Marine Ecological Risk Assessment for Kitimat ... - Northern Gateway

Technical Data Report 

Marine Ecological Risk Assessment for Kitimat 

Terminal Operations 

ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT 

Jacques Whitford Limited 

Fredericton, New Brunswick 

Malcolm Stephenson, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. 

Annick St-Amand, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. 

Paul Mazzocco, B.Sc. 

Jean-Michel DeVink, B.Sc.F., Ph.D. 

2010

Marine Ecological Risk Assessment for Kitimat Terminal Operations 


Executive Summary 


This document is an ecological risk assessment for marine terminal operations for the Enbridge Northern 

Gateway Project (Project), prepared in support of the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment 

(ESA) for the Project, Volume 6B and Volume 6C, Section 4. 

The Project involves the development and operation of a crude oil export pipeline, a condensate import 

pipeline, a tank terminal and a marine terminal located on the west side of Kitimat Arm near Kitimat, 

British Columbia. The marine terminal includes all marine-based facilities including two tanker berths for 

loading oil tankers and unloading condensate tankers as well as one utility berth. The tank terminal 

comprises all land-based facilities, including 14 hydrocarbon storage tanks, each with a capacity of 

78,800 m 3 . 

For modelling specific effects on the marine environment and biological receptors (modelled species), an 

operational life of 50 years is assumed for the Kitimat Terminal. 

This Marine ERA evaluates the chemicals from the following sources: 

• volatile hydrocarbon and trace element emissions from tanks and valves 

• hydrocarbon and trace element emissions from marine engine operations while tankers are berthed 

• liquid effluent emissions from the Kitimat Terminal arising from normal operations and site-wide 

storm water runoff 

Study Area and Modelling Locations 

The highest level of chemical emissions from the Kitimat Terminal to the marine environment would be 

deposited in the area that includes Kitimat Arm extending north to Kitimat and approximately 5 km south 

of the marine terminal, Clio Bay and Emsley Cove. 

This area is further subdivided into five marine water compartments that are delineated using prominent 

geographical features and professional judgment. The concentrations of chemicals of potential concern 

(COPC) in the water and sediment of each model compartment are determined using a marine water 

quality model and a marine sediment quality model, respectively. Each model compartment is considered 

as a potential marine ecological resource location, where marine biota may be exposed to COPC in the 

environment: marine algae, benthic invertebrates, fish, sea birds, shore birds, marine mammals and 

semi-aquatic mammals living along the shoreline. Risks marine biota from exposure to COPC are 

considered individually and collectively to determine whether there may be adverse environmental effects 

of the Kitimat Terminal operations on the marine environment. 

2010 Page i




Modelled Cases 

Only the operations of the Kitmat Terminal are considered because emissions to the marine environment 

from construction and decommissioning do not involve the handling and storage of large quantities of 

liquid hydrocarbons. The following three cases are evaluated: 

• Base Case: existing conditions and industry in the region, prior to the construction and operation of 

the Kitimat Terminal. 

• Project Case: the Kitimat Terminal in isolation, to assess the potential environmental effects of the 

Kitimat Terminal alone. 

• Application Case: the combination of the Base and Project cases and is intended to assess the 

potential environmental effects of the Kitimat Terminal in combination with other past or existing 

sources in the PEAA. 

This Marine ERA does not attempt to provide a prediction of cumulative environmental effects arising 

from the construction, operation or decommissioning of other projects that may presently be in the 

planning stages, since the data required to evaluate such projects quantitatively are not available. 

Potential Kitimat Terminal COPC Emissions to the Marine Environment 

Two main release pathways for COPC are considered: atmospheric release and liquid effluent discharge. 

Loadings of COPC to the marine environment from atmospheric deposition are applied to each 

compartment of the marine water quality model. Loadings of COPC to the marine environment from 

liquid effluent discharge are applied to compartments of the marine water quality model that are adjacent 

to the marine terminal. Once in the marine environment, COPC are allowed to disperse throughout the 

PEAA, in response to the effects of tide, freshwater runoff and stratification due to salinity differences. 

The marine water quality model simulations extended over a three-year period, taking into consideration 

realistic tidal and runoff processes. The mean daily seawater concentrations in each model compartment, 

for each day of a standard year, are used as input to the marine sediment quality model to evaluate the 

potential for COPC to accumulate in sediment over a 50-year period. The marine sediment quality model 

considers two types of sediments: those associated with salt marshes and mudflats in the intertidal zone 

and those located in the sub-tidal zone. The potential accumulation of COPC in biota, such as rockweeds, 

marine invertebrates, and fish that might be consumed as food or prey by a modelled species (receptor) is 

considered at the end of the modelling period. 

Atmospheric Release 

Low levels of COPC release to the atmosphere will occur as a result of volatile hydrocarbon and trace 

element losses from tanks, valves, and emissions from tankers that are at berth. Concentrations of these 

substances in air and deposition rates to soil and the marine environment are conservatively estimated at 

selected locations within the PEAA. 

Page ii 2010




Liquid Effluent Discharge 

For COPC associated with liquid effluent discharge, the screening of chemicals was based upon chemical 

analyses of representative hydrocarbon samples, followed by an analysis taking into consideration the 

likely performance of oil-water separators, the relative solubility of various hydrocarbon fractions, and 

the potential for hydrocarbons to weather in the retention pond prior to being discharged. 

Exposure Assessment 

The exposure assessment evaluates the extent to which a marine receptor will come into contact with 

COPC released from the Kitimat Terminal. This is based on their habitat preferences, diet, behaviour, 

body weight, and food and water ingestion rates, as well as the expected fate and transport of the 

individual COPC in the environment. 

In all model compartments, the potential risk of environmental effects is evaluated for the following 

aquatic and sediment community-level KI: 

• marine algae exposed to COPC in water 

• benthic invertebrates and fish exposed to COPC in sediment 

• fish and invertebrates exposed to COPC in water 

The following avian and mammalian species are assumed to be exposed to COPC in each model 

compartment: 

• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus, a large, charismatic piscivorous bird that seizes prey from the 

water surface or may feed on carrion) 

• Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus, a generalist seabird nesting in old-growth forest, but 

also living on the water surface and feeding on small fish and invertebrates). The Marbled Murrelet is 

a species at risk. 

• Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia, a shorebird feeding on invertebrates on exposed mudflats and 

salt marsh sediments) 

• Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata, a sea duck feeding on invertebrates in the intertidal zone) 

• coastal-dwelling mink (Mustala vison, a small piscivorous mammal feeding on fish and invertebrates 

in the intertidal zone) 

• harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena vomerina, a charismatic marine mammal living in the offshore 

area, and feeding on fish and invertebrates). The harbour porpoise is a species at risk. 

• Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus, a large charismatic marine mammal feeding on fish and 

invertebrates in the intertidal and nearshore areas). The Steller sea lion is a species at risk. 

2010 Page iii




Results of the Marine ERA 

The effect magnitudes for the water and sediment community-level receptors are generally rated as 

negligible or low for the Base, Project and Application cases. The only exceptions occurred in the Base 

Case, where benzo(b)fluoranthene (a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) and the trace elements barium, 

manganese and zinc were found to be present in water at concentrations that could cause moderate effects 

on aquatic community receptors such as fish and plankton. However, these potential Base Case 

environmental effects are based on the: 

• maximum measured concentration of COPC in water 

• assumption that 100% of the measured concentration of each COPC is bioavailable 

In each case, the contribution of the Project Case to the overall Application Case is negligible. (i.e., below 

the level of detection) 

For avian and mammalian species, all calculated HQ values are below thresholds that indicate a potential 

risk of adverse effect for all modelled cases. 

Four species at risk are assessed: eulachon, Marbled Murrelet, Steller sea lion and harbour porpoise. It is 

concluded that the environmental effects of COPC released by the operations of the Kitimat Terminal 

over a 50-year period would not result in adverse effects on these receptors, evaluated as species at risk. 

The Marine ERA is based on measured data, to the extent practical, with conservative assumptions used 

in the exposure and hazard assessments. Therefore, it is unlikely that the risk of adverse effects on the 

marine environment is underestimated. 

Page iv 2010



Table of Contents 


1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Organization of Marine ERA Technical Data Report .......................................... 1-1 

2 Ecological Risk Assessment Framework .......................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Risk Assessment Framework ............................................................................. 2-1 

2.2 Problem Formulation .......................................................................................... 2-3 

2.2.1 Exposure Assessment ................................................................................... 2-3 

2.2.2 Hazard Assessment....................................................................................... 2-4 

2.2.3 Risk Characterization .................................................................................... 2-5 

2.2.4 Uncertainty and Conservatism in the Marine ERA ........................................ 2-5 

3 Problem Formulation ........................................................................................ 3-1 

3.1 Spatial Boundaries ............................................................................................. 3-1 

3.2 Modelled Cases .................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.3 Description of Project Effects Assessment Area ................................................ 3-3 

3.4 Risk Assessment and Measurement Endpoints in ERA ..................................... 3-5 

3.4.1 Derivation of Oral Toxicity Reference Values for Mammalian and 

Avian Receptors ............................................................................................ 3-6 

3.4.1.1 Uncertainty Factors ...................................................................... 3-7 

3.4.1.2 Body Mass Scaling Factors .......................................................... 3-9 

3.5 Chemical Identification for Liquid Effluent Emissions ......................................... 3-9 

3.6 Chemical Identification for Air Emissions ......................................................... 3-17 

3.7 Chemical Screening ......................................................................................... 3-18 

3.7.1 Nature of the Constituent ............................................................................. 3-18 

3.7.2 Baseline Water Concentration ..................................................................... 3-19 

3.7.3 Concentration in Liquid Hydrocarbons ........................................................ 3-19 

3.7.4 Biomagnification Potential of COPC ............................................................ 3-22 

3.8 Identification of Marine Receptors .................................................................... 3-22 

3.8.1 Community-Level Key Marine Receptors .................................................... 3-23 

3.8.2 Species at Risk ............................................................................................ 3-23 

3.8.3 Avian and Mammalian Key Indicators ......................................................... 3-26 

3.8.3.1 Coastal-dwelling Mink ................................................................ 3-26 

3.8.3.2 Harbour Porpoise ....................................................................... 3-27 

3.8.3.3 Steller Sea Lion .......................................................................... 3-28 

3.8.3.4 Bald Eagle .................................................................................. 3-29 

3.8.3.5 Marbled Murrelet ........................................................................ 3-30 

3.8.3.6 Spotted Sandpiper ..................................................................... 3-31 

3.8.3.7 Surf Scoter ................................................................................. 3-32 

3.9 Exposure Pathway Screening .......................................................................... 3-33 

4 Exposure Assessment ...................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Fate and Transport Modelling of COPC Exposure Point Concentrations ........... 4-1 

2010 Page v




4.2 Exposure Point Concentrations and Uptake Factors .......................................... 4-6 

4.3 Calculation of Daily Dose for Mammalian and Avian KI ................................... 4-19 

4.4 Exposure Estimates for Community-Level Receptors ...................................... 4-19 

5 Hazard Assessment ......................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Derivation of Benchmarks for Water and Sediment Community-level 

Marine Receptors ............................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Derivation of Oral Reference Values for Mammalian and Avian Marine 

Receptors ........................................................................................................... 5-3 

6 Risk Characterization ....................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1 Chemical Interactions ......................................................................................... 6-1 

6.2 Summary of Base Case Effect Magnitude and Hazard Quotients ...................... 6-2 

6.3 Summary of Project Case Effect Magnitude and Hazard Quotients ................... 6-9 

6.4 Summary of Application Case Effect Magnitude and Hazard Quotients .......... 6-15 

6.5 Species at Risk ................................................................................................. 6-17 

7 Certainty and Confidence ................................................................................. 7-1 

7.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern ..................................................... 7-1 

7.2 Selection of Receptors ....................................................................................... 7-1 

7.3 Environmental Fate and Transport Modelling .................................................... 7-2 

7.4 Resource-Specific Toxicity Data ........................................................................ 7-2 

7.5 Resource Exposure to COPC and HQ Calculations ........................................... 7-2 

7.6 Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability ............................................................. 7-3 

8 Summary of Environmental Effects .................................................................. 8-1 

9 References ...................................................................................................... 9-1 

9.1 Literature Cited ................................................................................................... 9-1 

9.2 Internet Sites ...................................................................................................... 9-4 

Appendix A Marine Water Quality Model .................................................... A-1 

Appendix B Marine Sediment Quality Model .............................................. B-1 

Appendix C Exposure Point Concentrations for COPC in 

Environmental Media ............................................................. C-1 

Appendix D Sediment Quality Triad Results for Baseline 

Environmental Conditions ...................................................... D-1 

Appendix E Chemical Composition of Liquid Hydrocarbon Samples .......... E-1 

Appendix F COPC Screening and Weathering ........................................... F-1 

Appendix G Characteristics of Modelled Species ...................................... G-1 

Appendix H Uptake Factors from Water and Sediment to Marine Biota ..... H-1 

Appendix I Marine Ecological Risk Assessment Toxicity Reference 

Values (TRV) and Effect Magnitude Benchmark Values ........... I-1 

Appendix J Estimated Hazard Indices and Hazard Quotients 

for Selected Species..................................................... J-1 

Page vi 2010




List of Tables 

Table 1–1 Organization of the Marine Environmental Risk Assessment 

Technical Data Report ............................................................................ 1-2 

Table 3–1 Trace Elements and Organic Compounds Assessed in Diluted 

Bitumen, Synthetic Oil and Condensate ............................................... 3-10 

Table 3–2 Concentrations of Trace Elements and Organic Compounds with 

concentrations above 1 mg/kg in Liquid Hydrocarbons ........................ 3-20 

Table 3–3 COPC Modelled in the Risk Assessment.............................................. 3-21 

Table 3–4 Federal and Provincial Listed Species Potentially Present in the 

PEAA .................................................................................................... 3-24 

Table 3–5 Marine Receptors that are Species at Risk or Conservation 

Concern ................................................................................................ 3-25 

Table 3–6 Rationale for Exposure Pathways Evaluated for Avian and 

Mammalian Species ............................................................................. 3-35 

Table 4–1 Maximum Base Case Exposure Point Concentration of COPC .............. 4-7 

Table 4–2 Maximum Project Case Concentrations of COPC ................................ 4-11 

Table 4–3 Maximum Application Case Concentrations of COPC .......................... 4-15 

Table 5–1 Marine Water Effect Magnitude Benchmarks ......................................... 5-4 

Table 5–2 Marine Sediment Effect Magnitude Benchmarks .................................... 5-8 

Table 6–1 Summary of Base Case Effect Magnitude for Water and Sediment 

Community-level Receptors ................................................................... 6-2 

Table 6–2 Summary of Maximum Base Case Hazard Quotients for Avian and 

Mammalian Receptors ............................................................................ 6-5 

Table 6–3 Summary of Maximum Project Case Effect Magnitude for Water 

and Sediment Community-level Receptors ............................................ 6-9 

Table 6–4 Summary of Project Case Hazard Quotients for Avian and 

Mammalian Receptors .......................................................................... 6-11 

Table 6–5 Summary of Maximum Application Case Effects Magnitude for 

Water and Sediment Community-level Receptors ................................ 6-15 

Table 6–6 Summary of Application Case Hazard Quotients for Avian and 

Mammalian Receptors .......................................................................... 6-19 

2010 Page vii




List of Figures 

Figure 2–1 Conceptual Diagram of the Marine ERA Framework ............................... 2-2 

Figure 3–1 Marine Water Quality Model Compartments ........................................... 3-4 

Figure 3–2 Tiered Approach for the Application of Uncertainty Factors in ERA ........ 3-8 

Figure 3-3 Conceptual Exposure Model for Marine Key Indicators ......................... 3-34 

Figure 4–1 Marine Water Quality Model Conceptual Diagram (Stella format) ........... 4-3 

Figure 4–2 Marine Sediment Quality Model Conceptual Diagram (Stella format) ..... 4-5 

Figure 5–1 Conceptual Model of Environmental Effect Magnitude............................ 

5-2 

Page viii 2010



Abbreviations 

Abbreviations 

ADD ........................................................................................................ average daily dose 

AF ............................................................................................................... absorption factor 

ATSDR ................................................ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

BC CDC .......................................................... British Columbia Conservation Data Centre 

BCMOE ............................................................ British Columbia Ministry of Environment 

BTEX ............................................................... benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene 

BW .................................................................................................................... body weight 

CAS number ................................................... Chemical Abstract Service Registry number 

CCME ................................................... Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 

CEA Act ............................................................... Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 

CEPA .................................................................... Canadian Environmental Protection Act 

CMS ................................................................................ Convention on Migratory Species 

COPC ................................................................................ chemical(s) of potential concern 

COSEWIC .............................. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

CPCN ...................................................... Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CWS .................................................................................................. Canada-wide standard 

DFO ........................................................................................ Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

EC ........................................................................................................ Environment Canada 

EPC ......................................................................................... exposure point concentration 

ERA ............................................................................................. ecological risk assessment 

ESA ......................................................... Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment 

F1 (> C6-C10) ....................................................... CWS petroleum hydrocarbon fraction 1 

F2 (> C10-C16) ..................................................... CWS petroleum hydrocarbon fraction 2 



fsite ...................................................... The fraction of the total ingestion rate from the site 

HI ...................................................................................................................... hazard index 

HQ ................................................................................................................ hazard quotient 

ICE ................................................................................. interspecies correlation estimation 

IF ....................................................................................................................... intake factor 

IMMA .........................................................International Marine Mammal Association Inc. 

IR ..................................................................................................................... ingestion rate 

KOW ............... distribution coefficient for organic compounds between water and octanol 

KD .............................. distribution coefficient for substances between water and sediment 

KI ...................................................................................................................... key indicator 

LOAEL ........................................................................ lowest observed adverse effect level 

Marine ERA ....................................................................marine ecological risk assessment 

ND .................................................................................................................... Not detected 

NEB .................................................................................................. National Energy Board 

NOAEL ............................................................................ no observed adverse effect level 

2010 Page ix



Abbreviations 

Northern Gateway ................................................ Northern Gateway Pipelines Partnership 

OC ................................................................................................................. organic carbon 

PAH .................................................................................. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PCB ............................................................................................... polychlorinated biphenyl 

PEAA ................................................................................... project effects assessment area 

PHC ................................................................................................ petroleum hydrocarbons 

RIVM ............. The Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment 

SARA ....................................................................................................... Species At Risk Act 

SQG .......................................................................................... Sediment Quality Guideline 

TC ............................................................................................................. Transport Canada 

TDR ...................................................................................................... technical data report 

the Project .................................................................... Enbridge Northern Gateway Project 

TLM ...................................................................................................... Target Lipid Model 

TPH ........................................................................................ total petroleum hydrocarbons 

TRV ................................................................................................. toxicity reference value 

UCLM ........................................................................... upper confidence limit of the mean 

UF ............................................................................................................. uncertainty factor 

UP ..................................................................................................................... uptake factor 

U.S. EPA .................................................. United States Environmental Protection Agency 

VLCC .............................................................................................. very large crude carrier 

VOC ........................................................................................... volatile organic compound 

WHO ......................................................................................... World Health Organization 

WQG ............................................................................................. Water Quality Guideline 

Page x 2010



Glossary 

acute 

Glossary 

In toxicology, a toxicity test, exposure, or response to a chemical 

substance that is completed or manifest in a short period of time, 

usually less than 30 days. 

additive interaction In toxicology, chemicals that are structurally similar, have similar 

mechanisms of toxicity, and affect the same target tissue or organ in 

the body, may be assumed to have additive toxicity. 

aliphatic In relation to petroleum hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons are 

those that do not contain aromatic rings; rather they are linear or 

branched molecules. 

allometric model A model scaling a physiological process or the toxicity of a chemical 

substance to the size or body weight of an animal. 

aromatic In relation to petroleum hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons are 

those that have a molecular structure characterized by the presence of 

one or more aromatic ring structures composed of six carbon atoms 

with double bonds, as in the case of benzene. 

avian Pertaining to or derived from birds. 

benchmark In ecological risk assessment, a target concentration to which 

predicted concentrations of chemical substances can be compared to 

determine whether of risks are assessed. 

benthivore Feeding on organisms found in or on the sediment surface. 

bioaccumulation A term used to describe the processes by which a chemical may be 

accumulated by organisms as a result of exposure to that chemical in 

water, sediment or soil. 

bioavailability The fraction of the total amount of a chemical in environmental media 

(i.e., water, sediment, soil or biological tissues ingested as food), 

which can be absorbed by an organism either directly from the media 

as a result of external exposure, or after being ingested. 

biomagnification The sequence of processes resulting in higher concentrations of 

chemical contaminant substances in organisms at higher levels in the 

food chain (at higher trophic levels). 

bioturbation The mixing of sediment by living organisms. 

Chemical Abstract Service 

registry number 

A numbers used to identify organic and inorganic substances such as 

organic compounds, polymers, trace elements, minerals and salts. 

Each substance is identified by a unique number. 

2010 Page xi



Glossary 

chronic In toxicology, a toxicity test, exposure, or response to a chemical 

substance that is completed or manifest over a long period of time, 

usually more than 90 days, and commonly extending to one or more 

life spans. 

condensate A low-density mixture of hydrocarbon liquids that are present in raw 

natural gas produced from many natural gas or oil fields, or which 

condense out of the raw gas if the temperature is reduced below the 

hydrocarbon dew point temperature of the raw gas. 

diluted bitumen A hydrocarbon consisting of bitumen diluted with condensate in order 

to reduce its viscosity, rendering it suitable to be transported via a 

pipeline. In addition to condensate, other substances can be used as the 

diluent (e.g., naphtha and synthetic oil). 

ecosystem A spatially definable unit that includes all of the organisms in a given 

area, interacting with the physical environment, so that a flow of 

energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biological diversity, 

and material cycles (i.e., exchange of materials between living and 

nonliving parts) within the unit. 

endangered A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. 

exposure point concentration A conservative estimate of the average concentration of a chemical 

substance in water, sediment, soil, or food (i.e., biological tissues) that 

an organism may be exposed to in the environment. 

fauna Animal species. 

flora Plant species. 

fugitive emission Emissions from a facility that are uncontrolled, or incompletely 

controlled, and which may be released from an area or from many 

small point sources, as opposed to stack emissions which are released 

from a single point source and are more readily amenable to control 

measures and monitoring. 

half-life The period of time required for the loss, degradation, or radioactive 

decay of a quantity of a substance to one-half the original quantity of 

that substance. 

hazard index An index derived by dividing the exposure point concentration in 

water, sediment, or soil by a benchmark value representing a safe 

concentration; or by dividing the average daily dose ingested by an 

animal by a toxicity reference value. Where a hazard index value is 

less than unity, it is concluded that there is not a high risk present. 

Page xii 2010



Glossary 

hazard quotient Where chemical substances have additive interactions, the hazard 

index values for two or more substances may be summed to estimate a 

hazard quotient for a class of substances having similar chemical 

structure, mode of toxic action, and target tissue or organ. Where a 

hazard quotient value is less than unity, it is concluded that there is not 

a high risk present. 

invertebrate Animals that are not vertebrates (i.e., lacking a vertebral column; 

animals that are not fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals). 

lowest observed adverse 

effect level 

The lowest concentration or dose of a chemical where specifically 

defined adverse effects have been observed in test organisms. 

measured baseline Measured concentrations of chemical substances in the project effects 

assessment area, used to estimate existing levels of risk to the marine 

environment. 

no observed adverse effect 

level 

The highest tested concentration or dose of a chemical that has been 

reported to have no adverse health effect on test organisms. 

order of magnitude The expression refers to a range of values that are roughly within a 

factor of ten (e.g., lying between 3 and 30, or 100 and 1,000). 

phylogenetic Related to the evolutionary history or line of decent of a particular 

species or higher taxonomic group. 

piscivore Feeding primarily on fish. 

sexual dimorphism Systematic difference in form (e.g., colour, shape or size) between 

individuals of different sex within the same species. 

species at risk Species at risk include species that are listed under Schedule 1 of the 

Species at Risk Act (SARA) as extirpated, endangered or threatened 

and/or are red-listed by the British Columbia Conservation Data 

Centre (BC CDC). Although British Columbia does not have a standalone 

endangered species act, red-listed vertebrates may be legally 

designated as endangered or threatened under British Columbia’s 

Wildlife Act. 

species of conservation 

concern 

Species of conservation concern includes those listed species that are 

not currently under the protection of SARA (i.e., are listed as special 

concern in Schedule 1 of SARA; or listed in Schedule 2 or 3 of SARA) 

and/or blue-listed by the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 

sub-chronic In toxicology, a toxicity test, exposure, or response to a chemical 

substance that is intermediate between acute and chronic, usually 

between 30 and 90 days duration. 

sub-lethal Not sufficient to cause death. 

2010 Page xiii



Glossary 

synthetic oil A hydrocarbon that is the result of processing or upgrading a heavy 

crude feedstock to obtain a hydrocarbon with more desirable 

characteristics. 

threatened A wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered species if 

nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or 

extinction. 

toxicity reference value In ecological risk assessment, the dose level for a specific chemical 

substance, selected to represent a threshold above which adverse 

environmental effects to the health of a given type of organism may be 

expected. 

trace element Defined in the context of the ecological risk assessment as being an 

element present in the liquid hydrocarbons at a concentration greater 

than 1 mg/kg, that is not of low inherent toxicity, or a major mineral 

forming element. 

Page xiv 2010



Section 1: Introduction 

1 Introduction 

Northern Gateway Pipelines Partnership (Northern Gateway) proposes to construct and operate an export 

oil pipeline and an import condensate pipeline between Bruderheim, Alberta and the Kitimat Terminal, to 

be located near Kitimat, British Columbia. The Kitimat Terminal will comprise a tank terminal (tanks and 

the interconnect pipes between the tank terminal and the marine terminal) and a marine terminal 

(including docks, foundations, loading arms and terminal valves and piping). The marine infrastructure at 

tidewater will be constructed to accommodate loading and unloading of hydrocarbons into and out of 

berthed tankers. 

The general purpose of an ERA is to evaluate the potential that key species that include plants, 

invertebrates, fish, birds and mammals, may experience adverse effects as a result of exposure to 

chemical stressors related to a particular project or activity. For this Marine ERA, effects refer to 

toxicologically-induced changes in the health of marine species that might be exposed to chemicals of 

potential concern (COPC) released into the marine environment, up to 150 m seaward of the berths, and 

the and project effects assessment area (PEAA) as a result of Project related activities. The PEAA 

includes Kitimat Arm extending north to Kitimat, and extends approximately 5 km south of the marine 

terminal, into the northern end of Douglas Channel. The PEAA also includes nearby bays such as Clio 

Bay and Emsley Cove. 

1.1 Objectives 

The objectives of this Marine ERA Technical Data Report are to estimate: 

• COPC emissions to the PEAA from the routine operations of the Kitimat Terminal through liquid 

effluent discharge 

• COPC emissions to the PEAA from the routine operations of the Kitimat Terminal through 

atmospheric emissions (i.e., fugitive emissions from tanks and valves, and combustion emissions 

from tankers while moored at the marine terminal) 

• incremental COPC concentrations in the waters of the PEAA (i.e., Kitimat Arm and parts of Douglas 

Channel) resulting from routine liquid and air emissions of COPC from Kitimat Terminal 

• incremental COPC concentrations in the sediments of the PEAA resulting from incremental COPC 

concentrations in water at the end of an assumed 50-year period of Kitimat Terminal operations 

• risk to selected marine species inhabiting the PEAA for Base Case (present conditions), Project Case 

(the incremental risks imposed by a 50-year period of routine operations), of the Kitimat Terminal 

and Application Case (the sum of Base Case and Project Case) 

1.2 Organization of Marine ERA Technical Data Report 

This report is organized into the sections described in Table 1-1. 

2010 Page 1-1



Section 1: Introduction 

Table 1–1 Organization of the Marine Environmental Risk Assessment 


Report Section Content 

Executive Summary A non-technical summary of key findings to assist the reader in quickly 

understanding the most important aspects of this Marine ERA. 

Section 1 – Introduction An introductory section that describes the role of the Marine ERA in the 

ESA process as it pertains to the Project. Also introduces various 

components included in this Marine ERA such as: model scenarios, spatial 

and temporal extent and effects rating criteria. 

Section 2 – Ecological Risk 

A description of ERA methods. 

Assessment Framework 

Section 3 – Problem Formulation A description of various components related to problem formulation. 

Includes a description of risk assessment endpoints, chemical screening 

and weathering, description of the spatial boundaries, identification of the 

modelled species (receptor) and description of a conceptual site model. 

Section 4 – Exposure Assessment An outline of the exposure assessment including models used for fate and 

transport of contaminants, exposure point concentrations, uptake and dose 

estimates for receptors. 

Section 5 – Hazard Assessment An outline of toxicity reference values used to assess the potential risk of 

the Project to the marine receptors. 

Section 6 – Risk Characterization A presentation of HQ calculation methodology and results for modelled 

species. 

Section 7 – Certainty and 

Confidence in the Marine ERA 

Section 8 – Summary of 

Environmental Effects 

A qualitative discussion of the implications of uncertainties and 

conservatism in the Marine ERA. 

A summary of the findings of the Marine ERA. 

Section 9 – References A list of references cited throughout the Marine ERA. 

Page 1-2 2010



Section 2: Ecological Risk Assessment Framework 

2 Ecological Risk Assessment Framework 

2.1 Risk Assessment Framework 

The primary focus of this Marine ERA is quantification 

of the potential risk of effects on the health of marine 

ecological receptors from the dispersion and deposition 

of COPC associated with site runoff and air emissions 

from the Kitimat Terminal during operations. 

This Marine ERA has been conducted according to 

accepted ERA methodologies and guidance published by 

regulatory agencies, including the Canadian Council of 

Ministers of Environment (CCME 1996, 1997) and the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA 1998). 

The Marine ERA follows a standard protocol that is 

composed of the following steps: 

• problem formulation 

• exposure assessment 

• hazard assessment 

• risk characterization 

• discussion of certainty and confidence in the predictions 

• conclusions and recommendations 

Exposure 

Receptor 

Hazard 

The terminology and methodology of this framework follow that laid out by CCME (1996). The 

methodological framework of the Marine ERA and the chronology of the process steps are presented in 

Figure 2-1. The framework and methodology for the Marine ERA are described in the following subsections. 

2010 Page 2-1 

Risk




2.2 Problem Formulation 

The problem formulation stage is an information gathering and interpretation stage that focuses the study 

on primary areas of concern for the Project. Problem formulation defines the nature and scope of the work 

to be conducted, enables practical boundaries to be placed on the overall scope of work, and the Marine 

ERA is directed at the key areas and issues of concern. The gathered data provide information regarding 

the physical layout and characteristics of the Kitimat Terminal and PEAA, possible release points and 

mechanisms for COPC, potential marine receptors and any other specific areas or issues of concern to be 

addressed. 

The key tasks requiring evaluation within the problem formulation step include: 

• characterization of the geographic areas where the ERA is being conducted 

• identification of COPC, and mechanisms of COPC release to the environment 

• identification of exposure media and pathways 

• identification and characterization of marine receptors 

The outcome of these tasks forms the basis for the approach taken during the Marine ERA. 

2.2.1 Exposure Assessment 

The purpose of the exposure assessment step is to evaluate data related to COPC, marine species and 

exposure pathways identified during the problem formulation phase of the Marine ERA. Using sitespecific 

data and a series of conservative assumptions, the exposure assessment predicts the concentration 

of any COPC in the environmental media and the concentration or dose rate at which species are exposed 

to COPC via exposure scenarios and pathways identified in the problem formulation. The rate of exposure 

to chemicals from various pathways (i.e., the dose rate) is usually expressed as the amount of chemical 

taken in, normalized for body weight (BW) and unit time (e.g., mg chemical/kg BW/day). In the case of a 

marine community-level receptor, the exposure is expressed as an exposure concentration in the 

environment (mg/L in water or mg/kg in sediment). The magnitude of exposure depends on the 

interactions of a number of parameters, including: 

• concentrations of COPC in various environmental media 

• physical-chemical characteristics of the COPC, which affect their environmental fate and transport 

and determine such factors as efficiency of absorption into the body and rate of metabolic breakdown 

or excretion 

• influence of site-specific environmental characteristics (e.g., geology, sediment type, topography, 

hydrology, and hydrogeology on a contaminant’s behaviour within environmental media) 

• physiological and behavioural characteristics of the species (e.g., food and water ingestion rates, 

sediment intake, and BW) 

2010 Page 2-3




Exposure estimation in the Marine ERA was facilitated using integrated mass balance models that 

estimate the concentrations of COPC in water on a daily basis for a typical year, and in sediment on an 

annual basis for a period of up to 50 years. Concentrations of COPC in water within the PEAA arrive at a 

quasi-steady state within a period of weeks, given a stable release rate to the environment. Concentrations 

of COPC in sediment may take many years to reach a steady state, and are, therefore, evaluated at the end 

of an assumed 50-year period of continuous operation. 

Separate exposure assessments are conducted for Base Case, Project Case and Application Case, which 

are further discussed in Section 4.0. If data were lacking, such that exposures could not be evaluated in a 

quantitative manner, then exposures (and potential risks) are estimated and discussed qualitatively. 

The exposure assessments for the Base Case are based on actual measured concentrations of the COPC 

within environmental media and selected biota, where available. Exposure assessments for the Project and 

Application Case scenarios of the Marine ERA are based on predicted liquid effluent concentrations and 

air contaminant deposition rates of COPC from emissions. The exposure assessment uses point estimate 

values representative of reasonable maximum exposure: 95 th upper confidence limit of the mean 

(UCLM); or maximum COPC exposure concentrations. Bioavailability is an important factor that must be 

considered during the exposure assessment phase, although a conservative default assumption for most 

COPC is that they are fully bioavailable in all exposure media. 

2.2.2 Hazard Assessment 

The purpose of the hazard assessment (or toxicity assessment) step is to select TRV (these are essentially 

exposure limits), for COPC. In this Marine ERA, two types of receptors are evaluated using different 

TRV. Community-level receptors (e.g., marine plants, invertebrates and fish) are evaluated by comparing 

predicted concentrations of COPC in water and sediment to effect magnitude benchmarks. Birds and 

mammals are assessed using individual-based intake models to assess the ingested dose and potential 

toxicity of COPC. 

The toxicity of a chemical depends on the amount of chemical taken into the body (the dose) and the 

duration of exposure (i.e., the length of time the receptor is exposed to the chemical). For each COPC, 

there is a specific dose and duration of exposure necessary to produce a toxic environmental effect in a 

given receptor (this is referred to as the dose-response relationship of a chemical). The toxicity of a 

chemical is dependent on: 

• inherent properties of the chemical to cause a biochemical or physiological response at the site of 

action 

• ability of the chemical to reach the site of action 

• unique sensitivities associated with the species being tested, its life-stage or interactions with other 

environmental of physiological conditions 

The dose-response principle is central to the ERA methodology for assessing risks to birds and mammals. 

Page 2-4 2010




2.2.3 Risk Characterization 

The risk characterization step integrates the exposure and hazard assessments to provide a conservative 

estimate of health risk for a marine species. Potential risks are characterized through a comparison of the 

estimated or predicted exposures from all pathways (from the exposure assessment) to the identified 

exposure limits (from the hazard assessment) for all COPC. 

Limitations associated with the administrative boundaries and uncertainties of the risk assessment, in 

addition to conservative assumptions used in the modelling, are identified and discussed to provide 

perspective on the certainty and confidence that should be placed the predictions. 

2.2.4 Uncertainty and Conservatism in the Marine ERA 

There are two broad categories of uncertainties: those associated with toxicological information and those 

associated with modelling assumptions. The assumptions associated with this ERA are addressed in 

Section 7.0. 

Toxicological Information 

Toxicity data are rarely available for the individual marine species being modelled. Therefore, 

extrapolations are generally required to transfer toxicological knowledge from test species to those 

species being assessed. Such transfers are accompanied by uncertainties that relate to the quantity and 

quality of the underlying toxicological knowledge, as well as the magnitude of the extrapolation (which 

can be visualized as being a function of the taxonomic distance between the modeled species and the 

species represented in the toxicological data). 

Modelling Assumptions 

Uncertainties in the risk assessment are addressed by incorporating conservative (i.e., likely to overstate 

risk) assumptions in the analysis. Where several conservative assumptions are involved in the same 

calculation, a high level of conservatism can result from the adding of the assumptions. As a result, risk 

assessments tend to overstate the actual risk with the result that conclusions are also conservative. 

Although many factors are considered in preparation of a risk assessment, the results are generally most 

sensitive to a few key assumptions. The uncertainty analysis is included in this report to demonstrate that 

the assumptions used are conservative, or that the result of the analysis is not sensitive to the key 

assumptions. 

2010 Page 2-5



Section 3: Problem Formulation 

3 Problem Formulation 

3.1 Spatial Boundaries 

The project effects assessment area (PEAA) is the marine environment that interacts directly and 

indirectly with the marine terminal infrastructure and 150 m seaward of the berths. The PEAA includes 

Kitimat Arm extending north to Kitimat, and extends approximately 5 km south of the marine terminal, 

into the northern end of Douglas Channel. The PEAA also includes nearby bays such as Clio Bay and 

Emsley Cove. Kitimat Arm is a deep narrow fjord with high coastal relief typical of the North Coast Fjord 

ecosection. 

For the purposes of marine water and sediment quality modelling, the PEAA is further subdivided into 

five marine water compartments (Figure 3-1): 

• Kitimat Arm 1 (K1) 

• Kitimat Arm 2 (K2) 

• Terminal (T) 

• Clio Bay (CB) 

• Emsley Point (EP) 

These compartments are delineated using prominent geographical features and professional judgment. 

The marine water quality model also included several other compartments located beyond the boundaries 

of the PEAA: 

• West Side Coste Island (CO) 

• Amos Passage (AP) 

• Kildala Arm (KA) 

• Nanakwa Shoal (NS) 

• Douglas Channel (DC) 

These compartments provide contextual information and indicate how concentrations of COPC and risks 

to ecological receptors will decrease with increasing distance from the Kitimat Terminal. 

The concentrations of COPC in water and sediment in each model compartment are assessed in the 

marine water quality and marine sediment quality models (Section 4, Appendix A and Appendix B). Each 

compartment of the marine water quality model is considered as a potential location of a marine receptor. 

The models assume 50 years of operations. 

3.2 Modelled Cases 

To assess the potential environmental effects of the Kitimat Terminal, risk estimates are developed for the 

Base Case, Project Case and Application Case. 

2010 Page 3-1




Base Case 

This includes existing conditions and industry in the region to which the environmental effects of the 

Kitimat Terminal may add. Baseline concentrations of COPC in water, sediment and marine biota, as 

measured in sampling campaigns carried out in 2006 and 2008, are summarized in Appendix C. These 

data provide a pre-construction baseline against which the predicted changes from the Project can be 

compared. The potential environmental effects of baseline conditions on benthic invertebrate fauna are 

also evaluated using a sediment quality triad approach (Appendix D). The list of COPC selected for 

baseline sampling was based on the previous experience of the study team with similar types of projects. 

When considered reasonable, sampled media were analyzed for trace elements, benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAH), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and phenolics. Reasonableness was determined 

by a chemical’s: 

• relevance to the Project 

• potential presence in marine water, sediment, or biological tissues at concentrations that are likely to 

be detectable using routine laboratory analysis 

Samples were collected in 2006 and/or 2008 from three marine compartments (K1, K2 and T) and 

included water, sediment (nearshore and offshore) and biological tissues (rockweed, mussels, crabs and 

fish). In 2006, benthic invertebrate community samples were also collected at selected locations (see 

Appendix D). For compartments K1, K2 and T, the baseline values represent the maximum concentration 

of each chemical measured within each media type. The rationale for selecting the maximum value was 

that there are existing industrial sources of COPC located within or near K1, K2 and T and for the 

purposes of the Marine ERA, it is important that baseline conditions not be underestimated when the 

effects of the Project are added. For compartments CB and EP, which were not directly sampled, the 

baseline values represent the median of the measured values from nearby compartments. The rationale for 

selecting the median as baseline for those compartments was that CB and EP are relatively remote from 

anthropogenic sources of COPC; therefore, the baseline conditions for these compartments should lie in 

the lower range of measured values where anthropogenic effects are evident, or should be well 

represented by the median value where no anthropogenic effects are present. The median value was, 

therefore, considered to be a reasonable yet conservative way to represent expected COPC concentrations 

in those areas. 

Project Case 

This predicts the incremental environmental effects on marine water and sediment quality and ecological 

risk to modelled species. The Project Case takes into consideration the COPC contained in the operational 

emissions of the Kitimat Terminal to air and water, and the fate and transport of COPC into the marine 

environment of Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel. 

Application Case 

This predicts the combination of the Base and Project cases and the potential environmental effects of the 

Kitimat Terminal operations with other existing natural and anthropogenic conditions. 

Page 3-2 2010




3.3 Description of Project Effects Assessment Area 

The Kitimat Terminal will be located near Kitimat, British Columbia, on the northwest side of Kitimat 

Arm, just north of Bish Cove (Figure 3-1). The Kitimat Terminal consists of a 1,500 m stretch of uplands 

and shoreline on the northwest side of Kitimat Arm. 

The terrestrial environment is part of the Very Wet Maritime Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic 

subzone, characterized by cool mesothermal or maritime climate, with cool summers and relatively mild, 

wet winters. Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), amabilis fir (Abies amabilis), western red cedar 

(Thuja plicata), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) dominate 

the terrestrial habitat of the marine terminal and tank terminal locations. Mature forest stands occur in the 

area of the Kitimat Terminal and in recently harvested areas (i.e., cutblocks) early seral vegetation 

communities (herbs, shrubs and regenerating trees) are supported. 

The marine environment is part of the Inner Pacific Marine Shelf ecoregion and is characterized by deep 

narrow fjords with high coastal relief. The tides in the region (including the Douglas Channel) are 

semidiurnal, with maximum tides of about 6.5 m and mean tides of about 3.3 m. The diversity of the 

intertidal community is limited by wide variations in environmental conditions such as salinity. The 

dominant macrophyte species on rocky intertidal shorelines are rockweed (Fucus and Enteromorpha 

spp.), with barnacles, mussels, periwinkles and limpets being the most common fauna. In sandy intertidal 

habitat, the invertebrate community includes clams, gammarid amphipods and polychaete worms. 

Isopods, gastropods, brachyurans and oligochaetes typically occur along steep and rocky shores of the 

Kitimat Arm. Species commonly found in the sub-tidal benthic community include sea urchins, moon 

snails, green sea anemones, sea stars, polychaetes and the California sea cucumber. The soft-bottom 

estuaries are dominated by the marine vascular plant, eelgrass (Zostera marina). The muddy substrate 

typical of Upper Kitimat Arm is characteristic of most British Columbia northern fjords. 

2010 Page 3-3

100 m 

300 m 

100 m 

CONTRACTOR: 

100 m 

100 m 

100 m 

100 m 

200 m 

Maitland 

Island 

200 m 

100 m 

Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd. 

100 m 

100 m 

100 m 

300 m 

DC 

Loretta 

Island 

200 m 

100 m 

NS 

200 m 

200 m 

Kitimat 

Terminal 

Emsley 

Cove 

CO 

EP 

Coste 

Island 

200 m 

200 m 

T 

AP 

K2 

CB 

E N B R I D G E N O R T H E R N G A T E W A Y P R O J E C T 

PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: 

SCALE: 

K1 

Clio 

Bay 


Gobeil 

Bay 

KA 

Marine Water Quality 

Model Compartments 

Kitamaat 

Village 

100 m 

Pipeline Route 

Security Fence 

Terrestrial PDA 

Marine PEAA 

Watershed Boundary 

Bathymetric Contour (100 m) 

Railway 

Road 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

FIGURE NUMBER: 

PROJECTION: 

UTM 9 

Kilometres 

JWA-1048334-1624 

Reference: Pipeline Route R 

3-1 

1:220,000 

NP 

DATE: 

AUTHOR: APPROVED BY: 

DATUM: 

20090911 

CM 

NAD 83 

R:\2009Fiscal\1048334_NorthernGateway_ESA_2009




3.4 Risk Assessment and Measurement Endpoints in ERA 

Risk assessment endpoints are defined as “explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to 

be protected, operationally defined by an ecological entity and its attributes” (U.S. EPA 1998). Suter 

(1993) defined risk assessment endpoints as being explicit expressions of environmental values or 

characteristics to be protected at a site, reflecting societal and ecological values. In practice, risk 

assessment endpoints are usually broad statements articulating the overall goals of an ERA. For this 

Marine ERA, risk assessment endpoints are maintenance of: 

• rare or endangered species present in the PEAA, with species that are identified in federal or 

provincial endangered species legislation being protected at the individual level 

• marine plant, invertebrate and fish communities in the PEAA, such that their productivity and 

ecological function are not diminished 

• marine and semi-aquatic mammal populations in the PEAA, at levels similar to pre-development 

levels 

• piscivorous birds, shorebirds and seabird populations in the PEAA, at levels similar to 

pre-development levels 

The information needed to deal directly with the risk assessment endpoints is often difficult to generate 

and rarely available. Therefore, measurement endpoints are used to bridge the gap. Measurement 

endpoints are simpler and more clearly defined measurable responses to stressors, related to the risk 

assessment endpoints, and are intended to provide a basis for assessing the risk assessment endpoint. 

They may be defined in terms of an unacceptable level of effect to ecological receptors, such as a certain 

relative percent decrease in survival, growth or reproduction of ecological populations (Suter 1993). As 

part of a weight-of-evidence approach, one or more measurement endpoints may be used for each risk 

assessment endpoint. Measurement endpoints can also be used as a starting point in the development of 

follow-up or environmental effects monitoring programs. The following are the measurement endpoints: 

• For community-level marine receptors such as marine plants, invertebrates, and fish, concentrations 

of COPC in water and sediment after a modelled duration of 50 years for the Kitimat Terminal in 

combination with existing baseline conditions should not exceed levels that could chronically impair 

the survival, growth or reproduction of a sensitive species. Impairment is defined as a 20% reduction 

in performance relative to the expected (control) performance in a toxicity test. A sensitive species is 

defined as being the 5 th percentile species in a species sensitivity distribution. This criterion 

corresponds to effect magnitude descriptors of negligible to low. In cases where baseline conditions 

already exceed such a threshold, the incremental effects of the Project will be negligible in 

comparison with baseline conditions. 

• For mammalian and avian receptors, exposures to COPC arising from the environmental effects of the 

Kitimat Terminal, in conjunction with the baseline condition, should not exceed levels that result in 

HI or HQ values greater than unity. In cases where baseline conditions already exceed such a 

threshold, the incremental effects of the Project will be negligible in comparison with baseline 

conditions. 

2010 Page 3-5




• For species having special conservation status, HI and HQ values arising from the environmental 

effects of the Kitimat Terminal, in conjunction with baseline conditions, should not exceed a value of 

0.33. In cases where baseline conditions already exceed such a threshold, the incremental effects of 

the Project will be negligible in comparison with baseline conditions. 

The goal is to identify potential risks to receptors at the population level rather than at the individual 

level, with the notable exception of species protected under the federal or provincial legislation. Risk 

assessment calculations focus on the intakes and exposure of a hypothetical individual that is maximally 

exposed to COPC within a defined geographic area. As a result of this conservative approach, not all 

members of a population will experience the same level of exposure, and hypothetical changes in 

individual health will not necessarily manifest themselves as changes in actual individual or population 

health. 

3.4.1 Derivation of Oral Toxicity Reference Values for Mammalian and Avian 

Receptors 

Hazard index and HQ values calculated for marine receptors depend directly upon the selection of the 

oral-based TRV. The toxicological database in support of a TRV preferably includes a number of chronic 

or multi-generational exposure studies involving exposure of relevant test species (i.e., the ecological 

receptor of interest or a phylogenetically similar species) to appropriate chemical forms of the substance 

of interest. Ideally, one or more relevant biological endpoints such as growth, reproductive effects, or 

survival are measured in the study. Databases that meet this requirement are available for some 

chemicals, but in many cases available toxicity data are limited to studies conducted with a limited variety 

of laboratory animals. 

Toxicity Reference Values for this ERA are based on dose response studies, typically conducted with 

laboratory animals where the lowest observed adverse effects level (LOAEL) or no observed adverse 

effects level (NOAEL) has been quantified. TRV used in this risk assessment were determined from 

studies in which endpoints were derived from the administered dose, rather than the absorbed dose. This 

is a conservative approach because compounds are often administered in a more bioavailable form than 

would be found in the environment 

The preferred toxicity measure used for derivation of TRV in this ERA is the LOAEL since this value 

corresponds to the onset of toxicologically induced responses in test animals. However, in the absence of 

a suitable LOAEL, more conservative NOAEL-based TRV can be used. Generally, LOAEL used towards 

TRV derivation are based on long-term growth or survival, or sub-lethal reproductive effects determined 

from chronic exposure studies. As such, these endpoints are relevant to the maintenance of wildlife 

populations. The LOAEL represents a threshold dose at which adverse outcomes are likely to become 

evident (Sample et al. 1996). This threshold is considered an appropriate endpoint for ERA since TRV are 

used as the denominator in the HQ calculation (see Section 7.6), and HQ values equal to or greater than 

one may be considered indicative of potential adverse environmental effects. Hazard quotients calculated 

with NOAEL-based TRV are more conservative since NOAEL refer to a threshold at which no relevant 

toxicological effects from COPC exposure are observed (see section 5.2 for additional details). 

Page 3-6 2010




Numerous sources were reviewed to obtain the most relevant TRV for ecological receptors. Full details 

regarding TRVs can be found in Appendix I. All information sources reviewed are provided and 

referenced can also be found in Appendix I. These include, but are not limited to: 

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory Toxicity Benchmarks for Wildlife (Sample et al. 1996) 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecological Soil Screening (EcoSSL) documents 

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

• Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), Priority Substance List Assessment Reports 

• primary scientific literature 

3.4.1.1 Uncertainty Factors 

For COPC where LOAEL or NOAEL are not available, sub-chronic or acute toxicity measures such as 

median lethal dose (LD50) were obtained and modified using uncertainty factors (UF) to pro-rate these 

values to approximate chronic values. The UF scheme outlined here (see Figure 3-2) is based on guidance 

provided by Sample and Arenal (1999), U.S. EPA (2002a), Ohio EPA (2008) and professional judgment. 

In cases where a search of scientific data indicates a lack of chronic studies for a particular contaminant, 

UF may be applied to adjust toxicity data from shorter exposures to a chronic exposure basis. Acute 

studies are those that are of short duration, generally less than one week. Sub-chronic exposures are of 

longer duration (generally shorter than 90 days), but may be considered equivalent to a chronic study if a 

critical life stage (such as the gestational period) is included. Chronic exposures are generally longer than 

90 days, exceed 50% of the animal’s lifespan, or include a reproductive period. A UF of 3 (half an order 

of magnitude on a log scale) is used to adjust data from sub-chronic to chronic exposure, and 10 (an order 

of magnitude on a log scale) to adjust data from acute to chronic. It should be noted that preference is 

given to longer duration exposure assessments in cases where published data are available, and acute data 

are relied on only when necessary. 

In cases where a search of scientific data indicates the absence of reproductive or other biological 

performance-based toxicity endpoints that indicate potential for adverse environmental effects at the 

population level, other less sensitive toxicity endpoints may be considered. Where only a lethal dose 

(LD50) is available, a UF of 10 is used to estimate a LOAEL from LD50 data. Again, it should be noted 

that preference is always given to sub-lethal data, and lethal data are relied on only when necessary. 

NOAEL values are not adjusted upward to estimate LOAEL values. Where the only chronic endpoint 

available is a NOAEL, it is used directly and reported as such in the discussion of uncertainties. Hazard 

quotient values based on the NOAEL may be permitted to slightly exceed a value of 1.0 since the 

NOAEL is not an endpoint that signifies toxicological effects. 

2010 Page 3-7

Figure 3–2 Tiered Approach for the Application of Uncertainty Factors in 

ERA 

NOTES: 

* A NOAEL can be used if no appropriate LOAEL is available but the resultant reference dose should be 

considered more conservative than if it was derived using the LOAEL. Refer to document text for details. 

** No inter-class UF is used to derive TRV (i.e., mammalian data are not used as the basis to derive avian TRV) 

*** An UF of 3 is not required if the reference dose for an endangered species is based on a NOAEL.




In ERA, the focus is normally to provide protection for wildlife at the population level. This is in contrast 

to human toxicology and human health risk assessment, where protection of individuals is of paramount 

concern. An exception, which has regulatory force through federal legislation such as the Species at Risk 

Act (SARA) and equivalent legislation in most provinces, occurs when species that are formally protected 

are evaluated. To provide protection to the Species at Risk, TRVs are based on the NOAEL, or on the 

LOAEL with a UF of 3 applied. This value is based on professional judgment and is expected to be 

protective yet realistic. These two approaches are considered equivalent and are intended to protect 

endangered wildlife receptors from levels of COPC that would cause adverse effects at the individual 

level. 

3.4.1.2 Body Mass Scaling Factors 

Aside from the use of UF, a number of other methods have been used to extrapolate toxicity data between 

species with different body masses. The application of acute-based extrapolation factors to estimate a 

dose that would be protective of the 5 th percentile species in a species sensitivity distribution from data 

representing only a few species (e.g., Luttik et al. 2005), interspecies correlation estimation (ICE) models 

(Raimondo et al. 2007) and allometric scaling (Travis and White 1988; Chappell 1992; Mineau et al. 

1996; Sample and Arenal 1999) have all been used in ERA. Each of these methods has advantages and 

disadvantages, and none is ideal for extrapolating toxicity data between laboratory and wildlife species. 

Ultimately, the choice in method for use in ERA comes to scientific defensibility, practicality and 

professional judgment. An allometric scaling factor was used whereby the body mass raised to the 

exponent of 0.75 for both mammalian and avian receptors in ERA, rather than scaling from a large 

receptor animal to a smaller receptor animal. The allometric scaling factor should hold true in either 

direction, however, to maintain conservatism in the ERA, TRV are not scaled from a large test animal to a 

much smaller receptor animal, which could potentially inflate the TRV. 

3.5 Chemical Identification for Liquid Effluent Emissions 

A variety of liquid hydrocarbons are to be handled at the Kitimat Terminal including diluted bitumen, 

synthetic oil and condensate. Representative samples of each hydrocarbon were provided by Northern 

Gateway and these were considered as the sources of COPC. The hydrocarbon samples were analyzed by 

the Research and Productivity Council laboratory in Fredericton, New Brunswick, using the following 

analytical packages: 

• trace elements 

• petroleum hydrocarbons 

• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

• pentachlorophenol and phenol 

• volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

See Table 3-1 for a full list of trace elements and organic compounds assessed in the diluted bitumen, 

synthetic oil and condensate. For data reports from the laboratory performing the analysis of the 

hydrocarbons, see Appendix E. 

2010 Page 3-9




Table 3–1 Trace Elements and Organic Compounds Assessed in Diluted Bitumen, Synthetic Oil and 

Condensate 

Trace Elements 

Analytes CAS Number 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Diluted Bitumen a Synthetic Oil Condensate 

Aluminum 7429-90-5 0.55 ND (< 0.2) 0.6 

Antimony 7440-36-0 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Arsenic 7440-38-2 ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) 

Barium 7440-39-3 0.2 ND (< 0.2) 1.0 

Beryllium 7440-41-7 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Bismuth 7440-69-9 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Boron 7440-42-8 0.3 ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) 

Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.0055 ND (< 0.002) ND (< 0.002) 

Calcium 7440-70-2 20 ND (< 10) ND (< 10) 

Chromium 7440-47-3 0.2 ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) 

Cobalt 7440-48-4 0.185 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Copper 7440-50-8 0.25 ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) 

Iron 7439-89-6 ND (< 4) ND (< 4) ND (< 4) 

Lead 7439-92-1 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Lithium 7439-93-2 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Magnesium 7439-95-4 ND (< 2) ND (< 2) ND (< 2) 

Manganese 7439-96-5 0.25 ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) 

Mercury 7439-97-6 ND (< 0.005) ND (< 0.005) ND (< 0.005) 

Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5.84 ND (< 0.02) 0.06 

Nickel 7440-02-0 43.05 ND (< 0.2) 0.6 

Potassium 7440-09-7 ND (< 4) ND (< 4) ND (< 4) 

Rubidium 7440-17-7 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Page 3-10 2010





Condensate (cont’d) 


Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


Selenium 7782-49-2 ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) 

Silver 7440-22-4 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Sodium 7440-23-5 20 ND (< 10) ND (< 10) 

Strontium 7440-24-6 0.4 ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) 

Tellurium 13494-80-9 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Thallium 7440-28-0 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Tin 7440-31-5 1.48 0.4 0.9 

Uranium 7440-61-1 ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) ND (< 0.02) 

Vanadium 7440-62-2 118.5 ND (< 0.2) 1.2 

Zinc 7440-66-6 ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) 0.3 

BTEX 

Benzene 71-43-2 280 1,100 13,100 

Toluene 108-88-3 990 3,300 25,300 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 360 1,200 2,900 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 1,500 4,200 21,000 

TPH – Aliphatics b 

C1-C5 c NA NS NS 286,000 

>C6-C8 NA 25,700 59,700 359,000 

>C8-C10 NA 14,900 39,000 61,200 

>C10-C12 NA 26,400 52,800 21,800 

>C12-C16 NA 76,500 111,000 24,700 

>C16-C21 NA 119,000 100,000 18,800 

>C21-C32 NA 186,000 117,000 21,400 

2010 Page 3-11






TPH – Aromatics b 


Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


>C8-C10 d NA 2,200 5,800 11,900 

>C10-C12 NA 880 14,600 6,600 

>C12-C16 NA 4,400 27,200 7,800 

>C16-C21 NA 12,100 58,900 7,000 

>C21-C32 NA 30,100 158,000 11,900 

PAH 

1-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 6.6 99 190 


Acenaphthene 83-32-9 ND (< 10) ND (< 10) ND (< 10) 

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) 

Anthracene 120-12-7 ND (< 5.0) 15 ND (< 5.0) 

Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 7.9 ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 191-24-2 ND (< 10) ND (< 10) ND (< 10) 

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 ND (< 10) ND (< 10) ND (< 10) 

Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) 

Chrysene/Triphenylene 218-01-9/ 217-59-4 ND (< 10) ND (< 10) ND (< 10) 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) 

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 ND (< 10) ND (< 10) ND (< 10) 

Fluorene 86-73-7 ND (< 5.0) 14 15 

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) ND (< 5.0) 

Page 3-12 2010







Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


Naphthalene 91-20-3 ND (< 5.0) 85 86 

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 5.3 12 25 

Pyrene 129-00-0 6.1 30 ND (< 5.0) 

Acid Extractables (Phenolic Compounds) 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 1.0 ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 1.8 ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) 

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 534-52-1 ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) 

4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7 ND (< 0.8) ND (< 0.8) ND (< 0.8) 

m-Cresol 108-39-4 ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) 

o-Cresol 95-48-7 ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) 

p-Cresol 106-44-5 ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) 

Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) ND (< 0.2) 

Phenol 108-95-2 ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.0) 2.4 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 ND (







Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 ND (







Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 200 430 1,800 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 610 1,600 3,400 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 ND (




Containment berms and other engineered measures will be used to control surface water runoff within the 

tank lot. The collected runoff in the containment reservoir will be pumped to the reservoir for firefighting. 

This water will be tested in-line on a continuous basis to confirm that it has a hydrocarbon content not 

greater than 15 parts per million (ppm) oil in water and is suitable for release to the environment. The 

excess water in the reservoir for firefighting will be piped to the marine foreshore area. This water will 

also be tested in-line to confirm that it has hydrocarbon content not greater than 15 ppm oil in water and is 

suitable for release to the environment by a discharge pipe located away from the immediate berthing 

area. Tankers will be boomed before loading of oil, and any, oily water thus recovered from berth areas 

would be collected and treated before being sent to the surface water runoff reservoir. 

To assess the potential release of COPC from the sub-tidal perforated pipe, a composite hydrocarbon was 

developed to represent the combination of the three reference hydrocarbons, as they would report to the 

containment reservoir. This composite hydrocarbon is representative of the source of COPC to which 

marine receptors might be exposed. The composite hydrocarbon composition was developed using the 

concentrations of individual substances found in the reference hydrocarbon samples analyzed (see 

Appendix E), as well as the annual throughput capacity of both the oil and the condensate pipelines (i.e., 

the estimated relative contributions of each hydrocarbon to the composite, assuming each hydrocarbon 

has a probability of being released that is proportional to the volume handled). For the full details 

regarding this procedure, see Appendix F. 

As liquid hydrocarbons are entrained with the surface water runoff to the containment reservoir, much of 

the hydrocarbon will be recovered. However, the hydrocarbon will also undergo fractionation or 

weathering processes (i.e., dissolution and degradation). Together, these weathering processes will 

modify the physical and chemical properties of the liquid hydrocarbons, and this will potentially affect 

their behaviour, fate and effects in the environment (Sterling et al. 2003). Liquid hydrocarbons are 

complex mixtures with components typically demonstrating a wide range of properties. Solubility is an 

important parameter when considering the environmental behaviour of these components as dissolution of 

a hydrocarbon in water increases its bioavailability, as well as its mobility in the environment. A truly 

dissolved compound demonstrates a higher mobility and bioavailability than one that is strongly 

associated with particles, which may eventually settle (Schwarzenbach et al. 2002). As solubility is 

important in considering the environmental behaviour of organic compounds, the weathering of the 

composite hydrocarbon through dissolution followed by degradation was assessed (see Appendix F). 

Although other weathering processes might influence the overall environmental behaviour of the liquid 

hydrocarbons, the approach is limited to dissolution and degradation. This approach is not applied to trace 

elements, which are assumed to readily partition from hydrocarbons to the aqueous phase when in contact 

with water. As such, for each trace element, the mass expected to be released in association with 

hydrocarbon handling is conservatively assumed to fully partition into the water phase in oil-water 

separators, and to subsequently be discharged to the marine environment. 

Page 3-16 2010




3.6 Chemical Identification for Air Emissions 

Atmospheric deposition rates (dry, wet and total) are estimated for various classes of air contaminants that 

might be emitted to the atmosphere during operation of the Kitimat Terminal. The following are the 

classes of air contaminants for which deposition estimates are provided: BTEX substances, PAH and 

selected trace elements. 

The specific air emission sources considered for atmospheric deposition include 16 large hydrocarbon 

storage tanks (six assumed to contain synthetic oil, six assumed to contain diluted bitumen and four 

assumed to contain condensate), two tankers at berth and tugs. The tankers at berth are represented by one 

VLCC and one Suezmax class tanker. All tankers are assumed to be fuelled with residual oil (#6 Bunker 

C) having a sulphur content of 2.7%. 

The U.S. EPA AERMOD model was applied to evaluate the atmospheric deposition of hydrocarbons and 

trace elements. The AERMOD dispersion modelling system is based on the following three components: 

• AERMAP (AERMOD terrain pre-processor) 

• AERMET (AERMOD meteorological pre-processor) 

• AERMOD (AERMIC dispersion model) 

AERMAP is a terrain pre-processor that is designed to handle the input of receptor terrain elevation data 

for AERMOD. AERMAP searches for the terrain height and location that has the greatest influence on 

dispersion for an individual receptor. This height is referred to as the height scale. The output from 

AERMAP, therefore, includes the location and height scale for each receptor, which are used to model air 

flow around hills. 

AERMET is the meteorological pre-processor for the AERMOD model. Input data for AERMET include 

hourly cloud cover observations, surface meteorological observations and twice-daily upper air 

soundings. Meteorological data required for input into the AERMET meteorological pre-processor 

included the following for the five-year period of January 1999 to December 2003. 

• Kitimat (British Columbia) Whitesail monitoring station for wind speed, wind direction and 

temperature 

• Terrace (British Columbia) Airport monitoring station for ceiling height and other surface data not 

available for Kitimat Whitesail 

• Annette (Alaska) monitoring station for upper air data 

Output from AERMET comes in the form of two files, including a file of hourly boundary layer 

parameter estimates and a file of multiple-level observations of wind speed and direction, temperature and 

standard deviation of the fluctuating components of the wind. 

AERMOD is the dispersion and deposition modelling component that uses output from AERMAP and 

AERMET to predict air contaminant concentrations and deposition rates. Special features of this 

AERMOD dispersion model include: 

• refined wet and dry deposition algorithms 

• the ability to incorporate terrain features into the model 

2010 Page 3-17




• special treatment of surface releases 

• the ability to handle irregularly shaped area sources 

• plume models for the convective boundary layer 

• limitation of vertical mixing in the stable boundary layer 

• fixing the reflecting surface at the stack base, if applicable 

For the BTEX substances, the deposition estimates are based on the AERMOD model using 

chemical-specific air emissions for each individual air emission source in operation at the Kitimat 

Terminal, as well as chemical-specific gas properties (i.e., diffusivity in air, diffusivity in water, cuticular 

resistance and Henry’s law constant). 

No chemical-specific gas and particle properties were available for the trace element and PAH 

substances. Therefore, deposition rates for those substances are estimated using a first order approach 

based on the AERMOD model and tanker SO2 emission and deposition rates. The SO2 emission and 

deposition values were converted to substance-specific trace element and PAH deposition rates based on 

the ratio of published air emission factors for trace element and PAH substances (for tankers burning 

residual oil) to the equivalent SO2 emission factor. 

3.7 Chemical Screening 

After compiling the list of analytes detected in the reference hydrocarbons and the resultant composite 

hydrocarbon expected at the Kitimat Terminal, screening criteria were established to eliminate those 

chemical substances that will be present at concentrations so low that they could not possibly present 

risks to the marine environment. Two emissions sources from the Kitimat Terminal are evaluated: 

• excess discharge from the containment reservoir (i.e., site runoff water and treated water that may 

have come into contact with hydrocarbons during normal operations of the Kitimat Terminal), to be 

released through a perforated pipe into the marine environment of Kitimat Arm 

• atmospheric deposition of COPC from air contaminant emissions as a result of normal operation of 

the Kitimat Terminal (including the release of volatile substances from land-based facilities such as 

tanks, as well as marine engine emissions from tankers while berthed, and air emissions from tugs) 

The trace elements aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium are not considered because 

they are major constituents of the earth’s crust, are of low inherent toxicity and are considered to be 

essential elements or nutrients for living organisms. 

The following subsections describe additional screening processes to determine which substances 

detected in the liquid hydrocarbon samples would be carried forward to the risk assessment. 

3.7.1 Nature of the Constituent 

All PAH, as well as BTEX and TPH (Canada Wide Standard fractions F1, F2 and F3) were carried 

forward. For toxicity of TPH to aquatic or sediment community-level marine receptor, aromatic fractions 

F1, F2 and F3, and aliphatic fractions F1 and F2 are considered because the aqueous solubility and 

bioavailability of higher fractions is negligible (ATSDR 1999; Di Toro and McGrath 2000; CCME 2008). 

Page 3-18 2010




The contribution of the F3 aliphatic fraction is also included in the estimate of oral toxicity to avian and 

mammalian receptors. 

3.7.2 Baseline Water Concentration 

So that potential environmental effects of additional increments of substances that may already be close to 

critical levels are considered, chemical substances that demonstrated a baseline concentration higher than 

that of the water quality screening criteria were carried forward. Guidelines consulted included: 

• Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (marine values; CCME 1999a) 

• British Columbia Water Quality Guidelines (marine values; BC MOE 2006, Internet site) 

• U.S. EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (salt water chronic values; U.S. EPA 2003, 

Internet site) 

• Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (marine values; 

ANZECC 2000, Internet site) 

This screening criterion was invoked in the case of cadmium. 

3.7.3 Concentration in Liquid Hydrocarbons 

Trace elements having a measured concentration above 1 mg/kg in any liquid hydrocarbon sample were 

carried forward. The rationale for this criterion is based on assumptions related to the potential liquid 

hydrocarbon releases, as well as the surface water runoff volume. As described above, any liquid 

hydrocarbons released within the tank terminal will be retained by containment berms and collected along 

with surface water runoff in a containment reservoir. The annual surface water runoff volume is defined 

as the product of the Kitimat Terminal area, the annual precipitation and a runoff coefficient. For the 

Kitimat Terminal, the annual surface water runoff volume is conservatively estimated to be approximately 

4.8×10 6 m 3 /year. Assuming that 100 m 3 of liquid hydrocarbons with a corresponding density of 

approximately 1,000 kg/m 3 could be released annually within the tank terminal (note that this is a highly 

conservative worst case estimate and is not intended to be representative of an actual operating condition), 

a concentration of 1 mg/kg of a substance in the composite hydrocarbon would result in an incremental 

increase in the concentration of that substance in the water discharged from the containment reservoir of 

2.1 x10 -2 mg/m 3 (2.1 x10 -5 mg/L), well below most relevant CCME guidelines for the protection of 

freshwater aquatic life. As such, a concentration of less than 1 mg/kg in any liquid hydrocarbon was 

treated as a de minimis value, below which there will be negligible risk of adverse effects to the marine 

environment. Only trace elements with measured concentrations above 1 mg/kg in a liquid hydrocarbon 

sample are considered in the risk assessment (see Table 3-2). 

For some organic compounds, the screening calculation outlined above is complicated by the fact that 

detection limits for individual compounds within the hydrocarbon matrix are often elevated. This 

difficulty is largely overcome by the use of the Target Lipid Model (TLM, Di Toro et al. 2000; Di Toro 

and McGrath 2000; Di Toro et al. 2007) to evaluate risk to receptors exposed to hydrocarbons in marine 

water and sediment. The TLM addresses the bulk properties of crude oil and other hydrocarbons, and 

implicitly accounts for individual chemicals that are minor constituents of the overall hydrocarbon 

2010 Page 3-19




mixture. Within this framework, the PAH compounds are evaluated as a class, regardless of individual 

PAH compound concentrations. In addition, selected organic compounds that were detected as VOC or 

phenolics in the individual representative hydrocarbons are also evaluated individually (see Table 3-2). 

For the COPC carried forward into the marine water quality model and sediment quality model for 

incorporation into the risk assessment, see Table 3-3. 


concentrations above 1 mg/kg in Liquid Hydrocarbons 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Trace elements 

Diluted Bitumen 

Condensate 

Synthetic Oil 

Barium 0.2 1.0 < 0.2 

Calcium 20 < 10 < 10 

Molybdenum 5.84 0.06 < 0.02 

Nickel 43.05 0.6 < 0.2 

Sodium 20 < 10 < 10 

Tin 1.48 0.9 0.4 

Vanadium 

BTEX 

118.5 1.2 < 0.2 

Benzene 280 13,100 1,100 

Toluene 990 25,300 3,300 

Ethylbenzene 360 2,900 1,200 

Xylenes 

PAH 

1,500 21,000 4,200 

1-Methylnaphthalene 6.6 190 99 

2-Methylnaphthalene 4.2 110 79 

Anthracene < 5.0 < 5.0 15 

Benzo(a)anthracene 7.9 < 5.0 < 5.0 

Fluorene < 5.0 15 14 

Naphthalene < 5.0 86 85 

Phenanthrene 5.3 25 12 

Pyrene 

Phenolic Compounds 

6.1 < 5.0 30 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.8 < 1.0 < 1.0 

Phenol < 1.0 2.4 < 1.0 

Page 3-20 2010





concentrations above 1 mg/kg in Liquid Hydrocarbons (cont’d) 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

TPH – Aliphatics 

Diluted Bitumen 

Condensate 

Synthetic Oil 

>C6-C8 25,700 359,000 59,700 

>C8-C10 14,900 61,200 39,000 

>C10-C12 26,400 21,800 52,800 

>C12-C16 76,500 24,700 111,000 

>C16-C21 119,000 18,800 100,000 

>C21-C32 186,000 21,400 117,000 

TPH – Aromatics 

>C8-C10 (-EX) 2,200 11,900 5,800 

>C10-C12 880 6,600 14,600 

>C12-C16 4,400 7,800 27,200 

>C16-C21 12,100 7,000 58,900 

>C21-C32 30,100 11,900 158,000 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 610 3,400 1,600 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 200 1,800 430 

Table 3–3 COPC Modelled in the Risk Assessment 

Trace Elements PAH 

Barium 1-Methylnaphthalene 

Boron 2-Methylnaphthalene 

Cadmium Acenaphthene 

Manganese Acenaphthylene 

Molybdenum Anthracene 

Nickel Benzo(a)anthracene 

Tin Benzo(b)fluoranthene 

Vanadium Benzo(k)fluoranthene 

Zinc Benzo(ghi)perylene 

Phenolic Compounds Benzo(a)pyrene 

2,4-dimethylphenol Benzo(e)pyrene 

2,4-dinitrophenol Chrysene 

Phenol Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 

2010 Page 3-21




Table 3–3 COPC Modelled in the Risk Assessment (cont’d) 

Trace Elements PAH 

TPH Fractions Fluoranthene 

Aromatics Fluorene 

>C8 - C10 

>C10 - C12 

>C12 - C16 

>C16 - C21 

>C21 - C32 

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 

Naphthalene 

Phenanthrene 

Pyrene 

BTEX 

Aliphatics Benzene 

>C6 - C8 

>C8 - C10 

>C10 - C12 

>C12 - C16 

>C16 - C21 

>C21 - C32 

Toluene 

3.7.4 Biomagnification Potential of COPC 

Ethylbenzene 

Xylenes (total; m,o,p) 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 

Following the COPC screening procedure, none of the retained COPC are considered likely be 

transmitted and concentrated at successively higher concentrations as they pass up the food chain. The 

process of biomagnification is a key concern with selected chemical substances, including methyl 

mercury, PCBs, some dioxin and furan congeners, and some pesticides. Biomagnification is not a key 

concern for most other inorganic substances, or for hydrocarbons including PAH. 

3.8 Identification of Marine Receptors 

With the number of wildlife species within 150 m of the berths, it is not practical to assess each species. 

After reviewing the expected species within the PEAA, marine receptors are selected, based on the 

following factors: 

• indigenous to the area 

• likely to be exposed to COPC emissions due to their habitat and home range 

• representative of various trophic levels and feeding guilds in the marine ecosystem 

• of cultural, economic or social importance 

Key habitats and trophic levels in the PEAA must be represented in the selection of marine receptors. 

Each marine receptor is considered representative of other species occupying a similar position in the 

food web. Therefore, results of the risk characterization step for a selected marine receptor can be used to 

make inferences about risk to other species occupying a similar level in the food web. For example, if no 

unacceptable risk is expected for Spotted Sandpiper, a shorebird that relies heavily on a diet of benthic 

invertebrates, then it can be expected that other shorebird species with similar diets will also remain 

unaffected. Using these criteria, the marine receptors assessed in the Marine ERA are expected to provide 

adequate and conservative representation of the faunal and floral diversity in the PEAA. 

