toddler exposure to antimony and cadmium for all three assessment cases (i.e., Existing and Approved, Project and Potential Development cases), equal to 1 for adult exposure to antimony for average fish consumers, and marginally greater than 1 for high fish consumers for all three assessment cases. Exposure ratios were also marginally greater than 1 for cadmium for high fish consumers for all assessment cases. Exposure ratios were greater than 1 for exposure to methylmercury for both average and high fish consumers for all assessment cases. Incremental lifetime cancer risks (ILCR) were greater than 1 in 100,000 for exposure to arsenic for both average and high fish consumers for all assessment cases.

For all assessment cases (i.e., Existing and Approved, Project and Potential Development cases), exposure ratios for chromium, lead, nickel and vanadium were less than 1 for all scenarios (i.e., average and high fish consumers, and 3 month and 12 month vegetation ingestion). Therefore, no health effects would be expected due to exposure to these substances.

Characterization for arsenic and mercury were completed in response to SIR 363 and Additional SIR 19, and those discussions remain valid; therefore, no further discussion is provided for the risk characterization. There is no contribution from cumulative sources (i.e., no increases between the Project and Potential Development cases for the ILCR and ER values).

As noted above, the ERs for antimony and cadmium were marginally greater than 1; therefore, further discussion on these two parameters is presented below.

Exposure ratios for antimony ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 depending on the assessment scenario for toddlers and from 1.0 to 1.2 for adults (Appendix 3, Table 3-1). There was no change in ERs between the Existing and Approved Case, Project or Potential Development cases. The change in ERs was only due to differences in fish and vegetation consumption frequency or rates. The primary exposure pathway for antimony was the moose meat ingestion pathway. However, the concentration used



Page 36 August 2006

in the assessment was based on a value equivalent to one half the analytical detection limit since antimony was not detected in moose meat samples. Since there is no measurable incremental increases in concentrations of vegetation, soil, or meat, and since the ERs are based on less than detection limit values, the assumption was made that no adverse health effects would be expected as a result of antimony. There is no contribution from cumulative sources (i.e., Project and Potential Development cases).

Exposure ratios for cadmium ranged from 1.3 to 2.6 depending on the assessment scenario for toddlers and from 0.8 to 1.4 for adults (Appendix 3, Table 3-1). The primary exposure pathway for cadmium was also the moose meat ingestion pathway for average fish consumers and both the moose and fish ingestion pathways are primary contributors to the ER for high fish consumers. As indicated in the EIA, there is a small incremental increase in cadmium moose concentrations in the Project and Potential Development cases. This contribution is three orders of magnitude less than the current analytical detection limit. There is also an incremental increase in soil and vegetation concentrations that are near the analytical detection limit value.

The fish tissue concentrations do not change between the assessment cases. The ER increases by 0.1 from the Existing and Approved Case and the Project Case. The change from the Project Case to the Potential Development Case is 0.1 for 3-month vegetation consumption and 0.2 for 12-month vegetation consumption, which is considered to be negligible. This conclusion is based on the level of conservatism used in the risk assessment. For example, the lowest available toxicity value was used in the risk assessment from the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The ATSDR relied on one study to derive the toxicity benchmark. The U.S. EPA derived two toxicity benchmarks; one for water and food, which were based on multiple epidemiological studies. The toxicity benchmark for the food pathway is an order of magnitude higher than the benchmark used in the risk assessment because the U.S. EPA took into consideration a difference in absorption via the food pathway, which was not considered in the EIA risk calculations. Therefore, because of the conservative assumptions used in the assessment (e.g., toxicity values, bioavailability, fish ingestion rates), ERs marginally greater than 1 are unlikely to result in adverse health effects and the incremental increase from the Project to the Potential Development Case is negligible.

i) The baseline concentrations that were predicted were arsenic for the moose pathway and mercury for the moose, soil and vegetation pathways as detectable levels of arsenic were not measured in any of the moose meat samples (Golder 2003), and mercury was not analyzed in soil and plants during the baseline metal analysis.

ii) A table listing the measured baseline moose meat concentrations used in this assessment is provided below. The exceptions are arsenic, for which the baseline concentrations were modelled (0.00235 mg/kg wet weight) and mercury, where a modelled baseline moose concentration of 0.0005 mg/kg wet weight was used.



August 2006 Page 37

Table 6b-1: Measured Baseline Moose Meat Concentrations

Parameter Mean Measured Concentrations in Moose

(Year 2000)(a) (mg/kg wet wt)

Antimony <0.2 Arsenic 0.00235(b)

Cadmium 0.027 Chromium 0.5 Lead 0.04 Mercury 0.0005(b)

Molybdenum 0.03 Nickel 0.06 Vanadium 0.1

Notes: < = chemical not detected; detection limit indicated; half detection limit was used in the EIA. (a) Data from Golder 2003. (b) This baseline concentration was modelled using uptake factors from vegetation, soil and water.

Reference: Golder 2003. Trace Metals in Traditional Foods within the Athabasca Oil Sands Area. Prepared for

Fort McKay Environment Services and the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association, Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring Subcommittee.

The following question is not required for a determination of EIA completeness; however, it is an important question for the Health team in light of the uncertainties surrounding carcinogenic arsenic due to recent arsenic assessments in the Ft. McMurray region.

7. Clarify why the results of the assessment of the carcinogenic risk of arsenic differ so substantially in this EIA from those presented in recent EIAs (c.f. Suncor Voyageur project)?

Response

The difference in results between the response for the Kearl project SIR 363 and response 2 in the clarification responses submitted June 2006 for the Suncor Voyageur Project is due to the approach used to estimate baseline arsenic concentrations. For the Kearl project, the baseline arsenic moose meat concentration was modelled using baseline vegetation, soil, and water concentrations. For the Suncor Voyageur Round 2 SIR response, the baseline moose meat concentration was based on a value of one half of the analytical detection limit, because baseline moose



Page 38 August 2006

meat concentrations were not detectable. As a result of the relatively high detection limit, the incremental lifetime cancer risks were substantially higher using the half detection limit value than using modelled concentrations.

Arsenic was not detected in any of the 20 moose meat samples that were analyzed for trace metals in traditional foods in the oil sands area (Golder 2003). The reported detection limit was 0.5 mg/kg wet weight. In the Suncor Voyageur Project response, a value of half the detection limit was used in exposure estimations, with the acknowledgment that there is substantial uncertainty associated with this number. The exposure estimation when one half of the detection limit concentration was used results in a lifetime cancer risk estimate of 263 in 100,000 (Suncor 2006). This value appears to be high, but it is very important to note that it is based on 20 moose meat samples in which arsenic was not detected. There is a direct relationship between the detection limit and the final risk estimate, for example if the detection limit is 0.024 mg/kg wet weight, as was reported for the Syncrude/Fort McKay Wood Bison study (Pauls et al. 1995), the lifetime cancer risk estimate would be 13 in 100,000. The accuracy with which bison can be used as a surrogate for moose meat is not known. In fact, for the Voyageur Project assessment, the traditional food study data (Golder 2003) was used primarily because it analyzed moose tissue directly and moose is consistently consumed as a staple among aboriginal residents in the oil sands region. Nevertheless, the risk estimates of 263 and 13 carry similar uncertainty because they are both based on samples in which arsenic was not detected.

In SIR 363 for the Kearl project and other recent applications (i.e., the Horizon Project), moose tissue was modelled using arsenic uptake parameters (bioaccumulation factors – BAFs) from water, soil and plants to the meat. For the Kearl project, arsenic was detected in water and soil, but was not detected in berries or Labrador tea leaves. Therefore, half detection limit values were used for berries and Labrador tea to estimate uptake into moose tissues. In the modelling approach, BAFs are applied from studies that have been done for cattle, since specific BAF data is not usually available for game species. The moose meat concentration is determined by multiplying the BAF with the media concentration and summing the incremental contribution from each media type for the overall estimated concentration. This is consistent with the approach used to estimate future concentrations in assessment cases with predicted data.

Both methods for estimating baseline arsenic concentrations have merit, but both also introduce uncertainty to the predictions. One is based on the achievable detection limit of the laboratory and the other is based on literature values for uptake from environmental media to tissues. The underlying issue that has resulted in the likely inflated exposure ratios for arsenic is that baseline arsenic concentrations have not been detected in moose meat. Therefore, when characterizing the results of the assessment, the uncertainties inherent with estimating baseline concentrations and also the conservatism of the toxicity value for arsenic (which was described in response to SIR 363) must be considered. The modelling approach used in the response to SIR 363 was chosen because it does not overly inflate the incremental



August 2006 Page 39

lifetime cancer risk by using a detection limit value that is relatively high and the approach was considered valid because it is based on the principles required to estimate concentrations when measured data are not available (e.g., prediction of future concentrations).

The predicted air deposition rates for the Project Case do not result in incremental increases in arsenic concentrations and the predicted Project Case water quality concentrations are within natural variability (i.e., concentrations increase during closure from the Existing and Approved Conditions, but are within natural variability measured within the region). The key message that should be conveyed in the characterization of risk is that there is no evidence of increasing arsenic concentrations in soil, sediment, water, plants, or wildlife in the oil sands region. From this, it is not believed that the risk of cancer due to eating wild game or country foods is any different than baseline conditions.

References Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.). 2003. Trace Metals in Traditional Foods within the Athabasca Oil

Sands Area. Submitted to Fort McKay Environmental Services and Wood Buffalo Environmental Association, Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring Science Subcommittee.

Pauls, R., J. Peden and S. Johnson. 1995. Syncrude/Fort McKay Wood Bison Project 1994 Research Report. Prepared for Syncrude Canada Limited. July 1995.

Suncor (Suncor Energy Inc.). 2006. Suncor Voyageur Project Alberta Health Clarification Responses (June 2006)", Exhibit No. 002-050, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Application No. 1391211 and No. 1391212, Suncor Energy Inc. North Steepbank Mine Extension and Voyageur Upgrader.


Appendix 1:Kearl Project-Specific and Regional Concentrations of Metals in

Blueberries, Labrador Tea, Cattail and Soil

Golder Associates

Kearl Oil SandsMine Development

1-2 August 2006

Table 1-1 Blueberry Concentrations of the Parameters of Concern Measured in Samples Collected from the Kearl Project Area and Regional Locations

Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumK5-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.09 0.08 <0.08K3-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.14 <0.08K4-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.12 <0.08K1-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.08 0.2 <0.08K9-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.12 0.10 <0.08PPM3 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.04 0.22 <0.08PPM4 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.18 0.16 <0.08PPM7 0.05 <0.2 <0.08 <0.3 <0.04 0.045 0.135 <0.08PPM10 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.08 0.26 <0.08PPM13 0.05 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.07 0.13 <0.08CPM2 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.17 <0.08CPM4 0.06 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.11 0.53 <0.08CPM12 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.06 0.14 <0.08CPM14 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.11 <0.08CPM18 0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.24 <0.08CPM20 0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.09 <0.08CPM21 0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.05 0.13 <0.08CPM23 0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.22 <0.08Mariana #1 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.1 0.335 0.445 <0.08Mariana #2 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.1 0.25 <0.08 <0.08Shell #1 <0.04 <0.2 0.09 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 0.27 <0.08Shell #4 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 0.41 <0.08Shell #5 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 0.75 <0.08Shell #6 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 0.99 <0.08Shell #7 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 0.4 <0.08Suncor #3 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 0.3 0.11 0.66 <0.08Suncor #6 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.08 <0.08SPM 1 0.06 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.04 0.36 <0.08SPM 4 0.07 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 <0.04 0.15 <0.08SPM8 0.08 <0.2 <0.08 0.20 <0.04 <0.04 0.27 <0.08SPM 10 0.06 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 <0.04 0.26 <0.08SPM 12 0.08 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 <0.04 0.3 <0.08SPM 17 0.16 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 0.08 0.05 0.26 <0.08SPM 19 0.02 <0.2 <0.08 0.6 0.41 0.05 2.26 0.3SPM 22 0.08 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.05 0.21 <0.08S4-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.4 <0.04 0.12 1.17 <0.08S6-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.1 <0.04 0.12 0.25 <0.08S10-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.1 <0.04 0.09 0.22 <0.08S12-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.1 <0.04 0.16 0.08 <0.08S13-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.1 <0.04 0.10 0.17 <0.08U1-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.19 0.21 <0.08U2-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.21 0.3 <0.08U4-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.15 0.22 <0.08U10-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.21 0.23 <0.08U11-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.19 0.21 <0.08NS2-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.33 <0.08NS4-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.04 0.24 <0.08NS8-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.35 <0.08NS9-BM AVG <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.02 0.33 <0.08

Jackpine Mine Project (2002)

Muskeg River Mine Expansion (2004)

Voyageur Project (2004)

Petro Canada Meadow Creek Project (2001)

Horizon Project (2002)

Muskeg River Mine (1997)

Millennium Project (1998)

Project Sample NumberConcentration (mg/kg)

Kearl Project (2004)

Appendix 1: Kearl Project-Specific and Regional Concentrations of Metals in Blueberries, Labrador Tea, Cattail and Soil