Page 3-22 2010




3.8.1 Community-Level Key Marine Receptors 

The primary exposure pathway for some flora and fauna may be from direct contact with a single abiotic 

environmental medium (e.g., marine plants, invertebrates, or fish exposed to COPC in water or sediment). 

Therefore, toxicity benchmarks are commonly derived that relate COPC concentrations in these media 

(i.e., water or sediment) to toxicological effects thresholds for organisms that reside in or rely on that 

medium. Additionally, these benchmarks are typically generated using toxicity data for not one, but many 

species that reside and rely on that medium, with the intent of protecting sensitive species, and all life 

stages. 

3.8.2 Species at Risk 

Species at risk or of conservation concern are defined as wildlife species listed in Schedule 1 of the 

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) as extirpated, endangered, threatened or of special concern; species 

that are red-listed (extirpated, endangered or threatened) or blue-listed (of special concern) by the BC 

CDC; or listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern by COSEWIC. British Columbia has no 

stand-alone endangered species legislation; however, red-listed vertebrate species may be legally 

designated as endangered or threatened under the provincial Wildlife Act. 

Within the PEAA, 12 species are listed as species at risk or of conservation concern (see Table 3-4). 

Steller sea lion are known to be abundant in the PEAA and will likely frequent the marine terminal area. 

Marbled Murrelet are marine birds that require old-growth forest for nesting habitat, and are likely to 

frequent the marine terminal area. 

The Bocaccio is a member of the rockfish family, listed as threatened by COSEWIC due to a combination 

of low recruitment and effects from harvesting. It is a semi-pelagic fish and prefer the upper layers of the 

open ocean (DFO 2007b, Internet site) and is evaluated as part of the water community-level. 

Eulachon are small pelagic, anadromous fish, listed on the province’s blue list. In British Columbia there 

are over 30 known spawning rivers and two are near the PEAA: the Skeena River and the Nass River 

systems (Stoffels 2001, Internet site). Occasional spawning has also been noted in Bish Creek off the 

Kitimat Arm, and located within 150 m of the berths (Forest Service British Columbia 1998, Internet 

site). Eulachon were evaluated as part of the water community-level. 

Cetacean species found within the coastal waters of British Columbia, and near the marine terminal and 

connecting channels, include the following: 

• Dall’s porpoise 

• Pacific white-sided porpoise 

• killer whale (orca) 

• humpback whale 

2010 Page 3-23




Table 3–4 Federal and Provincial Listed Species Potentially Present in the 

PEAA 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinus T 

Federal Status Provincial Status 

SARA 

Schedule 1 COSEWIC a BC CDC b S-Rank c 

Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus B S2S3 

Killer whale (northern 

resident) 

Orcinus orca T B S3 

Killer whale (transient) Orcinus orca T R S2 

Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena 

vomerina 

SC B S3 

Humpback whale Megaptera 

novaeangliae 

T B S3 

Grey whale Eschrichtius robustus SC B S3 

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E B S1N 

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus T B S2N 

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E B SHN 

Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus SC B S2S3B, S3N 

Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus 

marmoratus 

T R S2B, S4N 

NOTES: 

a 

COSEWIC status 

E – endangered: facing imminent extirpation or extinction 

T – threatened: likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed 

SC – special concern: particularly sensitive to human activities and natural events 

b 

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (BC CDC) 

R – red-listed: extirpated, endangered or threatened in British Columbia 

B – blue-listed: of special concern in British Columbia 

c 

NatureServe conservation status sub-national rank. Modifiers used with the rankings are as follows: 

B – indicates breeding status for a migratory species 

N – indicates non-breeding status for a migratory species 

H – historical: possibly extirpated 

1 – Critically imperilled 

2 – Imperilled 

3 – Vulnerable 

4 – Apparently Secure 

5 – Secure 

– listed in SARA schedule 1 

Page 3-24 2010




See Table 3-5 for marine receptors that are Species at Risk or of conservation concern. The goal of ERA 

is typically to identify potential risks to marine receptors at the population level rather than at the 

individual level, with the notable exception being species protected under SARA, BC CDC or COSEWIC. 

To accommodate fish (eulachon), mammalian (porpoises, whales, Steller sea lion) and avian (Marbled 

Murrelet) species of concern, risk characterization is based on toxicological reference values (TRV) 

derived with either NOAEL, or LOAEL divided by an UF of 3 (half an order of magnitude). This is based 

on professional judgment and is expected to provide a protective and realistic threshold for risk 

assessment. These two approaches are considered equivalent and are intended to protect marine species 

from concentrations or doses of COPC that could cause adverse environmental effects at the individual 

level. 

The only cetacean that the GEM team observed in the upper Kitimat Arm (defined here as an arbitrary 

line crossing the Arm touching the northern end of Coste Island) is a Dall’s porpoise (see PDF 1048334 

MMSight PopAnal Feb 13 17 2009.pdf). No harbour porpoises were seen in this region during 

project-specific field surveys. Harbour porpoises have been observed in Douglas Channel and presumably 

they range throughout the region, and in Kitimat Arm. The British Columbia Cetacean Sighting Network 

data from 1985-2009 (which are not corrected for effort), suggest that Dall’s porpoise, killer whales and 

humpback whales are the most commonly sighted whales near the marine terminal. However, harbour 

porpoise tend to be inconspicuous, and their potential presence in the vicinity of the marine terminal may 

be underestimated. Little is known about the migratory behavior of Dall’s porpoises, but it would appear 

that they may migrate within their range (north in summer, south in winter). Hence, the same individuals 

may not reside near the marine terminal for most of the year. The larger toothed whales and baleen 

whales would be expected to have large ranges, and while they may be periodically sighted near the 

marine terminal, it is unlikely that a single individual would remain resident near the marine terminal for 

most of the year. 

Harbour porpoises have similar overall dietary requirements to the other small toothed whales likely to be 

found in the area (i.e., Dall’s porpoise and Pacific white-sided porpoise, which feed on small schooling 

fish such as herring, eelpouts, hake, sandlance, salmon and cod, as well as squid). They tend to frequent 

inshore waters and readily accommodate to human activities. Based upon these considerations, the 

harbour porpoise was selected as a representative small toothed whale for the purposes of the ecological 

risk assessment. 

Table 3–5 Marine Receptors that are Species at Risk or Conservation 

Concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Rationale for Inclusion 

Eulachon Sebastes paucispinus Occasional spawning has been noted in Bish Creek off the Kitimat 

Arm. 

Harbour Porpoise Phocoena phocoena 

vomerina 

Similar overall dietary requirements to the other small toothed 

whales likely to be found in the PEAA and tend to frequent inshore 

waters and readily accommodate to human activities. 

Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus Known to be abundant in the PEAA and will likely frequent the 

marine terminal area. 

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus 

marmoratus 

Require old-growth forest for nesting habitat. This bird species is 

likely to frequent the marine terminal area. 

2010 Page 3-25




3.8.3 Avian and Mammalian Key Indicators 

The following mammalian species (in alphabetical order) are marine receptors for the risk assessment: 

• coastal-dwelling mink (Mustela vison) 

• harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena vomerina) 

• Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 

The following avian species (in alphabetical order) are marine receptors for the risk assessment: 

• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

• Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

• Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularius) 

• Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) 

For a detailed description of parameters used for modelling each species (e.g., body weight, water 

ingestion rate, dietary composition and food intake rate), see Appendix G. Brief summaries are provided 

below. 

3.8.3.1 Coastal-dwelling Mink 

The mink weighs approximately 0.85 kg. It is a medium-sized member of the weasel family and is the 

most abundant and widely distributed carnivorous mammal in North America (U.S. EPA 1993). Mink are 

found throughout the continental portion of Canada (including Newfoundland), except in the most barren 

portions of northwestern Quebec and eastern Nunavut. 

Mink are active year-round and are associated with aquatic habitats such as rivers, streams, lakes, ditches, 

swamps, marshes, coastal shorelines and backwater areas (U.S. EPA 1993). Home ranges vary 

considerably but are in the range of 7.8 ha to 380 ha (U.S. EPA 1993). The mink feeds extensively on 

small mammals, fish, amphibians and crustaceans, as well as birds, reptiles and insects depending on the 

season (U.S. EPA 1993). Mink consume approximately 0.22 kg of wet weight food per day and 0.09 L of 

water or its equivalent per day. The diet of coastal-dwelling mink is modelled as including 55% small 

mammals, 35% bird prey and 10% benthic invertebrates. 

Carnivores such as the mink are classified as tertiary consumers within the ecosystem (CCME 1997). 

Based on its consumption of a variety of foods, the coastal-dwelling mink is estimated to ingest 

3.58 x 10 4 kg/d of dry soil and 7.77 x10 -4 kg/d of dry sediment incidentally. As the coastal-dwelling mink 

is expected to meet dietary water requirements by seeking freshwater sources, direct seawater ingestion is 

not considered for this KI. 

Page 3-26 2010




3.8.3.2 Harbour Porpoise 

Differences in the skull morphology of harbour porpoises from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans has led to 

sub-specific separation. In Canada, members of the Pacific subspecies (P. p. vomerina) inhabit the coastal 

waters of British Columbia (Environment Canada 2006a, Internet site). They are small, sexually 

dimorphic cetaceans, with a mean length of 1.6 m (60 kg BW) for adult females and 1.45 m (50 kg BW) 

for males (CMS 2003, Internet site). Although colouration may vary, the typical appearance is a dark grey 

dorsal side that transitions to a white ventral side at the mid-flank (Hammond and Masi 2000, Internet 

site). A dark stripe extends from the mouth to the flippers (CMS 2003, Internet site). Both subspecies are 

designated as species of special concern by COSEWIC. Phocoena phocoena vomerina is listed as a 

Schedule 1 species under SARA. Incidental catch of the harbour porpoise in fishing gear (e.g., gill nets) is 

a major cause of mortality and the major reason for these designations. Great white sharks, killer whales 

and occasionally bottlenose dolphins will prey on harbour porpoises. 

The harbour porpoise is found on the continental shelves of temperate North America, generally 

inhabiting oceanic depths of less than 150 m (Environment Canada 2006b, Internet site; IMMA 1998, 

Internet site). Some seasonal migration is exhibited, as the harbour porpoise moves north and inshore 

during the summer and spends winters further offshore in southern waters (following movements of prey) 

(CMS 2003, Internet site). In the Bay of Fundy, for example, these animals may cover areas upwards of 

11,000 km 2 over the course of one month. However, much of their foraging effort is focused on an area 

less than 300 km 2 . 

The harbour porpoise diet consists mainly of small (shorter than 40 cm), schooling fish (e.g., herring and 

sand lance) and squid, although squid are reportedly more abundant in the diet of Pacific Ocean porpoises 

(Santos and Pierce 2003; Environment Canada 2006b, Internet site). Harbour porpoises consume these 

food items (assumed 95% fish and squid, 5% benthic invertebrates) at a rate of approximately 4.32 kg wet 

weight per day (estimated using the allometric equation provided in Innes et al. 1987). Based on its diet of 

pelagic fish and squid, the rate of dry marine sediment ingestion for the harbour porpoise is estimated to 

be 1.22 x10 -2 kg/d. 

2010 Page 3-27




3.8.3.3 Steller Sea Lion 

The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) is the predominant species of sea lion in Canada. It is the largest 

species of sea lion in the world (DFO 2007a, Internet site), and has a range extending from the Kuril 

Islands and the Sea of Okhotsk in Russia, to the Gulf of Alaska in the north, and down to the west coast 

of North American to Año Nuevo Island off central California. The California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus), native to the coast of California, Mexico including Baja and the Tres Marias Islands, also 

occasionally migrates north to British Columbia (Mate 1978; Price 2002, Internet site). The Steller sea 

lion is listed as a species of special concern under SARA, COSEWIC and the BC Ministry of 

Environment. In 1970, it was placed under protection through the Federal Fisheries Act as populations 

had declined substantially as a result of hunting, accidental mortality from fishing nets and pollution. To 

date, populations are recovering rapidly (DFO 2007a, Internet site; Government of Canada 2008a, 

Internet site). 

Steller sea lions exhibit extreme sexual dimorphism. Males are commonly twice the size of females. 

Adult females typically weigh 200 to 300 kg, while adult males typically weigh 400 to 800 kg 

(Government of Canada 2008a, Internet site). The average female weight has been estimated as 263 kg 

and the average male weight as 566 kg (Gonder 2000, Internet site). Steller sea lions have a limited range 

within Canada and are found in three main breeding areas, or rookeries, on the coast of British Columbia: 

the Scott Islands, Cape St. James and offshore from the Banks Islands, in the northern British Columbia 

mainland. This species is not considered migratory (Government of Canada 2008a, Internet site). 

The Steller sea lion diet consists mainly of pelagic fish including salmon, herring, sand lance and 

sardines, but it will occasionally hunt benthic species such as rockfish, flounder and skate. Cephalopods 

such as squid and octopus are also important parts of its diet (Gonder 2000, Internet site; Government of 

Canada 2008a, Internet site). When not hunting in open water, the Steller sea lion can be seen loafing on 

rocky shorelines, often in groups (Gonder 2000, Internet site). 

Allometric models indicate that a 566 kg male Steller sea lion consumes approximately 45.32 kg of 

wet-weight food per day and 29.7 L of seawater per day (U.S. EPA 1993). Steller sea lion are modelled as 

consuming 90% fish and 10% marine invertebrates (cephalopods). Based on its consumption of these 

foods, Steller sea lions are estimated to incidentally ingest 2.28 x10 -1 kg of dry sediment per day. 

Page 3-28 2010




3.8.3.4 Bald Eagle 

The Bald Eagle is the second largest bird of prey found in North America, and the largest found in 

Canada (Stocek 1992, Internet site). Adult birds are readily identified by their striking appearance, 

characterized by dark brown body plumage contrasting sharply with white head and tail plumage (Buehler 

2000, Internet site). The Bald Eagle’s range is restricted to North America, where it prefers sea coasts, 

lakeshores or riverine habitat that possesses suitable nesting trees in which to breed. The majority of 

Canada’s breeding population is found along the coastline of British Columbia, although the northern 

boreal forests of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario also support substantial breeding 

populations. Cape Breton and Newfoundland support the majority of the Atlantic breeding population 

(Stocek 1992, Internet site). In the autumn, central Canadian breeding populations migrate to the 

west-central and southwestern United States, returning in late winter or early spring. Pacific and Atlantic 

populations may remain in their breeding habitat year-round if their fishing areas do not freeze over 

(Stocek 1992, Internet site). 

Female Bald Eagles are up to 25% larger than males, and birds from northern latitudes (Canada and 

Alaska) are larger than their counterparts in the southeastern and southwestern United States (Buehler 

2000, Internet site). The typical body mass of the Bald Eagle ranges from 3 kg to 6.3 kg (Buehler 2000, 

Internet site), although masses of 7 kg have been recorded (Stocek 1992, Internet site). Immature eagles 

grow rapidly owing to a voracious appetite. Bald Eagles are opportunistic feeders, taking live prey when 

available but preferring to scavenge carrion or to pirate freshly killed prey from other predators (Stocek 

1992, Internet site; U.S. EPA 1993). Their preferred food items include fish, aquatic birds and mammals; 

however, choice of prey is site-specific and may vary widely across their range (Buehler 2000, Internet 

site). Adult birds are more likely to hunt and kill food items whereas immature birds are more prone to 

obtaining food through scavenging and piracy (Stocek 1992, Internet site). Coastal Bald Eagle 

populations are modelled as consuming 95% marine fish and 5% mammals, while inland populations are 

modelled as consuming 45% terrestrial vertebrates (mammals and birds) and 55% freshwater fish. 

For the coastal Bald Eagle, allometric models indicate that a 4.5 kg Bald Eagle (mean adult female size) 

consumes approximately 0.649 kg of wet-weight food per day and 0.162 L of fresh water per day (U.S. 

EPA 1993), and incidentally ingests 9.76 x10 -5 kg of dry soil and 1.75 x10 -3 kg of dry sediment per day. 

The inland Bald Eagle also consumes 0.649 kg of wet-weight food per day and 0.162 L of fresh water per 

day, but ingests 0.879 x10 -4 kg of soil and 1.02 x10 -3 kg of sediment per day. 

2010 Page 3-29




3.8.3.5 Marbled Murrelet 

The Marbled Murrelet is a seabird found along the Pacific coast of North America from Alaska to the 

northwestern United States. Best known for its cryptic nesting behaviour, the Marbled Murrelet is 

otherwise unspectacular in appearance. Powerful, stubby wings propel this small, compact species 

quickly through the air, but seem better suited as flippers when the bird dives for food (Kaiser 1991, 

Internet site). Males and females have similar appearance and are similar in size. Male birds from British 

Columbia had a mean summer mass of 217 g, whereas females had a mean summer mass of 222.7 g 

(Nelson 2000a, Internet site); adults from Alaska had summer masses of 204.9 g ± 19.8 g (Nelson 2000, 

Internet site). 

On the open ocean, Marbled Murrelet are a common sight, often seen by boaters, although they dive 

quickly beneath the surface when approached. Land sightings of this species are exceptionally rare and 

little is known of its terrestrial habits. Nests have been documented on cliff faces, in the crooks of trees 

and well inshore on the ground in forests with old growth components (Kaiser 1991, Internet site; Smart 

1999, Internet site; Nelson 2000, Internet site). Due to this species’ particular nesting habits, logging 

activity in British Columbia and Alaska has become a concern. The Marbled Murrelet is currently listed 

as threatened under the Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2008b, Internet site). Limited 

migration range (along the Pacific continental coast) and low reproductive rates exacerbate the situation 

(Government of Canada 2008b, Internet site). 

The Marbled Murrelet forages in inlets, fjords and bays within approximately 5 km of shore and forage 

range is strongly influenced by prey abundance and proximity to nesting sites (Nelson 2000, Internet site). 

Major prey items include marine fish such as sand lance, herring, anchovy, capelin and surf smelt, as well 

as crustaceans such as shrimp, krill, amphipods and other marine invertebrates. Ingestion of juvenile 

salmonids in freshwater lakes has also been documented (Brooks 1928; Nelson 2000b). 

Allometric models indicate that a 220 g Marbled Murrelet consumes approximately 0.081 kg of 

wet-weight food per day and 0.021 L of seawater per day (U.S. EPA 1993). The Marbled Murrelet diet is 

modelled as consuming 75% fish (70% marine, 5% freshwater) and 25% marine invertebrates. Based on 

its consumption of these foods, it is estimated to incidentally ingest 6.68 x10 -4 kg of dry sediment per day. 

Page 3-30 2010




3.8.3.6 Spotted Sandpiper 

The Spotted Sandpiper is one the most widely distributed birds in North America. It capitalizes on 

generalist tendencies such as wide food preferences and may occupy almost any habitat in proximity to a 

water source. 

The Spotted Sandpiper weighs approximately 40 to 50 g (Oring et al. 1997, Internet site; NatureServe 

2008, Internet site). It is not a gregarious bird, but tends to migrate singly or in small groups (less than 

10 birds). Females are typically 20 to 25% larger than males, and males care for the young (Oring et al. 

1997, Internet site; NatureServe 2008, Internet site). This species demonstrates polygamous and 

monogamous breeding (Oring et al. 1997, Internet site). The breeding range of the Spotted Sandpiper 

covers the entire continent of North America from east to west, including from the southern edge of the 

Arctic to the southern United States, and altitudes ranging from sea level to 4,700 m above sea level. A 

successful breeder will attempt to return to breeding sites, and to sites with which it has previous 

experience. Hatchlings will attempt to return to hatch sites to breed. The Spotted Sandpiper can winter in 

southwestern British Columbia, the southern United States, Central and South America, Bermuda and the 

West Indies (Oring et al. 1997, Internet site). 

The Spotted Sandpiper will occupy a variety of habitats, ranging from beaches, to meadows and fields in 

agricultural areas, to forest (U.S. EPA 1993; Oring et al. 1997, Internet site; NatureServe 2008, Internet 

site). It will typically forage within 200 m of a water source, and nest within 300 m (typically within 

100 m) of a water source (Oring et al. 1997, Internet site). The Spotted Sandpiper is an invertivore 

(NatureServe 2008, Internet site) or animal matter generalist (Oring et al. 1997, Internet site), and will 

consume almost anything small enough to be eaten, including invertebrates from terrestrial, aquatic and 

marine environments (Oring et al. 1997, Internet site). It will occasionally eat crustaceans, leeches, 

molluscs, small fish and carrion (U.S. EPA 1993; Oring et al. 1997, Internet site). Vegetation is thought to 

be consumed incidentally (Oring et al. 1997, Internet site). The Spotted Sandpiper will walk or wade 

forward and probe, jab or stitch prey with its beak (Oring et al. 1997, Internet site). It will often dip 

insects in the water before consuming them (Oring et al. 1997, Internet site). The Spotted Sandpiper 

occasionally swims when it is feeding and may make shallow dives to escape predators (Oring et al. 1997, 

Internet site; NatureServe 2008, Internet site). 

2010 Page 3-31




The mean home range of the Spotted Sandpiper is approximately 2,500 m 2 (0.24 ha) (U.S. EPA 1993). 

However, female territories increase in size with resource scarcity and predation. Territory sizes were 

reportedly on average 815 m 2 in north-central Minnesota, but in areas with greater predation, territories 

varied from 12,700 to 14,500 m 2 , and in areas with high predation ranged from 3,000 to 20,000 m 2 (Oring 

et al. 1997, Internet site). 

Allometric models indicate that a 47.1 g Spotted Sandpiper (average female size) consumes 

approximately 0.023 kg of wet-weight food per day and 0.0076 L of seawater per day (U.S. EPA 1993). 

The Spotted Sandpiper’s diet is modelled as consuming 45% terrestrial invertebrates, 45% aquatic 

invertebrates, 2% aquatic vegetation, 2% terrestrial vegetation and 6% fish. Based on its consumption of 

these foods, the Spotted Sandpiper is estimated to incidentally ingest 2.43 x10 -4 kg of dry soil and 

4.54 x10 -4 kg of dry sediment per day. 

3.8.3.7 Surf Scoter 

The Surf Scoter is one of three North American species of scoter and is a sea duck. Surf Scoters inhabit 

Atlantic and Pacific coastal environments during the fall, winter and early spring, but migrate to 

freshwater wetlands, primarily in the boreal forest, to reproduce. Some non-breeding individuals, 

however, may remain in coastal environments throughout the year. On wintering grounds, Surf Scoters 

prefer shallow coastal areas less than 10 m deep with a variety of hard and soft bottom substrate (Savard 

et al. 1998, Internet site). Surf Scoter are frequently found in large mixed-species flocks, but outnumber 

other scoters along steep rocky shores and fjords in British Columbia (Savard et al. 1998, Internet site). 

The Surf Scoter is a medium size sea duck species, and individuals collected from coastal British 

Columbia sites had a mean mass of 1,025 g for females and 1,153 g for males (Savard et al. 1998, Internet 

site). Like most sea ducks, its diet consists primarily of bivalve molluscs in marine environments with a 

preference for mussels in rocky intertidal areas and clams in soft-bottom areas (Lewis et al. 2007a, 

2007b). For a short period of time in the spring, prior to migration, large groups of scoters congregate on 

herring spawning sites to feed on deposited roe (Lewis et al. 2007b). Surf Scoter will remain in an area 

provided there is sufficient food, but migrate to capitalize on seasonally abundant food sources, such as 

herring roe (Lewis et al. 2007b). In freshwater environments, Surf Scoter prey upon a variety of aquatic 

invertebrates (Savard et al. 1998, Internet site). In marine environments, the Surf Scoter is modelled as 

consuming 90% molluscs, 5% fish (roe) and 5% plant material (Savard et al. 1998, Internet site). With a 

modelled body weight of 1.1 kg (1,100 g), allometric models estimate that the Surf Scoter will consume 

0.313 kg wet-weight food/day (U.S. EPA 1993) and will ingest 5.91x10 -3 kg dry sediment per day. 

Page 3-32 2010




Like other sea duck species, Surf Scoters have the ability to eliminate excess salt through supra-orbital 

salt glands (DeVink et al. 2005). It is therefore able to meet dietary water requirements by consuming 

seawater. The moisture content of the Surf Scoter prey items is typically 80% or more, which likely 

satisfies the majority of its water consumption requirements. However, after accounting for dietary 

sources of water, it is conservatively assumed that Surf Scoter ingests an additional 0.03 L/day of 

seawater. 

3.9 Exposure Pathway Screening 

The route by which a receptor may be exposed to COPC is defined as an exposure pathway. For semiaquatic 

and marine mammals and birds, exposure to COPC may occur through ingestion of: 

• seawater 

• sediment (e.g., birds and mammals may ingest sediment contained within prey species or 

inadvertently while foraging on benthic prey) 

• marine plants 

• marine invertebrates 

• marine fish 

For community-level receptors (plants, invertebrates and fish), exposure to COPC may occur through 

direct exposure to COPC in water or in sediment. 

Conceptual Site Models 

Figure 3-3 is a schematic representation of the interactions between the identified modelled species and 

the COPC in relevant exposure media, via various potential exposure pathways. The potential exposure 

pathways are designated by arrows leading from the contaminant source media to each resource. Relevant 

pathways for each resource are identified as checked compartments within the matrix. 

2010 Page 3-33

Source of COPC 

Liquid Hydrocarbons 

Entrained by Surface Water 

Runo and Recovered from 

Berth Operations 

Impoundment Reservoir 

excess via perforated pipe 

Marine Water 

sedimentation 

Marine Sediment 

NOTE: 

X - a potentially complete exposure pathway. 

[Uptake] 

[Uptake] 

Exposure Media 

Marine Water 

Direct Exposure X 

Ingestion X X X X X 

Marine Plants Ingestion X X 

Fish Ingestion X X X X X X X 


[Uptake] Marine 

Invertebrates 

Potential 

Exposure 

Pathways 

Direct Exposure X 

Ingestion X X X X X X X 

Ingestion X X X X X X 

Figure 3-3 Conceptual Exposure Model for Marine Key Indicator Resources 

Sediment Community (Benthic 

Invertebrates, Fish) 

Aquatic Community 

(Marine Plants, Benthic Invertebrates, 

Fish) 

Source Receptors (KIs) 

Spotted Sandpiper 

Surf Scoter 

Marbled Murrelet 

Bald Eagle 

Coastal-dwelling Mink 

Steller Sea Lion 

Harbour Porpoise




The risks of environmental effects to community-level receptors are evaluated by comparing water and 

sediment COPC concentrations to community benchmarks as a direct exposure pathway. The risks to 

avian and mammalian modelled species are evaluated using multiple exposure pathways. For the rationale 

for the selected pathways, see Table 3-6. 

Table 3–6 Rationale for Exposure Pathways Evaluated for Avian and 

Mammalian Species 

Exposure 

Pathway 

Direct Exposure 

to Water and 

Sediment 

Sediment 

Ingestion 

Included in 

Marine 

ERA? Rationale 

No Although wildlife may be exposed by direct contact with seawater and sediment, 

absorption of COPC through the skin is not generally considered a major route 

of exposure. The integument of marine mammals and birds is generally a 

barrier to chemical exchange. The current state of knowledge on dermal toxicity 

does not permit a sound evaluation of risks from this type of exposure. 

Therefore, the dermal exposure route is not evaluated. However, it is important 

to note that this risk assessment does not contemplate releases of 

hydrocarbons that would result in oil slick formation. 

Yes It is assumed that during operation, COPC will be deposited to marine 

sediment. Wildlife species inadvertently consume sediment during foraging, 

preening and grooming. Therefore, this exposure pathway is evaluated for 

wildlife. 

Inhalation No Wildlife may be exposed to airborne COPC resulting from emissions from the 

Kitimat Terminal (e.g., release of COPC from moored tankers), but exposure to 

COPC through this exposure pathway will be negligible compared to the other 

routes of exposure. Therefore, this pathway is not considered. 

Seawater 

Ingestion 

Ingestion of 

Marine Plants, 

Invertebrates and 

Fish 

Yes During operation, COPC may be released from the Project into seawater, either 

directly or via atmospheric deposition. The marine species may be exposed to 

COPC in seawater if they ingest it. Many marine species will ingest seawater 

either directly (as a source of water) or indirectly (as they ingest food items). 

Therefore, this pathway is considered for most wildlife KI. The mink and Bald 

Eagle are expected to seek freshwater as a dietary water source; this pathway 

is not considered for the mink or Bald Eagle. 

Yes It is assumed that during operation, COPC released into the marine 

environment will be taken up by fish, invertebrates and aquatic plants. Wildlife 

may then ingest prey or plants and subsequently become exposed to COPC. 

While all higher trophic-level species have invertebrates or fish as dietary 

components, only the shorebird (Spotted Sandpiper) and the sea duck (Surf 

Scoter) are reported ingesting marine plants. 

2010 Page 3-35



Section 4: Exposure Assessment 

4 Exposure Assessment 

The purpose of the exposure assessment is to develop a quantitative estimate of exposure to each COPC 

for each marine receptor. This was accomplished by estimating the concentrations of COPC in relevant 

environmental abiotic media (i.e., water and sediment), as well as food items (marine plants, benthic 

invertebrates and fish) likely to be consumed by the species. 

The magnitude of exposure of a species to COPC in the environment depends on the: 

• Base Case and Project Case cconcentrations of COPC in various environmental media 

• physical-chemical characteristics of the COPC, which affect their environmental fate and transport 

and determine such factors as efficiency of absorption into the body and rate of metabolic breakdown 

or excretion 

• influence of site-specific environmental characteristics (e.g., geology, sediment type, topography, 

hydrology and hydrogeology on a contaminant’s behaviour within environmental media) 

• physiological and behavioural characteristics of the species (e.g., food and water ingestion rates, 

sediment intake and body weight) 

For the Base Case, COPC exposure point concentrations (EPC) are based on empirical measurements. 

EPC for the Application Case are estimated using a fate and transport modelling approach. 

4.1 Fate and Transport Modelling of COPC Exposure Point 

Concentrations 

The modelling approach to estimate the fate and transport of COPC in the marine environment is based 

on two independent mass balance (compartment) models. One model estimates fate and transport of 

COPC in the water (see Appendix A), while the second estimates deposition of COPC from water into 

marine sediment (see Appendix B). The overall objective of this process is to evaluate the likely fate of 

COPC released from the assumed liquid effluent discharge location and from atmospheric deposition. The 

models apply to all classes of COPC (e.g., BTEX, TPH, PAH, trace elements). Similar models have been 

used in the contaminant fate modelling of the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Oven Sites (AMEC 2005), 

Hamilton Harbour (Ling et al. 1993) and in the Saguenay Fjord (Lun et al. 1998) to elucidate the fate and 

transport of contaminants in harbour and estuarine systems. 

Mass balance compartment models consisting of two- or three-dimensional arrangements of 

compartments, configured to represent the natural environment, have been widely used to simulate 

contaminant transport in rivers, lakes and estuaries (Diamond et al. 1994, 1996; Stoetaert and Herman 

1995a, 1995b; Stephenson et al. 1995). For example, models of this type have been used in previous 

analyses of contaminant fluxes and transport in the Muggah Creek and Sydney Harbour systems (JDAC 

2002; AMEC 2005; Ethier 2002). Mass balance models can provide explicit estimates of the fluxes of 

contaminants across boundaries or the masses within compartments as a function of time. Therefore, a 

mass balance compartment model is the most appropriate model for this study. 

2010 Page 4-1




The marine environment model used two independent mass balance models. One represented the water 

compartments of the study area (see Figure 4-1 and Appendix A for more details), and the second 

modelled fate and transport of COPC into the marine sediment (see Figure 4-1 and Appendix B for more 

details). 

The models were created using Stella® v8.1.1. The principle of a mass balance model is that an 

environment or process can be represented by one or more compartments, each of which contains a 

certain quantity or mass of material. In this case, the compartments represent specific areas within the 

PEAA, and the mass represented is the mass of a chemical (e.g., naphthalene) present within the 

compartment. For example, SSmass represents the mass of a chemical in the surface sediment of a 

modelled area (see Figure 4-2). A compartmental mass may change over time in response to: 

• processes representing chemical inputs (e.g., Dep representing the deposition of suspended sediments 

and sorbed COPC) 

• transport to other compartments (e.g., SS:DS represents the transfer of COPC from surface sediment 

to deep sediment (DS mass) 

• export outside of the system (this does not occur in the Sediment Quality Model) 

• other loss or removal processes (e.g., Decay represents the loss of organic COPC through 

degradation) 

As required to model processes, additional parameters are included in the models (e.g., Dep Rate 

represents the deposition rate of suspended sediments). 

The equations representing these processes are solved for a series of time steps, allowing the model to 

represent the behaviour of the system being modelled over time. Mass is never lost from the model 

(except where a specific process such as chemical degradation or radioactive decay is involved), although 

it may be stored in various compartments from which it cannot be transferred back to circulation among 

other compartments. Moreover, mass is not created within the model, except where it is added through 

source inputs (i.e., liquid effluent and air deposition). 

In Stella®, compartments are represented by stocks. Processes affecting the input and output of COPC 

from compartments are represented by flows. Model parameters in the equations representing these 

processes are represented by converters (see Figure 4-1). The arrows in the conceptual diagram (see 

Figure 4-1) represent a relationship between two stocks, converters or flows. 

Page 4-2 2010




4.2 Exposure Point Concentrations and Uptake Factors 

For the Base Case, EPC for most COPC were measured from site specific media. Water, sediment, 

aquatic vegetation (seaweed), fish and benthic invertebrate (crab, mussels) samples collected in the 

compartments K1, K2 and T are assessed for COPC concentrations (see Appendix C and Appendix D). 

Only a small number of samples were collected and analyzed; therefore, a thorough statistical analysis 

was not possible. As a conservative approach, for the Base Case, the collective maximum concentrations 

for each medium are used as EPC for the compartments K1, K2 and T; the median concentrations are 

used as EPC for the compartments CB and EP. In cases where COPC were not detected, the EPC are 

estimated using a value of half the reported analytical detection limit. For the empirically measured EPC 

used for the Base Case, see Table 4-1. 

For the Project Case, the water and sediment fate and transport models generated point estimates of 

COPC concentrations in five water compartments (divided into surface and deep sub-compartments) and 

five surface sediment compartments (divided into near-shore and off-shore sub-compartments). For the 

maximum concentrations, see Table 4-2. The water EPC are based on the 95th UCLM within each 

compartment for the three years of model data, while the sediment EPC are based on the maximum 

concentration within each compartment (i.e., typically the concentration at the end of 50-year model 

simulation). For more detail on fate and transport modelling used to generate water and sediment 

concentrations, see Appendices A and B. 

In addition, for the Project Case, additional EPC are also estimated for each COPC with the use of 

compound-specific uptake factors (UP), that describe the relationship between the concentration of a 

chemical in a given abiotic medium to various types of biota (e.g., the uptake of naphthalene from 

sediment by benthic invertebrates). For a description of the uptake factors required for the calculation of 

EPC for marine plants, invertebrates and fish, see Appendix H. 

The generalized equation used to calculate a COPC concentration in a biotic tissue (such as fish or 

benthic invertebrates) from water or sediment concentrations is: 

Where: 

EPCj = EPCi x UPij 

EPCj = Exposure Point Concentration in target biotic tissue j (mg/kg wet weight) 

EPCi = Exposure Point Concentration in an environmental medium (i.e., water or 

sediment, mg/L or mg/kg dry weight) 

UPij = Uptake Factor from the environmental medium i to wet weight target biotic tissue 

j (dimensionless) 

For the Application Case, EPC from the Base Case and Project Case are summed and are presented in 

Table 4-3. 

Page 4-6 2010




Table 4–1 Maximum Base Case Exposure Point Concentration of COPC 

BTEX 

Constituent 

CAS Registry 

Number 

Surface Seawater 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Near-shore Marine 

Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Surface Water 

Marine Plant 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Fish Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Deep Seawater 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Off-shore Marine 

Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Benzene 71-43-2 ND (2.50E-04) ND (1.50E-02) - - - ND (2.50E-04) ND (4.00E-02) - - 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 ND (2.50E-04) ND (1.50E-02) - - - ND (2.50E-04) ND (5.00E-02) - - 

Toluene 108-88-3 ND (5.00E-04) ND (1.50E-02) - - - ND (5.00E-04) ND (5.00E-02) - - 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 ND (5.00E-04) ND (2.50E-02) - - - ND (5.00E-04) ND (1.00E-01) - - 

TPH - CCME CWS % Composition a 

Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 0.55 - ND (1.00E-01) - - - - - - - 

Aliph>C08-C10 - F1 0.36 - ND (2.00E-01) - - - - - - - 

Arom>C08-C10 - F1 0.09 - 4.00E-01 - - - - - - - 

F1 – Total 1 - 7.00E-01 - - - - - - - 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 0.36 - ND (4.00E+00) - - - - - - - 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 - ND (7.50E+00) - - - - - - - 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 0.09 - 6.30E+00 - - - - - - - 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 0.11 - ND (7.50E+00) - - - - - - - 

F2 – Total 1 - 2.53E+01 - - - - - - - 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 - ND (7.50E+00) - - - - - - - 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 - ND (7.50E+00) - - - - - - - 

Arom>C16-C21 - F3 0.14 - ND (7.50E+00) - - - - - - - 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 0.06 - 2.30E+01 - - - - - - - 

F3 – Total 1 - 4.55E+01 - - - - - - - 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Low Molecular Weight PAH 

Marine Ground Fish 

Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Acenaphthene 83-32-9 ND (4.00E-05) 8.50E-03 ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (4.00E-05) ND (2.50E-02) ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 8.00E-05 ND (2.50E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) 8.00E-05 ND (2.50E-02) ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Anthracene 120-12-7 ND (4.00E-05) 1.43E-02 ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (4.00E-05) ND (2.50E-02) ND (6.28E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Fluorene 86-73-7 1.20E-04 ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) 1.20E-04 ND (2.50E-02) ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

1-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 - - - - - - - - - 

2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 2.10E-04 1.00E-02 - - - 2.10E-04 ND (2.50E-02) - - 

Naphthalene 91-20-3 1.10E-04 3.00E-02 ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) 1.10E-04 ND (2.50E-02) ND (6.28E-03) ND (1.00E-02) 

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 3.50E-04 8.70E-02 ND (1.00E-02) 4.10E-02 ND (1.00E-02) 3.50E-04 1.80E-01 ND (9.46E-03) ND (1.00E-02) 

2010 Page 4-7




Table 4–1 Maximum Base Case Exposure Point Concentration of COPC (cont’d) 

Constituent 

High Molecular Weight PAH 

CAS Registry 

Number 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Surface Water 


Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Fish Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Deep Seawater 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 1.07E-03 6.00E-02 ND (5.00E-03) 2.20E-02 ND (5.00E-03) 1.07E-03 3.90E-01 ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 1.47E-03 2.00E-02 ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) 1.47E-03 2.70E-01 ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 8.70E-04 ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) 8.70E-04 3.60E-01 ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 4.69E-03 2.90E-02 ND (5.00E-03) 1.00E-02 ND (5.00E-03) 4.69E-03 7.00E-01 ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 2.50E-04 ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) 2.50E-04 2.30E-01 ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 ND (4.00E-05) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (4.00E-05) ND (2.50E-02) ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Chrysene 218-01-9 1.98E-03 2.80E-02 ND (5.00E-03) 1.40E-02 ND (5.00E-03) 1.98E-03 3.20E-01 ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 8.00E-05 ND (2.50E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) 8.00E-05 6.00E-02 ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 4.80E-04 ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) ND (5.00E-03) 4.80E-04 2.50E-01 ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 

Pyrene 129-00-0 9.60E-04 3.60E-02 ND (5.00E-03) 1.40E-02 ND (5.00E-03) 9.60E-04 4.00E-01 ND (5.00E-03) ND (8.48E-03) 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 - - - - - - - - - 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 - - - - - - - - - 


Phenol 108-95-2 - - - - - - - - - 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 - - - - - - - - - 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 - - - - - - - - - 


Barium 7440-39-3 1.70E-02 3.57E+01 3.04E+01 4.37E+00 1.44E+00 1.70E-02 1.52E+02 1.63E+00 6.90E-01 

Boron 7440-42-8 3.90E+00 - - - - 3.90E+00 5.78E+01 - - 

Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.70E-04 1.00E-01 3.59E-01 2.88E-01 1.48E-02 1.70E-04 9.00E-02 2.13E-01 5.43E-02 

Manganese 7439-96-5 1.48E+00 - 2.65E+01 1.17E+01 6.67E+00 1.48E+00 7.01E+02 5.08E+00 1.49E+00 

Molybdenum 7439-98-7 9.60E-03 5.40E-01 4.30E-02 2.18E-01 6.34E-01 9.60E-03 ND (2.50E-01) 2.18E-01 1.59E-01 

Nickel 7440-02-0 8.80E-04 9.40E+00 8.90E-01 1.19E+00 3.69E+00 8.80E-04 2.43E+01 9.32E-01 2.49E+00 

Tin 7440-31-5 ND (5.00E-03) ND (2.50E+00) ND (2.50E-02) 1.00E-01 5.70E-02 ND (5.00E-03) ND (1.00E+00) 2.98E-02 2.65E-01 

Vanadium 7440-62-2 ND (5.00E-02) 5.36E+00 4.60E-01 4.50E-01 4.90E-01 ND (5.00E-02) 1.44E+01 1.91E-01 9.69E-02 

Zinc 

NOTES: 

7440-66-6 2.10E-02 3.81E+01 5.58E+00 3.33E+01 1.75E+01 2.10E-02 8.59E+01 3.73E+01 1.88E+01 

a 

TPH fractions do not have CAS numbers. 

dw Concentration is reported on a dry weight basis. 

ww Concentration is reported on a wet weight basis. 

- Data were not reported by the laboratory or that analysis was not requested. 

ND ( ) Indicates a constituent that was not detected and as such concentration is expressed as ½ estimated quantification limit. 

2010 Page 4-9




Table 4–2 Maximum Project Case Concentrations of COPC 

BTEX 

Constituent 

CAS Registry 

Number 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Near-shore 


Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Surface Water 


Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Fish Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Deep Seawater 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Marine Ground 

Fish Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Benzene 71-43-2 9.29E-06 (K2) 4.63E-07 (K2) 3.86E-05 (K2) 1.57E-09 (K2) 5.86E-06 (K2) 1.08E-06 (K1) 2.67E-07 (K1) 9.07E-10 (K1) 6.79E-07 (K1) 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 4.84E-06 (K2) 7.06E-06 (K2) 2.01E-04 (K2) 2.19E-08 (K2) 3.05E-05 (K2) 5.61E-07 (K1) 4.08E-06 (K1) 1.27E-08 (K1) 3.54E-06 (K1) 

Toluene 108-88-3 2.57E-05 (K2) 1.49E-05 (K2) 4.24E-04 (K2) 4.79E-08 (K2) 6.44E-05 (K2) 2.97E-06 (K1) 8.61E-06 (K1) 2.77E-08 (K1) 7.47E-06 (K1) 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 2.47E-05 (K2) 4.52E-05 (K2) 1.29E-03 (K2) 1.39E-07 (K2) 1.96E-04 (K2) 2.86E-06 (K1) 2.62E-05 (K1) 8.07E-08 (K1) 2.27E-05 (K1) 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 0.55 1.31E-04 (K2) 1.47E-03 (K2) 4.21E-02 (K2) 2.12E-05 (K2) 6.40E-03 (K2) 1.52E-05 (K1) 8.52E-04 (K1) 1.23E-05 (K1) 7.41E-04 (K1) 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 0.09 1.61E-05 (K2) 7.19E-05 (K2) 2.05E-03 (K2) 1.07E-06 (K2) 3.11E-04 (K2) 1.86E-06 (K1) 4.16E-05 (K1) 6.20E-07 (K1) 3.61E-05 (K1) 

F1 - Total 1 1.65E-04 (K2) 3.02E-03 (K2) 8.81E-02 (K2) 4.19E-05 (K2) 1.34E-02 (K2) 1.91E-05 (K1) 1.75E-03 (K1) 2.42E-05 (K1) 1.55E-03 (K1) 


Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 2.90E-05 (K2) 5.28E-02 (K2) 1.17E+01 (K2) 5.79E-04 (K2) 1.77E+00 (K2) 3.36E-06 (K1) 3.06E-02 (K1) 3.35E-04 (K1) 2.06E-01 (K1) 



F2 - Total 1 8.28E-05 (K2) 6.26E-02 (K2) 1.20E+01 (K2) 7.04E-04 (K2) 1.82E+00 (K2) 9.60E-06 (K1) 3.62E-02 (K1) 4.07E-04 (K1) 2.11E-01 (K1) 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 3.28E-05 (K2) 6.86E-02 (K2) - b - b - b 3.80E-06 (K1) 3.97E-02 (K1) - b - b 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 5.07E-05 (K2) 2.75E-01 (K2) - b - b - b 5.87E-06 (K1) 1.59E-01 (K1) - b - b 






Acenaphthene 83-32-9 1.29E-11 (K1) 3.07E-10 (K1) 3.39E-09 (K1) 8.89E-12 (K1) 5.14E-10 (K1) 1.53E-12 (K1) 1.81E-10 (K1) 5.26E-12 (K1) 6.09E-11 (K1) 

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 1.55E-13 (K1) 4.63E-12 (K1) 5.11E-11 (K1) 1.33E-13 (K1) 7.76E-12 (K1) 1.83E-14 (K1) 2.74E-12 (K1) 7.88E-14 (K1) 9.19E-13 (K1) 

Anthracene 120-12-7 4.75E-09 (K2) 4.43E-07 (K2) 4.96E-06 (K2) 1.22E-08 (K2) 7.53E-07 (K2) 5.50E-10 (K1) 2.57E-07 (K1) 7.06E-09 (K1) 8.72E-08 (K1) 

Fluorene 86-73-7 1.08E-08 (K2) 5.10E-07 (K2) 5.65E-06 (K2) 1.44E-08 (K2) 8.58E-07 (K2) 1.25E-09 (K1) 2.95E-07 (K1) 8.33E-09 (K1) 9.95E-08 (K1) 

1-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 1.25E-07 (K2) 1.07E-06 (K2) 3.07E-05 (K2) 3.12E-08 (K2) 4.66E-06 (K2) 1.45E-08 (K1) 6.20E-07 (K1) 1.80E-08 (K1) 5.39E-07 (K1) 


Naphthalene 91-20-3 2.02E-07 (K2) 4.67E-07 (K2) 1.33E-05 (K2) 1.43E-08 (K2) 2.02E-06 (K2) 2.34E-08 (K1) 2.71E-07 (K1) 8.27E-09 (K1) 2.34E-07 (K1) 

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 7.35E-09 (K2) 6.86E-07 (K2) 7.68E-06 (K2) 1.89E-08 (K2) 1.17E-06 (K2) 8.52E-10 (K1) 3.98E-07 (K1) 1.09E-08 (K1) 1.35E-07 (K1) 

2010 Page 4-11




Table 4–2 Maximum Project Case Concentrations of COPC (cont’d) 

Constituent 


CAS Registry 

Number 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Near-shore 


Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Surface Water 


Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Fish Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Deep Seawater 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Marine Ground 

Fish Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 2.96E-12 (K1) 1.82E-09 (K1) 9.78E-09 (K1) 4.80E-11 (K1) 1.48E-09 (K1) 3.51E-13 (K1) 1.08E-09 (K1) 2.85E-11 (K1) 1.76E-10 (K1) 

Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 2.12E-09 (K2) 5.40E-06 (K2) 3.51E-05 (K2) 1.34E-07 (K2) 5.33E-06 (K2) 2.46E-10 (K1) 3.13E-06 (K1) 7.75E-08 (K1) 6.17E-07 (K1) 

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 1.53E-11 (K1) 6.40E-08 (K1) 5.05E-07 (K1) 7.72E-09 (K1) 7.67E-08 (K1) 1.81E-12 (K1) 3.79E-08 (K1) 4.58E-09 (K1) 9.09E-09 (K1) 

Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 5.75E-13 (K1) 4.07E-09 (K1) 5.23E-08 (K1) 4.73E-10 (K1) 7.94E-09 (K1) 6.82E-14 (K1) 2.41E-09 (K1) 2.80E-10 (K1) 9.41E-10 (K1) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 9.06E-13 (K1) 4.48E-09 (K1) 3.98E-08 (K1) 1.07E-10 (K1) 6.04E-09 (K1) 1.07E-13 (K1) 2.65E-09 (K1) 6.33E-11 (K1) 7.16E-10 (K1) 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 1.38E-12 (K1) 1.03E-08 (K1) 1.44E-07 (K1) 1.19E-09 (K1) 2.19E-08 (K1) 1.64E-13 (K1) 6.12E-09 (K1) 7.06E-10 (K1) 2.60E-09 (K1) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 9.06E-13 (K1) 4.36E-09 (K1) 3.76E-08 (K1) 1.04E-10 (K1) 5.71E-09 (K1) 1.07E-13 (K1) 2.58E-09 (K1) 6.18E-11 (K1) 6.77E-10 (K1) 

Chrysene 218-01-9 1.46E-12 (K1) 3.71E-09 (K1) 2.41E-08 (K1) 9.18E-11 (K1) 3.66E-09 (K1) 1.73E-13 (K1) 2.20E-09 (K1) 5.44E-11 (K1) 4.34E-10 (K1) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 1.02E-12 (K1) 7.63E-09 (K1) 1.07E-07 (K1) 8.80E-10 (K1) 1.62E-08 (K1) 1.21E-13 (K1) 4.52E-09 (K1) 5.22E-10 (K1) 1.92E-09 (K1) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 1.31E-12 (K1) 1.06E-08 (K1) 1.72E-07 (K1) 1.21E-09 (K1) 2.61E-08 (K1) 1.55E-13 (K1) 6.26E-09 (K1) 7.16E-10 (K1) 3.10E-09 (K1) 

Pyrene 129-00-0 8.88E-09 (K2) 4.38E-06 (K2) 2.33E-05 (K2) 1.16E-07 (K2) 3.53E-06 (K2) 1.03E-09 (K1) 2.54E-06 (K1) 6.74E-08 (K1) 4.09E-07 (K1) 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 2.99E-06 (K2) 1.12E-04 (K2) 9.88E-04 (K2) 3.23E-05 (K2) 7.50E-05 (K2) 3.47E-07 (K1) 6.51E-05 (K1) 1.87E-05 (K1) 8.69E-06 (K1) 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 1.76E-06 (K2) 5.35E-06 (K2) 1.53E-04 (K2) 1.62E-06 (K2) 2.32E-05 (K2) 2.04E-07 (K1) 3.09E-06 (K1) 9.35E-07 (K1) 2.68E-06 (K1) 


Phenol 108-95-2 6.36E-10 (K2) 2.75E-12 (K2) 6.63E-10 (K2) 9.83E-13 (K2) 1.01E-10 (K2) 7.36E-11 (K1) 1.59E-12 (K1) 5.69E-13 (K1) 1.17E-11 (K1) 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 9.29E-10 (K2) 2.54E-11 (K2) 6.12E-09 (K2) 8.46E-12 (K2) 4.65E-10 (K2) 1.08E-10 (K1) 1.47E-11 (K1) 4.90E-12 (K1) 5.38E-11 (K1) 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 3.52E-09 (K2) 1.42E-10 (K2) 4.03E-09 (K2) 5.06E-11 (K2) 3.06E-10 (K2) 4.08E-10 (K1) 8.21E-11 (K1) 2.92E-11 (K1) 3.54E-11 (K1) 


Barium 7440-39-3 2.73E-09 (K1) 1.02E-05 (K1) 1.98E-07 (K1) 4.96E-07 (K1) 4.99E-08 (K1) 3.35E-10 (K1) 6.28E-06 (K1) 3.05E-07 (K1) 6.13E-09 (K1) 

Boron 7440-42-8 7.86E-10 (K2) 1.39E-08 (K2) 1.30E-09 (K2) 4.71E-09 (K2) 1.48E-10 (K2) 9.10E-11 (K1) 8.06E-09 (K1) 2.73E-09 (K1) 1.71E-11 (K1) 

Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.57E-10 (K1) 4.05E-06 (K1) 1.51E-07 (K1) 2.55E-04 (K1) 9.98E-08 (K1) 3.05E-11 (K1) 2.42E-06 (K1) 1.52E-04 (K1) 1.19E-08 (K1) 

Manganese 7439-96-5 2.43E-09 (K1) 5.55E-05 (K1) 7.03E-06 (K1) 6.16E-07 (K1) 6.65E-06 (K1) 2.93E-10 (K1) 3.36E-05 (K1) 3.73E-07 (K1) 8.04E-07 (K1) 

Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.58E-08 (K2) 1.21E-04 (K2) 2.29E-08 (K2) 8.29E-05 (K2) 7.31E-08 (K2) 1.83E-09 (K1) 7.02E-05 (K1) 4.83E-05 (K1) 8.51E-09 (K1) 

Nickel 7440-02-0 1.59E-07 (K2) 1.41E-03 (K2) 2.93E-04 (K2) 7.03E-05 (K2) 2.61E-04 (K2) 1.92E-08 (K1) 8.58E-04 (K1) 4.27E-05 (K1) 3.17E-05 (K1) 

Tin 7440-31-5 4.56E-09 (K2) 6.60E-05 (K2) 3.28E-05 (K2) 1.15E-06 (K2) 2.70E-05 (K2) 5.28E-10 (K1) 3.82E-05 (K1) 6.65E-07 (K1) 3.13E-06 (K1) 

Vanadium 7440-62-2 4.82E-07 (K2) 9.81E-04 (K2) 1.85E-04 (K2) 2.55E-05 (K2) 1.26E-04 (K2) 5.91E-08 (K1) 6.02E-04 (K1) 1.56E-05 (K1) 1.54E-05 (K1) 

Zinc 7440-66-6 1.80E-08 (K1) 2.85E-04 (K1) 4.00E-05 (K1) 8.37E-05 (K1) 3.60E-05 (K1) 2.14E-09 (K1) 1.69E-04 (K1) 4.97E-05 (K1) 4.27E-06 (K1) 

NOTES: 

a 


b 

Aliphatic F3 fractions were not modelled in marine plants, invertebrates, and fish as they are insufficiently soluble and bioavailable. 



Locations in parentheses: (K1) Kitimat 1 and (K2) Kitimat 2. 

2010 Page 4-13




Table 4–3 Maximum Application Case Concentrations of COPC 

BTEX 

Constituent 

CAS Registry 

Number 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Surface Water 


Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Fish Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Deep Seawater 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Benzene 71-43-2 2.59E-04 (K2) 1.50E-02 (K2) 1.08E-03 (K2) 5.09E-05 (K2) 1.64E-04 (K2) 2.51E-04 (K1) 4.00E-02 (K1) 1.36E-04 (K1) 1.58E-04 (K1) 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 2.55E-04 (K2) 1.50E-02 (K2) 1.06E-02 (K2) 4.67E-05 (K2) 1.61E-03 (K2) 2.51E-04 (K1) 5.00E-02 (K1) 1.55E-04 (K1) 1.58E-03 (K1) 

Toluene 108-88-3 5.26E-04 (K2) 1.50E-02 (K2) 8.70E-03 (K2) 4.83E-05 (K2) 1.32E-03 (K2) 5.03E-04 (K1) 5.00E-02 (K1) 1.61E-04 (K1) 1.26E-03 (K1) 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 5.25E-04 (K2) 2.50E-02 (K2) 2.74E-02 (K2) 7.72E-05 (K2) 4.17E-03 (K2) 5.03E-04 (K1) 1.00E-01 (K1) 3.08E-04 (K1) 3.99E-03 (K1) 






Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 0.36 1.48E-05 (K2) 4.01E+00 (K2) 3.00E-01 (K2) 4.92E-02 (K2) 4.56E-02 (K2) 1.72E-06 (K1) 4.55E-03 (K1) 5.59E-05 (K1) 5.28E-03 (K1) 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 2.90E-05 (K2) 7.55E+00 (K2) 1.17E+01 (K2) 8.28E-02 (K2) 1.77E+00 (K2) 3.36E-06 (K1) 3.06E-02 (K1) 3.35E-04 (K1) 2.06E-01 (K1) 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 0.09 1.86E-05 (K2) 6.30E+00 (K2) 3.77E-03 (K2) 9.22E-02 (K2) 5.72E-04 (K2) 2.16E-06 (K1) 1.98E-04 (K1) 2.89E-06 (K1) 6.63E-05 (K1) 


F2 - Total 1 8.28E-05 (K2) 2.54E+01 (K2) 1.20E+01 (K2) 3.31E-01 (K2) 1.82E+00 (K2) 9.60E-06 (K1) 3.62E-02 (K1) 4.07E-04 (K1) 2.11E-01 (K1) 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 3.28E-05 (K2) 7.57E+00 (K2) - b - b - b 3.80E-06 (K1) 3.97E-02 (K1) - b - b 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 5.07E-05 (K2) 7.77E+00 (K2) - b - b - b 5.87E-06 (K1) 1.59E-01 (K1) - b - b 



F3 - Total 1 1.48E-04 (K2) 4.59E+01 (K2) 4.50E-01 (K2) 7.87E-01 (K2) 6.83E-02 (K2) 1.71E-05 (K1) 2.43E-01 (K1) 1.12E-03 (K1) 7.91E-03 (K1) 



Acenaphthene 83-32-9 4.00E-05 (K1) 8.50E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 4.00E-05 (K1) 2.50E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 8.00E-05 (K1) 2.50E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.00E-05 (K1) 2.50E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Anthracene 120-12-7 4.00E-05 (K2) 1.43E-02 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 4.00E-05 (K1) 2.50E-02 (K1) 6.28E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Fluorene 86-73-7 1.20E-04 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 5.01E-03 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 1.20E-04 (K1) 2.50E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 



2010 Page 4-15




Table 4–3 Maximum Application Case Concentrations of COPC (cont’d) 

Constituent 

CAS Registry 

Number 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Surface Water 


Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Fish Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Deep Seawater 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 


Benthic 

Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Tissue 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Naphthalene 91-20-3 1.10E-04 (K2) 3.00E-02 (K2) 5.01E-03 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 1.10E-04 (K1) 2.50E-02 (K1) 6.28E-03 (K1) 1.00E-02 (K1) 

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 3.50E-04 (K2) 8.70E-02 (K2) 1.00E-02 (K2) 4.10E-02 (K2) 1.00E-02 (K2) 3.50E-04 (K1) 1.80E-01 (K1) 9.46E-03 (K1) 1.00E-02 (K1) 


Fluoranthene 206-44-0 1.07E-03 (K1) 6.00E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 2.20E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 1.07E-03 (K1) 3.90E-01 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 1.47E-03 (K2) 2.00E-02 (K2) 5.04E-03 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 5.01E-03 (K2) 1.47E-03 (K1) 2.70E-01 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 8.70E-04 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.70E-04 (K1) 3.60E-01 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 5.75E-13 (K1) 4.07E-09 (K1) 5.23E-08 (K1) 4.73E-10 (K1) 7.94E-09 (K1) 6.82E-14 (K1) 2.41E-09 (K1) 2.80E-10 (K1) 9.41E-10 (K1) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 4.69E-03 (K1) 2.90E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 1.00E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 4.69E-03 (K1) 7.00E-01 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 2.50E-04 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 2.50E-04 (K1) 2.30E-01 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 4.00E-05 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 4.00E-05 (K1) 2.50E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Chrysene 218-01-9 1.98E-03 (K1) 2.80E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 1.40E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 1.98E-03 (K1) 3.20E-01 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 8.00E-05 (K1) 2.50E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.00E-05 (K1) 6.00E-02 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 4.80E-04 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 4.80E-04 (K1) 2.50E-01 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 

Pyrene 129-00-0 9.60E-04 (K2) 3.60E-02 (K2) 5.02E-03 (K2) 1.40E-02 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K2) 9.60E-04 (K1) 4.00E-01 (K1) 5.00E-03 (K1) 8.48E-03 (K1) 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 2.99E-06 (K2) 1.12E-04 (K2) 9.88E-04 (K2) 3.23E-05 (K2) 7.50E-05 (K2) 3.47E-07 (K1) 6.51E-05 (K1) 1.87E-05 (K1) 8.69E-06 (K1) 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 1.76E-06 (K2) 5.35E-06 (K2) 1.53E-04 (K2) 1.62E-06 (K2) 2.32E-05 (K2) 2.04E-07 (K1) 3.09E-06 (K1) 9.35E-07 (K1) 2.68E-06 (K1) 


Phenol 108-95-2 6.36E-10 (K2) 2.75E-12 (K2) 6.63E-10 (K2) 9.83E-13 (K2) 1.01E-10 (K2) 7.36E-11 (K1) 1.59E-12 (K1) 5.69E-13 (K1) 1.17E-11 (K1) 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 9.29E-10 (K2) 2.54E-11 (K2) 6.12E-09 (K2) 8.46E-12 (K2) 4.65E-10 (K2) 1.08E-10 (K1) 1.47E-11 (K1) 4.90E-12 (K1) 5.38E-11 (K1) 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 3.52E-09 (K2) 1.42E-10 (K2) 4.03E-09 (K2) 5.06E-11 (K2) 3.06E-10 (K2) 4.08E-10 (K1) 8.21E-11 (K1) 2.92E-11 (K1) 3.54E-11 (K1) 


Barium 7440-39-3 1.70E-02 (K1) 3.57E+01 (K1) 3.04E+01 (K1) 4.37E+00 (K1) 1.44E+00 (K1) 1.70E-02 (K1) 1.52E+02 (K1) 1.63E+00 (K1) 6.90E-01 (K1) 

Boron 7440-42-8 3.90E+00 (K2) 1.39E-08 (K2) 6.44E+00 (K2) 4.71E-09 (K2) 7.33E-01 (K2) 3.90E+00 (K1) 5.78E+01 (K1) 1.96E+01 (K1) 7.33E-01 (K1) 

Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.70E-04 (K1) 1.00E-01 (K1) 3.59E-01 (K1) 2.88E-01 (K1) 1.48E-02 (K1) 1.70E-04 (K1) 9.00E-02 (K1) 2.13E-01 (K1) 5.43E-02 (K1) 

Manganese 7439-96-5 1.48E+00 (K1) 5.55E-05 (K1) 2.65E+01 (K1) 1.17E+01 (K1) 6.67E+00 (K1) 1.48E+00 (K1) 7.01E+02 (K1) 5.08E+00 (K1) 1.49E+00 (K1) 

Molybdenum 7439-98-7 9.60E-03 (K2) 5.40E-01 (K2) 4.30E-02 (K2) 2.18E-01 (K2) 6.34E-01 (K2) 9.60E-03 (K1) 2.50E-01 (K1) 2.18E-01 (K1) 1.59E-01 (K1) 

Nickel 7440-02-0 8.80E-04 (K2) 9.40E+00 (K2) 8.90E-01 (K2) 1.19E+00 (K2) 3.69E+00 (K2) 8.80E-04 (K1) 2.43E+01 (K1) 9.32E-01 (K1) 2.49E+00 (K1) 

Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 (K2) 2.50E+00 (K2) 2.50E-02 (K2) 1.00E-01 (K2) 5.70E-02 (K2) 5.00E-03 (K1) 1.00E+00 (K1) 2.98E-02 (K1) 2.65E-01 (K1) 

Vanadium 7440-62-2 5.00E-02 (K2) 5.36E+00 (K2) 4.60E-01 (K2) 4.50E-01 (K2) 4.90E-01 (K2) 5.00E-02 (K1) 1.44E+01 (K1) 1.91E-01 (K1) 9.69E-02 (K1) 

Zinc 7440-66-6 2.10E-02 (K1) 3.81E+01 (K1) 5.58E+00 (K1) 3.33E+01 (K1) 1.75E+01 (K1) 2.10E-02 (K1) 8.59E+01 (K1) 3.73E+01 (K1) 1.88E+01 (K1) 

NOTES: 

a 


b 

Aliphatic F3 fractions were not modelled in marine plants, invertebrates, and fish as they are insufficiently soluble and bioavailable. 



Locations in parentheses: (K1) Kitimat 1 and (K2) Kitimat 2. 

2010 Page 4-17




4.3 Calculation of Daily Dose for Mammalian and Avian KI 

For mammalian and avian KI, exposure to COPC is calculated as the average daily dose (ADD) ingested. 

The ADD can be defined as the amount of a COPC a modelled species might be exposed to on a 

mg/kg-bw/day basis. For each modelled species and COPC, the ADD is calculated by summing the intake 

from each applicable exposure pathway. The generalized equation for ADD is: 

For exposure pathway j, where: 

IFj 

AFj 

ADDj = IFj x AFj x EPCj 

= Intake Factor (kg contaminated medium / kg body weight • day) 

= Absorption Factor (default value of 1; most conservative) 

EPCj = Exposure Point Concentration (mg COPC / kg medium) 

The Intake Factor (IF) is not specific to each COPC, but is a characteristic of the species being evaluated. 

The IF is calculated for each exposure pathway using the KI’s medium-specific ingestion rate (IR), the 

fraction of the time spent on site (fsite, assumed to equal 100%) and the KI’s body weight (BW, kg) as 

follows: 

IFj = IRj x fsite / BW 

As a conservative measure, modelled species are assumed to spend 100% of their time in each of the 

modelled compartments within the PEAA. This means that exposure to COPC from emission sources is 

assumed to occur continuously throughout the life of the KI. It is acknowledged that some species will 

move between compartments, or in and out of the PEAA (e.g., for migration), thereby reducing their 

exposure. However, the conservative assumption that a species may be exposed to the highest possible 

COPC concentration at all times is meant to be a protective measure. For details related to the body 

weight, dietary composition (plant, insect, prey), water and soil ingestion rates for each of the modelled 

species, refer to Appendix G where details and results of ADD calculations are also presented. 

4.4 Exposure Estimates for Community-Level Receptors 

Community-level receptors are treated as being primarily associated with a single environmental medium 

(e.g., benthic invertebrates and sediment), and the potential for adverse environmental effects can be 

characterized by comparing COPC concentrations in each medium with corresponding toxicity 

benchmarks (see section 5.1 for additional discussion). Therefore, the EPC associated with the relevant 

environmental medium for each community-level marine receptors is used as the exposure estimate 

(relevant media are identified in the conceptual site model; see Figure 3-3). The exposure assessment for 

community-level marine receptors does not require the use of UP or ADD calculations. 

2010 Page 4-19



Section 5: Hazard Assessment 

5 Hazard Assessment 

The hazard assessment identifies the potential adverse environmental effects associated with chronic 

exposure of receptors to each COPC. A toxicity assessment is the basis for evaluating what might be an 

acceptable exposure level, as well as what level may result in adverse environmental effects. The amount 

of a substance that can be tolerated, below which adverse environmental effects are not expected to be 

observed in a population, is referred to as the toxicity reference value (TRV). 

5.1 Derivation of Benchmarks for Water and Sediment 

Community-level Marine Receptors 

In this section, only environmental effects that are not otherwise mitigated or compensated for are 

considered. For the full derivation of benchmark values for COPC concentrations in water and sediment, 

see Appendix I. A brief summary of the processes involved is presented below. 

Adverse environmental effects are defined as those that are detrimental to overall environmental quality. 

Without being limiting, in the context of the marine environment, adverse effects could include changes 

in water or sediment quality that result in higher ambient concentrations of substances that are considered 

to be contaminants, changes in salinity, or changes in thermal regimes. Adverse environmental effects to 

the marine environment could also include uncompensated changes in habitat quality or quantity. 

The CCME Water Quality Guidelines (WQG, CCME 1999b and updates) for the protection of marine life 

are presently very limited in terms of the chemical substances for which guidelines have been developed 

(for example, while there are guidelines for benzene, ethylbenzene and toluene, there are no guidelines for 

other petroleum hydrocarbon constituents). The WQG are also highly conservative, and it is unclear 

whether exceeding a guideline would result in a likely environmental effect. 

The CCME Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQG, CCME 1999b and updates) have been criticized on the 

basis of their derivation, and are also highly conservative. While it is true that there is a low probability of 

adverse environmental effects at constituent concentrations below the SQG levels, there is likewise low 

certainty that an adverse environmental effect would occur at a constituent concentration above the 

guideline. Benchmark values used to determine the magnitude of environmental effects should be effects 

based (i.e., the benchmarks should be referenced to a standard level of effect on marine biota). 

Alternatives to the CCME environmental quality guidelines are therefore required in order to classify 

environmental effect magnitude. A four-tiered approach to evaluating environmental effects magnitude 

benchmarks for substances added to the marine environment is developed here and is fully described in 

Appendix I. The four effect magnitude tiers (see Figure 5-1) are: 

• negligible 

• low 

• moderate 

• high 

2010 Page 5-1




Figure 5–1 Conceptual Model of Environmental Effect Magnitude 

Negligible is defined as the concentration of a substance that falls below the routine analytical limit of 

detection for that environmental medium (water or sediment, see Figure 5-1). If the concentration of the 

substance cannot be detected in the environment using current laboratory standards, it is deemed to have a 

negligible probability of having an adverse effect in the environment. 

Low is bounded at the lower limit by the analytical limit of detection, and the upper limit by the CHC5 

(chronically hazardous concentration – 5 th percentile). The CHC5 is defined as the 5 th percentile of the 

species sensitivity distribution (SSD) of chronic no observed effect concentrations (chronic NOEC) for all 

available data. This value for any particular substance is the concentration at which 95% of species tested 

would show no observable effect on any tested endpoint (typically growth, reproduction and survival) 

during long-term exposure. Therefore, this value is likely to be protective of more than 95% of species in 

the environment and is thought to protect the integrity of the ecosystem. 

Moderate is bounded at the lower end by the CHC5 and at the upper end by the CHC50 (chronically 

hazardous concentration – 50 th percentile). The CHC50 is similar to the CHC5, but instead uses the median 

or 50 th percentile of the species NOEC distributions. Effectively, at the CHC50 level, 50% of species are 

showing some level of effect on one or more of the tested endpoints, but equally 50% of species are 

showing no adverse effects. Note that this level of effects is still anticipated to be below any acute 

lethality threshold. A high environmental effect magnitude benchmark begins at the CHC50 level. 

The environmental effects magnitude benchmarks are all intended to lie below any acute lethality 

threshold. It is also important to note that the benchmarks are intended to be protective based on chronic 

or long-term exposure, and therefore would be highly protective of short-term or acute exposures. It is 

generally anticipated that the existing CCME Guidelines for the protection of freshwater or marine 

aquatic life would be in the low range of environmental effects benchmarks. 

See Table 5-1 for the selected benchmark values for determination of effect magnitude for the marine 

water. See Table 5-2 for the selected benchmark values for determination of effect magnitude for marine 

sediment. 

Page 5-2 2010




5.2 Derivation of Oral Reference Values for Mammalian and Avian 

Marine Receptors 

The toxicological database in support of an oral-based TRV preferably includes a number of chronic or 

multi-generational exposure studies involving exposure of relevant test species (i.e., the modelled species 

of interest or a phylogenetically similar species) to appropriate chemical forms of the substance of 

interest. Ideally, one or more relevant biological endpoints such as growth, reproductive outcomes or 

survival were measured in the study. Databases that meet this requirement are available for some 

chemicals, but in most cases, available toxicity data are limited to studies of with laboratory animals 

(e.g., mammals [mice, rats, rabbits] and birds [quail, chicken, ducks]). 

TRV (see Appendix I) are based on dose response studies of laboratory animals where the LOAEL or 

NOAEL has been quantified. TRV used in this risk assessment were determined from studies in which 

endpoints are derived from the administered dose, rather than the absorbed dose. This is a conservative 

approach because compounds are often administered in a more available form than would be found in the 

environment. 

The toxicity measure preferred for derivation of TRV in this Marine ERA is the LOAEL; however, in the 

absence of a suitable LOAEL, NOAEL-based TRV are used. Generally, LOAEL used towards TRV 

derivation are based on long-term growth or survival, or sub-lethal reproductive outcomes determined 

from chronic exposure studies. As such, these endpoints are relevant to the maintenance of wildlife 

populations. The LOAEL represents a threshold dose at which adverse outcomes are likely to become 

evident (Sample et al. 1996). This threshold is considered appropriate since TRV are used as the 

denominator in the HQ calculation (see Section 6), and HQ greater than 1.0 may be considered indicative 

of potential adverse environmental effects. Hazard quotients calculated with NOAEL-based TRV are 

more conservative since NOAEL represent an exposure level threshold at which no individual 

environmental effect from COPC exposure is observed. 

Numerous sources were reviewed to obtain the most relevant TRV for KI. Full details regarding TRVs 

can be found in Appendix I. All information sources reviewed are provided and referenced can also be 

found in Appendix I, such as: 

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory Toxicity Benchmarks for Wildlife (Sample et al. 1996) 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Ecological Soil Screening documents 

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

• Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), Priority Substance List Assessment Reports 

• primary scientific literature 

2010 Page 5-3




Table 5–1 Marine Water Effect Magnitude Benchmarks 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Negligible 

DL Fresh a 

Low 

CHC5 

Page 5-4 2010 

Ref. 

Moderate 

CHC50 

Barium 2.0E-05 5.8E-03 MPA b 1.5E+01 SRAeco b 

Boron 2.0E-04 5.1E+00 ANZECC 9.8E+00 c 

Cadmium 5.0E-07 5.5E-03 ANZECC 2.7E-02 SRAeco d 

Manganese 2.0E-05 8.0E-02 ANZECC 3.6E+00 e 

Molybdenum 2.0E-05 2.3E-02 ANZECC 5.4E+01 SRAeco d 

Nickel 2.0E-05 7.0E-02 ANZECC 5.0E-01 SRAeco d 

Tin 2.0E-05 1.0E-02 ANZECC 4.0E-01 SRAeco b 

Vanadium 2.0E-05 1.0E-01 ANZECC 3.0E-01 f 

Zinc 2.0E-04 1.5E-02 ANZECC 8.9E-02 SRAeco d 

BTEX 

Benzene 5.0E-04 5.6E+00 

2.3E+01 

EthylBenzene 5.0E-04 8.7E-01 3.5E+00 

Di Toro et al. 2000 

Toluene 5.0E-04 1.8E+00 7.3E+00 

Xylenes (tot) 5.0E-04 7.0E-01 2.8E+00 

Ref. 


High




Table 5–1 Marine Water Effect Magnitude Benchmarks (cont’d) 

PAH 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Negligible 

DL Fresh a 

Low 

CHC5 

2010 Page 5-5 

Ref. 

CHC50 

1-Methylnaphthalene 1.0E-05 1.2E-01 4.8E-01 


Acenaphthene 1.0E-05 1.2E-01 4.9E-01 

Acenaphthylene 1.0E-05 9.4E-02 3.9E-01 

Anthracene 1.0E-05 3.8E-02 1.5E-01 

Benzo(a)anthracene 1.0E-05 3.5E-03 1.4E-02 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.0E-05 1.6E-03 6.4E-03 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.0E-05 1.6E-03 6.7E-03 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.0E-05 7.5E-04 3.1E-03 


Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0E-05 2.0E-03 8.3E-03 

Benzo(e)pyrene 1.0E-05 7.8E-04 3.2E-03 

Chrysene 1.0E-05 3.5E-03 1.4E-02 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.0E-05 7.6E-04 3.1E-03 

Fluoranthene 1.0E-05 1.4E-02 5.9E-02 

Fluorene 1.0E-05 6.8E-02 2.8E-01 

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 1.0E-05 6.1E-04 2.5E-03 

Naphthalene 5.0E-05 3.7E-01 1.5E+00 

Phenanthrene 1.0E-05 3.8E-02 1.5E-01 

Pyrene 1.0E-05 1.8E-02 7.3E-02 

Moderate 

Ref. 


High





Concentration 

(mg/L) 


DL Fresh a 

CHC5 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 1.0E-04 5.7E+00 

Negligible 

Low 

Page 5-6 2010 

Ref. 

Moderate 

CHC50 

2.3E+01 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.0E-04 4.5E+01 Di Toro et al. 2000 

1.8E+02 

Phenol 5.0E-02 2.5E+01 1.0E+02 

TPH Fractions 

Aliphatics >C6-C8 5.0E-03 1.2E-01 

Aliphatics >C21-C32 2.0E-02 --- Di Toro et al. 2000 

--- 

4.8E-01 

Aliphatics >C8-C10 5.0E-03 2.2E-02 8.9E-02 



Aliphatics >C16-C21 1.0E-02 --- --- 

Aromatics >C8-C10 5.0E-03 3.4E-01 1.4E+00 

Aromatics >C10-C12 1.0E-02 2.4E-01 9.7E-01 




Ref. 



High





NOTES: 

--- Not considered because of negligible solubility and bioavailability. 

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environmental Conservation Council. 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water 

Quality. 

CHC Chronic Hazardous Concentration 

DL Detection Limit 

MPA Maximum Permissible Addition concentration (as described by the RIVM; van Vlaardingen et al. 2005) 

SRAeco Ecotoxicological Serious Risk Addition concentration (as described by the RIVM; Verbruggen et al. 2001; van Vlaardingen et al. 2005). 

Ref. Reference 

a 

Freshwater detection limits as provided by RPC Laboratories; detection limits for freshwater are generally lower than for marine water and were selected to be 

more conservative. 

b 

van Vlaardingen et al. (2005). (RIVM) 

c 

Geometric mean of chronic toxicity data (NOAEL) for freshwater species (marine chronic data not available, but acute marine and freshwater data were not 

significantly different). 

d 

Verbruggen et al. (2001). (RIVM) 

e 

Geometric mean of acute toxicity data (LC50 and EC50) for aquatic species divided by an uncertainty factor of 10. 

f 

Reliable CHC50 not available. Assumed to be three times the CHC5. 

2010 Page 5-7




Table 5–2 Marine Sediment Effect Magnitude Benchmarks 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 


Baseline Concentrations for Model Compartments a Incremental Marine Sediment Effect Magnitude Benchmarks 

CB and EP K1, K2 and T 

Nearshore 

Off-shore Near-shore Off-shore 

Barium 2.9E+01 1.3E+02 3.6E+01 1.5E+02 2.0E-02 5.8E+00 

Negligible 

DL b CHC5 Ref. CHC50 Ref. 

Page 5-8 2010 

Low 

EqP c 

Moderate 

1.5E+04 

Boron --- 3.9E+01 --- 5.8E+01 8.0E-04 2.0E+01 3.9E+01 

Cadmium < 1.0E-01 < 5.0E-02 1.0E-01 9.0E-02 5.0E-03 5.5E+01 2.7E+02 

Manganese --- 5.5E+02 --- 7.0E+02 1.5E+00 6.0E+03 2.7E+05 

Molybdenum 3.8E-01 < 5.0E-01 5.4E-01 < 5.0E-01 5.0E-02 5.8E+01 1.4E+05 

Nickel 8.2E+00 2.1E+01 9.4E+00 2.4E+01 6.3E-02 2.2E+02 1.6E+03 

Tin < 5.0E+00 < 2.0E+00 < 5.0E+00 < 2.0E+00 1.6E-01 7.9E+01 3.2E+03 

Vanadium d 4.4E+01 1.3E+02 5.4E+01 1.4E+02 1.0E-02 5.0E+01 1.5E+02 

Zinc 3.4E+01 8.0E+01 3.8E+01 8.6E+01 2.0E+00 1.5E+02 8.9E+02 

BTEX 

Benzene 

EthylBenzene 

< 3.0E-02 

< 3.0E-02 

< 8.0E-02 

< 1.0E-01 

< 3.0E-02 

< 3.0E-02 

< 8.0E-02 

< 1.0E-01 

8.0E-02 

1.0E-01 

6.5E+00 

9.7E+00 

Di Toro 

and 

2.7E+01 

3.9E+01 

Toluene 

Xylenes (tot) 

< 3.0E-02 

< 5.0E-02 

< 1.0E-01 

< 2.0E-01 

< 3.0E-02 

< 5.0E-02 

< 1.0E-01 

< 2.0E-01 

1.0E-01 

2.0E-01 

8.1E+00 

9.8E+00 

McGrath 

2000 

3.3E+01 

4.0E+01 

EqP c 

Di Toro 

and 

McGrath 

2000 

High





Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Baseline Concentrations for Model 

Compartments a 


Nearshore 

Off-shore 

Nearshore 

Off-shore 

Negligible 

Incremental Marine Sediment Effect Magnitude Benchmarks 

DL 

b 

CHC5 Ref . CHC50 Ref 

PAH 

1- 

Methylnaphthalen 

e 

--- --- --- --- --- 7.6E+00 

3.1E+01 

2- 

Di Toro 

Di Toro 

Methylnaphthalen < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 7.6E+00 and 

3.1E+01 and 

e 

McGrath 

McGrath 

Acenaphthene < 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 8.5E-03 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 8.2E+00 

2000 

3.4E+01 

2000 

Acenaphthylene < 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 < 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 8.1E+00 3.3E+01 

Anthracene < 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 1.4E-02 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 1.0E+01 4.1E+01 

Benzo(a)anthrace 

ne 

7.5E-03 < 5.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.7E-01 5.0E-02 1.4E+01 

5.8E+01 

Benzo(b)fluoranth 

ene 

1.4E-02 7.5E-02 2.9E-02 7.0E-01 5.0E-02 1.6E+01 6.7E+01 

Benzo(k)fluoranth 

ene 

< 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 1.6E+01 6.7E+01 

Benzo(ghi)peryle 

ne 

< 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 2.3E-01 5.0E-02 1.9E+01 7.5E+01 

Benzo(a)pyrene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 3.6E-01 5.0E-02 1.6E+01 6.6E+01 

Benzo(e)pyrene --- --- --- --- --- 1.7E+01 6.9E+01 

2010 Page 5-9 

Low 

Moderate 

High





Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Baseline Concentrations for Model Compartments 

a 


Nearshore 

Off-shore 

Nearshore 

Off-shore 

Chrysene 1.1E-02 < 5.0E-02 2.8E-02 3.2E-01 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthr 

acene 

Negligible 

Page 5-10 2010 

DL 

5.0E-02 


b CHC5 Ref . CHC50 Ref 

Low 

1.4E+01 

< 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 < 5.0E-03 6.0E-02 5.0E-02 1.9E+01 

Moderate 

5.8E+01 

7.6E+01 

Fluoranthene 1.5E-02 4.3E-02 6.0E-02 3.9E-01 5.0E-02 1.2E+01 4.8E+01 

Fluorene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 9.1E+00 3.7E+01 

Indeno(123cd)pyrene 

< 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 2.5E-01 5.0E-02 1.9E+01 

7.6E+01 

Naphthalene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 3.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 6.5E+00 2.6E+01 

Phenanthrene 9.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 8.7E-02 1.8E-01 5.0E-02 1.0E+01 4.1E+01 

Pyrene 

Phenolic 

Compounds 

1.0E-02 4.3E-02 3.6E-02 4.0E-01 5.0E-02 1.2E+01 4.8E+01 

2,4- 

Dimethylphenol 

--- --- --- --- --- 1.0E+01 Di Toro 

and 

4.2E+01 Di Toro 

and 

2,4-Dinitrophenol --- --- --- --- --- 1.5E+01 McGrath 6.0E+01 McGrath 

Phenol 

TPH Fractions 

--- --- --- --- --- 7.5E+00 

2000 

3.0E+01 

2000 

Al >C6-C8 < 2.0E-01 --- < 2.0E-01 --- 2.0E-01 9.8E+00 Di Toro 4.0E+01 Di Toro 

Al >C8-C10 < 4.0E-01 --- < 4.0E-01 --- 4.0E-01 1.4E+01 

and 

McGrath 

5.6E+01 

and 

McGrath 

Al >C10-C12 < 8.0E+00 --- < 8.0E+00 --- 8.0E+00 1.8E+01 2000 

7.5E+01 

2000 

High





Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Baseline Concentrations for Model Compartments 

a 


Near-shore Off-shore 

Nearshore 

Off-shore 

Al >C12-C16 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 

Negligible 

2010 Page 5-11 

DL 

1.5E+01 


b CHC5 Ref . CHC50 Ref 

Low 

2.6E+01 

Al >C16-C21 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 1.5E+01 --- e --- e 

Al >C21-C32 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 1.5E+01 --- e --- e 

Moderate 

1.1E+02 

Ar >C8-C10 < 3.0E-01 --- 4.0E-01 --- 3.0E-01 1.1E+01 4.6E+01 

Ar >C10-C12 < 5.0E+00 --- 6.3E+00 --- 5.0E+00 1.3E+01 

5.1E+01 

Ar >C12-C16 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 6.1E+01 

Ar >C16-C21 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 1.5E+01 2.0E+01 8.0E+01 

Ar >C21-C32 < 1.5E+01 --- 2.3E+01 --- 1.5E+01 2.7E+01 1.1E+02 

VOCs 

1,2,4- 

Trichlorobenzene 

1,3,5- 

Trimethylbenzene 

--- --- --- --- --- 1.0E+01 Di Toro 

and 

4.2E+01 

--- --- --- --- --- 6.4E+00 

McGrath 

2000 

2.6E+01 

Di Toro 

and 

McGrath 

2000 

High




Table 5–2 Marine Sediment Effect Magnitude Benchmarks (cont’d) 

NOTES: 

--- Indicates results not reported by the laboratory or analysis not requested. 

CHC Chronic Hazardous Concentration 

DL Detection Limit 

dw dry weight 

EqP Equilibrium Partitioning 

Ref. Reference 


CB Clio Bay 

EP Emsley Point 

K1 Kitimat 1 

K2 Kitimat 2 

T Terminal 

a 

Reported concentrations for samples collected in compartments K1, K2 and T. For near-shore sediments maximum concentrations were assigned to K1, K2 and 

T compartments whereas median concentrations were assigned to CB and EP. For offshore sediments, maximum concentrations of samples collected in the 

vicinity of the marine terminal were assigned to K1, K2 and T compartments whereas average concentrations of samples collected at a reference locations 

situated on the opposite shore were assigned to compartments CB and EP. Concentration of organics in sediments is assumed to be negligible in the derivation 

of benchmarks. 

b 

For trace elements, derived detection limit based on the equilibrium partitioning approach using the freshwater water detection limits and compound specific Kd 

values; detection limits for freshwater are generally lower than for marine water and were selected to be more conservative. For organics, detection limit as 

provided by Maxxam and ALS Laboratories. 

c 

CHC5 and CHC50 benchmarks for trace elements were derived using the equilibrium partitioning approach using corresponding seawater benchmarks and 

compound specific Kd values. 

d 

Total baseline vanadium sediment concentrations are reported although the bioavailable fraction, is assumed to represent 10% of the total vanadium 

concentration. 

e 

Not considered because of negligible solubility and bioavailability. 

Page 5-12 2010



Section 6: Risk Characterization 

6 Risk Characterization 

The purpose of risk characterization is to evaluate the evidence linking COPC with adverse environmental 

effects by combining information from the exposure and hazard assessments. The potential for adverse 

environmental effects is quantified by comparing the dose of a substance that can be tolerated, or below 

which adverse environmental effects are not expected (i.e., TRV), to the expected daily dose, the amount 

of a COPC an organism is expected to be exposed to on a daily basis. The quotient of the two is referred 

to as a HQ and the magnitude by which values differ from parity (i.e., TRV = daily dose) is used to make 

inferences about the possibility of ecological risks. The EPC of the associated environmental media is 

divided by a toxicological benchmark (rather than dividing an ADD by a TRV, as used for birds and 

mammals). 

A HQ less than 1.0 indicates that the exposure concentration is less than the threshold of toxicity for the 

COPC being evaluated and, given the conservative approach to the estimation of exposure and selection 

of TRV, adverse environmental effects are not expected. On the other hand, a HQ of greater than 1.0 does 

not necessarily indicate an unacceptable level of risk. In these cases, values greater than 1.0 indicate that 

there is a possibility of adverse environmental effects and indicates a need for more careful review of both 

predicted exposure levels and TRV. As a result, HQ greater than 1.0 should be interpreted carefully and, 

further, more focused investigations may be required to reduce conservatism and provide a more realistic 

estimate of the level of risk. 

Full details of the calculated effect magnitude and HQ values for all receptors can be found in 

Appendix J. A summary of the findings for all receptors at the most exposed locations (i.e., where COPC 

concentrations in water and/or sediment are greatest) is provided in Section 6.2 below. 

6.1 Chemical Interactions 

General Approach 

Risk assessments are complicated by the fact that most toxicological studies are conducted using a single 

chemical whereas environmental exposures generally involve more than one contaminant. Calculating a 

HQ for exposure to mixture of COPC is problematic because all COPC do not have the same modes of 

action, target endpoints or magnitudes of toxicity. Chemicals in a mixture may interact in four general 

ways to elicit a response: 

• Non-interacting – chemicals do not produce a response in combination with each other; the toxicity of 

the mixture is the same as the toxicity of the most toxic component of the mixture. 

• Additive – chemicals have similar targets and modes of action but do not interact; the hazard for 

exposure to the mixture is simply the sum of hazards for the individual chemicals. 

• Synergistic – there is a positive interaction among the chemicals such that the response is greater than 

would be expected if the chemicals acted independently or in an additive manner. 

• Antagonistic – there is a negative interaction among the chemicals such that the response is less than 

would be expected if the chemicals acted independently or in an additive manner. 

2010 Page 6-1




There are chemical classes that have similar modes of action and target organs, and in these cases, a more 

appropriate characterization of risk is achieved by summing the HQ for each compound. HQ for BTEX 

and TPH are summed to derive a single conservative HI. The PAH substances are also treated as a class, 

but are not included with BTEX and TPH since measures of TPH also include the specific PAH 

compounds. HQ for inorganic COPC are evaluated individually because, unlike TPH and PAH, they 

generally have specific toxicities, different modes of action and different target organs, and there is 

insufficient data to support mixture toxicity models. 

6.2 Summary of Base Case Effect Magnitude and Hazard 

Quotients 

For the Base Case, effect magnitude and HQ values are only described for empirically measured COPC in 

environmental media (Tables 6-1 and 6-2). Furthermore, because of a lack of TRV for some COPC 

(particularly for avian receptors), Base Case HQ could not be calculated for all COPC and receptor 

combinations (Table 6-2). 

For the Base Case COPC, effect magnitudes are generally negligible or low for water and sediment 

community-level receptors. Exceptions include the baseline concentrations of benzo(b)fluoranthene, 

barium, manganese and zinc in water, for which measured baseline concentrations, if fully bioavailable, 

may indicate a moderate effect magnitude. Water samples containing detectable or potentially large 

concentrations of these substances were collected from the Kitimat 2 and Terminal compartments 

(Table 6-1) and may orginate from existing anthropogenic and industrial activities in Kitimat. Baseline 

sediment quality had either a negligible effect magnitude or low effect magnitude range. 

For the avian and mammalian receptors, all calculated HQ and HI values are below thresholds that would 

indicate the potential for adverse environmental effects as a result of exposure to water, sediment, or 

foods ingested from the PEAA. 


Community-level Receptors 

Near-shore Off-shore 

Constituents 

BTEX 

Surface Seawater Deep Seawater Sediments Sediments 

Benzene Negligible a Negligible a Negligible Negligible 

Ethylbenzene Negligible a Negligible a Negligible Negligible 

Toluene Negligible a Negligible a Negligible Negligible 

Xylenes Negligible a Negligible a TPH - CCME CWS 

Negligible Negligible 

Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 --- b --- b Negligible --- b 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 --- b --- b Low --- b 



Page 6-2 2010





Community-level Receptors (cont’d) 

Constituents Surface Seawater Deep Seawater 

Near-shore 

Sediments 

Off-shore 

Sediments 


Arom>C12-C16 - F2 --- b --- b Negligible --- b 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 --- b,c --- b,c --- b,c --- b,c 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 --- b,c --- b,c --- b,c --- b,c 

Arom>C16-C21 - F3 --- b --- b Negligible --- b 




Acenaphthene Low Low Low Negligible 

Acenaphthylene Low Low Negligible Negligible 

Anthracene Low Low Low Negligible 

Fluorene Low Low Negligible Negligible 

1-Methylnaphthalene --- b --- b --- b --- b 

2-Methylnaphthalene Low Low Low Negligible 

Naphthalene Low Low Low Negligible 

Phenanthrene Low Low Low Low 


Fluoranthene Low Low Low Low 

Benz(a)anthracene Low Low Low Low 

Benzo(a)pyrene Low Low Negligible Low 

Benzo(e)pyrene --- b --- b --- b --- b 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Moderate d Moderate d Low Low 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Low Low Negligible Low 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene Low Low Negligible Negligible 

Chrysene Low Low Low Low 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Low Low Negligible Low 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Low Low Negligible Low 

Pyrene Low Low Low Low 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene --- b --- b --- b --- b 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene --- b --- b --- b --- b 


Phenol --- b --- b --- b --- b 

2,4-Dimethylphenol --- b --- b --- b --- b 

2,4-Dinitrophenol --- b --- b --- b --- b 

2010 Page 6-3





Community-level Receptors (cont’d) 

Constituents Surface Seawater Deep Seawater 


Near-shore 

Sediments 

Off-shore 

Sediments 

Barium Moderate d Moderate d Low Low 

Boron Low Low --- b Low 

Cadmium Low Low Low Low 

Manganese Moderate d Moderate d Negligible Low 

Molybdenum Low Low Low Negligible 

Nickel Low Low Low Low 

Tin Low Low Negligible Negligible 

Vanadium Low Low Low Low 

Zinc Moderate e Moderate e Low Low 

NOTES: 

Highlighted cells (grey) indicate “moderate” or higher effect magnitude. 

a 

Negligible based on the analytical detection limit. 

b 

Effects magnitude not determined as empirical measurements were either not reported by the laboratory or 

analysis was not requested. 

c 

F3 aliphatics are insufficiently soluble in water to pose a risk to aquatic and sediment receptors. 

d Sample collected in Kitimat 2 compartment. 

e Sample collected in Terminal compartment. 

Page 6-4 2010




Table 6–2 Summary of Maximum Base Case Hazard Quotients for Avian and Mammalian Receptors 

BTEX 

Constituents Spotted Sandpiper Surf Scoter Marbled Murrelet Bald Eagle Coastal-dwelling Mink Steller Sea Lion Harbour Porpoise 

Benzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 6.76E-07 3.63E-06 2.47E-06 

Ethylbenzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 2.03E-06 8.70E-06 5.32E-06 

Toluene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.14E-06 5.56E-06 3.49E-06 

Xylenes --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.77E-06 7.57E-06 4.62E-06 

TPH - CCME CWS 

Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 4.26E-05 3.09E-05 --- b 1.89E-06 3.21E-06 6.57E-06 --- b 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 8.60E-05 6.28E-05 --- b 3.79E-06 6.48E-06 1.32E-05 --- b 

F1 - Total 2.12E-04 1.54E-04 --- b 9.46E-06 1.60E-05 3.27E-05 --- b 











Total TPH HQ = 2.28E-02 1.77E-02 --- b 9.06E-04 1.75E-03 3.48E-03 --- b 



Acenaphthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.47E-06 2.39E-06 2.36E-06 

Acenaphthylene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.44E-06 2.39E-06 2.37E-06 

Anthracene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.50E-06 2.40E-06 2.39E-06 

Fluorene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.45E-06 2.40E-06 2.39E-06 

1-Methylnaphthalene --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- b --- b --- b 

2-Methylnaphthalene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.16E-06 3.33E-06 3.48E-06 

Naphthalene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.59E-06 2.46E-06 2.42E-06 

Phenanthrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.20E-05 6.48E-06 4.98E-06 

Total LPAH HQ = 3.37E-05 2.19E-05 2.04E-05 

2010 Page 6-5




Table 6–2 Summary of Maximum Base Case Hazard Quotients for Avian and Mammalian Receptors (cont’d) 



Fluoranthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 6.34E-06 3.63E-06 3.24E-06 

Benz(a)anthracene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.34E-05 2.70E-05 3.06E-05 

Benzo(a)pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.26E-05 2.49E-05 2.95E-05 

Benzo(e)pyrene --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- b --- b --- b 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.10E-05 3.88E-05 4.77E-05 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.26E-05 2.31E-05 2.56E-05 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.26E-05 2.25E-05 2.23E-05 

Chrysene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.67E-05 3.26E-05 3.31E-05 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.25E-05 2.25E-05 2.29E-05 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.26E-05 2.38E-05 2.67E-05 

Pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.71E-05 2.99E-05 3.03E-05 

Total HPAH HQ = 3.37E-04 2.49E-04 2.72E-04 

Total PAH HQ = 3.71E-04 2.70E-04 2.92E-04 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- b --- b --- b 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- b --- b --- b 


Phenol --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- b --- b --- b 

2,4-Dimethylphenol --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- b --- b --- b 

2,4-Dinitrophenol --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- a,b --- b --- b --- b 


Barium 1.20E-03 2.21E-03 8.31E-04 3.75E-04 5.33E-04 3.13E-04 3.07E-04 

Boron 7.15E-03 2.13E-03 2.54E-02 1.46E-03 8.86E-04 1.74E-02 1.53E-02 

Cadmium 4.63E-02 5.42E-02 1.60E-02 1.40E-03 1.11E-02 2.17E-02 6.98E-03 

Manganese 3.02E-03 2.16E-03 3.21E-03 5.10E-04 1.76E-03 2.62E-03 3.21E-03 

Molybdenum 2.08E-03 1.94E-03 5.21E-03 3.24E-03 5.64E-02 2.17E-01 1.23E-01 

Nickel 6.97E-02 6.27E-02 1.65E-01 7.58E-02 3.66E-02 2.74E-02 2.79E-02 

Tin 2.88E-03 3.93E-03 1.36E-03 1.21E-03 6.61E-04 2.07E-03 9.21E-04 

Vanadium 1.49E-01 1.34E-01 1.61E-01 5.81E-02 1.49E-02 5.42E-02 3.04E-02 

Zinc 6.28E-02 6.92E-02 6.23E-02 2.38E-02 9.68E-03 3.06E-02 1.63E-02 

NOTES: 

a An ecological hazard quotient could not be calculated because no TRV was available for this chemical and receptor combination. 

b An ecological hazard quotient was not calculated because this chemical was not assessed in the Base Case for this pathway and receptor combination. 

2010 Page 6-7




6.3 Summary of Project Case Effect Magnitude and Hazard 

Quotients 

For the Project Case, maximum effects magnitudes and HQ are described in Tables 6-3 and 6-4. Effects 

on the water and sediment community-level receptors are all judged to be of negligible or low effect 

magnitude, respectively. For the avian and mammalian receptors, all HQ are below threshold values that 

would indicate the potential for adverse environmental effects. 


and Sediment Community-level Receptors 

Surface 

Seawater Deep Seawater 

Near-shore 

Sediments 

Off-shore 

Sediments 

Constituents 

BTEX 

Benzene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Ethylbenzene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Toluene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Xylenes Negligible a Negligible a TPH - CCME CWS 

Low Low 

Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 Negligible b Negligible b Low Low 




Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 --- c --- c --- c --- c 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 --- c --- c --- c --- c 


Arom>C21-C34 - F3 Negligible b Negligible b Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 


Low Low 

Acenaphthene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Acenaphthylene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Anthracene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Fluorene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

1-Methylnaphthalene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 


Naphthalene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Phenanthrene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

2010 Page 6-9





and Sediment Community-level Receptors (cont’d) 

Constituents 


Surface 


Near-shore 

Sediments 

Off-shore 

Sediments 

Fluoranthene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Benz(a)anthracene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Benzo(a)pyrene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Benzo(e)pyrene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Chrysene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Pyrene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 


Phenol Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

2,4-Dimethylphenol Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

2,4-Dinitrophenol Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 


Barium Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Boron Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Cadmium Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Manganese Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Molybdenum Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Nickel Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Tin Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Vanadium Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Zinc Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

NOTES: 

a Negligible based on the detection limit 

b Negligible based on 1/3 CHC5 value 

c F3 aliphatics are insufficiently soluble in water to pose a risk to aquatic and sediment receptors 

Page 6-10 2010




Table 6–4 Summary of Project Case Hazard Quotients for Avian and Mammalian Receptors 


BTEX 

Benzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.23E-08 (K2) 1.07E-07 (K2) 6.90E-08 (K2) 

Ethylbenzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.56E-08 (K2) 1.60E-07 (K2) 9.48E-08 (K2) 

Toluene --- a --- a --- a --- a 5.20E-08 (K2) 2.71E-07 (K2) 1.64E-07 (K2) 

Xylenes --- a --- a --- a --- a 8.21E-08 (K2) 3.62E-07 (K2) 2.13E-07 (K2) 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 2.12E-05 (K2) 2.41E-05 (K2) 5.51E-05 (K2) 4.25E-05 (K2) 1.45E-05 (K2) 5.94E-05 (K2) 3.44E-05 (K2) 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 5.43E-07 (K2) 5.92E-07 (K2) 1.36E-06 (K2) 1.03E-06 (K2) 3.53E-07 (K2) 1.48E-06 (K2) 8.61E-07 (K2) 

F1 - Total 4.32E-05 (K2) 4.98E-05 (K2) 1.14E-04 (K2) 8.78E-05 (K2) 3.00E-05 (K2) 1.22E-04 (K2) 7.06E-05 (K2) 











Total TPH HQ = 1.44E-03 (K2) 1.69E-03 (K2) 3.83E-03 (K2) 2.97E-03 (K2) 1.02E-03 (K2) 4.10E-03 (K2) 2.37E-03 (K2) 



Acenaphthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 2.77E-13 (K1) 2.23E-13 (K1) 2.31E-13 (K1) 

Acenaphthylene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.18E-15 (K1) 3.35E-15 (K1) 3.47E-15 (K1) 

Anthracene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.06E-10 (K2) 3.22E-10 (K2) 3.33E-10 (K2) 

Fluorene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.62E-10 (K2) 3.69E-10 (K2) 3.81E-10 (K2) 

1-Methylnaphthalene --- a --- a --- a --- a 2.49E-09 (K2) 2.02E-09 (K2) 2.09E-09 (K2) 


Naphthalene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.08E-09 (K2) 9.22E-10 (K2) 9.67E-10 (K2) 

Phenanthrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 6.28E-10 (K2) 4.99E-10 (K2) 5.15E-10 (K2) 

Total LPAH HQ = 6.95E-09 (K2) 5.65E-09 (K2) 5.87E-09 (K2) 

2010 Page 6-11




Table 6–4 Summary of Project Case Hazard Quotients for Avian and Mammalian Receptors (cont’d) 



Fluoranthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 8.08E-13 (K1) 6.37E-13 (K1) 6.55E-13 (K1) 

Benz(a)anthracene --- a --- a --- a --- a 2.73E-08 (K2) 2.15E-08 (K2) 2.21E-08 (K2) 

Benzo(a)pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.00E-10 (K1) 3.12E-10 (K1) 3.19E-10 (K1) 

Benzo(e)pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.08E-11 (K1) 3.21E-11 (K1) 3.30E-11 (K1) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.08E-11 (K1) 2.43E-11 (K1) 2.51E-11 (K1) 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.13E-10 (K1) 8.85E-11 (K1) 9.11E-11 (K1) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 2.91E-11 (K1) 2.30E-11 (K1) 2.37E-11 (K1) 

Chrysene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.87E-11 (K1) 1.48E-11 (K1) 1.52E-11 (K1) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene --- a --- a --- a --- a 8.32E-11 (K1) 6.54E-11 (K1) 6.73E-11 (K1) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.34E-10 (K1) 1.05E-10 (K1) 1.09E-10 (K1) 

Pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.82E-08 (K2) 1.43E-08 (K2) 1.47E-08 (K2) 

Total HPAH HQ = 4.62E-08 (K2) 3.64E-08 (K2) 3.75E-08 (K2) 

Total PAH HQ = 5.32E-08 (K2) 4.21E-08 (K2) 4.33E-08 (K2) 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.80E-07 (K2) 6.94E-07 (K2) 3.87E-07 (K2) 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.87E-08 (K2) 7.88E-08 (K2) 4.58E-08 (K2) 


Phenol --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.75E-14 (K2) 3.95E-13 (K2) 2.70E-13 (K2) 

2,4-Dimethylphenol --- a --- a --- a --- a 8.81E-13 (K2) 8.70E-12 (K2) 5.69E-12 (K2) 

2,4-Dinitrophenol --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.21E-12 (K2) 4.38E-11 (K2) 3.03E-11 (K2) 


Barium 1.55E-10 (K1) 2.33E-10 (K1) 5.21E-11 (K1) 1.92E-11 (K1) 5.15E-11 (K1) 2.53E-11 (K1) 1.57E-11 (K1) 

Boron 1.31E-11 (K2) 1.36E-11 (K2) 3.77E-12 (K1) 3.73E-13 (K2) 1.97E-12 (K2) 6.45E-12 (K2) 2.76E-12 (K2) 

Cadmium 3.80E-05 (K1) 4.44E-05 (K1) 9.48E-06 (K1) 1.04E-08 (K1) 8.26E-06 (K1) 1.30E-05 (K1) 2.14E-06 (K1) 

Manganese 5.23E-10 (K1) 3.64E-10 (K1) 1.03E-09 (K1) 5.20E-10 (K1) 1.30E-09 (K1) 9.85E-10 (K1) 9.83E-10 (K1) 

Molybdenum 5.48E-07 (K2) 6.20E-07 (K2) 1.32E-07 (K1) 2.13E-09 (K2) 2.01E-06 (K2) 3.24E-06 (K2) 5.31E-07 (K1) 

Nickel 5.89E-06 (K2) 4.99E-06 (K2) 1.07E-05 (K2) 5.40E-06 (K2) 2.62E-06 (K2) 1.95E-06 (K2) 1.94E-06 (K2) 

Tin 1.18E-07 (K2) 1.46E-07 (K2) 4.59E-07 (K2) 5.15E-07 (K2) 1.67E-07 (K2) 6.63E-07 (K2) 3.78E-07 (K2) 

Vanadium 1.73E-05 (K2) 1.36E-05 (K2) 2.95E-05 (K1) 1.48E-05 (K2) 3.16E-06 (K2) 1.20E-05 (K2) 6.63E-06 (K2) 

Zinc 1.72E-07 (K1) 1.84E-07 (K1) 1.09E-07 (K1) 4.98E-08 (K1) 2.22E-08 (K1) 6.70E-08 (K1) 3.23E-08 (K1) 

NOTE: 


2010 Page 6-13




6.4 Summary of Application Case Effect Magnitude and Hazard 

Quotients 

The Application Case represents the sum of the Base Case and Project Case scenarios. The HQ for some 

COPC (i.e., a few PAH, VOC, TPH and phenolic compounds) in the Application Case evaluation are 

equivalent to the Project Case HQ, because no value is available from the Base Case. 

For the Application Case, effect magnitudes for the water community receptor (Table 6-5) are generally 

rated negligible or low, with the exception of benzo(b)fluoranthene, barium, manganese and zinc which 

are also identified as being of moderate effect magnitude in the Base Case. Effect magnitudes for the 

sediment community receptor are all rated low (Table 6-5). Where both Base and Project Case effect 

magnitudes and HQ values are available for comparison, the Project Case makes a very small contribution 

to the Application Case. 


Water and Sediment Community-level Receptors 

Surface 


Near-shore 

Sediments 

Off-shore 

Sediments 

Constituents 

BTEX 

Benzene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Ethylbenzene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Toluene Low Low Low Low 

Xylenes 


Low Low Low Low 








Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 --- c --- c --- c --- c 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 --- c --- c --- c --- c 


Arom>C21-C34 - F3 Negligible b Negligible b Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 


Low Low 

Acenaphthene Low Low Low Low 

Acenaphthylene Low Low Low Low 

Anthracene Low Low Low Low 

Fluorene Low Low Low Low 

2010 Page 6-15





Water and Sediment Community-level Receptors (cont’d) 

Constituents 

Surface 


Near-shore 

Sediments 

Off-shore 

Sediments 


2-Methylnaphthalene Low Low Low Low 

Naphthalene Low Low Low Low 

Phenanthrene Low Low Low Low 


Fluoranthene Low Low Low Low 

Benz(a)anthracene Low Low Low Low 

Benzo(a)pyrene Low Low Low Low 

Benzo(e)pyrene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Moderate Moderate Low Low 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Low Low Low Low 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene Low Low Low Low 

Chrysene Low Low Low Low 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Low Low Low Low 

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

Pyrene Low Low Low Low 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 


Phenol Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

2,4-Dimethylphenol Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 

2,4-Dinitrophenol Negligible a Negligible a Low Low 


Barium Moderate Moderate Low Low 

Boron Low Low Low Low 

Cadmium Low Low Low Low 

Manganese Moderate Moderate Low Low 

Molybdenum Low Low Low Low 

Nickel Low Low Low Low 

Tin Low Low Low Low 

Vanadium Low Low Low Low 

Zinc Moderate Moderate Low Low 

NOTES: 

Highlighted cells (grey) indicate moderate or higher effect magnitude. 

a 

Negligible based on the detection limit. 

b 

Negligible based on 1/3 CHC5 value. 

c 

F3 aliphatics are insufficiently soluble in water to pose a risk to aquatic and sediment receptors. 

Page 6-16 2010




All Application Case HQ values are below threshold values that would indicate a potential for adverse 

environmental effects (Table 6-6). The Project-related increments in HQ are very small or negligible 

when compared to Base Case HQ. For COPC where no Baseline concentrations were available, HQ 

values are several orders of magnitude below threshold values. 

6.5 Species at Risk 

Four species assessed in this Marine ERA are Species at Risk: 

• harbour porpoise 

• Steller sea lion 

• Marbled Murrelet 

• eulachon 

HQ values for the Base, Project and Application cases are presented in Tables 6-2, 6-4 and 6-6, 

respectively. 

For the harbour porpoise, exposure to trace elements results in the highest HQ values for the Application 

Case. The highest value results from exposure to molybdenum (HQ = 0.12), which is below the 

established HQ threshold of 0.33 for a species at risk using a LOAEL-based TRV. The Project Case 

contribution to this HQ value is negligible (less than 0.05% of the total). For COPC that are assessed for 

Application contributions alone (i.e., not assessed in Base Case), the highest HQ value for the harbour 

porpoise was for TPH (total HQ = 0.0024; Table 6-4), which is two orders of magnitude lower than the 

HQ threshold of 0.33 for the protection of individuals of species at risk. Therefore, there is no 

Project-related risk of adverse environmental effects to the health of harbour porpoise, even when they are 

conservatively assumed to occupy the most exposed location at all times. 

For the Steller sea lion, exposure to trace elements result in the highest HQ values for the Application 

Case, with the highest value resulting from exposure to molybdenum (HQ = 0.22), below the established 

threshold of 0.33 for the protection of individuals of species at risk. The biggest contributor to this HQ 

value is ingestion of near-shore fish under baseline conditions. The Project Case contribution to the 

molybdenum HQ value is negligible (less than 0.06% of the total). For COPC that are assessed for 

Application contributions alone (i.e., not assessed in the Base Case), the highest HQ value for the Steller 

sea lion is for TPH (total HQ = 0.0076; Table 6-4), which is two orders of magnitude lower than the HQ 

threshold of 0.33 for individual protection of species at risk. Therefore, there is no adverse environmental 

effects to the health of the Steller sea lion, even when they are conservatively assumed to occupy the most 

exposed location at all times. 

For the Marbled Murrelet, exposure to trace elements result in the highest HQ values for the Application 

Case, with the highest value resulting of exposure to nickel (HQ = 0.17), below the established threshold 

of 1 (the TRV for nickel is based on a NOAEL) for the protection of individuals of species at risk. The 

biggest contributor to this HQ value is ingestion of off-shore fish from baseline conditions. The 

Project-related contribution to the nickel HQ is less than 0.06% of the total HQ. 

2010 Page 6-17




For COPC that are assessed for Application contributions alone (limited to TPH for the Marbled 

Murrelet), the HQ value for TPH is 0.0038, which is three orders of magnitude lower than the HQ 

threshold of 1 for the protection of individuals of species at risk. Therefore, there is no adverse 

environmental effects to the health of the Marbled Murrelet, even when they are conservatively assumed 

to occupy the most exposed location at all times. 

Eulachon are not directly assessed because fish community-based benchmarks are used in the risk 

assessment for fish species. As presented in Table 6-5, effects on the aquatic community receptors are 

mostly of negligible or low effect magnitude. Only benzo(b)fluoranthene, barium, manganese and zinc 

have a magnitude of moderate due to possible Base Case conditions. Effects on aquatic receptors for the 

Project Case are negligible. Therefore, no adverse environmental effects to the health of eulachon is 

expected, even when they are conservatively assumed to occupy the most exposed location at all times. 

Page 6-18 2010




Table 6–6 Summary of Application Case Hazard Quotients for Avian and Mammalian Receptors 


BTEX 

Benzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 6.88E-07 (K2) 3.73E-06 (K2) 2.54E-06 (K2) 

Ethylbenzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 2.06E-06 (K2) 8.86E-06 (K2) 5.42E-06 (K2) 

Toluene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.20E-06 (K2) 5.83E-06 (K2) 3.66E-06 (K2) 

Xylenes --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.86E-06 (K2) 7.94E-06 (K2) 4.83E-06 (K2) 
















Total TPH HQ = 2.42E-02 (K2) 1.94E-02 (K2) 3.83E-03 (K2) 3.88E-03 (K2) 2.76E-03 (K2) 7.58E-03 (K2) 2.37E-03 (K2) 



Acenaphthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.47E-06 (K1) 2.39E-06 (K1) 2.36E-06 (K1) 

Acenaphthylene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.44E-06 (K1) 2.39E-06 (K1) 2.37E-06 (K1) 

Anthracene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.50E-06 (K2) 2.40E-06 (K2) 2.39E-06 (K2) 

Fluorene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.45E-06 (K2) 2.40E-06 (K2) 2.39E-06 (K2) 



Naphthalene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.59E-06 (K2) 2.46E-06 (K2) 2.42E-06 (K2) 

Phenanthrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.20E-05 (K2) 6.49E-06 (K2) 4.98E-06 (K2) 

Total LPAH HQ = 3.37E-05 (K2) 2.19E-05 (K2) 2.04E-05 (K2) 


2010 Page 6-19




Table 6–6 Summary of Application Case Hazard Quotients for Avian and Mammalian Receptors (cont’d) 


Fluoranthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 6.34E-06 (K1) 3.63E-06 (K1) 3.24E-06 (K1) 

Benz(a)anthracene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.34E-05 (K2) 2.70E-05 (K2) 3.06E-05 (K2) 

Benzo(a)pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.26E-05 (K1) 2.49E-05 (K1) 2.95E-05 (K1) 

Benzo(e)pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.08E-11 (K1) 3.21E-11 (K1) 3.30E-11 (K1) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.10E-05 (K1) 3.88E-05 (K1) 4.77E-05 (K1) 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.26E-05 (K1) 2.31E-05 (K1) 2.56E-05 (K1) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.26E-05 (K1) 2.25E-05 (K1) 2.23E-05 (K1) 

Chrysene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.67E-05 (K1) 3.26E-05 (K1) 3.31E-05 (K1) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.25E-05 (K1) 2.25E-05 (K1) 2.29E-05 (K1) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 3.26E-05 (K1) 2.38E-05 (K1) 2.67E-05 (K1) 

Pyrene --- a --- a --- a --- a 4.71E-05 (K2) 2.99E-05 (K2) 3.03E-05 (K2) 

Total HPAH HQ = 3.38E-04 (K2) 2.49E-04 (K2) 2.72E-04 (K2) 

Total PAH HQ = 3.71E-04 (K2) 2.71E-04 (K2) 2.92E-04 (K2) 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.80E-07 (K2) 6.94E-07 (K2) 3.87E-07 (K2) 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.87E-08 (K2) 7.88E-08 (K2) 4.58E-08 (K2) 


Phenol --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.75E-14 (K2) 3.95E-13 (K2) 2.70E-13 (K2) 

2,4-Dimethylphenol --- a --- a --- a --- a 8.81E-13 (K2) 8.70E-12 (K2) 5.69E-12 (K2) 

2,4-Dinitrophenol --- a --- a --- a --- a 1.21E-12 (K2) 4.38E-11 (K2) 3.03E-11 (K2) 


Barium 1.20E-03 (K1) 2.21E-03 (K1) 8.31E-04 (K1) 3.75E-04 (K1) 5.33E-04 (K1) 3.13E-04 (K1) 3.07E-04 (K1) 

Boron 7.15E-03 (K2) 2.13E-03 (K2) 2.54E-02 (K1) 1.46E-03 (K2) 8.86E-04 (K2) 1.74E-02 (K2) 1.53E-02 (K2) 

Cadmium 4.63E-02 (K1) 5.42E-02 (K1) 1.60E-02 (K1) 1.40E-03 (K1) 1.11E-02 (K1) 2.17E-02 (K1) 6.98E-03 (K1) 

Manganese 3.02E-03 (K1) 2.16E-03 (K1) 3.21E-03 (K1) 5.10E-04 (K1) 1.76E-03 (K1) 2.62E-03 (K1) 3.21E-03 (K1) 

Molybdenum 2.08E-03 (K2) 1.94E-03 (K2) 5.21E-03 (K1) 3.24E-03 (K2) 5.64E-02 (K2) 2.17E-01 (K2) 1.23E-01 (K1) 

Nickel 6.97E-02 (K2) 6.27E-02 (K2) 1.65E-01 (K2) 7.58E-02 (K2) 3.66E-02 (K2) 2.74E-02 (K2) 2.79E-02 (K2) 

Tin 2.88E-03 (K2) 3.93E-03 (K2) 1.36E-03 (K2) 1.22E-03 (K2) 6.62E-04 (K2) 2.07E-03 (K2) 9.21E-04 (K2) 

Vanadium 1.49E-01 (K2) 1.34E-01 (K2) 1.61E-01 (K1) 5.81E-02 (K2) 1.49E-02 (K2) 5.42E-02 (K2) 3.04E-02 (K2) 

Zinc 6.28E-02 (K1) 6.92E-02 (K1) 6.23E-02 (K1) 2.38E-02 (K1) 9.68E-03 (K1) 3.06E-02 (K1) 1.63E-02 (K1) 

NOTE: 


2010 Page 6-21



Section 7: Certainty and Confidence 

7 Certainty and Confidence 

Administrative boundaries and uncertainties are inherent to many aspects of predicting risks to ecological 

receptors. The extent of these boundaries is dictated by the availability and quality of information, as well 

as the variability associated with many of the processes and factors being considered. When conducting 

risk assessments, it is standard practice to implement conservative assumptions (i.e., to make assumptions 

that are inherently biased towards safety) when uncertainty is encountered. This strategy generally results 

in an overestimation of actual risk, so that the overall ERA conclusions are protective of ecological 

receptors. The limitations and assumptions applied in this ERA, and their effect on EHQ estimates, are 

identified and described in the following subsections. 

7.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern 

The selection of COPC is based on the chemical composition of three representative samples of 

hydrocarbon to be handled at the Kitimat Terminal: diluted bitumen, synthetic oil and condensate. The 

three representative samples were analyzed for BTEX, TPH, PAH, phenolic compounds, VOC and trace 

elements. PAH were included as a class of compounds, even though many individual PAH compounds 

(notably the higher molecular weight compounds) were not detected in the tested hydrocarbon samples. 

Therefore, COPC assessed may include chemicals that are not expected to be released into the marine 

environment. Following the COPC screening procedure, only analytes with a concentration above 

1 mg/kg were assessed. The rationale for this criterion is based upon a scoping calculation that showed 

that substances having a concentration of 1 mg/kg or less in the hydrocarbons would not likely be present 

in treated storm water at a concentration exceeding WQG values; such concentrations would not cause an 

adverse environmental effect upon being released to the marine environment. 

In order to consider chemicals that may already be contributing to risk, analytes that demonstrated a 

baseline water concentration above guidelines are included. As such, the list of selected COPC may 

include substances that are not expected to be released in substantial quantities. For example, cadmium is 

assessed because its maximum baseline water concentration exceeds guidelines, and it is important to 

evaluate the potential environmental effect of any additional quantity of cadmium. 

7.2 Selection of Receptors 

The marine receptors include species that could collectively represent various levels of exposure due to 

differences in life-history attributes (e.g., body size, trophic level, consumption rates). The receptors are 

expected to be representative of other species that may be present in the PEAA and exposed to COPC. 

For each receptor, modelled exposure to COPC depends on attributes such as water ingestion rates, food 

ingestion rates, sediment ingestion rates and dietary composition. These attributes were characterized 

through extensive reviews of available scientific literature. Where species-specific data were unavailable, 

body weight-based estimates were often used (e.g., food requirements may be estimated using established 

mathematical equations). The species are modelled as solely inhabiting a single model compartment, 

which would overestimate their exposure to COPC if, in fact, they move between compartments or 

migrate. 

2010 Page 7-1




7.3 Environmental Fate and Transport Modelling 

Environmental fate and transport models use average environmental data and simplified representations 

of the environment and processes involved in order to model the fate and transport of COPC. For 

example, in the Water Quality Model, the mass of COPC released into a compartment at a given time is 

assumed to be instantaneously distributed equally throughout the entire compartment. This results in 

uniform COPC concentrations throughout the compartment. In the natural environment, however, COPC 

concentrations will exhibit some spatial variation. Nonetheless, the predicted COPC concentrations within 

a compartment should be reasonable estimates of the actual average COPC concentrations. In addition, 

the actual variation in COPC concentrations within each compartment is expected to be less than the 

predicted differences in COPC concentrations between adjacent compartments. 

Although the overall model structures are reliable, the quality of many of the parameter values describing 

the environmental fate and partitioning (i.e., distribution) of COPC varies. In such situations, conservative 

assumptions are implemented, which may overestimate environmental COPC concentrations. 

7.4 Resource-Specific Toxicity Data 

For several COPC, the available toxicity database is very limited. Consequently, TRV for these 

substances are occasionally based on less-than-optimal toxicological studies. These TRV are not 

necessarily specific to the KI, reproductive or population-level endpoints, or of chronic duration. 

Uncertainty factors are, therefore, often necessary to modify available toxicological data. The UF used are 

scientifically based and are applied in a manner that is consistent with regulatory guidance. 

The measure of toxicity for TRV is the chronic LOAEL; however, in certain cases, only chronic NOAEL 

is available for derivation of TRV. In these cases, no UF is applied. The decision not to apply UF to 

translate a NOAEL to a LOAEL is a conservative measure to avoid overestimating the LOAEL and thus 

underestimating potential risks. For mammalian KI, NOAEL-based TRV are used for the following 

COPC: PAH (low and high molecular weight), barium, lead, manganese and inorganic mercury. For avian 

KI, NOAEL-based TRV are used for cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel and vanadium. 

Toxicological testing of environmental contaminants is not nearly as extensive for avian species as for 

mammalian species. As a result, avian TRV for many COPC are unavailable. This disparity is primarily 

due to the widely accepted practice of applying mammalian toxicity data for use in human health risk 

assessments and establishing other human health-based guidelines (e.g., tolerable intake levels). 

Cross-class extrapolation for TRV is not advised (Ohio EPA 2008) and the possible uncertainty 

associated with the extrapolation of mammalian toxicity data for generating avian TRV was considered 

unacceptable. 

7.5 Resource Exposure to COPC and HQ Calculations 

For the purpose of assessing the maximum potential exposure to COPC, HQ are calculated for all 

modelled species (receptor) in each of the appropriate model compartments where they might be found. 

For example, to assess the maximum possible HQ for a harbour porpoise inhabiting the Kitimat 2 model 

compartment, it is assumed that all food, sediment and water ingested originated from that compartment. 

Page 7-2 2010




This assumption is conservative as it overestimates the exposure of specific species to COPC. Many 

marine fauna (e.g., fish, birds, mammals and crab) are mobile and may move among compartments and 

outside of the PEAA thereby reducing potential exposure to COPC. Thus, the actual exposure to COPC in 

water and sediment of both food (invertebrates, fish) and marine receptors (modelled species), are likely 

to be lower than the exposure that is assumed. 

7.6 Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability 

Trace elements are part of our natural environment and exist in many different forms. In water, trace 

elements are rarely present in their elemental form. More commonly, trace elements are present as either 

free dissolved ionic species, associated to other organic or inorganic species, or bound to solids. The 

distribution amongst these various forms is termed chemical speciation and is related to the environmental 

fate and toxicity of trace elements. For example, selenium may be found associated to both organic and 

inorganic species with resulting compounds demonstrating varying degrees of toxicity. Several naturally 

occurring forms of trace elements have very low toxicity thus pose little risk to biota. Because it is 

extremely difficult to predict the form of an element, TRV and toxicity benchmarks are typically based on 

studies assessing results of a relatively potent form of the trace elements, even though that particular form 

may not occur naturally within the PEAA. 

Trace elements and organic compounds can bind to sediment solids, and this can affect their 

bioavailability or accessibility to biota. The water-sediment partition coefficient (KD) is a measure of the 

tendency of a trace element to bind to a variety of ligands, including organic matter and mineral phases 

including, but not limited to, readily exchangeable sorption sites, carbonates, iron and manganese oxides, 

and sulphides. The bioavailability of these phases varies, with exchangeable metals generally considered 

to be readily bioavailable and sulphide bound metals generally considered to have low or negligible 

bioavailability. To be conservative, most trace elements in sediment are assumed to be fully bioavailable 

to biota. However, this level of bioavailability is considered to be unrealistic for the metals barium and 

manganese, for which the absorption factor (AF) from sediment when ingested by biota was set to a value 

of 0.1. As a special case, the bioavailability of vanadium present in sediment for the Base Case was 

effectively set to a value of 0.1, by dividing the Base Case vanadium concentrations in sediment by a 

factor of 10. This approach is based on the assumption that most of the vanadium present in sediment is 

associated with the mineral lattice of sediment grains. This assumption is supported by the U.S. EPA 

EcoSSL document for vanadium (U.S. EPA 2005). However, due to its anionic character in the aquatic 

environment, all vanadium released into the aquatic environment as a result of Project activities is 

conservatively assumed to be fully bioavailable. All Kitimat Terminal-related discharges are assumed to 

be completely (i.e., 100%) bioavailable upon release into the marine environment through the sub-tidal 

perforated pipe into the water and sediments. Because of the large discrepancy between the laboratoryderived 

bioaccumulation factors and those calculated from measured biota and media concentrations, the 

latter are preferred as being representative of processes occurring at the site. For all other COPC, 

assuming complete bioavailability is highly conservative and would result in higher HQ estimates. 

2010 Page 7-3



Section 8: Summary of Environmental Effects 

8 Summary of Environmental Effects 

The effect magnitudes for the water and sediment community-level receptors are generally predicted to be 

negligible or low in the Base, Project and Application cases. The only exceptions originated in the Base 

Case, where benzo(b)fluoranthene (a PAH), and the trace elements barium, manganese and zinc, found to 

be present at concentrations that could cause moderate effects on aquatic community receptor such as fish 

and plankton. However, these potential baseline environmental effects were identified on the basis of the 

maximum measured concentration of the COPC in water, and also depend upon the assumption that 

100% of the measured concentration of each COPC is fully bioavailable. In each case, the contribution of 

the Project Case to the overall Application Case is negligible. 

For avian and mammalian species, all calculated HQ values are below thresholds that would indicate a 

potential risk of adverse environmental effect for the Base, Project and Application cases. 

For eulachon, Marbled Murrelet, Steller sea lion and harbour porpoise (Species at Risk), the 

environmental effects of COPC released by the operations of the Kitimat Terminal over an assumed 

50-year period would result in negligible magnitude adverse effects. 

This Marine ERA is built on measured data to the extent practical, with conservative assumptions used in 

the exposure and hazard assessments. Therefore, it is unlikely that the risk of adverse environmental 

effects on the marine environment is underestimated. 

2010 Page 8-1



Section 9: References 

9 References 

9.1 Literature Cited 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicity Profile for Total Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons (TPH). United States Department of Health and Human Services. 

AMEC. 2005. Remediation of the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Oven Sites, Volume 7: Contaminant Fate 

Modelling of Sydney Harbour. 

Ankley, G.T., G.L. Phipps, E.N. Leonard, D.A. Benoit, V.R. Mattson, P.A. Kosian, A.M. Cotter, J.R. 

Dierkes, D.J. Hansen and J.D. Mahony. 1991. Acid-volatile sulfide as a factor mediating 

cadmium and nickel bioavailability in contaminated sediments. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 10(10): 1299-1307. 

Brooks, A. 1928. Does the Marbled Murrelet nest inland? Murrelet 9: 68. 

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

Assessment: General Guidance. 


Assessment: Technical Appendices. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1999a. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines 

for the Protection of Aquatic Life. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1999b. Canadian Environmental Quality 

Guidelines. Winnipeg, MB. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008. Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil: Scientific Rationale Supporting Technical Document. 

Chappell, W.R. 1992. Scaling toxicity data across species. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 

14(3): 71-80. 

DeVink, J.-M.A., H.G. Gilchrist and A.W. Diamond. 2005. Effects of water salinity on growth and 

survival of common eider (Somateria mollissima) ducklings. Auk 122: 523-529. 

Di Toro, D.M. and J.A. McGrath. 2000. Technical basis for narcotic chemicals and polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon criteria. II. Mixtures and sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

19:1971-1982. 

Di Toro, D.M., J.A. McGrath and D.J. Hansen. 2000. Technical basis for narcotic chemicals and 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon criteria. I. Water and tissue. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 19:1951-1970. 

Di Toro, D.M., J.A. McGrath and W.A. Stubblefield. 2007. Predicting the toxicity of neat and weathered 

crude oil: toxic potential and the toxicity of saturated mixtures. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 26:24-36. 

2010 Page 9-1




Diamond, M.L., D. Mackay, D.J. Poulton and F.A. Stride. 1994. Development of a mass balance model 

of the fate of 17 chemicals in the Bay of Quinte. Journal of Great Lakes Research 20: 643-666. 

Diamond, M.L., D. Mackay, D.J. Poulton and F.A. Stride. 1996. Assessing the chemical behaviour and 

developing remedial actions using a mass balance model of chemical fate in the Bay of Quinte. 

Water Research 30: 405-421. 

Ethier, A.L.M. 2002. A Review of Mass Balance Model of the Sources and Fate of Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons in Sydney Harbour, Nova Scotia. MSc thesis. Trent University. Peterborough, ON. 

GESAMP (IMA/FAO/UNESCO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific 

Aspects of Marine Pollution). 1991. Coastal Modelling. GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 43, 

192 pp. 

Innes, S., D.M. Lavigne, W.M. Earle and K.M. Kovacs. 1987. Feeding Rates of Seals and Whales. 

Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 115-130. 

JDAC. 2002. Contaminant Flux from Muggah Creek to Sydney Harbour. Phase II/III Environmental Site 

Assessment – Muggah Creek Watershed. Report to Nova Scotia Department of Transportation 

and Public Works. 

Lewis, T.L., D. Esler and W.S. Boyd. 2007a. Effects of predation by sea ducks on clam abundance in 

soft-bottom intertidal habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 329:131-144. 

Lewis, T.L., D. Esler and W.S. Boyd. 2007b. Foraging behaviours of Surf Scoters and white-winged 

scoters during spawning of Pacific herring. Condor 109: 216-222. 

Ling, H., M.L. Diamond and D. Mackay. 1993. Application of the QWASI fugacity/equivalence model to 

assessing sources and fate of contaminants in Hamilton Harbour. Journal of Great Lakes 

Research 19: 582-602. 

Lun, R., K. Lee, L. DeMarco, C. Nalewajko and D. Mackay. 1998. A model of the fate of polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons in the Saguenay Fjord, Canada. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

17: 333-341. 

Luttik, R., P. Mineau and W. Roelofs. 2005. A review of interspecies toxicity extrapolation in birds and 

mammals and a proposal for long-term toxicity data. Ecotoxicology 14: 817-832. 

Mate, B. 1978. California Sea Lion. In D. Haley (ed.). Marine Mammals of Eastern North Pacific and 

Arctic Waters. Pacific Search Press. Seattle, WA. 172-177. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation of acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharamacology 24: 24-29. 

Ohio EPA. 2008. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Document. Division of Emergency and Remedial 

Response. 

Onishi, Y., R.J. Serne, E.M. Arnold, C.E. Cowan, and F.L. Thompson. 1981. Critical Review: 

radionuclide transport, sediment transport, and water quality mathematical modelling; and 

radionuclide adsorption/desorption mechanisms. Report prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, NUREG/CR-1322. 

Page 9-2 2010




Raimondo, S., P. Mineau and M.G. Barron. 2007. Estimation of chemical toxicity to wildlife species 

using interspecies correlation models. Environmental Science and Technology 41: 5888-5894. 

Sample, B.E. and C.A. Arenal. 1999. Allometric models for interspecies extrapolation of wildlife. 

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 62: 653-663. 

Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 

Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. 

Santos M.B. and G.J. Pierce. 2003. The Diet of Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Northeast 

Atlantic. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Animal Review 41: 355-390. 

Schwarzenbach, R.P., P.M. Gschwend and D.M. Imboden. 2002. Environmental Organic Chemistry. 2 nd 

edition. Wiley-Interscience. Hoboken, NJ. 

Stephenson, M., J.A.K. Reid, Y. Zhuang and S.B. Russell. 1995. Preliminary Assessment of Low- and 

Intermediate-Level Waste Disposal in the Michigan Basin: Large Lake Model. Atomic Energy of 

Canada Limited Report: COG-95-256. 

Sterling, M.C.Jr., J.S. Bonner, C.A. Page, C.B. Fuller, A.N.S. Ernest and R.L. Autenrieth. 2003. 

Partitioning of crude oil polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic systems. Environmental 

Science and Technology 37: 4429-4434. 

Stoetaert, K. and P.M.J. Herman. 1995a. Estimating estuarine residence times in the Westerschelde (The 

Netherlands) using a box model with fixed dispersion coefficients. Hydrobiologia 311: 215-224. 

Stoetaert, K. and P.M.J. Herman. 1995b. Carbon flows in the Westerschelde Estuary (The Netherlands) 

evaluated by means of an ecosystem model (MOSES). Hydrobiologia 311: 246-266. 

Suter, G.W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. 

Travis, C.C. and R.K. White. 1988. Interspecific scaling of toxicity data. Risk Analysis 8: 119-125. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1985. Rates, constants, and kinetics 

formulations in surface water quality modelling (Second Edition). EPA/600/3-85/040. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1987. Processes, coefficients, and models 

for simulating toxic organics and heavy metals in surface waters. EPA/600.3-87/015. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992. Framework for ecological risk 

assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-92/001 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook 

Volume 1. EPA/600/R-93/187. from Maxson, S.J. and L.W. Oring. 1980. Breeding season time 

and energy budgets of the polyandrous Spotted Sandpiper. Behaviour 74(3-4): 200-263 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk 

Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002a. A Review of the Reference Dose and 

Reference Concentration Processes. Risk Assessment Forum. 

2010 Page 9-3




United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for 

Vanadium, Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. April, 2005. 

van Vlaardingen, P.L.A., R. Posthumus and C.J.A.M. Posthuma-Doodeman. 2005. Environmental Risk 

Limits for Nine Trace Elements. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment. RIVM 

Report No 601501 029. Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 

Verbruggen, E.M.J., R. Posthumus and A.P. van Wezel. 2001. Ecotoxicological Serious Risk 

Concentrations for Soil, Sediment and (Ground)water: Updated Proposals for First Series of 

Compounds. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment. RIVM Report No 711701 

020. Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 

9.2 Internet Sites 

Australian and New Zealand Environmental Conservation Council (ANZECC). 2000. Australian and 

New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Available at: 

http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_and_new_zealand_guidelines_for_fresh_and_ 

marine_water_quality. Accessed: October 2008. 

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). 2006. Water Quality Guidelines (Criteria). 

Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/wq_guidelines.html. Accessed: October 2008. 

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Available at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy.hil.unb.ca/bna/species/506doi:10.2173/bna.506. Accessed: 

October 2008. from Palmer, R.S., J.S. Gerrard and M.V. Stalmaster. 1988. Bald Eagle. In R.S. 

Palmer (ed.). Handbook of North American birds. Yale University Press. New Haven, CT. 

Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). 2003. Phocoeana phocoena, Harbour Porpoise. Available at: 

http://www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/data/P_phocoena/p_phocoena.htm. Accessed: March 

2008. 

Environment Canada. 2006a. Harbour Porpoise. Pacific Ocean Population. Available at: 

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=493. Accessed: March 2008. 

Environment Canada. 2006b. Harbour Porpoise. Northwest Atlantic Population. Available at: 

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=147. Accessed: March 2008. 

Fisheries and Ocean Canada (DFO). 2007a. Aquatic Species at Risk – Stellar Sea Lion. Available at 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species/species_stellersealion_e.asp. Accessed: 

October 2008. 

Fisheries and Ocean Canada (DFO). 2007b. Aquatic Species at Risk – Bocaccio. Available at: 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species/species_bocaccio_e.asp. Accessed: October 

2008. 

Forest Service British Columbia. 1998. Eulachon: A Significant Fish for First Nations Communities – 

Extension note #32. Available at: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rni/Research/Extension_notes/Enote32.pdf. Accessed: October 2008. 

Page 9-4 2010




Gonder, M. 2000. Eumetopias jubatus – Steller Sea Lion. Available at: 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Eumetopias_jubatus.html. 

Accessed: October 2008. 

Government of Canada. 2008a. Species at Risk Public Registry – Stellar Sea Lion. Available at: 

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=326. Accessed: October 2008. 

Government of Canada. 2008b. Species at Risk Public Registry – Marbled Murrelet. Available at: 

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=39. Accessed: October 2008. 

Hammond, G. and A. Masi. 2000. Phocoena phocoena – Harbour Porpoise. Available at: 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Phocoena_phocoena.html. 

Accessed: December 2006. 

International Marine Mammal Association Inc. (IMMA). 1998. Marine Mammal Fact sheet Series: 

Harbour Porpoise. Available at: http://www.imma.org/porpoise.html. 

Kaiser, G.W. 1991. Canadian Wildlife Service & Canadian Wildlife Federation. Hinterland Who’s Who. 

Available at: http://www.hww.ca. Accessed: October 2008. 

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopaedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. 

NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: March 

2008. 

Nelson, S.K. 2000a. Marble Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Available at: 


October 2008.from Sealy, S.G. 1975. Aspects of the breeding biology of the Marbled Murrelet in 

British Columbia. Bird-Banding 46: 141–154. 

Nelson, S.K. 2000b. Marble Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Available at: 


October 2008. from Carter, H.R. and S.G. Sealy. 1986. Year-round use of coastal lakes by 

Marbled Murrelets. Condor 88: 473–477. 

Oring, L.W., E.M. Gray and J.M. Reed. 1997. Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularius). Available at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy.hil.unb.ca/bna/species/289. Accessed: March 2008. 

Price, R. 2002. Zalophus californianus – California Sea Lion. Available at: 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Zalophus_californianus.html. 

Accessed: October 2008. from Scheffer, V. 1958. Seals, Sea Lions and Walruses: A Review of 

the Pinnipedia. Standford University Press. Standford, CA. 

Savard, J.-P.L., D. Bordage and A. Reed. 1998. Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata). Available at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy.hil.unb.ca/bna/species/363. Accessed: October 2008. from 

Vermeer, K. and N. Bourne. 1984. The White-winged Scoter diet in British Columbia waters: 

resource partitioning with other scoters. In D.N. Nettleship, G.A. Sanger and P.F. Springer (eds.). 

Marine Birds: their Feeding Ecology and Commercial Fisheries Relationships. Canadian Wildlife 

Service Special Publication. Ottawa, ON. 30-38. 

2010 Page 9-5




Smart, J. 1999. Brachyramphus marmoratus – Marbled Murrelet. Available at: 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Brachyramphus_marmoratus.ht 

ml. Accessed: October 2008. 

Stocek, R.F. 1992. Canadian Wildlife Service & Canadian Wildlife Federation. Hinterland Who’s Who. 

Available at: http://www.hww.ca. Accessed: October 2008. 

Stoffels, D. 2001. Eulachon in the North Coast. Available at: 

http://www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/northwest/eulachon/resources/NCeulachon.pdf. Accessed: 

October 2008. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Current National Recommended 

Water Quality Criteria. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/. 

Accessed: October 2008. 

Page 9-6 2010



Appendix A: Marine Water Quality Model 

Appendix A Marine Water Quality Model 

2010 Page A-1





Appendix A Marine Water Quality Model ................................................... A-1 

A.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ A-5 

A.1.1 Marine Water Fate and Transport Model ....................................................... A-5 

A.2 Principal Model Processes ................................................................................ A-8 

A.2.1 Tidal Movement ............................................................................................. A-8 

A.3 Additional Parameter Values Used in the Model ............................................. A-18 

A.3.1 Model Compartment Depths and Areas ...................................................... A-18 

Attachment A1 Marine Water Quality Model Equations and 

Documentation (In Stella ® Format) ...................................... A1-1 

Attachment A2 Water Quality Model Representative Results ........................ A2-1 


Table A-1 Drainage Areas and Corresponding Multiplication Factors for Each 

Compartment ........................................................................................ A-13 

Table A-2 Top Four (Least Sum of Squares) Salinity Calibration Models and 

the Resulting Values of Mixer, Dispers and Sum of Squares ............... A-16 

Table A-3 Marine Water Quality Model Compartment Depths and Surface 

Areas .................................................................................................... A-18 

Table A-4 Boundary Lengths between Model Compartments ............................... A-19 

Table A-5 Summary of Predicted COPC Water Concentrations in Each Model 

Compartment ........................................................................................ A-22 

Table A2-1 Summary of Predicted COPC Water Concentrations in Each Model 

Compartment ........................................................................................ A2-3 


Figure A-1 Marine Water Quality Model Compartments ........................................... A-6 

Figure A-2 Marine Water Quality Model Conceptual Diagram .................................. A-9 

Figure A-3 Correlation of the Model Tide and High and Low Tides at Kitimat, 

British Columbia ................................................................................... A-12 

Figure A-4 Water Model Salinity Calibration Results Comparing One-year 

Normalized Measured Concentrations to Modelled Results ................. A-17 

Figure A-5 Vanadium Water Concentrations (mg/L) in Surface and Bottom 

Compartments ...................................................................................... A-20 

Figure A-6 Naphthalene Water Concentrations (mg/L) in Surface and Bottom 

Compartments ...................................................................................... A-21 

2010 Page A-3




A.1 Introduction 

A.1.1 Marine Water Fate and Transport Model 

Environmental fate and transport models are often used to simulate fate and transport of contaminants in 

environmental media (e.g., water, sediment), and can be useful tools in extending limited data to 

predictions of future conditions. Two independent mass balance compartment models were constructed to 

evaluate the likely fate of chemicals of potential concern (COPC) that may be released from the Kitimat 

Terminal to the marine environment with stormwater via an off-shore perforated pipe or by atmospheric 

deposition. The first model (hereafter referred to as the Marine Water Quality Model) estimates the fate 

and transport of COPC in water. The second model simulates the deposition of COPC into the marine 

sediment, hereafter referred to as the Marine Sediment Quality Model (see Appendix B). The Marine 

Water Quality Model used the commercially available software, Stella® version 8.1.1); it predicts 

concentrations of COPC in the surface and bottom water layers of ten model compartments: 

• Kitimat 1, K1 

• Kitimat 2, K2 

• Terminal, T 

• Clio Bay, CB 

• Emsley Point, EP 

• West Side Coste Island, CO 

• Amos Passage, AP 

• Kildala Arm, KA 

• Nanakwa Shoal, NS 

• Douglas Channel, DC 

The results of the model are used in the calculation of exposure point concentrations (EPC) for the KIs. 

The locations of the model compartments are shown in Figure A-1. The detailed equations and 

documentation representing the Marine Water Quality Model in Stella ® format are provided in 

Attachment A1. 

A.1.1.1 Description of Stella ® version 8.1.1 

The Stella ® modelling framework is a mass balance modelling system that allows the construction of 

models using three basic components: 

1. Stocks, compartments that hold and account for mass (COPC). 

2. Flows, links between compartments that act as valves, and allow mass (COPC) to be transferred 

between compartments at rates that are specified by controlling equations. 

3. Converters, generally parameters or variables that are entered into the model in order to drive 

equations. 

2010 Page A-5

100 m 

300 m 

100 m 

CONTRACTOR: 

100 m 

100 m 

100 m 

100 m 

200 m 

Maitland 

Island 

200 m 

100 m 


100 m 

100 m 

100 m 

300 m 

DC 

Loretta 

Island 

200 m 

100 m 

NS 

200 m 

200 m 


Terminal 

Emsley 

Cove 

CO 

EP 

Coste 

Island 

200 m 

200 m 

T 

AP 

K2 

CB 



SCALE: 

K1 

Clio 

Bay 


Gobeil 

Bay 

KA 



Kitamaat 

Village 

100 m 







Railway 

Road 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


PROJECTION: 

Kilometres 

JWA-1048334-1628 


UTM 9 

A-1 

1:220,000 

NP 

DATE: 


DATUM: 

20090911 

CM 

NAD 83 





This is a mass balance model because it is based on the fundamental principle that mass can neither be 

created nor destroyed (except as specified by equations describing specific processes such as microbial 

degradation of hydrocarbons). It is a compartment model because it consists of compartments configured 

to spatially represent the natural environment (i.e., each compartment represents a discrete area and layer 

of seawater). 

The Marine Water Quality Model simulates the behaviour of COPC in the marine environment for 

3.7 years, using a time step (dt) of one hour. According to the model, concentrations of COPC in water 

compartments come to a quasi-steady state within approximately one month. Therefore, the model 

outputs between 0.7 years and 3.7 years illustrate the effects of variable tide and runoff conditions on 

expected water quality within the model domain. 

A conceptual Marine Water Quality Model, representing the water compartments (stocks) and fluxes of 

COPC between compartments (flows) is presented in Figure A-2. Flow icons (Eff:K2S and Eff:TS) 

represent the surface water runoff discharge into the K2 and T compartments and are also identified. The 

flow icons represent atmospheric deposition into each of the surface seawater compartments (Dep:K1S, 

Dep:K2S, etc.). Note that the majority of model converters and connecters are not shown in Figure A-2 in 

order to reduce visual complexity. Flow icons that have only a single arrowhead allow contaminant 

transport only in the direction of the arrow. Flow icons that have an arrowhead on each end (biflows) 

allow contaminant transport in either direction, depending on whether the calculated flux value in any 

time step is positive or negative. A negative flux drives contaminant transport in the direction of the solid 

arrowhead. 

Due to the complexity of the estuarine environment where freshwater and salt water converge, all water 

compartments were subdivided into a shallow, freshwater or brackish surface layer (e.g., K1 Surf) and a 

bottom, more saline layer (e.g., K1 Bot). The thickness of the surface layers was set to 8 m, based on a 

review of salinity profiles from Kitimat Arm. Altogether, the Marine Water Quality Model comprises 

20 stocks or compartments (each representing a discrete area in the environment where COPC may be 

present) and associated flows representing the interactions and transport of COPC between compartments. 

Four primary processes are responsible for driving the flow of mass (the distribution and fate of COPC) in 

the Marine Water Quality Model: 

1. Tidal movement, which causes water to flow in and out of Douglas Channel and Kitimat Arm. 

2. Freshwater input from major watercourses in the area, which causes flushing of Douglas Channel and 

Kitimat Arm and full or partial density stratification of the system. 

3. Horizontal dispersion of water caused by small to medium size eddy circulation as well as winddriven 

currents exchanging water between adjacent water compartments. 

4. Vertical dispersion of water between surface and bottom water layers causing exchange of water 

between the layers. 

2010 Page A-7




The dispersion of water (horizontal and vertical) in Kitimat Arm is largely dominated by the inflow of 

freshwater, which creates a two-layer water structure. The surface water has a net seaward movement due 

to the inflow of freshwater. Since more saline water is entrained into the surface water layer, this also 

creates a net landward movement of salt water in the bottom water layer. This kind of flow system is 

referred to as estuarine circulation. 

Other processes—such as sorption of COPC to particulate matter (including suspended or bedded 

sediments), volatilization of COPC from the water surface to the atmosphere, and decomposition of 

COPC as a result of microbial action or photolysis—will also act in the environment to reduce the 

concentrations of COPC in the water column. However, these processes are not included in the Marine 

Water Quality Model. Omitting these processes is conservative and will result in a model that tends to 

overestimate COPC concentrations in water. 

A.2 Principal Model Processes 

The Marine Water Quality Model calculates the mass of each COPC in the ten individual water 

compartments (see Attachment A2). Concentrations of COPC are calculated by dividing the mass of 

COPC by the volume of water present in the individual compartments. The COPC enter the water 

compartments either as a result of liquid effluent discharge to the K2 or T surface water compartments or 

as a result of atmospheric deposition to any surface water compartment. Once in a surface water 

compartment, COPC can be redistributed to other compartments as a result of tidal water movements, 

flushing with freshwater from river inputs, horizontal dispersion or vertical mixing. The most distal water 

compartments (representing surface and bottom waters of Douglas Channel) are very large, so that they 

provide a sink for COPC. Within the model domain, the highest COPC concentrations are generally 

estimated for the K1, K2 and T compartments due to estuarine circulation of COPC released with liquid 

effluent and deposition of COPC released to the atmosphere. 