1-3 August 2006

Table 1-1 Blueberry Concentrations of the Parameters of Concern Measured in Samples Collected from the Kearl Project Area and Regional Locations (Cont'd)

Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumLUELLA-1A 0.1 <0.5 <0.02 3.3 2 0.24 2.4 1.2LUELLA-2A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 0.8 0.27 0.25 2.4 0.6LUELLA-3A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 8.9 0.36 0.17 9.1 0.3LUELLA-5A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1.3 0.84 0.42 2.1 1.3LUELLA-6A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 7.2 0.2 0.3 3.8 1.8WS-4A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1.9 0.04 1.78 9 0.8YVON-1A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 2.5 0.15 0.3 1.9 0.5YVON-2A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 4 0.33 3.44 17 0.7YVON-3A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 2.6 0.09 0.24 2.1 1.4ANJ-18A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 4 0.29 0.37 4.3 0.9ANJ-31A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 4.7 0.07 0.83 5 0.7ANJ-43A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 0.9 0.38 0.14 1.7 0.5CHIP-10A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 <0.03 0.27 0.24 1.3 0.6CHIP-22A <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 0.3 0.27 0.29 1.3 0.6FM-1A <0.5 <0.02 0.07 1.15 0.4FM-1B <0.5 <0.02 0.06 1.44 0.3FM-1C <0.5 <0.02 0.06 0.95 0.3FM-2A <0.5 <0.02 0.13 1.11 0.7FM-2B <0.5 <0.02 0.12 1.37 0.4FM-2C <0.5 <0.02 0.13 1.66 0.6FM-3A <0.5 <0.02 0.08 1.5 0.3NE-1A <0.5 <0.02 0.05 1.08 0.4NE-1B <0.5 <0.02 0.04 0.88 0.4NE-1C <0.5 <0.02 0.07 0.69 0.3NE-2A <0.5 <0.02 0.06 1.12 0.4NE-2B <0.5 <0.02 0.06 1.32 0.4NE-2C <0.5 <0.02 0.18 1.57 0.3NE-3A <0.5 <0.02 0.12 2.88 0.4NE-3B <0.5 <0.02 0.26 3.09 0.3NE-3C <0.5 <0.02 0.12 2.03 0.6CHIP- 4 <0.5 <0.02 0.07 0.92 0.6CHIP- 5 <0.5 <0.02 0.05 0.77 0.4CHIP- 9 <0.5 <0.02 0.18 0.84 0.3CHIP- 10 <0.5 <0.02 0.04 0.51 0.3CHIP- 11 <0.5 <0.02 0.05 0.61 0.6CHIP- 23 <0.5 <0.02 0.04 0.77 0.2CHIP- 24 <0.5 <0.02 0.05 0.68 0.4CHIP- 25 <0.5 <0.02 0.11 0.86 0.4CHIP- 26 <0.5 <0.02 0.04 0.57 0.7CHIP- 27 <0.5 <0.02 0.03 0.92 0.4CHIP- 28 <0.5 <0.02 0.05 0.84 0.3CHIP- 29 <0.5 <0.02 0.04 0.52 0.4CHIP- 30 <0.5 <0.02 0.03 0.55 0.2CHIP- 31 <0.5 <0.02 0.04 0.69 0.1CHIP- 44 <0.5 <0.02 0.06 0.3 0.1CHIP- 45 <0.5 <0.02 0.04 0.54 0.1CHIP- 46 <0.5 <0.02 0.04 0.31 0.1CHIP- 53 <0.5 <0.02 0.03 0.62 0.1CHIP- 54 <0.5 <0.02 0.03 0.61 0.1CHIP- 55 <0.5 <0.02 0.06 0.62 0.1CHIP- 62 <0.5 <0.02 0.05 0.52 0.1CHIP- 63 <0.5 <0.02 0.05 0.55 0.1CHIP- 64 <0.5 <0.02 0.05 0.45 0.1CHIP- 68 <0.5 <0.02 0.07 0.47 0.1CHIP- 69 <0.5 <0.02 0.06 0.41 0.1CHIP- 70 <0.5 <0.02 0.06 0.42 0.1

Food Study (1999)

Food Study (2000)


NA NA NA



1-4 August 2006

Table 1-1 Blueberry Concentrations of the Parameters of Concern Measured in Samples Collected from the Kearl Project Area and Regional Locations (Cont'd)

Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumT2-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.19 0.55 <0.08T5-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.2 0.17 <0.08T7-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.25 0.34 <0.08T12-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.17 1.61 <0.08T11-BM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.3 <0.04 0.08 0.35 0.12TPM2 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 <0.04 0.25 <0.08TPM6 0.06 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 <0.04 0.53 <0.08NA = Not Analyzed.

Fort McMurray (2001)

Fort McMurray (2004)Project Sample Number

Concentration (mg/kg)



1-5 August 2006

Table 1-2 Labrador Tea Concentrations of the Parameters of Concern Measured in Samples Collected from the Kearl Project Area and Regional Locations

Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumK5-LM <0.04 0.1 <0.08 0.3 0.02 0.61 0.45 0.065K4-LM <0.04 0.1 <0.08 0.3 0.02 0.23 0.71 0.09K1-LM <0.04 0.2 <0.08 2.8 0.33 0.84 3.02 1.23K3-LM <0.04 0.1 <0.08 0.3 0.02 0.44 0.81 0.09K8-LM <0.04 0.1 <0.08 0.3 0.02 0.34 1.02 0.09PPM1 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.5 0.19 0.05 1.18 0.21PPM5 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.8 0.17 0.07 1.1 0.18PPM8 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.4 0.1 0.04 1.14 0.16PPM11 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.4 0.11 0.05 1.29 0.15PPM12 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.5 0.1 0.06 1.24 0.11CPM3 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.7 0.36 0.04 7.01 0.16CPM5 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.6 0.13 0.09 1.53 0.13CPM8 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.4 0.11 0.04 0.88 0.1CPM10 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.5 0.09 0.06 1.32 0.15CPM13 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.6 0.22 0.06 2.54 0.26CPM15 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.6 0.18 0.08 3.62 0.22CPM17 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.7 0.18 0.06 2.04 0.21CPM22 0.16 1.6 0.66 6.8 4.21 1.38 122 6.37Mariana #1 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 0.15 0.095 2.735 <0.08Mariana#2 0.53 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 0.3 0.12 2.34 <0.08Mariana #3 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.1 0.08 0.5 <0.08Shell #1 <0.4 <0.2 <0.08 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 2.26 <0.08Shell #4 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.5 0.4 <0.4 2.55 <0.08Shell #5 <0.04 <0.2 0.08 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 1.32 <0.08Shell #6 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 6.92 <0.08Shell #7 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.5 2.9 <0.4 5.61 <0.08Suncor #1 0.31 <0.2 0.09 0.4 <0.1 0.12 2.34 0.15Suncor #2 0.57 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.1 0.11 1.15 <0.08Suncor #3 0.68 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 0.4 0.11 2.76 <0.08Suncor #4 0.45 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 0.4 0.06 2.89 <0.08Suncor #5 0.48 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 0.8 0.08 4.67 <0.08SPM 2 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 2.2 7.99 0.06 2.71 0.46SPM 5 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 2.9 0.75 0.06 2.99 0.84SPM 9 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 3.5 0.55 0.11 3.38 0.72SPM 11 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.7 0.72 0.05 1.43 0.41SPM 13 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.4 7.71 0.08 2.1 0.54SPM 15 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 1.2 0.87 0.07 1.84 0.18SPM 20 0.08 <0.2 <0.08 0.1 <0.04 0.06 0.15 <0.08SPM 21 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.7 0.7 0.05 4.53 0.4S3-LM 0.02 0.1 <0.08 1.2 0.09 0.05 2.96 0.33S4-LM 0.05 0.1 <0.08 0.9 0.10 0.07 1.79 0.32S6-LM 0.05 0.1 <0.08 1.0 0.08 0.05 3.12 0.26S9-LM 0.07 0.9 <0.08 0.8 0.09 0.06 2.21 0.26S10-LM 0.06 0.1 <0.08 1.2 0.07 0.04 5.10 0.26U1-LM 0.06 <0.2 <0.08 1.1 0.13 0.15 3.32 0.72U2-LM 0.06 <0.2 <0.08 1 0.09 0.07 2.86 0.5U3-LM 0.07 <0.2 <0.08 1.7 0.28 0.14 2.66 0.78U4-LM 0.06 <0.2 <0.08 1.4 0.14 0.16 3.05 0.68NS2-LM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.5 0.05 0.16 1.36 0.28NS4-LM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.4 0.04 0.25 0.85 0.24NS8-LM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.5 0.06 0.37 1.33 0.37NS9-LM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.65 0.06 0.155 1.585 0.42NS10-LM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.6 0.08 0.25 0.9 0.51












1-6 August 2006

Table 1-2 Labrador Tea Concentrations of the Parameters of Concern Measured in Samples Collected from the Kearl Project Area and Regional Locations (Cont'd)

Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumBERN-16 0.3 <0.5 0.06 1 0.3 0.2 3.2 0.3BERN-17 0.3 <0.5 0.06 1.6 0.24 0.22 4.5 0.2BERN-19 0.3 <0.5 0.06 0.6 0.28 0.23 3.2 0.8BERN-20 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 4.3 0.36 0.21 5.1 0.6BERN-21 0.3 <0.5 0.05 1.1 0.25 0.22 4.7 0.8BERN-22 0.3 <0.5 0.07 0.6 0.26 0.22 4.9 0.6BERN-23 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 3.6 0.19 0.22 4.9 0.3BERN-25 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 3.8 0.39 0.16 5.3 0.7BERN-26 0.3 <0.5 0.06 1.3 0.32 0.24 3.9 0.5BERN-28 0.3 <0.5 0.07 1 0.28 0.24 4 0.5BERN-29 0.3 <0.5 0.06 0.6 0.22 0.21 3.4 0.4BERN-31 0.3 <0.5 0.07 5.3 0.25 0.32 5.5 0.5BERN-32 <0.1 <0.5 0.02 1.8 0.37 0.05 4.8 0.7BERN-33 0.3 <0.5 0.06 0.9 0.3 0.25 4.6 0.6BERN-34 0.3 <0.5 0.06 0.8 0.23 0.25 3.4 0.6LUELLA-27 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 3 0.37 0.09 4.2 0.7LUELLA-8 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1.5 0.38 0.04 4.4 0.6TRAIN-1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1.8 0.14 0.03 4.5 1.1TRAIN-3 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1.4 0.14 0.05 3.2 1.1TRAIN-4 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 3.1 0.25 0.05 4.3 0.6TRAIN-5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1.4 0.21 0.11 3.4 1.3TRAIN-6 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1.5 0.11 0.21 4.4 0.8TRAIN-7 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1 0.09 0.02 3.5 1TRAIN-8 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 2.3 0.12 0.12 5.8 0.8TRAIN-9 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1.6 0.13 0.04 4.2 0.7BERN-24 0.3 <0.5 0.06 0.6 0.42 0.22 4.8 0.2BERN-27 0.3 <0.5 0.07 1.9 0.43 0.27 4.7 0.6BERN-30 0.1 <0.5 <0.02 6.6 0.34 0.82 8.3 0.6LUELLA-42 0.3 <0.5 0.08 1.5 0.47 0.23 3.4 0.5LUELLA-43 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 4.5 0.32 0.12 2.7 0.6LUELLA-44 0.3 <0.5 0.06 0.5 0.39 0.28 5.6 0.3LUELLA-46 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 3.9 0.33 0.16 4.7 0.2WS-3 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 3.8 0.3 0.06 2.8 0.6YVON-7 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1.6 0.3 0.12 3.5 0.7YVON-8 0.3 <0.5 0.05 0.7 0.3 0.24 2.3 0.6ANJ-28 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 2.3 0.21 0.23 2.8 0.7LUELLA-47 0.3 <0.5 0.05 <0.03 0.41 0.25 1.1 0.8LUELLA-48 0.3 <0.5 0.06 0.7 0.44 0.24 2.1 0.3LUELLA-49 0.3 <0.5 0.06 0.7 0.39 0.68 4.9 0.4LUELLA-50 0.3 <0.5 0.06 2.1 0.45 0.36 2.5 0.4ANJ-49 0.3 <0.5 0.06 13.3 0.28 2.36 18.6 0.5LUELLA-55 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 4.8 0.16 0.42 4.9 0.9LUELLA-56 0.3 <0.5 0.06 5.9 0.38 0.28 6.2 0.8LUELLA-57 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 2.6 0.35 0.05 3 0.3LUELLA-58 0.1 <0.5 <0.02 4.6 0.23 0.33 5.1 0.6LUELLA-59 0.3 <0.5 0.05 1.2 0.29 0.23 3.4 0.3WILLIE-26 <0.1 <0.5 0.03 4.7 0.42 0.14 3.1 0.6CHIP-12 0.3 <0.5 0.05 2.3 0.47 0.33 3.7 0.3CHIP-13 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 0.8 0.19 0.2 1.7 1CHIP-16 <0.1 <0.5 0.02 4.2 0.24 1.79 11.2 0.5CHIP-17 <0.1 <0.5 0.03 1.4 0.28 0.61 4.8 0.2CHIP-21 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 1 0.22 0.21 3.4 1.3ANJ-41 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 10.5 0.62 0.13 8.9 0.2