A.2.1 Tidal Movement 

The main patterns in the tides are the: 

• twice-daily combined lunar and solar tide 

• difference between the first and second tide of a day, due to the moon or sun being north or south of 

the equator 

• spring-neap cycle amplitude (smallest rise and fall in tidal level due to the relative positions of the 

moon and sun) 

• adjustment of spring tide heights due to the perigees (point nearest the earth's center in the orbit) of 

the moon and sun 

Page A-8 2010




The exact timing (frequency) and height (amplitude) of the tides are temporally and spatially dependent 

on the combination of factors affecting the tides. Within the PEAA, the tidal fluctuation is approximately 

3.3 m between low and high tide, but can range from 0 m to 6.5 m. This fluctuation is responsible for the 

largest flow within the model; therefore, to emulate the tidal cycle, time-series data on high and low tides 

for Kitimat (published by the Canadian Hydrographic Service of Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

(http://www.waterlevels.gc.ca, Tide Station #9140) were used as inputs into the model. The model was 

then formulated to extrapolate the tide level at each modelled hourly time step from the time series of 

high and low tide levels and times. This extrapolation superimposed a sinusoidal curve between the 

published high and low tide data points and extracted the hourly values. The correlation between the 

published data and the model extrapolated tide is presented in Figure A-3. 

Tidal influence was modelled for both the surface and bottom compartments by distributing the total tidal 

effect to both layers based on their relative thicknesses. 

A.2.1.1 Freshwater Input (River Flow) 

One key attribute of the PEAA is that it receives discharge from multiple river systems including Kitimat 

River, Falls River, Dala River, Jesse Falls, and several smaller streams and brooks. Flow of the Kitimat 

River is measured at a gauging station located just below the confluence with Hirsch Creek, about 4 km 

upstream of Kitimat, British Columbia (http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca, Station No. 08FF001). The drainage 

area at this location is reported as 1,900 km 2 . Data recorded at this station between 1964 and 2006 were 

used to calculate mean daily flows for the Kitimat River. Freshwater flow into each model compartment 

was estimated by prorating these mean daily flows by the catchment area of each surface compartment. 

Drainage areas (shown in part on Figure A-1) and prorating multipliers to estimate stream flows from the 

flows to the Kitimat River, are shown in Table A-1. 

Freshwater discharged into a marine environment does not immediately mix with salt water. Rather, it can 

stratify and create a less saline surface water layer due to the lower density of freshwater compared to salt 

water. From observational data collected between 1951 and 2007 (ASL Environmental Sciences Inc. 

2009 1 

), this typically happens in Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel, with a surface water layer usually 

having an average salinity of 17.3 ‰ (parts per thousand) and a bottom water layer extending from a 

depth of approximately 8 m below the surface to the bottom, having an average salinity of approximately 

30.8 ‰. The less saline surface water layer will gradually mix with seawater with increasing distance 

from the freshwater source. This process was incorporated into the model surface layers for all model 

compartments (Figure A-2). 

Flow of mass between adjacent surface compartments is driven primarily by tidal fluctuations. Other 

influences are the net outward flow caused by the river discharge affecting each compartment and the 

horizontal dispersion, caused by eddy circulation, across the surface layer boundaries. The effects of wind 

on water circulation are not explicitly modelled, although these effects will appear within the horizontal 

dispersion term. 

1 Marine Physical Environment TDR. Appendix C: Freshwater Discharges and Temperature-Salinity Distribution. 

2010 Page A-11




Tides (m) 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

-1 

48 58 68 78 88 98 108 118 

Hours 

Figure A-3 Correlation of the Model Tide and High and Low Tides at Kitimat, British Columbia 

Tide Reading 1 




Predicted Tide 

Page A-12 2010




Table A-1 Drainage Areas and Corresponding Multiplication Factors for 

Each Compartment 

Compartment 

Drainage area 

(m 2 ) 

Multiplication factor 

Monitoring station 1.90 × 10 9 N/A 

K1 2.24 × 10 9 1.18 × 100 

K2 2.30 × 10 9 1.21 × 100 

T 2.44 × 10 9 1.29 × 100 

CB 1.08 × 10 7 5.68 × 10 -3 

EP 2.48 × 10 9 1.30 × 100 

CO 2.48 × 10 9 1.31 × 100 

AP 1.13 × 10 9 5.97 × 10 -1 

KA 1.04 × 10 9 5.49 × 10 -1 

NS 3.84 × 10 9 2.02 × 100 

NOTES: 

Compartments K1, K2, T, EP, CO and NS are all in direct line of flow from the Kitimat River, and 

therefore the drainage areas of these compartments increase incrementally from the drainage area of 

the Kitimat River. Compartments CB, KA and AP are not in direct line of flow from the Kitimat River, 

and therefore have only local drainage areas contributing freshwater runoff. 

N/A – not applicable 

A.2.1.2 Horizontal Water Dispersion (Dispers) 

Horizontal mass transfer between adjacent compartments (i.e., surface to surface or bottom to bottom 

layer), in addition to transfers attributable to advection of water due to tidal or river flow, is caused by 

horizontal water dispersion (Dispers in the equation). Mass transfer between adjacent compartments is 

assumed to be a random dispersion process, represented as the product of dispersivity between the two 

compartments (since water moving in one direction must be balanced by water moving in the return 

direction). This is calculated by the following equation. 

Equation 1: 

Where: 

d( Mass1) 

Mass1∗ 

Dispers ∗vArea 

Mass2 

∗ Dispers ∗vArea 

= 

− 

dt 

Vol1 

Vol2 

d(Mass1)/dt = the change in mass (kg) of a COPC in the water of Compartment 1; 

Mass1 = the mass (kg) of COPC in Compartment 1; 

Mass2 = the mass (kg) of COPC in Compartment 2; 

Dispers = a parameter representing the horizontal dispersivity of water movements between 

the two compartments (m/h); 

2010 Page A-13




vArea = the cross-sectional area (m²) of the vertical interface between the adjacent 

compartments; 

Vol1 = the volume of water in Compartment 1 (m³); and 

Vol2 = the volume of water in Compartment 2 (m³). 

A positive result represents a net transfer of COPC from Compartment 1 to Compartment 2; a negative 

result represents a net transfer of COPC from Compartment 2 to Compartment 1. 

The value of the parameter Dispers in the surface compartments was initially set to 0.1 m/s (360 m/h), 

and, for the bottom compartments, was set to a value of one tenth of the value for surface compartments, 

based on professional judgment. The value of Dispers was subsequently determined as part of the model 

calibration process (Section 2.5), using a least-squares fitting procedure and observed salinity profiles 

within the model domain. The final surface compartment (calibrated) value of Dispers was 216 m/h. The 

one-tenth relationship between surface and bottom compartment dispersion was maintained throughout 

the calibration process. 

A.2.1.3 Vertical Water Dispersion (Mixer) 

Mass transfer between surface and bottom water compartments is modelled using turbulent mixing 

between the layers (i.e., mass transport of water containing COPC between the layers). Turbulent mixing 

between the water masses is represented as the product of the concentration in the compartment 

(calculated as the mass in the compartment divided by the volume of the compartment), the rate of 

vertical mixing between the compartments, and the area of interface between them. 

The resulting equation for surface water to bottom water compartment mass flux of COPC is: 

Equation 2 

Where: 

d( 

Mass _ surf ) Mass _ surf ∗ Mixer ∗ hArea Mass _ bot * Mixer ∗ hArea 

= 

− 

dt 

Vol _ surf 

Vol _ bot 

d(Mass_surf)/dt = the change in mass (kg) of a COPC in the water of a surface compartment; 

Mass_surf = the mass (kg) of COPC in the surface water compartment; 

Mass_bot = the mass (kg) of COPC in the bottom water compartment; 

Mixer = the rate of vertical mixing (m/h) between surface and bottom water 

compartments due to turbulent forces; 

Vol_surf = the volume (m 3 ) of the surface water compartment; 

Vol_bot = the volume (m 3 ) of the bottom water compartment; and 

hArea = the area (m 2 ) of the horizontal interface between the surface and bottom water 

compartments. 

Page A-14 2010




A positive result represents a net transfer of COPC from the surface water compartment to the bottom 

water compartment; a negative result represents a net transfer of COPC from the bottom water 

compartment to the surface water compartment. 

The value of the parameter Mixer was initially set to 0.01 m/h, based on professional judgment. This 

parameter is largely driven by turbulence and frictional forces acting between the surface and bottom 

water layers. The value of Mixer was varied and adjusted using a least-squares fitting procedure during 

the model calibration process (Section 2.5). The final (calibrated) value of Mixer was adjusted to 

0.012 m/h. 

A.2.1.4 Model Calibration 

Of the four key processes responsible for driving the flow of mass in the Marine Water Quality Model, 

values for river flow and tide were derived from measured data from the PEAA. The remaining two 

processes, horizontal dispersion and vertical mixing, which represent (in a very simplified manner) the 

aggregate effects of wind, currents, and turbulent water movements at scales ranging from fine to large, 

were calculated based on the equations 1 and 2. To ensure that the calculated values were representative 

of an actual site-specific condition, measured water salinity depth profiles were used in the calibration. 

The spatial extent and thickness of the measured surface water layers depends on the rates of horizontal 

and vertical dispersion in the environment. Therefore, the salinity data provide a means to calibrate the 

Marine Water Quality Model for those parameters. Measured salinity profiles were taken at various 

periods during the tidal cycle, at different times of the year, and in several different years. The salinity 

profiles, therefore, provide detailed snapshots of the mixing of salt water and freshwater in the vicinity of 

Kitimat Arm. 

A stepwise procedure was followed whereby one parameter (Dispers or Mixer) was varied while the 

second held constant. Dispers was varied by multiplying the initial value of 360 m/h by a constant 

ranging from 0.5 to 1.3 (n = 9 candidate values). Mixer was varied by multiplying the initial rate of 

0.01 m/h by a multiplier constant ranging from 0.5 to 2.1 (n = 17 candidate values). The objective of this 

procedure was to determine the parameter values for Mixer and Dispers that produced model salinity 

profiles that best fit (using a lowest sum of squares difference criterion for comparing the predicted to the 

measured salinities for surface and bottom water layers) the observed (measured) salinity profiles. A total 

of 153 different combinations of Dispers and Mixer values were tested in this way. The resulting values 

for the four best models are presented in Table A-2 with the best model parameter values being chosen for 

use in the marine water fate and transport model. As can be seen in Table A-2, the values of Mixer and 

Dispers varied little among the top four salinity calibration models, with minimal improvement in the sum 

of squares. The optimal calibration decreased Dispers to 0.6 times the original value of 360 m/h and also 

increased the vertical mixing coefficient (Mixer) to 1.2 times the original value of 0.01. Because the top 

four models had parameter values that varied minimally, the top model values can be assigned greater 

level of confidence than if there were alternative solutions that achieved a similar level of agreement with 

the observed data. As well, the small variation in the sum of squares suggests that the model was not 

sensitive to small variations in the parameter values chosen for Dispers and Mixer, and provides greater 

confidence in the robustness of the model. The final (optimized) calibration constants applied to the 

2010 Page A-15




salinity model were 0.6 for the Disper multiplier and 1.2 for the Mixer multiplier, which resulted in final 

model values of 216 m/h for Dispers and 0.012 for Mixer, respectively (Table A-2). 

Table A-2 Top Four (Least Sum of Squares) Salinity Calibration Models and 

the Resulting Values of Mixer, Dispers and Sum of Squares 

Dispersivity 

Multiplier 

Mixer Multiplier 

Dispers 

(m/h) 

Mixer 

(m/h) 

Sum of Squares 

0.6 1.2 216 0.012 3474 

0.7 1.1 252 0.011 3475 

0.7 1.2 252 0.012 3478 

0.6 1.3 216 0.013 3483 

A comparison of the resulting post-calibration model-predicted water salinity concentrations in both 

layers for each model compartment and the measured one-year normalized water salinity data is presented 

in Figure A-4. The one-year normalization was conducted to summarize salinity measurements collected 

between 1951 and 2007 into a representative year. This representative year assumes that, on average, data 

collected on a particular calendar day is independent of the year the measurement was taken. Once the 

calibration process was completed, the model was re-configured for contaminant mass (instead of 

salinity) and the contaminant source inputs (atmospheric deposition and reservoir excess discharge) were 

added. These changes had no effect on the model calibration. 

A.2.1.5 Liquid Effluent Emissions 

Runoff water originating at the Kitimat Terminal—as well as oily water recovered from the berth areas— 

will be sent initially to a firewater reservoir and from there to the impoundment reservoir. Before excess 

water is released to the marine environment, it will be treated so that the oil in water concentration is a 

maximum of 15 ppm. The discharge point will be roughly adjacent to the boundary between the K2 and T 

model compartments. The modelled discharge rate is approximately 100 m 3 /h. This is a conservative 

assumption based on annual precipitation over the PDA. The anticipated concentrations of COPC in the 

liquid effluent are presented in Appendix F. In general, water discharged on the rising tide is assumed to 

enter compartment K2, whereas water discharged on a falling tide is assumed to enter compartment T. 

This relationship is affected by the volume of freshwater entering the compartments and results in liquid 

effluent discharging into compartment T at the beginning and ending stages of a rising tide when the tidal 

effects are negated by the freshwater flow. 

A.2.1.6 Atmospheric emissions and deposition 

The air emission sources considered in the atmospheric deposition assessment included 16 hydrocarbon 

tanks (containing diluted bitumen, synthetic oil, or condensate), two large marine vessels while berthed 

(one oil VLCC class tanker and one Suezmax class condensate tanker), and six tugboats. The marine 

vessels were assumed to be fuelled by residual oil (No. 6 Bunker C) with a sulphur content of 2.7%. 

Model estimated loadings of COPC to the marine environment from these sources by atmospheric 

deposition were applied directly to each surface water compartment of the Marine Water Quality Model. 

Page A-16 2010

Figure A‐4 Water Model Salinity Calibration Results Comparing One‐year Normalized Measured Concentrations to Modelled Results 

Salinity (ppt) 

Average 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

Time of Year 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

K1‐Surf K1‐Bot K2‐Surf K2‐Bot T‐Surf T‐Bot 

CB‐Surf CB‐Bot EP‐Surf EP‐Bot AP‐Surf AP‐Bot 

KA‐Surf KA‐Bot CO‐Surf CO‐Bot NS‐Surf NS‐Bot 

DC‐Surf DC Surf DC‐Bot DC Bot Modelled K1 K1‐Surf Surf Modelled K1 K1‐Bot Bot Modelled K2 K2‐Surf Surf Modelled K2 K2‐Bot Bot 

Modelled T‐Surf Modelled T‐Bot Modelled EP‐Surf Modelled EP‐Bot Modelled AP‐Surf Modelled AP‐Bot 

Modelled KA‐Surf Modelled KA‐Bot Modelled CO‐Surf Modelled CO‐Bot Modelled NS‐Surf Modelled NS‐Bot




A.3 Additional Parameter Values Used in the Model 

A.3.1 Model Compartment Depths and Areas 

Each model compartment was assigned an area value (m 2 ) based on 2-dimensional surface areas and a 

volume value (m 3 ) based on a 5 m triangulated irregular network representation of the local bathymetry; 

each were calculated using GIS software (ESRI ArcGIS ArcINFO 9.2) (Table A-3). Each model 

compartment and layer was then assigned an average depth (m) calculated by dividing the compartment 

volume (m 3 ) by the surface area (m 2 ) of that compartment. Due to the steep local topography, the surface 

areas of the surface and bottom water layers were assumed to be the same. 

Table A-3 Marine Water Quality Model Compartment Depths and Surface 

Areas 

Compartment Surface Layer Depth 

(m) 

Bottom or Single 

Layer Depth 

(m) a 

Area 

(m 2 ) 

K1 8 40.9 18,516,000 

K2 8 120.5 9,276,800 

T 8 133.6 8,362,300 

CB 8 11.5 1,620,200 

EP 8 142 18,635,000 

CO 8 178.2 13,282,500 

AP 8 95.6 21,705,800 

KA 8 48.8 20,273,600 

NS 8 187 41,883,500 

DC 8 187 

15 b 

1×10 

NOTES: 

a 

This is the depth at low tide. 

b 

DC is defined as being extremely large in order to create a boundary condition such that COPCs 

exported from the PEAA do not return. 

A.3.1.1 Model Compartment Boundary Lengths 

The boundary lengths between model compartments determined the interface lengths and areas used in 

the calculation of the amount of mixing that occurred between compartments (in addition to tidal water 

movements and those driven by river flow). The boundary lengths were measured using GIS methods and 

are presented in Table A-4. The boundary areas (m 2 ) were then calculated as the product of the boundary 

length (m) and the tide-adjusted boundary depth (m). Tide effects were proportionally distributed based 

on the depth of the surface and bottom compartment (i.e., 8 m for surface compartments and as indicated 

in Table A-3 for bottom water compartments) and resulted in boundary areas being recalculated for every 

model time step. 

Page A-18 2010




Table A-4 Boundary Lengths between Model Compartments 

Boundary 

Length 

(m) 

K1:K2 3,280 

K2:T 2,760 

T:CB 960 

T:EP 2,520 

EP:CO 4,040 

CO:NS 3,210 

EP:AP 1,720 

AP:KA 980 

AP:NS 1,700 

NS:DC 6,280 

A.3.1.2 Modelling Time scale 

Project-related release of COPC into the marine environment was assumed to be constant over time. The 

Project is also assumed to become operational on January 1st of an unspecified year. The model reached a 

quasi-equilibrium state within days or weeks, depending on the compartment (see Figures A-5 to A-6 for 

illustrative results for naphthalene and vanadium), and cyclically fluctuated over time thereafter. 

Therefore, it was determined sufficient to model water concentrations over a period of three years and 

seven months. The first seven months allow the model to reach quasi-equilibrium. Model water 

concentrations over the next three-year period were then averaged on a daily basis to provide a one-year 

“typical” daily concentration cycle; this was then used as an input into the marine sediment fate and 

transport model (Appendix B). Statistical parameters (minimum, maximum, 95th UCL) for each COPC 

and compartment combination for the three year water concentration modelling period are provided in 

Table A-5. 

2010 Page A-19




Figure A-5 Vanadium Water Concentrations (mg/L) in Surface and Bottom 

Compartments 

Page A-20 2010




Figure A-6 Naphthalene Water Concentrations (mg/L) in Surface and Bottom 

Compartments 

2010 Page A-21

Table A‐5 Summary of Predicted COPC Water Concentrations in Each Model Compartment 

CoPC CAS # K1S K1B K2S K2B TS TB CBS CBB EPS EPB APS APB KAS KAB COS COB NSS NSB 

Min (mg/L) 6.01E‐06 9.09E‐07 7.19E‐06 7.37E‐07 7.46E‐06 5.80E‐07 7.36E‐06 8.00E‐07 4.88E‐06 3.96E‐07 2.61E‐06 2.49E‐07 2.06E‐06 3.29E‐07 3.53E‐06 2.63E‐07 1.82E‐06 1.27E‐07 

Benzene 71‐43‐2 Max (mg/L) 9.86E‐06 1.23E‐06 1.06E‐05 9.55E‐07 9.58E‐06 7.40E‐07 9.43E‐06 1.10E‐06 5.75E‐06 4.97E‐07 3.27E‐06 3.28E‐07 2.82E‐06 4.27E‐07 4.17E‐06 3.32E‐07 2.27E‐06 1.65E‐07 

95 UCL (mg/L) 8.36E‐06 1.08E‐06 9.29E‐06 8.51E‐07 8.64E‐06 6.66E‐07 8.55E‐06 9.47E‐07 5.40E‐06 4.49E‐07 2.99E‐06 2.88E‐07 2.50E‐06 3.78E‐07 3.88E‐06 2.99E‐07 2.03E‐06 1.45E‐07 


Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐4 Max (mg/L) 5.14E‐06 6.42E‐07 5.51E‐06 4.98E‐07 4.99E‐06 3.86E‐07 4.92E‐06 5.71E‐07 3.00E‐06 2.59E‐07 1.71E‐06 1.71E‐07 1.47E‐06 2.22E‐07 2.17E‐06 1.73E‐07 1.18E‐06 8.59E‐08 



Toluene 108‐88‐3 Max (mg/L) 2.72E‐05 3.40E‐06 2.92E‐05 2.64E‐06 2.65E‐05 2.05E‐06 2.61E‐05 3.03E‐06 1.59E‐05 1.37E‐06 9.04E‐06 9.07E‐07 7.79E‐06 1.18E‐06 1.15E‐05 9.17E‐07 6.27E‐06 4.56E‐07 



Xylenes (tot) 8026‐09‐3 Max (mg/L) 2.62E‐05 3.27E‐06 2.81E‐05 2.54E‐06 2.54E‐05 1.97E‐06 2.51E‐05 2.91E‐06 1.53E‐05 1.32E‐06 8.69E‐06 8.72E‐07 7.49E‐06 1.13E‐06 1.11E‐05 8.82E‐07 6.03E‐06 4.38E‐07 



Aromatic >C8‐C10 65820‐81‐0 Max (mg/L) 1.71E‐05 2.13E‐06 1.83E‐05 1.65E‐06 1.66E‐05 1.28E‐06 1.63E‐05 1.90E‐06 9.95E‐06 8.60E‐07 5.66E‐06 5.68E‐07 4.88E‐06 7.38E‐07 7.22E‐06 5.74E‐07 3.93E‐06 2.85E‐07 















Aliphatic >C6‐C8 65760‐60‐8 Max (mg/L) 1.40E‐04 1.74E‐05 1.50E‐04 1.35E‐05 1.36E‐04 1.05E‐05 1.34E‐04 1.55E‐05 8.14E‐05 7.03E‐06 4.63E‐05 4.65E‐06 3.99E‐05 6.04E‐06 5.90E‐05 4.70E‐06 3.21E‐05 2.33E‐06 


















Acenaphthene 83‐32‐9 Max (mg/L) 1.47E‐11 1.72E‐12 1.27E‐11 1.30E‐12 1.03E‐11 1.01E‐12 1.02E‐11 1.38E‐12 7.77E‐12 6.87E‐13 5.15E‐12 4.81E‐13 4.62E‐12 6.46E‐13 6.46E‐12 4.68E‐13 4.12E‐12 2.41E‐13 



Acenaphthylene 208‐96‐8 Max (mg/L) 1.76E‐13 2.07E‐14 1.52E‐13 1.56E‐14 1.23E‐13 1.21E‐14 1.22E‐13 1.65E‐14 9.31E‐14 8.24E‐15 6.18E‐14 5.77E‐15 5.54E‐14 7.75E‐15 7.75E‐14 5.61E‐15 4.94E‐14 2.89E‐15 

95 UCL (mg/L) 1.55E‐13 1.83E‐14 1.36E‐13 1.41E‐14 1.12E‐13 1.09E‐14 1.11E‐13 1.45E‐14 8.66E‐14 7.50E‐15 5.66E‐14 5.08E‐15 4.90E‐14 6.86E‐15 7.19E‐14 5.07E‐15 4.48E‐14 2.55E‐15

TableA5SummaryofPredictedCOPCWaterConcentrationsinEachModelCompartment (cont'd) 

CoPC CAS# K1S K1B K2S K2B TS TB CBS CBB EPS EPB APS APB KAS KAB COS COB NSS NSB 

Anthracene 120127 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

3.08E09 

5.04E09 

4.28E09 

4.65E10 

6.30E10 

5.50E10 

3.68E09 

5.41E09 

4.75E09 

3.77E10 

4.89E10 

4.35E10 

3.81E09 

4.90E09 

4.42E09 

2.97E10 

3.79E10 

3.40E10 

3.76E09 

4.83E09 

4.37E09 

4.09E10 

5.61E10 

4.85E10 

2.49E09 

2.94E09 

2.76E09 

2.03E10 

2.54E10 

2.30E10 

1.33E09 

1.67E09 

1.53E09 

1.27E10 

1.68E10 

1.47E10 

1.06E09 

1.44E09 

1.28E09 

1.68E10 

2.18E10 

1.93E10 

1.81E09 

2.13E09 

1.99E09 

1.35E10 

1.70E10 

1.53E10 

9.32E10 

1.16E09 

1.04E09 

6.48E11 

8.44E11 

7.44E11 

Fluorene 86737 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

7.00E09 

1.15E08 

9.73E09 

1.06E09 

1.43E09 

1.25E09 

8.37E09 

1.23E08 

1.08E08 

8.58E10 

1.11E09 

9.90E10 

8.68E09 

1.11E08 

1.00E08 

6.75E10 

8.62E10 

7.74E10 

8.56E09 

1.10E08 

9.94E09 

9.30E10 

1.28E09 

1.10E09 

5.67E09 

6.69E09 

6.29E09 

4.61E10 

5.78E10 

5.22E10 

3.03E09 

3.81E09 

3.48E09 

2.89E10 

3.82E10 

3.35E10 

2.40E09 

3.28E09 

2.91E09 

3.82E10 

4.96E10 

4.39E10 

4.11E09 

4.85E09 

4.52E09 

3.06E10 

3.86E10 

3.48E10 

2.12E09 

2.64E09 

2.36E09 

1.47E10 

1.92E10 

1.69E10 

1Methylnaphthalene 90120 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

8.11E08 

1.33E07 

1.13E07 

1.23E08 

1.66E08 

1.45E08 

9.70E08 

1.43E07 

1.25E07 

9.95E09 

1.29E08 

1.15E08 

1.01E07 

1.29E07 

1.17E07 

7.83E09 

9.99E09 

8.98E09 

9.93E08 

1.27E07 

1.15E07 

1.08E08 

1.48E08 

1.28E08 

6.58E08 

7.76E08 

7.29E08 

5.35E09 

6.70E09 

6.06E09 

3.52E08 

4.42E08 

4.03E08 

3.35E09 

4.43E09 

3.88E09 

2.78E08 

3.81E08 

3.38E08 

4.43E09 

5.76E09 

5.09E09 

4.77E08 

5.63E08 

5.24E08 

3.55E09 

4.48E09 

4.03E09 

2.46E08 

3.06E08 

2.74E08 

1.71E09 

2.23E09 

1.96E09 

2Methylnaphthalene 91576 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

6.26E08 

1.03E07 

8.71E08 

9.47E09 

1.28E08 

1.12E08 

7.49E08 

1.10E07 

9.68E08 

7.68E09 

9.95E09 

8.87E09 

7.77E08 

9.98E08 

9.00E08 

6.04E09 

7.71E09 

6.93E09 

7.67E08 

9.83E08 

8.90E08 

8.33E09 

1.14E08 

9.87E09 

5.08E08 

5.99E08 

5.63E08 

4.13E09 

5.18E09 

4.68E09 

2.72E08 

3.41E08 

3.11E08 

2.59E09 

3.42E09 

3.00E09 

2.15E08 

2.94E08 

2.61E08 

3.42E09 

4.44E09 

3.93E09 

3.68E08 

4.35E08 

4.05E08 

2.74E09 

3.46E09 

3.11E09 

1.90E08 

2.36E08 

2.12E08 

1.32E09 

1.72E09 

1.52E09 

Naphthalene 91203 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.31E07 

2.15E07 

1.82E07 

1.98E08 

2.68E08 

2.34E08 

1.57E07 

2.30E07 

2.02E07 

1.61E08 

2.08E08 

1.85E08 

1.62E07 

2.08E07 

1.88E07 

1.26E08 

1.61E08 

1.45E08 

1.60E07 

2.05E07 

1.86E07 

1.74E08 

2.39E08 

2.06E08 

1.06E07 

1.25E07 

1.18E07 

8.63E09 

1.08E08 

9.78E09 

5.68E08 

7.13E08 

6.51E08 

5.41E09 

7.15E09 

6.27E09 

4.50E08 

6.15E08 

5.46E08 

7.16E09 

9.29E09 

8.23E09 

7.70E08 

9.09E08 

8.46E08 

5.74E09 

7.23E09 

6.51E09 

3.97E08 

4.95E08 

4.43E08 

2.76E09 

3.59E09 

3.17E09 

Phenanthrene 85018 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

4.76E09 

7.81E09 

6.62E09 

7.20E10 

9.75E10 

8.52E10 

5.69E09 

8.38E09 

7.35E09 

5.84E10 

7.56E10 

6.74E10 

5.90E09 

7.58E09 

6.84E09 

4.59E10 

5.86E10 

5.27E10 

5.83E09 

7.47E09 

6.77E09 

6.33E10 

8.68E10 

7.50E10 

3.86E09 

4.55E09 

4.28E09 

3.14E10 

3.93E10 

3.56E10 

2.07E09 

2.59E09 

2.37E09 

1.97E10 

2.60E10 

2.28E10 

1.63E09 

2.23E09 

1.98E09 

2.60E10 

3.38E10 

2.99E10 

2.80E09 

3.30E09 

3.07E09 

2.09E10 

2.63E10 

2.37E10 

1.44E09 

1.80E09 

1.61E09 

1.00E10 

1.31E10 

1.15E10 

Fluoranthene 206440 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

2.40E12 

3.37E12 

2.96E12 

3.02E13 

3.96E13 

3.51E13 

2.16E12 

2.91E12 

2.60E12 

2.38E13 

2.99E13 

2.70E13 

1.84E12 

2.36E12 

2.14E12 

1.85E13 

2.31E13 

2.09E13 

1.82E12 

2.34E12 

2.13E12 

2.41E13 

3.15E13 

2.78E13 

1.47E12 

1.78E12 

1.66E12 

1.28E13 

1.58E13 

1.43E13 

9.40E13 

1.18E12 

1.08E12 

8.43E14 

1.10E13 

9.72E14 

7.70E13 

1.06E12 

9.36E13 

1.14E13 

1.48E13 

1.31E13 

1.24E12 

1.48E12 

1.38E12 

8.61E14 

1.07E13 

9.71E14 

7.59E13 

9.46E13 

8.57E13 

4.27E14 

5.53E14 

4.89E14 

Benzo(a)anthracene 56553 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.37E09 

2.25E09 

1.91E09 

2.08E10 

2.81E10 

2.46E10 

1.64E09 

2.42E09 

2.12E09 

1.68E10 

2.18E10 

1.94E10 

1.70E09 

2.19E09 

1.97E09 

1.33E10 

1.69E10 

1.52E10 

1.68E09 

2.15E09 

1.95E09 

1.83E10 

2.50E10 

2.16E10 

1.11E09 

1.31E09 

1.23E09 

9.05E11 

1.13E10 

1.03E10 

5.96E10 

7.48E10 

6.83E10 

5.68E11 

7.50E11 

6.57E11 

4.71E10 

6.44E10 

5.72E10 

7.51E11 

9.75E11 

8.63E11 

8.07E10 

9.53E10 

8.87E10 

6.02E11 

7.58E11 

6.82E11 

4.16E10 

5.18E10 

4.64E10 

2.89E11 

3.77E11 

3.32E11 

Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.24E11 

1.74E11 

1.53E11 

1.56E12 

2.04E12 

1.81E12 

1.12E11 

1.50E11 

1.34E11 

1.23E12 

1.55E12 

1.40E12 

9.50E12 

1.22E11 

1.11E11 

9.56E13 

1.19E12 

1.08E12 

9.42E12 

1.21E11 

1.10E11 

1.24E12 

1.63E12 

1.44E12 

7.60E12 

9.20E12 

8.56E12 

6.60E13 

8.14E13 

7.41E13 

4.86E12 

6.11E12 

5.59E12 

4.36E13 

5.70E13 

5.02E13 

3.98E12 

5.48E12 

4.84E12 

5.89E13 

7.66E13 

6.78E13 

6.39E12 

7.65E12 

7.10E12 

4.45E13 

5.55E13 

5.01E13 

3.92E12 

4.89E12 

4.43E12 

2.20E13 

2.86E13 

2.52E13 

Benzo(e)pyrene 192972 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

4.66E13 

6.55E13 

5.75E13 

5.87E14 

7.68E14 

6.82E14 

4.20E13 

5.65E13 

5.04E13 

4.62E14 

5.81E14 

5.25E14 

3.57E13 

4.57E13 

4.16E13 

3.60E14 

4.48E14 

4.07E14 

3.54E13 

4.55E13 

4.14E13 

4.67E14 

6.13E14 

5.40E14 

2.86E13 

3.46E13 

3.22E13 

2.48E14 

3.06E14 

2.78E14 

1.83E13 

2.30E13 

2.10E13 

1.64E14 

2.14E14 

1.89E14 

1.50E13 

2.06E13 

1.82E13 

2.22E14 

2.88E14 

2.55E14 

2.40E13 

2.88E13 

2.67E13 

1.67E14 

2.09E14 

1.88E14 

1.47E13 

1.84E13 

1.66E13 

8.29E15 

1.07E14 

9.49E15 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205992 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

7.33E13 

1.03E12 

9.06E13 

9.24E14 

1.21E13 

1.07E13 

6.61E13 

8.89E13 

7.94E13 

7.27E14 

9.15E14 

8.26E14 

5.62E13 

7.20E13 

6.55E13 

5.66E14 

7.05E14 

6.40E14 

5.58E13 

7.17E13 

6.51E13 

7.36E14 

9.65E14 

8.50E14 

4.50E13 

5.45E13 

5.07E13 

3.91E14 

4.82E14 

4.38E14 

2.88E13 

3.62E13 

3.31E13 

2.58E14 

3.37E14 

2.97E14 

2.35E13 

3.24E13 

2.86E13 

3.49E14 

4.53E14 

4.02E14 

3.78E13 

4.53E13 

4.21E13 

2.63E14 

3.28E14 

2.97E14 

2.32E13 

2.89E13 

2.62E13 

1.31E14 

1.69E14 

1.49E14 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 191242 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.12E12 

1.57E12 

1.38E12 

1.41E13 

1.85E13 

1.64E13 

1.01E12 

1.36E12 

1.21E12 

1.11E13 

1.40E13 

1.26E13 

8.59E13 

1.10E12 

1.00E12 

8.65E14 

1.08E13 

9.78E14 

8.52E13 

1.09E12 

9.94E13 

1.12E13 

1.47E13 

1.30E13 

6.87E13 

8.32E13 

7.73E13 

5.96E14 

7.36E14 

6.70E14 

4.39E13 

5.52E13 

5.05E13 

3.94E14 

5.15E14 

4.54E14 

3.59E13 

4.95E13 

4.37E13 

5.33E14 

6.92E14 

6.13E14 

5.78E13 

6.92E13 

6.42E13 

4.02E14 

5.01E14 

4.53E14 

3.54E13 

4.42E13 

4.00E13 

1.99E14 

2.58E14 

2.28E14 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

7.33E13 

1.03E12 

9.06E13 

9.24E14 

1.21E13 

1.07E13 

6.61E13 

8.89E13 

7.94E13 

7.27E14 

9.15E14 

8.26E14 

5.62E13 

7.20E13 

6.55E13 

5.66E14 

7.05E14 

6.40E14 

5.58E13 

7.17E13 

6.51E13 

7.36E14 

9.65E14 

8.50E14 

4.50E13 

5.45E13 

5.07E13 

3.91E14 

4.82E14 

4.38E14 

2.88E13 

3.62E13 

3.31E13 

2.58E14 

3.37E14 

2.97E14 

2.35E13 

3.24E13 

2.86E13 

3.49E14 

4.53E14 

4.02E14 

3.78E13 

4.53E13 

4.21E13 

2.63E14 

3.28E14 

2.97E14 

2.32E13 

2.89E13 

2.62E13 

1.31E14 

1.69E14 

1.49E14 

Chrysene 218019 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.18E12 

1.66E12 

1.46E12 

1.49E13 

1.94E13 

1.73E13 

1.06E12 

1.43E12 

1.28E12 

1.17E13 

1.47E13 

1.33E13 

9.04E13 

1.16E12 

1.05E12 

9.11E14 

1.13E13 

1.03E13 

8.97E13 

1.15E12 

1.05E12 

1.18E13 

1.55E13 

1.37E13 

7.24E13 

8.76E13 

8.15E13 

6.28E14 

7.75E14 

7.05E14 

4.62E13 

5.81E13 

5.32E13 

4.15E14 

5.43E14 

4.78E14 

3.79E13 

5.22E13 

4.60E13 

5.61E14 

7.29E14 

6.46E14 

6.09E13 

7.29E13 

6.76E13 

4.24E14 

5.28E14 

4.77E14 

3.73E13 

4.65E13 

4.21E13 

2.10E14 

2.72E14 

2.40E14 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53703 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

8.27E13 

1.16E12 

1.02E12 

1.04E13 

1.36E13 

1.21E13 

7.45E13 

1.00E12 

8.96E13 

8.20E14 

1.03E13 

9.32E14 

6.34E13 

8.13E13 

7.39E13 

6.39E14 

7.96E14 

7.23E14 

6.29E13 

8.09E13 

7.35E13 

8.30E14 

1.09E13 

9.59E14 

5.08E13 

6.15E13 

5.72E13 

4.41E14 

5.44E14 

4.95E14 

3.24E13 

4.08E13 

3.73E13 

2.91E14 

3.81E14 

3.35E14 

2.66E13 

3.66E13 

3.23E13 

3.94E14 

5.12E14 

4.53E14 

4.27E13 

5.11E13 

4.75E13 

2.97E14 

3.70E14 

3.35E14 

2.62E13 

3.26E13 

2.96E13 

1.47E14 

1.91E14 

1.69E14 

Indeno(123cd)pyrene 193395 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.06E12 

1.49E12 

1.31E12 

1.34E13 

1.75E13 

1.55E13 

9.55E13 

1.29E12 

1.15E12 

1.05E13 

1.32E13 

1.19E13 

8.13E13 

1.04E12 

9.47E13 

8.19E14 

1.02E13 

9.26E14 

8.07E13 

1.04E12 

9.42E13 

1.06E13 

1.39E13 

1.23E13 

6.51E13 

7.88E13 

7.32E13 

5.65E14 

6.97E14 

6.34E14 

4.16E13 

5.23E13 

4.78E13 

3.73E14 

4.88E14 

4.30E14 

3.40E13 

4.69E13 

4.14E13 

5.04E14 

6.56E14 

5.81E14 

5.47E13 

6.55E13 

6.08E13 

3.81E14 

4.75E14 

4.29E14 

3.36E13 

4.18E13 

3.79E13 

1.89E14 

2.45E14 

2.16E14 

Pyrene 129000 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

5.75E09 

9.42E09 

7.99E09 

8.69E10 

1.18E09 

1.03E09 

6.87E09 

1.01E08 

8.88E09 

7.05E10 

9.13E10 

8.13E10 

7.13E09 

9.15E09 

8.25E09 

5.55E10 

7.08E10 

6.36E10 

7.03E09 

9.02E09 

8.17E09 

7.64E10 

1.05E09 

9.05E10 

4.66E09 

5.50E09 

5.17E09 

3.79E10 

4.75E10 

4.29E10 

2.49E09 

3.13E09 

2.86E09 

2.38E10 

3.14E10 

2.75E10 

1.97E09 

2.70E09 

2.39E09 

3.14E10 

4.08E10 

3.61E10 

3.38E09 

3.99E09 

3.71E09 

2.52E10 

3.17E10 

2.85E10 

1.74E09 

2.17E09 

1.94E09 

1.21E10 

1.58E10 

1.39E10

TableA5SummaryofPredictedCOPCWaterConcentrationsinEachModelCompartment (cont'd) 

CoPC CAS# K1S K1B K2S K2B TS TB CBS CBB EPS EPB APS APB KAS KAB COS COB NSS NSB 

2,4Dimethylphenol 105679 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

6.01E10 

9.86E10 

8.37E10 

9.09E11 

1.23E10 

1.08E10 

7.19E10 

1.06E09 

9.29E10 

7.37E11 

9.55E11 

8.51E11 

7.46E10 

9.58E10 

8.64E10 

5.80E11 

7.41E11 

6.66E11 

7.36E10 

9.44E10 

8.55E10 

8.00E11 

1.10E10 

9.48E11 

4.88E10 

5.75E10 

5.41E10 

3.96E11 

4.97E11 

4.49E11 

2.61E10 

3.27E10 

2.99E10 

2.49E11 

3.28E11 

2.88E11 

2.06E10 

2.82E10 

2.50E10 

3.29E11 

4.27E11 

3.78E11 

3.53E10 

4.17E10 

3.88E10 

2.63E11 

3.32E11 

2.99E11 

1.82E10 

2.27E10 

2.03E10 

1.27E11 

1.65E11 

1.46E11 

2,4Dinitrophenol 51285 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

2.28E09 

3.73E09 

3.17E09 

3.44E10 

4.66E10 

4.08E10 

2.72E09 

4.01E09 

3.52E09 

2.79E10 

3.62E10 

3.22E10 

2.83E09 

3.63E09 

3.27E09 

2.20E10 

2.80E10 

2.52E10 

2.79E09 

3.57E09 

3.24E09 

3.03E10 

4.15E10 

3.59E10 

1.85E09 

2.18E09 

2.05E09 

1.50E10 

1.88E10 

1.70E10 

9.88E10 

1.24E09 

1.13E09 

9.41E11 

1.24E10 

1.09E10 

7.82E10 

1.07E09 

9.48E10 

1.24E10 

1.62E10 

1.43E10 

1.34E09 

1.58E09 

1.47E09 

9.97E11 

1.26E10 

1.13E10 

6.90E10 

8.59E10 

7.69E10 

4.80E11 

6.25E11 

5.51E11 

Phenol 108952 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

4.11E10 

6.75E10 

5.72E10 

6.22E11 

8.43E11 

7.36E11 

4.92E10 

7.24E10 

6.36E10 

5.04E11 

6.54E11 

5.82E11 

5.10E10 

6.56E10 

5.91E10 

3.97E11 

5.07E11 

4.55E11 

5.04E10 

6.46E10 

5.85E10 

5.47E11 

7.50E11 

6.48E11 

3.34E10 

3.94E10 

3.70E10 

2.71E11 

3.40E11 

3.07E11 

1.78E10 

2.24E10 

2.04E10 

1.70E11 

2.25E11 

1.97E11 

1.41E10 

1.93E10 

1.71E10 

2.25E11 

2.92E11 

2.58E11 

2.42E10 

2.85E10 

2.66E10 

1.80E11 

2.27E11 

2.04E11 

1.25E10 

1.55E10 

1.39E10 

8.67E12 

1.13E11 

9.96E12 

1,2,4Trichlorobenzene 120821 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.94E06 

3.18E06 

2.69E06 

2.93E07 

3.97E07 

3.47E07 

2.32E06 

3.41E06 

2.99E06 

2.38E07 

3.08E07 

2.74E07 

2.40E06 

3.09E06 

2.78E06 

1.87E07 

2.39E07 

2.14E07 

2.37E06 

3.04E06 

2.75E06 

2.58E07 

3.53E07 

3.05E07 

1.57E06 

1.85E06 

1.74E06 

1.28E07 

1.60E07 

1.45E07 

8.40E07 

1.05E06 

9.63E07 

8.01E08 

1.06E07 

9.27E08 

6.65E07 

9.09E07 

8.07E07 

1.06E07 

1.37E07 

1.22E07 

1.14E06 

1.34E06 

1.25E06 

8.49E08 

1.07E07 

9.62E08 

5.87E07 

7.31E07 

6.55E07 

4.08E08 

5.31E08 

4.69E08 

1,3,5Trimethylbenzene 108678 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.14E06 

1.86E06 

1.58E06 

1.72E07 

2.33E07 

2.04E07 

1.36E06 

2.00E06 

1.76E06 

1.39E07 

1.81E07 

1.61E07 

1.41E06 

1.81E06 

1.63E06 

1.10E07 

1.40E07 

1.26E07 

1.39E06 

1.78E06 

1.62E06 

1.51E07 

2.07E07 

1.79E07 

9.22E07 

1.09E06 

1.02E06 

7.49E08 

9.40E08 

8.49E08 

4.93E07 

6.19E07 

5.65E07 

4.70E08 

6.21E08 

5.44E08 

3.90E07 

5.34E07 

4.74E07 

6.21E08 

8.07E08 

7.14E08 

6.68E07 

7.89E07 

7.34E07 

4.98E08 

6.28E08 

5.65E08 

3.45E07 

4.29E07 

3.84E07 

2.40E08 

3.12E08 

2.75E08 

Barium 7440393 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

2.13E09 

3.15E09 

2.73E09 

2.86E10 

3.80E10 

3.35E10 

2.17E09 

3.00E09 

2.66E09 

2.28E10 

2.91E10 

2.61E10 

2.01E09 

2.54E09 

2.33E09 

1.78E10 

2.25E10 

2.03E10 

1.99E09 

2.53E09 

2.31E09 

2.38E10 

3.19E10 

2.78E10 

1.45E09 

1.74E09 

1.62E09 

1.22E10 

1.52E10 

1.38E10 

8.59E10 

1.08E09 

9.87E10 

7.90E11 

1.04E10 

9.12E11 

6.93E10 

9.52E10 

8.42E10 

1.06E10 

1.38E10 

1.22E10 

1.14E09 

1.36E09 

1.27E09 

8.20E11 

1.03E10 

9.27E11 

6.54E10 

8.13E10 

7.35E10 

4.01E11 

5.21E11 

4.60E11 

Boron 7440428 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

5.09E10 

8.34E10 

7.07E10 

7.69E11 

1.04E10 

9.10E11 

6.08E10 

8.95E10 

7.86E10 

6.24E11 

8.08E11 

7.20E11 

6.31E10 

8.10E10 

7.31E10 

4.91E11 

6.26E11 

5.63E11 

6.23E10 

7.98E10 

7.23E10 

6.76E11 

9.27E11 

8.01E11 

4.13E10 

4.87E10 

4.57E10 

3.35E11 

4.20E11 

3.80E11 

2.21E10 

2.77E10 

2.53E10 

2.10E11 

2.78E11 

2.43E11 

1.75E10 

2.39E10 

2.12E10 

2.78E11 

3.61E11 

3.19E11 

2.99E10 

3.53E10 

3.28E10 

2.23E11 

2.81E11 

2.53E11 

1.54E10 

1.92E10 

1.72E10 

1.07E11 

1.40E11 

1.23E11 

Cadmium 7440439 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

2.07E10 

2.92E10 

2.57E10 

2.63E11 

3.44E11 

3.05E11 

1.89E10 

2.55E10 

2.28E10 

2.07E11 

2.61E11 

2.35E11 

1.63E10 

2.08E10 

1.90E10 

1.61E11 

2.01E11 

1.83E11 

1.62E10 

2.07E10 

1.88E10 

2.10E11 

2.76E11 

2.43E11 

1.29E10 

1.55E10 

1.45E10 

1.11E11 

1.37E11 

1.25E11 

8.14E11 

1.02E10 

9.36E11 

7.32E12 

9.58E12 

8.44E12 

6.65E11 

9.16E11 

8.09E11 

9.89E12 

1.29E11 

1.14E11 

1.07E10 

1.28E10 

1.19E10 

7.49E12 

9.34E12 

8.44E12 

6.52E11 

8.13E11 

7.36E11 

3.71E12 

4.80E12 

4.24E12 

Manganese 7439965 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.94E09 

2.78E09 

2.43E09 

2.51E10 

3.32E10 

2.93E10 

1.87E09 

2.55E09 

2.26E09 

1.99E10 

2.53E10 

2.28E10 

1.67E09 

2.12E09 

1.94E09 

1.56E10 

1.95E10 

1.77E10 

1.65E09 

2.11E09 

1.92E09 

2.06E10 

2.73E10 

2.39E10 

1.26E09 

1.51E09 

1.41E09 

1.07E10 

1.33E10 

1.21E10 

7.67E10 

9.62E10 

8.81E10 

6.98E11 

9.15E11 

8.05E11 

6.23E10 

8.56E10 

7.57E10 

9.39E11 

1.22E10 

1.08E10 

1.02E09 

1.21E09 

1.13E09 

7.20E11 

8.99E11 

8.12E11 

5.99E10 

7.45E10 

6.74E10 

3.54E11 

4.59E11 

4.05E11 

Molybdenum 7439987 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.03E08 

1.68E08 

1.43E08 

1.55E09 

2.10E09 

1.83E09 

1.22E08 

1.79E08 

1.58E08 

1.26E09 

1.63E09 

1.45E09 

1.26E08 

1.62E08 

1.46E08 

9.88E10 

1.26E09 

1.13E09 

1.25E08 

1.60E08 

1.45E08 

1.36E09 

1.86E09 

1.61E09 

8.29E09 

9.79E09 

9.20E09 

6.75E10 

8.46E10 

7.65E10 

4.46E09 

5.60E09 

5.11E09 

4.24E10 

5.60E10 

4.91E10 

3.53E09 

4.83E09 

4.29E09 

5.61E10 

7.29E10 

6.45E10 

6.04E09 

7.13E09 

6.64E09 

4.49E10 

5.66E10 

5.09E10 

3.13E09 

3.90E09 

3.49E09 

2.16E10 

2.81E10 

2.48E10 

Nickel 7440020 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.16E07 

1.79E07 

1.54E07 

1.64E08 

2.19E08 

1.92E08 

1.26E07 

1.80E07 

1.59E07 

1.31E08 

1.69E08 

1.51E08 

1.23E07 

1.56E07 

1.43E07 

1.03E08 

1.30E08 

1.18E08 

1.22E07 

1.55E07 

1.41E07 

1.40E08 

1.89E08 

1.64E08 

8.51E08 

1.01E07 

9.48E08 

7.06E09 

8.81E09 

7.98E09 

4.82E08 

6.05E08 

5.53E08 

4.50E09 

5.93E09 

5.20E09 

3.86E08 

5.29E08 

4.69E08 

6.00E09 

7.79E09 

6.90E09 

6.47E08 

7.67E08 

7.13E08 

4.71E09 

5.92E09 

5.33E09 

3.55E08 

4.40E08 

3.97E08 

2.29E09 

2.98E09 

2.63E09 

Tin 7440315 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

2.95E09 

4.84E09 

4.10E09 

4.46E10 

6.04E10 

5.28E10 

3.53E09 

5.19E09 

4.56E09 

3.62E10 

4.69E10 

4.18E10 

3.66E09 

4.70E09 

4.24E09 

2.85E10 

3.63E10 

3.27E10 

3.61E09 

4.63E09 

4.19E09 

3.92E10 

5.38E10 

4.65E10 

2.39E09 

2.82E09 

2.65E09 

1.94E10 

2.44E10 

2.20E10 

1.28E09 

1.61E09 

1.47E09 

1.22E10 

1.61E10 

1.41E10 

1.01E09 

1.38E09 

1.23E09 

1.61E10 

2.09E10 

1.85E10 

1.73E09 

2.05E09 

1.91E09 

1.29E10 

1.63E10 

1.47E10 

8.94E10 

1.11E09 

9.97E10 

6.22E11 

8.09E11 

7.14E11 

Vanadium 7440622 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

3.63E07 

5.52E07 

4.75E07 

5.03E08 

6.72E08 

5.91E08 

3.87E07 

5.45E07 

4.82E07 

4.03E08 

5.17E08 

4.63E08 

3.72E07 

4.69E07 

4.30E07 

3.16E08 

4.00E08 

3.61E08 

3.67E07 

4.66E07 

4.26E07 

4.26E08 

5.75E08 

5.00E08 

2.60E07 

3.09E07 

2.90E07 

2.17E08 

2.70E08 

2.45E08 

1.49E07 

1.87E07 

1.71E07 

1.39E08 

1.83E08 

1.60E08 

1.20E07 

1.64E07 

1.45E07 

1.85E08 

2.40E08 

2.13E08 

2.00E07 

2.37E07 

2.20E07 

1.45E08 

1.82E08 

1.64E08 

1.11E07 

1.38E07 

1.24E07 

7.05E09 

9.16E09 

8.09E09 

Zinc 7440666 

Min(mg/L) 

Max(mg/L) 

95UCL(mg/L) 

1.46E08 

2.05E08 

1.80E08 

1.84E09 

2.41E09 

2.14E09 

1.32E08 

1.77E08 

1.58E08 

1.45E09 

1.82E09 

1.65E09 

1.12E08 

1.44E08 

1.31E08 

1.13E09 

1.40E09 

1.28E09 

1.12E08 

1.43E08 

1.30E08 

1.47E09 

1.92E09 

1.69E09 

8.97E09 

1.09E08 

1.01E08 

7.78E10 

9.60E10 

8.73E10 

5.72E09 

7.19E09 

6.58E09 

5.13E10 

6.72E10 

5.91E10 

4.68E09 

6.45E09 

5.69E09 

6.94E10 

9.02E10 

7.99E10 

7.53E09 

9.01E09 

8.36E09 

5.24E10 

6.54E10 

5.91E10 

4.61E09 

5.74E09 

5.20E09 

2.60E10 

3.37E10 

2.97E10



Attachment A1: Marine Water Quality Model Equations and Documentation 

(In Stella® Format) 

Attachment A1 Marine Water Quality Model 

Equations and Documentation 

(In Stella ® Format) 

2010 Page A1-1





Parameters and equations for each model stock, flow and converter are listed below with the associated 

document, which provides a rationale for the values used, and an explanation of their function. 

AP_Bot(t) = AP_Bot(t - dt) + (EPB:APB + KAB:APB + APS:APB - APB:NSB) * dt 

INIT AP_Bot = Vol_APB * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of APB (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 

Initial COPC Concentration = 0 kg/m3 

INFLOWS: 

EPB:APB = (EP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*Vol_EPB/Area_EP*1365/LVol_EPB) - 

(AP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(Vol_EPB/Area_EP*1365)/LVol_APB) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between EPB and APB is driven by turbulent dispersion, represented 

as the product of Dispers (m/h), the concentration of the two compartments (kg/m3) and the crosssectional 

area of the interface between APB and EPB (1365 m * depth of the cell). Mass flux between 

EPB and APB in any time step is based on the fractional water transfer between these two compartments. 

KAB:APB = (KA_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(965*MIN(TotDepth_KAB,TotDepth_APB))/Vol_KAB) - 

(AP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(965*MIN(TotDepth_KAB,TotDepth_APB))/Vol_APB) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_KAB*Area_KA)>0 

THEN (KA_Bot * (DTide_KAB*Area_KA)/LVol_KAB) 

ELSE (AP_Bot * (DTide_KAB*Area_KA)/LVol_APB) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between KAB and APB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between KAB and APB is also driven by 

turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers Bot (m/h), the concentration of the two 

compartments (kg/m3) and the cross-sectional area of the interface between KAB and APB (965 m * 

depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between KAB and APB in any time step is based on the fractional 

water transfer between these two compartments. 

APS:APB = (AP_Surf*Mixer*Area_AP/Vol_APS) - (AP_Bot*Mixer*Area_AP/LVol_APB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "AP" is 

driven by vertical mixing between the two compartments. The direction of the mass flow is controled by 

the concentration differential of the two compartments (kg/m3), the mixer rate (m/h), and the surface area 

of the compartment (m2). 

2010 Page A1-3





OUTFLOWS: 

APB:NSB = (AP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(1645*MIN(TotDepth_APB,TotDepth_NSB))/Vol_APB) - 

(NS_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(1645*MIN(TotDepth_APB,TotDepth_NSB))/Vol_NSB) 

+ 

( IF (DTide_KAB*Area_KA + DTide_APB*Area_AP)>0 

THEN (AP_Bot * (DTide_KAB*Area_KA + DTide_APB*Area_AP)/LVol_APB) 

ELSE (NS_Bot * (DTide_KAB*Area_KA + DTide_APB*Area_AP)/LVol_NSB) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between APB and NSB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between APB and NSB is also driven by 

turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers Bot (m/h) and the cross-sectional area of the 

interface between APB and NSB (1645 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between APB and NSB in 

any time step is based on the fractional water transfer between these two compartments. 

AP_Surf(t) = AP_Surf(t - dt) + (EPS:APS + KAS:APS + Dep:APS - APS:NSS - APS:APB) * dt 

INIT AP_Surf = Vol_APS * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of APS (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

EPS:APS = (EP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(1365*MIN(TotDepth_APS,TotDepth_EPS))/Vol_EPS) - 

(AP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(1365*MIN(TotDepth_APS,TotDepth_EPS))/Vol_APS) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between EPS and APS is driven by turbulent dispersion, represented 


area of the interface between APS and EPS (1365 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux 

between EPS and APS in any time step is based on the fractional water transfer between these two 

compartments. 

KAS:APS = (KA_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(965*MIN(TotDepth_KAS,TotDepth_APS))/Vol_KAS) - 

(AP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(965*MIN(TotDepth_KAS,TotDepth_APS))/Vol_APS) 

+ (IF (DTide_KAS * (Area_KA) + KA_Flow) >0 

THEN (KA_Surf * (DTide_KAS * (Area_KA) + KA_Flow)/LVol_KAS) 

ELSE (AP_Surf * (DTide_KAS * (Area_KA) + KA_Flow)/LVol_APS) ) 

Page A-4 2010





DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between KAS and APS is driven by KA_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (KAS/APS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into KAS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between KAS and APS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 

Dispers (m/h), the concentration of the two compartments (kg/m3) and the cross-sectional area of the 

interface between KAS and APS (965 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between KAS and APS in 


Dep:APS = TotDep_APS*Area_AP*(1/8760) * (1/(1000 * 1000 * 1000)) 

DOCUMENT: Dep:APS is the mass (kg) of COPC entering APS each time step (h).through air 

deposition 

1/8760 is used to convert years into hours. 

1/1,000,000,000 is used to convert ug into kg. 

OUTFLOWS: 

APS:NSS = (AP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(1645*MIN(TotDepth_APS,TotDepth_NSS))/Vol_APS) - 

(NS_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(1645*MIN(TotDepth_APS,TotDepth_NSS))/Vol_NSS) 

+ (IF ((DTide_KAS*Area_KA + DTide_APS*Area_AP) + AP_Flow) >0 

THEN (AP_Surf * ((DTide_KAS*Area_KA + DTide_APS*Area_AP) + AP_Flow)/LVol_APS) 

ELSE (NS_Surf * ((DTide_KAS*Area_KA + DTide_APS*Area_AP) + AP_Flow)/LVol_NSS)) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between APS and NSS is driven by AP_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (APS/NSS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into APS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between APS and NSS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between APS and NSS (1645 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between APS and NSS in 


APS:APB = (AP_Surf*Mixer*Area_AP/Vol_APS) - (AP_Bot*Mixer*Area_AP/LVol_APB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "AP" is 




2010 Page A1-5





CB_Bot(t) = CB_Bot(t - dt) + (CBS:CBB - CBB:TB) * dt 

INIT CB_Bot = Vol_CBB * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of CBB (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

CBS:CBB = (CB_Surf*Mixer*Area_CB/Vol_CBS) - (CB_Bot*Mixer*Area_CB/LVol_CBB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "CB" is 




OUTFLOWS: 

CBB:TB = (CB_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(955*MIN(TotDepth_CBB,TotDepth_TB))/Vol_CBB) - 

(T_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(955*MIN(TotDepth_CBB,TotDepth_TB))/Vol_TB) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_CBB*Area_CB)>0 

THEN (CB_Bot * (DTide_CBB*Area_CB)/LVol_CBB) 

ELSE (T_Bot * (DTide_CBB*Area_CB)/LVol_TB) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between CBB and TB is driven by tide, represented as the change in 

volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between CBB and TB is also driven by 


interface between CBB and TB (955 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between CBB and TB in any 

time step is based on the fractional water transfer between these two compartments. 

CB_Surf(t) = CB_Surf(t - dt) + (Dep:CBS - CBS:TS - CBS:CBB) * dt 

INIT CB_Surf = Vol_CBS * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of CBS (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


Page A-6 2010





INFLOWS: 

Dep:CBS = TotDep_CBS*Area_CB*(1/8760) * (1/(1000 * 1000 * 1000)) 

DOCUMENT: Dep:CBS is the mass (kg) of COPC entering CBS each time step (h) through air 

deposition. 



OUTFLOWS: 

CBS:TS = (CB_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(955*MIN(TotDepth_CBS,TotDepth_TS))/Vol_CBS) - 

(T_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(955*MIN(TotDepth_CBS,TotDepth_TS))/Vol_TS) 

+ 

(IF ((DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + CB_Flow) >0 

THEN (CB_Surf * ((DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + CB_Flow)/LVol_CBS) 

ELSE (T_Surf * ((DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + CB_Flow)/LVol_TS) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between CBS and TS is driven by CB_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (CBS/TS) are visualized as being a pipe and water flow 

in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into CBS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). Flow of 

mass between CBS and TS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers 

(m/h), the concentration of the two compartments (kg/m3) and the cross-sectional area of the interface 

between CBS and TS (955 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between CBS and TS in any time step 

is based on the fractional water transfer between these two compartments. 

CBS:CBB = (CB_Surf*Mixer*Area_CB/Vol_CBS) - (CB_Bot*Mixer*Area_CB/LVol_CBB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "CB" is 




CO_Bot(t) = CO_Bot(t - dt) + (EPB:COB + COS:COB - COB:NSB) * dt 

INIT CO_Bot = Vol_COB * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of COB (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


2010 Page A1-7





INFLOWS: 

EPB:COB = (EP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(4028*MIN(TotDepth_EPB,TotDepth_COB))/Vol_EPB) - 

(CO_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(4028*MIN(TotDepth_EPB,TotDepth_COB))/Vol_COB) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + DTide_TB*Area_T + 

DTide_EPB*Area_EP)>0 

THEN EP_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_EPB*Area_EP)/LVol_EPB 

ELSE CO_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_EPB*Area_EP)/LVol_COB ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between EPB and COB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between EPB and COB is also driven by 


interface between EPB and COB (4028 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between EPB and COB in 


COS:COB = (CO_Surf*Mixer*Area_CO/Vol_COS) - (CO_Bot*Mixer*Area_CO/LVol_COB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "CO" is 




OUTFLOWS: 

COB:NSB = (CO_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_COB,TotDepth_NSB))/Vol_COB) - 

(NS_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_COB,TotDepth_NSB))/Vol_NSB) 

+ 


DTide_EPB*Area_EP + DTide_COB*Area_CO)>0 

THEN CO_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_EPB*Area_EP + DTide_COB*Area_CO)/LVol_COB 

ELSE 

NS_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_EPB*Area_EP + DTide_COB*Area_CO)/LVol_NSB ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between COB and NSB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between COB and NSB is also driven by 


Page A-8 2010





interface between COB and NSB (3185 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between COB and NSB in 


CO_Surf(t) = CO_Surf(t - dt) + (EPS:COS + Dep:COS - COS:NSS - COS:COB) * dt 

INIT CO_Surf = Vol_COS * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of COS (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

EPS:COS = (EP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(4028*MIN(TotDepth_EPS,TotDepth_COS))/Vol_EPS) - 

(CO_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(4028*MIN(TotDepth_EPS,TotDepth_COS))/Vol_COS) 

+ 

(IF ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + DTide_CBS*Area_CB + 

DTide_EPS*Area_EP) + EP_Flow) >0 

THEN EP_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB + DTide_EPS*Area_EP) + EP_Flow)/LVol_EPS 

ELSE CO_Surf *((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB + DTide_EPS*Area_EP) + EP_Flow)/LVol_COS) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between EPS and COS is driven by EP_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (EPS/COS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into EPS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between EPS and COS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between EPS and COS (4028 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between EPS and COS in 


Dep:COS = TotDep_COS*Area_CO*(1/8760) * (1/(1000 * 1000 * 1000)) 

DOCUMENT: Dep:COS is the mass (kg) of COPC entering COS each time step (h) through air 

deposition. 



2010 Page A1-9





OUTFLOWS: 

COS:NSS = (CO_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_COS,TotDepth_NSS))/Vol_COS) - 

(NS_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_COS,TotDepth_NSS))/Vol_NSS) 

+ 


DTide_EPS*Area_EP + DTide_COS*Area_CO) + CO_Flow) >0 

THEN CO_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB + DTide_EPS*Area_EP + DTide_COS*Area_CO) + CO_Flow) /LVol_COS 

ELSE 

NS_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB + DTide_EPS*Area_EP + DTide_COS*Area_CO) + CO_Flow) /LVol_NSS ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between COS and NSS is driven by CO_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (COS/NSS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into COS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between COS and NSS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between COS and NSS (3185 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between COS and NSS in 


COS:COB = (CO_Surf*Mixer*Area_CO/Vol_COS) - (CO_Bot*Mixer*Area_CO/LVol_COB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "CO" is 




DC_Bot(t) = DC_Bot(t - dt) + (NSB:DCB + DCS:DCB) * dt 

INIT DC_Bot = Vol_DCB * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of DCB (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

NSB:DCB = (NS_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_NSB,TotDepth_DCB))/Vol_NSB) - 

(DC_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_NSB,TotDepth_DCB))/Vol_DCB) 

+ 

Page A-10 2010





(IF (DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_EPB*Area_EP + DTide_COB*Area_CO + DTide_KAB*Area_KA+DTide_APB*Area_AP + 

DTide_NSB*Area_NS)>0 

THEN NS_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_TB*Area_T + 

DTide_CBB*Area_CB + DTide_EPB*Area_EP + DTide_COB*Area_CO + 

DTide_KAB*Area_KA+DTide_APB*Area_AP + DTide_NSB*Area_NS)/LVol_NSB 

ELSE DC_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_TB*Area_T + 


DTide_KAB*Area_KA+DTide_APB*Area_AP + DTide_NSB*Area_NS)/LVol_DCB) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between NSB and DCB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between NSB and DCB is also driven by 


interface between NSB and DCB (3185 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between NSB and DCB in 


DCS:DCB = ((DC_Surf*Mixer*Area_DC/Vol_DCS) - (DC_Bot*Mixer*Area_DC/LVol_DCB))*0 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "DC" is 




DC_Surf(t) = DC_Surf(t - dt) + (NSS:DCS - DCS:DCB) * dt 

INIT DC_Surf = Vol_DCS * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of DCS (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

NSS:DCS = (NS_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_NSS,TotDepth_DCS))/Vol_NSS) - 

(DC_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_NSS,TotDepth_DCS))/Vol_DCS) 

+ 

2010 Page A1-11






DTide_EPS*Area_EP + DTide_COS*Area_CO+ DTide_KAS*Area_KA + DTide_APS*Area_AP + 

DTide_NSS*Area_NS) + NS_Flow) >0 

THEN NS_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB + DTide_EPS*Area_EP + DTide_COS*Area_CO+ DTide_KAS*Area_KA + 

DTide_APS*Area_AP + DTide_NSS*Area_NS) + NS_Flow)/LVol_NSS 

ELSE DC_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 


DTide_APS*Area_AP + DTide_NSS*Area_NS) + NS_Flow)/LVol_DCS ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between COS and DCS is driven by CO_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (COS/DCS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 


Flow of mass between COS and DCS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between COS and DCS (3185 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between COS and DCS in 


OUTFLOWS: 

DCS:DCB = ((DC_Surf*Mixer*Area_DC/Vol_DCS) - (DC_Bot*Mixer*Area_DC/LVol_DCB))*0 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "DC" is 




EP_Bot(t) = EP_Bot(t - dt) + (TB:EPB + EPS:EPB - EPB:COB - EPB:APB) * dt 

INIT EP_Bot = Vol_EPB * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of EPB (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

TB:EPB = (T_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(2520*MIN(TotDepth_TB,TotDepth_EPB))/Vol_TB) - 

(EP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(2520*MIN(TotDepth_TB,TotDepth_EPB))/Vol_EPB) 

Page A-12 2010





+ 

(IF (DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + DTide_TB*Area_T)>0 

THEN T_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T)/LVol_TB 

ELSE EP_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T)/LVol_EPB ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between TB and EPB is driven by tide, represented as the change in 

volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between TB and EPB is also driven by 


interface between TB and EPB (2520 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between TB and EPB in any 


EPS:EPB = (EP_Surf*Mixer*Area_EP/Vol_EPS) - (EP_Bot*Mixer*Area_EP/LVol_EPB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "EP" is 




OUTFLOWS: 

EPB:COB = (EP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(4028*MIN(TotDepth_EPB,TotDepth_COB))/Vol_EPB) - 

(CO_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(4028*MIN(TotDepth_EPB,TotDepth_COB))/Vol_COB) 

+ 


DTide_EPB*Area_EP)>0 

THEN EP_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_EPB*Area_EP)/LVol_EPB 

ELSE CO_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_EPB*Area_EP)/LVol_COB ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between EPB and COB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between EPB and COB is also driven by 


interface between EPB and COB (4028 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between EPB and COB in 


EPB:APB = (EP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*Vol_EPB/Area_EP*1365/LVol_EPB) - 

(AP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(Vol_EPB/Area_EP*1365)/LVol_APB) 

2010 Page A1-13





DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between EPB and APB is driven by turbulent dispersion, represented 


area of the interface between APB and EPB (1365 m * depth of the cell). Mass flux between 

EPB and APB in any time step is based on the fractional water transfer between these two compartments. 

EP_Surf(t) = EP_Surf(t - dt) + (TS:EPS + Dep:EPS - EPS:COS - EPS:APS - EPS:EPB) * dt 

INIT EP_Surf = Vol_EPS * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of EPS (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

TS:EPS = (T_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(2520*MIN(TotDepth_TS,TotDepth_EPS))/Vol_TS) - 

(EP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(2520*MIN(TotDepth_TS,TotDepth_EPS))/Vol_EPS) 

+ 

(IF ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1+DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + 

T_Flow) >0 

THEN T_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1+DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + T_Flow)/LVol_TS 

ELSE EP_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1+DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + T_Flow)/LVol_EPS) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between TS and EPS is driven by T_Flow (water flow from surface 

drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (TS/EPS) are visualized as being a pipe and water flow in the 

pipe is a direct function of water flow into TS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). Flow of mass 

between TS and EPS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers (m/h), 

the concentration of the two compartments (kg/m3) and the cross-sectional area of the interface between 

TS and EPS (2520 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between TS and EPS in any time step is based 

on the fractional water transfer between these two compartments. 

Dep:EPS = TotDep_EPS*Area_EP*(1/8760) * (1/(1000 * 1000 * 1000)) 

DOCUMENT: Dep:EPS is the mass (kg) of COPC entering EPS each time step (h) through air 

deposition. 



Page A-14 2010





OUTFLOWS: 

EPS:COS = (EP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(4028*MIN(TotDepth_EPS,TotDepth_COS))/Vol_EPS) - 

(CO_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(4028*MIN(TotDepth_EPS,TotDepth_COS))/Vol_COS) 

+ 


DTide_EPS*Area_EP) + EP_Flow) >0 

THEN EP_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB + DTide_EPS*Area_EP) + EP_Flow)/LVol_EPS 

ELSE CO_Surf *((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB + DTide_EPS*Area_EP) + EP_Flow)/LVol_COS) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between EPS and COS is driven by EP_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (EPS/COS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into EPS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between EPS and COS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between EPS and COS (4028 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between EPS and COS in 


EPS:APS = (EP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(1365*MIN(TotDepth_APS,TotDepth_EPS))/Vol_EPS) - 

(AP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(1365*MIN(TotDepth_APS,TotDepth_EPS))/Vol_APS) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between EPS and APS is driven by turbulent dispersion, represented 


area of the interface between APS and EPS (1365 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux 

between EPS and APS in any time step is based on the fractional water transfer between these two 

compartments. 

EPS:EPB = (EP_Surf*Mixer*Area_EP/Vol_EPS) - (EP_Bot*Mixer*Area_EP/LVol_EPB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "EP" is 




K1_Bot(t) = K1_Bot(t - dt) + (K1S:K1B - K1B:K2B) * dt 

INIT K1_Bot = Vol_K1B * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of K1B (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


2010 Page A1-15





INFLOWS: 

K1S:K1B = (K1_Surf*Mixer*Area_K1/Vol_K1S) - (K1_Bot*Mixer*Area_K1/LVol_K1B) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "K1" is 




OUTFLOWS: 

K1B:K2B = (K1_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3278*MIN(TotDepth_K1B,TotDepth_K2B))/Vol_K1B) - 

(K2_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3278*MIN(TotDepth_K1B,TotDepth_K2B))/Vol_K2B) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_K1B*Area_K1)>0 

THEN (K1_Bot * (DTide_K1B*Area_K1)/LVol_K1B) 

ELSE (K2_Bot * (DTide_K1B*Area_K1)/LVol_K2B) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between K1B and K2B is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between K1B and K2B is also driven by 

turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers (m/h), the concentration of the two 

compartments (kg/m3) and the cross-sectional area of the interface between K1B and K2B (3278 m * 

depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between K1B and K2B in any time step is based on the fractional 


K1_Surf(t) = K1_Surf(t - dt) + (Dep:K1S - K1S:K2S - K1S:K1B) * dt 

INIT K1_Surf = Vol_K1S * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of K1S (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

Dep:K1S = TotDep_K1S*Area_K1*(1/8760) * (1/(1000 * 1000 * 1000)) 

DOCUMENT: Dep:K1S is the mass (kg) of COPC entering K1S each time step (h) through air 

deposition. 