Sample NumberConcentration (mg/kg)

Food Study (1999)Project



1-7 August 2006


Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumFM-1D <0.5 <0.02 0.15 4.94 0.9FM-1E <0.5 <0.02 0.17 4.92 1FM-1F <0.5 <0.02 0.13 4.27 1FM-2D <0.5 <0.02 1.19 5.22 0.8FM-2E <0.5 <0.02 0.23 1.66 0.6FM-2F <0.5 <0.02 0.22 5.75 1FM-3D <0.5 <0.02 0.17 2.73 0.5FM-3E <0.5 <0.02 0.18 2.55 0.5FM-3F <0.5 <0.02 0.17 3.17 0.4GL-1D <0.5 <0.02 0.16 1.03 0.4GL-1E <0.5 <0.02 0.13 0.84 0.4GL-1F <0.5 <0.02 0.19 0.85 0.4GL-2D <0.5 <0.02 0.16 0.68 0.5GL-2E <0.5 <0.02 0.17 0.66 0.4GL-2F <0.5 <0.02 0.13 0.61 0.5GL-3D <0.5 <0.02 0.14 1.54 0.5NE-1D <0.5 <0.02 0.21 1.39 0.8NE-1E <0.5 <0.02 0.23 1.32 0.5NE-1F <0.5 <0.02 0.28 1.71 0.6NE-2D <0.5 <0.02 0.18 3.83 0.5NE-2E <0.5 <0.02 0.23 7.7 1.2NE-2F <0.5 <0.02 0.18 5.52 1NE-3D <0.5 <0.02 0.22 2.62 0.9NE-3E <0.5 <0.02 0.15 2.35 0.9NE-3F <0.5 <0.02 0.15 2.47 0.9CHIP- 6 <0.5 <0.02 0.22 0.59 0.4CHIP- 7 <0.5 <0.02 0.04 1.42 0.4CHIP- 8 <0.5 <0.02 0.15 0.61 0.8CHIP- 12 <0.5 <0.02 0.17 0.89 0.5CHIP- 13 <0.5 <0.02 0.1 1.56 0.4CHIP- 14 <0.5 <0.02 0.1 0.65 0.5CHIP- 15 <0.5 <0.02 0.08 0.6 0.5CHIP- 16 <0.5 <0.02 0.09 2.21 0.3CHIP- 17 <0.5 <0.02 0.11 1.3 0.3CHIP- 18 <0.5 <0.02 0.12 1.08 0.4CHIP- 19 <0.5 <0.02 0.1 0.77 0.9CHIP- 20 <0.5 <0.02 0.2 0.8 0.5CHIP- 21 <0.5 <0.02 0.07 1.2 0.7CHIP- 22 <0.5 <0.02 0.06 0.77 0.8CHIP- 32 <0.5 <0.02 0.06 0.58 0.3CHIP- 33 <0.5 <0.02 0.05 0.57 0.3CHIP- 34 <0.5 <0.02 0.06 0.79 0.3CHIP- 47 <0.5 <0.02 0.06 0.89 0.4CHIP- 48 <0.5 <0.02 0.11 0.61 0.1CHIP- 49 <0.5 <0.02 0.08 0.7 0.1CHIP- 50 <0.5 <0.02 0.09 0.48 0.1CHIP- 51 <0.5 <0.02 0.09 0.79 0.1CHIP- 52 <0.5 <0.02 0.07 0.58 0.2CHIP- 56 <0.5 <0.02 0.07 0.65 0.1CHIP- 57 <0.5 <0.02 0.1 0.65 0.1CHIP- 58 <0.5 <0.02 0.08 0.52 0.1CHIP- 65 <0.5 <0.02 0.13 0.5 0.1CHIP- 66 <0.5 <0.02 0.12 0.77 0.1CHIP- 67 <0.5 <0.02 0.12 0.51 0.1


Food Study (2000)

NA NANA



1-8 August 2006


Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumT1-LM 0.09 <0.2 <0.08 4.1 0.31 0.08 6.93 1.52T2-LM 0.06 <0.2 <0.08 5.6 0.26 0.08 9.37 1.34T5-LM 0.02 <0.2 <0.08 1.75 0.15 0.085 3.025 0.425T6-LM 0.05 <0.2 <0.08 4.8 0.28 0.06 5.87 1.27T7-LM 0.05 <0.2 <0.08 3.6 0.31 0.1 4.5 0.95TPM1 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 1.2 0.3 0.07 2.65 0.6TPM5 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 0.8 0.22 0.09 5.08 0.71

NA = Not Analyzed.






1-9 August 2006

Table 1-3 Cattail Concentrations of the Parameters of Concern Measured in Samples Collected from the Kearl Project Area and Regional Locations

Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumK7-CM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.15 0.04 0.04K6-CM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.62 0.04 0.04K3-CM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.64 0.48 0.04K4-CM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.66 0.04 0.04K1-CM <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 <0.04 0.58 0.09 0.1PPM2 0.05 7.6 <0.08 6 0.82 1.3 5.98 3.07PPM6 0.06 1.3 <0.08 6.9 0.77 1.56 6.05 2.97PPM9 <0.04 5.1 <0.08 4.2 0.49 1.1 4.08 2.13CPM1 <0.04 1.1 <0.08 4 0.58 1.3 4.8 1.3CPM6 <0.04 0.2 <0.08 7.1 0.34 0.33 3.45 0.59CPM 0.13 <0.2 <0.08 1.1 0.23 0.23 3.27 0.42CPM9 <0.04 0.4 <0.08 3.5 0.33 0.21 3.02 0.82CPM11 <0.04 4.4 <0.08 3.5 0.32 0.49 7.85 1.6CPM16 <0.04 2.9 <0.08 14.1 0.55 0.72 23.8 2.85CPM19 <0.04 0.3 <0.08 2.2 0.29 0.2 12.3 1.42Mariana #2b <0.04 0.3 <0.08 <0.2 0.5 1.435 2.1 <0.08Mariana #3 <0.04 0.7 <0.08 0.2 2.1 0.54 NA 0.47Shell #2 <0.04 0.7 <0.08 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 0.98 0.85Shell #3 <0.04 0.2 <0.08 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 0.63 0.18Shell #8 <0.04 0.4 0.17 <0.5 1.4 <0.4 3.13 2.48Shell #9 <0.04 0.9 0.09 1 1 <0.4 3.34 4Shell #10 <0.04 0.9 <0.08 0.5 1.2 <0.4 6.43 7.16Suncor #1 <0.04 0.8 0.09 1.2 0.9 1.7 3.98 4.51Suncor #2 <0.04 0.8 <0.08 <0.2 0.5 0.82 1.25 3.18Suncor #4 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 <0.2 0.1 0.29 0.43 0.31Suncor #5 <0.04 1.1 <0.08 0.9 1.2 0.31 2.69 6.07Suncor #7 <0.04 1.1 <0.08 0.7 2.5 0.37 NA 2.03SPM 3 <0.04 0.7 <0.08 4 0.77 0.97 5.85 1.5SPM 6 <0.04 0.8 <0.08 3.1 3.24 0.28 7.07 1.19SPM 14 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 4.2 3.81 0.23 16.2 0.15SPM 16 <0.04 2.8 <0.08 3.6 2.39 0.87 8.83 1.02SPM 18 <0.04 0.2 <0.08 1.6 2.11 0.91 8.05 0.35U5 <0.04 1.7 <0.08 2.6 0.42 1.89 1.72 3.23U6 <0.04 0.4 <0.08 0.9 0.21 1.72 0.80 1.78U7 <0.04 1.7 <0.08 0.8 0.19 3.07 0.63 0.79U8 <0.04 <0.2 <0.08 1.5 0.24 1.94 0.97 0.82U9 <0.04 2.6 <0.08 0.4 0.16 0.82 0.55 0.91S1-CM 0.02 <0.2 <0.08 0.3 0.05 0.75 0.72 0.14S2-CM 0.02 <0.2 <0.08 0.7 0.08 0.93 0.30 0.14S8-CM 0.02 <0.2 <0.08 1.6 0.12 1.44 1.01 0.67S9-CM 0.05 <0.2 <0.08 0.4 0.06 1.32 0.29 0.26S11-CM 0.02 <0.2 <0.08 0.5 0.02 0.66 0.20 0.30

Kearl Project (2004)Project









Sample Number



1-10 August 2006

Table 1-3 Cattail Concentrations of the Parameters of Concern Measured in Samples Collected from the Kearl Project Area and Regional Locations (Cont'd)

Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumLUELLA-10 <0.1 1.3 0.03 1.7 0.45 0.54 2.30 0.50LUELLA-11 0.2 5.9 0.07 19 2.99 0.78 15.50 7.90LUELLA-12 0.1 6.6 0.05 10.9 2 0.56 9.20 4.00LUELLA-15 0.2 1.3 0.05 28.9 1.3 0.56 15.80 4.30LUELLA-17 <0.1 0.8 0.02 2.9 0.63 0.35 3.80 1.40WS-1 <0.1 1.7 0.05 22.8 1.2 0.53 12.10 2.90LUELLA-60 <0.1 <0.5 0.05 7.4 0.68 0.31 4.90 0.90LUELLA-61 0.1 <0.5 0.05 14.8 0.52 0.77 7.50 1.00LUELLA-62 <0.1 <0.5 <0.02 7.1 0.32 0.18 2.70 0.80LUELLA-63 <0.1 <0.5 0.02 5.4 0.31 0.2 3.20 0.30LUELLA-64 <0.1 <0.5 0.04 1.5 0.44 0.21 6.10 0.80LUELLA-65 0.3 <0.5 0.06 13.7 0.57 0.45 6.80 0.50WILLIE-24 1.4 13.1 0.94 4.2 3.55 20.1 2.60 0.30CHIP-4 <0.1 <0.5 0.09 6.1 0.6 1.12 6.00 1.10CHIP-5 <0.1 <0.5 0.06 5 0.46 1.09 5.20 0.70CHIP-6 <0.1 <0.5 0.11 8 0.39 0.76 7.10 0.60CHIP-9 <0.1 1.7 0.11 8.1 0.74 1.08 7.20 3.00ANJ-9 0.1 1.6 0.33 27.6 6 0.46 18.70 11.10CHIP-1 0.1 7.6 0.09 16.3 4 4.74 12.80 9.10CHIP-19 <0.1 <0.5 0.05 39.2 0.36 0.53 18.90 0.60CHIP-2 <0.1 0.7 0.03 5.5 0.54 0.83 5.80 1.30T2-CM <0.04 0.3 <0.08 0.8 0.22 0.94 0.26 1.44T3-CM <0.04 6.8 <0.08 1.1 0.33 1.41 0.66 1.58T4-CM <0.04 0.4 <0.08 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.19 0.25T9-CM <0.04 0.4 <0.08 2.5 0.44 0.71 0.78 2.89T10-CM <0.04 2.4 <0.08 1.4 0.42 1.39 0.74 2.52TPM1 <0.04 1.2 <0.08 0.6 0.26 0.76 1.21 0.49TPM5 0.04 3.3 <0.08 34.8 1.73 2.33 14.2 3.88NA = Not Analyzed.