Page A-16 2010





OUTFLOWS: 

K1S:K2S = (K1_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3278*MIN(TotDepth_K1S,TotDepth_K2S))/Vol_K1S) - 

(K2_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3278*MIN(TotDepth_K1S,TotDepth_K2S))/Vol_K2S) 

+ 

(IF ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1) + K1_Flow) >0 

THEN (K1_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1) + K1_Flow)/LVol_K1S) 

ELSE (K2_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1) + K1_Flow)/LVol_K2S) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between K1S and K2S is driven by K1_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (K1S/K2S) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into K1S from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between K1S and K2S is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between K1S and K2S (3278 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between K1S and K2S in 







K2_Bot(t) = K2_Bot(t - dt) + (K1B:K2B + K2S:K2B - K2B:TB) * dt 

INIT K2_Bot = Vol_K2B * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of K2B (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

K1B:K2B = (K1_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3278*MIN(TotDepth_K1B,TotDepth_K2B))/Vol_K1B) - 

(K2_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3278*MIN(TotDepth_K1B,TotDepth_K2B))/Vol_K2B) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_K1B*Area_K1)>0 

THEN (K1_Bot * (DTide_K1B*Area_K1)/LVol_K1B) 

2010 Page A1-17





ELSE (K2_Bot * (DTide_K1B*Area_K1)/LVol_K2B) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between K1B and K2B is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between K1B and K2B is also driven by 

turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers (m/h), the concentration of the two 

compartments (kg/m3) and the cross-sectional area of the interface between K1B and K2B (3278 m * 

depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between K1B and K2B in any time step is based on the fractional 







OUTFLOWS: 

K2B:TB = (K2_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(2759*MIN(TotDepth_K2B,TotDepth_TB))/Vol_K2B) - 

(T_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(2759*MIN(TotDepth_K2B,TotDepth_TB))/Vol_TB) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2)>0 

THEN K2_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2)/LVol_K2B 

ELSE T_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2)/LVol_TB ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between K2B and TB is driven by tide, represented as the change in 

volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between K2B and TB is also driven by 


interface between K2B and TB (2759 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between K2B and TB in any 


K2_Surf(t) = K2_Surf(t - dt) + (K1S:K2S + Eff:K2S + Dep:K2S - K2S:TS - K2S:K2B) * dt 

INIT K2_Surf = Vol_K2S * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of K2S (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


Page A-18 2010





INFLOWS: 

K1S:K2S = (K1_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3278*MIN(TotDepth_K1S,TotDepth_K2S))/Vol_K1S) - 

(K2_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3278*MIN(TotDepth_K1S,TotDepth_K2S))/Vol_K2S) 

+ 

(IF ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1) + K1_Flow) >0 

THEN (K1_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1) + K1_Flow)/LVol_K1S) 

ELSE (K2_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1) + K1_Flow)/LVol_K2S) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between K1S and K2S is driven by K1_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (K1S/K2S) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into K1S from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between K1S and K2S is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between K1S and K2S (3278 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between K1S and K2S in 


Eff:K2S = LiqEff_Conc * LiqEff_Vol * 0.001 * 0.001 * 

(IF ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2) + K2_Flow) < 0 

THEN 1 

ELSE 0) 

DOCUMENT: COPC mass (kg) from the liquid effluent discharge pipe enters K2S when the net water 

movement between K2S and TS is from TS to K2S and is the product of the volume of effluent 

(LiqEff_Vol) and its concentration (LiqEff_Conc). 

LiqEff_Conc is measured in mg/m3 

LiqEff_Vol is measured in m3/hour 

Eff:K2S is thus measured in: 

mg/m3 * m3/hour * 0.0001 g/mg * 0.001 kg/g = kg/hour 

Dep:K2S = TotDep_K2S*Area_K2*(1/8760) * (1/(1000 * 1000 * 1000)) 

DOCUMENT: Dep:K2S is the mass (kg) of COPC entering K2S each time step (h) through air 

deposition. 



2010 Page A1-19





OUTFLOWS: 

K2S:TS = (K2_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(2759*MIN(TotDepth_K2S,TotDepth_TS))/Vol_K2S) - 

(T_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(2759*MIN(TotDepth_K2S,TotDepth_TS))/Vol_TS) 

+ 

(IF ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2) + K2_Flow) >0 

THEN K2_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2) + K2_Flow) /LVol_K2S 

ELSE T_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2) + K2_Flow) /LVol_TS) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between K2S and TS is driven by K2_Flow (water flow from surface 

drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (K2S/TS) are visualized as being a pipe and water flow in the 

pipe is a direct function of water flow into K2S from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). Flow of mass 

between K2S and TS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers (m/h), 


K2S and TS (2759 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between K2S and TS in any time step is based 







KA_Bot(t) = KA_Bot(t - dt) + (KAS:KAB - KAB:APB) * dt 

INIT KA_Bot = Vol_KAB * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of KAB (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

KAS:KAB = (KA_Surf*Mixer*Area_KA/Vol_KAS) - (KA_Bot*Mixer*Area_KA/LVol_KAB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "KA" is 




Page A-20 2010





OUTFLOWS: 

KAB:APB = (KA_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(965*MIN(TotDepth_KAB,TotDepth_APB))/Vol_KAB) - 

(AP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(965*MIN(TotDepth_KAB,TotDepth_APB))/Vol_APB) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_KAB*Area_KA)>0 

THEN (KA_Bot * (DTide_KAB*Area_KA)/LVol_KAB) 

ELSE (AP_Bot * (DTide_KAB*Area_KA)/LVol_APB) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between KAB and APB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between KAB and APB is also driven by 

turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers Bot (m/h), the concentration of the two 

compartments (kg/m3) and the cross-sectional area of the interface between KAB and APB (965 m * 

depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between KAB and APB in any time step is based on the fractional 


KA_Surf(t) = KA_Surf(t - dt) + (Dep:KAS - KAS:APS - KAS:KAB) * dt 

INIT KA_Surf = Vol_KAS * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of KAS (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

Dep:KAS = TotDep_KAS*Area_KA*(1/8760) * (1/(1000 * 1000 * 1000)) 

DOCUMENT: Dep:KAS is the mass (kg) of COPC entering KAS each time step (h) through air 

deposition. 



OUTFLOWS: 

KAS:APS = (KA_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(965*MIN(TotDepth_KAS,TotDepth_APS))/Vol_KAS) - 

(AP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(965*MIN(TotDepth_KAS,TotDepth_APS))/Vol_APS) 

+ (IF (DTide_KAS * (Area_KA) + KA_Flow) >0 

THEN (KA_Surf * (DTide_KAS * (Area_KA) + KA_Flow)/LVol_KAS) 

2010 Page A1-21





ELSE (AP_Surf * (DTide_KAS * (Area_KA) + KA_Flow)/LVol_APS) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between KAS and APS is driven by KA_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (KAS/APS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into KAS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between KAS and APS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between KAS and APS (965 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between KAS and APS in 


KAS:KAB = (KA_Surf*Mixer*Area_KA/Vol_KAS) - (KA_Bot*Mixer*Area_KA/LVol_KAB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "KA" is 




NS_Bot(t) = NS_Bot(t - dt) + (COB:NSB + APB:NSB + NSS:NSB - NSB:DCB) * dt 

INIT NS_Bot = Vol_NSB * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of NSB (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

COB:NSB = (CO_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_COB,TotDepth_NSB))/Vol_COB) - 

(NS_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_COB,TotDepth_NSB))/Vol_NSB) 

+ 


DTide_EPB*Area_EP + DTide_COB*Area_CO)>0 

THEN CO_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_EPB*Area_EP + DTide_COB*Area_CO)/LVol_COB 

ELSE 

NS_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_EPB*Area_EP + DTide_COB*Area_CO)/LVol_NSB ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between COB and NSB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between COB and NSB is also driven by 

Page A-22 2010






interface between COB and NSB (3185 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between COB and NSB in 


APB:NSB = (AP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(1645*MIN(TotDepth_APB,TotDepth_NSB))/Vol_APB) - 

(NS_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(1645*MIN(TotDepth_APB,TotDepth_NSB))/Vol_NSB) 

+ 

( IF (DTide_KAB*Area_KA + DTide_APB*Area_AP)>0 

THEN (AP_Bot * (DTide_KAB*Area_KA + DTide_APB*Area_AP)/LVol_APB) 

ELSE (NS_Bot * (DTide_KAB*Area_KA + DTide_APB*Area_AP)/LVol_NSB) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between APB and NSB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between APB and NSB is also driven by 


interface between APB and NSB (1645 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between APB and NSB in 


NSS:NSB = (NS_Surf*Mixer*Area_NS/Vol_NSS) - (NS_Bot*Mixer*Area_NS/LVol_NSB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "NS" is 




OUTFLOWS: 

NSB:DCB = (NS_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_NSB,TotDepth_DCB))/Vol_NSB) - 

(DC_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_NSB,TotDepth_DCB))/Vol_DCB) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_TB*Area_T + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_EPB*Area_EP + DTide_COB*Area_CO + DTide_KAB*Area_KA+DTide_APB*Area_AP + 

DTide_NSB*Area_NS)>0 

THEN NS_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_TB*Area_T + 


DTide_KAB*Area_KA+DTide_APB*Area_AP + DTide_NSB*Area_NS)/LVol_NSB 

ELSE DC_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_TB*Area_T + 


DTide_KAB*Area_KA+DTide_APB*Area_AP + DTide_NSB*Area_NS)/LVol_DCB ) 

2010 Page A1-23





DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between NSB and DCB is driven by tide, represented as the change 

in volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between NSB and DCB is also driven by 


interface between NSB and DCB (3185 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between NSB and DCB in 


NS_Surf(t) = NS_Surf(t - dt) + (COS:NSS + APS:NSS + Dep:NSS - NSS:DCS - NSS:NSB) * dt 

INIT NS_Surf = Vol_NSS * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of NSS (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

COS:NSS = (CO_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_COS,TotDepth_NSS))/Vol_COS) - 

(NS_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_COS,TotDepth_NSS))/Vol_NSS) 

+ 


DTide_EPS*Area_EP + DTide_COS*Area_CO) + CO_Flow) >0 

THEN CO_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB + DTide_EPS*Area_EP + DTide_COS*Area_CO) + CO_Flow) /LVol_COS 

ELSE 

NS_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB + DTide_EPS*Area_EP + DTide_COS*Area_CO) + CO_Flow) /LVol_NSS ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between COS and NSS is driven by CO_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (COS/NSS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 


Flow of mass between COS and NSS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between COS and NSS (3185 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between COS and NSS in 


APS:NSS = (AP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(1645*MIN(TotDepth_APS,TotDepth_NSS))/Vol_APS) - 

(NS_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(1645*MIN(TotDepth_APS,TotDepth_NSS))/Vol_NSS) 

+ (IF ((DTide_KAS*Area_KA + DTide_APS*Area_AP) + AP_Flow) >0 

Page A-24 2010





THEN (AP_Surf * ((DTide_KAS*Area_KA + DTide_APS*Area_AP) + AP_Flow)/LVol_APS) 

ELSE (NS_Surf * ((DTide_KAS*Area_KA + DTide_APS*Area_AP) + AP_Flow)/LVol_NSS) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between APS and NSS is driven by AP_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (APS/NSS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into APS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between APS and NSS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between APS and NSS (1645 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between APS and NSS in 


Dep:NSS = TotDep_NSS*Area_NS*(1/8760) * (1/(1000 * 1000 * 1000)) 

DOCUMENT: Dep:NSS is the mass (kg) of COPC entering NSS each time step (h) through air 

deposition. 



OUTFLOWS: 

NSS:DCS = (NS_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_NSS,TotDepth_DCS))/Vol_NSS) - 

(DC_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(3185*MIN(TotDepth_NSS,TotDepth_DCS))/Vol_DCS) 

+ 


DTide_EPS*Area_EP + DTide_COS*Area_CO+ DTide_KAS*Area_KA + DTide_APS*Area_AP + 

DTide_NSS*Area_NS) + NS_Flow) >0 

THEN NS_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 


DTide_APS*Area_AP + DTide_NSS*Area_NS) + NS_Flow)/LVol_NSS 

ELSE DC_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 


DTide_APS*Area_AP + DTide_NSS*Area_NS) + NS_Flow)/LVol_DCS ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between NSS and DCS is driven by NS_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (NSS/DCS) are visualized as being a pipe and water 

flow in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into NSS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). 

Flow of mass between NSS and DCS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of 


interface between NSS and DCS (3185 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between NSS and DCS in 


2010 Page A1-25





NSS:NSB = (NS_Surf*Mixer*Area_NS/Vol_NSS) - (NS_Bot*Mixer*Area_NS/LVol_NSB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "NS" is 




T_Bot(t) = T_Bot(t - dt) + (K2B:TB + CBB:TB + TS:TB - TB:EPB) * dt 

INIT T_Bot = Vol_TB * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of TB (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


INFLOWS: 

K2B:TB = (K2_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(2759*MIN(TotDepth_K2B,TotDepth_TB))/Vol_K2B) - 

(T_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(2759*MIN(TotDepth_K2B,TotDepth_TB))/Vol_TB) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2)>0 

THEN K2_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2)/LVol_K2B 

ELSE T_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2)/LVol_TB ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between K2B and TB is driven by tide, represented as the change in 

volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between K2B and TB is also driven by 


interface between K2B and TB (2759 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between K2B and TB in any 


CBB:TB = (CB_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(955*MIN(TotDepth_CBB,TotDepth_TB))/Vol_CBB) - 

(T_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(955*MIN(TotDepth_CBB,TotDepth_TB))/Vol_TB) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_CBB*Area_CB)>0 

THEN (CB_Bot * (DTide_CBB*Area_CB)/LVol_CBB) 

ELSE (T_Bot * (DTide_CBB*Area_CB)/LVol_TB) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between CBB and TB is driven by tide, represented as the change in 

volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between CBB and TB is also driven by 

Page A-26 2010






interface between CBB and TB (955 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between CBB and TB in any 


TS:TB = (T_Surf*Mixer*Area_T/Vol_TS) - (T_Bot*Mixer*Area_T/LVol_TB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "T" is 




OUTFLOWS: 

TB:EPB = (T_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(2520*MIN(TotDepth_TB,TotDepth_EPB))/Vol_TB) - 

(EP_Bot*Dispers_Bot*(2520*MIN(TotDepth_TB,TotDepth_EPB))/Vol_EPB) 

+ 

(IF (DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + DTide_TB*Area_T)>0 

THEN T_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T)/LVol_TB 

ELSE EP_Bot*(DTide_K1B*Area_K1 + DTide_K2B*Area_K2 + DTide_CBB*Area_CB + 

DTide_TB*Area_T)/LVol_EPB ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between TB and EPB is driven by tide, represented as the change in 

volume of the cells as tidal elevation changes. Flow of mass between TB and EPB is also driven by 


interface between TB and EPB (2520 m * depth of bottom layer). Mass flux between TB and EPB in any 


T_Surf(t) = T_Surf(t - dt) + (K2S:TS + CBS:TS + Eff:TS + Dep:TS - TS:EPS - TS:TB) * dt 

INIT T_Surf = Vol_TS * 0 

DOCUMENT: Starting mass of COPC = vol of TS (m3) * Initial COPC Concentration 

where: 


2010 Page A1-27





INFLOWS: 

K2S:TS = (K2_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(2759*MIN(TotDepth_K2S,TotDepth_TS))/Vol_K2S) - 

(T_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(2759*MIN(TotDepth_K2S,TotDepth_TS))/Vol_TS) 

+ 

(IF ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2) + K2_Flow) >0 

THEN K2_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2) + K2_Flow) /LVol_K2S 

ELSE T_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2) + K2_Flow) /LVol_TS) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between K2S and TS is driven by K2_Flow (water flow from surface 

drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (K2S/TS) are visualized as being a pipe and water flow in the 

pipe is a direct function of water flow into K2S from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). Flow of mass 

between K2S and TS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers (m/h), 


K2S and TS (2759 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between K2S and TS in any time step is based 


CBS:TS = (CB_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(955*MIN(TotDepth_CBS,TotDepth_TS))/Vol_CBS) - 

(T_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(955*MIN(TotDepth_CBS,TotDepth_TS))/Vol_TS) 

+ 

(IF ((DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + CB_Flow) >0 

THEN (CB_Surf * ((DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + CB_Flow)/LVol_CBS) 

ELSE (T_Surf * ((DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + CB_Flow)/LVol_TS) ) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between CBS and TS is driven by CB_Flow (water flow from 

surface drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (CBS/TS) are visualized as being a pipe and water flow 

in the pipe is a direct function of water flow into CBS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). Flow of 

mass between CBS and TS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers 

(m/h), the concentration of the two compartments (kg/m3) and the cross-sectional area of the interface 

between CBS and TS (955 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between CBS and TS in any time step 

is based on the fractional water transfer between these two compartments. 

Eff:TS = LiqEff_Conc * LiqEff_Vol * 0.001 * 0.001 * 

(IF ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1 + DTide_K2S*Area_K2) + K2_Flow) >=0 

THEN 1 

ELSE 0) 

DOCUMENT: COPC mass (kg) from the liquid effluent discharge pipe enters TS when the net water 

movement between K2S and TS is from K2S to TS and is the product of the volume of effluent 

(LiqEff_Vol) and its concentration (LiqEff_Conc). 

Page A-28 2010





LiqEff_Conc is measured in mg/m3 

LiqEff_Vol is measured in m3/hour 

Eff:TS is thus measured in:mg/m3 * m3/hour * 0.0001 g/mg * 0.001 kg/g = kg/hour 

Dep:TS = TotDep_TS*Area_T*(1/8760) * (1/(1000 * 1000 * 1000)) 

DOCUMENT: Dep:TS is the mass (kg) of COPC entering TS each time step (h) through air deposition. 



OUTFLOWS: 

TS:EPS = (T_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(2520*MIN(TotDepth_TS,TotDepth_EPS))/Vol_TS) - 

(EP_Surf*Dispers_Surf*(2520*MIN(TotDepth_TS,TotDepth_EPS))/Vol_EPS) 

+ 

(IF ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1+DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + 

T_Flow) >0 

THEN T_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1+DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + T_Flow)/LVol_TS 

ELSE EP_Surf * ((DTide_K1S*Area_K1+DTide_K2S*Area_K2 + DTide_TS*Area_T + 

DTide_CBS*Area_CB) + T_Flow)/LVol_EPS) 

DOCUMENT: Flow of mass (kg/h) between TS and EPS is driven by T_Flow (water flow from surface 

drainage - m³/h). The two compartments (TS/EPS) are visualized as being a pipe and water flow in the 

pipe is a direct function of water flow into TS from overland flow (rivers, streams, etc.). Flow of mass 

between TS and EPS is also driven by turbulent dispersion, represented as the product of Dispers (m/h), 


TS and EPS (2520 m * depth of surface layer). Mass flux between TS and EPS in any time step is based 


TS:TB = (T_Surf*Mixer*Area_T/Vol_TS) - (T_Bot*Mixer*Area_T/LVol_TB) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of contaminant mass (kg/h) between the surface and bottom layer of "T" is 




2010 Page A1-29





Analyte_Master = 35 

DOCUMENT: Analyte Master is used to select the COPC to be run in the model. Other "Lookup 

Tables" use this trigger to feed the correct constants (e.g., effluent concentrations, deposition rates) to the 

model. 

The lookup tables are set up to accomodate 48 COPC and hence Analyte Master varies from 1 to 48. 

AP_Flow = KR_Flow * 3600 * (1043.2 + 91.5)/1900 

DOCUMENT: Surface Runoff into "APS" (m³/h) is calculated by prorating the daily mean flow rates 

(m³/s) for the Kitemat River measured below Hirsch Creek by the corresponding drainage areas as 

calculated using GIS methods. 

Where: 

3600 is used to convert from m³/s to m³/h 

(1043.2 + 91.5) is the cumulative drainage area into "APS" (km²) 

1900 in the drainage area at the gauging station (km²) 

Area_AP = 21705795 

DOCUMENT: Area of "AP" is 21705795 m², based on measurement using GIS software. 

Area_CB = 1620222 

DOCUMENT: Area of "CB" is 1620222 m², based on measurement using GIS software. 

Area_CO = 13282532 

DOCUMENT: Area of "CO" is 13282532 m², based on measurement using GIS software. 

Area_DC = 10E15 

DOCUMENT: Area of "DC" is assumed to 10E15 m² and is indented to represent the almost infinite sink 

of the world's oceans 

Area_EP = 18634959 

DOCUMENT: Area of "EP" is 18634959 m², based on measurement using GIS software. 

Page A-30 2010





Area_K1 = 18515957 

DOCUMENT: Area of "K1" is 18515957 m², based on measurement using GIS software. 

Area_K2 = 9276805 

DOCUMENT: Area of "K2" is 9276805 m², based on measurement using GIS software. 

Area_KA = 20273618 

DOCUMENT: Area of "KA" is 20273618 m², based on measurement using GIS software. 

Area_NS = 41883525 

DOCUMENT: Area of "NS" is 41883525 m², based on measurement using GIS software. 

Area_T = 8362299 

DOCUMENT: Area of "T" is 8362299 m², based on measurement using GIS software. 

CAPB = AP_Bot/LVol_APB 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in AP_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass 

(kg) of the contaminant in the compartment by its volume (m3). 

CAPS = AP_Surf/LVol_APS 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in AP_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass 


CB_Flow = KR_Flow * 3600 * 10.8/1900 

DOCUMENT: Surface Runoff into "CBS" (m³/h) is calculated by prorating the daily mean flow rates 



Where: 


10.8 in the drainage area into "CBS" (km²) 


2010 Page A1-31





CCBB = CB_Bot/LVol_CBB 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CB_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass 


CCBS = CB_Surf/LVol_CBS 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CB_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass 


CCOB = CO_Bot/LVol_COB 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CO_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass 


CCOS = CO_Surf/LVol_COS 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CO_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass 


CDCB = DC_Bot/LVol_DCB 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in DC_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass 


CDCS = DC_Surf/LVol_DCS 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in DC_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass 


CEPB = EP_Bot/LVol_EPB 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in EP_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass 


CEPS = EP_Surf/LVol_EPS 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in EP_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass 


Page A-32 2010





CK1B = K1_Bot/LVol_K1B 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in K1_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass 


CK1S = K1_Surf/LVol_K1S 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in K1_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass 


CK2B = K2_Bot/LVol_K2B 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in K2_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass 


CK2S = K2_Surf/LVol_K2S 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in K2_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass 


CKAB = KA_Bot/LVol_KAB 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in KA_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass 


CKAS = KA_Surf/LVol_KAS 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in KA_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass 


CNSB = NS_Bot/LVol_NSB 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in NS_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass 


CNSS = NS_Surf/LVol_NSS 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in NS_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass 


CO_Flow = KR_Flow * 3600 * (2243.4 + 60.2 + 130 + 10.8 + 32.3 + 7.1)/1900 

2010 Page A1-33





DOCUMENT: Surface Runoff into "COS" (m³/h) is calculated by prorating the daily mean flow rates 



Where: 


(2243.4 + 60.2 + 130 + 10.8 + 32.3 + 7.1) is the cumulative drainage area into "COS" (km²) 


CTB = T_Bot/LVol_TB 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in T_ Bot is calculated by dividing the mass (kg) 

of the contaminant in the compartment by its volume (m3). 

CTS = T_Surf/LVol_TS 

DOCUMENT: Concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in T_Surf is calculated by dividing the mass (kg) 

of the contaminant in the compartment by its volume (m3). 

Daily_CAPB = (Delay(CAPB,24) + Delay(CAPB,23) + Delay(CAPB,22) + Delay(CAPB,21) + 

Delay(CAPB,20) + Delay(CAPB,19) + Delay(CAPB,18) + Delay(CAPB,17) + Delay(CAPB,16) + 



Delay(CAPB,5) + Delay(CAPB,4) + Delay(CAPB,3) + Delay(CAPB,2) + Delay(CAPB,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CAPB. 

Daily_CAPS = (Delay(CAPS,24) + Delay(CAPS,23) + Delay(CAPS,22) + Delay(CAPS,21) + 

Delay(CAPS,20) + Delay(CAPS,19) + Delay(CAPS,18) + Delay(CAPS,17) + Delay(CAPS,16) + 



Delay(CAPS,5) + Delay(CAPS,4) + Delay(CAPS,3) + Delay(CAPS,2) + Delay(CAPS,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CAPS. 

Daily_CCBB = (Delay(CCBB,24) + Delay(CCBB,23) + Delay(CCBB,22) + Delay(CCBB,21) + 

Delay(CCBB,20) + Delay(CCBB,19) + Delay(CCBB,18) + Delay(CCBB,17) + Delay(CCBB,16) + 



Delay(CCBB,5) + Delay(CCBB,4) + Delay(CCBB,3) + Delay(CCBB,2) + Delay(CCBB,1) ) /24 

Page A-34 2010





DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CCBB. 

Daily_CCBS = (Delay(CCBS,24) + Delay(CCBS,23) + Delay(CCBS,22) + Delay(CCBS,21) + 

Delay(CCBS,20) + Delay(CCBS,19) + Delay(CCBS,18) + Delay(CCBS,17) + Delay(CCBS,16) + 



Delay(CCBS,5) + Delay(CCBS,4) + Delay(CCBS,3) + Delay(CCBS,2) + Delay(CCBS,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CCBS. 

Daily_CCOB = (Delay(CCOB,24) + Delay(CCOB,23) + Delay(CCOB,22) + Delay(CCOB,21) + 

Delay(CCOB,20) + Delay(CCOB,19) + Delay(CCOB,18) + Delay(CCOB,17) + Delay(CCOB,16) + 



Delay(CCOB,5) + Delay(CCOB,4) + Delay(CCOB,3) + Delay(CCOB,2) + Delay(CCOB,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CCOB. 

Daily_CCOS = (Delay(CCOS,24) + Delay(CCOS,23) + Delay(CCOS,22) + Delay(CCOS,21) + 

Delay(CCOS,20) + Delay(CCOS,19) + Delay(CCOS,18) + Delay(CCOS,17) + Delay(CCOS,16) + 



Delay(CCOS,5) + Delay(CCOS,4) + Delay(CCOS,3) + Delay(CCOS,2) + Delay(CCOS,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CCOS. 

Daily_CDCB = (Delay(CDCB,24) + Delay(CDCB,23) + Delay(CDCB,22) + Delay(CDCB,21) + 

Delay(CDCB,20) + Delay(CDCB,19) + Delay(CDCB,18) + Delay(CDCB,17) + Delay(CDCB,16) + 



Delay(CDCB,5) + Delay(CDCB,4) + Delay(CDCB,3) + Delay(CDCB,2) + Delay(CDCB,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CDCB. 

Daily_CDCS = (Delay(CDCS,24) + Delay(CDCS,23) + Delay(CDCS,22) + Delay(CDCS,21) + 

Delay(CDCS,20) + Delay(CDCS,19) + Delay(CDCS,18) + Delay(CDCS,17) + Delay(CDCS,16) + 



Delay(CDCS,5) + Delay(CDCS,4) + Delay(CDCS,3) + Delay(CDCS,2) + Delay(CDCS,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CDCS. 

2010 Page A1-35





Daily_CEPB = (Delay(CEPB,24) + Delay(CEPB,23) + Delay(CEPB,22) + Delay(CEPB,21) + 

Delay(CEPB,20) + Delay(CEPB,19) + Delay(CEPB,18) + Delay(CEPB,17) + Delay(CEPB,16) + 



Delay(CEPB,5) + Delay(CEPB,4) + Delay(CEPB,3) + Delay(CEPB,2) + Delay(CEPB,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CEPB. 

Daily_CEPS = (Delay(CEPS,24) + Delay(CEPS,23) + Delay(CEPS,22) + Delay(CEPS,21) + 

Delay(CEPS,20) + Delay(CEPS,19) + Delay(CEPS,18) + Delay(CEPS,17) + Delay(CEPS,16) + 



Delay(CEPS,5) + Delay(CEPS,4) + Delay(CEPS,3) + Delay(CEPS,2) + Delay(CEPS,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CEPS. 

Daily_CK1B = (Delay(CK1B,24) + Delay(CK1B,23) + Delay(CK1B,22) + Delay(CK1B,21) + 

Delay(CK1B,20) + Delay(CK1B,19) + Delay(CK1B,18) + Delay(CK1B,17) + Delay(CK1B,16) + 



Delay(CK1B,5) + Delay(CK1B,4) + Delay(CK1B,3) + Delay(CK1B,2) + Delay(CK1B,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CK1B. 

Daily_CK1S = (Delay(CK1S,24) + Delay(CK1S,23) + Delay(CK1S,22) + Delay(CK1S,21) + 

Delay(CK1S,20) + Delay(CK1S,19) + Delay(CK1S,18) + Delay(CK1S,17) + Delay(CK1S,16) + 



Delay(CK1S,5) + Delay(CK1S,4) + Delay(CK1S,3) + Delay(CK1S,2) + Delay(CK1S,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CK1S. 

Daily_CK2B = (Delay(CK2B,24) + Delay(CK2B,23) + Delay(CK2B,22) + Delay(CK2B,21) + 




Delay(CK2B,5) + Delay(CK2B,4) + Delay(CK2B,3) + Delay(CK2B,2) + Delay(CK2B,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CK2B. 

Daily_CK2S = (Delay(CK2S,24) + Delay(CK2S,23) + Delay(CK2S,22) + Delay(CK2S,21) + 



Page A-36 2010






Delay(CK2S,5) + Delay(CK2S,4) + Delay(CK2S,3) + Delay(CK2S,2) + Delay(CK2S,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CK2S. 

Daily_CKAB = (Delay(CKAB,24) + Delay(CKAB,23) + Delay(CKAB,22) + Delay(CKAB,21) + 

Delay(CKAB,20) + Delay(CKAB,19) + Delay(CKAB,18) + Delay(CKAB,17) + Delay(CKAB,16) + 



Delay(CKAB,5) + Delay(CKAB,4) + Delay(CKAB,3) + Delay(CKAB,2) + Delay(CKAB,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CKAB. 

Daily_CKAS = (Delay(CKAS,24) + Delay(CKAS,23) + Delay(CKAS,22) + Delay(CKAS,21) + 

Delay(CKAS,20) + Delay(CKAS,19) + Delay(CKAS,18) + Delay(CKAS,17) + Delay(CKAS,16) + 



Delay(CKAS,5) + Delay(CKAS,4) + Delay(CKAS,3) + Delay(CKAS,2) + Delay(CKAS,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CKAS. 

Daily_CNSB = (Delay(CNSB,24) + Delay(CNSB,23) + Delay(CNSB,22) + Delay(CNSB,21) + 

Delay(CNSB,20) + Delay(CNSB,19) + Delay(CNSB,18) + Delay(CNSB,17) + Delay(CNSB,16) + 



Delay(CNSB,5) + Delay(CNSB,4) + Delay(CNSB,3) + Delay(CNSB,2) + Delay(CNSB,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CNSB. 

Daily_CNSS = (Delay(CNSS,24) + Delay(CNSS,23) + Delay(CNSS,22) + Delay(CNSS,21) + 

Delay(CNSS,20) + Delay(CNSS,19) + Delay(CNSS,18) + Delay(CNSS,17) + Delay(CNSS,16) + 



Delay(CNSS,5) + Delay(CNSS,4) + Delay(CNSS,3) + Delay(CNSS,2) + Delay(CNSS,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CNSS. 

Daily_CTB = (Delay(CTB,24) + Delay(CTB,23) + Delay(CTB,22) + Delay(CTB,21) + Delay(CTB,20) + 

Delay(CTB,19) + Delay(CTB,18) + Delay(CTB,17) + Delay(CTB,16) + Delay(CTB,15) + 

Delay(CTB,14) + Delay(CTB,13) + Delay(CTB,12) + Delay(CTB,11) + Delay(CTB,10) + Delay(CTB,9) 

2010 Page A1-37





+ Delay(CTB,8) + Delay(CTB,7) + Delay(CTB,6) + Delay(CTB,5) + Delay(CTB,4) + Delay(CTB,3) + 

Delay(CTB,2) + Delay(CTB,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CTB. 

Daily_CTS = (Delay(CTS,24) + Delay(CTS,23) + Delay(CTS,22) + Delay(CTS,21) + Delay(CTS,20) + 

Delay(CTS,19) + Delay(CTS,18) + Delay(CTS,17) + Delay(CTS,16) + Delay(CTS,15) + Delay(CTS,14) 

+ Delay(CTS,13) + Delay(CTS,12) + Delay(CTS,11) + Delay(CTS,10) + Delay(CTS,9) + Delay(CTS,8) 

+ Delay(CTS,7) + Delay(CTS,6) + Delay(CTS,5) + Delay(CTS,4) + Delay(CTS,3) + Delay(CTS,2) + 

Delay(CTS,1) ) /24 

DOCUMENT: Daily average concentration (kg/m3) of a contaminant in CTS. 

Delta_Tide = LastTide-Tide 

DOCUMENT: This is the change in tide elevation (m) from the last model time step. 

Depth_APB = 103.6 - Depth_APS 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "AP" is 103.6 m, based on GIS results. Mean depth of the bottom layer is 

thus calculated by subtracting the thickness of the top layer from the total mean depth of the 

compartment. 

Depth_APS = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "APS" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

Depth_CBB = 19.5 - Depth_CBS 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "BP" is 19.5 m, based on GIS results. Mean depth of the bottom layer is 


compartment. 

Depth_CBS = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "BPS" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

Page A-38 2010





Depth_COB = 186.2 - Depth_COS 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "CO" is 186.2 m, based on GIS results. Mean depth of the bottom layer is 


compartment. 

Depth_COS = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "COS" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

Depth_DCB = 195 - Depth_DCS 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "DC" is assumed to be the same as NS. This is meant to reflect local 

conditions and not the mean depth of the world's oceans. 

Depth_DCS = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "DCS" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

Depth_EPB = 150 - Depth_EPS 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "EPB" is 150 m, based on GIS results. Mean depth of the bottom layer is 


compartment. 

Depth_EPS = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "EPS" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

Depth_K1B = 48.9 - Depth_K1S 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "K1B" is 48.9 m, based on GIS results. Mean depth of the bottom layer is 


compartment. 

Depth_K1S = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "K1S" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

2010 Page A1-39





Depth_K2B = 128.5 - Depth_K2S 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "K2B" is 128.5 m, based on GIS results. Mean depth of the bottom layer 

is thus calculated by subtracting the thickness of the top layer from the total mean depth of the 

compartment. 

Depth_K2S = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "K2S" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

Depth_KAB = 56.8 - Depth_KAS 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "KAB" is 56.8 m, based on GIS results. Mean depth of the bottom layer is 


compartment. 

Depth_KAS = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "KAS" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

Depth_NSB = 195 - Depth_NSS 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "195" is ??? m, based on GIS results. Mean depth of the bottom layer is 


compartment. 

Depth_NSS = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "NSS" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

Depth_TB = 141.6 - Depth_TS 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "T" is 141.6 m, based on GIS results. Mean depth of the bottom layer is 


compartment. 

Depth_TS = 8 

DOCUMENT: Mean depth of "TS" is 8 m, based on review of salinity profiles. 

Dispers_Bot = Dispers_Surf * 0.1 

Page A-40 2010





DOCUMENT: Dispersivity in the bottom layer is set to 10% of Dispersivity in the surface layer. This is 

used to correct for the reduced weather induced mixing. 

Dispers_Surf = 216 

DOCUMENT: Dispers_Surf is the turbulent dispersive horizontal mixing coefficient for the surface 

layers. For a tidally influenced water body like Douglass Channel and Kitimat Arm a value of 0.06 m/sec 

has been chosen. This converts to an hourly value of 216 m/h. 

DTide_APB = Delta_Tide * Frac_APB 

DOCUMENT: DTide APB is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of AP (ie APB). It is 

calculated by multiplying the net change in tide by the ratio of thickness of the bottom layer to the total 

thickness of the compartment. 

DTide_APS = Delta_Tide * Frac_APS 

DOCUMENT: DTide APS is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of AP (ie APS). It is 



DTide_CBB = Delta_Tide * Frac_CBB 

DOCUMENT: DTide CBB is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of CB (ie CBB). It is 



DTide_CBS = Delta_Tide * Frac_CBS 

DOCUMENT: DTide CBS is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of CB (ie CBS). It is 



DTide_COB = Delta_Tide * Frac_COB 

DOCUMENT: DTide COB is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of CO (ie COB). It is 



2010 Page A1-41





DTide_COS = Delta_Tide * Frac_COS 

DOCUMENT: DTide COS is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of CO (ie COS). It is 



DTide_DCB = Delta_Tide * Frac_DCB 

DOCUMENT: DTide DCB is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of DC (ie DCB). It is 



DTide_DCS = Delta_Tide * Frac_DCS 

DOCUMENT: DTide DCS is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of DC (ie DCS). It is 



DTide_EPB = Delta_Tide * Frac_EPB 

DOCUMENT: DTide EPB is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of EP (ie EPB). It is 



DTide_EPS = Delta_Tide * Frac_EPS 

DOCUMENT: DTide EPS is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of EP (ie EPS). It is 



DTide_K1B = Delta_Tide * Frac_K1B 

DOCUMENT: DTide K1B is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of K1 (ie K1B). It is 



DTide_K1S = Delta_Tide * Frac_K1S 

DOCUMENT: DTide K1S is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of K1 (ie K1S). It is 



Page A-42 2010





DTide_K2B = Delta_Tide * Frac_K2B 

DOCUMENT: DTide K2B is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of K2 (ie K2B). It is 



DTide_K2S = Delta_Tide * Frac_K2S 

DOCUMENT: DTide K2S is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of K2 (ie K2S). It is 



DTide_KAB = Delta_Tide * Frac_KAB 

DOCUMENT: DTide KAB is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of KA (ie KAB). It is 



DTide_KAS = Delta_Tide * Frac_KAS 

DOCUMENT: DTide KAS is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of KA (ie KAS). It is 



DTide_NSB = Delta_Tide * Frac_NSB 

DOCUMENT: DTide NSB is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of NS (ie NSB). It is 



DTide_NSS = Delta_Tide * Frac_NSS 

DOCUMENT: DTide NSS is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of NS (ie NSS). It is 



DTide_TB = Delta_Tide * Frac_TB 

DOCUMENT: DTide TB is the amount of tide (m) affecting the bottom layer of T2 (ie TB). It is 



2010 Page A1-43





DTide_TS = Delta_Tide * Frac_TS 

DOCUMENT: DTide TS is the amount of tide (m) affecting the surface layer of T (ie TS). It is 



EP_Flow = KR_Flow * 3600 * (2243.4 + 60.2 + 130 + 10.8 + 32.3)/1900 

DOCUMENT: Surface Runoff into "EPS" (m³/h) is calculated by prorating the daily mean flow rates 



Where: 


(2243.4 + 60.2 + 130 + 10.8 + 32.3) is the cumulative drainage area into "EPS" (km²) 


Frac_APB = Depth_APB / (Depth_APS + Depth_APB) 

Frac_APS = Depth_APS / (Depth_APS + Depth_APB) 

Frac_CBB = Depth_CBB / (Depth_CBS + Depth_CBB) 

Frac_CBS = Depth_CBS / (Depth_CBS + Depth_CBB) 

Frac_COB = Depth_COB / (Depth_COS + Depth_COB) 

Frac_COS = Depth_COS / (Depth_COS + Depth_COB) 

Frac_DCB = Depth_DCB / (Depth_DCS + Depth_DCB) 

Frac_DCS = Depth_DCS / (Depth_DCS + Depth_DCB) 

Frac_EPB = Depth_EPB / (Depth_EPS + Depth_EPB) 

Frac_EPS = Depth_EPS / (Depth_EPS + Depth_EPB) 

Frac_K1B = Depth_K1B / (Depth_K1S + Depth_K1B) 

Frac_K1S = Depth_K1S / (Depth_K1S + Depth_K1B) 

Frac_K2B = Depth_K2B / (Depth_K2S + Depth_K2B) 

Frac_K2S = Depth_K2S / (Depth_K2S + Depth_K2B) 

Frac_KAB = Depth_KAB / (Depth_KAS + Depth_KAB) 

Frac_KAS = Depth_KAS / (Depth_KAS + Depth_KAB) 

Frac_NSB = Depth_NSB / (Depth_NSS + Depth_NSB) 

Page A-44 2010





Frac_NSS = Depth_NSS / (Depth_NSS + Depth_NSB) 

Frac_TB = Depth_TB / (Depth_TS + Depth_TB) 

Frac_TS = Depth_TS / (Depth_TS + Depth_TB) 

Julian = INT(1+(365*(((TIME - 672)/8760)-(INT((TIME - 672)/8760))))) 

DOCUMENT: Julian is a function that returns the "day of the year" as values ranging from 1 to 365, as 

the time of the simulation advances in total elapsed hours from the start of the simulation. This allows the 

Daily Runoff to recycle "year after year", based on a single hydrological year stored as a graph in that 

parameter. 

Note that 672 is used to compensate for 28 leap years that have occurred between 1800 and 2007. 

K1_Flow = KR_Flow * 3600 * 2243.4/1900 

DOCUMENT: Surface Runoff into "K1S" (m³/h) is calculated by prorating the daily mean flow rates 



Where: 


2243.4 in the drainage area into "K1S" (km²) 


K2_Flow = KR_Flow * 3600 * (2243.4 + 60.2)/1900 

DOCUMENT: Surface Runoff into "K2S" (m³/h) is calculated by prorating the daily mean flow rates 



Where: 


60.2 in the drainage area into "K2S" (km²) 


KA_Flow = KR_Flow * 3600 * 1043.2/1900 

DOCUMENT: Surface Runoff into "KAS" (m³/h) is calculated by prorating the daily mean flow rates 



2010 Page A1-45





Where: 


1043.2 in the drainage area into "KAS" (km²) 


LastTide = DELAY(Tide,1) 

DOCUMENT: LastTide indicates the tide elevation in the previous time step 

LiqEff_Vol = 100.15 

DOCUMENT: This is the volume of liquid processed by the Oil/Water separator. It is calculated as the 

birmed area of the tank farm multiplied by the annual rainfall and the runoff coefficient, plus the volume 

of water recovered during clean up of any accidental spill. 

LiqEff_Vol = ((4.0E+05 m2 * 2.1905 m/a * 1) + 1.0e3 m3/a) /365 d/a /24 h/d= 100.15 m3/h 

Area of Birmed Tank Farm (m2) = 4.0E+05 (project figure) 

Precipitation (m/a) = 2.1905 (Environment Canada) 

Runoff coefficient = 1 (assumption) 

Water recovered from accidental spills (m3/a) = 1.0E+03 (assumption) 

LVol_APB = DELAY(Vol_APB,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_APB calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_APS = DELAY(Vol_APS,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_APS calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_CBB = DELAY(Vol_CBB,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_CBB calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_CBS = DELAY(Vol_CBS,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_CBS calculated in the previous time step. 

Page A-46 2010





LVol_COB = DELAY(Vol_COB,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_COB calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_COS = DELAY(Vol_COS,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_COS calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_DCB = DELAY(Vol_DCB,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_DCB calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_DCS = DELAY(Vol_DCS,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_DCS calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_EPB = DELAY(Vol_EPB,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_EPB calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_EPS = DELAY(Vol_EPS,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_EPS calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_K1B = DELAY(Vol_K1B,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_K1B calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_K1S = DELAY(Vol_K1S,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_K1S calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_K2B = DELAY(Vol_K2B,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_K2B calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_K2S = DELAY(Vol_K2S,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_K2S calculated in the previous time step. 

2010 Page A1-47





LVol_KAB = DELAY(Vol_KAB,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_KAB calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_KAS = AreaDELAY(Vol_KAS,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_KAS calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_NSB = DELAY(Vol_NSB,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_NSB calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_NSS = DELAY(Vol_NSS,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_NSS calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_TB = DELAY(Vol_TB,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_TB calculated in the previous time step. 

LVol_TS = DELAY(Vol_TS,1) 

DOCUMENT: Volume is given in m³ and is the value for Vol_TS calculated in the previous time step. 

Mixer = 0.012 

DOCUMENT: Mixer represents the vertical mixing of water between the surface and bottom 

compartments and is estimated to be approximately 0.012 m/h. 

NS_Flow = KR_Flow * 3600 * (2243.4 + 60.2 + 130 + 10.8 + 32.3 + 7.1 + 1043.2 + 91.5 + 225.2)/1900 

DOCUMENT: Surface Runoff into "NSS" (m³/h) is calculated by prorating the daily mean flow rates 



Where: 


(2243.4 + 60.2 + 130 + 10.8 + 32.3 + 7.1 + 1043.2 + 91.5 + 225.2) is the cumulative drainage area into 

"NSS" (km²) 


Page A-48 2010





Tide = 0 

DOCUMENT: Tide indicates the tide elevation at time t. It is calculated by superimposing a simusoidal 

curve on high and low tide data published by the Canadian Hydrographic Service of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada (http://www.waterlevels.gc.ca, Tide Station #9140). The sinusoidal calculations are performed in 

a submodel. 

TotDepth_APB = Depth_APB + Tide * Frac_APB 

DOCUMENT: This is the total thickness (m) of the bottom compartment once adjusted for tide. 

TotDepth_APS = Depth_APS + Tide * Frac_APS 

DOCUMENT: This is the total thickness (m) of the surface compartment once adjusted for tide. 

TotDepth_CBB = Depth_CBB + Tide * Frac_CBB 


TotDepth_CBS = Depth_CBS + Tide * Frac_CBS 


TotDepth_COB = Depth_COB + Tide * Frac_COB 


TotDepth_COS = Depth_COS + Tide * Frac_COS 


TotDepth_DCB = Depth_DCB 

DOCUMENT: This is the total thickness (m) of DCB. This compartment is not adjusted for tide since 

the net volume (and hence mean depth) in the world’s oceans does not change with tide. 

TotDepth_DCS = Depth_DCS 

DOCUMENT: This is the total thickness (m) of DCS. This compartment is not adjusted for tide since 

the net volume (and hence mean depth) in the world’s oceans does not change with tide. 

2010 Page A1-49





TotDepth_EPB = Depth_EPB + Tide * Frac_EPB 


TotDepth_EPS = Depth_EPS + Tide * Frac_EPS 


TotDepth_K1B = Depth_K1B + Tide * Frac_K1B 


TotDepth_K1S = Depth_K1S + Tide * Frac_K1S 


TotDepth_K2B = Depth_K2B + Tide * Frac_K2B 


TotDepth_K2S = Depth_K2S + Tide * Frac_K2S 


TotDepth_KAB = Depth_KAB + Tide * Frac_KAB 


TotDepth_KAS = Depth_KAS + Tide * Frac_KAS 


TotDepth_NSB = Depth_NSB + Tide * Frac_NSB 


TotDepth_NSS = Depth_NSS + Tide * Frac_NSS 


Page A-50 2010





TotDepth_TB = Depth_TB + Tide * Frac_TB 


TotDepth_TS = Depth_TS + Tide * Frac_TS 


T_Flow = KR_Flow * 3600 * (2243.4 + 60.2 + 130 + 10.8)/1900 

DOCUMENT: Surface Runoff into "TS" (m³/h) is calculated by prorating the daily mean flow rates 



Where: 


(2243.4 + 60.2 + 130 + 10.8) is the cumulative drainage area into "TS" (km²) 


Vol_APB = Area_AP*TotDepth_APB 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "APB" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 

depth of the bottom layer adjusted for tide level; volume is given in m3. 

Vol_APS = Area_AP*TotDepth_APS 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "APS" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean depth 

of the bottom layer adjusted for tide level; volume is given in m3. 

Vol_CBB = Area_CB*TotDepth_CBB 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "CBB" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_CBS = Area_CB*TotDepth_CBS 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "CBS" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


2010 Page A1-51





Vol_COB = Area_CO*TotDepth_COB 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "COB" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_COS = Area_CO*TotDepth_COS 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "COS" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_DCB = Area_DC*TotDepth_DCB 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "DCB" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_DCS = Area_DC * TotDepth_DCS 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "DCS" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_EPB = Area_EP*TotDepth_EPB 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "EPB" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean depth 


Vol_EPS = Area_EP*TotDepth_EPS 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "EPS" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean depth 


Vol_K1B = Area_K1*TotDepth_K1B 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "K1B" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_K1S = Area_K1*TotDepth_K1S 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "K1S" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean depth 


Page A-52 2010





Vol_K2B = Area_K2*TotDepth_K2B 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "K2B" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_K2S = Area_K2*TotDepth_K2S 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "K2S" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean depth 


Vol_KAB = Area_KA*TotDepth_KAB 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "KAB" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_KAS = Area_KA*TotDepth_KAS 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "KAS" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_NSB = Area_NS*TotDepth_NSB 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "NSB" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean 


Vol_NSS = Area_NS*TotDepth_NSS 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "NSS" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean depth 


Vol_TB = Area_T*TotDepth_TB 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "TB" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean depth 


Vol_TS = Area_T*TotDepth_TS 

DOCUMENT: Volume of "TS" is calculated as the product of the surface area (2D) and the mean depth 


2010 Page A1-53





CAS_Numbers = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 71432), (2.00, 100414), (3.00, 108883), (4.00, 8e+006), (5.00, 90120), (6.00, 91576), (7.00, 

83329), (8.00, 208968), (9.00, 120127), (10.0, 56553), (11.0, 205992), (12.0, 207089), (13.0, 191242), 

(14.0, 50328), (15.0, 192972), (16.0, 218019), (17.0, 53703), (18.0, 206440), (19.0, 86737), (20.0, 

193395), (21.0, 91203), (22.0, 85018), (23.0, 129000), (24.0, 105679), (25.0, 51285), (26.0, 108952), 

(27.0, 6.6e+007), (28.0, 6.6e+007), (29.0, 6.6e+007), (30.0, 6.6e+007), (31.0, 6.6e+007), (32.0, 

6.6e+007), (33.0, 6.6e+007), (34.0, 6.6e+007), (35.0, 6.6e+007), (36.0, 6.6e+007), (37.0, 6.6e+007), 

(38.0, 120821), (39.0, 108678), (40.0, 50000), (41.0, 71556), (42.0, 3.3e+006), (43.0, 1.7e+007), (44.0, 

7.4e+006), (45.0, 7.4e+006), (46.0, 7.4e+006), (47.0, 7.4e+006), (48.0, 7.4e+006), (49.0, 7.4e+006), 

(50.0, 1.6e+007), (51.0, 1.9e+007), (52.0, 7.4e+006), (53.0, 7.4e+006), (54.0, 7.4e+006), (55.0, 

7.4e+006), (56.0, 7.4e+006), (57.0, 7.4e+006), (58.0, 7.4e+006), (59.0, 7.8e+006), (60.0, 7.4e+006), 

(61.0, 7.4e+006), (62.0, 7.4e+006), (63.0, 7.4e+006) 

DOCUMENT: These CAS Numbers correspond to the COPC modeled. 

KR_Flow = GRAPH(Julian) 

(1.00, 54.8), (2.00, 56.0), (3.00, 62.1), (4.00, 61.8), (5.00, 64.8), (6.00, 78.7), (7.00, 72.7), (8.00, 63.6), 

(9.00, 59.1), (10.0, 66.6), (11.0, 78.3), (12.0, 92.8), (13.0, 70.5), (14.0, 63.0), (15.0, 78.0), (16.0, 73.8), 

(17.0, 89.3), (18.0, 72.7), (19.0, 72.4), (20.0, 64.2), (21.0, 59.5), (22.0, 64.9), (23.0, 83.4), (24.0, 78.8), 

(25.0, 61.3), (26.0, 55.8), (27.0, 63.6), (28.0, 61.9), (29.0, 57.7), (30.0, 64.3), (31.0, 70.5), (32.0, 67.4), 

(33.0, 70.6), (34.0, 68.0), (35.0, 64.9), (36.0, 66.3), (37.0, 61.9), (38.0, 68.5), (39.0, 68.0), (40.0, 59.1), 

(41.0, 53.8), (42.0, 53.0), (43.0, 55.2), (44.0, 58.3), (45.0, 61.5), (46.0, 66.9), (47.0, 66.3), (48.0, 60.2), 

(49.0, 66.6), (50.0, 68.0), (51.0, 66.4), (52.0, 62.5), (53.0, 57.7), (54.0, 50.0), (55.0, 48.4), (56.0, 50.9), 

(57.0, 52.3), (58.0, 53.7), (59.0, 59.7), (60.0, 51.7), (61.0, 49.4), (62.0, 47.0), (63.0, 48.1), (64.0, 57.1), 

(65.0, 61.5), (66.0, 62.1), (67.0, 60.7), (68.0, 63.5), (69.0, 56.0), (70.0, 65.4), (71.0, 58.1), (72.0, 59.6), 

(73.0, 61.2), (74.0, 59.7), (75.0, 56.7), (76.0, 53.8), (77.0, 54.2), (78.0, 57.7), (79.0, 55.4), (80.0, 57.9), 

(81.0, 60.3), (82.0, 59.9), (83.0, 57.2), (84.0, 65.1), (85.0, 60.9), (86.0, 58.1), (87.0, 60.8), (88.0, 65.6), 

(89.0, 73.4), (90.0, 74.4), (91.0, 76.1), (92.0, 76.4), (93.0, 76.4), (94.0, 72.9), (95.0, 78.0), (96.0, 80.8), 

(97.0, 75.5), (98.0, 83.5), (99.0, 82.3), (100, 82.3), (101, 85.2), (102, 93.4), (103, 95.1), (104, 91.4), (105, 

93.4), (106, 98.9), (107, 104), (108, 101), (109, 110), (110, 110), (111, 111), (112, 112), (113, 110), (114, 

126), (115, 134), (116, 148), (117, 163), (118, 168), (119, 164), (120, 156), (121, 162), (122, 162), (123, 

159), (124, 157), (125, 159), (126, 164), (127, 167), (128, 168), (129, 165), (130, 175), (131, 181), (132, 

192), (133, 204), (134, 195), (135, 190), (136, 199), (137, 195), (138, 187), (139, 192), (140, 207), (141, 

215), (142, 213), (143, 218), (144, 234), (145, 238), (146, 230), (147, 226), (148, 241), (149, 246), (150, 

238), (151, 240), (152, 262), (153, 266), (154, 265), (155, 266), (156, 267), (157, 257), (158, 256), (159, 

248), (160, 248), (161, 255), (162, 255), (163, 250), (164, 254), (165, 257), (166, 268), (167, 250), (168, 

250), (169, 240), (170, 250), (171, 234), (172, 234), (173, 235), (174, 226), (175, 226), (176, 223), (177, 

226), (178, 215), (179, 212), (180, 212), (181, 219), (182, 214), (183, 210), (184, 206), (185, 207), (186, 

204), (187, 196), (188, 199), (189, 208), (190, 203), (191, 202), (192, 200), (193, 189), (194, 187), (195, 

178), (196, 174), (197, 170), (198, 169), (199, 168), (200, 174), (201, 176), (202, 167), (203, 160), (204, 

161), (205, 166), (206, 161), (207, 172), (208, 157), (209, 163), (210, 154), (211, 143), (212, 138), (213, 

138), (214, 137), (215, 136), (216, 141), (217, 136), (218, 140), (219, 135), (220, 139), (221, 142), (222, 

Page A-54 2010





135), (223, 131), (224, 125), (225, 121), (226, 128), (227, 128), (228, 114), (229, 122), (230, 117), (231, 

118), (232, 116), (233, 118), (234, 113), (235, 119), (236, 116), (237, 115), (238, 112), (239, 122), (240, 

115), (241, 105), (242, 106), (243, 104), (244, 113), (245, 122), (246, 119), (247, 127), (248, 126), (249, 

125), (250, 123), (251, 125), (252, 127), (253, 120), (254, 113), (255, 106), (256, 106), (257, 107), (258, 

108), (259, 122), (260, 112), (261, 107), (262, 130), (263, 128), (264, 145), (265, 158), (266, 161), (267, 

142), (268, 140), (269, 134), (270, 116), (271, 172), (272, 239), (273, 182), (274, 153), (275, 131), (276, 

146), (277, 129), (278, 146), (279, 202), (280, 192), (281, 173), (282, 191), (283, 258), (284, 192), (285, 

188), (286, 181), (287, 166), (288, 171), (289, 146), (290, 148), (291, 158), (292, 165), (293, 168), (294, 

187), (295, 235), (296, 206), (297, 223), (298, 221), (299, 188), (300, 213), (301, 192), (302, 162), (303, 

169), (304, 169), (305, 204), (306, 213), (307, 198), (308, 196), (309, 176), (310, 148), (311, 131), (312, 

127), (313, 132), (314, 132), (315, 149), (316, 137), (317, 123), (318, 124), (319, 119), (320, 114), (321, 

100), (322, 118), (323, 163), (324, 190), (325, 142), (326, 132), (327, 122), (328, 102), (329, 101), (330, 

96.9), (331, 97.6), (332, 101), (333, 101), (334, 122), (335, 92.0), (336, 101), (337, 101), (338, 109), (339, 

86.5), (340, 83.7), (341, 94.7), (342, 100), (343, 77.6), (344, 83.0), (345, 96.0), (346, 85.2), (347, 94.5), 

(348, 88.4), (349, 82.5), (350, 105), (351, 76.1), (352, 75.0), (353, 85.9), (354, 70.4), (355, 70.7), (356, 

69.7), (357, 70.5), (358, 83.5), (359, 87.8), (360, 90.6), (361, 91.8), (362, 72.2), (363, 78.1), (364, 68.4), 

(365, 59.7), (366, 0.00), (367, 0.00) 

DOCUMENT: The flow of the Kitimat River (m3/second) is based on data presented by the water survey 

of Canada as measured below Hirsch creek between 1964 and 2006 (watershed area 1,900 km2). 

LiqEff_Conc = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 262), (2.00, 137), (3.00, 724), (4.00, 696), (5.00, 3.53), (6.00, 2.73), (7.00, 0.00), (8.00, 0.00), 

(9.00, 0.134), (10.0, 0.0598), (11.0, 0.00), (12.0, 0.00), (13.0, 0.00), (14.0, 0.00), (15.0, 0.00), (16.0, 

0.00), (17.0, 0.00), (18.0, 0.00), (19.0, 0.305), (20.0, 0.00), (21.0, 5.69), (22.0, 0.207), (23.0, 0.25), (24.0, 

0.0262), (25.0, 0.0992), (26.0, 0.0179), (27.0, 3708), (28.0, 486), (29.0, 419), (30.0, 817), (31.0, 925), 

(32.0, 1429), (33.0, 453), (34.0, 526), (35.0, 575), (36.0, 636), (37.0, 1171), (38.0, 84.4), (39.0, 49.6), 

(40.0, 0.00), (41.0, 0.00), (42.0, 0.00), (43.0, 0.00), (44.0, 0.00), (45.0, 0.00), (46.0, 0.0361), (47.0, 0.00), 

(48.0, 0.0222), (49.0, 0.000406), (50.0, 0.0148), (51.0, 0.00), (52.0, 0.0137), (53.0, 0.0185), (54.0, 0.00), 

(55.0, 0.0185), (56.0, 0.00), (57.0, 0.433), (58.0, 3.19), (59.0, 0.00), (60.0, 0.129), (61.0, 8.78), (62.0, 

0.0064), (63.0, 0.0064) 

DOCUMENT: COPC Conc is the COPC concentration in the process effluent discharge. Units are in 

mg/m3. 

TotDep_APS = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 0.0486), (2.00, 0.0133), (3.00, 0.102), (4.00, 0.0865), (5.00, 0.00), (6.00, 0.00114), (7.00, 

0.000302), (8.00, 3.62e-006), (9.00, 1.75e-005), (10.0, 5.75e-005), (11.0, 2.12e-005), (12.0, 2.12e-005), 

(13.0, 3.24e-005), (14.0, 0.000358), (15.0, 1.35e-005), (16.0, 3.41e-005), (17.0, 2.39e-005), (18.0, 6.93e- 

005), (19.0, 6.4e-005), (20.0, 3.07e-005), (21.0, 0.0162), (22.0, 0.00015), (23.0, 6.09e-005), (24.0, 0.00), 

(25.0, 0.00), (26.0, 0.00), (27.0, 0.00), (28.0, 0.00), (29.0, 0.00), (30.0, 0.00), (31.0, 0.00), (32.0, 0.00), 

2010 Page A1-55





(33.0, 0.00), (34.0, 0.00), (35.0, 0.00), (36.0, 0.00), (37.0, 0.00), (38.0, 0.00), (39.0, 0.00), (40.0, 0.473), 

(41.0, 0.00338), (42.0, 4.44e-008), (43.0, 0.534), (44.0, 0.0752), (45.0, 0.0189), (46.0, 0.0368), (47.0, 

0.000398), (48.0, 0.00), (49.0, 0.0057), (50.0, 0.0121), (51.0, 0.00355), (52.0, 0.0863), (53.0, 0.0252), 

(54.0, 0.0216), (55.0, 0.043), (56.0, 0.00162), (57.0, 0.0113), (58.0, 1.21), (59.0, 0.00979), (60.0, 0.00), 

(61.0, 4.56), (62.0, 0.417), (63.0, 0.417) 

DOCUMENT: TotDep is the Total Deposition (Wet and Dry) expected at APS. Units are in ug/m2/year. 

TotDep_CBS = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 0.0905), (2.00, 0.0246), (3.00, 0.189), (4.00, 0.16), (5.00, 0.00), (6.00, 0.00142), (7.00, 0.000374), 

(8.00, 4.49e-006), (9.00, 2.16e-005), (10.0, 7.11e-005), (11.0, 2.62e-005), (12.0, 2.62e-005), (13.0, 4.01e- 

005), (14.0, 0.000443), (15.0, 1.67e-005), (16.0, 4.22e-005), (17.0, 2.96e-005), (18.0, 8.58e-005), (19.0, 

7.93e-005), (20.0, 3.8e-005), (21.0, 0.02), (22.0, 0.000186), (23.0, 7.54e-005), (24.0, 0.00), (25.0, 0.00), 

(26.0, 0.00), (27.0, 0.00), (28.0, 0.00), (29.0, 0.00), (30.0, 0.00), (31.0, 0.00), (32.0, 0.00), (33.0, 0.00), 

(34.0, 0.00), (35.0, 0.00), (36.0, 0.00), (37.0, 0.00), (38.0, 0.00), (39.0, 0.00), (40.0, 0.585), (41.0, 

0.00419), (42.0, 5.5e-008), (43.0, 0.662), (44.0, 0.0931), (45.0, 0.0234), (46.0, 0.0456), (47.0, 0.000493), 

(48.0, 0.00), (49.0, 0.00706), (50.0, 0.015), (51.0, 0.0044), (52.0, 0.107), (53.0, 0.0312), (54.0, 0.0268), 

(55.0, 0.0532), (56.0, 0.002), (57.0, 0.014), (58.0, 1.50), (59.0, 0.0121), (60.0, 0.00), (61.0, 5.64), (62.0, 

0.516), (63.0, 0.516) 

DOCUMENT: TotDep is the Total Deposition (Wet and Dry) expected at CBS. Units are in ug/m2/year. 

TotDep_COS = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 0.135), (2.00, 0.037), (3.00, 0.297), (4.00, 0.243), (5.00, 0.00), (6.00, 0.0145), (7.00, 0.00383), 

(8.00, 4.59e-005), (9.00, 0.000221), (10.0, 0.000728), (11.0, 0.000269), (12.0, 0.000269), (13.0, 0.00041), 

(14.0, 0.00454), (15.0, 0.000171), (16.0, 0.000432), (17.0, 0.000303), (18.0, 0.000879), (19.0, 0.000811), 

(20.0, 0.000388), (21.0, 0.205), (22.0, 0.00191), (23.0, 0.000771), (24.0, 0.00), (25.0, 0.00), (26.0, 0.00), 

(27.0, 0.00), (28.0, 0.00), (29.0, 0.00), (30.0, 0.00), (31.0, 0.00), (32.0, 0.00), (33.0, 0.00), (34.0, 0.00), 

(35.0, 0.00), (36.0, 0.00), (37.0, 0.00), (38.0, 0.00), (39.0, 0.00), (40.0, 5.99), (41.0, 0.0428), (42.0, 5.63e- 

007), (43.0, 6.77), (44.0, 0.953), (45.0, 0.24), (46.0, 0.467), (47.0, 0.00505), (48.0, 0.00), (49.0, 0.0722), 

(50.0, 0.153), (51.0, 0.045), (52.0, 1.09), (53.0, 0.319), (54.0, 0.274), (55.0, 0.545), (56.0, 0.0205), (57.0, 

0.143), (58.0, 15.3), (59.0, 0.124), (60.0, 0.00), (61.0, 57.7), (62.0, 5.28), (63.0, 5.28) 

DOCUMENT: TotDep is the Total Deposition (Wet and Dry) expected at COS. Units are in ug/m2/year. 

TotDep_EPS = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 0.127), (2.00, 0.0344), (3.00, 0.275), (4.00, 0.225), (5.00, 0.00), (6.00, 0.00894), (7.00, 0.00236), 

(8.00, 2.83e-005), (9.00, 0.000136), (10.0, 0.000449), (11.0, 0.000166), (12.0, 0.000166), (13.0, 

0.000253), (14.0, 0.0028), (15.0, 0.000105), (16.0, 0.000266), (17.0, 0.000187), (18.0, 0.000541), (19.0, 

0.0005), (20.0, 0.000239), (21.0, 0.126), (22.0, 0.00117), (23.0, 0.000475), (24.0, 0.00), (25.0, 0.00), 

(26.0, 0.00), (27.0, 0.00), (28.0, 0.00), (29.0, 0.00), (30.0, 0.00), (31.0, 0.00), (32.0, 0.00), (33.0, 0.00), 

Page A-56 2010





(34.0, 0.00), (35.0, 0.00), (36.0, 0.00), (37.0, 0.00), (38.0, 0.00), (39.0, 0.00), (40.0, 3.69), (41.0, 0.0264), 

(42.0, 3.47e-007), (43.0, 4.17), (44.0, 0.587), (45.0, 0.148), (46.0, 0.287), (47.0, 0.00311), (48.0, 0.00), 

(49.0, 0.0445), (50.0, 0.0945), (51.0, 0.0277), (52.0, 0.673), (53.0, 0.197), (54.0, 0.169), (55.0, 0.336), 

(56.0, 0.0126), (57.0, 0.088), (58.0, 9.45), (59.0, 0.0764), (60.0, 0.00), (61.0, 35.6), (62.0, 3.25), (63.0, 

3.25) 

DOCUMENT: TotDep is the Total Deposition (Wet and Dry) expected at EPS. Units are in ug/m2/year. 

TotDep_K1S = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 0.349), (2.00, 0.0856), (3.00, 0.726), (4.00, 0.594), (5.00, 0.00), (6.00, 0.0348), (7.00, 0.00919), 

(8.00, 0.00011), (9.00, 0.000531), (10.0, 0.00175), (11.0, 0.000645), (12.0, 0.000645), (13.0, 0.000984), 

(14.0, 0.0109), (15.0, 0.000409), (16.0, 0.00104), (17.0, 0.000727), (18.0, 0.00211), (19.0, 0.00195), 

(20.0, 0.000932), (21.0, 0.492), (22.0, 0.00457), (23.0, 0.00185), (24.0, 0.00), (25.0, 0.00), (26.0, 0.00), 

(27.0, 0.00), (28.0, 0.00), (29.0, 0.00), (30.0, 0.00), (31.0, 0.00), (32.0, 0.00), (33.0, 0.00), (34.0, 0.00), 

(35.0, 0.00), (36.0, 0.00), (37.0, 0.00), (38.0, 0.00), (39.0, 0.00), (40.0, 14.4), (41.0, 0.103), (42.0, 1.35e- 

006), (43.0, 16.2), (44.0, 2.29), (45.0, 0.575), (46.0, 1.12), (47.0, 0.0121), (48.0, 0.00), (49.0, 0.173), 

(50.0, 0.368), (51.0, 0.108), (52.0, 2.62), (53.0, 0.767), (54.0, 0.658), (55.0, 1.31), (56.0, 0.0492), (57.0, 

0.343), (58.0, 36.8), (59.0, 0.298), (60.0, 0.00), (61.0, 139), (62.0, 12.7), (63.0, 12.7) 

DOCUMENT: TotDep is the Total Deposition (Wet and Dry) expected at K1S. Units are in ug/m2/year. 

TotDep_K2S = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 0.199), (2.00, 0.0523), (3.00, 0.408), (4.00, 0.347), (5.00, 0.00), (6.00, 0.00512), (7.00, 0.00135), 

(8.00, 1.62e-005), (9.00, 7.82e-005), (10.0, 0.000257), (11.0, 9.49e-005), (12.0, 9.49e-005), (13.0, 

0.000145), (14.0, 0.0016), (15.0, 6.02e-005), (16.0, 0.000153), (17.0, 0.000107), (18.0, 0.00031), (19.0, 

0.000287), (20.0, 0.000137), (21.0, 0.0724), (22.0, 0.000673), (23.0, 0.000272), (24.0, 0.00), (25.0, 0.00), 

(26.0, 0.00), (27.0, 0.00), (28.0, 0.00), (29.0, 0.00), (30.0, 0.00), (31.0, 0.00), (32.0, 0.00), (33.0, 0.00), 

(34.0, 0.00), (35.0, 0.00), (36.0, 0.00), (37.0, 0.00), (38.0, 0.00), (39.0, 0.00), (40.0, 2.12), (41.0, 0.0151), 

(42.0, 1.99e-007), (43.0, 2.39), (44.0, 0.336), (45.0, 0.0846), (46.0, 0.165), (47.0, 0.00178), (48.0, 0.00), 

(49.0, 0.0255), (50.0, 0.0542), (51.0, 0.0159), (52.0, 0.386), (53.0, 0.113), (54.0, 0.0968), (55.0, 0.192), 

(56.0, 0.00724), (57.0, 0.0504), (58.0, 5.42), (59.0, 0.0438), (60.0, 0.00), (61.0, 20.4), (62.0, 1.87), (63.0, 

1.87) 

DOCUMENT: TotDep is the Total Deposition (Wet and Dry) expected at K2S. Units are in ug/m2/year. 

TotDep_KAS = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 0.0313), (2.00, 0.00837), (3.00, 0.0643), (4.00, 0.0548), (5.00, 0.00), (6.00, 0.000612), (7.00, 

0.000162), (8.00, 1.94e-006), (9.00, 9.35e-006), (10.0, 3.07e-005), (11.0, 1.13e-005), (12.0, 1.13e-005), 

(13.0, 1.73e-005), (14.0, 0.000192), (15.0, 7.2e-006), (16.0, 1.82e-005), (17.0, 1.28e-005), (18.0, 3.71e- 

005), (19.0, 3.43e-005), (20.0, 1.64e-005), (21.0, 0.00866), (22.0, 8.05e-005), (23.0, 3.26e-005), (24.0, 

0.00), (25.0, 0.00), (26.0, 0.00), (27.0, 0.00), (28.0, 0.00), (29.0, 0.00), (30.0, 0.00), (31.0, 0.00), (32.0, 

2010 Page A1-57





0.00), (33.0, 0.00), (34.0, 0.00), (35.0, 0.00), (36.0, 0.00), (37.0, 0.00), (38.0, 0.00), (39.0, 0.00), (40.0, 

0.253), (41.0, 0.00181), (42.0, 2.38e-008), (43.0, 0.286), (44.0, 0.0402), (45.0, 0.0101), (46.0, 0.0197), 

(47.0, 0.000213), (48.0, 0.00), (49.0, 0.00305), (50.0, 0.00648), (51.0, 0.0019), (52.0, 0.0461), (53.0, 

0.0135), (54.0, 0.0116), (55.0, 0.023), (56.0, 0.000866), (57.0, 0.00603), (58.0, 0.648), (59.0, 0.00523), 

(60.0, 0.00), (61.0, 2.44), (62.0, 0.223), (63.0, 0.223) 

DOCUMENT: TotDep is the Total Deposition (Wet and Dry) expected at KAS. Units are in ug/m2/year. 

TotDep_NSS = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 0.0875), (2.00, 0.0235), (3.00, 0.19), (4.00, 0.156), (5.00, 0.00), (6.00, 0.00946), (7.00, 0.0025), 

(8.00, 3e-005), (9.00, 0.000144), (10.0, 0.000475), (11.0, 0.000175), (12.0, 0.000175), (13.0, 0.000268), 

(14.0, 0.00296), (15.0, 0.000111), (16.0, 0.000282), (17.0, 0.000198), (18.0, 0.000573), (19.0, 0.000529), 

(20.0, 0.000253), (21.0, 0.134), (22.0, 0.00124), (23.0, 0.000503), (24.0, 0.00), (25.0, 0.00), (26.0, 0.00), 

(27.0, 0.00), (28.0, 0.00), (29.0, 0.00), (30.0, 0.00), (31.0, 0.00), (32.0, 0.00), (33.0, 0.00), (34.0, 0.00), 

(35.0, 0.00), (36.0, 0.00), (37.0, 0.00), (38.0, 0.00), (39.0, 0.00), (40.0, 3.91), (41.0, 0.0279), (42.0, 3.67e- 

007), (43.0, 4.42), (44.0, 0.622), (45.0, 0.156), (46.0, 0.304), (47.0, 0.00329), (48.0, 0.00), (49.0, 0.0471), 

(50.0, 0.1), (51.0, 0.0294), (52.0, 0.713), (53.0, 0.208), (54.0, 0.179), (55.0, 0.355), (56.0, 0.0134), (57.0, 

0.0932), (58.0, 10.0), (59.0, 0.0809), (60.0, 0.00), (61.0, 37.7), (62.0, 3.45), (63.0, 3.45) 

DOCUMENT: TotDep is the Total Deposition (Wet and Dry) expected at NSS. Units are in ug/m2/year. 

TotDep_TS = GRAPH(Analyte_Master) 

(1.00, 0.17), (2.00, 0.0475), (3.00, 0.363), (4.00, 0.307), (5.00, 0.00), (6.00, 0.0027), (7.00, 0.000713), 

(8.00, 8.54e-006), (9.00, 4.12e-005), (10.0, 0.000135), (11.0, 5e-005), (12.0, 5e-005), (13.0, 7.63e-005), 

(14.0, 0.000844), (15.0, 3.17e-005), (16.0, 8.04e-005), (17.0, 5.64e-005), (18.0, 0.000163), (19.0, 

0.000151), (20.0, 7.23e-005), (21.0, 0.0382), (22.0, 0.000355), (23.0, 0.000144), (24.0, 0.00), (25.0, 

0.00), (26.0, 0.00), (27.0, 0.00), (28.0, 0.00), (29.0, 0.00), (30.0, 0.00), (31.0, 0.00), (32.0, 0.00), (33.0, 

0.00), (34.0, 0.00), (35.0, 0.00), (36.0, 0.00), (37.0, 0.00), (38.0, 0.00), (39.0, 0.00), (40.0, 1.11), (41.0, 

0.00797), (42.0, 1.05e-007), (43.0, 1.26), (44.0, 0.177), (45.0, 0.0446), (46.0, 0.0868), (47.0, 0.000939), 

(48.0, 0.00), (49.0, 0.0134), (50.0, 0.0285), (51.0, 0.00838), (52.0, 0.203), (53.0, 0.0594), (54.0, 0.051), 

(55.0, 0.101), (56.0, 0.00382), (57.0, 0.0266), (58.0, 2.85), (59.0, 0.0231), (60.0, 0.00), (61.0, 10.7), (62.0, 

0.983), (63.0, 0.983) 

DOCUMENT: TotDep is the Total Deposition (Wet and Dry) expected at TS. Units are in ug/m2/year. 