Food Study (1999)Project Sample Number




1-11 August 2006

Table 1-4 Soil Concentrations of the Parameters of Concern Measured in Samples Collected from the Kearl Project Area and Regional Locations

Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumK1-SM <5 1.4 <0.1 5.8 3.9 0.3 3 14.1K4-SM <5 0.5 <0.1 0.9 0.9 0.05 0.25 2.4K5-SM <5 0.3 <0.1 0.5 0.7 0.05 0.25 1.7K3-SM <5 0.9 <0.1 1.3 1.15 0.1 0.6 4.3K8-SM <5 2.3 <0.1 12.1 5.8 0.4 6.7 18.3K9-SM <5 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.25 0.05 0.25 0.5CSM1 <0.10 1.2 <0.1 3.7 2.5 0.6 4.3 15.4CSM2 <0.10 0.6 <0.1 3.4 2.8 0.2 1.8 6.9CSM3 <0.10 0.9 0.4 1 6.7 0.7 4.1 8.1CSM4 <0.10 0.9 0.3 10.2 10.2 1 8.5 21.2CSM5 <0.10 <0.5 <0.1 2 2.1 0.05 1.5 4.9CSM6 <0.10 <0.5 <0.1 1.3 1.7 0.05 1.2 3.7CSM7 <0.10 <0.5 <0.1 2.05 2.05 0.1 1.1 4.7CSM8 <0.10 <0.5 <0.1 1.5 1.7 0.05 0.8 4.2CSM9 <0.10 <0.5 <0.1 2.1 2.1 0.05 1.2 5.6Shell #1 <0.5 4.2 <5 <1 3 9Shell #4 <0.5 5.9 <5 <1 4 14Shell #5 <0.5 5.9 5 <1 4 10Shell #6 <0.5 7.9 <5 <1 3 20Shell #7 <0.5 6.7 7 <1 4 13

Millennium Project (1998) Suncor#6 <0.04 0.7 0.13 1.6 4.2 1.37 76.99 20.7SSM 1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 4 2.4 0.2 1.2 6.7SSM 2 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 0.9 1.3 <0.1 0.7 1.8SSM 3 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 1.5 1.5 <0.1 0.9 2.5SSM4 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 1.35 1.15 <0.1 0.45 2.15SSM 5 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 8 4.1 0.1 3.2 12.4SSM 6 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 4.1 4.1 0.2 1.9 7.6SSM 7 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 1.5 3.8 <0.1 0.9 3.1SSM 8 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 3.2 2.2 0.1 1.6 6.4SSM 9 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 2.9 1.8 <0.1 0.9 4SSM 10 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 1.9 1.4 <0.1 0.8 2.6SSM 11 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 4 2.5 0.1 1.8 7.9SSM 12 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 2.5 2 <0.1 1.3 4.3SSM 13 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 3.8 2.6 0.2 2.2 6.3S3-SM <5 0.4 <0.1 1.8 1.1 0.1 0.9 7.2S4-SM <5 1.15 <0.1 2.85 1.9 0.25 1.9 8.9S6-SM <5 0.4 <0.1 1.9 1.3 0.1 1.0 4.0S9-SM <5 1.1 <0.1 3.2 2.2 0.2 1.8 8.5S10-SM <5 0.8 <0.1 4.8 2.8 0.4 2.1 14.9S12-SM <5 0.9 <0.1 2.0 1.6 0.2 1.9 6.7S13-SM <5 0.8 <0.1 0.8 0.7 0.05 0.5 2.1

Concentration (mg/kg)Project



Sample Number


NA NA





1-12 August 2006

Table 1-4 Soil Concentrations of the Parameters of Concern Measured in Samples Collected from the Kearl Project Area and Regional Locations (Cont'd)

Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Molybdenum Nickel VanadiumU1-SM 2.5 0.2 <0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.5 2.1U2-SM 2.5 0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.25 2.2U3-SM 2.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.35 0.25 0.1 0.25 1.7U4-SM 2.5 0.6 <0.1 1.5 1.6 0.6 1.4 9.2NS2-SM <5 1.6 <0.1 3.2 2.3 0.2 1.3 10.8NS4-SM <5 0.5 <0.1 1 0.85 0.05 0.6 2.7NS8-SM <5 0.8 <0.1 3.4 1.5 0.2 1.8 4.9NS9-SM <5 1.2 <0.1 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.25 2.4NS10-SM <5 1 <0.1 3.7 2.6 0.2 2.1 6.1T1-SM <5 3.6 <0.1 13.2 6.8 0.3 8.7 25.9T2-SM <5 0.9 <0.1 4.2 3.6 0.2 2.3 11.4T5-SM <5 2.1 <0.1 8.35 5.25 0.3 3.45 15.9T6-SM <5 0.2 <0.1 0.7 0.6 <0.1 <0.5 1.5T7-SM <5 1.4 <0.1 12.9 5.4 0.3 7.3 26.3T11-SM <5 3.9 <0.1 14.6 20 0.3 10.5 25.2T12-SM <5 2 <0.1 7.9 6.2 0.2 5.1 18.1NA = Not Analyzed.


Voyageur Project (2004)Project

Sample Number



Appendix 2: Model Input Parameters used the for Multi-media Risk Assessment

Golder Associates


2-2 August 2006

Table 2-1: Antimony - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfD

Location EAC Conc (mg/m3) PC Conc (mg/m3) PDC Conc (mg/m3) IR (m3/d) RAF EF (d/yr) ED (yr) BW (kg) AT (d) EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo (mg/kg-d) EAC ER PC ER PDC ERChildFort McKay 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000004 9.3 50 365 1 16.5 365 5.63636E-07 5.63636E-07 1.12727E-06 0.0004 0.001409 0.001409 0.002818max H/T 0.00000007 0.00000007 0.00000002 9.3 50 365 1 16.5 365 1.97273E-06 1.97273E-06 5.63636E-07 0.0004 0.004932 0.004932 0.001409AdultFort McKay 0.00000002 0.00000002 0.00000004 15.8 50 365 1 70.7 365 2.23479E-07 2.23479E-07 4.46959E-07 0.0004 0.000559 0.000559 0.001117max H/T 0.00000007 0.00000007 0.00000002 15.8 50 365 1 70.7 365 7.82178E-07 7.82178E-07 2.23479E-07 0.0004 0.001955 0.001955 0.000559

2a) Dust PathwayEAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR [P]air RAF EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] m3/day kg/m3 unitless [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 2.52 2.52 2.505 9.3 7.6E-10 50 365 1 16.5 365 5.39738E-08 5.39738E-08 5.36525E-08 0.0004 1.35E-04 1.35E-04 1.34E-04max H/T 2.52 2.52 2.505 9.3 7.6E-10 50 365 1 16.5 365 5.39738E-08 5.39738E-08 5.36525E-08 0.0004 1.35E-04 1.35E-04 1.34E-04AdultFort McKay 2.52 2.52 2.505 15.8 7.6E-10 50 365 1 70.7 365 2.14004E-08 2.14004E-08 2.1273E-08 0.0004 5.35E-05 5.35E-05 5.32E-05max H/T 2.52 2.52 2.505 15.8 7.6E-10 50 365 1 70.7 365 2.14004E-08 2.14004E-08 2.1273E-08 0.0004 5.35E-05 5.35E-05 5.32E-05

Soil analytical detection limit <5 mg/kg, therefore for all concentrations half detection limit (i.e., 2.5 mg/kg) at baseline + incremental contribution was used2b) Soil Ingestion Pathway

EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]

ChildFort McKay 2.52 2.52 2.505 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 1.22182E-05 1.22182E-05 1.21455E-05 0.0004 0.030545455 0.03054545 0.030363636max H/T 2.52 2.52 2.505 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 1.22182E-05 1.22182E-05 1.21455E-05 0.0004 0.030545455 0.03054545 0.030363636AdultFort McKay 2.52 2.52 2.505 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 7.12871E-07 7.12871E-07 7.08628E-07 0.0004 0.001782178 0.00178218 0.00177157max H/T 2.52 2.52 2.505 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 7.12871E-07 7.12871E-07 7.08628E-07 0.0004 0.001782178 0.00178218 0.00177157

Soil analytical detection limit <5 mg/kg, therefore for all concentrations half detection limit (i.e., 2.5 mg/kg) at baseline + incremental contribution was used3) Berry Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)



Berry analytical detection limit <0.04 mg/kg, therefore for all concentrations half detection limit (i.e., 0.02 mg/kg) at baseline + incremental contribution was used4) Leaf Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)



Leaf analytical detection limit <0.04 mg/kg, therefore for all concentrations half detection limit (i.e., 0.02 mg/kg) at baseline + incremental contribution was used5) Root Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)



Root analytical detection limit <0.04 mg/kg, therefore for all concentrations half detection limit (i.e., 0.02 mg/kg) at baseline + incremental contribution was used6) Moose Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)


ChildFort McKay 0.10004 0.1001 0.10009 0.085 365 1 16.5 365 0.000515358 0.000515667 0.000515615 0.0004 1.288393939 1.28916667 1.289037879max H/T 0.10004 0.1001 0.10009 0.085 365 1 16.5 365 0.000515358 0.000515667 0.000515615 0.0004 1.288393939 1.28916667 1.289037879AdultFort McKay 0.10004 0.1001 0.10009 0.27 365 1 70.7 365 0.000382048 0.000382277 0.000382239 0.0004 0.955120226 0.95569307 0.955597595max H/T 0.10004 0.1001 0.10009 0.27 365 1 70.7 365 0.000382048 0.000382277 0.000382239 0.0004 0.955120226 0.95569307 0.955597595

Moose analytical detection limit <0.1 mg/kg, therefore for all concentrations half detection limit (i.e., 0.1 mg/kg) at baseline + incremental contribution was used

RAF = 50, absorption by inhalation route is 1.0, absorption by ingestion route is 0.02 (1/0.02 = 50) Reference: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk Assessment.

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-3 August 2006

Table 2-1: Antimony - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)



8) Water Ingestion PathwayEAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] L/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 5.45455E-06 5.45455E-06 5.45455E-06 0.0004 0.013636364 0.01363636 0.013636364max H/T 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 5.45455E-06 5.45455E-06 5.45455E-06 0.0004 0.013636364 0.01363636 0.013636364AdultFort McKay 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 3.18246E-06 3.18246E-06 3.18246E-06 0.0004 0.007956153 0.00795615 0.007956153max H/T 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 3.18246E-06 3.18246E-06 3.18246E-06 0.0004 0.007956153 0.00795615 0.007956153

Total ERChild EAC ER PC ER PDC ERFort McKay 1.4 1.4 1.4max H/T 1.4 1.4 1.4AdultFort McKay 1.0 1.0 1.0max H/T 1.0 1.0 1.0NOTES: EAC = Existing and Approved Case; PC = Project Case; PDC = Project Development Case.Shaded and bolded values indicate ER values greater than 1.0.

Location

Location



2-4 August 2006

Table 2-2: Antimony - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfD















ChildFort McKay 0.0205 0.0205 0.0202 0.016 365 1 16.5 365 1.98788E-05 1.98788E-05 1.95879E-05 0.0004 0.04969697 0.04969697 0.048969697max H/T 0.0205 0.0205 0.0202 0.016 365 1 16.5 365 1.98788E-05 1.98788E-05 1.95879E-05 0.0004 0.04969697 0.04969697 0.048969697AdultFort McKay 0.0205 0.0205 0.0202 0.028 365 1 70.7 365 8.11881E-06 8.11881E-06 0.000008 0.0004 0.02029703 0.02029703 0.02max H/T 0.0205 0.0205 0.0202 0.028 365 1 70.7 365 8.11881E-06 8.11881E-06 0.000008 0.0004 0.02029703 0.02029703 0.02





Location

Location

Location

Location


Location

Location



2-5 August 2006

Table 2-2: Antimony - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)

7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.095 85 1 16.5 365 2.69502E-05 2.69502E-05 2.69502E-05 0.0004 0.067375467 0.06737547 0.067375467max H/T 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.095 85 1 16.5 365 2.69502E-05 2.69502E-05 2.69502E-05 0.0004 0.067375467 0.06737547 0.067375467AdultFort McKay 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.22 85 1 70.7 365 1.45655E-05 1.45655E-05 1.45655E-05 0.0004 0.036413749 0.03641375 0.036413749max H/T 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.22 85 1 70.7 365 1.45655E-05 1.45655E-05 1.45655E-05 0.0004 0.036413749 0.03641375 0.036413749




Location

Location



2-6 August 2006

Table 2-3: Antimony - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfD




















Location

Location

Location

Location


Location

Location



2-7 August 2006

Table 2-3: Antimony - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 0.000115727 0.000115727 0.000115727 0.0004 0.289318182 0.28931818 0.289318182max H/T 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 0.000115727 0.000115727 0.000115727 0.0004 0.289318182 0.28931818 0.289318182AdultFort McKay 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 6.2546E-05 6.2546E-05 6.2546E-05 0.0004 0.156364922 0.15636492 0.156364922max H/T 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 6.2546E-05 6.2546E-05 6.2546E-05 0.0004 0.156364922 0.15636492 0.156364922




Location

Location



2-8 August 2006

Table 2-4: Antimony - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfD















ChildFort McKay 0.0205 0.0205 0.0202 0.016 365 1 16.5 365 1.98788E-05 1.98788E-05 1.95879E-05 0.0004 0.04969697 0.04969697 0.048969697max H/T 0.0205 0.0205 0.0202 0.016 365 1 16.5 365 1.98788E-05 1.98788E-05 1.95879E-05 0.0004 0.04969697 0.04969697 0.048969697AdultFort McKay 0.0205 0.0205 0.0202 0.028 365 1 70.7 365 8.11881E-06 8.11881E-06 0.000008 0.0004 0.02029703 0.02029703 0.02max H/T 0.0205 0.0205 0.0202 0.028 365 1 70.7 365 8.11881E-06 8.11881E-06 0.000008 0.0004 0.02029703 0.02029703 0.02






Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-9 August 2006

Table 2-4: Antimony - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER





Location

Location



2-10 August 2006

Table 2-5: Arsenic (Carcinogenic) - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption

1) Air Pathway

m3/hr unitless hr/day days per week exposed/7 days

weeks per year exposed/52

weeks

total years exposed to

the site (yrs)

kg EAC Case PC PDC (mg/kg-BW/day)-1 EAC Case PC PDC

Fort McKayInfant 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.0875 1 24 1 1 0.50 8.2 2.56E-09 2.56E-09 2.56E-09Toddler 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.3875 1 24 1 1 3.5 16.5 3.95E-08 3.95E-08 3.95E-08Child 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.6042 1 24 1 1 7 32.9 6.17E-08 6.17E-08 6.17E-08Teen 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.6583 1 24 1 1 8 59.7 4.23E-08 4.23E-08 4.23E-08Adult 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.000000020 0.6583 1 24 1 1 56 70.7 2.50E-07 2.50E-07 2.50E-07Composite 5.2848E-09 5.2848E-09 5.2848E-09 28 1.48E-02 1.48E-02 1.48E-02max H/TInfant 0.00000002 0.00000003 0.00000002 0.0875 1 24 1 1 0.50 8.2 2.56E-09 3.84E-09 2.56E-09Toddler 0.00000002 0.00000003 0.00000002 0.3875 1 24 1 1 3.5 16.5 3.95E-08 5.92E-08 3.95E-08Child 0.00000002 0.00000003 0.00000002 0.6042 1 24 1 1 7 32.9 6.17E-08 9.26E-08 6.17E-08Teen 0.00000002 0.00000003 0.00000002 0.6583 1 24 1 1 8 59.7 4.23E-08 6.35E-08 4.23E-08Adult 0.00000002 0.00000003 0.00000002 0.6583 1 24 1 1 56 70.7 2.50E-07 3.75E-07 2.50E-07Composite 5.2848E-09 7.92719E-09 5.2848E-09 28 1.48E-02 2.22E-02 1.48E-02

2a) Dust PathwayEAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] m3/hr kg/m3 hr/day days per week exposed/7 days


weeks


the site (yrs)


Fort McKayInfant 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.0875 7.60E-10 24 1 1 0.50 8.2 9.08E-11 9.09E-11 9.07E-11Toddler 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.3875 7.60E-10 24 1 1 3.5 16.5 1.40E-09 1.40E-09 1.40E-09Child 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.6042 7.60E-10 24 1 1 7 32.9 2.19E-09 2.19E-09 2.19E-09Teen 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.6583 7.60E-10 24 1 1 8 59.7 1.50E-09 1.50E-09 1.50E-09Adult 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.6583 7.60E-10 24 1 1 56 70.7 8.88E-09 8.88E-09 8.87E-09Composite 1.87427E-10 1.87508E-10 1.87186E-10 28 5.25E-04 5.25E-04 5.24E-04max H/TInfant 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.0875 7.60E-10 24 1 1 0.50 8.2 9.08E-11 9.09E-11 9.07E-11Toddler 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.3875 7.60E-10 24 1 1 3.5 16.5 1.40E-09 1.40E-09 1.40E-09Child 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.6042 7.60E-10 24 1 1 7 32.9 2.19E-09 2.19E-09 2.19E-09Teen 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.6583 7.60E-10 24 1 1 8 59.7 1.50E-09 1.50E-09 1.50E-09Adult 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.6583 7.60E-10 24 1 1 56 70.7 8.88E-09 8.88E-09 8.87E-09Composite 1.87427E-10 1.87508E-10 1.87186E-10 28 5.25E-04 5.25E-04 5.24E-04

2b) Soil Ingestion PathwayEAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day unitless

days per week

exposed/7 days


weeks

total years exposed to the

site (yrs)kg EAC Case PC PDC (mg/kg-BW/day)-1 EAC Case PC PDC

Fort McKayInfant 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00002 1 1 1 0.50 8.2 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06Toddler 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00008 1 1 1 3.5 16.5 1.58E-05 1.58E-05 1.58E-05Child 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00002 1 1 1 7 32.9 3.97E-06 3.97E-06 3.97E-06Teen 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00002 1 1 1 8 59.7 2.50E-06 2.50E-06 2.50E-06Adult 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00002 1 1 1 56 70.7 1.48E-05 1.48E-05 1.48E-05Composite 5.09783E-07 5.10002E-07 5.09128E-07 2.8 1.43E-01 1.43E-01 1.43E-01Max H/TInfant 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00002 1 1 1 0.50 8.2 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06Toddler 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00008 1 1 1 3.5 16.5 1.58E-05 1.58E-05 1.58E-05Child 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00002 1 1 1 7 32.9 3.97E-06 3.97E-06 3.97E-06Teen 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00002 1 1 1 8 59.7 2.50E-06 2.50E-06 2.50E-06Adult 0.9333 0.9337 0.9321 0.00002 1 1 1 56 70.7 1.48E-05 1.48E-05 1.48E-05Composite 5.09783E-07 5.10002E-07 5.09128E-07 2.8 1.43E-01 1.43E-01 1.43E-01

Note: Ingestion rates for plants from: Matrix Solutions Inc. 1999. Results of the Creosote Risk Assessment at East and West Arrowwood Creeks Siksika Nation - Stage II of II. Report Prepared for Alberta Environmental Protection and the Siksika Nation.

Location IRsoil

IRair AF INH D1 D2

PDC Conc (mg/m3)

PC Conc (mg/m3)EAC Conc (mg/m3)Location

D3 ED BW EDI inhal slope factor ER

mg/kg BW/d unitless

AF GIT D2 D3 ED BW EDI oral slope factor ERmg/kg BW/d Unitless

Location IRair [P] air D1 D2 D3 ED BW EDI inhal slope factor ERmg/kg BW/d unitless



2-11 August 2006

Table 2-5: Arsenic (Carcinogenic) - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)

3) Berry Ingestion Pathwayoral slope factor

EAC Case PC PDC kg/day ww unitless days at the site kg days


the site (yrs)

EAC Case PC PDC (mg/kg-BW/day)-1 EAC Case PC PDC

Fort McKayInfant 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 2.13E-05 2.14E-05 2.13E-05Child 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 32.9 365 7 2.14E-05 2.14E-05 2.13E-05Teen 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 59.7 365 8 1.35E-05 1.35E-05 1.34E-05Adult 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 70.7 365 56 7.96E-05 7.98E-05 7.94E-05Composite 1.81094E-06 1.81452E-06 1.80557E-06 2.8 5.07E-01 5.08E-01 5.06E-01Max H/TInfant 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 2.13E-05 2.14E-05 2.13E-05Child 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 32.9 365 7 2.14E-05 2.14E-05 2.13E-05Teen 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 59.7 365 8 1.35E-05 1.35E-05 1.34E-05Adult 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 70.7 365 56 7.96E-05 7.98E-05 7.94E-05Composite 0.00000181 1.81452E-06 1.80557E-06 2.8 5.07E-01 5.08E-01 5.06E-01

4) Leaf Ingestion Pathwayoral slope factor



the site (yrs)


Fort McKayInfant 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0000 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0180 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05Child 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0180 1 91 32.9 365 7 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05Teen 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0174 1 91 59.7 365 8 6.83E-06 6.84E-06 6.82E-06Adult 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0410 1 91 70.7 365 56 9.51E-05 9.52E-05 9.50E-05Composite 1.65826E-06 1.65967E-06 1.65544E-06 2.8 4.64E-01 4.65E-01 4.64E-01Max H/TInfant 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0000 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0180 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05Child 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0180 1 91 32.9 365 7 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05Teen 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0174 1 91 59.7 365 8 6.83E-06 6.84E-06 6.82E-06Adult 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0410 1 91 70.7 365 56 9.51E-05 9.52E-05 9.50E-05Composite 0.000001658 1.65967E-06 1.65544E-06 2.8 4.64E-01 4.65E-01 4.64E-01

5) Root Ingestion Pathway



the site (yrs)


Fort McKayInfant 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.000 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.104 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 9.63E-05 9.63E-05 9.62E-05Child 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.159 1 91 32.9 365 7 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04Teen 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.23 1 91 59.7 365 8 1.33E-04 1.33E-04 1.33E-04Adult 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.189 1 91 70.7 365 56 6.56E-04 6.56E-04 6.55E-04Composite 1.37738E-05 1.37738E-05 1.3762E-05 2.8 3.86E+00 3.86E+00 3.85E+00Max H/TInfant 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.000 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.104 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 9.63E-05 9.63E-05 9.62E-05Child 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.159 1 91 32.9 365 7 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04Teen 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.23 1 91 59.7 365 8 1.33E-04 1.33E-04 1.33E-04Adult 0.017535 0.017535 0.01752 0.189 1 91 70.7 365 56 6.56E-04 6.56E-04 6.55E-04Composite 0.00001377 1.37738E-05 1.3762E-05 2.8 3.86E+00 3.86E+00 3.85E+00

Location

Location

Location RAFGIT Diroot oral slope factor ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIRoots IRroot

Leaves IRleaf RAFGIT Dileaf

RAFGIT Diberry

ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDI

ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIBerries IRberry



2-12 August 2006


EAC Case PC PDC kg/day unitless days at the site kg days


the site (yrs)



7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)



the site (yrs)


Fort McKayInfant 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 1 85 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.095 1 85 16.5 365 3.5 5.21E-05 5.21E-05 5.21E-05Child 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 1 85 32.9 365 7 9.35E-05 9.35E-05 9.35E-05Teen 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.2 1 85 59.7 365 8 6.93E-05 6.93E-05 6.93E-05Adult 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 1 85 70.7 365 56 4.50E-04 4.50E-04 4.50E-04Composite 8.87079E-06 8.87079E-06 8.87079E-06 2.8 2.48E+00 2.48E+00 2.48E+00Max H/TInfant 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 1 85 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.095 1 85 16.5 365 3.5 5.21E-05 5.21E-05 5.21E-05Child 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 1 85 32.9 365 7 9.35E-05 9.35E-05 9.35E-05Teen 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.2 1 85 59.7 365 8 6.93E-05 6.93E-05 6.93E-05Adult 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 1 85 70.7 365 56 4.50E-04 4.50E-04 4.50E-04Composite 0.000008871 8.87079E-06 8.87079E-06 2.8 2.48E+00 2.48E+00 2.48E+00

8) Water Ingestion Pathway

EAC Case PC PDC L/day unitless

days per week

exposed/7 days


weekskg


the site (yrs)


Fort McKayInfant 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 1 1 0.5 8.2 0.50 9.15E-06 9.15E-06 9.15E-06Toddler 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.6 1 1 0.5 16.5 3.5 6.36E-05 6.36E-05 6.36E-05Child 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.8 1 1 0.5 32.9 7 8.51E-05 8.51E-05 8.51E-05Teen 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 1 1 0.5 59.7 8 6.70E-05 6.70E-05 6.70E-05Adult 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.5 1 1 0.5 70.7 56 5.94E-04 5.94E-04 5.94E-04Composite 1.09193E-05 1.09193E-05 1.09193E-05 2.8 3.06E+00 3.06E+00 3.06E+00Max H/TInfant 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 1 1 0.5 8.2 0.50 9.15E-06 9.15E-06 9.15E-06Toddler 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.6 1 1 0.5 16.5 3.5 6.36E-05 6.36E-05 6.36E-05Child 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.8 1 1 0.5 32.9 7 8.51E-05 8.51E-05 8.51E-05Teen 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 1 1 0.5 59.7 8 6.70E-05 6.70E-05 6.70E-05Adult 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.5 1 1 0.5 70.7 56 5.94E-04 5.94E-04 5.94E-04Composite 0.0000109 1.09193E-05 1.09193E-05 2.8 3.06E+00 3.06E+00 3.06E+00

Total EREAC ER PC ER PDC ER

Fort McKay 13 13 13Max H/T 13 13 13NOTE: Shaded and bolded values indicate ILCR values greater than 1 in 100,000.

Location

Location

Moose IRmoose RAFGIT DimooseConcentration mg/kg ww BW AT ED ERmg/kg BW/d unitless

ERConcentration mg/kg ww mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIFish IRfish oral slope factorRAFGIT Difish

EDI oral slope factorLocation

EDIWater IRdw AF GIT D2 oral slope factor ERConcentration mg/L mg/kg BW/d unitlessD3 BW ED



2-13 August 2006

Table 2-6: Arsenic (Carcinogenic) - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption

1) Air Pathway



weeks


the site (yrs)






weeks


the site (yrs)





days per week

exposed/7 days


weeks




inhal slope factor ERmg/kg BW/d unitlessD3 ED BW EDIIRair [P] air D1 D2Location

BW EDI oral slope factor ERmg/kg BW/d UnitlessAF GIT D2 D3 ED

PDC Conc (mg/m3)


inhal slope factor ER

mg/kg BW/d unitlessD3 ED BW EDIIRair AF INH D1 D2

Note: Ingestion rates for plants from: Matrix Solutions Inc. 1999. Results of the Creosote Risk Assessment at East and West Arrowwood Creeks Siksika Nation - Stage II of II. Report Prepared for Alberta Environmental Protection and the Siksika Nation.