Page A-58 2010



Attachment A2: Water Quality Model Representative Results 

Attachment A2 Water Quality Model Representative 

Results 

2010 Page A2-1

Table A2‐1 Summary of Predicted COPC Water Concentrations in Each Model Compartment 



Benzene 71‐43‐2 Max (mg/L) 9.86E‐06 1.23E‐06 1.06E‐05 9.55E‐07 9.58E‐06 7.40E‐07 9.43E‐06 1.10E‐06 5.75E‐06 4.97E‐07 3.27E‐06 3.28E‐07 2.82E‐06 4.27E‐07 4.17E‐06 3.32E‐07 2.27E‐06 1.65E‐07 



Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐4 Max (mg/L) 5.14E‐06 6.42E‐07 5.51E‐06 4.98E‐07 4.99E‐06 3.86E‐07 4.92E‐06 5.71E‐07 3.00E‐06 2.59E‐07 1.71E‐06 1.71E‐07 1.47E‐06 2.22E‐07 2.17E‐06 1.73E‐07 1.18E‐06 8.59E‐08 



Toluene 108‐88‐3 Max (mg/L) 2.72E‐05 3.40E‐06 2.92E‐05 2.64E‐06 2.65E‐05 2.05E‐06 2.61E‐05 3.03E‐06 1.59E‐05 1.37E‐06 9.04E‐06 9.07E‐07 7.79E‐06 1.18E‐06 1.15E‐05 9.17E‐07 6.27E‐06 4.56E‐07 



Xylenes (tot) 8026‐09‐3 Max (mg/L) 2.62E‐05 3.27E‐06 2.81E‐05 2.54E‐06 2.54E‐05 1.97E‐06 2.51E‐05 2.91E‐06 1.53E‐05 1.32E‐06 8.69E‐06 8.72E‐07 7.49E‐06 1.13E‐06 1.11E‐05 8.82E‐07 6.03E‐06 4.38E‐07 













95 UCL (mg/L) ( /L) 22.03E‐05 03E 05 22.61E‐06 61E 06 22.26E‐05 26E 05 22.07E‐06 07E 06 22.10E‐05 10E 05 11.62E‐06 62E 06 22.08E‐05 08E 05 22.30E‐06 30E 06 11.31E‐05 31E 05 11.09E‐06 09E 06 77.26E‐06 26E 06 66.98E‐07 98E 07 66.08E‐06 08E 06 99.17E‐07 17E 07 99.43E‐06 43E 06 77.25E‐07 25E 07 44.93E‐06 93E 06 33.53E‐07 53E 07 























Acenaphthene 83‐32‐9 Max (mg/L) 1.47E‐11 1.72E‐12 1.27E‐11 1.30E‐12 1.03E‐11 1.01E‐12 1.02E‐11 1.38E‐12 7.77E‐12 6.87E‐13 5.15E‐12 4.81E‐13 4.62E‐12 6.46E‐13 6.46E‐12 4.68E‐13 4.12E‐12 2.41E‐13 



Acenaphthylene 208‐96‐8 Max (mg/L) 1.76E‐13 2.07E‐14 1.52E‐13 1.56E‐14 1.23E‐13 1.21E‐14 1.22E‐13 1.65E‐14 9.31E‐14 8.24E‐15 6.18E‐14 5.77E‐15 5.54E‐14 7.75E‐15 7.75E‐14 5.61E‐15 4.94E‐14 2.89E‐15 





Anthracene 120‐12‐7 Max (mg/L) 5.04E‐09 6.30E‐10 5.41E‐09 4.89E‐10 4.90E‐09 3.79E‐10 4.83E‐09 5.61E‐10 2.94E‐09 2.54E‐10 1.67E‐09 1.68E‐10 1.44E‐09 2.18E‐10 2.13E‐09 1.70E‐10 1.16E‐09 8.44E‐11 



Fluorene 86‐73‐7 Max (mg/L) 1.15E‐08 1.43E‐09 1.23E‐08 1.11E‐09 1.11E‐08 8.62E‐10 1.10E‐08 1.28E‐09 6.69E‐09 5.78E‐10 3.81E‐09 3.82E‐10 3.28E‐09 4.96E‐10 4.85E‐09 3.86E‐10 2.64E‐09 1.92E‐10 



1‐Methylnaphthalene 90‐12‐0 Max (mg/L) 1.33E‐07 1.66E‐08 1.43E‐07 1.29E‐08 1.29E‐07 9.99E‐09 1.27E‐07 1.48E‐08 7.76E‐08 6.70E‐09 4.42E‐08 4.43E‐09 3.81E‐08 5.76E‐09 5.63E‐08 4.48E‐09 3.06E‐08 2.23E‐09 



2‐Methylnaphthalene 91‐57‐6 Max (mg/L) 1.03E‐07 1.28E‐08 1.10E‐07 9.95E‐09 9.98E‐08 7.71E‐09 9.83E‐08 1.14E‐08 5.99E‐08 5.18E‐09 3.41E‐08 3.42E‐09 2.94E‐08 4.44E‐09 4.35E‐08 3.46E‐09 2.36E‐08 1.72E‐09 



Naphthalene 91‐20‐3 Max (mg/L) 2.15E‐07 2.68E‐08 2.30E‐07 2.08E‐08 2.08E‐07 1.61E‐08 2.05E‐07 2.39E‐08 1.25E‐07 1.08E‐08 7.13E‐08 7.15E‐09 6.15E‐08 9.29E‐09 9.09E‐08 7.23E‐09 4.95E‐08 3.59E‐09 



Phenanthrene 85‐01‐8 Max (mg/L) 7.81E‐09 9.75E‐10 8.38E‐09 7.56E‐10 7.58E‐09 5.86E‐10 7.47E‐09 8.68E‐10 4.55E‐09 3.93E‐10 2.59E‐09 2.60E‐10 2.23E‐09 3.38E‐10 3.30E‐09 2.63E‐10 1.80E‐09 1.31E‐10 



Fluoranthene 206‐44‐0 Max (mg/L) 3.37E‐12 3.96E‐13 2.91E‐12 2.99E‐13 2.36E‐12 2.31E‐13 2.34E‐12 3.15E‐13 1.78E‐12 1.58E‐13 1.18E‐12 1.10E‐13 1.06E‐12 1.48E‐13 1.48E‐12 1.07E‐13 9.46E‐13 5.53E‐14 



Benzo(a)anthracene 56‐55‐3 Max (mg/L) 2.25E‐09 2.81E‐10 2.42E‐09 2.18E‐10 2.19E‐09 1.69E‐10 2.15E‐09 2.50E‐10 1.31E‐09 1.13E‐10 7.48E‐10 7.50E‐11 6.44E‐10 9.75E‐11 9.53E‐10 7.58E‐11 5.18E‐10 3.77E‐11 



Benzo(a)pyrene 50‐32‐8 Max (mg/L) 1.74E‐11 2.04E‐12 1.50E‐11 1.55E‐12 1.22E‐11 1.19E‐12 1.21E‐11 1.63E‐12 9.20E‐12 8.14E‐13 6.11E‐12 5.70E‐13 5.48E‐12 7.66E‐13 7.65E‐12 5.55E‐13 4.89E‐12 2.86E‐13 



Benzo(e)pyrene 192‐97‐2 Max (mg/L) 6.55E‐13 7.68E‐14 5.65E‐13 5.81E‐14 4.57E‐13 4.48E‐14 4.55E‐13 6.13E‐14 3.46E‐13 3.06E‐14 2.30E‐13 2.14E‐14 2.06E‐13 2.88E‐14 2.88E‐13 2.09E‐14 1.84E‐13 1.07E‐14 



Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205‐99‐2 Max (mg/L) 1.03E‐12 1.21E‐13 8.89E‐13 9.15E‐14 7.20E‐13 7.05E‐14 7.17E‐13 9.65E‐14 5.45E‐13 4.82E‐14 3.62E‐13 3.37E‐14 3.24E‐13 4.53E‐14 4.53E‐13 3.28E‐14 2.89E‐13 1.69E‐14 



Benzo(ghi)perylene 191‐24‐2 Max (mg/L) 1.57E‐12 1.85E‐13 1.36E‐12 1.40E‐13 1.10E‐12 1.08E‐13 1.09E‐12 1.47E‐13 8.32E‐13 7.36E‐14 5.52E‐13 5.15E‐14 4.95E‐13 6.92E‐14 6.92E‐13 5.01E‐14 4.42E‐13 2.58E‐14 



Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207‐08‐9 Max (mg/L) 1.03E‐12 1.21E‐13 8.89E‐13 9.15E‐14 7.20E‐13 7.05E‐14 7.17E‐13 9.65E‐14 5.45E‐13 4.82E‐14 3.62E‐13 3.37E‐14 3.24E‐13 4.53E‐14 4.53E‐13 3.28E‐14 2.89E‐13 1.69E‐14 



Chrysene 218‐01‐9 Max (mg/L) 1.66E‐12 1.94E‐13 1.43E‐12 1.47E‐13 1.16E‐12 1.13E‐13 1.15E‐12 1.55E‐13 8.76E‐13 7.75E‐14 5.81E‐13 5.43E‐14 5.22E‐13 7.29E‐14 7.29E‐13 5.28E‐14 4.65E‐13 2.72E‐14 



Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53‐70‐3 Max (mg/L) 1.16E‐12 1.36E‐13 1.00E‐12 1.03E‐13 8.13E‐13 7.96E‐14 8.09E‐13 1.09E‐13 6.15E‐13 5.44E‐14 4.08E‐13 3.81E‐14 3.66E‐13 5.12E‐14 5.11E‐13 3.70E‐14 3.26E‐13 1.91E‐14 



Indeno(123‐cd)pyrene 193‐39‐5 Max (mg/L) 1.49E‐12 1.75E‐13 1.29E‐12 1.32E‐13 1.04E‐12 1.02E‐13 1.04E‐12 1.39E‐13 7.88E‐13 6.97E‐14 5.23E‐13 4.88E‐14 4.69E‐13 6.56E‐14 6.55E‐13 4.75E‐14 4.18E‐13 2.45E‐14 



Pyrene 129‐00‐0 Max (mg/L) 9.42E‐09 1.18E‐09 1.01E‐08 9.13E‐10 9.15E‐09 7.08E‐10 9.02E‐09 1.05E‐09 5.50E‐09 4.75E‐10 3.13E‐09 3.14E‐10 2.70E‐09 4.08E‐10 3.99E‐09 3.17E‐10 2.17E‐09 1.58E‐10 





2,4‐Dimethylphenol 105‐67‐9 Max (mg/L) 9.86E‐10 1.23E‐10 1.06E‐09 9.55E‐11 9.58E‐10 7.41E‐11 9.44E‐10 1.10E‐10 5.75E‐10 4.97E‐11 3.27E‐10 3.28E‐11 2.82E‐10 4.27E‐11 4.17E‐10 3.32E‐11 2.27E‐10 1.65E‐11 



2,4‐Dinitrophenol 51‐28‐5 Max (mg/L) 3.73E‐09 4.66E‐10 4.01E‐09 3.62E‐10 3.63E‐09 2.80E‐10 3.57E‐09 4.15E‐10 2.18E‐09 1.88E‐10 1.24E‐09 1.24E‐10 1.07E‐09 1.62E‐10 1.58E‐09 1.26E‐10 8.59E‐10 6.25E‐11 



Phenol 108‐95‐2 Max (mg/L) 6.75E‐10 8.43E‐11 7.24E‐10 6.54E‐11 6.56E‐10 5.07E‐11 6.46E‐10 7.50E‐11 3.94E‐10 3.40E‐11 2.24E‐10 2.25E‐11 1.93E‐10 2.92E‐11 2.85E‐10 2.27E‐11 1.55E‐10 1.13E‐11 



1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene 120‐82‐1 Max (mg/L) 3.18E‐06 3.97E‐07 3.41E‐06 3.08E‐07 3.09E‐06 2.39E‐07 3.04E‐06 3.53E‐07 1.85E‐06 1.60E‐07 1.05E‐06 1.06E‐07 9.09E‐07 1.37E‐07 1.34E‐06 1.07E‐07 7.31E‐07 5.31E‐08 



1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene 108‐67‐8 Max (mg/L) 1.86E‐06 2.33E‐07 2.00E‐06 1.81E‐07 1.81E‐06 1.40E‐07 1.78E‐06 2.07E‐07 1.09E‐06 9.40E‐08 6.19E‐07 6.21E‐08 5.34E‐07 8.07E‐08 7.89E‐07 6.28E‐08 4.29E‐07 3.12E‐08 



Barium 7440‐39‐3 Max (mg/L) 3.15E‐09 3.80E‐10 3.00E‐09 2.91E‐10 2.54E‐09 2.25E‐10 2.53E‐09 3.19E‐10 1.74E‐09 1.52E‐10 1.08E‐09 1.04E‐10 9.52E‐10 1.38E‐10 1.36E‐09 1.03E‐10 8.13E‐10 5.21E‐11 



Boron 7440‐42‐8 Max (mg/L) 8.34E‐10 1.04E‐10 8.95E‐10 8.08E‐11 8.10E‐10 6.26E‐11 7.98E‐10 9.27E‐11 4.87E‐10 4.20E‐11 2.77E‐10 2.78E‐11 2.39E‐10 3.61E‐11 3.53E‐10 2.81E‐11 1.92E‐10 1.40E‐11 



Cadmium 7440‐43‐9 Max (mg/L) 2.92E‐10 3.44E‐11 2.55E‐10 2.61E‐11 2.08E‐10 2.01E‐11 2.07E‐10 2.76E‐11 1.55E‐10 1.37E‐11 1.02E‐10 9.58E‐12 9.16E‐11 1.29E‐11 1.28E‐10 9.34E‐12 8.13E‐11 4.80E‐12 



Manganese 7439‐96‐5 Max (mg/L) 2.78E‐09 3.32E‐10 2.55E‐09 2.53E‐10 2.12E‐09 1.95E‐10 2.11E‐09 2.73E‐10 1.51E‐09 1.33E‐10 9.62E‐10 9.15E‐11 8.56E‐10 1.22E‐10 1.21E‐09 8.99E‐11 7.45E‐10 4.59E‐11 



Molybdenum 7439‐98‐7 Max (mg/L) 1.68E‐08 2.10E‐09 1.79E‐08 1.63E‐09 1.62E‐08 1.26E‐09 1.60E‐08 1.86E‐09 9.79E‐09 8.46E‐10 5.60E‐09 5.60E‐10 4.83E‐09 7.29E‐10 7.13E‐09 5.66E‐10 3.90E‐09 2.81E‐10 



Nickel 7440‐02‐0 Max (mg/L) 1.79E‐07 2.19E‐08 1.80E‐07 1.69E‐08 1.56E‐07 1.30E‐08 1.55E‐07 1.89E‐08 1.01E‐07 8.81E‐09 6.05E‐08 5.93E‐09 5.29E‐08 7.79E‐09 7.67E‐08 5.92E‐09 4.40E‐08 2.98E‐09 



Tin 7440‐31‐5 Max (mg/L) 4.84E‐09 6.04E‐10 5.19E‐09 4.69E‐10 4.70E‐09 3.63E‐10 4.63E‐09 5.38E‐10 2.82E‐09 2.44E‐10 1.61E‐09 1.61E‐10 1.38E‐09 2.09E‐10 2.05E‐09 1.63E‐10 1.11E‐09 8.09E‐11 



Vanadium 7440‐62‐2 Max (mg/L) 5.52E‐07 6.72E‐08 5.45E‐07 5.17E‐08 4.69E‐07 4.00E‐08 4.66E‐07 5.75E‐08 3.09E‐07 2.70E‐08 1.87E‐07 1.83E‐08 1.64E‐07 2.40E‐08 2.37E‐07 1.82E‐08 1.38E‐07 9.16E‐09 



Zinc 7440‐66‐6 Max (mg/L) 2.05E‐08 2.41E‐09 1.77E‐08 1.82E‐09 1.44E‐08 1.40E‐09 1.43E‐08 1.92E‐09 1.09E‐08 9.60E‐10 7.19E‐09 6.72E‐10 6.45E‐09 9.02E‐10 9.01E‐09 6.54E‐10 5.74E‐09 3.37E‐10 




Appendix B: Marine Sediment Quality Model 

Appendix B Marine Sediment Quality Model 

2010 Page B-1





Appendix B Marine Sediment Quality Model .............................................. B-1 

B.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ B-5 

B.1.1 Sediment Fate and Transport Model ............................................................. B-5 

B.1.2 Marine Sediment Quality Model Function ..................................................... B-6 

B.2 Principal Model Processes .............................................................................. B-10 

B.2.1 Water Sediment COPC Partitioning ............................................................ B-10 

B.2.2 Sediment Deposition ................................................................................... B-12 

B.2.3 Bioturbation.................................................................................................. B-13 

B.2.4 Surface Sediment Burial and Transfer to Deep Sediment .......................... B-13 

B.2.5 Degradation of COPC in Sediment .............................................................. B-14 

B.3 Additional Parameter Values Used in the Model ............................................. B-16 

B.3.1 Water Concentration .................................................................................... B-16 

B.3.2 Sediment Bulk Density ................................................................................ B-17 

B.3.3 Total Suspended Sediment Concentration .................................................. B-17 

B.3.4 Sediment Particle Size ................................................................................ B-18 

B.4 References ...................................................................................................... B-19 

B.4.1 Literature Cited ............................................................................................ B-19 

Attachment B1 Sediment Fate and Transport Model Equations and 

Documentation ..................................................................... B1-1 

Attachment B2 Sediment Fate and Transport Model Results ........................ B2-1 


Table B-1 Sediment Types Associated with Model Compartments a 

....................... B-5 

Table B-2 COPC-Specific Water-Sediment Partition Coefficient (KD) Values 

Used in the Marine Sediment Quality Model ......................................... B-11 

Table B-3 COPC Sediment Decay Constant (k) Used in the Marine Sediment 

Quality Model ....................................................................................... B-15 

Table B-4 Average Silt and Clay Fraction of Surface Sediments from Kitimat 1, 

Kitimat 2 and Terminal Model Compartments ....................................... B-18 

Table B2-1 Summary of Predicted 50 Year Maximum COPC Sediment 

Concentrations (mg/kg DW) in Each Model Compartment ................... B2-6 

2010 Page B-3





Figure B-1 Marine Water Quality Model Compartments .......................................... B-7 

Figure B-2 Marine Sediment Quality Model Conceptual Diagram ............................ B-9 

Figure B2-1 Naphthalene Concentrations in Near-Shore (Ns) and Off-Shore 

(Os) Sediment ...................................................................................... B2-4 

Figure B2-2 Vanadium Concentrations in Near-shore (Ns) and Off-shore (Os) 

Sediment .............................................................................................. B2-5 

Page B-4 2010




B.1 Introduction 

B.1.1 Sediment Fate and Transport Model 

Environmental fate and transport models are often used to simulate fate and transport of contaminants in 

environmental media (e.g., water, sediment), and can be useful tools for extending limited data to 

predictions of future conditions. Two independent mass balance compartment models are used to evaluate 

the likely fate of chemicals of potential concern (COPC) that may be released from the marine 

environment with storm water via an offshore perforated pipe or by atmospheric deposition. The first 

model estimates the fate and transport of COPC in water, hereafter referred to as the Marine Water 

Quality Model (see Appendix A). The second model as described in this appendix simulates deposition of 

COPC into the marine sediment. The Marine Sediment Quality Model predicts concentrations of COPC 

in near-shore and offshore sediment of nine model compartments. 

See Figure B-1 for the configuration of Kitimat Arm, the northern end of Douglas Channel. The results of 

the Marine Sediment Water Quality Model are used in the calculation of exposure point concentrations 

(EPC) for the KIs assessed in the Marine ERA. The detailed equations and documentation representing 

the Marine Sediment Quality Model in Stella® format are provided in Attachment B1. 

The Marine Sediment Quality Model uses a mass balance approach to account for the potential 

accumulation of COPC in marine sediments over a period of up to 50 years. The Marine Sediment 

Quality Model uses a commercially available modeling software (Stella® Version 8.1.1). The model 

predicts concentrations of COPC in the marine sediment of eighteen marine sediment model 

compartments (see Table B-1), representing the near-shore sediments (i.e., intertidal sediments, including 

marsh and mudflat sediments) underlying nine surface water compartments, and the offshore sediments 

underlying nine bottom water compartments, described in the Marine Water Quality Model. 

Table B-1 Sediment Types Associated with Model Compartments a 

Near-shore (intertidal) 

Offshore (subtidal) 


Sediment Type 

Sediment Type 

Kitimat 1 (K1) Salt Marsh / Near-shore Offshore 

Kitimat 2 (K2) Salt Marsh / Near-shore Offshore 

Terminal (T) Salt Marsh / Near-shore Offshore 

Clio Bay (CB) Salt Marsh / Near-shore Offshore 

Emsley Point (EP) Salt Marsh / Near-shore Offshore 

West Side Coste Island (CO) Salt Marsh / Near-shore Offshore 

Amos Passage (AP) Salt Marsh / Near-shore Offshore 

Kildala Arm (KA) Salt Marsh / Near-shore Offshore 

Nanakwa Shoal (NS) Salt Marsh / Near-shore Offshore 

NOTE: 

a Based on the compartments identified in Appendix A for the Marine Water Quality Model. 

2010 Page B-5




The Stella ® modelling framework is a mass balance modelling system that allows the user to construct 

models using three basic components: 

1. Stocks, compartments that hold and account for mass (COPC). 

2. Flows, links between compartments that act as valves and allow mass (COPC) to be transferred at 

rates that are specified by controlling equations 

3. Converters, generally parameters or variables that are entered into the model in order to drive 

equations 

This is a mass balance model because it is based on the fundamental principle that mass can neither be 

created nor destroyed (except as specified by equations describing specific processes such as microbial 

degradation of hydrocarbons). It is a compartment model because it consists of compartments configured 

to spatially represent the natural environment (i.e., each compartment represents different areas of 

sediments). The Marine Sediment Quality Model simulates the behaviour of COPC in the marine 

environment over a time period of 50 years, using a time step (dt) of one day. 

B.1.2 Marine Sediment Quality Model Function 

Five fundamental processes are responsible for driving the flow of mass in the Marine Sediment Quality 

Model: 

1. partitioning of COPC between water and suspended sediments 

2. deposition of suspended particles and absorbed COPC into the sediment layer 

3. bioturbation of the surface sediment layer by benthic organisms 

4. transfer of surface sediments into a deeper sediment layer through burial by deposited sediments 

5. degradation and decomposition of COPC in the surface sediment due to physical, chemical and 

microbial processes 

These processes are described in detail below, and in the model equations and parameters presented in 

Attachment B1. The Marine Sediment Quality Model does not attempt to describe the short-term 

processes of erosion and deposition of near-shore or intertidal sediments, since these processes tend to be 

site specific and result in sediment redistribution, rather than processes that determine COPC 

concentrations in sediment, as outlined above. 

See Figure B-2 for a conceptual Marine Sediment Quality Model representing the sediment compartments 

(stocks) and fluxes between compartments (flows). The basic structure of the model includes two stocks 

(rectangular boxes) that model the mass of COPC present in the surface sediment layer (top 5 cm of 

sediment; SS_mass) and the deep sediment layer (DS_mass), respectively. The selection of a surface 

sediment layer of 5 cm is reasonable. For example, in San Francisco Bay, the Regional Monitoring Plan 

Sediment Working Group (RMPSWG 1999) concluded that there is no uniform active sediment layer or 

uniform burial depth in San Francisco Bay that could be used for sediment monitoring, but that sampling 

the top 5 cm provides a reasonable estimate of the most recently deposited material, and is the layer to 

which most organisms are exposed. 

Page B-6 2010

100 m 

300 m 

100 m 

CONTRACTOR: 

100 m 

100 m 

100 m 

100 m 

200 m 

Maitland 

Island 

200 m 

100 m 


100 m 

100 m 

100 m 

300 m 

DC 

Loretta 

Island 

200 m 

100 m 

NS 

200 m 

200 m 


Terminal 

Emsley 

Cove 

CO 

EP 

Coste 

Island 

200 m 

200 m 

T 

AP 

K2 

CB 



SCALE: 

K1 

Clio 

Bay 


Gobeil 

Bay 

KA 



Kitamaat 

Village 

100 m 







Railway 

Road 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


PROJECTION: 

Kilometres 

JWA-1048334-1630 


UTM 9 

B-1 

1:220,000 

NP 

DATE: 


DATUM: 

20090911 

CM 

NAD 83 





The surface sediment layer has one inflow, sediment deposition, as well as two outflows, decay and 

burial, to the deep sediment layer. The deep sediment layer serves as the final destination for COPC, and 

concentrations of COPC are not calculated for this sediment layer. Benthic invertebrates and fish are 

assumed to be largely confined to the surface sediment layer, which is assumed to correspond to the 

sediment layer where oxygen is present and available. The boundary between the surface sediment layer 

and the deep sediment layer is assumed to correspond to the boundary between oxidizing and reducing 

(anoxic) conditions in the sediments. 

The deposition of COPC to the surface sediment layer can be determined from the concentration of COPC 

in suspended sediments (Ctss; mg COPC/kg dry sediment) deposited on the surface sediment layer. This 

calculation is done using estimated COPC concentrations in water (Cwater; mg/m 3 ) from the Marine 

Water Quality Model (see Appendix A), as well as estimated suspended sediment concentrations in the 

water (TSS; mg/m 3 ), water sediment partitioning coefficients (KD; L/kg or m 3 /kg) that govern the 

partitioning of the COPC between water and suspended sediments, and the deposition rate at which 

sediments are accumulated onto the surface sediment layer. 

The concentrations of COPC in seawater used as input to the Marine Sediment Quality Model are the 

arithmetic mean daily water concentrations for a typical year (see Appendix A). The model repeats this 

typical year of water-quality data for up to 50 years to estimate the potentially worst-case sediment 

quality conditions at the end of this period of time. The COPC concentrations in the surface water layer 

are applied to the near-shore sediment compartments, whereas COPC concentrations in the bottom water 

layer are applied to the offshore sediment compartments. 

Using the above information, the concentration of COPC in the shallow sediment (Css, mg/kg dry weight) 

is calculated using the mass of COPC in the surface sediment layer (SSmass, kg), the sediment bulk 

density (SSbd, kg/m 3 ) and the moisture content of the bulk sediment. It is further adjusted for the 

expected sediment grain size (i.e., the fraction of silt and clay in the sediment layer). 

Contaminants of potential concern may be lost from the surface sediment layer by two mechanisms: 

decay (which applies only to organic COPC) and burial (representing the transfer of COPC into the deep 

sediment layer). The rate at which organic COPC are decomposed in sediment is chemical-specific and is 

driven by a decay constant (kdecay). The rate of sediment burial is regulated by the sediment deposition 

rate. 

The Marine Sediment Quality Model treats each COPC individually. During a model run, the individual 

characteristics of each COPC are automatically selected using a controller identified as Analyte Master, 

which specifies the appropriate chemical-specific values of kdecay and KD for the model to use. 

The conceptual model (see Figure B-2) represents the fate and transport of a COPC in one sediment 

model compartment. The model was then arrayed (replicated in parallel stacked models) so as to 

simultaneously model the fate of COPC in the sediment of each of the 18 model compartments. The 

model compartments represent discrete areas and water masses, such as portions of Kitimat Arm. Arrayed 

stocks, flows, and converters are represented by stacked icons (e.g., TSS). Single icons (e.g., Julian) that 

are not stacked represent a single quantity or value that applies to all 18 arrayed compartments. 

Page B-8 2010




B.2 Principal Model Processes 

B.2.1 Water Sediment COPC Partitioning 

In aquatic environments, COPC may undergo reactions with surface binding sites on particles suspended 

in the water. Reactions in which the chemical is bound to the solid matrix are referred to as sorption 

reactions, and a chemical that is bound to the solid is said to be sorbed. 

For inorganic COPC, the water sediment partition coefficient (KD; expressed in L/kg or m 3 /kg, U.S. 

EPA 1999) is the equilibrium ratio of the COPC concentration in the suspended sediment solid phase 

(mg/kg dry weight) to the COPC concentration in the dissolved phase (expressed in mg/L). Values of KD 

expressed in units of L/kg can be converted into units of m 3 /kg by dividing them by a factor of 1,000. In 

aquatic systems, the binding of COPC to suspended particles influences the mass of COPC that may be 

deposited into bed sediments as a result of the settling of suspended sediments. High KD values result in 

stronger binding and also in a greater fraction of the total COPC present in water binding to suspended 

particles. The COPC concentration in the suspended sediments (Ctss) therefore depends upon the KD 

value, the total concentration of COPC in the water, and the availability of suspended sediments to 

provide binding sites. 

For organic COPC, sorption reactions are usually based upon the partitioning of the organic substance 

with organic carbon present in sediment or suspended sediment. The KOC value represents the equilibrium 

partitioning between water and organic carbon phases in the sediment. The KOC value, which is usually 

estimated from the KOW value (based on equilibrium partitioning of organic substances between water and 

octanol), can be converted into an equivalent KD value by adjusting for the availability of organic carbon 

in the suspended sediment. 

KD values were adopted from multiple sources (see Table B-2). Data for metals are preferentially based 

on Balls’ (1989) compilation of KD values for certain metals in European coastal waters and secondarily 

on a U.S. EPA (2005) review of KD values for surface waters. The KD values for boron and manganese 

are based on Lemarchand (2005) and Drndarski et al. (1990), respectively. Values for organics are based 

on standard equations (U.S. EPA 1999; Schwarzenbach et al. 2002) relating KD to their respective 

octanol-water partition coefficient (KOW), and the assumed carbon content of suspended sediments. Total 

petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) aromatic and aliphatic fractions are assigned KD values based on the KOW 

values of individual hydrocarbons representative of each TPH fraction. 

Page B-10 2010





Used in the Marine Sediment Quality Model 

Substance 

KD 

(L/kg) 

Barium 10,000 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Boron 40 Lemarchand (2005) 

Cadmium 100,000 Balls (1989) 

Manganese 750,000 Drndarski et al. (1990) 

Molybdenum 25,119 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Nickel 31,623 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Tin 79,433 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Vanadium 5,012 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Zinc 100,000 Balls (1989) 

Reference 

Benzene 4 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Toluene 15 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Ethylbenzene 39 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Xylenes (m,o,p) 49 Average of xylene isomers calculated using KOC and 

equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

1-Methylnaphthalene 228 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

2-Methylnaphthalene 223 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Acenaphthene 244 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Acenaphthylene 308 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Anthracene 972 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Benzo(a)anthracene 15,412 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Benzo(a)pyrene 30,750 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 40,536 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Benzo(e)pyrene 84,693 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 97,240 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 38,712 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Chrysene 15,412 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 97,240 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Fluoranthene 3,075 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Fluorene 487 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 122,418 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Naphthalene 61 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Phenanthrene 972 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Pyrene 2,443 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

2010 Page B-11





Used in the Marine Sediment Quality Model (cont’d) 

Substance 

KD 

(L/kg) 

Reference 

Aromatic >C8-C10 119 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Aromatic >C10 - C12 188 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Aromatic >C12 - C16 376 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Aromatic >C16 - C21 1,189 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Aromatic >C21- C32 9,442 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Aliphatic >C6 - C8 299 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Aliphatic >C8 - C10 2,372 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 



Aliphatic >C16 - C21 47,321,801 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Aliphatic >C21 - C32 47,321,801 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

2,4-dimethylphenol 6 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

2,4-dinitrophenol 1 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

Phenol 1 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 81 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 387 Calculated using KOC and equations in U.S. EPA (1999) 

B.2.2 Sediment Deposition 

The sediment deposition rate (Dep, cm/y) within an aquatic system is a function of the water current 

velocity, the particle settling velocity, the depth of the water column, and the concentration of suspended 

sediment. Therefore, if estimates of these parameters are available, it is possible to predict the rate of 

sediment deposition. However, it would be difficult to accurately model sedimentation due to the variable 

tidal currents and freshwater inputs in the area. As an alternative, measured average sedimentation rates 

within Kitimat Arm were used to estimate the long-term rate of sediment deposition (Macdonald 1983; 

Harris 1999). Macdonald (1983) reported sedimentation rates of 0.21 and 0.47 cm/y, respectively, for 

compacted and uncompacted offshore sediments. These are similar to values published by Harris (1999) 

for offshore sediment cores collected near Kitamaat Village (0.5 to 0.61 cm/y). As surface or 

uncompacted sediments are considered, a deposition rate of 0.5 cm/y is assumed for offshore sediment. 

This value is also applied to mudflats and saltmarshes as site-specific sedimentation rates were not 

available for these sediment types. 

The benefit of applying values measured from the specific area or nearby areas is that the measured 

deposition rates are the product of all factors affecting the deposition rate and provide realistic long-term 

average values. For example, flocculation of materials carried by fresh water upon contact with salt water 

is known to increase sedimentation in estuaries yet is a difficult process to model (Kranck 1981; Hill et al. 

2000). Long-term sedimentation rates, however, capture spatial and temporal variation in flocculation 

Page B-12 2010




through the area. One limitation of using published values reported on an annual basis is the inability to 

have sedimentation rates vary simultaneously with water COPC concentrations at a timescale much finer 

than the annual scale reported for sedimentation rates. However, this inability is not a problem for the 

present study because it aims to estimate average COPC concentrations in sediment over a longer time 

scale and is therefore not greatly concerned with short-term fluctuations. 

Additionally, the organic COPC concentrations of the surface sediment layer (Css) have a non-linear 

positive relationship with sedimentation rate because, as sedimentation and burial rates increase, the mass 

of organic COPC lost to decay in the surface sediment layer decreases due to the shorter residency time of 

sediment in this layer. The maximum concentration in the surface sediment layer is limited by the 

concentration of COPC in the total suspended sediment (Ctss). 

B.2.3 Bioturbation 

The surface sediment layer is defined by the thickness of the sediment layer within which most benthic 

organisms contact sediment. The benthic activity that defines this layer also causes the vertical and 

horizontal mixing (bioturbation) of the surface sediment. Rhoads (1967) states that surface sediments, 

where deposit feeders are abundant, may be completely reworked several times before being isolated 

from further biological activity by additional sedimentation. The layer of greatest bioturbation is typically 

assumed to be approximately 5 cm in thickness (Mazik and Elliott 2000). 

While a few benthic organisms may cause slight mixing of sediment to a greater depth, assuming a 

greater thickness to the surface sediment layer would be less conservative because it would result in 

greater residency time in the surface layer and allow for more degradation of organic COPC to occur 

(Section B.2.5). Therefore, while bioturbation is not directly modelled, it is implicitly included in the 

model by assuming that the sediment COPC concentrations will be homogeneous within the surface layer 

to a depth of 5 cm. 

B.2.4 Surface Sediment Burial and Transfer to Deep Sediment 

As suspended sediments are deposited on the sediment layer over time, deeper sediments slowly become 

buried. The rate of sediment burial, on average, is equal to the rate of sediment deposition because the 

surface sediment layer is assumed to have a static thickness (5 cm). Once transferred to the deep sediment 

layer, COPC are assumed to become unavailable to biota (particularly plants, invertebrates and 

vertebrates) as the zone of greatest biological activity is the surface sediment layer. As the deep sediment 

layer is typically anoxic with little biological activity, the rate of chemical degradation in the deep 

sediment layer is also assumed to be negligible. In addition, some COPC may be rendered less available 

to biota as a result of binding to sulphides that are expected to be present in the anoxic sediments. 

The rate of sediment deposition, and therefore sediment burial, increases the surface-layer sediment 

concentration of organic COPC. This increase occurs because a faster burial rate reduces the period of 

time available for COPC to be degraded in the mixed sediment layer (see Section B.2.5); however, trace 

elements do not decay. 

2010 Page B-13




B.2.5 Degradation of COPC in Sediment 

Organic COPC, such as hydrocarbons, typically degrade over time in the sediments due to physical, 

chemical and microbial processes (Leahy and Colwell 1990). The greatest decomposition typically occurs 

in the surface sediment layer because of the availability of oxygen and higher levels of biological activity. 

Certain COPC may persist for long periods of time (e.g., high molecular weight PAHs), whereas others 

degrade more rapidly (e.g., low molecular weight hydrocarbons such as benzene). The average residence 

time of sediment in the surface sediment layer influences the relative amount of the chemical lost 

compared to the amount deposited through sedimentation. 

The degradation rate of a compound in an environmental medium is typically expressed as a chemical’s 

half-life (days, d), which is the time required for 50% of the initial mass of COPC to degrade. Half-lives 

may be converted to decay constants (k, 1/d) to evaluate the residual concentrations of COPC in surface 

sediment compartments. Assuming that the degradation follows first-order kinetics (typical for 

degradation reactions), then the half-life may be converted to a decay constant using the equation: 

k = 0.693/half-life 

The decay constant is used in the following exponential decay function to model the remaining mass of 

chemical over time: 

Where: 

M(t) = M x e -kt 

M(t) = the amount (mass) of COPC at time t 

M = the initial mass of COPC at time 0 

e = the base of natural logarithms (approximately 2.71828) 

k = the decay constant 

t = the amount of time elapsed (days) 

The half-lives for COPC assessed were derived from Mackay et al. (2000) and calculated decay constants 

for each COPC (see Table B-3). 

Page B-14 2010





Quality Model 

Substance 

COPC Sediment Decay Constant 

(kd = 0.693/half-life; 1/d) 

Barium 0 a 

Boron 0 1 

Cadmium 0 1 

Manganese 0 1 

Molybdenum 0 1 

Nickel 0 1 

Tin 0 1 

Vanadium 0 1 

Zinc 0 1 

Benzene 0.00979 

Toluene 0.00302 

Ethylbenzene 0.00302 

Xylenes (m,o,p) 0.00302 

1-Methylnaphthalene 0.00302 

2-Methylnaphthalene 0.00302 

Acenaphthene 0.00098 

Acenaphthylene 0.00098 

Anthracene 0.00098 

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.00030 

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00030 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00030 

Benzo(e)pyrene 0.00030 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.00030 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.00030 

Chrysene 0.00030 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00030 

Fluoranthene 0.00030 

Fluorene 0.00098 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.00030 

Naphthalene 0.00302 

Phenanthrene 0.00098 

Pyrene 0.00030 

2010 Page B-15





Quality Model (cont’d) 

Substance 

COPC Sediment Decay Constant 

(kd = 0.693/half-life; 1/d) 

Aromatic >C8-C10 

0.00302 

Aromatic >C10 - C12 

0.00098 


0.00030 


0.00030 

Aromatic >C21- C32 

0.00030 

Aliphatic > C6 - C8 

0.00302 

Aliphatic >C8 - C10 

0.00302 


0.00302 


0.00302 


0.00302 


0.00098 

2,4-dimethylphenol 0.03025 

2,4-dinitrophenol 0.00302 

Phenol 0.03025 

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.00302 

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 0.00098 

NOTE: 

a Trace elements do not decay. 

SOURCE: Decay constants obtained from MacKay et al. (2000) 

B.3 Additional Parameter Values Used in the Model 

B.3.1 Water Concentration 

The concentrations of COPC in the water (Cwater, kg/m 3 ) of each model compartment are calculated 

using the Water Quality Model (Appendix A). From the Water Quality Model, a one-year time series of 

daily average COPC concentrations is obtained for each model compartment. This typical annual cycle of 

COPC concentrations is repeated over a 50-year period in the Marine Sediment Quality Model. To 

produce a conservative estimate of COPC accumulation in sediment, the Marine Sediment Quality Model 

was run for a 50-year period and maximum concentrations at the end of this period were used. 

Cwater directly affects the surface sediment concentration (Css) by influencing the total suspended 

sediment COPC concentrations (Ctss). The suspended sediment COPC concentrations will increase in a 

manner directly proportional to the water concentration. 

Page B-16 2010




B.3.2 Sediment Bulk Density 

The bulk density of the surface sediment (SSbd) is the mass of sediment (kg) per unit of volume (m 3 ) and 

is typically expressed on a dry weight basis. To calculate the wet weight bulk density of the surface 

sediment, the following equation was used (as described in Macdonald 1983): 

Where: 

SSbd = MS + MW / VS + VW , 

MS = dry mass of the solids 

MW = mass of occluded water 

VS = volume of the solids 

VW = volume of occluded water 

Both MS and MW can be determined using the moisture content of the sediment. Empirical measurements 

of the moisture content of sediment samples collected in July 2008 revealed an average moisture content 

of 55% by weight (n = 10). Assuming a 1 kg sediment sample, this result would thus represent 0.55 kg of 

occluded water and 0.45 kg of dry solids. Using these masses and the density of the occluded water and 

dry solids, it is then possible to determine VS and VW. Empirical measurements of dry solids in sediment 

cores collected in the region have yielded a dry density of 2,550 kg/m 3 , whereas sediment occluded water 

is typically assumed to have a density of 1,020 kg/m 3 , which is that of brackish water (Macdonald 1983). 

The calculation provides an estimated sediment wet bulk density of 1,397 kg/m 3 . 

B.3.3 Total Suspended Sediment Concentration 

The total suspended sediment concentration in water (TSS, kg/m 3 ) is the concentration of sediment or 

other particulate matter suspended in the water. In the sediment model, this parameter is used in the 

calculation of the COPC concentration on suspended sediment that precipitates onto the surface sediment 

layer. The TSS concentration affects the suspended sediment COPC concentrations (Ctss) in an inversely 

proportional manner. Increasing the TSS concentration decreases Ctss. Empirical seawater TSS 

measurements were available for three of the nine compartments with concentrations ranging from 6.4 to 

11.6 mg/L (see Appendix D) from seawater samples collected in July 2008. Previous TSS measurements 

in the area revealed a TSS concentration of 18 mg/L at Bish Cove during the winter when TSS 

contributions from freshwater inputs are expected to be relatively low (Jacques Whitford 2005). As TSS 

values are known to vary according to seasonality and freshwater inputs, peaking in the spring and early 

summer in response to peak freshwater runoff rates, a standard TSS concentration of 18 mg/L was applied 

to all model compartments. This assumption tends to overestimate the mean annual COPC concentration 

of the TSS, and subsequently of surface sediments, and is conservative. 

2010 Page B-17




B.3.4 Sediment Particle Size 

To adjust the sediment COPC concentration according to the sediment particle-size distribution, a 

parameter for sediment particle size was included in the model. Particle-size correction reflects the fact 

that larger particles (sand and gravel) have relatively low surface areas, and relatively non-reactive 

surfaces, and are not typically suspended in the water column. Therefore, the particle fraction of sediment 

comprised of material larger than silt and clay is not considered further. In contrast, fine particles 

(silt/clay) have much higher surface area per unit mass than coarser particles and thus have greater surface 

reactivity and capacity to sorb COPC. Therefore, COPC were considered only to bind to the silt and clay 

fraction of the sediment. 

The particle-size correction is based on sieve analysis data from empirical measurements (see 

Appendix D). Sieve analysis was performed on sediment samples collected in February 2006 (model 

compartments K2 and T) and July 2008 (model compartments K1 and T). Sediment samples collected in 

2006 were from deeper water than those collected in 2008. The deeper sediment samples represent the 

offshore sediments; whereas the samples collected closer to shore more represent intertidal sediments, 

mudflats and salt marsh. Results were presented either as fraction of gravel (greater than 2 mm), sand 

(0.063 mm to 2 mm), silt (0.004 mm to 0.063 mm) and clay (less than 0.004 mm) or gravel, sand and 

silt/clay fractions. The fractions of sediment smaller than 0.063 mm were regrouped and averaged 

according to model compartments. 

For the averages for fraction silt/clay for these three model compartments, see Table B-4. Empirical 

measurements of silt/clay fraction from deep-water sediments were found to be similar between the 

Kitimat 2 and Terminal compartments (average of 89% and 88%, respectively). Empirical measurements 

of silt/clay fraction from shallow-water sediments were much lower with averages of 2% in the Kitimat 1 

compartment and 17% in the Terminal compartment. Values of silt/clay fraction measured in deeper 

sediments were much higher than those measured in shallow sediments which are taken to represent the 

offshore and mudflats/saltmarshes sediments respectively. As a conservative approach (likely to 

overestimate COPC concentrations in sediment), a value of 100% silt/clay fraction was applied to all 

offshore sediments compartments, whereas a value of 20% silt/clay fraction was applied to all intertidal 

and mudflat/salt marshes sediments. 

Table B-4 Average Silt and Clay Fraction of Surface Sediments from Kitimat 

1, Kitimat 2 and Terminal Model Compartments 

Average Silt / Clay Fraction 

Model Compartment 

Offshore Sediments Near-shore Sediments 

Kitimat 1 N/A 2 

Kitimat 2 89 N/A 

Terminal 88 17 

NOTE: 

N/A – data not available 

Page B-18 2010




B.4 References 

B.4.1 Literature Cited 

Balls, P.W. 1989. The partition of trace metals between dissolved and particulate phases in European 

coastal waters: a compilation of field data and comparison with laboratory studies. Netherlands 

Journal of Sea Research 23: 7-14. 

Drndarski, N., D. Stojić, M. Župančić and S. Čupić. 1990. Determination of partition coefficients of 

metals in the Sava River environment. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 140: 

341-348. 

Harris, G.E. 1999. Assessment of the Assimilative Capacity of Kitimat Arm, British Columbia: A Case 

Study Approach to the Sustainable Management of Environmental Contaminants. PhD Thesis. 

Simon Fraser University. Burnaby, BC. 

Hill, P.S., T.G. Milligan and W.R. Geyer. 2000. Controls on effective settling velocity of suspended 

sediment in the Eel River flood plume. Continental Shelf Research 20: 2095-2111. 

Jacques Whitford. 2005. Application for Approval. Kitimat Liquid Natural Gas Project, Environmental 

Assessment Certificate Application. Burnaby, BC. 

Kranck, K. 1981. Particulate matter grain-size characteristics and flocculation in a partially mixed 

estuary. Sedimentology 28: 107-114. 

Leahy, J.G. and R.R. Colwell. 1990. Microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in the environment. 

Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 54: 305-315. 

Lemarchand, E. 2005. Étude des Mécanismes de Fractionnement Isotopique du Bore lors de son 

Interaction avec les Acides Humiques et les Oxydes de Fer et de Manganèse. PhD Thesis. 

Université Paul-Sabatier de Toulouse III. Toulouse, France. 

Macdonald, R.W. 1983. Proceedings of a Workshop on the Kitimat Marine Environment. Institute of 

Ocean Sciences. Department of Fisheries and Oceans.Canadian Technical Report of Hydrography 

and Ocean Sciences. Report No.18. Sydney, BC. 

Mackay, D., W.Y Shiu and K.C. Ma. 2000. Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate 

Handbook on CD-ROM. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 

Mazik, K. and M. Elliott. 2000. The effects of chemical pollution on the bioturbation potential of 

estuarine intertidal mud flats. Helgoland Marine Research 54: 99-109. 

Regional Monitoring Program Sediment Working Group (RMPSWG). 1999. Recommendations for 

improvement of RMP sediment monitoring. Report prepared for Regional Monitoring Program 

for Trace Substances, San Francisco Estuary Institute. August 1999. RMP Contribution No. 40d. 

Rhoads, D.C. 1967. Biogenic reworking of intertidal and off-shore sediments in Barnstable Harbour and 

Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Journal of Geology 75: 461-476. 



2010 Page B-19




United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1999. Understanding variation in partition 

coefficient, Kd, values. Volume I: The Kd model, methods of measurement, and application of 

chemical reaction codes. Office of Air and Radiation Report No. 402/R-99/004A. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005. Partition coefficients for metals in 

surface water, soil, and waste. Research and Development Report No. 600/R-05/074. 

Page B-20 2010



Attachment B1: Sediment Fate and Transport Model Equations and Documentation 

Attachment B1 Sediment Fate and Transport Model 

Equations and Documentation 

2010 Page B1-1




Parameters and equations for each model stock, flow and converter are listed below with the associated 

document, which provides a rationale for the values used, and an explanation of their function. 

DSmass[Model_Compartment](t) = DSmass[Model_Compartment](t - dt) + (SS:DS[Model_Compartment]) * dt 

INIT DSmass[Model_Compartment] = 0 

DOCUMENT: This stock represents the mass (kg) of the contaminant in the deep sediment layer of a 

compartment. The deep layer is considered biologially inactive and contaminants in this layer are not 

considered a risk to benthic organisms. 

INFLOWS: 

SS:DS[Model_Compartment] = Dep_Rate[Model_Compartment]*(SSmass[Model_Compartment]/0.05) 

DOCUMENT: This flow represents the transfer or burial of shallow sediment into the deep sediment 

layer. It is a function of the daily deposition rate (m/d) and the mass of the contaminant (kg) in the 

shallow surface layer (0.05 m). 

SSmass[Model_Compartment](t) = SSmass[Model_Compartment](t - dt) + (Dep[Model_Compartment] - 

SS:DS[Model_Compartment] - Decay[Model_Compartment]) * dt 

INIT SSmass[Model_Compartment] = 0 

DOCUMENT: This stock represents the mass (kg) of a contaminant in the shallow sediment layer of a 

compartment. 

INFLOWS: 

Dep[Model_Compartment] = Dep_Rate[Model_Compartment]*Area[Model_Compartment]*Ctss 

[Model_Compartment]*SSbd[Model_Compartment] 

DOCUMENT: Dep is the mass (kg) of a contaminant deposited into the shallow sediment layer on a 

daily basis. It is a function of the deposition rate (m/d), the area (m2), the concentration of contaminant on 

the deposited sediment (kg/kg) and the shallow sediment wet bulk density (kg/m3). 

m/day * m2 * kg/kg * kg/m3 

OUTFLOWS: 

SS:DS[Model_Compartment] = Dep_Rate[Model_Compartment]*(SSmass[Model_Compartment]/0.05) 

DOCUMENT: This flow represents the transfer or burial of shallow sediment into the deep sediment 

layer. It is a function of the daily deposition rate (m/d) and the mass of the contaminant (kg) in the 

shallow surface layer (0.05 m). 

Decay[Model_Compartment] = SSmass[Model_Compartment]*(1-(EXP(-1*Kdecay))) 

2010 Page B1-3




DOCUMENT: Decay is the amount of a contaminant that is lost (kg/d) from the shallow sediment layer 

by physical, chemical and biological degradation processes. 

Decay is a function of mass of contaminant (kg) in the shallow sediment compartment, and the 

exponential function of the decay rate of the given contaminant. 

Analyte__Master = 62 

DOCUMENT: 

1 - Benzene 

2 - Ethylbenzene 

3 - Toluene 

4 - Xylenes (tot) 

5 - 1-Methylnaphthalene 

6 - 2-Methylnaphthalene 

7 - Acenaphthene 

8 - Acenaphthylene 

9 - Anthracene 

10 - Benzo(a)anthracene 

11 - Benzo(b)fluoranthene 

12 - Benzo(k)fluoranthene 

13 - Benzo(ghi)perylene 

14 - Benzo(a)pyrene 

15 - Benzo(e)pyrene 

16 - Chrysene 

17 - Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 

18 - Fluoranthene 

19 - Fluorene 

20 - Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 

21 - Naphthalene 

22 - Phenanthrene 

23 - Pyrene 

24 - 2,4-Dimethylphenol 

25 - 2,4-Dinitrophenol 

26 - Phenol 

27 - Al >C6-C8 

28 - Al >C8-C10 

29 - Al >C10-C12 

30 - Al >C12-C16 

31 - Al >C16-C21 

32 - Al >C21-C32 

33 - Ar >C8-C10 

34 - Ar >C10-C12 

Page B1-4 2010




35 - Ar >C12-C16 

36 - Ar >C16-C21 

37 - Ar >C21-C32 

38 - 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

39 - 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 

40 - Formaldehyde 

41 - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

42 - OCDD 

43 - Fluoride 

44 - Antimony 

45 - Arsenic 

46 - Barium 

47 - Beryllium 

48 - Boron 

49 - Cadmium 

50 - Chromium 

51 - Chromium VI 

52 - Cobalt 

53 - Copper 

54 - Lead 

55 - Manganese 

56 - Mercury 

57 - Molybdenum 

58 - Nickel 

59 - Selenium 

60 - Tin 

61 - Vanadium 

62 - Zinc 

Area[K1_ Ns] = 1 

Area[K1_Os] = 1 

Area[K2_ Ns] = 1 

Area[K2_Os] = 1 

Area[T_ Ns] = 1 

Area[T_Os] = 1 

Area[CB_ Ns] = 1 

Area[CB_Os] = 1 

Area[EP_ Ns] = 1 

Area[EP_Os] = 1 

Area[CO_ Ns] = 1 

Area[CO_Os] = 1 

Area[AP_Ns] = 1 

Area[AP_Os] = 1 

Area[KA_Ns] = 1 

2010 Page B1-5




Area[KA_Os] = 1 

Area[NS_Ns] = 1 

Area[NS_Os] = 1 

DOCUMENT: Area is set to 1 m2 as it represents a unit area. The value entered does not affect results 

but is used to simplify further calculations. 

CssDW[Model_Compartment] = CssWW[Model_Compartment] / 

(SSbd[Model_Compartment] - ( 1020 * 0.7534) ) 

DOCUMENT: This is the concentration (mg/kg dry sediment) of a given contaminant in the shallow 

sediment layer reported in dry weight. 

It is a function of the wet weight concentration contaminant in the surface layer (mg/kg wet weight), the 

bulk density (kg/m3 wet weight) and the volumetric moisture content of the sediment. 

The volumetric moisture content of 75.34% is derived from DFO (1983) (ie. 55% moisture by weight). 

CssWW[Model_Compartment] = ( (SSmass[Model_Compartment]*1000000)/(Area[Model_Compartment] * 

0.05) * Fsiltclay[Model_Compartment] ) 

DOCUMENT: This is the concentration (mg/kg wet sediment) of a given contaminant in the shallow 

sediment layer reported in wet weight. 

It is a function of the mass of contaminant in the surface layer (kg) multiplied by 1 000 000 to convert to 

mg, the unit area (m2), the depth (0.05 m) of the shallow sediment layer. 

Ctss[Model_Compartment] = Cwater[Model_Compartment]/TSS[Model_Compartment]*((Kd*TSS[Model_ 

Compartment])/(1+Kd*TSS[Model_Compartment])) 

DOCUMENT: Ctss is the concentration (kg/kg) of a contaminant on the suspended sediment in a given 

model compartment. It is calculated by dividing the total contaminant concentration in the water (kg/m3) 

by the sediment concentration in the water (kg/m3) and multiplying by the fraction (unitless) of 

contaminant that is adsorbed to sediment. 

Dep_Rate[Model_Compartment] = 0.5/100/365 

DOCUMENT: Dep_Rate is the estimated uncompacted sediment deposition rate for each compartment. 

Deposition rates are typically reported in cm/yr. These values were converted to m/d by dividing by 100 

to convert to meters and by 365 to convert to days. 

Deposition rates for all compartments are set to 5 mm/year; this is a conservative value based on the 4.7 

mm/year deposition rate reported in "Proceeding of a workshop on the Kitimat Marine Environment, 

Edited by R.W. Macdonald, 1983". 

Fsiltclay[K1_Ns] = 0.2 

Page B1-6 2010




DOCUMENT: This converter represents the fraction of the model compartment sediment comprised of 

silt and clay. As silt and clay are responsible for adsorbing the vast majority of contaminants, larger 

particles (sand, gravel) were disregarded as playing a minor role in adsorbing contaminants. 

Values for offshore sediments model compartments were conservatively assumed to have a silt and 

sediment fraction of 100%. 

Results from near-shore sediment samples collected by JWL in 2006 and 2008 ranged from 2 to 18% 

silt/clay fraction. A value of 20% is thus conservatively used in the model. 

Fsiltclay[K1_Os] = 1 

Fsiltclay[K2_Ns] = 0.2 

Fsiltclay[K2_Os] = 1 

Fsiltclay[T_Ns] = 0.2 

Fsiltclay[T_Os] = 1 

Fsiltclay[CB_Ns] = 0.2 

Fsiltclay[CB_Os] = 1 

Fsiltclay[EP_Ns] = 0.2 

Fsiltclay[EP_Os] = 1 

Fsiltclay[CO_Ns] = 0.2 

Fsiltclay[CO_Os] = 1 

Fsiltclay[AP_Ns] = 0.2 

Fsiltclay[AP_Os] = 1 

Fsiltclay[KA_Ns] = 0.2 

Fsiltclay[KA_Os] = 1 

Fsiltclay[NS_Ns] = 0.2 

Fsiltclay[NS_Os] = 1 

Julian = 1+(365*((TIME/365)-(INT(Time/365)))) 

DOCUMENT: Julian is a function that returns the "day of the year" as values ranging from 1 to 365, as 

the time of the simulation advances in total elapsed days from the start of the simulation. This allows the 

Cwater to recycle "year after year", based on a single annual cycle stored as a graph in that parameter. 

SSbd[Model_Compartment] = 1397 

DOCUMENT: This is the wet weight bulk density of sediment in Kitimat Inlet (kg/m3) as calculated for 

data specified in "Proceedings of a Workshop on the Kitimat Marine Environment - Part II, DFO 1983) 

Assuming a density of water of 1020 kg/m3 would yeald an in-situ WW moisture content of 75.34%. 

Kitimat Marine Environment - Part II, DFO 1983) 

TSS[Model_Compartment] = 18/1000 

2010 Page B1-7




DOCUMENT: TSS is the averaged total suspended sediment concentration (kg/m3) for each model 

compartment. Values for suface and deep water compartments are set to the same value of 18 mg/L as 

presented in JW2005 - Application for Approval of the Kitimat LNG Project, EACA. 

Values is divided by 1000 to produce kg/m3. 

CAS_Num = GRAPH(Analyte__Master) 

(1.00, 71432), (2.00, 100414), (3.00, 108883), (4.00, 8e+006), (5.00, 90120), (6.00, 91576), (7.00, 

83329), (8.00, 208968), (9.00, 120127), (10.0, 56553), (11.0, 205992), (12.0, 207089), (13.0, 191242), 

(14.0, 50328), (15.0, 192972), (16.0, 218019), (17.0, 53703), (18.0, 206440), (19.0, 86737), (20.0, 

193395), (21.0, 91203), (22.0, 85018), (23.0, 129000), (24.0, 105679), (25.0, 51285), (26.0, 108952), 

(27.0, 6.6e+007), (28.0, 6.6e+007), (29.0, 6.6e+007), (30.0, 6.6e+007), (31.0, 6.6e+007), (32.0, 

6.6e+007), (33.0, 6.6e+007), (34.0, 6.6e+007), (35.0, 6.6e+007), (36.0, 6.6e+007), (37.0, 6.6e+007), 

(38.0, 120821), (39.0, 108678), (40.0, 50000), (41.0, 71556), (42.0, 3.3e+006), (43.0, 1.7e+007), (44.0, 

7.4e+006), (45.0, 7.4e+006), (46.0, 7.4e+006), (47.0, 7.4e+006), (48.0, 7.4e+006), (49.0, 7.4e+006), 

(50.0, 1.6e+007), (51.0, 1.9e+007), (52.0, 7.4e+006), (53.0, 7.4e+006), (54.0, 7.4e+006), (55.0, 

7.4e+006), (56.0, 7.4e+006), (57.0, 7.4e+006), (58.0, 7.4e+006), (59.0, 7.8e+006), (60.0, 7.4e+006), 

(61.0, 7.4e+006), (62.0, 7.4e+006), (63.0, 7.4e+006) 

DOCUMENT: The CAS number is used as the numerical COPC identifier. This allows the user to 

identify the chemical modeled and to verify that all physico-chemical properties correspond to the 

identified chemical. 

Cwater[Model_Compartment] = Julian 

DOCUMENT: Cwater is a function of Julian and is the water concentration in each compartment 

averaged on a daily basis over a three-year period. These daily averaged values are recycled every 365 

days. 

Cwater is the total water concentration (kg/m3) and is a direct input from the water model. It is the sum 

of inputs from effluent discharge and air deposition, as well as mixing and dispersal of the contaminant in 

and among the water compartments. 

Kd = GRAPH(Analyte__Master) 

(1.00, 0.00387), (2.00, 0.0387), (3.00, 0.0154), (4.00, 0.0487), (5.00, 0.228), (6.00, 0.223), (7.00, 0.244), 

(8.00, 0.308), (9.00, 0.972), (10.0, 15.4), (11.0, 40.5), (12.0, 38.7), (13.0, 97.2), (14.0, 30.8), (15.0, 84.7), 

(16.0, 15.4), (17.0, 97.2), (18.0, 3.08), (19.0, 0.487), (20.0, 122), (21.0, 0.0614), (22.0, 0.972), (23.0, 

2.44), (24.0, 0.00614), (25.0, 0.00107), (26.0, 0.000972), (27.0, 0.299), (28.0, 2.37), (29.0, 18.8), (30.0, 

376), (31.0, 47300), (32.0, 47300), (33.0, 0.119), (34.0, 0.188), (35.0, 0.376), (36.0, 1.19), (37.0, 9.44), 

(38.0, 0.387), (39.0, 0.0809), (40.0, 6.88e-005), (41.0, 0.00972), (42.0, 4870), (43.0, 0.04), (44.0, 63.1), 

(45.0, 10.0), (46.0, 10.0), (47.0, 12.6), (48.0, 0.04), (49.0, 100), (50.0, 126), (51.0, 15.8), (52.0, 50.1), 

(53.0, 100), (54.0, 501), (55.0, 750), (56.0, 200), (57.0, 25.1), (58.0, 31.6), (59.0, 25.1), (60.0, 79.4), 

(61.0, 5.01), (62.0, 100), (63.0, 100) 

Page B1-8 2010




DOCUMENT: Kd is the sediment partition coefficient, which is a measure of the propensity for a given 

dissolved substance to bind to suspended sediment particles. 

Kd is reported in units of L/kg and is converted to m3/kg by dividing by 1000 prior to entering it into 

STELLA. 

Kdecay = GRAPH(Analyte__Master) 

(1.00, 0.00978), (2.00, 0.00302), (3.00, 0.00302), (4.00, 0.00302), (5.00, 0.00302), (6.00, 0.00302), (7.00, 

0.000978), (8.00, 0.000978), (9.00, 0.000978), (10.0, 0.000302), (11.0, 0.000302), (12.0, 0.000302), 

(13.0, 0.000302), (14.0, 0.000302), (15.0, 0.000302), (16.0, 0.000302), (17.0, 0.000302), (18.0, 

0.000302), (19.0, 0.000978), (20.0, 0.000302), (21.0, 0.00302), (22.0, 0.000978), (23.0, 0.000302), (24.0, 

0.0302), (25.0, 0.00302), (26.0, 0.0302), (27.0, 0.00302), (28.0, 0.00302), (29.0, 0.00302), (30.0, 

0.00302), (31.0, 0.00302), (32.0, 0.000978), (33.0, 0.00302), (34.0, 0.000978), (35.0, 0.000302), (36.0, 

0.000302), (37.0, 0.000302), (38.0, 0.000978), (39.0, 0.00302), (40.0, 0.0978), (41.0, 0.000978), (42.0, 

0.000302), (43.0, 0.00), (44.0, 0.00), (45.0, 0.00), (46.0, 0.00), (47.0, 0.00), (48.0, 0.00), (49.0, 0.00), 

(50.0, 0.00), (51.0, 0.00), (52.0, 0.00), (53.0, 0.00), (54.0, 0.00), (55.0, 0.00), (56.0, 0.00), (57.0, 0.00), 

(58.0, 0.00), (59.0, 0.00), (60.0, 0.00), (61.0, 0.00), (62.0, 0.00), (63.0, 0.00) 

DOCUMENT: This is the exponential decay rate (per day) at which a given analyte degrades in the 

biologically active surface sediment layer. The Decay Consant = 0.693/Half-life (days) of the 

contaminant. 

Once deposited into the deep sediment layer, the decomposition rate is assumed to be 0 as organic 

compounds tend to degrade extremely slowly in anaerobic conditions. 

2010 Page B1-9



Attachment B2: Sediment Fate and Transport Model Results 

Attachment B2 Sediment Fate and Transport Model 

Results 

2010 Page B2-1



Attachment B2: Sediment Fate and Transport Model Results 

This sub-appendix provides information about the sediment model COPC concentrations in all eighteen 

sediment model compartments. Graphs (Figures B2-1 and B2-2) of concentrations over time in each 

model compartment are provided for two COPC, vanadium and naphthalene, while the maximum 

concentration for all COPC in each model compartment are provided in Table B2-1. The vanadium and 

naphthalene graphs are provided to contrast the pattern of COPC accumulation in sediment for an element 

(vanadium), which does not degrade, and for an organic compound (naphthalene). 

2010 Page B2-3

Figure B2‐1 Naphthalene Concentrations in Near‐shore (Ns) and Off ‐shore (Os) Sediment 

Concentration (mg/kg DW) 

5.0E‐07 

4.5E‐07 

4.0E‐07 

3.5E‐07 

3.0E‐07 

2.5E‐07 

2.0E‐07 

1.5E‐07 

1.0E‐07 

5.0E‐08 

0.0E+00 

Maximum Concentration 

(mg/kg DW) 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

Years Since Comissioning of Facility 

K1 Ns K2 Ns T Ns CB Ns EP Ns 

CO Ns AP Ns KA Ns NS Ns 

5.0E‐07 

4.5E‐07 

4.0E‐07 

3.5E‐07 

3.0E‐07 

2.5E‐07 

2.0E‐07 

1.5E‐07 

1.0E‐07 

5.0E‐08 

0.0E+00 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 


5.0E‐07 

4.5E‐07 

4.0E‐07 

3.5E‐07 

3.0E‐07 

2.5E‐07 

2.0E‐07 

1.5E‐07 

1.0E‐07 

5.0E‐08 

0.0E+00 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 


K1 Os K2 Os T Os CB Os EP Os 

CO Os AP Os KA Os NS Os 

K1 Ns K1 Os K2 Ns K2 Os T Ns T Os CB Ns CB Os EP Ns EP Os CO Ns CO Os AP Ns AP Os KA Ns KA Os NS Ns NS Os 

25 

30 

35 

40 4 

45 4 

50

Figure B2‐2 Vanadium Concentrations in Near‐shore (Ns) and Off ‐shore (Os) Sediment 


1.2E‐03 

1.0E‐03 

8.0E‐04 

6.0E‐04 

4.0E‐04 

2.0E‐04 

0.0E+00 

Maximum Concentration 

(mg/kg DW) 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 


K1 Ns K2 Ns T Ns CB Ns EP Ns 

CO Ns AP Ns KA Ns NS Ns 

1.2E‐03 

1.0E‐03 

8.0E‐04 

6.0E‐04 

4.0E‐04 

2.0E‐04 

0.0E+00 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 


1.2E‐03 

1.0E‐03 

8.0E‐04 

6.0E‐04 

4.0E‐04 

2.0E‐04 

0.0E+00 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 


K1 Os K2 Os T Os CB Os EP Os 

CO Os AP Os KA Os NS Os 

K1 Ns K1 Os K2 Ns K2 Os T Ns T Os CB Ns CB Os EP Ns EP Os CO Ns CO Os AP Ns AP Os KA Ns KA Os NS Ns NS Os 

25 

30 

35 

40 4 

45 4 

50

Table B2-1 Summary of Predicted 50 Year Maximum COPC Sediment Concentrations (mg/kg DW) in Each Model Compartment 

COPC K1 Ns K1 Os K2 Ns K2 Os T Ns T Os CB Ns CB Os EP Ns EP Os CO Ns CO Os AP Ns AP Os KA Ns KA Os NS Ns NS Os 

Benzene 4.26E-07 2.67E-07 4.63E-07 2.10E-07 4.19E-07 1.64E-07 4.15E-07 2.32E-07 2.59E-07 1.10E-07 1.85E-07 7.30E-08 1.44E-07 7.02E-08 1.24E-07 9.24E-08 9.66E-08 3.55E-08 

Ethylbenzene 6.40E-06 4.08E-06 7.06E-06 3.22E-06 6.50E-06 2.52E-06 6.43E-06 3.57E-06 4.05E-06 1.69E-06 2.90E-06 1.13E-06 2.24E-06 1.08E-06 2.24E-06 1.08E-06 2.24E-06 1.08E-06 

Toluene 1.35E-05 8.61E-06 1.49E-05 6.80E-06 1.37E-05 5.31E-06 1.36E-05 7.54E-06 8.55E-06 3.58E-06 6.13E-06 2.38E-06 4.73E-06 2.29E-06 4.73E-06 2.29E-06 4.73E-06 2.29E-06 

Xylenes (tot) 4.10E-05 2.62E-05 4.52E-05 2.07E-05 4.17E-05 1.61E-05 4.13E-05 2.29E-05 2.60E-05 1.09E-05 1.86E-05 7.23E-06 1.44E-05 6.95E-06 1.44E-05 6.95E-06 1.44E-05 6.95E-06 

Aromatic >C8-C10 6.53E-05 4.16E-05 7.19E-05 3.28E-05 6.63E-05 2.57E-05 6.56E-05 3.64E-05 4.13E-05 1.73E-05 2.96E-05 1.15E-05 2.29E-05 1.11E-05 2.29E-05 1.11E-05 2.29E-05 1.11E-05 





Aliphatic >C6-C8 1.34E-03 8.52E-04 1.47E-03 6.73E-04 1.36E-03 5.26E-04 1.34E-03 7.46E-04 8.46E-04 3.54E-04 6.06E-04 2.35E-04 4.68E-04 2.26E-04 4.68E-04 2.26E-04 4.68E-04 2.26E-04 






Acenaphthene 3.07E-10 1.81E-10 2.69E-10 1.40E-10 2.21E-10 1.08E-10 2.20E-10 1.44E-10 1.71E-10 7.41E-11 1.42E-10 5.01E-11 1.12E-10 5.02E-11 1.12E-10 5.02E-11 1.12E-10 5.02E-11 

Acenaphthylene 4.63E-12 2.74E-12 4.06E-12 2.11E-12 3.35E-12 1.64E-12 3.33E-12 2.17E-12 2.58E-12 1.12E-12 2.14E-12 7.58E-13 1.69E-12 7.59E-13 1.69E-12 7.59E-13 1.69E-12 7.59E-13 

Anthracene 4.00E-07 2.57E-07 4.43E-07 2.03E-07 4.11E-07 1.59E-07 4.07E-07 2.26E-07 2.57E-07 1.07E-07 1.85E-07 7.12E-08 1.42E-07 6.85E-08 1.42E-07 6.85E-08 1.42E-07 6.85E-08 

Fluorene 4.60E-07 2.95E-07 5.10E-07 2.33E-07 4.73E-07 1.82E-07 4.68E-07 2.59E-07 2.96E-07 1.23E-07 2.12E-07 8.18E-08 1.63E-07 7.88E-08 1.63E-07 7.88E-08 1.63E-07 7.88E-08 

1-Methylnaphthalene 9.73E-07 6.20E-07 1.07E-06 4.90E-07 9.88E-07 3.83E-07 9.78E-07 5.43E-07 6.16E-07 2.58E-07 4.41E-07 1.71E-07 3.41E-07 1.65E-07 3.41E-07 1.65E-07 3.41E-07 1.65E-07 

2-Methylnaphthalene 7.35E-07 4.69E-07 8.10E-07 3.70E-07 7.46E-07 2.89E-07 7.39E-07 4.10E-07 4.65E-07 1.95E-07 3.33E-07 1.29E-07 2.57E-07 1.24E-07 2.57E-07 1.24E-07 2.57E-07 1.24E-07 

Naphthalene 4.24E-07 2.71E-07 4.67E-07 2.14E-07 4.31E-07 1.67E-07 4.26E-07 2.37E-07 2.68E-07 1.12E-07 1.92E-07 7.47E-08 1.49E-07 7.19E-08 1.49E-07 7.19E-08 1.49E-07 7.19E-08 

Phenanthrene 6.19E-07 3.98E-07 6.86E-07 3.14E-07 6.37E-07 2.46E-07 6.30E-07 3.49E-07 3.98E-07 1.66E-07 2.86E-07 1.10E-07 2.20E-07 1.06E-07 2.20E-07 1.06E-07 2.20E-07 1.06E-07 

Fluoranthene 1.82E-09 1.08E-09 1.60E-09 8.33E-10 1.32E-09 6.45E-10 1.31E-09 8.56E-10 1.02E-09 4.42E-10 8.47E-10 2.99E-10 6.67E-10 2.99E-10 6.67E-10 2.99E-10 6.67E-10 2.99E-10 

Benzo(a)anthracene 4.86E-06 3.13E-06 5.40E-06 2.47E-06 5.02E-06 1.94E-06 4.97E-06 2.75E-06 3.14E-06 1.31E-06 2.26E-06 8.69E-07 1.74E-06 8.36E-07 1.74E-06 8.36E-07 1.74E-06 8.36E-07 

Benzo(a)pyrene 6.40E-08 3.79E-08 5.61E-08 2.92E-08 4.63E-08 2.26E-08 4.60E-08 3.00E-08 3.58E-08 1.55E-08 2.97E-08 1.05E-08 2.34E-08 1.05E-08 2.34E-08 1.05E-08 2.34E-08 1.05E-08 

Benzo(e)pyrene 4.07E-09 2.41E-09 3.57E-09 1.86E-09 2.95E-09 1.44E-09 2.93E-09 1.91E-09 2.28E-09 9.87E-10 1.89E-09 6.68E-10 1.49E-09 6.69E-10 1.49E-09 6.69E-10 1.49E-09 6.69E-10 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.48E-09 2.65E-09 3.93E-09 2.04E-09 3.24E-09 1.58E-09 3.22E-09 2.10E-09 2.51E-09 1.08E-09 2.08E-09 7.34E-10 1.64E-09 7.35E-10 1.64E-09 7.35E-10 1.64E-09 7.35E-10 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.03E-08 6.12E-09 9.05E-09 4.71E-09 7.47E-09 3.65E-09 7.42E-09 4.84E-09 5.77E-09 2.50E-09 4.79E-09 1.69E-09 3.77E-09 1.69E-09 3.77E-09 1.69E-09 3.77E-09 1.69E-09 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.36E-09 2.58E-09 3.82E-09 1.99E-09 3.16E-09 1.54E-09 3.14E-09 2.05E-09 2.44E-09 1.06E-09 2.03E-09 7.15E-10 1.59E-09 7.16E-10 1.59E-09 7.16E-10 1.59E-09 7.16E-10 

Chrysene 3.71E-09 2.20E-09 3.25E-09 1.69E-09 2.68E-09 1.31E-09 2.67E-09 1.74E-09 2.07E-09 8.98E-10 1.72E-09 6.08E-10 1.35E-09 6.08E-10 1.35E-09 6.08E-10 1.35E-09 6.08E-10 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 7.63E-09 4.52E-09 6.69E-09 3.48E-09 5.52E-09 2.70E-09 5.49E-09 3.58E-09 4.27E-09 1.85E-09 3.54E-09 1.25E-09 2.79E-09 1.25E-09 2.79E-09 1.25E-09 2.79E-09 1.25E-09 

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 1.06E-08 6.26E-09 9.25E-09 4.82E-09 7.64E-09 3.73E-09 7.59E-09 4.95E-09 5.90E-09 2.56E-09 4.90E-09 1.73E-09 3.86E-09 1.73E-09 3.86E-09 1.73E-09 3.86E-09 1.73E-09 

Pyrene 3.94E-06 2.54E-06 4.38E-06 2.01E-06 4.07E-06 1.57E-06 4.03E-06 2.23E-06 2.55E-06 1.06E-06 1.83E-06 7.05E-07 1.41E-06 6.78E-07 1.41E-06 6.78E-07 1.41E-06 6.78E-07 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 2.37E-11 1.47E-11 2.54E-11 1.15E-11 2.26E-11 8.95E-12 2.24E-11 1.26E-11 1.39E-11 5.99E-12 9.89E-12 3.97E-12 7.72E-12 3.82E-12 7.72E-12 3.82E-12 7.72E-12 3.82E-12 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.29E-10 8.21E-11 1.42E-10 6.48E-11 1.31E-10 5.06E-11 1.29E-10 7.19E-11 8.15E-11 3.41E-11 5.84E-11 2.27E-11 4.51E-11 2.18E-11 4.51E-11 2.18E-11 4.51E-11 2.18E-11 

Phenol 2.57E-12 1.59E-12 2.75E-12 1.25E-12 2.45E-12 9.69E-13 2.42E-12 1.37E-12 1.50E-12 6.49E-13 1.07E-12 4.30E-13 8.36E-13 4.14E-13 8.36E-13 4.14E-13 8.36E-13 4.14E-13 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.01E-04 6.51E-05 1.12E-04 5.15E-05 1.04E-04 4.02E-05 1.03E-04 5.72E-05 6.52E-05 2.71E-05 4.68E-05 1.80E-05 3.60E-05 1.74E-05 3.60E-05 1.74E-05 3.60E-05 1.74E-05 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 4.85E-06 3.09E-06 5.35E-06 2.44E-06 4.93E-06 1.91E-06 4.88E-06 2.71E-06 3.07E-06 1.28E-06 2.20E-06 8.54E-07 1.70E-06 8.22E-07 1.70E-06 8.22E-07 1.70E-06 8.22E-07 

Barium 1.02E-05 6.24E-06 9.92E-06 4.87E-06 8.69E-06 3.79E-06 8.62E-06 5.19E-06 6.07E-06 2.58E-06 4.73E-06 1.73E-06 3.68E-06 1.70E-06 3.68E-06 1.70E-06 3.68E-06 1.70E-06 

Boron 1.24E-08 8.01E-09 1.38E-08 6.33E-09 1.29E-08 4.96E-09 1.27E-08 7.05E-09 8.06E-09 3.34E-09 5.79E-09 2.22E-09 4.45E-09 2.14E-09 4.45E-09 2.14E-09 4.45E-09 2.14E-09 

Cadmium 4.03E-06 2.40E-06 3.58E-06 1.85E-06 2.98E-06 1.44E-06 2.96E-06 1.91E-06 2.28E-06 9.82E-07 1.87E-06 6.64E-07 1.47E-06 6.64E-07 1.47E-06 6.64E-07 1.47E-06 6.64E-07 

Manganese 5.52E-05 3.34E-05 5.15E-05 2.59E-05 4.41E-05 2.01E-05 4.38E-05 2.72E-05 3.21E-05 1.37E-05 2.57E-05 9.25E-06 2.01E-05 9.17E-06 2.01E-05 9.17E-06 2.01E-05 9.17E-06 

Molybdenum 1.09E-04 6.98E-05 1.20E-04 5.52E-05 1.11E-04 4.31E-05 1.10E-04 6.13E-05 7.01E-05 2.91E-05 5.06E-05 1.94E-05 3.89E-05 1.87E-05 3.89E-05 1.87E-05 3.89E-05 1.87E-05 

Nickel 1.36E-03 8.53E-04 1.41E-03 6.69E-04 1.27E-03 5.22E-04 1.25E-03 7.27E-04 8.42E-04 3.54E-04 6.33E-04 2.37E-04 4.91E-04 2.31E-04 4.91E-04 2.31E-04 4.91E-04 2.31E-04 

Tin 5.89E-05 3.80E-05 6.55E-05 3.00E-05 6.10E-05 2.35E-05 6.04E-05 3.34E-05 3.82E-05 1.59E-05 2.74E-05 1.06E-05 2.11E-05 1.02E-05 2.11E-05 1.02E-05 2.11E-05 1.02E-05 

Vanadium 9.59E-04 5.98E-04 9.74E-04 4.68E-04 8.71E-04 3.65E-04 8.63E-04 5.06E-04 5.87E-04 2.48E-04 4.47E-04 1.66E-04 3.47E-04 1.62E-04 3.47E-04 1.62E-04 3.47E-04 1.62E-04 

Zinc 2.83E-04 1.68E-04 2.49E-04 1.29E-04 2.06E-04 1.00E-04 2.05E-04 1.33E-04 1.59E-04 6.87E-05 1.32E-04 4.65E-05 1.04E-04 4.65E-05 1.04E-04 4.65E-05 1.04E-04 4.65E-05



Appendix C: Exposure Point Concentrations for COPC in Environmental Media 

Appendix C Exposure Point Concentrations for COPC 

in Environmental Media 

2010 Page C-1



Appendix C: Exposure Point Concentrations for COPC in Environmental Media 


Appendix C Exposure Point Concentrations for COPC in 

Environmental Media .............................................................. C-1 


Table C-1 Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 1 ......................... C-5 

Table C-2 Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 1 ..................... C-7 

Table C-3 Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 1 ...................... C-9 

Table C-4 Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 2 ....................... C-11 

Table C-5 Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 2 ................... C-13 

Table C-6 Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 2 .................... C-15 

Table C-7 Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Terminal ....................... C-17 

Table C-8 Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Terminal ................... C-19 

Table C-9 Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Terminal .................... C-21 

Table C-10 Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Clio Bay ........................ C-23 

Table C-11 Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Clio Bay .................... C-25 

Table C-12 Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Clio Bay ..................... C-27 

Table C-13 Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Emsley Point ................ C-29 

Table C-14 Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Emsley Point ............ C-31 

Table C-15 Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Emsley Point ............. C-33 

2010 Page C-3

Table C-1 - Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 1 

Constituent CAS Registry Number 

3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 

Surface Sea Water 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Surface Water Marine 

Plant Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


Benthic Invertebrates 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Near-shore Marine Fish 

Tissue Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

Deep Sea Water 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Sub-tidal Marine 

Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 

Benzene 71-43-2 2.50E-04 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 2.50E-04 4.00E-02 --- --- 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 2.50E-04 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 2.50E-04 5.00E-02 --- --- 

Toluene 108-88-3 5.00E-04 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-04 5.00E-02 --- --- 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 5.00E-04 2.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-04 1.00E-01 --- --- 

TPH - CCME CWS % Composition 

Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 0.55 --- 1.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C08-C10 - F1 0.36 --- 2.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C08-C10 - F1 0.09 --- 4.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F1 - Total 1 --- 7.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 0.36 --- 4.00E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 0.09 --- 6.30E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 0.11 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F2 - Total 1 --- 2.53E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C16-C21 - F3 0.14 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 0.06 --- 2.30E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F3 - Total 1 --- 4.55E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 



(mg/kg ww) 


Low Molecular Weight PAHs 

Acenaphthene 83-32-9 4.00E-05 8.50E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 4.00E-05 2.50E-02 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 8.00E-05 2.50E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 8.00E-05 2.50E-02 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Anthracene 120-12-7 4.00E-05 1.43E-02 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 4.00E-05 2.50E-02 6.28E-03 8.48E-03 

Fluorene 86-73-7 1.20E-04 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 1.20E-04 2.50E-02 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

1-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 2.10E-04 1.00E-02 --- --- --- 2.10E-04 2.50E-02 --- --- 

Naphthalene 91-20-3 1.10E-04 3.00E-02 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 1.10E-04 2.50E-02 6.28E-03 1.00E-02 

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 3.50E-04 8.70E-02 1.00E-02 4.10E-02 1.00E-02 3.50E-04 1.80E-01 9.46E-03 1.00E-02 

High Molecular Weight PAHs 

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 1.07E-03 6.00E-02 5.00E-03 2.20E-02 5.00E-03 1.07E-03 3.90E-01 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 1.47E-03 2.00E-02 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 1.47E-03 2.70E-01 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 8.70E-04 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 8.70E-04 3.60E-01 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 4.69E-03 2.90E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E-02 5.00E-03 4.69E-03 7.00E-01 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 2.50E-04 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 2.50E-04 2.30E-01 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 4.00E-05 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 4.00E-05 2.50E-02 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Chrysene 218-01-9 1.98E-03 2.80E-02 5.00E-03 1.40E-02 5.00E-03 1.98E-03 3.20E-01 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 8.00E-05 2.50E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 8.00E-05 6.00E-02 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 4.80E-04 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 4.80E-04 2.50E-01 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 

Pyrene 129-00-0 9.60E-04 3.60E-02 5.00E-03 1.40E-02 5.00E-03 9.60E-04 4.00E-01 5.00E-03 8.48E-03 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 


Phenol 108-95-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 



Boron 7440-42-8 3.90E+00 --- --- --- --- 3.90E+00 5.78E+01 --- --- 


Manganese 7439-96-5 1.48E+00 --- 2.65E+01 1.17E+01 6.67E+00 1.48E+00 7.01E+02 5.08E+00 1.49E+00 

Molybdenum 7439-98-7 9.60E-03 5.40E-01 4.30E-02 2.18E-01 6.34E-01 9.60E-03 2.50E-01 2.18E-01 1.59E-01 


Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 1.00E-01 5.70E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.98E-02 2.65E-01 

Vanadium 7440-62-2 5.00E-02 5.36E+00 4.60E-01 4.50E-01 4.90E-01 5.00E-02 1.44E+01 1.91E-01 9.69E-02 

Zinc 7440-66-6 2.10E-02 3.81E+01 5.58E+00 3.33E+01 1.75E+01 2.10E-02 8.59E+01 3.73E+01 1.88E+01

Table C-2 - Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 1 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 

Benzene 71-43-2 8.36E-06 4.26E-07 3.47E-05 1.44E-09 5.28E-06 1.08E-06 2.67E-07 9.07E-10 6.79E-07 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 4.36E-06 6.40E-06 1.81E-04 1.99E-08 2.75E-05 5.61E-07 4.08E-06 1.27E-08 3.54E-06 

Toluene 108-88-3 2.31E-05 1.35E-05 3.82E-04 4.35E-08 5.80E-05 2.97E-06 8.61E-06 2.77E-08 7.47E-06 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 2.22E-05 4.10E-05 1.16E-03 1.26E-07 1.76E-04 2.86E-06 2.62E-05 8.07E-08 2.27E-05 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 0.55 1.18E-04 1.34E-03 3.79E-02 1.92E-05 5.76E-03 1.52E-05 8.52E-04 1.23E-05 7.41E-04 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 0.09 1.45E-05 6.53E-05 1.85E-03 9.72E-07 2.80E-04 1.86E-06 4.16E-05 6.20E-07 3.61E-05 

F1 - Total 1 1.48E-04 2.74E-03 7.93E-02 3.80E-05 1.20E-02 1.91E-05 1.75E-03 2.42E-05 1.55E-03 


Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 2.61E-05 4.79E-02 1.05E+01 5.26E-04 1.60E+00 3.36E-06 3.06E-02 3.35E-04 2.06E-01 



F2 - Total 1 7.46E-05 5.68E-02 1.08E+01 6.38E-04 1.64E+00 9.60E-06 3.62E-02 4.07E-04 2.11E-01 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 2.95E-05 6.22E-02 --- --- --- 3.80E-06 3.97E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 4.56E-05 2.48E-01 --- --- --- 5.87E-06 1.59E-01 --- --- 










1-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 1.13E-07 9.73E-07 2.76E-05 2.83E-08 4.19E-06 1.45E-08 6.20E-07 1.80E-08 5.39E-07 








Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 5.75E-13 4.07E-09 5.23E-08 4.73E-10 7.94E-09 6.82E-14 2.41E-09 2.80E-10 9.41E-10 









1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 2.69E-06 1.01E-04 8.89E-04 2.91E-05 6.75E-05 3.47E-07 6.51E-05 1.87E-05 8.69E-06 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 1.58E-06 4.85E-06 1.37E-04 1.47E-06 2.09E-05 2.04E-07 3.09E-06 9.35E-07 2.68E-06 


Phenol 108-95-2 5.72E-10 2.57E-12 5.97E-10 9.18E-13 9.07E-11 7.36E-11 1.59E-12 5.69E-13 1.17E-11 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 8.37E-10 2.37E-11 5.51E-09 7.90E-12 4.18E-10 1.08E-10 1.47E-11 4.90E-12 5.38E-11 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 3.17E-09 1.29E-10 3.63E-09 4.59E-11 2.75E-10 4.08E-10 8.21E-11 2.92E-11 3.54E-11 


Barium 7440-39-3 2.73E-09 1.02E-05 1.98E-07 4.96E-07 4.99E-08 3.35E-10 6.28E-06 3.05E-07 6.13E-09 

Boron 7440-42-8 7.07E-10 1.25E-08 1.17E-09 4.24E-09 1.33E-10 9.10E-11 8.06E-09 2.73E-09 1.71E-11 


Manganese 7439-96-5 2.43E-09 5.55E-05 7.03E-06 6.16E-07 6.65E-06 2.93E-10 3.36E-05 3.73E-07 8.04E-07 


Nickel 7440-02-0 1.54E-07 1.37E-03 2.84E-04 6.80E-05 2.53E-04 1.92E-08 8.58E-04 4.27E-05 3.17E-05 

Tin 7440-31-5 4.10E-09 5.93E-05 2.95E-05 1.03E-06 2.43E-05 5.28E-10 3.82E-05 6.65E-07 3.13E-06 

Vanadium 7440-62-2 4.75E-07 9.65E-04 1.82E-04 2.51E-05 1.24E-04 5.91E-08 6.02E-04 1.56E-05 1.54E-05 

Zinc 7440-66-6 1.80E-08 2.85E-04 4.00E-05 8.37E-05 3.60E-05 2.14E-09 1.69E-04 4.97E-05 4.27E-06

Table C-3 - Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 1 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 










Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 0.36 1.34E-05 4.01E+00 2.70E-01 4.92E-02 4.10E-02 1.72E-06 4.55E-03 5.59E-05 5.28E-03 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 2.61E-05 7.55E+00 1.05E+01 8.28E-02 1.60E+00 3.36E-06 3.06E-02 3.35E-04 2.06E-01 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 0.09 1.68E-05 6.30E+00 3.39E-03 9.22E-02 5.15E-04 2.16E-06 1.98E-04 2.89E-06 6.63E-05 


F2 - Total 1 7.46E-05 2.54E+01 1.08E+01 3.31E-01 1.64E+00 9.60E-06 3.62E-02 4.07E-04 2.11E-01 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 2.95E-05 7.56E+00 --- --- --- 3.80E-06 3.97E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 4.56E-05 7.75E+00 --- --- --- 5.87E-06 1.59E-01 --- --- 



F3 - Total 1 1.33E-04 4.59E+01 4.05E-01 7.87E-01 6.15E-02 1.71E-05 2.43E-01 1.12E-03 7.91E-03 
































Boron 7440-42-8 3.90E+00 1.25E-08 6.44E+00 4.24E-09 7.33E-01 3.90E+00 5.78E+01 1.96E+01 7.33E-01 


Manganese 7439-96-5 1.48E+00 5.55E-05 2.65E+01 1.17E+01 6.67E+00 1.48E+00 7.01E+02 5.08E+00 1.49E+00 



Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 1.00E-01 5.70E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.98E-02 2.65E-01 


Zinc 7440-66-6 2.10E-02 3.81E+01 5.58E+00 3.33E+01 1.75E+01 2.10E-02 8.59E+01 3.73E+01 1.88E+01

Table C-4 - Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 2 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 

Benzene 71-43-2 2.50E-04 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 2.50E-04 4.00E-02 --- --- 


Toluene 108-88-3 5.00E-04 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-04 5.00E-02 --- --- 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 5.00E-04 2.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-04 1.00E-01 --- --- 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 0.55 --- 1.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C08-C10 - F1 0.36 --- 2.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C08-C10 - F1 0.09 --- 4.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F1 - Total 1 --- 7.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 0.36 --- 4.00E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 0.09 --- 6.30E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 0.11 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F2 - Total 1 --- 2.53E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C16-C21 - F3 0.14 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 0.06 --- 2.30E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F3 - Total 1 --- 4.55E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 



(mg/kg ww) 















Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 












Phenol 108-95-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 





Boron 7440-42-8 3.90E+00 --- --- --- --- 3.90E+00 5.78E+01 --- --- 





Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 1.00E-01 5.70E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.98E-02 2.65E-01 


Zinc 7440-66-6 2.10E-02 3.81E+01 5.58E+00 3.33E+01 1.75E+01 2.10E-02 8.59E+01 3.73E+01 1.88E+01

Table C-5 - Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 2 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 















Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 3.28E-05 6.86E-02 --- --- --- 3.00E-06 3.13E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 5.07E-05 2.75E-01 --- --- --- 4.64E-06 1.26E-01 --- --- 








































Tin 7440-31-5 4.56E-09 6.60E-05 3.28E-05 1.15E-06 2.70E-05 4.18E-10 3.02E-05 5.26E-07 2.47E-06 


Zinc 7440-66-6 1.58E-08 2.51E-04 3.52E-05 7.36E-05 3.17E-05 1.65E-09 1.30E-04 3.83E-05 3.29E-06

Table C-6 - Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Kitimat 2 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 















Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 3.28E-05 7.57E+00 --- --- --- 3.00E-06 3.13E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 5.07E-05 7.77E+00 --- --- --- 4.64E-06 1.26E-01 --- --- 








































Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 1.00E-01 5.70E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.98E-02 2.65E-01 


Zinc 7440-66-6 2.10E-02 3.81E+01 5.58E+00 3.33E+01 1.75E+01 2.10E-02 8.59E+01 3.73E+01 1.88E+01

Table C-7 - Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Terminal 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 

Benzene 71-43-2 2.50E-04 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 2.50E-04 4.00E-02 --- --- 


Toluene 108-88-3 5.00E-04 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-04 5.00E-02 --- --- 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 5.00E-04 2.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-04 1.00E-01 --- --- 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 0.55 --- 1.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C08-C10 - F1 0.36 --- 2.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C08-C10 - F1 0.09 --- 4.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F1 - Total 1 --- 7.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 0.36 --- 4.00E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 0.09 --- 6.30E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 0.11 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F2 - Total 1 --- 2.53E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C16-C21 - F3 0.14 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 0.06 --- 2.30E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F3 - Total 1 --- 4.55E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 



(mg/kg ww) 















Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 












Phenol 108-95-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 





Boron 7440-42-8 3.90E+00 --- --- --- --- 3.90E+00 5.78E+01 --- --- 





Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 1.00E-01 5.70E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.98E-02 2.65E-01 


Zinc 7440-66-6 2.10E-02 3.81E+01 5.58E+00 3.33E+01 1.75E+01 2.10E-02 8.59E+01 3.73E+01 1.88E+01

Table C-8 - Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Terminal 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 















Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 3.05E-05 6.32E-02 --- --- --- 2.35E-06 2.45E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 4.71E-05 2.55E-01 --- --- --- 3.63E-06 9.83E-02 --- --- 








































Tin 7440-31-5 4.24E-09 6.14E-05 3.05E-05 1.07E-06 2.51E-05 3.27E-10 2.37E-05 4.12E-07 1.93E-06 


Zinc 7440-66-6 1.31E-08 2.07E-04 2.91E-05 6.09E-05 2.62E-05 1.28E-09 1.01E-04 2.97E-05 2.55E-06

Table C-9 - Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Terminal 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 















Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 3.05E-05 7.56E+00 --- --- --- 2.35E-06 2.45E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 4.71E-05 7.75E+00 --- --- --- 3.63E-06 9.83E-02 --- --- 








































Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 1.00E-01 5.70E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.98E-02 2.65E-01 


Zinc 7440-66-6 2.10E-02 3.81E+01 5.58E+00 3.33E+01 1.75E+01 2.10E-02 8.59E+01 3.73E+01 1.88E+01

Table C-10 - Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Clio Bay 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 

Benzene 71-43-2 5.00E-05 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-05 4.00E-02 --- --- 


Toluene 108-88-3 5.00E-05 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-05 5.00E-02 --- --- 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 5.00E-05 2.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-05 1.00E-01 --- --- 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 0.55 --- 1.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C08-C10 - F1 0.36 --- 2.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C08-C10 - F1 0.09 --- 1.50E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F1 - Total 1 --- 4.50E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 0.36 --- 4.00E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 0.09 --- 2.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 0.11 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F2 - Total 1 --- 2.15E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C16-C21 - F3 0.14 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 0.06 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F3 - Total 1 --- 3.00E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 



(mg/kg ww) 















Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 












Phenol 108-95-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 




Barium 7440-39-3 8.41E-03 2.93E+01 2.35E+01 7.23E-01 1.18E+00 8.41E-03 1.28E+02 1.13E-01 2.82E-01 

Boron 7440-42-8 3.60E+00 --- --- --- --- 3.60E+00 3.93E+01 --- --- 


Manganese 7439-96-5 8.15E-03 --- 2.47E+01 4.33E+00 3.98E+00 8.15E-03 5.55E+02 5.15E-01 9.44E-01 


Nickel 7440-02-0 7.20E-04 8.20E+00 8.65E-01 4.70E-01 1.44E+00 7.20E-04 2.13E+01 1.53E-01 5.75E-01 

Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 2.50E-02 5.60E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.50E-02 4.54E-02 


Zinc 7440-66-6 1.99E-03 3.44E+01 4.70E+00 9.69E+00 1.70E+01 1.99E-03 7.96E+01 3.04E+01 1.46E+01

Table C-11 - Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Clio Bay 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 















Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 3.02E-05 6.25E-02 --- --- --- 3.34E-06 3.47E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 4.66E-05 2.52E-01 --- --- --- 5.17E-06 1.40E-01 --- --- 








































Tin 7440-31-5 4.19E-09 6.07E-05 3.02E-05 1.06E-06 2.48E-05 4.65E-10 3.36E-05 5.85E-07 2.75E-06 


Zinc 7440-66-6 1.30E-08 2.06E-04 2.89E-05 6.05E-05 2.60E-05 1.69E-09 1.34E-04 3.94E-05 3.39E-06

Table C-12- Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Clio Bay 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 















Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 3.02E-05 7.56E+00 --- --- --- 3.34E-06 3.47E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 4.66E-05 7.75E+00 --- --- --- 5.17E-06 1.40E-01 --- --- 





































Manganese 7439-96-5 8.15E-03 4.41E-05 2.47E+01 4.33E+00 3.98E+00 8.15E-03 5.55E+02 5.15E-01 9.44E-01 



Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 2.50E-02 5.60E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.50E-02 4.54E-02 


Zinc 7440-66-6 1.99E-03 3.44E+01 4.70E+00 9.69E+00 1.70E+01 1.99E-03 7.96E+01 3.04E+01 1.46E+01

Table C-13 - Base Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Emsley Point 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 

Benzene 71-43-2 5.00E-05 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-05 4.00E-02 --- --- 


Toluene 108-88-3 5.00E-05 1.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-05 5.00E-02 --- --- 

Xylenes 1330-20-7 5.00E-05 2.50E-02 --- --- --- 5.00E-05 1.00E-01 --- --- 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 0.55 --- 1.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C08-C10 - F1 0.36 --- 2.00E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C08-C10 - F1 0.09 --- 1.50E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F1 - Total 1 --- 4.50E-01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 0.36 --- 4.00E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 0.44 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 0.09 --- 2.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 0.11 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F2 - Total 1 --- 2.15E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C16-C21 - F3 0.14 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 0.06 --- 7.50E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

F3 - Total 1 --- 3.00E+01 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 



(mg/kg ww) 















Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 












Phenol 108-95-2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 





Boron 7440-42-8 3.60E+00 --- --- --- --- 3.60E+00 3.93E+01 --- --- 


Manganese 7439-96-5 8.15E-03 --- 2.47E+01 4.33E+00 3.98E+00 8.15E-03 5.55E+02 5.15E-01 9.44E-01 



Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 2.50E-02 5.60E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.50E-02 4.54E-02 


Zinc 7440-66-6 1.99E-03 3.44E+01 4.70E+00 9.69E+00 1.70E+01 1.99E-03 7.96E+01 3.04E+01 1.46E+01

Table C-14 - Project Alone Exposure Point Concentrations in Emsley Point 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 















Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 1.91E-05 3.94E-02 --- --- --- 1.59E-06 1.65E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 2.95E-05 1.59E-01 --- --- --- 2.45E-06 6.63E-02 --- --- 








































Tin 7440-31-5 2.65E-09 3.84E-05 1.91E-05 6.69E-07 1.57E-05 2.20E-10 1.60E-05 2.78E-07 1.30E-06 


Zinc 7440-66-6 1.01E-08 1.60E-04 2.24E-05 4.70E-05 2.02E-05 8.73E-10 6.91E-05 2.03E-05 1.75E-06

Table C-15 - Project Case Exposure Point Concentrations in Emsley Point 


3 4 5 6 7 3 4 6 7 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



(mg/kg ww) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


Sediment 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 



Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 



(mg/kg ww) 

BTEX 















Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 0.56 1.91E-05 7.54E+00 --- --- --- 1.59E-06 1.65E-02 --- --- 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 0.24 2.95E-05 7.66E+00 --- --- --- 2.45E-06 6.63E-02 --- --- 





































Manganese 7439-96-5 8.15E-03 3.23E-05 2.47E+01 4.33E+00 3.98E+00 8.15E-03 5.55E+02 5.15E-01 9.44E-01 



Tin 7440-31-5 5.00E-03 2.50E+00 2.50E-02 2.50E-02 5.60E-02 5.00E-03 1.00E+00 2.50E-02 4.54E-02 


Zinc 7440-66-6 1.99E-03 3.44E+01 4.70E+00 9.69E+00 1.70E+01 1.99E-03 7.96E+01 3.04E+01 1.46E+01



Appendix D: Sediment Quality Triad Results for Baseline Environmental Conditions 

Appendix D Sediment Quality Triad Results for 

Baseline Environmental Conditions 

2010 Page D-1





Appendix D Sediment Quality Triad Results for Baseline Environmental 

Conditions............................................................................................. D-1 

D.1 Sediment and Water Quality .............................................................................. D-5 

D.1.1 Current and Historical Anthropogenic Influences .......................................... D-5 

D.1.2 Previous Studies ............................................................................................ D-5 

D.1.3 Water Quality – Historic Summary ................................................................. D-5 

D.1.4 Sediment Quality – Historic and General ....................................................... D-7 

D.2 Water and Sediment Quality – 2006-2008 Sampling Program ........................... D-8 

D.2.1 Selection of Measurable Parameters ............................................................ D-8 

D.2.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... D-8 

D.3 Baseline Sampling Results .............................................................................. D-11 

D.3.1 Analysis of Seawater ................................................................................... D-11 

D.3.2 Analysis of Sediment ................................................................................... D-12 

D.3.3 Analysis of Biotic Tissue .............................................................................. D-14 

D.4 Baseline Environmental Quality ....................................................................... D-14 

D.4.1 Marine Water Chemistry .............................................................................. D-14 

D.4.2 Marine Sediment Chemistry ........................................................................ D-15 

D.4.3 Marine Sediment Toxicity ............................................................................ D-15 

D.4.4 Benthic Invertebrate Assemblages .............................................................. D-15 

D.4.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... D-15 

D.5 References ...................................................................................................... D-15 

Attachment D1 Contaminant Concentrations in Water, Sediment and Biota ........ D1-1 


Table D1-1 Baseline Seawater Trace Element Concentrations .............................. D1-3 

Table D1-2 Baseline Seawater BTEX, TPH, PAH and Other Organic Compound 

Concentrations ..................................................................................... D1-7 

Table D1-3 Other Measurable Baseline Parameters in Seawater ......................... D1-11 

Table D1-4 Baseline Marine Sediments Trace Element Concentrations ............... D1-13 

Table D1-5 Baseline Marine Sediments BTEX, TPH, PAH and Other Organic 

Compound Concentrations ................................................................. D1-17 

Table D1-6 Baseline Marine Sediments Dioxin and Furan Compounds 

Concentrations ................................................................................... D1-21 

Table D1-7 Other Measurable Baseline Parameters in Marine Sediments ........... D1-23 

Table D1-8 Baseline Sediment Toxicity Tests for Survival and Growth (2006 

Samples Only) .................................................................................... D1-25 

Table D1-9 Baseline Benthic Community Structure Summary (2006 Samples 

Only) ................................................................................................... D1-25 

Table D1-10 Baseline Benthic Community Structure (2006 Samples Only) ............ D1-27 

2010 Page D-3




Table D1-11 Baseline Marine Plant and Benthic Invertebrate Trace Element 

Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) ................................................. D1-49 

Table D1-12 Baseline Marine Fish Trace Element Concentrations (2008 

Samples Only) .................................................................................... D1-53 

Table D1-13 Baseline Marine Plant and Benthic Invertebrate PAH, Dioxin and 

Furan Compound Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) .................... D1-57 

Table D1-14 Baseline Marine Fish PAH, Dioxin and Furan Compound 

Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) ................................................. D1-61 


Figure D-1 Baseline Sampling Locations in Kitimat Arm ........................................ D-10 

Page D-4 2010




D.1 Sediment and Water Quality 

D.1.1 Current and Historical Anthropogenic Influences 

In addition to natural processes, human activities in the Kitimat area have influenced water, sediment, and 

habitat quality within Kitimat Arm. Sources of contaminants into Kitimat Arm include effluent from a 

municipal wastewater treatment plant, the Alcan smelter, Methanex Corporation methanol plant and the 

Eurocan pulpmill, as well as storm water runoff from these operations and the municipality. Permitted 

effluent discharges are related to: 

• The District of Kitimat wastewater treatment plant discharges effluent approximately 4 km upstream 

of Kitimat Arm, releasing suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), phosphorus, 

ammonia, nitrate, and fecal coliforms (Norecol, Dames and Moore 1997). 

• The Alcan aluminum smelter, in operation since the 1950s, discharges effluent and stormwater 

directly into Kitimat Arm, and indirectly via Moore Creek and Anderson Creek. The smelter also has 

air emissions that have resulted in the deposition of contaminants to sediment. The liquid effluent is 

reported to contain suspended solids, coke, aluminum, oil, grease, dissolved fluoride, dissolved iron, 

cyanide and PAH (Norecol, Dames and Moore 1997). 

• The Methanex Corporation methanol plant has discharged effluent into Kitimat Arm (until its closure 

in 2006) and stormwater into Beaver Creek and Kitimat River. The effluent contained suspended 

solids, sodium and methyl formates, chemical oxygen demand (COD), methanol, ammonia, oil and 

grease (Norecol, Dames and Moore 1997). 

• The Eurocan Pulp and Paper Company discharges effluent from an unbleached kraft mill into the 

Kitimat River approximately 3 km upstream of Kitimat Arm, releasing BOD, color, suspended solids, 

turbidity, resin acids, tannin and lignin (BC MOE 1987). 

D.1.1 Previous Studies 

Studies of Kitimat Arm have been conducted since the 1960s. These include oceanographic surveys 

(Pickard 1961; Macdonald 1983; Bornhold 1983) and studies associated with industrial activities 

(Erickson et al. 1979; Cretney et al. 1983; Paine et al. 1996; Simpson et al. 1996; Norecol, Dames and 

Moore 1997; Harris 1999; Eickhoff et al. 2003). The British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC 

MOE) also developed water quality objectives for the Kitimat River and Kitimat Arm (BC MOE 1987). 

D.1.2 Water Quality – Historic Summary 

Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel are typical of British Columbia fjords where there is considerable 

freshwater influence (Pickard 1961). Peak freshwater discharge occurs in May and June during the spring 

freshet. Estuarine circulation is created between the late spring and late fall as the surface layer of 

freshwater flows out of Kitimat Arm and deeper seawater flows in from Douglas Channel (Macdonald 

1983). Estuarine circulation is generally not uniform, and tidal influences are predominant. Maximum 

surface currents range from 50 to 60 cm/s in Kitimat Arm. Estuarine circulation is strongest during 

periods of high runoff, but can also be affected by weather (i.e., wind, temperature differences in the 

2010 Page D-5




water layers) and offshore oceanographic conditions. Currents below the main halocline (strong vertical 

salinity gradient) at water depths exceeding 75 to 100 m are weaker, ranging from 3 to 20 cm/s, with 

maximum speeds from 10 to 60 cm/s. 

In Kitimat Arm, salinity is relatively low in the upper 10 m of the water column, with temperature and 

salinity gradients present in the upper 50 m throughout much of the year. Gradients diminish during the 

winter as both the volume and temperature of freshwater input are greatly reduced. Although there can be 

variability in temperature and salinity horizontally over the scale of hundreds of metres in Kitimat Arm, 

Pickard (1961) suggested that the halocline is generally at a depth from 3 to 7 m. Salinity profiles 

reviewed suggest a slightly deeper halocline, at around 8 m. The tidal amplitude in Kitimat Arm averages 

about 4 m, with spring tides approaching 7 m. 

The dissolved oxygen concentration in surface water increases in the spring because of the increased 

freshwater influence (oxygen solubility increases with decreasing temperature, and oxygen is more 

soluble in fresh water than in salt water). Increasing day length and light intensity may also contribute to 

higher daytime oxygen concentrations because increased phytoplankton growth generates additional 

oxygen through photosynthesis. The amount of suspended particulate matter (commonly measured as 

turbidity) also increases in spring with the increase in phytoplankton growth and in runoff from the 

nearby rivers. Suspended particulate matter may be composed of microscopic biota, clay, silt, and 

attached organic and inorganic nutrients suspended in the water column by currents or waves. The main 

sources are river runoff, biological production and atmospheric fallout, with anthropogenic contributions 

from various wastewater effluents and substrate disturbances. Suspended particulate matter is usually 

highest in nearshore environments during spring but may increase at any time of year after heavy rain. 

The deep basins of Douglas Channel and Kitimat Arm typically have low levels of suspended particulate 

matter resulting from resuspension of fine bottom substrate particles (Macdonald 1983). 

Water chemistry in the Kitimat Arm has been influenced by decades of industrial activities and their air 

emissions and liquid effluent discharges. The Province of British Columbia developed ambient water- 

quality objectives for the Kitimat River and Kitimat Arm in 1987 (BC MOE 1987). These objectives are 

similar to the current generic provincial guidelines, with the addition of a fluoride guideline of 1.5 mg/L 

to protect from observed discharges from the Rio Tinto Alcan Kitimat aluminum smelter. In the 1980s, 

fluoride levels up to 15 mg/L were reported for Kitimat Harbour, along with elevated levels of aluminum, 

iron and cyanide. 

Contaminants from municipal, commercial and industrial discharges of metals, pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, 

furans, PAHs and chlorinated phenols have been documented in Kitimat Arm. For example, PAHs have 

been detected throughout the inlet from sources such as atmospheric and effluent discharges from the 

aluminum smelter, woodstove exhaust and residential waste (Harris 1999). There are limited data on the 

vertical profiles of water column PAH (McGroddy et al. 1996 as cited in Harris 1999). However, most of 

the contaminants derived from atmospheric deposition are transported out of the inlet by estuarine 

circulation (Cretney et al. 1983; Harris 1999). In the late 1970s, PAH concentrations higher than 300 ng/L 

were measured in surface water in Kitimat Arm (Erickson et al. 1979), decreasing with distance down the 

Arm, and ranging from 2 to 80 ng/L outside the Arm. Concentrations of PAH varied considerably within 

sampling stations by depth, season and time of day (Erickson et al. 1979). 

Page D-6 2010




D.1.3 Sediment Quality – Historic and General 

Sediment provides habitat for benthic organisms and, because contaminants tend to accumulate in such 

depositional areas, contamination in sediment is caused by historical as well as current activities. Some 

contaminants bioaccumulate and enter the food web. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, and 

dioxins and furans are of interest in the study area because they are related to existing industrial (i.e., the 

aluminum smelter, pulp mill, and methanol plant) or municipal (i.e., wastewater treatment, stormwater) 

sources. Depositional areas of sediment typically have a higher proportion of fine-grained particles (silt 

and clay) and organic content (total organic carbon) when compared to non-depositional areas. 

Contaminants tend to associate with these fine particles and organic material. The total organic carbon 

(TOC) content of Kitimat Arm sediments increases with distance from the Kitimat River and ranges from 

approximately 1.0% outside Minette Bay, to 1.8% near Emsley Point, to 3% in Douglas Channel (Cretney 

et al. 1983). Sandy substrates derived from river flow are prevalent within the inner harbour and along 

nearby intertidal areas, whereas finer-grained substrates (silts and clays) are found in deeper portions of 

Kitimat Arm (EVS 1995; Bornhold 1982). 

Existing chemicals of potential concern (COPC) identified in Kitimat Arm include PAH, dioxins and 

furans and trace elements. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been identified in several studies; 

however, caution must be applied when reviewing older studies because of differences in analytical 

methods and analytical sensitivity. Elevated concentrations of PAH have been detected in sediments up to 

70 km south of Kitimat Arm (Cretney et al. 1983; Simpson et al. 1996). Core samples collected in the 

1990s near the head of the Kitimat Arm indicated a peak in PAH concentrations in the 1970s; these 

concentrations then decreased after installation of scrubbers at the smelter. However, cores collected 

farther down Kitimat Arm did not show such decreases over time, and these results were attributed to 

resuspension and perturbation processes that continue to redistribute the PAHs in the sediment (Harris 

1999). 

Results of a study of PAH in sediment of Kitimat Arm in the early 1980s indicated the presence of PAH 

throughout Kitimat Arm (mean concentration 2.55 mg/kg), with a decreasing trend away from Kitimat 

(Cretney et al. 1983). Levels were higher in sediment from the northwest shore of Kitimat Arm (5.4 to 

10 mg/kg) than from the eastern and western shorelines (2 to 5.4 mg/kg). A 1996 study of PAH in 

sediment (Simpson et al. 1996) showed spatial trends consistent with results of Cretney et al. 1983). 

However, concentrations of total PAH ranged from 2 to 530 mg/kg, highest at the head of Kitimat Arm 

near the smelter and higher on the western shore than on the eastern one. Both the prevailing winds (for 

atmospheric deposition) and the influence of the Kitimat River flows on currents (for transport of 

effluent) favour deposition on the west shore of Kitimat Arm (Simpson et al. 1996). High molecular- 

weight PAH, consistent with contamination from a local high temperature source, were predominant and 

indicated persistent presence and limited degradation over time. 

In contrast, a study of the Bish Cove area (western shore of Kitimat Arm) reported a total PAH 

concentration of 2.44 mg/kg in a composite of five samples (relatively low concentrations when 

compared with other sites sampled in Kitimat Arm, Paine et al. 1996). The Bish Cove sample had 

relatively high TOC levels (2.25%) compared with other samples from Kitimat Arm, and there was no 

toxicity associated with the sample. The decrease in sediment PAH concentration on the western shore of 

Kitimat Arm between the 1980s and 1990s was attributed to both capping of existing contamination with 

2010 Page D-7




clean sediments and to the high TOC concentration in the Bish Cove sample. It was also suggested that 

PAH associated with pitch and coke particulates in the sediment may have lower than usual 

bioavailability (Paine et al. 1996). 

Bioaccumulation of PAH in aquatic organisms was demonstrated for Dungeness crab muscle and 

hepatopancreas tissue (Eickhoff et al. 2003). PAH levels in tissue were highest near the smelter and 

indicated that sediment PAH were bioavailable to crabs. Low molecular-weight PAH were present in 

higher concentrations in the tissue than were concentrations of the less soluble high molecular weight 

PAH (Eickhoff et al. 2003). 

Elevated (i.e., higher than sediment quality guideline) concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, fluoride, 

cadmium and mercury have been measured in sediment from the inner harbour of Kitimat Arm, with 

fluoride, aluminum and iron levels linked with Rio Tinto Alcan Kitimat aluminum smelter discharges 

(BC MOE 1987). Fine-grained substrates in deeper portions of Kitimat Arm contain metals from various 

industrial effluents (BC MOE 1987). These areas are not flushed during tidal exchange and thus 

contaminants may accumulate within the sediment at the centre (or deepest portion) of the Arm. 

Dioxins and furans were reported in sediment from Kitimat Arm and other areas in the 1990s, with links 

suggested to the Eurocan pulp mill (which produces unbleached pulp) and sawmill (which may have used 

chlorophenols) or to the Rio Tinto Alcan Kitimat aluminum smelter (Norecol, Dames and Moore 1997). 

No detectable levels of dioxins or furans have been reported in the Kitimat River or at its mouth. 

However, detectable levels (up to 125 pg/g) of some dioxin congeners in sediment have been documented 

in the Kitamaat Village area, and higher levels have been recorded in the initial dilution zone for Rio 

Tinto Alcan Kitimat aluminum smelter effluent (475 to 982 pg/g). 

D.2 Water and Sediment Quality – 2006-2008 Sampling Program 

D.2.1 Selection of Measurable Parameters 

Water and sediment quality are important to marine ecosystem health. Key indicators of water quality 

relevant to the Kitimat Terminal include measures of turbidity, salinity, temperature, pH and 

concentrations of nutrients, trace elements and hydrocarbons including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene 

and xylenes (BTEX), TPH and PAH. Indicators of sediment quality include measures of grain size, total 

organic carbon, trace elements, BTEX, TPA and PAH. Sediment data provide reliable evidence of 

contamination from current and historic activities. Water quality can vary significantly depending upon 

site-specific conditions. 

D.2.2 Methods 

Historic baseline data available for the area were augmented with a field program in February 2006; this 

program was designed to investigate water and sediment chemistry near the marine terminal. Additional 

sampling took place in July 2008. Samples were collected using defined protocols and a quality 

assurance/quality control program designed to produce high-quality data (i.e., defined protocols were 

followed for sample collection and handling, and analysis was carried out at suitably accredited 

laboratories). 

Page D-8 2010




In February 2006, water and sediment samples were collected from eight locations near the marine 

terminal and from two reference locations on the east side of Kitimat Arm (Figure D-1). Sediment 

samples were collected from depths ranging from 30 to 100 m. Water samples were analyzed for total 

metals, BTEX, TPH, PAH and ammonia content. Sediment samples were analyzed for: 

• total metals 

• acid volatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals (AVS-SEM) 

• BTEX 

• TPH 

• PAH 

• polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) 

• dioxins and furans 

• grain size 

• TOC 

• porewater ammonia and sulphide 

At four baseline stations (JW1, JW3, JW4 and JW5) and at the two reference stations (JW9 and JW10), 

additional sediments were collected to be analyzed for their benthic invertebrate assemblages. 

Sediment toxicity to benthic invertebrates was assessed using standard bioassay protocols on samples 

from ten sediment stations. A 10-day marine amphipod (Eohaustorius estuarius) survival test and 

a 20-day polychaete (Neanthes arenaceodentata) survival and growth test were conducted. 

In July 2008, additional water and sediment samples were collected from two locations, the first being 

collected from the Bish Cove–marine terminal area (samples denoted MT), while the second sampling 

area was located farther north, in proximity of the Town of Kitimat, at Chimco Beach (samples denoted 

KIT). The purpose of the 2008 samples was to assess water and sediment conditions in nearshore, 

shallow-water portions of Kitimat Arm. These samples were collected from the intertidal zone along the 

western shore of Kitimat Arm. At high tide, the water depth at the sediment sampling locations ranged 

from 1 to 4 m. Seawater samples were collected from the water’s surface during low tide. 

In addition to those parameters analyzed during the 2006 seawater sampling, 2008 seawater samples were 

analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbon fractionation, dioxins and furans (marine terminal samples only), and 

alkalinity, phosphate, nitrate and nitrite, and sulfate content. Parameters analyzed in 2008 sediment 

samples mirrored those measured in 2006 with the following omissions; neither dioxins and furans nor 

AVS-SEM were measured during the 2008 sediment sampling program. 

Further, the July 2008 sampling included sampling of biota including rockweed, vertebrates (fish from the 

intertidal zone and ground fish from the sub-tidal zone), and invertebrates (shore crabs, Dungeness crab, 

and mussels) collected for analysis of COPC in tissues. 

2010 Page D-9

CONTRACTOR: 


200 m 

Bish Creek 

Bish 

Cove 

Emsley 

Point 

EP 

To Kitimat 


Terminal 

MT 

JW4 

JW8 

JW12 

JW3 

JW11 

JW2 

JW1 

JW6 

JW5 

JW7 

T 

200 m 

K i t i m a t A r m 

K2 

CB 

K1 

Clio Bay 

100 m 

JW10 



SCALE: 

KIT 

Baseline Sampling Locations 

in Kitimat Arm 

JW9 




Kitamaat 

Village 

2008 Sample Location 

2006 Sample Location 

2006 Reference Sample Location 


Railway 

Road 

0 0.5 1 1.5 



PROJECTION: 

Kilometres 

JWA-1038983-1632 

1:60,000 

UTM 9 

D-1 

NP 

DATE: 


DATUM: 

20090911 

CM 

NAD 83 





All tables related to the results of water and sediment quality results are in Attachment D1: 

• Water quality results of the 2006 and 2008 sampling campaigns are reported in Table D1-1 (water 

quality data for trace elements), Table D1-2 (BTEX, TPH, PAH, and other organic analytes in water), 

and Table D1-3 (seawater general chemistry). 

• Sediment quality results of the 2006 and 2008 sampling campaigns are reported in Table D1-4 (trace 

elements and AVS-SEM in sediments), Table D1-5 (BTEX, TPH, PAH, and other organic analytes in 

sediment), Table D1-6 (dioxin and furan analysis for sediments) and Table D1-7 (TOC and sediment 

grain size analysis). 

• Toxicity test results, benthic invertebrate community summary statistics, and benthic invertebrate 

community composition data (2006 samples only) are reported in Tables D1-8, D1-9, and D1-10, 

respectively. 

• Results of chemical analysis of biota are reported in Tables D1-11 (trace elements in rockweeds and 

invertebrates), D1-12 (trace elements in fish), D1-13 (PAH, dioxins and furans in rockweeds and 

invertebrates), and D1-14 (PAH, dioxins and furans in fish). 

D.3 Baseline Sampling Results 

D.3.1 Analysis of Seawater 

There are Canadian marine water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life for arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, and mercury (CCME 2007). There are also British Columbia guidelines for copper, 

lead, mercury, selenium, silver and zinc (BC MOE 2006, including both maximum and 30-day average 

values for the protection of marine and estuarine aquatic life). Three trace elements were present at or 

above CCME or provincial guidelines in one or more samples (Table D1-1). 

Boron exceeded the provincial guideline of 1.2 mg/L at all 10 sampling stations in 2006, with 

concentrations ranging from 3.4 to 3.9 mg/L. However, the boron concentration of seawater typically falls 

in the range of 4.4 mg/L, and the values found in this study are typical of coastal environments. Baseline 

boron concentrations in seawater are, therefore, not considered unusual. 

Cadmium concentrations slightly exceeded the CCME and British Columbia guidelines of 0.00012 mg/L 

at four of the ten stations, with values measured in 2006 ranging from 0.00010 to 0.00017 mg/L. The 

cadmium data collected in 2008 gave lower results (all were reported as less than 0.00002 mg/L). 

Therefore, it is possible that cadmium concentrations reported in 2006 were elevated because of 

particulate matter in the samples or because the samples may have suffered from contamination. 

Like cadmium, to which it is closely related geochemically, the zinc concentration slightly exceeded the 

British Columbia guideline (0.01 mg/L) at one station in 2006, but lower concentrations (all less than 

0.0025 mg/L) were reported in 2008. 

The manganese concentration at Station JW12 in 2006 (1.48 mg/L) appeared to be an outlier, as the 

highest concentration of manganese detected among the other stations was 0.011 mg/L. All values 

reported in 2008 were less than approximately 0.01 mg/L. Several other trace elements, including barium, 

cobalt, iron, manganese, and silicon, were highest at Station JW12 in 2006 and may collectively indicate 

2010 Page D-11




the presence of particulates in the sample. Concentrations of BTEX and TPH were non-detectable in 

seawater (Table D1-2). However, the provincial water quality guidelines for the PAH chrysene and 

benzo(a) pyrene were exceeded at several stations, with the highest concentrations occurring at Station 

JW12 (Table D1-2). Total PAH concentrations were highest at Stations JW12 (11.5 µg/L) and JW4 

(10.6 µg/L). All other stations with detectable PAH concentrations had levels less than half of those 

reported at JW12 and JW4. Values reported in 2008 were uniformly non-detectable (generally less than 

0.00005 mg/L). Again, the values reported in 2006 may have been influenced by the presence of 

particulate matter in the samples. 

Salinity was relatively consistent among 2006 bottom water samples (Table D1-6), ranging from 26.2‰ 

to 28‰, with much lower salinity recorded in the 2008 surface water samples (ranging from 1.3‰ to 

5‰). These results are consistent with the presence of a halocline within Kitimat Arm, as discussed 

above. 

D.3.2 Analysis of Sediment 

A sediment-sampling program was completed in February 2006 to assess baseline sediment quality. Eight 

samples in the vicinity of the marine terminal and one at each of two reference stations located near the 

eastern shore of Kitimat Arm were collected from depths of 30 to 100 m. Sediment samples were 

analyzed for trace elements and AVS-SEM, (Table D1-4), hydrocarbons including PAH and PCB 

(Table D1-5), dioxins and furans (Table D1-6), and general chemistry and grain size (Table D1-7). 

Sediment toxicity tests using the amphipod (Eohaustorius estuarius) and the polychaete (Neanthes 

arenaceodentata) were also conducted (Table D1-8). 

D.3.2.1 Sediment Chemistry 

Trace element concentrations in sediment are provided in Table D1-4. Concentrations of all metals were 

below relevant CCME guidelines (probable effect levels). Heavy metal concentrations were generally 

lower in nearshore sediment samples collected in 2008 than in offshore sediment samples collected in 

2008. This difference is consistent with the grain size characteristics of the sediments (nearshore samples 

were predominantly sandy; offshore samples were predominantly clay). 

Bioavailability of metals can be assessed by measuring amounts of Acid Volatile Sulfide (AVS) and 

Simultaneously Extracted Metals (SEM) in sediment. Based on theory and observations for contaminated 

sites, not all the metals reported for a sample are available and toxic to aquatic organisms (Di Toro et al. 

1992). Silver, copper, cadmium, nickel, lead and zinc form highly insoluble precipitates in the presence of 

sulfide (analyzed as AVS). If the molar concentration of the sum of SEM metals is less than the AVS 

concentration (ratio less than 1.0), the metals will be almost exclusively bound to sulphide, their 

bioavailability will be extremely low, and toxicity will be unlikely. Seasonally, AVS levels are generally 

lowest in the spring, so bioavailability will decrease throughout the summer. Results for AVS/SEM 

analysis are shown in Table D1-4, and indicate AVS/SEM ratios well below 1.0 for all samples analyzed. 

As a result, metals in general in sediment are not expected to be bioavailable or to pose a risk of toxicity 

to benthic organisms. 

Page D-12 2010




Data for hydrocarbons including PAH compounds (16 parent compounds plus methylated naphthalene), 

and PCB are presented in Table D1-5. The Ocean Disposal Guideline for total PAH (as indicated in 

Environment Canada 2008) of 2.5 mg/kg was slightly exceeded at stations JW2 and JW3 and nearly 

matched at JW1 (2.49 mg/kg). The values for total PAH reported in Table D1-5 were lower than those 

reported historically for parts of Kitimat Arm (Cretney et al. 1983; Simpson et al. 1996; Harris 1999). 

Federal and provincial guidelines for individual PAH and for total low- and high-molecular-weight PAH 

were not exceeded in any samples. As in the case of metals, concentrations of PAH in nearshore 

sediments sampled in 2008 were considerably lower than concentrations reported for offshore sediments 

in 2006. Concentrations of total PCB in offshore sediments sampled in 2006 were non-detectable. 

Dioxin and furan levels in Kitimat Arm sediment collected in February 2006 are listed in Table D1-6. 

Concentrations were lower than reported in various areas of Kitimat Arm in the 1990s (Norecol, Dames 

and Moore 1997). Norecol, Dames and Moore (1997) indicated several potential sources of dioxins and 

furans, including the Eurocan pulp mill, its former sawmill, and the Rio Tinto Alcan Kitimat aluminum 

smelter. 

D.3.2.2 Sediment Toxicity 

Sediment toxicity to representative benthic invertebrates (an amphipod and a polychaete) was assessed in 

2006 using standard bioassay protocols. A 10-day marine amphipod (Eohaustorius estuarius) survival test 

and a 20-day polychaete (Neanthes arenaceodentata) survival and growth test were done. 

The sediment samples were considered nontoxic as determined by the amphipod survival test, the 

polychaete survival test and the polychaete growth test (Table D1-8). Amphipod survival ranged from 

81% to 88% in the terminal area samples and 90% to 97% in the reference samples, with statistically 

significantly lower survival in five of the eight samples from the study area (Figure D-1) compared to 

only one of the reference samples (JW9). However, all of the samples were deemed to pass the toxicity 

test (i.e., survival was greater than 80% in each case). There were no significant differences in survival 

(100%) or growth of the polychaete in PDA and reference samples. 

D.3.2.3 Benthic Invertebrate Community 

The purpose of the benthic invertebrate assemblage analysis is to evaluate the abundance and composition 

of the benthic invertebrate community with respect to other information (such as chemical data and 

sediment grain size) relevant to the samples. Because some taxa (such as mollusks and crustaceans) are 

generally more sensitive to environmental stressors than others (such as polychaetes), the benthic 

community assemblage can provide useful information on overall environmental quality. A summary of 

descriptive statistics pertaining to the 2006 benthic invertebrate assemblage data appears in Table D1-9, 

with raw counts presented in Table D1-10. 

Total abundance of organisms tended to be higher at reference stations JW9 and JW10 on the east side of 

Kitimat Arm (4,174 and 3,223 organisms respectively) when compared to stations JW1, JW3, JW4 and 

JW5 on the west side of Kitimat Arm, where total abundance ranged from 1,136 at JW1 to 3,026 at JW4. 

Species richness was also greatest at reference stations, ranging from 137 to 170 taxa, when compared to 

stations on the west side of Kitimat Arm, where species richness ranged from 77 to 112 taxa. 

2010 Page D-13




The percentage of the total number of taxa that were mollusks or crustaceans was calculated at each 

station, as was the percentage of taxa that were comprised of polychaetes. Mollusks and crustaceans 

accounted for 36% to 39% of taxa found at reference stations whereas polychaetes accounted for 52% to 

55% of the taxa found at reference stations. The community composition was similar at stations on the 

west side of Kitimat Arm, where mollusks and crustaceans made up between 31% and 35% of all taxa, 

and polychaetes made up between 47% and 61% of taxa. 

D.3.3 Analysis of Biotic Tissue 

Samples of biota were collected from the nearshore and offshore environments in 2008 to provide 

baseline data on concentrations of contaminant substances in tissues. The sampled nearshore biota 

included rockweed (SEAWD), mussels (MUSS, soft tissue only), shore crabs (SCRAB, whole animal), 

and small fish from tidal pools (SFISH, whole animal). The sampled offshore biota included Dungeness 

crab (DCRAB, analyzed as leg meat and hepatopancreas) and groundfish (GFISH, analyzed as fillet and 

carcass). Samples were collected from the vicinity of the marine terminal (MT, Figure D-1), and from a 

site located closer to Kitimat (KIT). 

Trace element data are reported in Tables D1-11 and D1-12. Data for PAH and dioxins and furans are 

reported in Tables D1-13 and D1-14. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were not detected in seaweed 

tissue, shore crab tissue, shore fish or ground fish from either sampling area (Table D1-12). However, 

mussels collected from both sampling areas contained detectable levels of chrysene and fluoranthene, 

while phenanthrene was only detected in a mussel from the Kitimat sampling area and pyrene was only 

detected in a mussel from the marine terminal area. Mussels lack the capacity to substantially metabolize 

PAH, a capability that is well developed in crustaceans and vertebrates. Therefore, the detection of low 

levels of PAH in mussel tissues is not unusual. 

Several dioxins and furans were reported at concentrations above their respective detection limits within 

Dungeness crab, shore fish, mussels and ground fish, with no apparent differences between specimens 

collected from either sampling area (Tables D1-13 and D1-14). Dioxins and furans were not found above 

their detection limits in seaweed tissue collected from either sampling location. 

D.4 Baseline Environmental Quality 

D.4.1 Marine Water Chemistry 

Data collected in 2006 and 2008 show that water quality in the PEAA is generally consistent with what 

would be expected for a coastal area under anthropogenic influence. Differences between 2006 and 2008 

relate mainly to the fact that samples from 2006 were collected from near the bottom at some depth. 

Salinity was relatively high, and in some samples, entrained sediment particles may have contributed to 

detections of some trace elements and PAH. Data from 2008 were collected from the surface nearshore 

environment and show considerably lower salinity and no evidence of environmental quality impairment. 

Page D-14 2010




D.4.2 Marine Sediment Chemistry 

Data collected in 2006 show evidence of marine sediment chemical impacts with PAH, including 

phenanthrene, and a variety of high-molecular-weight PAH that may originate from the past operations of 

the aluminum smelter. Traces of dioxins and furans were also detected, although the origin of these 

substances is not known. The 2008 sampling of nearshore sediment found lower concentrations of many 

metals and PAH. The lower values are consistent with the predominantly sandy characteristic of the 

nearshore sediments, with lower proportions of clay and sediment organic matter than the offshore 

sediments. The clay and organic matter fractions of the sediment would be expected to be relatively 

enriched in trace elements and organic contaminants, respectively. 

D.4.3 Marine Sediment Toxicity 

Sediment toxicity testing conducted on offshore sediments showed no overt evidence for toxicity to either 

test species; however, the marine amphipod test indicated a tendency for sediments collected on the west 

side of Kitimat Arm to have lower survival than reference sediments collected from the east side of the 

Arm. 

D.4.4 Benthic Invertebrate Assemblages 

Species richness tended to be higher in benthic samples collected from reference stations on the east side 

of Kitimat Arm than in benthic samples collected from the west side of the Arm. The proportions of 

molluscs and crustaceans to polychaetes also shifted slightly in favour of polychaetes on the west side of 

Kitimat Arm. 

D.4.5 Summary 

Although not statistically testable, the indicators for sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity, and benthic 

invertebrate assemblages all tend to indicate slight impairment of sediment quality and the biological 

community in offshore sediments near the marine terminal when compared to reference sites on the east 

side of Kitimat Arm. Based upon the sediment chemistry results alone, it does not appear that nearshore 

sediment quality is impaired. 

D.5 References 

D.5.1 Literature Cited 

Bornhold, B.D. 1983. Sedimentation in the Douglas Channel and Kitimat Arm. In Proceedings of a 

workshop on the Kitimat marine environment. Institute of Ocean Sciences, DFO, Sidney, BC: 

Canadian Technical Hydrography and Ocean Sciences, Ministry of Supply and Services, Ottawa, 

Ontario. 

2010 Page D-15




Cretney, W.J., C.S. Wong, R.W. Mcdonald, P.E. Erickson and B.R. Fowler. 1983. Polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons in surface sediments and age-date cores from Kitimat Arm, Douglas Channel and 

adjoining waterways. In: Proceedings of a workshop on the Kitimat marine environment. Institute 

of Ocean Sciences, DFO, Sidney, BC: Canadian Technical Hydrography and Oceans Sciences, 

Ministry of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ontario. 

Di Toro, D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, A.R. Carlson and G.T. Ankley. 1992. Acid Volatile 

Sulfide Predicts the Acute Toxicity of Cadmium and Nickel in Sediments. Environmental Science 

and Technology 26: 96–101. 

Eickhoff, C.V., S-X. He, F.A.P.C. Gobas and F.C.P. Law. 2003. Determination of polycylic aromatic 

hydrocarbons in Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister) near an aluminum smelter in Kitimat Arm, 

British Columbia, Canada. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22: 50–58. 

Erickson, P., B.R. Fowler, D.A. Brown, W. Heath, and K. Thompson. 1979. Hydrocarbon levels in the 

marine environment of Kitimat Arm and its seaward approaches. Seakem Oceanography Ltd. 

Sidney B.C. 308 pp. 

EVS Consultants. 1995. 1994 Alcan marine monitoring program intensive study, raw data volume. EVS 

Consultants, North Vancouver BC. Project No. 3/045-11. Cited in C. Eickhoff. 2004. Studies of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Dungeness crabs: biomonitoring, physiologically based 

toxicokinetic model and human health risk assessment. Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Simon Fraser 

University, Burnaby, BC. 

Harris, G.E. 1999. Assessment of the assimilative capacity of Kitimat Arm, British Columbia: A case 

study approach of the sustainable management of environmental contaminants, in School of 

Resource and Environmental Management. 1999, Simon Fraser University: Burnaby. p. 242. 

Macdonald, R.W. 1983. The distribution and dynamics of suspended particles in Kitimat fjord system. In: 

Proceedings of a workshop on the Kitimat marine environment. 1983. Institute of Ocean 

Sciences, DFO, Sidney, BC: Canadian Technical Hydrography and Ocean Sciences, Ministry of 

Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ontario. 

McGroddy, S.E., J.W. Farrington and P.M. Gschwend. 1996. Comparison of the in situ and desorption 

sediment-water partitioning of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls. 

Environmental Science and Technology 30: 172–177. 

Norecol, Dames and Moore Inc. 1997. Eurocan Pulp and Paper Ltd., First cycle environmental effects 

monitoring program. Vancouver, BC. 

Paine, M.D., P.M. Chapman, P.J. Allard, M.H. Murdoch and D. Minifie. 1996. Limited bioavailability of 

sediment PAH near an aluminium smelter: contamination does not equal effects. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 15: 2003–2018. 

Pickard, G.L. 1961. Oceanographic features of inlets in the British Columbia mainland coast. Journal of 

the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 18: 907–982. 

Page D-16 2010




Simpson, C.D., A.A. Mosi, W.R. Cullen, and K.J. Reimer. 1996. Composition and distribution of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contamination in surficial marine sediments from Kitimat 

Harbor, Canada. Science of the Total Environment 181: 265–278. 

D.5.2 Internet Sites 

British Columbia Ministry of the Environment (BC MOE). 1987. Water quality assessment and objectives 

for the lower Kitimat River and Kitimat Arm. Overview Report. Available at: 

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/objectives/kitimat/kitimat.html 

British Columbia Ministry of the Environment (BC MOE). 2006. British Columbia approved water 

quality guidelines, 2006 edition. Science and Information Branch. Available at: 

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/approv_wq_guide/approved.html 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2007. Canadian water quality guidelines for 

the protection of aquatic life. Updated September, 2007. Available at: 

http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/rev_aql_summary_tbl_7.0_e.pdf 

Environment Canada. 2008. Guidelines for ocean disposal of dredged materials. Available at: 

http://www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/ep/ocean-disposal/index_e.htm 

2010 Page D-17



Attachment D1: Contaminant Concentrations in Water, Sediment and Biota 

Attachment D1 Contaminant Concentrations in 

Water, Sediment and Biota 

2010 Page D1-1




Table D1-1 Baseline Seawater Trace Element Concentrations 

Trace 

Elements 

Guidelines 

(mg/L) 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Kitimat 1 Kitimat 2 Terminal 

KIT-WAT-01 KIT-WAT-01-D JW2 JW2-D JW2-D2 JW3 JW4 JW12 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 JW6 JW7 MT-WAT-01 MT-WAT-01-D 

Aluminum – a 0.353 0.304




Table D1-1 Baseline Seawater Trace Element Concentrations (cont’d) 

Trace 

Elements 

Guidelines 

(mg/L) 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 



Thallium – a




Table D1-2 Baseline Seawater BTEX, TPH, PAH and Other Organic Compound Concentrations 

BTEX 

Analytes 

Guidelines 

(mg/L) 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 



Benzene 0.11 a,b




Table D1-2 Baseline Seawater BTEX, TPH, PAH and Other Organic Compound Concentrations (cont’d) 

Analytes 

PAHs (cont’d) 

Guidelines 

(mg/L) 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 



Chrysene 0.0001 b




Table D1-3 Other Measurable Baseline Parameters in Seawater 

Parameter 

Kitimat 1 Kitimat 2 

Concentration 

(mg/L; unless otherwise stated) 

Terminal 


Hardness a 224 241 – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b 731 745 

Alkalinity, bicarbonate a 14.9 13.9 – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b – b 24.8 24.3 

Alkalinity, carbonate a




Table D1-4 Baseline Marine Sediments Trace Element Concentrations 

Trace 

Elements 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw; unless otherwise stated) 

Guidelines 


(mg/kg dw) 

Nearshore Offshore Offshore Nearshore 

CCME PEL a KIT-SED-01 KIT-SED-01-D JW2 JW3 JW3-D JW4 JW12 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 JW6 JW7 MT-SED-01 MT-SED-01-D 

Aluminum – b – c – c 35900 35300 36900 35600 35500 25400 32800 35800 32500 35000 37300 – c – c 

Antimony – b 0.16 0.14




Table D1-4 Baseline Marine Sediments Trace Element Concentrations (cont’d) 

Trace 

Elements 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw; unless otherwise stated) 

Guidelines 


(mg/kg dw) 


CCME PEL a KIT-SED-01 KIT-SED-01-D JW2 JW3 JW3-D JW4 JW12 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 JW6 JW7 MT-SED-01 MT-SED-01-D 

Thallium – b




Table D1-5 Baseline Marine Sediments BTEX, TPH, PAH and Other Organic Compound Concentrations 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Analytes 

Guidelines 

(mg/kg dw) 

Kitimat 1 

Nearshore 


Offshore Offshore 

Terminal 

Nearshore 

CCME PEL a KIT-WAT-01 KIT-WAT-01-D JW2 JW3 JW3-D JW4 JW12 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 JW6 JW7 MT-WAT-01 MT-WAT-01-D 

BTEX 

Benzene 

– b 




Table D1-5 Baseline Marine Sediments BTEX, TPH, PAH and Other Organic Compound Concentrations (cont’d) 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Analytes 

Guidelines 

(mg/kg dw) 


Nearshore 



Terminal 

Nearshore 

CCME PEL a KIT-WAT-01 KIT-WAT-01-D JW2 JW3 JW3-D JW4 JW12 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 JW6 JW7 MT-WAT-01 MT-WAT-01-D 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 

– b 




Table D1-6 Baseline Marine Sediments Dioxin and Furan Compounds Concentrations 

Analytes 

Guidelines 

(mg/kg dw) 

Concentration 

(ng/kg dw) 



KIT-SED-01 KIT-SED-01-D JW2 JW3 JW3-D JW4 JW12 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 JW6 JW7 MT-SED-01 MT-SED-01-D 

Dioxins 

2,3,7,8-TCDD – a – b – b 0.17 0.15 – b 0.14 0.17 c – b – b 0.15 0.21 0.13 c 0.17 – b – b 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD – a – b – b 1.7 1.28 – b 1.03 1.25 – b – b 1.32 1.63 0.95 1.4 – b – b 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD – a – b – b < 0.16 0.2 – b < 0.12 0.19 – b – b < 0.08 < 0.12 0.13 0.19 – b – b 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD – a – b – b 14.6 12.3 – b 9.27 11.8 – b – b 11.5 13.1 8.05 12.7 – b – b 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD – a – b – b 6.46 5.44 – b 4.37 5.28 – b – b 5.25 5.98 3.82 5.42 – b – b 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD – a – b – b 15.4 14.2 – b 12 12.9 – b – b 14.8 14.2 10.1 16.5 – b – b 

OCDD – a – b – b 51.8 53.8 – b 48.9 45.5 – b – b 63.3 43 37.2 82.4 – b – b 

Furans 

2,3,7,8-TCDF – a – b – b 0.35 0.32 – b 0.32 0.3 – b – b 0.38 0.37 0.25 0.32 – b – b 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF – a – b – b 0.08 0.08 – b 0.06 c 0.08 c – b – b 0.09 0.12 c 0.06 c 0.08 c – b – b 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF – a – b – b 0.13 0.18 c – b 0.13 c 0.11 c – b – b 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.15 – b – b 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF – a – b – b 0.13 0.15 c – b 0.19 0.13 c – b – b 0.18 0.15 c 0.12 c 0.17 c – b – b 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF – a – b – b 0.08 c 0.09 – b 0.11 0.08 c – b – b 0.14 0.09 c 0.09 0.10 c – b – b 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF – a – b – b < 0.03 < 0.03 – b < 0.03 < 0.02 – b – b 0.04 < 0.03 0.02 c 0.02 c – b – b 

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF – a – b – b 0.11 c 0.12 – b 0.08 0.11 c – b – b 0.1 0.1 0.08 c 0.09 – b – b 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF – a – b – b 1.35 1.35 – b 1.37 1.22 – b – b 1.54 1.37 0.98 1.33 – b – b 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF – a – b – b 0.15 0.14 – b 0.11 c 0.09 c – b – b 0.14 0.1 0.09 c 0.08 c – b – b 

OCDF – a – b – b 2.43 2.76 – b 2.92 2.49 – b – b 3.87 2.57 1.81 2.77 – b – b 

NOTES: 

a CCME or BC MOE guideline not available. 

b Results were not reported by the laboratory or analysis was not requested. 

c Target could not be confirmed as it did not satisfy all criteria. Reported value may be interpreted as an estimation of the maximum analyte concentration. 

"–" indicates that data was not available. 

"




Table D1-7 Other Measurable Baseline Parameters in Marine Sediments 

Parameter 

General Chemistry 

Nearshore 


Offshore Offshore Nearshore 

KIT-WAT-01 KIT-WAT-01-D JW2 JW3 JW3-D JW4 JW12 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 JW6 JW7 MT-WAT-01 MT-WAT-01-D 

TOC (%)




Table D1-8 Baseline Sediment Toxicity Tests for Survival and Growth (2006 Samples Only) 

Eohaustorius 

estuarius 

Neanthes 

arenaceodentata 

Kitimat 2 Terminal 

Control-1M Control-2M 


JW2 JW3 JW3-D JW4 JW12 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 JW6 JW7 

Survival (%) 99 ± 2 100 ± 0 88 ± 8 80 ± 12 – a 87 ± 4 81 ± 11 97 ± 4 90 ± 8 88 ± 8 85 ± 12 82 ± 6 84 ± 8 

Notes – – Passed Passed – a Passed Passed Reference Reference Passed Passed Passed Passed 

Survival (%) 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 – a 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 

Mean Growth 

Rate (mg/worm·d) 

– – 1.04 ± 0.09 0.99 ± 0.08 – a 0.95 ± 0.21 1.02 ± 0.11 1.00 ± 0.07 0.98 ± 0.15 1.00 ± 0.07 0.97 ± 0.13 0.99 ± 0.13 0.97 ± 0.10 

Notes – – NSD-R NSD-R – a NSD-R NSD-R NSD-C NSD-C NSD-R NSD-R NSD-R NSD-R 

NOTES: 


a 

Results were not reported by the laboratory or analysis was not requested. 

D - field duplicate sample 

NSD-C - Not significantly differenct from laboratory control 

NSD-R - Not significantly different from either reference sediment 

R - sample collected at a reference location 

SOURCE: Analysis performed by Vizon Scitec. Inc. Laboratories (2006). 

Table D1-9 Baseline Benthic Community Structure Summary (2006 Samples Only) 


Parameter 


JW2 JW3 JW3-D JW4 JW12 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 JW6 JW7 

Abundance – a 1628 – a 3026 – a 4174 3223 1136 1697 – a – a 

Species Richness – a 112 – a 108 – a 170 137 77 109 – a – a 

Mollusc + Crustacean species – a 38 – a 38 – a 62 53 24 34 – a – a 

Molluscs + Crustaceans (%) – a 34% – a 35% – a 36% 39% 31% 31% – a – a 

Polychaete species – a 68 – a 60 – a 93 71 36 62 – a – a 

Polychaete species (%) – a 61% – a 56% – a 55% 52% 47% 57% – a – a 

NOTES: 


a 

Results were not reported by the laboratory or analysis was not requested. 

D - field duplicate sample 


SOURCE: Analysis performed by Biologica Environmental Services Ltd. Laboratories (2006). 

2010 Page D1-25




Table D1-10 Baseline Benthic Community Structure (2006 Samples Only) 

PORIFERA 

Leucilla nuttingi 

CNIDARIA 

Hydrozoa 

TAXON 

Perigonimus repens 2 

Anthozoa 

Urticina sp. 1 

NEMERTEA 

No. of individuals 

Carinoma mutabilis 3 6 

Cerebratulus californiensis 13 10 3 

Anopla sp. D (SCAMIT) 1 

Nemertea indet. 



JW3 JW4 JW9-R JW10-R JW1 JW5 

A Int J A Int J A Int J A Int J A Int J A Int J A Int J 

1 

2 2 

Tubulanus polymorphus 16 29 3 4 4 3 2 7 

Tubulanus sp. 

ANNELIDA 

Polychaeta Errantia 

Ancistrosyllis groenlandica 1 

Aphrodita parva 1 

Cenogenus simpla 7 2 

Dentinephtys glabra 3 3 

Dorvillea pseudorubrovittata 2 

Eranno bicirrata 5 

Eranno spp. 16 1 

Eteone californica 1 

Eteone nr. californica 1 

Eteone longa complex 4 1 

Eteone spilotus 4 

Eteone spp. 

Eulalia sp. 1 (Ruff) 3 1 1 

1 

8 

1 

2 2 

1 1 

2 

2 

3 

1 

2 

2010 Page D1-27 

1 

1 4 

3 3 1 6 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

7 7 

2 1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 1 1 1 

3 

1 2 

2 

4 

2 

1 

1 

2 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 5 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

2




Table D1-10 Baseline Benthic Community Structure (2006 Samples Only) (cont’d) 

ANNELIDA (cont’d) 

TAXON 


Gattyana treadwelli 19 1 

Glycera nana 20 4 

Glycinde armigera 3 

Goniada brunnea 5 1 

Goniada spp. 

Gyptis nr. pluriesta 1 

Lumbrineris cruzensis 61 13 1 8 2 

Malmgreniella bansei 

Malmgreniella berkeleyorum 1 

Malmgreniella spp. 