Location IRsoil



2-14 August 2006





the site (yrs)






the site (yrs)






the site (yrs)



ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIBerries IRberry RAFGIT Diberry

ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDILeaves IRleaf RAFGIT Dileaf

ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIRoots IRroot RAFGIT Diroot oral slope factor

Location

Location

Location



2-15 August 2006




the site (yrs)






the site (yrs)





days per week

exposed/7 days


weekskg


the site (yrs)





oral slope factor ERConcentration mg/L mg/kg BW/d unitlessD3 BW ED EDIWater IRdw AF GIT D2

oral slope factorRAFGIT Difish


ERConcentration mg/kg ww mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIFish IRfish

BW AT ED ERmg/kg BW/d unitless

Moose IRmoose RAFGIT DimooseConcentration mg/kg ww

Location

Location



2-16 August 2006

Table 2-7: Arsenic (Carcinogenic) - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption

1) Air Pathway



weeks


the site (yrs)






weeks


the site (yrs)





days per week

exposed/7 days


weeks




inhal slope factor ERmg/kg BW/d unitlessD3 ED BW EDIIRair [P] air D1 D2Location

BW EDI oral slope factor ERmg/kg BW/d UnitlessAF GIT D2 D3 ED

PDC Conc (mg/m3)


inhal slope factor ER

mg/kg BW/d unitlessD3 ED BW EDIIRair AF INH D1 D2

Note: Plant ingestion rates for all life stages from: Matrix Solutions Inc. 1999. Results of the Creosote Risk Assessment at East and West Arrowwood Creeks Siksika Nation - Stage II of II. Report Prepared for Alberta Environmental Protection and the Siksika Nation.

Location IRsoil



2-17 August 2006

Table 2-7: Arsenic (Carcinogenic) - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)




the site (yrs)


Fort McKayInfant 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 2.13E-05 2.14E-05 2.13E-05Child 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 32.9 365 7 2.14E-05 2.14E-05 2.13E-05Teen 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 59.7 365 8 1.35E-05 1.35E-05 1.34E-05Adult 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 70.7 365 56 7.96E-05 7.98E-05 7.94E-05Composite 1.81094E-06 1.81452E-06 1.80557E-06 2.8 5.07E-01 5.08E-01 5.06E-01Max H/TInfant 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 2.13E-05 2.14E-05 2.13E-05Child 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 32.9 365 7 2.14E-05 2.14E-05 2.13E-05Teen 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 59.7 365 8 1.35E-05 1.35E-05 1.34E-05Adult 0.0155694 0.0156002 0.0155232 0.0259 1 91 70.7 365 56 7.96E-05 7.98E-05 7.94E-05Composite 0.00000181 1.81452E-06 1.80557E-06 2.8 5.07E-01 5.08E-01 5.06E-01




the site (yrs)


Fort McKayInfant 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0000 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0180 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05Child 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0180 1 91 32.9 365 7 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05Teen 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0174 1 91 59.7 365 8 6.83E-06 6.84E-06 6.82E-06Adult 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0410 1 91 70.7 365 56 9.51E-05 9.52E-05 9.50E-05Composite 1.65826E-06 1.65967E-06 1.65544E-06 2.8 4.64E-01 4.65E-01 4.64E-01Max H/TInfant 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0000 1 91 8.2 365 0.50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00Toddler 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0180 1 91 16.5 365 3.5 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05Child 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0180 1 91 32.9 365 7 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05Teen 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0174 1 91 59.7 365 8 6.83E-06 6.84E-06 6.82E-06Adult 0.01175 0.01176 0.01173 0.0410 1 91 70.7 365 56 9.51E-05 9.52E-05 9.50E-05Composite 0.000001658 1.65967E-06 1.65544E-06 2.8 4.64E-01 4.65E-01 4.64E-01




the site (yrs)



ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIBerries IRberry RAFGIT Diberry

ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDILeaves IRleaf RAFGIT Dileaf

ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIRoots IRroot RAFGIT Diroot oral slope factor

Location

Location

Location



2-18 August 2006




the site (yrs)






the site (yrs)





days per week

exposed/7 days


weekskg


the site (yrs)





oral slope factor ERConcentration mg/L mg/kg BW/d unitlessD3 BW ED EDIWater IRdw AF GIT D2

oral slope factorRAFGIT Difish


ERConcentration mg/kg ww mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIFish IRfish

BW AT ED ERmg/kg BW/d unitless

Moose IRmoose RAFGIT DimooseConcentration mg/kg ww

Location

Location



2-19 August 2006

Table 2-8: Arsenic (Carcinogenic) - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption

1) Air Pathway



weeks


the site (yrs)






weeks


the site (yrs)





days per week

exposed/7 days


weeks




Note: Plant ingestion rates for all life stages from: Matrix Solutions Inc. 1999. Results of the Creosote Risk Assessment at East and West Arrowwood Creeks Siksika Nation - Stage II of II. Report Prepared for Alberta Environmental Protection and the Siksika Nation.

Location IRsoil

IRair AF INH D1 D2

PDC Conc (mg/m3)


D3 ED BW EDI inhal slope factor ER

mg/kg BW/d unitless

AF GIT D2 D3 ED BW EDI oral slope factor ERmg/kg BW/d Unitless

Location IRair [P] air D1 D2 D3 ED BW EDI inhal slope factor ERmg/kg BW/d unitless



2-20 August 2006





the site (yrs)






the site (yrs)






the site (yrs)



Location

Location

Location RAFGIT Diroot oral slope factor ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIRoots IRroot

Leaves IRleaf RAFGIT Dileaf

RAFGIT Diberry

ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDI

ERConcentration mg/kg wet weight mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIBerries IRberry



2-21 August 2006




the site (yrs)






the site (yrs)





days per week

exposed/7 days


weekskg


the site (yrs)





Location

Location

Moose IRmoose RAFGIT DimooseConcentration mg/kg ww BW AT ED ERmg/kg BW/d unitless

ERConcentration mg/kg ww mg/kg BW/d unitlessBW AT ED EDIFish IRfish oral slope factorRAFGIT Difish


EDIWater IRdw AF GIT D2 oral slope factor ERConcentration mg/L mg/kg BW/d unitlessD3 BW ED



2-22 August 2006

Table 2-9: Cadmium - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfDLocation EAC Conc (mg/m3) PC Conc (mg/m3) PDC Conc (mg/m3) IR (m3/d) RAF EF (d/yr) ED (yr) BW (kg) AT (d) EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo (mg/kg-d) EAC ER PC ER PDC ERChildFort McKay 0.0000008 0.00000082 0.00000118 9.3 100 365 1 16.5 365 4.50909E-05 4.62182E-05 6.65091E-05 0.0002 0.225455 0.231091 0.332545max H/T 0.00000084 0.00000117 0.00000146 9.3 100 365 1 16.5 365 4.73455E-05 6.59455E-05 8.22909E-05 0.0002 0.236727 0.329727 0.411455AdultFort McKay 0.0000008 0.00000082 0.00000118 15.8 100 365 1 70.7 365 1.78784E-05 1.83253E-05 2.63706E-05 0.0002 0.089392 0.091627 0.131853max H/T 0.00000084 0.00000117 0.00000146 15.8 100 365 1 70.7 365 1.87723E-05 2.61471E-05 3.2628E-05 0.0002 0.093861 0.130736 0.163140



Soil analytical detection limit <0.1 mg/kg, therefore for all concentrations half detection limit (i.e., 0.05 mg/kg) at baseline + incremental contribution was used2b) Soil Ingestion Pathway



Soil analytical detection limit <0.1 mg/kg, therefore for all concentrations half detection limit (i.e., 0.05 mg/kg) at baseline + incremental contribution was used3) Berry Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)












Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-23 August 2006

Table 2-9: Cadmium - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)






Location

Location



2-24 August 2006

Table 2-10: Cadmium - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfDLocation EAC Conc (mg/m3) PC Conc (mg/m3) PDC Conc (mg/m3) IR (m3/d) RAF EF (d/yr) ED (yr) BW (kg) AT (d) EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo (mg/kg-d) EAC ER PC ER PDC ERChildFort McKay 0.0000008 0.00000082 0.00000118 9.3 100 365 1 16.5 365 4.50909E-05 4.62182E-05 6.65091E-05 0.0002 0.225455 0.231091 0.332545max H/T 0.00000084 0.00000117 0.00000146 9.3 100 365 1 16.5 365 4.73455E-05 6.59455E-05 8.22909E-05 0.0002 0.236727 0.329727 0.411455AdultFort McKay 0.0000008 0.00000082 0.00000118 15.8 100 365 1 70.7 365 1.78784E-05 1.83253E-05 2.63706E-05 0.0002 0.089392 0.091627 0.131853max H/T 0.00000084 0.00000117 0.00000146 15.8 100 365 1 70.7 365 1.87723E-05 2.61471E-05 3.2628E-05 0.0002 0.093861 0.130736 0.163140


















Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-25 August 2006

Table 2-10: Cadmium - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)






Location

Location



2-26 August 2006

Table 2-11: Cadmium - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfDLocation EAC Conc (mg/m3) PC Conc (mg/m3) PDC Conc (mg/m3) IR (m3/d) RAF EF (d/yr) ED (yr) BW (kg) AT (d) EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo (mg/kg-d) EAC ER PC ER PDC ERChildFort McKay 0.0000008 0.00000082 0.00000118 9.3 100 365 1 16.5 365 4.50909E-05 4.62182E-05 6.65091E-05 0.0002 0.225455 0.231091 0.332545max H/T 0.00000084 0.00000117 0.00000146 9.3 100 365 1 16.5 365 4.73455E-05 6.59455E-05 8.22909E-05 0.0002 0.236727 0.329727 0.411455AdultFort McKay 0.0000008 0.00000082 0.00000118 15.8 100 365 1 70.7 365 1.78784E-05 1.83253E-05 2.63706E-05 0.0002 0.089392 0.091627 0.131853max H/T 0.00000084 0.00000117 0.00000146 15.8 100 365 1 70.7 365 1.87723E-05 2.61471E-05 3.2628E-05 0.0002 0.093861 0.130736 0.163140


















Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-27 August 2006

Table 2-11: Cadmium - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)


ChildFort McKay 0.0320 0.0320 0.0320 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 0.000184242 0.000184242 0.000184242 0.0002 0.921212121 0.92121212 0.921212121max H/T 0.0320 0.0320 0.0320 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 0.000184242 0.000184242 0.000184242 0.0002 0.921212121 0.92121212 0.921212121AdultFort McKay 0.0320 0.0320 0.0320 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 9.95757E-05 9.95757E-05 9.95757E-05 0.0002 0.497878359 0.49787836 0.497878359max H/T 0.0320 0.0320 0.0320 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 9.95757E-05 9.95757E-05 9.95757E-05 0.0002 0.497878359 0.49787836 0.497878359




Location

Location



2-28 August 2006

Table 2-12: Cadmium - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfDLocation EAC Conc (mg/m3) PC Conc (mg/m3) PDC Conc (mg/m3) IR (m3/d) RAF EF (d/yr) ED (yr) BW (kg) AT (d) EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo (mg/kg-d) EAC ER PC ER PDC ERChildFort McKay 0.0000008 0.00000082 0.00000118 9.3 100 365 1 16.5 365 4.50909E-05 4.62182E-05 6.65091E-05 0.0002 0.225455 0.231091 0.332545max H/T 0.00000084 0.00000117 0.00000146 9.3 100 365 1 16.5 365 4.73455E-05 6.59455E-05 8.22909E-05 0.0002 0.236727 0.329727 0.411455AdultFort McKay 0.0000008 0.00000082 0.00000118 15.8 100 365 1 70.7 365 1.78784E-05 1.83253E-05 2.63706E-05 0.0002 0.089392 0.091627 0.131853max H/T 0.00000084 0.00000117 0.00000146 15.8 100 365 1 70.7 365 1.87723E-05 2.61471E-05 3.2628E-05 0.0002 0.093861 0.130736 0.163140


















Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-29 August 2006

Table 2-12: Cadmium - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)






Location

Location



2-30 August 2006

Table 2-13: Mercury - Multi-Media Assessment, 3 Months Vegetation ConsumptionFish pathway assessed for methylmercury since methylmercury is the dominant form of mercury in fish tissue.

1) Air Pathway

Location EAC Conc (ug/m3) PC Conc (ug/m3) PDC (ug/m3) RfC (ug/m3) EAC ER PC ER PDC ERFort McKay 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.3 0.000033 0.000033 0.000033max H/T 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.3 0.000033 0.000033 0.000033Note: RfC for air pathway from US EPA IRIS for elemental mercury

2a) Dust Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfDRAF = 14, absorption by inhalation route is 1.0, absorption by ingestion route is 0.07 (1/0.07=14) Reference: Goyer, R.A. 1991. Toxic Effects of Metals. In: Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, fourth edition. M. O. Ammdur, J. Doull and C.D. Klaassen, eds. pp. 623-680.

EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR [P]air RAF EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] m3/day kg/m3 unitless [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]

ChildFort McKay 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 9.3 7.6E-10 14 365 1 16.5 365 1.49927E-11 1.4993E-11 1.49927E-11 0.0003 5.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-08max H/T 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 9.3 7.6E-10 14 365 1 16.5 365 1.49927E-11 1.4993E-11 1.49927E-11 0.0003 5.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-08AdultFort McKay 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 15.8 7.6E-10 14 365 1 70.7 365 5.94455E-12 5.9446E-12 5.94455E-12 0.0003 1.98E-08 1.98E-08 1.98E-08max H/T 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 15.8 7.6E-10 14 365 1 70.7 365 5.94455E-12 5.9446E-12 5.94455E-12 0.0003 1.98E-08 1.98E-08 1.98E-08

2b) Soil Ingestion PathwayEAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 1.21212E-08 1.21212E-08 1.21212E-08 0.0003 4.0404E-05 4.0404E-05 4.0404E-05max H/T 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 1.21212E-08 1.21212E-08 1.21212E-08 0.0003 4.0404E-05 4.0404E-05 4.0404E-05AdultFort McKay 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 7.07214E-10 7.07214E-10 7.07214E-10 0.0003 2.35738E-06 2.35738E-06 2.35738E-06max H/T 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 7.07214E-10 7.07214E-10 7.07214E-10 0.0003 2.35738E-06 2.35738E-06 2.35738E-06

3) Berry Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER


4) Leaf Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER


5) Root Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER


6) Moose Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER


Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-31 August 2006

Table 2-13: Mercury - Multi-Media Assessment, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Water Ingestion Pathway

EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER[mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] L/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]

ChildFort McKay 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 7.27273E-07 7.27273E-07 7.27273E-07 0.0003 0.002424242 0.002424242 0.002424242max H/T 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 7.27273E-07 7.27273E-07 7.27273E-07 0.0003 0.002424242 0.002424242 0.002424242AdultFort McKay 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 4.24328E-07 4.24328E-07 4.24328E-07 0.0003 0.001414427 0.001414427 0.001414427max H/T 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 4.24328E-07 4.24328E-07 4.24328E-07 0.0003 0.001414427 0.001414427 0.001414427

Total ERChild EAC ER PC ER PDC ERFort McKay 0.02 0.02 0.02max H/T 0.02 0.02 0.02AdultFort McKay 0.01 0.01 0.01max H/T 0.01 0.01 0.01

NOTES: EAC = Existing and Approved Case; PC = Project Case; PDC = Project Development Case.

Location



2-32 August 2006

Table 2-14: Mercury - Multi-Media Assessment, 12 Months Vegetation ConsumptionFish pathway assessed for methylmercury since methylmercury is the dominant form of mercury in fish tissue.

1) Air Pathway

Location EAC Conc (ug/m3) PC Conc (ug/m3) PDC (ug/m3) RfC (ug/m3) EAC ER PC ER PDC ERFort McKay 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.3 0.000033 0.000033 0.000033max H/T 0.000010 0.000010 0.000010 0.3 0.000033 0.000033 0.000033Note: RfC for air pathway from US EPA IRIS for elemental mercury

2a) Dust Pathway - done by predicted exposure due to use of oral RfDRAF = 14, absorption by inhalation route is 1.0, absorption by ingestion route is 0.07 (1/0.07=14) Reference: Goyer, R.A. 1991. Toxic Effects of Metals. In: Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, fourth edition. M. O. Ammdur, J. Doull and C.D. Klaassen, eds. pp. 623-680.

EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR [P]air RAF EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] m3/day kg/m3 unitless [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]

ChildFort McKay 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 9.3 7.6E-10 14 365 1 16.5 365 1.49927E-11 1.4993E-11 1.49927E-11 0.0003 5.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-08max H/T 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 9.3 7.6E-10 14 365 1 16.5 365 1.49927E-11 1.4993E-11 1.49927E-11 0.0003 5.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-08AdultFort McKay 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 15.8 7.6E-10 14 365 1 70.7 365 5.94455E-12 5.9446E-12 5.94455E-12 0.0003 1.98E-08 1.98E-08 1.98E-08max H/T 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 15.8 7.6E-10 14 365 1 70.7 365 5.94455E-12 5.9446E-12 5.94455E-12 0.0003 1.98E-08 1.98E-08 1.98E-08


[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 1.21212E-08 1.21212E-08 1.21212E-08 0.0003 4.0404E-05 4.0404E-05 4.0404E-05max H/T 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 1.21212E-08 1.21212E-08 1.21212E-08 0.0003 4.0404E-05 4.0404E-05 4.0404E-05AdultFort McKay 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 7.07214E-10 7.07214E-10 7.07214E-10 0.0003 2.35738E-06 2.35738E-06 2.35738E-06max H/T 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 7.07214E-10 7.07214E-10 7.07214E-10 0.0003 2.35738E-06 2.35738E-06 2.35738E-06









Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-33 August 2006

Table 2-14: Mercury - Multi-Media Assessment, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Water Ingestion Pathway

EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER[mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] L/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]

ChildFort McKay 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 7.27273E-07 7.27273E-07 7.27273E-07 0.0003 0.002424242 0.002424242 0.002424242max H/T 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 7.27273E-07 7.27273E-07 7.27273E-07 0.0003 0.002424242 0.002424242 0.002424242AdultFort McKay 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 4.24328E-07 4.24328E-07 4.24328E-07 0.0003 0.001414427 0.001414427 0.001414427max H/T 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 4.24328E-07 4.24328E-07 4.24328E-07 0.0003 0.001414427 0.001414427 0.001414427



Location



2-34 August 2006


[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.095 85 1 16.5 365 0.000490252 0.000490252 0.000490252 0.0001 5 5 5max H/T 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.095 85 1 16.5 365 0.000490252 0.000490252 0.000490252 0.0001 5 5 5AdultFort McKay 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.22 85 1 70.7 365 0.000264962 0.000264962 0.000264962 0.0001 3 3 3max H/T 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.22 85 1 70.7 365 0.000264962 0.000264962 0.000264962 0.0001 3 3 3NOTES: EAC = Existing and Approved Case; PC = Project Case; PDC = Project Development Case.Shaded and bolded values indicate ER values greater than 1.0.

Total ERChild EAC ER PC ER PDC ERFort McKay 5 5 5max H/T 5 5 5AdultFort McKay 3 3 3max H/T 3 3 3NOTES: EAC = Existing and Approved Case; PC = Project Case; PDC = Project Development Case.Shaded and bolded values indicate ER values greater than 1.0.

Location

Table 2-15: Methylmercury - Fish Pathway Only; Average Fish Consumer



2-35 August 2006


[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 0.0021052 0.0021052 0.0021052 0.0001 21 21 21max H/T 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 0.0021052 0.0021052 0.0021052 0.0001 21 21 21AdultFort McKay 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 0.001137777 0.001137777 0.001137777 0.0001 11 11 11max H/T 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 0.001137777 0.001137777 0.001137777 0.0001 11 11 11NOTES: NOTES: EAC = Existing and Approved Case; PC = Project Case; PDC = Project Development Case. EAC = Existing and Approved Case; PC = Project Case; PDC = Project Development Case.Shaded and bolded values indicate ER values greater than 1.0. Shaded and bolded values indicate ER values greater than 1.0.

Total ERChild EAC ER PC ER PDC ERFort McKay 21 21 21max H/T 21 21 21AdultFort McKay 11 11 11max H/T 11 11 11NOTES: EAC = Existing and Approved Case; PC = Project Case; PDC = Project Development Case.Shaded and bolded values indicate ER values greater than 1.0.

Location

Table 2-16: Methylmercury - Fish Pathway Only; High Fish Consumer



2-36 August 2006

Table 2-17: Molybdenum - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway

Location EAC Conc (ug/m3) PC Conc (ug/m3) PDC (ug/m3) RfC (ug/m3) EAC ER PC ER PDC ER Conversion of RfC to RfD for the dust pathway RfDinh = (Rfc x IRadult)/BwadultFort McKay 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 12 0.000007 0.000007 0.000008 [Particulate]air [Particulate]air RfC RfC IR BW RfDinhalationmax H/T 0.00006 0.00007 0.00007 12 0.000005 0.000006 0.000006 µg/m3 kg/m3 (ug/m3) (mg/m3) m3/day kg mg/kg.day

0.76 7.60E-10 12 0.012 15.8 70.7 0.00272a) Dust Pathway

EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR [P]air EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDinh EAC ER PC ER PDC ER[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] m3/day kg/m3 [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]

ChildFort McKay 0.17 0.17 0.18 9.3 7.6E-10 365 1 16.5 365 7.28E-11 7.28E-11 7.71E-11 0.0027 2.72E-08 2.72E-08 2.88E-08max H/T 0.17 0.17 0.18 9.3 7.6E-10 365 1 16.5 365 7.28E-11 7.28E-11 7.71E-11 0.0027 2.72E-08 2.72E-08 2.88E-08AdultFort McKay 0.17 0.17 0.18 15.8 7.6E-10 365 1 70.7 365 2.89E-11 2.89E-11 3.06E-11 0.0027 1.08E-08 1.08E-08 1.14E-08max H/T 0.17 0.17 0.18 15.8 7.6E-10 365 1 70.7 365 2.89E-11 2.89E-11 3.06E-11 0.0027 1.08E-08 1.08E-08 1.14E-08


[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 8.24242E-07 8.24242E-07 8.72727E-07 0.005 0.000164848 0.00016485 0.000174545max H/T 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 8.24242E-07 8.24242E-07 8.72727E-07 0.005 0.000164848 0.00016485 0.000174545AdultFort McKay 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 4.80905E-08 4.80905E-08 5.09194E-08 0.005 9.6181E-06 9.6181E-06 1.01839E-05max H/T 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 4.80905E-08 4.80905E-08 5.09194E-08 0.005 9.6181E-06 9.6181E-06 1.01839E-05








[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.0302 0.0302 0.0303 0.085 365 1 16.5 365 0.000155576 0.000155576 0.000156091 0.005 0.031115152 0.03111515 0.031218182max H/T 0.0302 0.0302 0.0303 0.085 365 1 16.5 365 0.000155576 0.000155576 0.000156091 0.005 0.031115152 0.03111515 0.031218182AdultFort McKay 0.0302 0.0302 0.0303 0.27 365 1 70.7 365 0.000115332 0.000115332 0.000115714 0.005 0.023066478 0.02306648 0.023142857max H/T 0.0302 0.0302 0.0303 0.27 365 1 70.7 365 0.000115332 0.000115332 0.000115714 0.005 0.023066478 0.02306648 0.023142857

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-37 August 2006

Table 2-17: Molybdenum - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)




[mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] L/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.003 0.003 0.007 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 5.45455E-05 5.45455E-05 0.000127273 0.005 0.010909091 0.01090909 0.025454545max H/T 0.003 0.003 0.007 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 5.45455E-05 5.45455E-05 0.000127273 0.005 0.010909091 0.01090909 0.025454545AdultFort McKay 0.003 0.003 0.007 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 3.18246E-05 3.18246E-05 7.42574E-05 0.005 0.006364922 0.00636492 0.014851485max H/T 0.003 0.003 0.007 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 3.18246E-05 3.18246E-05 7.42574E-05 0.005 0.006364922 0.00636492 0.014851485



Location

Location



2-38 August 2006

Table 2-18: Molybdenum - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 12 0.012 15.8 70.7 0.00272a) Dust Pathway








[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.007 365 1 16.5 365 0.000212121 0.000212121 0.000216364 0.005 0.042424242 0.04242424 0.043272727max H/T 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.007 365 1 16.5 365 0.000212121 0.000212121 0.000216364 0.005 0.042424242 0.04242424 0.043272727AdultFort McKay 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.014 365 1 70.7 365 9.90099E-05 9.90099E-05 0.00010099 0.005 0.01980198 0.01980198 0.02019802max H/T 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.014 365 1 70.7 365 9.90099E-05 9.90099E-05 0.00010099 0.005 0.01980198 0.01980198 0.02019802





Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-39 August 2006

Table 2-18: Molybdenum - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER






Location

Location



2-40 August 2006

Table 2-19: Molybdenum - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 12 0.012 15.8 70.7 0.00272a) Dust Pathway













Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-41 August 2006

Table 2-19: Molybdenum - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER






Location

Location



2-42 August 2006

Table 2-20: Molybdenum - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 12 0.012 15.8 70.7 0.00272a) Dust Pathway













Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-43 August 2006

Table 2-20: Molybdenum - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER






Location

Location



2-44 August 2006

Table 2-21: Nickel - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation ConsumptionNickel TRV is based on exposure through drinking water (Health Canada 2004). For the purpose of this assessment, bioavailability of nickel via food ingestion was assumed to be 3% relative to 100% bioavailability via water ingestion (ATSDR 1997).

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1997. Toxicological Profiles: Nickel. CRC Press Inc., Atlanta.Health Canada. 2004. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Part I: Guidance on Human Health Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA). Health Canada, Ottawa, ON.

1) Air Pathway

Location EAC Conc (ug/m3) PC Conc (ug/m3) PDC (ug/m3) RfC (ug/m3) EAC ER PC ER PDC ER Conversion of RfC to RfD for the dust pathway RfDinh = (Rfc x IRadult)/BwadultFort McKay 0.0006 0.0006 0.0009 0.02 0.031500 0.032000 0.047000 [Particulate]air [Particulate]air RfC RfC IR BW RfDinhalationmax H/T 0.00131 0.00134 0.00065 0.02 0.065500 0.067000 0.032500 µg/m3 kg/m3 (ug/m3) (mg/m3) m3/day kg mg/kg.day

0.76 7.60E-10 0.02 0.00002 15.8 70.7 0.00000452a) Dust Pathway



2b) Soil Ingestion PathwayEAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT RAF EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] unitless [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 2.08 2.08 1.94 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 3.0% 3.02545E-07 3.02545E-07 2.82182E-07 0.0013 0.000232727 0.000232727 0.000217063max H/T 2.08 2.08 1.94 0.00008 365 1 16.5 365 3.0% 3.02545E-07 3.02545E-07 2.82182E-07 0.0013 0.000232727 0.000232727 0.000217063AdultFort McKay 2.08 2.08 1.94 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 3.0% 1.76521E-08 1.76521E-08 1.64639E-08 0.0013 1.35785E-05 1.35785E-05 1.26646E-05max H/T 2.08 2.08 1.94 0.00002 365 1 70.7 365 3.0% 1.76521E-08 1.76521E-08 1.64639E-08 0.0013 1.35785E-05 1.35785E-05 1.26646E-05

3) Berry Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT RAF EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] unitless [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.0006 91 1 16.5 365 3.0% 5.71158E-08 5.71158E-08 4.62366E-08 0.0013 4.39352E-05 4.39352E-05 3.55666E-05max H/T 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.0006 91 1 16.5 365 3.0% 5.71158E-08 5.71158E-08 4.62366E-08 0.0013 4.39352E-05 4.39352E-05 3.55666E-05AdultFort McKay 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.0023 91 1 70.7 365 3.0% 5.10972E-08 5.10972E-08 4.13644E-08 0.0013 3.93056E-05 3.93056E-05 3.18188E-05max H/T 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.0023 91 1 70.7 365 3.0% 5.10972E-08 5.10972E-08 4.13644E-08 0.0013 3.93056E-05 3.93056E-05 3.18188E-05

4) Leaf Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT RAF EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] unitless [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 1.6 1.6 1.34 0.007 91 1 16.5 365 3.0% 5.07696E-06 5.07696E-06 4.25196E-06 0.0013 0.003905355 0.003905355 0.003270735max H/T 1.6 1.6 1.34 0.007 91 1 16.5 365 3.0% 5.07696E-06 5.07696E-06 4.25196E-06 0.0013 0.003905355 0.003905355 0.003270735AdultFort McKay 1.6 1.6 1.34 0.014 91 1 70.7 365 3.0% 2.36973E-06 2.36973E-06 1.98465E-06 0.0013 0.001822867 0.001822867 0.001526651max H/T 1.6 1.6 1.34 0.014 91 1 70.7 365 3.0% 2.36973E-06 2.36973E-06 1.98465E-06 0.0013 0.001822867 0.001822867 0.001526651

5) Root Ingestion Pathway (all in dry wt)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT RAF EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER


6) Moose Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT RAF EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER


Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-45 August 2006

Table 2-21: Nickel - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)

EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT RAF EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] unitless [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]

ChildFort McKay 0.008 0.056 0.056 0.095 85 1 16.5 365 3.0% 3.21793E-07 2.25255E-06 2.25255E-06 0.0013 0.000247533 0.001732733 0.001732733max H/T 0.008 0.056 0.056 0.095 85 1 16.5 365 3.0% 3.21793E-07 2.25255E-06 2.25255E-06 0.0013 0.000247533 0.001732733 0.001732733AdultFort McKay 0.008 0.056 0.056 0.22 85 1 70.7 365 3.0% 1.73916E-07 1.21741E-06 1.21741E-06 0.0013 0.000133782 0.000936473 0.000936473max H/T 0.008 0.056 0.056 0.22 85 1 70.7 365 3.0% 1.73916E-07 1.21741E-06 1.21741E-06 0.0013 0.000133782 0.000936473 0.000936473

8) Water Ingestion PathwayEAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT RAF EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/L] [mg/L] [mg/L] L/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] unitless [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.001 0.007 0.007 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 100.0% 1.81818E-05 0.000127273 0.000127273 0.0013 0.013986014 0.097902098 0.097902098max H/T 0.001 0.007 0.007 0.6 182.5 1 16.5 365 100.0% 1.81818E-05 0.000127273 0.000127273 0.0013 0.013986014 0.097902098 0.097902098AdultFort McKay 0.001 0.007 0.007 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 100.0% 1.06082E-05 7.42574E-05 7.42574E-05 0.0013 0.008160157 0.057121097 0.057121097max H/T 0.001 0.007 0.007 1.5 182.5 1 70.7 365 100.0% 1.06082E-05 7.42574E-05 7.42574E-05 0.0013 0.008160157 0.057121097 0.057121097



Location

Location



2-46 August 2006

Table 2-22: Nickel - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation ConsumptionNickel TRV is based on exposure through drinking water (Health Canada 2004). For the purpose of this assessment, bioavailability of nickel via food ingestion was assumed to be 3% relative to 100% bioavailability via water ingestion (ATSDR 1997).


1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 0.02 0.00002 15.8 70.7 0.00000452a) Dust Pathway













Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-47 August 2006

Table 2-22: Nickel - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)







Location

Location



2-48 August 2006

Table 2-23: Nickel - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation ConsumptionNickel TRV is based on exposure through drinking water (Health Canada 2004). For the purpose of this assessment, bioavailability of nickel via food ingestion was assumed to be 3% relative to 100% bioavailability via water ingestion (ATSDR 1997).


1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 0.02 0.00002 15.8 70.7 0.00000452a) Dust Pathway






[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] unitless [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.0006 91 1 16.5 365 3.0% 5.71158E-08 5.71158E-08 4.62366E-08 0.0013 4.39352E-05 4.39352E-05 3.55666E-05max H/T 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.0006 91 1 16.5 365 3.0% 5.71158E-08 5.71158E-08 4.62366E-08 0.0013 4.39352E-05 4.39352E-05 3.55666E-05AdultFort McKay 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.0023 91 1 70.7 365 3.0% 5.10972E-08 5.10972E-08 4.13644E-08 0.0013 3.93056E-05 3.93056E-05 3.18188E-05max H/T 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.0023 91 1 70.7 365 3.0% 5.10972E-08 5.10972E-08 4.13644E-08 0.0013 3.93056E-05 3.93056E-05 3.18188E-05







Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-49 August 2006

Table 2-23: Nickel - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)







Location

Location



2-50 August 2006

Table 2-24: Nickel - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation ConsumptionNickel TRV is based on exposure through drinking water (Health Canada 2004). For the purpose of this assessment, bioavailability of nickel via food ingestion was assumed to be 3% relative to 100% bioavailability via water ingestion (ATSDR 1997).


1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 0.02 0.00002 15.8 70.7 0.00000452a) Dust Pathway













Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-51 August 2006

Table 2-24: Nickel - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)7) Fish Ingestion Pathway (all in wet wt)







Location

Location



2-52 August 2006

Table 2-25: Vanadium - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 0.2 0.0002 15.8 70.7 0.0000452a) Dust Pathway














Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-53 August 2006

Table 2-25: Vanadium - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER






Location

Location



2-54 August 2006

Table 2-26: Vanadium - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 0.2 0.0002 15.8 70.7 0.0000452a) Dust Pathway
















Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-55 August 2006

Table 2-26: Vanadium - Multi-Media Assessment, Average Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER



Location



2-56 August 2006

Table 2-27: Vanadium - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 0.2 0.0002 15.8 70.7 0.0000452a) Dust Pathway














Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-57 August 2006

Table 2-27: Vanadium - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 3 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.013 0.013 0.026 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 7.48485E-05 7.48485E-05 0.000149697 0.003 0.024949495 0.02494949 0.04989899max H/T 0.013 0.013 0.026 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 7.48485E-05 7.48485E-05 0.000149697 0.003 0.024949495 0.02494949 0.04989899AdultFort McKay 0.013 0.013 0.026 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 4.04526E-05 4.04526E-05 8.09052E-05 0.003 0.013484206 0.01348421 0.026968411max H/T 0.013 0.013 0.026 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 4.04526E-05 4.04526E-05 8.09052E-05 0.003 0.013484206 0.01348421 0.026968411





Location

Location



2-58 August 2006

Table 2-28: Vanadium - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption1) Air Pathway


0.76 7.60E-10 0.2 0.0002 15.8 70.7 0.0000452a) Dust Pathway














Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location



2-59 August 2006

Table 2-28: Vanadium - Multi-Media Assessment, High Fish Consumer, 12 Months Vegetation Consumption (Cont'd)EAC Conc PC Conc PDC Conc IR EF ED BW AT EAC EDI PC EDI PDC EDI RfDo EAC ER PC ER PDC ER

[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [mg/kg] kg/day [d/yr] [yr] kg [d] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day] [mg/kg-day]ChildFort McKay 0.013 0.013 0.026 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 7.48485E-05 7.48485E-05 0.000149697 0.003 0.024949495 0.02494949 0.04989899max H/T 0.013 0.013 0.026 0.095 365 1 16.5 365 7.48485E-05 7.48485E-05 0.000149697 0.003 0.024949495 0.02494949 0.04989899AdultFort McKay 0.013 0.013 0.026 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 4.04526E-05 4.04526E-05 8.09052E-05 0.003 0.013484206 0.01348421 0.026968411max H/T 0.013 0.013 0.026 0.22 365 1 70.7 365 4.04526E-05 4.04526E-05 8.09052E-05 0.003 0.013484206 0.01348421 0.026968411





Location

Location


Appendix 3: Summary of Results for Multi-media Risk Assessment

Golder Associates


3-1 August 2006

Table 3-1: Exposure Ratios for Multi-media Risk Assessment (all pathways)

EAC Project Case PDC EAC Project Case PDC EAC Project Case PDC EAC Project Case PDCToddler - Maximum Hunter/TrapperAntimony 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7Cadmium (a) 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6Chromium 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002Lead 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Molybdenum 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3Nickel (b) 0.09 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2Vanadium 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3Adult - Maximum Hunter/TrapperAntimony 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2Cadmium (a) 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.98 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4Chromium 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002Lead 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08Molybdenum 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Nickel (b) 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.1 0.1Vanadium 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Bold Highlighted values: ER > 1

Table 3-2: Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (1 in 100,000) for Multi-media Risk Assessment; Composite Receptor (all pathways)

EAC Project Case PDC EAC Project Case PDC EAC Project Case PDC EAC Project Case PDCMaximum Hunter/TrapperArsenic (a) 13 13 13 28 28 28 21 21 21 36 36 36Bold Highlighted values: ILCR > 1 in 100,000

Table 3-3: Exposure Ratios for Multi-media Risk Assessment (Fish Pathway Only)

EAC Project Case PDC EAC Project Case PDCToddler - Maximum Hunter/TrapperMethylmercury(a) 5 5 5 21 21 21Adult - Maximum Hunter/TrapperMethylmercury(a) 3 3 3 11 11 11Bold Highlighted values: ER > 1

Table 3-4: Exposure Ratios for Multi-media Risk Assessment (all pathways except fish)

EAC Project Case PDC EAC Project Case PDCToddler - Maximum Hunter/TrapperMercury 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03Adult - Maximum Hunter/TrapperMercury 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02

Chemical of Concern

3 Months of Vegetation Consumption 100% Year Round Vegetation Consumption

(a) Arsenic ILCR values have decreased as compared to the values presented in SIRs Round 1. In SIRs Round 1 water pathway exposure was assumed to be year round, however in order to remain consistent with the assumptions presented in the EIA the water pathway exposure has been updated to six months (half a year) of exposure

(a) Methylmercury ERs have increased as compared to the values presented in SIRs Round 1. The more conservative toxicity reference value of (0.0001 mg/kg-day) from US EPA IRIS (as presented in the EIA) was used for this assessment as opposed to the TRV of 0.0002 mg/kg-day used for SIRs Round 1.

Average Fish Consumer (Consumes Fish 85 Days/Year)

High Fish Consumer (Consumes Fish 365 Days/Year)

Chemical of Concern

100% Year Round Vegetation ConsumptionChemical of Concern

Average Fish Consumer (Consumes Fish 85 Days/Year) High Fish Consumer (Consumes Fish 365 Days/Year)3 Months of Vegetation Consumption 100% Year Round Vegetation Consumption 3 Months of Vegetation Consumption

(a) The ERs for cadmium have increased slightly from the numbers presented in the EIA. Baseline measured moose meat concentration was updated to 0.027 mg/kg wet weight from <0.02 mg/kg as reported in Appendix 3A of the EIA, Table 3A-21 due to an error detected in the EIA.

Chemical of Concern

Average Fish Consumer (Consumes Fish 85 Days/Year) High Fish Consumer (Consumes Fish 365 Days/Year)3 Months of Vegetation Consumption 100% Year Round Vegetation Consumption 3 Months of Vegetation Consumption 100% Year Round Vegetation Consumption

(b) The ERs for nickel have decreased from the numbers presented in the EIA and SIRs Round 1 due to the use of 3% bioavailability for oral absorption. (ATSDR [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry]. 1997. Toxicological Profiles: Nickel. CRC Press Inc., Atlanta.)

Appendix 3: Summary of Results for Multi-media Risk Assessment

round 3 health questions · 2006-08-22 · kearl oil sands – mine development august 2006 page 1...

Documents