Nephtys caecoides 

Nephtys cornuta 238 2 

Nephtys ferruginea 22 





1 

1 

1 

2 

5 1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 2 

3 

5 1 

Nephtys punctata 42 23 2 6 2 1 9 6 

Nephtys spp. 1 1 

Nereis procera 1 

90 

1 

1 

1 

35 

3 

2010 Page D1-29 

1 

2 1 

7 

7 

1 

23 

3 

15 

1 

6 7 

1 1 

1 

5 

8 2 

1 

19 8 

1 

1 

18 2 

2 

7 2 

3 

1 

2 

66 

5 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 4 2 

1 

26 

1 

2 

9 6 1 

Ninoe gemmea 69 67 43 9 7 3 15 13 13 15 5 8 14 27 8 4 2 2 12 13 9 

Onuphis iridescens 3 

Onuphis nr. iridescens 9 9 

Onuphis spp. 

Ophiodromus pugettensis 

Parougia caeca 8 

2 3 

Pholoe glabra 25 5 2 

Pholoe minuta 26 6 

Pholoe sp. N-1 (Ruff) 6 

Pholoe spp. 

1 

3 3 

2 

3 1 

Pholoides asperus 12 10 7 3 1 

Podarkeopsis perkinsi 13 3 1 4 

Polyeunoa tuta 1 

1 

2 

1 

1 1 

1 

2 1 

3 

1 1 

1 

2 1 

1 2 

5 

1 

22 3 2 

11 1 

1 

5 6 3 

3 1 

1 4 

1 

1 

9 5 

4 

2 

3 1 

1 

1 5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 3 

3 2 4 

1 2






TAXON 

Protodorvillea gracilis 2 






Scoletoma luti 145 68 45 42 16 8 21 14 9 10 4 4 27 11 14 29 7 7 16 16 3 

Scoletoma spp. 5 4 

Sphaerosyllis ranunculus 1 

Sphaerosyllis spp. 1 

Sphaerodoropsis sphaerulifer 1 

Typosyllis heterochaeta 115 19 13 14 

Polychaeta Sedentaria 

Ampharete nr. acutifrons 13 

Ampharete finmarchica 1 

Ampharete spp. 

Anobothrus gracilis 2 

Aphelochaeta sp. 2 8 4 

2 1 

1 

3 

3 5 1 

8 

1 1 

Aphelochaeta spp. 17 32 24 11 6 1 2 1 

Aricidea antennata 134 24 1 21 3 

Aricidea catherinae 14 

Aricidea lopezi 248 13 

Aricidea ramosa 528 7 3 68 

50 1 

Aricidea simplex 28 13 1 7 3 

Aricidea spp. 18 3 1 11 1 

Artacama coniferi 5 2 1 1 

Artacamella hancocki 42 2 3 9 

Asclerocheilus beringianus 3 2 7 1 2 1 

Axiothella rubrocincta 1 

Barantolla nr. americana 1 

Brada sachalina 1 1 

Capitella capitata complex 6 2 

Chaetozone commonalis 24 1 1 11 

Chaetozone nr. setosa 19 7 1 

1 

19 3 

51 3 

2 52 1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

2010 Page D1-31 

2 

1 

1 4 

1 

1 

1 

56 15 6 20 2 1 1 1 

1 

2 

29 12 1 21 2 

14 

7 

1 1 1 

1 

76 3 

16 5 

3 

2 

4 

27 

188 

4 3 

3 

1 

1 

11 15 4 11 1 

9 1 1 12 1 2 3 

1 

1 

6 2 

1 

1 1 

3 

12 4 

64 3 

82 

12 6 1 2 

1 

1 

7 2 1 

8 

1 

1 

4 

19 

32 

3 

49 6 

3 

3 5 

62 3 1 

5 

1 

1 

3 

1 

6 

1 1






TAXON 


Chaetozone spp. 2 37 7 2 

Chone spp. 

Clymenura spp. 1 3 

Cossura bansei 40 2 

Cossura modica 2 

Cossura pygodactylata 29 21 





2 3 

Decamastus nr. gracilis 31 17 28 

Dipolydora socialis 

Euchone analis 1 1 1 1 

Euchone incolor 4 

Euchone spp. 

Euclymene nr. zonalis 2 1 

Euclymeninae sp. 1 2 2 

2 

13 5 

Euclymeninae indet. 1 4 10 

18 2 

2 

1 1 

7 5 

2 

1 4 

1 

1 3 

1 2 

1 

1 

2010 Page D1-33 

1 3 

2 

10 5 

2 

6 

5 

1 1 

23 14 26 5 1 1 

8 3 

2 2 

5 2 

8 

4 3 

5 

37 7 

1 

2 6 

3 2 1 

Galathowenia oculata 1537 3142 2242 214 274 144 329 1122 397 330 666 734 434 616 378 60 157 250 170 307 339 

Heteromastus filobranchus 1 1 1 

Jasmineira pacifica 2 1 1 

Lanassa gracilis 1 1 

Lanassa spp. 

Laonice cirrata 2 

Leitoscoloplos pugettensis 87 67 2 

Levinsenia gracilis 215 16 1 34 

Lysippe labiata 3 3 2 

Maldane sarsi 56 7 

1 

1 

23 3 

Mediomastus californiensis 90 17 3 13 1 

Megalomma splendida 2 3 

Melinna elisabethae 4 3 6 

Melinna nr. heterodonta 70 9 53 23 

Melinna spp. 

1 

2 

27 1 

15 

3 1 3 

1 1 

2 2 

2 1 1 

1 1 

1 

41 53 1 41 12 1 

64 10 1 44 3 

39 8 

2 3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 4 

11 3 

1 2 1 1 1 

1 1 

3 17 5 30 1 1 5 15 3 6 7 

1 

24 

1 

20 

5 

2 

5 

22 2 

1 1 

3 

2 2 1 

10 

4 7 

7 5 3 

5






TAXON 


Microclymene nr. caudata 64 92 93 

Monticellina serratiseta 25 

Monticellina spp. 1 

Myriochele nr. gracilis 2 

Myriochele olgae 38 10 

Notomastus hemipodus 

Notomastus latericeus 14 39 

Notoproctus pacificus 4 

Ophelina acuminata 4 

Ophelina breviata 5 2 1 

Owenia nr. johnsoni 9 

Paraonella spp. 1 

Pectinaria californiensis 15 1 

Pectinaria granulata 18 7 

Pherusa negligens 2 1 

Phyllochaetopterus pottsi 1 

Phylo felix 1 

Pista moorei 1 

Pista wui 1 

Polycirrus spp. 1 

Polydora spp. 

Potamilla intermedia 

Praxillella gracilis 3 6 4 

Prionospio (Prionospio) jubata 23 7 

Prionospio (Minuspio) lighti 14 7 

Prionospio (Minuspio) multibranchiata 7 1 

Prionospio (Prionospio) steenstrupi 4 12 

Proclea graffi 2 2 





1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

23 

1 

6 

8 3 25 43 49 2 11 7 21 14 4 

1 

1 

1 2 

7 

7 1 

Rhodine bitorquata 10 2 1 9 2 

2 1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

1 2 

2010 Page D1-35 

18 10 

1 

10 38 

2 

2 

20 

4 1 

3 1 1 2 1 

8 

4 

18 7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 1 

2 

1 

13 4 

1 2 

4 11 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 

1 1 

9 1 

4 

1 

1 

3 

2 

1 

1 

16 15 30 

1 

2 

1 1 

1 

2 1 

1 

2 2






TAXON 


Scalibregma californicum 2 2 

Sosanopsis wireni 1 

Spio cirrifera 4 6 

Spiophanes berkeleyorum 38 1 3 5 1 





Sternaspis nr. fossor 55 51 36 2 3 1 13 19 26 10 9 5 25 10 2 3 7 1 2 3 1 

Terebellides californica 2 

Terebellides horikoshii 36 1 3 8 

Terebellides reishi 1 

Terebellides sp. A (Steinhauer and Imamura) 46 13 2 16 

Terebellides spp. 7 1 2 

Travisia brevis 3 31 

Trochochaeta multisetosa 1 

SIPUNCULA 

Golfingiidae indet. 

Nephasoma diaphanes 49 3 

Thysanocardia nigra 5 1 

MOLLUSCA 

Aplacophora 

1 

9 

1 5 1 

Chaetoderma argenteum 40 54 6 6 11 2 5 8 

Falcidens longus 2 8 4 

Polyplacophora 

Lepidozona interstincta 

Gastropoda 

Acanthodoris sp. 

Acteocina culcitella 

Alvania compacta 118 

Astyris gausapata 3 

Balcis columbiana 3 

Bittium munitum 

Colus halli 

1 

1 

1 

8 11 

1 

1 

1 

3 

12 

1 

1 

32 

1 

2 2 

2010 Page D1-37 

2 2 

4 6 

2 

2 8 

10 

2 31 

12 2 

4 5 

1 3 3 

33 

1 6 1 

1 

4 5 

1 

1 

10 2 

1 

34 1 

1 

1 

1 7 1 1 

7 12 3 9 13 

24 

3 

3 

2 1 

1 

6 

1 

1 33 

7 1 5 3 

1 

4 

3 

1 1 

2 

1 

9 5 1 

1 1 

11 

1 3





MOLLUSCA (cont’d) 

Cylichna attonsa 

TAXON 

Diaphana californica 1 

Haminoea virescens 5 

Haminoea sp. 1 

Limalepeta caecoides 

Odostomia spp. 

Oenopota turricula 

Oenopota spp. 1 

Parvaplustrum sp. 2 

Solariella peramabilis 

Trichotropis cancellata 


Turbonilla spp. 4 1 

Bivalvia 





16 

1 2 

Acila castrensis 22 25 7 

Adontorhina cyclia 691 1 

Astarte esquimalti 

Axinopsida serricata 93 716 

Cardiomya planetica 1 1 6 1 

Cardiomya sp. 

Clinocardium blandum 

1 

2 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

29 

7 

1 

1 

8 11 

Cyclocardia ventricosa 2 3 1 2 1 

Delectopecten vancouverensis 

Ennucula tenuis 2 15 4 

Macoma carlottensis 18 251 42 6 15 

Macoma elimata 2 16 56 

Macoma yoldiformis 1 9 24 

Macoma spp. 

Mytilus spp. 

Nuculana hamata 9 3 

Nuculana minuta 2 1 

1 

2 

2 

3 96 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

123 

2 

3 137 

3 27 

1 2 

2010 Page D1-39 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 1 

5 

1 

3 6 4 19 19 3 

243 1 

1 

57 333 

3 

1 1 

1 2 2 11 2 

1 2 5 1 9 38 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

236 

2 

18 170 

1 

2 

2 

1 

28 

3 

5 31 

2 78 11 3 95 30 3 16 

1 9 24 

6 2 

2 

3 79 

2 

2 1 

3 3 

14 

1 2 

1 

1 

32 

1 

2 34 

1 2 

1 

1 

2 

1 20 1 

1 8





MOLLUSCA (cont’d) 

Nuculana spp. 

TAXON 


Nutricola lordi 6 19 1 1 

Pandora bilirata 1 1 

Pandora wardiana 1 

Parvilucina tenuisculpta 

Solamen columbianum 

Thyasira flexuosa 5 39 

Xylophaga washingtona 

Scaphopoda 

Pulsellum salishorum 24 8 1 

Rhabdus rectius 5 26 8 

Rhabdus nr. rectius 

ARTHROPODA 

CRUSTACEA 

Ostracoda 

Bathyleberis sp. 26 

Scleroconcha trituberculata 44 31 

Cirripedia 

Balanomorpha indet. 

Cumacea 

Campylaspis biplicata 1 

Cumacea indet. 1 

Diastylis dalli 3 

Diastylis nr. paraspinulosa 1 

Diastylis pellucida 1 

Diastylis umatillensis 9 

Eudorella pacifica 42 2 

Eudorellopsis integra 3 

Eudorellopsis longirostris 15 

Lampropidae indet. 1 





2 

3 

5 

1 

1 

1 

10 

3 

3 

1 

4 

1 

11 1 

1 

3 9 

1 

1 3 

1 

3 21 2 

5 

5 

1 

1 

5 1 

1 

2010 Page D1-41 

2 

1 7 

1 

1 

1 

5 

1 13 

18 8 1 2 

10 

17 25 

1 

3 

1 

9 

1 

1 3 

1 

2 12 

2 1 2 2 4 

1 

2 

6 

1 

6 5 

1 

1 

4 

6 

2 

1 5 

1 

6 

2 

16 

1 

1 1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

7 1 

5 

6 

1 

5





TAXON 

CRUSTACEA (cont’d) 

cf. Lamprops sp. 1 

Leptostylis sp. 2 


Leucon magnadentata 23 3 

Leucon subnasica 23 

Leucon sp. 

Vaunthompsonia pacifica 1 1 

Tanaidacea 





1 

9 

1 1 

Leptognathia gracilis 3 6 1 1 2 

Pseudotanais oculatus 4 

Isopoda 

Gnathia trilobata 9 

Gnathia sp. 4 

Amphipoda 

Americhelidium shoemakeri 6 

Americhelidium variabilum 1 

Ampelisca agassizi 1 

Ampelisca unsocalae 18 35 1 9 7 

Anonyx lilljeborgi 1 

Apolochus staudei 1 

Bathymedon pumilis 26 

Bruzelia tuberculata 5 

Cephalophoxoides homilis 21 1 

Deflexilodes enigmaticus 7 

Guernea reduncans 2 

Harpiniopsis fulgens 43 

Heterophoxus affinis 26 14 

Heterophoxus ellisi 4 2 

Kroyera carinata 1 

Metaphoxus frequens 23 

Metopa dawsoni 2 

1 

1 

20 

18 1 

13 

1 3 

1 2 

2 

1 

2 2 1 

2 

1 

2 3 

5 

18 

4 4 

2010 Page D1-43 

17 

4 

5 

1 

2 

1 

2 5 1 2 5 

3 

4 

1 

1 

6 3 

5 

1 

1 

5 

1 

4 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

6 1 

18 

6 1 

1 4 

3 

6 

3 

2 

2 

6 2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 11 

4 

6 3 

1 

1





TAXON 


Nicippe tumida 11 8 

Opisa tridentata 1 

Orchomene decipens 3 

Phoxocephalidae indet. 

Syrrhoe longifrons 2 

Westwoodilla caecula 3 2 

Decapoda 

Pinnixa occidentalis complex 5 

Pinnixa sp. 

PHORONIDA 

Phoronidae indet. 

BRACHIOPODA 

Platidia hornii 1 

ECHINODERMATA 

Ophiuroidea 

Amphiodia periercta 

Amphiodia urtica 5 1 

Amphiodia sp. 

Ophiura sarsi 1 25 

Ophiura sp. 

Ophiuridae indet. 

Ophiuroidea indet. 

Echinoidea 

Brisaster acutifrons 2 

Holothuroidea 

Chiridota albatrossii 2 1 

Ekmania diomedeae 

Molpadia intermedia 1 

Pentamera populifera 

Pentamera pseudocalcigera 





1 

1 

1 

1 3 

23 67 

2 

18 

1 

1 1 

3 

6 2 

1 

1 

1 

4 1 

1 

4 

2 1 

1 1 

2 1 

2010 Page D1-45 

2 

4 

4 

1 1 

1 1 

1 

1 

1 

25 

15 32 

2 

1 

8 

1 

1 3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 1 

1 1 

8 31 

1 

4 

2 2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1





Pentamera sp. 

HEMICHORDATA 

TAXON 


Saccoglossus sp. 4 7 





2 3 

1 

Total Number of Organisms by Stage 6269 5511 3104 999 436 193 952 1503 571 1523 1593 1058 1541 1139 543 560 295 281 694 545 458 

Total Number of Organisms 14884 

Organisms per m 2 

1628 

3026 

Total Number of Taxa 210 154 95 92 52 24 80 60 29 126 90 55 104 68 35 59 31 20 85 49 33 

MEIOFAUNA 

Harpacticoida indet. 6 

Nematoda indet. 70 

MEMO 

Collembola indet. 1 

Diptera indet. adult 1 

Fragment of manufactured deck sponge 

Foraminifera tubes 

Gastropoda indet. egg case 5 

Homoptera indet. adult 1 

Invertebrate egg 65 

Invertebrate egg cases 4 

Laqueus sp. shells 

Pisces indet. otolith 

Saunderia pacificus (larvae) 1 

Terebratalia sp. shells 

Trichoptera indet. larvae 1 

NOTES: 

A - Adult 

Int - Intermediate 

J - Juvenile 

P - Present 


SOURCE: Analysis performed by Biologica Environmental Services Ltd. Laboratories (2006). 

3 

P 

1 

2 

1 

1 

26 

1 

2010 Page D1-47 

4174 

1 3 

1 

49 

P 

1 

1 

2 

2 2 

3223 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1136 

13 

P 

P 

1 

1697 

3 2 

4 

17 

24 

P 

1




Table D1-11 Baseline Marine Plant and Benthic Invertebrate Trace Element Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) 

Trace 

Elements 

KIT- 

SEAWD-01- 

02 ENTIRE 

KIT-MUSS- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

KIT-MUSS- 

01-D 

KIT- 

SCRAB-01- 

03 ENTIRE 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


KIT- 

DCRAB-01- 

03 LEG 

KIT-DCRAB-01-03 

HEPATOPANCREAS 

KIT-DCRAB- 

04-06 LEG 



2010 Page D1-49 

MT- 

SEAWD-01 

MT-MUSS- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

MT- 

SCRAB-01 

ENTIRE 

MT- 

CRAB- 

01-03 

LEG 

MT-CRAB-01-03 


MT- 

CRAB- 

04-05 

LEG 

MT-CRAB-04-05 


Aluminum 114 32.8 50.8 91.9 6.4 7.0 5.0 6.2 25.9 80.4 170 5.6 4.4 4.8 2.4 

Antimony




Table D1-11 Baseline Marine Plant and Benthic Invertebrate Trace Element Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) (cont’d) 

Trace 

Elements 

KIT- 

SEAWD-01- 

02 ENTIRE 

KIT-MUSS- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

KIT-MUSS- 

01-D 

KIT- 

SCRAB-01- 

03 ENTIRE 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


KIT- 

DCRAB-01- 

03 LEG 



KIT-DCRAB- 

04-06 LEG 



2010 Page D1-51 

MT- 

SEAWD-01 

MT-MUSS- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

MT- 

SCRAB-01 

ENTIRE 

MT- 

CRAB- 

01-03 

LEG 

MT-CRAB-01-03 


MT- 

CRAB- 

04-05 

LEG 

MT-CRAB-04-05 


Titanium – a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

Uranium 0.315 0.0285 0.0503 0.0384




Table D1-12 Baseline Marine Fish Trace Element Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) 

Trace 

Elements 

KIT- 

SFISH-01 

ENTIRE 

KIT- 

SFISH- 

01-D 

ENTIRE 

KT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FILLET 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


KT- 

GFISH- 

01 FISH- 

REST 

KT- 

GFISH- 

02 

FILLET 

KT- 

GFISH- 

02 FISH- 

REST 

KIT- 

GFISH- 

04 

FILLET 

KIT- 

GFISH- 

04 FISH- 

REST 

MT- 

SFISH- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

MT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FILLET 

Aluminum 54.0 121 2.7 5.4




Table D1-12 Baseline Marine Fish Trace Element Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) (cont’d) 

Trace 

Elements 

KIT- 

SFISH-01 

ENTIRE 

KIT- 

SFISH- 

01-D 

ENTIRE 

KT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FILLET 

Concentration 

(mg/kg ww) 


KT- 

GFISH- 

01 FISH- 

REST 

KT- 

GFISH- 

02 

FILLET 

KT- 

GFISH- 

02 FISH- 

REST 

KIT- 

GFISH- 

04 

FILLET 

KIT- 

GFISH- 

04 FISH- 

REST 

MT- 

SFISH- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

MT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FILLET 

Thallium




Table D1-13 Baseline Marine Plant and Benthic Invertebrate PAH, Dioxin and Furan Compound Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) 

Analytes 

PAHs (mg/kg ww) 

KIT- 

SEAWD-01- 

02 ENTIRE 

KIT- 

MUSS- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

KIT- 

MUSS- 

01-D 

KIT- 

SCRAB- 

01-03 

ENTIRE 

Concentration 


KIT- 

KIT- 

MT- MT- MT- 

DCRAB- 

DCRAB- 

MT- MUSS- SCRAB- CRAB- 

01-03 KIT-DCRAB-01-03 04-06 KIT-DCRAB-04-06 SEAWD- 01-02 01 01-03 MT-CRAB-01-03 

LEG HEPATOPANCREAS LEG HEPATOPANCREAS 01 ENTIRE ENTIRE LEG HEPATOPANCREAS 

2010 Page D1-57 

MT- 

CRAB- 

04-05 

LEG 

MT-CRAB-04-05 


Acenaphthene




Table D1-13 Baseline Marine Plant and Benthic Invertebrate PAH, Dioxin and Furan Compound Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) (cont’d) 

KIT- 

SEAWD-01- 

Analytes 02 ENTIRE 

Dioxins (ng/kg ww) cont’d 

KIT- 

MUSS- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

KIT- 

MUSS- 

01-D 

KIT- 

SCRAB- 

01-03 

ENTIRE 

Concentration 


KIT- 

KIT- 

MT- MT- MT- 

DCRAB- 

DCRAB- 

MT- MUSS- SCRAB- CRAB- 

01-03 KIT-DCRAB-01-03 04-06 KIT-DCRAB-04-06 SEAWD- 01-02 01 01-03 MT-CRAB-01-03 

LEG HEPATOPANCREAS LEG HEPATOPANCREAS 01 ENTIRE ENTIRE LEG HEPATOPANCREAS 

2010 Page D1-59 

MT- 

CRAB- 

04-05 

LEG 

MT-CRAB-04-05 


1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.21 0.22 0.20 – a 0.22 – a 0.22 – a 0.16 0.24 – a 0.15 – a 0.27 – a 

Sum HpCDD 0.46 0.47 0.20 – a 0.2 – a 0.43 – a 0.38 0.49 – a 0.36 – a 0.64 – a 

OCDD 0.73 0.98 0.77 – a 0.73 – a 0.61 – a 0.52 1.20 – a 0.49 – a 0.95 – a 

TOTAL PCDD 1.20 1.5 0.97 – a 1.20 – a 1.2 – a 0.90 1.7 – a 0.98 – a 2.2 – a 

Furans (ng/kg ww) 

2,3,7,8-TCDF




Table D1-14 Baseline Marine Fish PAH, Dioxin and Furan Compound Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) 

Analytes 

PAHs (mg/kg ww) 

KIT- 

SFISH- 

01 

ENTIRE 

KIT- 

SFISH- 

01-D 

ENTIRE 

KT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FILLET 

KT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FISH- 

REST 

Concentration 


KT- 

GFISH- 

02 

FILLET 

KT- 

GFISH- 

02 

FISH- 

REST 

KIT- 

GFISH- 

04 

FILLET 

KIT- 

GFISH- 

04 FISH- 

REST 

MT- 

SFISH- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

MT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FILLET 

Acenaphthene




Table D1-14 Baseline Marine Fish PAH, Dioxin and Furan Compound Concentrations (2008 Samples Only) (cont’d) 

Analytes 

KIT- 

SFISH- 

01 

ENTIRE 

KIT- 

SFISH- 

01-D 

ENTIRE 

KT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FILLET 

KT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FISH- 

REST 

Concentration 


KT- 

GFISH- 

02 

FILLET 

KT- 

GFISH- 

02 

FISH- 

REST 

KIT- 

GFISH- 

04 

FILLET 

KIT- 

GFISH- 

04 FISH- 

REST 

MT- 

SFISH- 

01-02 

ENTIRE 

MT- 

GFISH- 

01 

FILLET 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.21 0.20 – a – a – a 0.18 – a 0.19 0.17 – a 0.17 – a – a – a 0.20 – a – a – a – a – a 0.15 

Sum HpCDD 0.41 0.42 – a – a – a 0.38 – a 0.43 0.22 – a 0.36 – a – a – a 0.41 – a – a – a – a – a 0.34 

OCDD 0.73 0.77 – a – a – a 0.81 – a 0.78 0.57 – a 0.64 – a – a – a 0.53 – a – a – a – a – a 0.61 

TOTAL PCDD 1.10 1.20 – a – a – a 1.40 – a 1.7 0.99 – a 1.0 – a – a – a 1.3 – a – a – a – a – a 0.95 

Furans (ng/kg ww) 

2,3,7,8-TCDF



Appendix E: Chemical Composition of Liquid Hydrocarbon Samples 

Appendix E Chemical Composition of Liquid 

Hydrocarbon Samples 

2010 Page E-1





Appendix E Chemical Composition of Liquid Carbon Samples ...................... E-1 

E.1 Chemical Composition of Liquid Hydrocarbon Samples .................................... E-7 

E.2 Certificates of Analysis .................................................................................... E-12 

Attachment E1 Certificate of Analyses .............................................................. E1-1 

E1.1 Certificate of Analyses 1 .................................................................................. E1-3 

E1.2 Certificate of Analyses 2 .................................................................................. E1-7 


Table E-1 Trace Elements and Organic Compounds Analyzed in Diluted 

Bitumen, Synthetic Oil and Condensate ................................................. E-7 

2010 Page E-3




Abbreviations 

BTEX .............................................................. benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes 

CAS .......................................................................................... Chemical Abstracts Service 

PAH ................................................................................ polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

TPH ......................................................................................... total petroleum hydrocarbon 

2010 Page E-5




E.1 Chemical Composition of Liquid Hydrocarbon Samples 

To identify potential constituents of discharges to a marine environment, three liquid hydrocarbons were 

considered and representative samples were analyzed. For the list of specific trace elements, compounds 

analyzed and reported concentrations, see Table E-1. 


Bitumen, Synthetic Oil and Condensate 

Analytes 

CAS Number 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 



Aluminum 7429-90-5 0.6 < 0.2 0.6 

Antimony 7440-36-0 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Arsenic 7440-38-2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 

Barium 7440-39-3 0.2 < 0.2 1.0 

Beryllium 7440-41-7 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Bismuth 7440-69-9 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Boron 7440-42-8 0.3 < 0.2 < 0.2 

Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.006 < 0.002 < 0.002 

Calcium 7440-70-2 20 < 10 < 10 

Chromium 7440-47-3 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 

Cobalt 7440-48-4 0.18 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Copper 7440-50-8 0.4 < 0.2 < 0.2 

Iron 7439-89-6 < 4 < 4 < 4 

Lead 7439-92-1 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Lithium 7439-93-2 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Magnesium 7439-95-4 < 2 < 2 < 2 

Manganese 7439-96-5 0.4 < 0.2 < 0.2 

Mercury 7439-97-6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 

Molybdenum 7439-98-7 5.97 < 0.02 0.06 

Nickel 7440-02-0 43.1 < 0.2 0.6 

Potassium 7440-09-7 < 4 < 4 < 4 

Rubidium 7440-17-7 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Selenium 7782-49-2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 

Silver 7440-22-4 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

2010 Page E-7





Bitumen, Synthetic Oil and Condensate (cont’d) 

Analytes 

CAS Number 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Diluted Bitumen a 

Synthetic 

Oil Condensate 

Trace Elements (cont’d) 

Sodium 7440-23-5 20 < 10 < 10 

Strontium 7440-24-6 0.4 < 0.2 < 0.2 

Tellurium 13494-80-9 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Thallium 7440-28-0 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Tin 7440-31-5 1.49 0.4 0.9 

Uranium 7440-61-1 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Vanadium 7440-62-2 119 < 0.2 1.2 

Zinc 

EX 

7440-66-6 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.3 

Benzene 71-43-2 280 1,100 13,100 

Toluene 108-88-3 990 3,300 25,300 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 360 1,200 2,900 

Xylenes 


1330-20-7 1,500 4,200 21,000 

C1-C5 NA NS NS 286,000 

>C6-C8 NA 25,700 59,700 359,000 

>C8-C10 NA 14,900 39,000 61,200 

>C10-C12 NA 26,400 52,800 21,800 

>C12-C16 NA 76,500 111,000 24,700 

>C16-C21 NA 119,000 100,000 18,800 

>C21-C32 NA 186,000 117,000 21,400 


>C8-C10 b NA 2,200 5,800 11,900 

>C10-C12 NA 880 14,600 6,600 

>C12-C16 NA 4,400 27,200 7,800 

>C16-C21 NA 12,100 58,900 7,000 

>C21-C32 NA 30,100 158,000 11,900 

Page E-8 2010






Analytes 

CAS Number 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


TPH – Fractions 

TPH c NA 498,000 754,000 552,000 

F1 (>C6-C10) NA 41,000 104,000 374,000 

F2 (>C10-C16) NA 136,000 246,000 80,900 

F3 (>C16-C34) NA 394,000 467,000 59,900 

F4 (>C34-C50) NA 51,000 62,000 20,400 

Asphaltenes 

PAH 

NA 83,000 4,000 NS 



Acenaphthene 83-32-9 < 10 < 10 < 10 

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 

Anthracene 120-12-7 < 5.0 15 < 5.0 

Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 7.9 < 5.0 < 5.0 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 191-24-2 < 10 < 10 < 10 

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 < 10 < 10 < 10 

Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 

Chrysene/Triphenylene 218-01-9/ 217- 

59-4 

< 10 < 10 < 10 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 < 10 < 10 < 10 

Fluorene 86-73-7 < 5.0 14 15 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 

Naphthalene 91-20-3 < 5.0 85 86 

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 5.3 12 25 

Pyrene 129-00-0 6.1 30 < 5.0 

2010 Page E-9






Analytes 

CAS Number 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


Synthetic 



2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 1.8 < 1.0 < 1.0 

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 534-52-1 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 

4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 

m-Cresol 108-39-4 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 

o-Cresol 95-48-7 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 

p-Cresol 106-44-5 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 

Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 

Phenol 


108-95-2 < 1.0 < 1.0 2.4 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8






Analytes 

CAS Number 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


Synthetic 


1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2




E.2 Certificates of Analysis 

See the following certificates of analysis in Attachment E1: 

• trace metals 

• petroleum hydrocarbons 

• volatile organic compounds 

• methyl mercury 

• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

• acid extractables 

Page E-12 2010



Attachment E1: Certificate of Analyses 

Attachment E1 Certificate of Analyses 

2010 Page E1-1




E1.1 Certificate of Analyses 1 

2010 Page E1-3

RPC 

921 College Hill Rd, 

Fredericton, N.B. E3B 629 

Report No.: 84534-lAS 


PO Box 1116 

Fredericton NB E3B 5C2 

Attn: Malcolm Stephenson 

Trace Metals Analysis 

September 19,2008 

Fax: 506.452.7652 

RPC ID 84534 RB 84534-01A 84534-01 B 84534-02 84534-03 

Client lD QA/QC MKH 

cRW-o794 

Duplicate 

Ausust 25108 

Concentration (mg/kq) 

SYN-0748 

Auqust 25108 

Aluminum 

Antimonv 

Arsenic 

Barium 

tservllium 

Bismuth 

Boron 

Cadmium 

Calcium 

Chromium 

Gobalt 

Copper 

lron 

Lead 

Lithium 

Maqnesium 

Manqanese 

Mercury 

Molvbdenum 

Nickel 

Potassium 

Rubidium 

Selenium 

Silver 

Sodium 

Strontium 

Iellurium 

Thallium 

Tin 

Uranium 

Vanadium 

Z,nc 

< 0.2 

< 0.02 

< 0.2 

< 0.2 

< 0.02 

< 0.02 

< 0.2 

< 0.002 




E1.2 Certificate of Analyses 2 

2010 Page E1-7

onn 

0too 

6'E E 

tr3= 

O n - 

8H9 

='6' 

o 

6 

0, 

:' 

o 

= 

0, 

gsF 

*Ht 

+ur 

8." 

6' 

0t 

v, 

o 

3. o 

CN 

'11 

> 

Ptr 

*eo 8= 

Pg 

3 

9l 

o 

! 

o 

FF g 

= d E 

Xs, 

A 

 

I 5 

10, 

tr< 

to 

t' 

@ 

o 

J 

N 

g 

o 

Dt> 

2 

l5lf 

ttE 

tl= 

D t0, 

D 

J 

3 

D 

) 

D 

l3 

l3 

t< 

to 

te 

lo 

lo 

i 

! 

- 

-.1 

o 

r€ 8 

ilzd 

ililo Ego 

+lF 

J 

0t 

o 

v 

6i 0, 

N O 

{ = 

o, I 

$; 

dEtoIoo= 

3o 

o 

E 

o 

f 

(t, 

o 

5 

Qqt o 

ll 

coo{ 

t (l 

r 0 t 

! t 3 

6- p. 

o . o 

o 

,IV 

)to 

oto 

llo 

trlN 

t> 

lE 

0t 

o 

V 

o 

o) 

a 

o 

N 

N 

) 

D 

I 

iJ 

\, 

l0) 

o 

v 

I 

? 

o 

NI 

10, 

tc) 

lo 

o 

tr 

o 

o, 

=o f. 

ltfr 

5'q. 

O(cl q) 

Y r o 

d r-'@ 

o =.o 

= - J 

E 

- * 

q 

d 

F 

Fo 

o 

3 

1 

fl I 

*lF*l*ts*lFtFtFt*tFtF 

o 

o 

5 

D 

II 

I 

5 9 

II 

I 

o . O 

8 s 

! 

o 

.8- 

*l* c 5 

a, 

3 

o 

x 

( t I 

A F 

='a 

= o 

F a 

EB. 

: x o 

ii-R 

o r = 

= . j = 

o o))x 

.s\i 

- a = . 

P 

o n 

t- 

P 

c) o b 

ul 

(tl 

o !.) 

o o I o 

ctl 

5 s,|

onv 

Q O O 

o(D 

o : 

= ' o 

d8 E 

x,af 

o 

lE 

!, 

t 

o 

O n - 

8He 

Fr 

8= Eo 

< o 

o " 

o. 

SsP 

,5t 

+sr 

J 

!, 

* 

c, 

$_ 

a 

o 

3. o 

o(t 

J} 

x d 

* * 

- o 

8= 

9 - 

3 

0, 

o 

xlP= 

g 8 x 2 

figgs6(rl 

AE 

!eR 

d= 

s6 (D 

t, 

o 

o 

5 

to 

o 

It 

o 

:(t, 

o 

:' 

@ 

0t 

o 

coo{=' 

olr 

el$ 

iE 

FF 

lr 

| 'r'l 

t5 

96lla 

0) 

p. 

3 

o 

o. 

lF- 

| -rr 

llo 

l? 

o l o 

giI 

lo (^t 

5 

o 

fr $F & 

lf fl 

f q 5g 

I 

H; tr 

+i 6 

"'F g 

! 

o 

a 

h) 

o 

3 

*lFl*lF 

c 

5 

o 

qr@ E 

t-{ o 

BE A 

o i o t 

g . a 

: x 0 ) 

t8ii-R 

9 3 . - 

o r E 

t'.d B 

o 

o v 

o 

b 

(rl I o I a 

Ctl 

6 9 

* s 

O I 

.9:= 

- l ! . 

6sS 

mb o 

clro.t- i 

@91] : 

8aF 

nt; o 

oqt 

C L : 

i E 

CL 

o 

CL 

o 

5 

o 

0) 

0 

o 

B 

* 

o 

o 

N 

o 

O) 

@ 

A 

(rl 

o, 

5 

I 

x 

- 

I 

5 

o 

Cr) 

o) 

o 

(., 

(o 

A 

o 

a 

:,r 

) 

H 9 

ctl 

o 

5 

9F EsN 

s d 

o) 

5 

o 

a 

@ 

(o 

o 

o 

(rl 

(o 

(o 

o 

N 

o 

5 

o 

@ 

H 25 

(rl 

(^) 

5 

I 

oP =F 1 

3 

o 

5 

a 

o 

N 

5 

o, 

o 

A 

o, 

o 

a 

o 

(') 

N 

a 

o 

CtJ 

O A 

@ o 

l 

I 

I 

-l 

;i-f,$F 

Report tD: 8453+OAS 

Report Date: 2GSep.Og 

Date Received: rt-Sep_Og 

Attention: Malcolm 

Stephenson 

Fax #: 506.452.7652 

malcolm.stephenson@acqueswhitford.com 


PO Box 1116,11i Woodstock Road 

Fredericton, NB E3B 5C2 

This report relates onry trc the sampre(s) and information provided 

Method: 

to the 

Merhanorexbaction 

raboratory. 

forroweo'rv puig" ec,r,ns.r"rrrlii""Jon 

RL = Reporting Limlt 

"iJGp usEpA8260. 

Orgnnic Analytical Services 

Page 3 of 6 

npc 

921 Coltege Hiil Rd 

Fredericton NB 

Ganada E3B 629 

Tel: 506-452-1212 

Fax: 506-452-0594 

www.rpc.ca

orD 

o : 

go' 

' o 

o 

d oJ 

Fdd 

3EE 

gF' 

o " 

o. 

oXf 

$s$ 

esrt 

f,$F u *i 

i s3 

ef;r 

(D No 

gl 

o.Jn 

1' o 

o o 

a 4 

u o 

3 = 

f m 

i f $f$ ?tn 

#+ 

8.= E(n 

o 

5dBl 

d iEl 

lqHgj 

o9 

:t 

o, 

= 

o 

o, 

J 

cr 

Dl 

?l 

i d 

i d ;Egj 

E ut=n 

CL 

(ct 

o 

' / 

@ 

o 

3. o 

(D 

(tt 

6o8 

0, !, 

O J 

4 t o 

C J 

E 8 

d5E! 

< ='=i! 'o 

f 

E 8.: 

f g=e o 

O - - = 

J 

o 

S E't a, 

'6' 

o 

J 

o 

o 

o 

E F3 3 

€ r 

f 

sa 

!, ggE o 

C" 

g -5; 

h, 

o 

3 

I 

0, 

f 

CL 

E E9 

i o=5' f 

/ 

o 

'

8E 3l 

ovn 

0roo 

6'8 E 

F f f 

O n - 

Efi#f 

ci l- 

RV9 

?6 

o " 

g 

ssH 

rBg 

#tr 

@ l^S. 

q t v 

:n> 

H F 

3 

sr 

PIJ 

tu9o 

r*3 

e3 

P= 

g 

3(r, 

F 

tt 

5o:' 

Ese 

Ef$ 

dEg 

5Sr 

Ncl 

\ g 

o a 

+Ffi. 

s; 

at, 

I 

eoo 5 X ^ 

; f,E 

o 

!t 

Jo 

d 

I 

II coo 

r+r 

9 d 6 

! 

o 

a{s 

{ 

J 

! ag 

d-dE 

o-= 

$o 

3 

ggg 

t q8 

f;FF 

i:s 

ggs 

$fi $ 

o€o 

o 

9. 

o 

Hrt o 

0t 

Af,F 

ss i 

ft62 mii 

Bs 

F,s 

sro 

pil 

d 

;ilf,$F 

-l 

o 

d 

0, 

6' 

tr 0 

ot 

SSn6s 

o 

ot 

a 

o 

ES- d 

o-' 

o 

u,

onv 

0)(D(D 

F ."oo E E 

d 

o, 

6' 

O a - 

R V9 

:'6' 

o " 

g 

:l 

g. 

SrF 

iEts 

'64 E:,6 

o 

ot 

,, 

o 

6' 

o 

0 

J} 

x d 

sr o 

** 

o 

8: 

i< 

e. 

'o 

s gt$ 

Fx€r 

6Sr 

Ncl 

\ g 

o q 

ot- 

Ng) 

d 

!t 

:' 

o 

t 

Q 

o 

= 

(D 

9. 

o 

o 

eot o 

.ct 

o 

= 

{ 

g $E'g 

'biFtr9 

I gli 

i 

+F 

:i's 

-(D :J. 

;T g 

g,F' u 

sct 

h) 

o 

3 

8 ; o 

Fa- I 

ooF F 

iir o J 7 

e.+-t- E 

-i: = 

l, 

o 

*e - o 

a r = 

P 6 

ga 

F* 

f O 

;fF 

@g=' 

$is 

o 

0, 

s3 

g 

o 

o 

o 

o 

g=E 

; q 

ooo 

$ 

P-' I 

-l 

E gd9d's 

d 

0) 

6' 

iurfiqF 

(n('|^

I 

n 

o 

D O 

o 5 

0) 

c) 

a 

E 

O n 

8V 

='* 

o " 

s* 

,r^ Y 

J 

=' 

o, 

o) 

N 

oo 

o 

9 ; 

l l 

O O 

a 

o 

=' 

o 

@ 

iilF u s3 

il s9 

o 

o 

= 

; P} 

" t t 0 

ot 

s d8 

c$a 

o N o 

a \g 

Rsa 

aq) 

3 

Eo 

Fi 

6 83. 

I *a 

qr 6il 

X r d 

=. ='(n 

U, J^ 

x{€ 

= ='5 

Eo 6 ' 

o t 

. o o 

c = 

? = 

F d 

E 8 

o ( ' 

o o , 

5 5 

s 

a 

h, 

o 

3 

= T 

ts 

a r = 

o o 

o o 

lJ 

o 

t8- 

' 0 , 

J 

o. 

d x P 

o-Jx 

o aE 

q-ou 

dI 

3 

o 

o 

= 

F:= 

- r j . 

6=f 

mE o 

(,o-r- 

@gi' 

crI a' 

u x.8 

n 

0, 

d 

s. 

oo 

3 

o 

o) 

ET 

o 

il 

o 

d 0) 

-l 

E erBgF U (t(tr^47 

P'PXi@= 

ES' 0 d 

F f .-$ilI 

6' 

0) 

< h , 

o v 

N- u) 

g 6 



Appendix F: COPC Screening and Weathering 

Appendix F COPC Screening and Weathering 

2010 Page F-1





Appendix F COPC Screening and Weathering......................................................... F-1 

F.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern Screening ....................................................... F-7 

F.2 Liquid Effluent Emissions .................................................................................. F-8 

F.2.1 Dissolution ................................................................................................... F-23 

F.2.2 Degradation ................................................................................................. F-25 

F.3 Atmospheric Deposition ................................................................................... F-26 

F.4 References ...................................................................................................... F-30 

F.4.1 Literature Cited ............................................................................................ F-30 

F.4.2 Personal Communications ........................................................................... F-31 

F.4.3 Internet sites ................................................................................................ F-31 


Table F-1 Screening Criteria for Inclusion or Exclusion of Chemical 

Substances as COPC ............................................................................. F-9 

Table F-2 Subcooled Liquid Solubility, Effective Solubility, Dissolved and 

Undissolved Water Concentrations of Each COPC .............................. F-19 

Table F-3 Total Atmospheric Deposition Rates (g/m 2 /y) for Each COPC .............. F-28 

2010 Page F-3




Abbreviations 



COPC ................................................................................... chemicals of potential concern 



VOC ......................................................................................... volatile organic compounds 

2010 Page F-5




F.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern Screening 

To assess the potential risk of environmental effects from emissions to the marine environment, chemicals 

of potential concern (COPC) likely to be emitted to the environment were identified through a multiplecriteria 

screening process. The criteria used to screen the hydrocarbons (diluted bitumen, synthetic oil and 

condensate) for potential COPC are: 

• nature of the constituent. The potentially hazardous hydrocarbons constituents are assumed to 

include: 

• benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) 

• total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) fractionated according to the Canada Wide Standard 

methodology (CCME 2008) 

• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

• volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

• phenolics 

• trace elements, although selected trace elements having low inherent toxicity (see Table F-1) 

were screened out 

• constituent not detected. If a constituent included within the analytical suites listed above was not 

detected in any of the hydrocarbons, it was deemed to be below a level of concern. 

• concentration in any liquid hydrocarbon less than 1 mg/kg. As a further screening step, a scoping 

calculation showed that if the concentration of a substance in a liquid hydrocarbon is 1 mg/kg, and if 

that substance fully dissolves in site runoff water, the average concentration in water discharged from 

the reservoir will be approximately 0.0001 mg/L. This concentration is below most relevant CCME 

(2007) water quality guidelines for hydrocarbon and trace element COPC (exceptions being cadmium 

and PAH, as well as mercury, which was not detectable in the hydrocarbons). Since stringent 

environmental quality criteria would generally be met in a reservoir for substances present in the 

liquid hydrocarbons at a concentration below 1 mg/kg, it was not considered necessary to evaluate the 

potential environmental effects of such substances. 

• baseline water concentration above guideline: As a final step, substances previously removed from 

consideration as COPC would be brought back if the baseline concentration of that substance in 

seawater exceeded an existing CCME (2007) marine water quality guideline for the protection of 

aquatic life. This was included so that if existing sources of chemical emissions are in the 

environment are close to a toxicity threshold, the potential environmental effects of any additional 

input would be considered. 

For the chemical-specific information used in the screening process and the rationale for excluding 

effluent constituents, see Table F-1. 

2010 Page F-7




F.2 Liquid Effluent Emissions 

A composite hydrocarbon representing a mixture of diluted bitumen, synthetic oil and condensate was 

derived based on the results of chemical analysis of samples of each hydrocarbon, as well as the average 

annual throughput capacity of 83,400 m 3 /d for an oil pipeline and 30,700 m 3 /d for a condensate pipeline. 

Thus, on a daily basis, 83,400 m 3 of oil (either diluted bitumen or synthetic oil) and 30,700 m 3 of 

condensate would be handled for a total composite volume of 114,100 m 3 . 

The concentration of each COPC in the three liquid hydrocarbons is converted to mg/m 3 (from mg/kg) 

using their respective density (diluted bitumen 935 kg/m 3 , condensate 724 kg/m 3 , synthetic oil 865 kg/m 3 ) 

(Regine Sutter 2008, pers. comm.). Next, the concentration of each COPC (in mg/m 3 ) is multiplied by the 

daily throughput volumes stated previously for the oil and condensate pipelines, and summed up to 

determine the total mass (in mg) of each constituent. Finally, the concentration (in mg/m 3 ) of each 

constituent in the composite hydrocarbon is determined by dividing the total mass of each constituent by 

the total volume of 114,100 m 3 . This is converted to mg/kg using the density of the composite 

hydrocarbon, which is determined as: 

ρ 

Where: 

CH 

ρ 

⎛ kg ⎞ 

⎜ ⎟ = 

3 

⎝ m ⎠ 

DB 

⎛ kg ⎞ 

⎜ ⎟ × V 

3 

⎝ m ⎠ 

DB 

ρ = density (kg/m 3 ) 

V = volume (m 3 ) 

CH = composite hydrocarbon 

DB = diluted bitumen 

SO = synthetic oil 

COND = condensate 

( m 

3 

) + ρ 

V 

DB 

SO 

( m 

3 

⎛ kg ⎞ 

3 

⎜ ⎟ × VSO 

( m ) + ρ 

3 

⎝ m ⎠ 

3 

) + V ( m ) + V 

⎛ kg ⎞ 

⎜ ⎟ × V 

3 

⎝ m ⎠ 

) 

Page F-8 2010 

SO 

COND 

COND 

For the resulting concentrations of COPC in the composite hydrocarbon, see Table F-2. 

It is assumed that an annual volume of up to 100 m 3 of oil could be released annually within the Kitmat 

Terminal and would be entrained to the impoundment reservoir. It is further assumed that, on an annual 

basis, 1 m 3 of operationally released oil would be recovered at the berths along with 1,000 m 3 of seawater. 

Runoff water originating at the Kitimat Terminal—as well as oily water recovered from the berth areas— 

will be sent initially to a firewater reservoir and from there to an impoundment reservoir. Before excess 

water is released through a perforated pipe to the marine environment, it will be treated so that the oil in 

water concentration is a maximum of 15 parts per million (ppm). 

( m 

3 

COND 

( m 

3 

)




Table F-1 Screening Criteria for Inclusion or Exclusion of Chemical Substances as COPC 

Analytes 

Maximum Liquid 

Hydrocarbons 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum Water Baseline 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Selected Screening Value 

(mg/L) 

Baseline Water 

Concentration Exceed 

Guidelines 

Air Deposition Rates 

Assessed Further 

Rationale for Exclusion 


Aluminum 0.6 0.364 NA NA NO NO Low inherent toxicity or an essential nutrient 

Antimony ND ND 0.27 a ND YES NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Arsenic ND 0.0019 0.0125 b,c3 NO YES NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Barium 1.0 0.017 NA NO YES YES 

Beryllium ND ND NA ND YES NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Bismuth ND ND NA ND NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Boron 0.3 3.9 1.2 b YES NO YES 

Cadmium 0.0055 0.00017 0.00012 b, c YES YES YES 

Calcium 20 342 NA NA NO NO Low inherent toxicity or an essential nutrient 

Chromium 0.2 ND 0.056 b, c, e ND YES NO Concentration in liquid hydrocarbons < 1 mg/kg 

Chromium VI NA NA 0.0015 b, c NA YES NO Calculated Project Alone EPC more than four orders 

of magnitude smaller than baseline and/or guidelines 

Cobalt 0.185 0.0021 NA NA YES NO Concentration in liquid hydrocarbons < 1 mg/kg 

Copper 0.25 0.0012 0.002 b NO YES NO Concentration in liquid hydrocarbons < 1 mg/kg 

Iron ND 0.181 NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Lead ND 0.000062 0.002 b NO YES NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Lithium ND ND NA ND NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Magnesium ND 1190 NA NA NO NO Low inherent toxicity or an essential nutrient 

Manganese 0.25 1.48 NA NA YES YES 

Mercury ND ND 0.00002 b ND YES NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Molybdenum 5.84 0.0096 NA NA YES YES 

Nickel 43.05 0.00088 0.0082 d NO YES YES 

Potassium ND 362 NA NA NO NO Low inherent toxicity or an essential nutrient 

Rubidium ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Selenium ND 0.00099 0.002 b NO YES NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Silver ND ND 0.0014 d ND NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Sodium 20 8820 NA NA NO NO Low inherent toxicity or an essential nutrient 

Strontium 0.4 5.8 NA f NA NO NO Concentration in liquid hydrocarbons < 1 mg/kg 

Tellurium ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Thallium ND ND 0.017 a NO NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Tin 1.48 ND NA ND NO YES 

Uranium ND 0.0027 NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

2010 Page F-9




Table F-1 Screening Criteria for Inclusion or Exclusion of Chemical Substances as COPC (cont’d) 

Analytes 


Hydrocarbons 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


(mg/L) 



Guidelines 




Vanadium 118.5 ND 0.1 a ND YES YES 

Zinc 0.3 0.021 0.01 b BTEX 

YES YES YES 

Benzene 13,100 ND 0.11 b, c ND YES YES 

Toluene 25,300 ND 0.215 c ND YES YES 

Ethylbenzene 2,900 ND 0.025 b ND YES YES 

Xylenes 


21,000 ND NA ND YES YES 

C1-C5 286,000 NA NA NA NO NO Not persistent 

>C6-C8 359,000 NA NA NA NO YES 











>C21-C32 

TPH – Fractions 

158,000 NA NA NA NO YES 

TPH 754,000 NA NA NA NO NO See fractionation 

F1 (>C6-C10) 374,000 ND NA ND NO NO See fractionation 



F4 (>C34-C50) 62,000 NA NA NA NO NO Not readily bioavailable 

Asphaltenes 

PAH 

83,000 NA NA NA NO NO Not readily bioavailable 

1-Methylnaphthalene 190 NA 0.001 b NA NO YES 

2-Methylnaphthalene 110 0.00021 0.001 b NO YES YES 

Acenaphthene ND ND 0.006 b ND YES YES 

Acenaphthylene ND 0.00008 NA NA YES YES 

Anthracene 15 ND NA ND YES YES 


2010 Page F-11





Analytes 


Hydrocarbons 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


(mg/L) 



Guidelines 




PAH (cont’d) 

Benzo(a)anthracene 7.9 0.00147 NA NA YES YES 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 0.00469 NA NA YES YES 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND ND NA ND YES YES 

Benzo(ghi)perylene ND 0.00025 NA NA YES YES 

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 0.00087 0.00001 b YES YES YES 

Benzo(e)pyrene ND NA NA NA YES YES 

Chrysene ND 0.00198 0.0001 b YES YES YES 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ND 0.00008 NA NA YES YES 

Fluoranthene ND 0.00107 NA NA YES YES 

Fluorene 15 0.00012 0.0012 b NO YES YES 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 0.00048 NA NA YES YES 

Naphthalene 86 0.00011 0.001 b NO YES YES 

Phenanthrene 25 0.00035 NA NA YES YES 

Pyrene 

Dioxins 

30 0.00096 NA NA YES YES 

Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin NA 5.1 × 10 -9 Acid Extractables (Phenolic Compounds) 

NA NA YES NO Calculated Project Alone EPC more than four orders 

of magnitude smaller than baseline and/or guidelines. 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 1.0 NA NA NA NO YES 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.8 NA NA NA NO YES 

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

4-Nitrophenol ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

m-Cresol i ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

o-Cresol ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

p-Cresol i ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Pentachlorophenol ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Phenol 


2.4 NA NA NA NO YES 

Dichlorodifluoromethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Chloromethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Vinyl Chloride ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Bromomethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

2010 Page F-13






Hydrocarbons 

Analytes 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Volatile Organic Compounds (cont’d) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


(mg/L) 



Guidelines 




Chloroethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Acrolein ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Trichlorofluoromethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,1-Dichloroethylene ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Methylene Chloride ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Trichlorotrifluoroethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans) ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,1-Dichloroethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis) ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Bromochloromethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Chloroform ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND NA NA NA YES NO Calculated Project Alone EPC more than four orders 


Carbon Tetrachloride ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,2-Dichloroethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Trichloroethylene ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,2-Dichloropropane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Bromodichloromethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,3-Dichloropropylene (trans) ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,3-Dichloropropylene (cis) ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Tetrachloroethylene ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Dibromochloromethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,2-Dibromoethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Chlorobenzene ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Styrene ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

Bromoform ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,800 NA NA NA NO YES 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 3,400 NA NA NA NO YES 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND NA NA NA NO NO Not detected in liquid hydrocarbons 


2010 Page F-15






Hydrocarbons 

Analytes 

Concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Volatile Organic Compounds (cont’d) 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 


(mg/L) 



Guidelines 





Formaldehyde NA NA NA NA YES NO Calculated Project Alone EPC more than four orders 


NOTES: 

a Australian and New Zealand Environmental Conservation Council (ANZECC 2000, Internet site). 

b 

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE 2006, Internet site). 

c 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME 2007). 

d 

USEPA. Current National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (2003, Internet site). 

e 

Guidelines values for Chromium III. 

f 

Mid oceanic baseline concentration of strontium in seawater is 7.7 mg/L; obtained from http://www.marscigrp.org/ocpertbl.html (accessed October 2008). 

NA – not available 

ND – not detected 

2010 Page F-17




Table F-2 Subcooled Liquid Solubility, Effective Solubility, Dissolved and Undissolved Water 

Concentrations of Each COPC 

Analytes 

Composite 

Hydrocarbon 

(mg/kg) 

Composite 

Hydrocarbon xi 

CL 

(mol/m 3 ) 

CE 

(mol/m 3 ) 

CD 

(mol/m 3 ) 

Trace Elements a 

Barium 3.79E-01 - - - - 3.61E-02 - - 

Boron 2.33E-01 - - - - 2.22E-02 - - 

Cadmium 4.27E-03 4.06E-04 

Manganese 1.94E-01 - - - - 1.85E-02 - - 

Molybdenum 4.54E+00 - - - - 4.33E-01 - - 

Nickel 3.35E+01 - - - - 3.19E+00 - - 

Tin 1.35E+00 - - - - 1.29E-01 - - 

Vanadium 9.22E+01 - - - - 8.78E+00 - - 

Zinc 

BTEX 

6.73E-02 - - - - 6.40E-03 - - 

Benzene 3.93E+03 8.57E-03 2.28E+01 b 1.95E-01 4.79E-03 3.74E-01 2.62E-01 0.00E+00 

Toluene 8.48E+03 1.57E-02 5.59E+00 b 8.77E-02 1.44E-03 1.52E-01 1.37E-01 0.00E+00 

Ethylbenzene 1.60E+03 2.57E-03 1.43E+00 b 3.68E-03 8.77E-03 8.08E-01 7.24E-01 0.00E+00 

Xylenes 8.16E+03 1.31E-02 2.07E+00 b,c TPH – Aliphatics 

2.71E-02 7.32E-03 7.77E-01 6.96E-01 0.00E+00 

>C6-C8 1.30E+05 2.22E-01 1.43E-01 d 3.16E-02 3.16E-02 3.16E+00 2.84E+00 8.73E-01 

>C8-C10 4.42E+04 5.80E-02 1.46E-02 d 8.46E-04 8.46E-04 1.10E-01 9.86E-02 3.88E-01 

2010 Page F-19 

CD 

(g/m 3 ) 

CDD 

(g/m 3 ) 

CU 

(g/m 3 )





Concentrations of Each COPC (cont’d) 

Composite 

Analytes Hydrocarbon 

(mg/kg) 

TPH – Aliphatics (cont’d) 

Composite 


CL 

(mol/m 3 ) 

CE 

(mol/m 3 ) 

CD 

(mol/m 3 ) 

>C10-C12 4.55E+04 4.85E-02 1.49E-03 d 7.24E-05 7.24E-05 1.16E-02 1.04E-02 4.08E-01 

>C12-C16 9.07E+04 7.73E-02 5.55E-05 d 4.29E-06 4.29E-06 8.58E-04 7.68E-04 8.16E-01 

>C16-C21 1.03E+05 6.49E-02 2.72E-07 d 1.76E-08 1.76E-08 4.76E-06 4.26E-06 9.25E-01 

>C21-C32 1.59E+05 1.00E-01 2.72E-07 d 2.72E-08 2.72E-08 7.35E-06 7.10E-06 1.43E+00 


>C8-C10 7.24E+03 1.03E-02 3.93E-01 d 4.04E-03 4.04E-03 4.85E-01 4.34E-01 1.93E-02 

>C10-C12 1.27E+04 1.67E-02 2.37E-01 d 3.95E-03 3.95E-03 5.13E-01 4.60E-01 6.60E-02 

>C12-C16 2.26E+04 2.57E-02 1.11E-01 d 2.85E-03 2.85E-03 4.27E-01 4.12E-01 1.63E-01 

>C16-C21 4.67E+04 4.19E-02 3.12E-02 d 1.31E-03 1.31E-03 2.48E-01 2.40E-01 3.97E-01 

>C21-C32 1.24E+05 8.78E-02 3.19E-03 4 PAH 

2.80E-04 2.80E-04 6.73E-02 6.49E-02 1.11E+00 

1-Methylnaphthalene 1.20E+02 1.44E-04 1.97E-01 b 2.84E-05 2.84E-05 4.04E-03 2.83E-03 7.02E-04 

2-Methylnaphthalene 8.63E+01 1.03E-04 2.19E-01 b 2.26E-05 2.26E-05 3.22E-03 2.26E-03 4.73E-04 

Acenaphthene ND ND 1.25E-01 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Acenaphthylene ND ND 4.93E-01 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Anthracene 1.15E+01 1.10E-05 1.97E-02 b 2.16E-07 2.16E-07 3.84E-05 3.44E-05 9.96E-05 

Benzo(a)anthracene 6.53E+00 4.88E-06 1.05E-03 b 5.09E-09 5.09E-09 1.16E-06 1.12E-06 5.87E-05 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND ND 1.54E-04 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Page F-20 2010 

CD 

(g/m 3 ) 

CDD 

(g/m 3 ) 

CU 

(g/m 3 )






Analytes 

Composite 

Hydrocarbon 

(mg/kg) 

Composite 


CL 

(mol/m 3 ) 

CE 

(mol/m 3 ) 

CD 

(mol/m 3 ) 

PAH (cont’d) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND ND 2.52E-04 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Benzo(ghi)perylene ND ND 3.01E-04 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Benzo(a)pyrene ND ND 4.59E-04 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Benzo(e)pyrene ND ND 5.17E-04 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Chrysene ND ND 8.76E-06 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ND ND 5.33E-04 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Fluoranthene ND ND 8.41E-03 b N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Fluorene 1.42E+01 1.46E-05 9.08E-02 b 1.33E-06 1.33E-06 2.20E-04 1.97E-04 1.07E-04 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND ND 1.91E-04 d N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Naphthalene 8.52E+01 1.13E-04 8.56E-01 b 9.70E-05 6.33E-05 8.12E-03 5.69E-03 0.00E+00 

Phenanthrene 1.51E+01 1.44E-05 3.48E-02 b 5.02E-07 5.02E-07 8.95E-05 8.02E-05 1.27E-04 

Pyrene 2.29E+01 1.93E-05 1.29E-02 b 2.49E-07 2.49E-07 5.04E-05 4.86E-05 2.02E-04 


2,4-Dimethylphenol 8.26E-01 1.15E-06 7.16E+01 b 8.26E-05 6.44E-07 7.87E-05 2.62E-05 0.00E+00 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.49E+00 1.38E-06 1.75E+01 e 2.41E-05 7.69E-07 1.42E-04 9.92E-05 0.00E+00 

Phenol 5.65E-01 1.02E-06 1.35E+03 b 1.38E-03 5.72E-07 5.38E-05 1.79E-05 0.00E+00 

2010 Page F-21 

CD 

(g/m 3 ) 

CDD 

(g/m 3 ) 

CU 

(g/m 3 )






Composite 

Analytes Hydrocarbon 

(mg/kg) 


Composite 


CL 

(mol/m 3 ) 

CE 

(mol/m 3 ) 

CD 

(mol/m 3 ) 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 2.02E+03 1.87E-03 2.20E-01 b 4.12E-04 4.12E-04 7.61E-02 7.34E-02 1.10E-02 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenze 7.53E+02 1.07E-03 4.16E-01 b 4.44E-04 4.44E-04 5.34E-02 4.78E-02 1.73E-03 

NOTES: 

a 

Trace elements are assumed completely soluble in water and are not submitted to the weathering process. 

b 

Mackay et al. (2000). 

c 

Value is for o-xylene (maximum CL value for xylenes). 

d 

Calculated using logKOW according to method in Di Toro et al. (2007). 

e 

Calculated according to method in Prausnitz (1969) as found in Shiu and Mackay (1986). 

xi – molar fraction 

CL – subcooled liquid solubility 

CE – effective solubility 

CD – dissolved concentration 

CDD – dissolved degraded concentration 

CU – undissolved concentration 

N/A – not applicable 


ND – not detected 

Page F-22 2010 

CD 

(g/m 3 ) 

CDD 

(g/m 3 ) 

CU 

(g/m 3 )




Hydrocarbons entrained in the water column and into the marine environment can undergo weathering 

processes that may change the properties of their constituents (Sterling et al. 2003). These weathering 

processes may include, but are not limited to, volatilization, degradation and dissolution. Volatilization 

losses are not quantitatively assessed because the hydrocarbons released to the impoundment reservoir are 

not expected to be present at concentrations that would form a slick (the oil-water separator will prevent 

this). However, it is noted that the smallest petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e., C1-C5) are highly volatile and 

would not likely persist in water beyond the reservoir. These highly volatile hydrocarbons are not 

considered further. For other hydrocarbons (C6 and greater), the effects of two weathering processes, 

dissolution (i.e., preferential solubility of hydrocarbons in water) and degradation (microbial and other 

breakdown processes), are considered. 

F.2.1 Dissolution 

The dissolution of an organic compound in water is dictated by its aqueous solubility. The aqueous 

solubility of an organic compound is defined as its maximum dissolved concentration (Schwarzenbach et 

al. 2002). If the concentration of an organic COPC is found to be lower than this value, it may be truly 

dissolved. However, if the reported concentration in the water column is higher than the reported 

solubility, then dissolved and undissolved forms may be present within the medium. Undissolved 

hydrocarbons could be present as emulsions, droplets, or adsorbed to or coating particulate matter. The 

liquid hydrocarbons under consideration are composed of many individual components, which present a 

wide range of physicochemical properties including, but not limited to, solubility values. For example, 

benzene is relatively soluble in water (1,778 mg/L; Mackay et al. 2000), whereas the solubility of the 

higher TPH fractions (e.g., F3 and F4 aliphatic compounds) is negligible. Relatively soluble components 

may be expected to readily dissolve, whereas components presenting relatively low solubility values are 

not expected to be dissolved in appreciable amounts. The solubility value of each individual component 

has important implications for their respective environmental behaviour. As such, the dissolution of a 

compound within an aqueous medium increases its bioavailability and its mobility (Schwarzenbach et al. 

2002). Furthermore, a compound demonstrating a high aqueous solubility may also exhibit a higher 

toxicity potential as the toxicity potential can be linked not only to its inherent toxicity, but also to the 

dissolved aqueous concentration (Peters et al. 1999; Di Toro et al. 2007). 

The solubility of an organic compound depends on its presence either in pure form or within a mixture. 

When present in pure form, the maximum dissolved concentration will be that of its aqueous solubility. 

However, when present within a mixture (as is the case for the liquid hydrocarbons under consideration 

here) then the effective aqueous solubility of each organic component is modified by the presence of other 

hydrocarbons as described by Raoult’s law (Peters et al. 1999; Sterling et al. 2003; Di Toro et al. 2007): 

Where for component i: 

CE,i = effective solubility 

xi = molar fraction 

CL,i = subcooled liquid solubility 

C = x C 

E, 

i 

2010 Page F-23 

i 

L, 

i




The molar fraction of component i is defined as: 

# mol of component i within the mixture 

x i = 

total moles of all components in the mixture 

The subcooled liquid solubility is needed for this approach because the components found within the 

mixture are liquids. Finally, it should be noted that the application of Raoult’s law requires the 

assumption that the mixture described follows ideal behaviour (Peters et al. 1999; Sterling et al. 2003; Di 

Toro et al. 2007). 

The effective aqueous solubility (CE) is related to the aqueous solubility of the pure organic compound 

(CL) through the amount found within the mixture on a molar basis (xi). If a constituent is present in pure 

form, then its molar fraction is 1 and its effective aqueous solubility equals the reported solubility. 

However, as compounds are mixed together, the molar fraction of a constituent decreases, and the 

effective solubility of individual constituents also decreases. As a result, a compound with a relatively 

high aqueous solubility may have a low effective solubility if present in very small amount within the 

mixture (Peters et al. 1999; Sterling et al. 2003; Di Toro et al. 2007). The effective solubility of each 

organic compound (or fraction) found within the mixture is calculated. 

To determine the total loading of each COPC, the following data are used: 

• composite hydrocarbon concentrations (see Table F-2) 

• water oil content 

• volume of water directed to the oil water separator (retained by containment berms and recovered 

from berths) 

The volume of containment berms water runoff (m 3 /y) is determined as: 

Where: 

Q = A C × P × RC 

AC = containment area (4.0 ×10 5 m 2 ) 

P = annual average total precipitation (2.19 m/a; Environment Canada 2006, Internet site) 

RC = runoff coefficient (set at 1 for maximum conservatism) 

As stated, the water oil content is determined assuming an annual on-land oil release of 100 m 3 entrained 

by the reservoir, and an annual recovery of 1 m 3 of oil due to transfer operations recuperated along with 

1,000 m 3 of seawater. For an individual component, if the total water concentration is lower than the 

effective aqueous solubility, it is assumed to be dissolved and the total water concentration is equal to the 

dissolved concentration: 


CT,i = total water concentration 

CD,i = dissolved concentration 

if C ≤ C then C = C 

T, 

i 

E, 

i 

Page F-24 2010 

T, 

i 

D, 

i




If, however, the total water concentration is higher than the effective aqueous solubility, then the 

dissolved concentration is limited by this value, and an undissolved contribution is identified as the total 

water concentration subtracted by the effective water solubility as: 


≤ 

= 

if CT 

, i C E, 

i then C E, 

i C D, 

i and CU 

, i CT 

, i CD 

, i 

CU,i = undissolved concentration 

The effective aqueous solubility and the dissolved and undissolved concentrations in water are calculated 

for each COPC (see Table F-2). It should be noted that this approach is not applied to trace elements as 

they are assumed to readily (fully) dissolve in the water phase. The following COPC will be completely 

dissolved in water: 

• benzene 

• toluene 

• ethylbenzene 

• total xylenes 

• naphthalene 

• 2,4-dimethylphenol 

• 2,4-dinitrophenol 

• phenol 

Finally, it is assumed that the oil-water separator will have a performance of 15 ppm concentration of oil 

in water, typical of current oil-water separator technology. As such, following the oil water separator, the 

concentrations of dissolved constituents remain unchanged and the concentrations of undissolved 

constituents are decreased according to the oil water separator performance of 15 ppm oil in water. 

F.2.2 Degradation 

Weathering of the dissolved organic compounds through degradation (e.g., microbial degradation and 

photolysis) while in the reservoir was also considered. First-order kinetics are applied to determine the 

dissolved concentration of each COPC at the point of discharge. First-order kinetics link the initial 

concentration of a compound to its concentration at a specified time through (Schwarzenbach et al. 2002): 

Where: 

ln C = −kt 

+ ln 

C = concentration at a specified time (mol/m 3 ) 

k = first-order rate constant (1/h) 

t = time (h) 

C0 = the initial concentration, i.e., the concentration at time zero (mol/m 3 ) 

2010 Page F-25 

C0 

= 

−




In this approach, the concentration at a specified time is defined as the dissolved degraded concentration 

(CDD) and the initial concentration as the dissolved concentration (CD) and the equation is rewritten as: 

ln C = −kt 

+ lnC 

Moving forward, the first-order rate constant is defined as (Schwarzenbach et al. 2002): 

Where: 

DD 

ln2 

k = 

t½ 

t½ = half-life of each component in water which corresponds to the time required for a quantity to 

decrease to half its initial value (i.e. when C = ½C0) (Schwarzenbach et al. 2002) 

The half-life of each organic COPC was identified from the literature (Mackay et al. 2000). Values were 

found to range from 55 (2,4-dimethylphenol and phenol) to 1,700 hours (benzo(a)anthracene, pyrene and 

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene). Compounds with a relatively high half-life demonstrate a higher stability thus a 

greater persistence in the environment whereas compounds with a smaller half-life will tend to degrade 

more rapidly (Schwarzenbach et al. 2002). Using half-life values specific to each organic COPC, firstorder 

rate constants are calculated as stated above. 

Finally, the residence time (t) of the COPC in the reservoir is based on the residence time of the total 

surface water runoff from the PDA into the reservoir following: 

Where: 

A 

t = 

PDA 

Page F-26 2010 

D 

× P × RC 

V 

APDA = Project Development Area (2.2 ×10 6 m 2 ) 

V = volume of the reservoir (48,000 m 3 ; assumed depth of 2 m with area of 24,000 m 2 ) 

Using the dissolved concentration, the residence time and the rate constants specific to each organic 

COPC, the degraded dissolved concentration (CDD) is calculated (see Table F-2). 

F.3 Atmospheric Deposition 

The atmospheric deposition assessment considered specific air emission sources that will be in operation. 

Atmospheric deposition rates are estimated for BTEX, PAHs and trace elements based on the methods 

described below. Dry, wet and total deposition rates are estimated. 

Specific emission sources included as part of this assessment included 14 large hydrocarbon tanks, two 

large marine vessels moored at berths and six tugboats. The hydrocarbon tanks are assumed to include six 

diluted bitumen tanks (typically composed of 50% bitumen and 50% naphtha or condensate), five 

synthetic oil tanks and three condensate tanks. The two marine vessels moored at berths are represented 

by one oil very large crude carrier class tanker for export of diluted bitumen or synthetic oil, and one




Suezmax class condensate import tanker. Marine vessels are assumed to burn No. 6 Bunker C residual oil 

with 2.7% sulphur content as fuel. 

The U.S. EPA AERMOD model was applied in the atmospheric dispersion and deposition assessment of 

BTEX, PAHs and trace elements. AERMOD is a steady-state plume model that can be applied to simple 

and complex terrain in either rural or urban areas. It can be used to study surface and elevated (stack) 

releases, as well as multiple emission sources (U.S. EPA 2004). AERMOD also includes two additional 

components: AERMAP (AERMOD terrain pre-processor) and AERMET (AERMOD meteorological 

pre-processor). 

AERMAP is a terrain pre-processor that is designed to handle the input of receptor terrain elevation data 

for AERMOD. AERMAP searches for the terrain height and location that has the greatest influence on 

dispersion for an individual receptor. This height is referred to as the height scale. Output from AERMAP 

therefore includes the location and height scale for each receptor, which are used for the computation of 

air flow around hills. 

AERMET is the meteorological pre-processor for the AERMOD model. Input data for AERMET include 

hourly cloud cover observations, surface meteorological observations and twice-daily upper air 

soundings. Meteorological data required for input into the AERMET meteorological pre-processor 

included the following for the five-year period of January 1999 to December 2003: 

• British Columbia Kitimat Whitesail monitoring station for wind speed, wind direction and 

temperature 

• British Columbia Terrace Airport monitoring station for ceiling height and other surface data not 

available for Kitimat Whitesail 

• Annette, Alaska monitoring station for upper air data 

AERMOD uses the output from AERMAP and AERMET to predict air contaminant concentrations and 

deposition rates. Special features of the AERMOD dispersion model include: 

• refined wet and dry deposition algorithms 

• the ability to treat the vertical inhomogeneity of the planetary boundary layer 

• special treatment of surface releases 

• irregularly shaped area sources 

• plume models for the convective boundary layer 

• limitation of vertical mixing in the stable boundary layer and fixing the reflecting surface at the stack 

base 

For BTEX, the wet deposition estimates are based on the AERMOD dispersion and deposition model 

using compound specific air emissions from individual air emission source in operation and compound 

specific physicochemical properties (diffusivity in air, diffusivity in water, cuticular resistance and 

Henry’s law constant). 

2010 Page F-27




For trace elements and PAHs, element and compound specific gas and particle properties were not 

available. Therefore, wet deposition rates are estimated by using a first order approach using the 

AERMOD dispersion and deposition model and marine vessel sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. The 

resulting SO2 deposition rates are converted to trace element and PAH deposition rates, based on the ratio 

of published air emission factors for trace elements and PAHs (for marine vessels burning residual oil; 

U.S. EPA 1998, Internet site) to the equivalent SO2 emission factor. 

Dry deposition rates are calculated by applying a conservative average dry deposition rate of 0.5 cm/s 

(based on literature search and professional judgment) to the predicted annual average SO2 concentrations 

as calculated by AERMOD. These were then prorated using published air emission factors (U.S. EPA 

1998, Internet site) to develop dry deposition rates for BTEX, PAH and trace elements. Total deposition 

rates are calculated by summing the wet and dry deposition rates (see Table F-3). 

Table F-3 Total Atmospheric Deposition Rates (g/m 2 /y) for Each COPC 

Analytes Kitimat 1 Kitimat 2 Terminal Clio Bay 

Emsley 

Point 

Barium 1.12E-06 1.65E-07 8.68E-08 4.56E-08 2.87E-07 

Boron NA NA NA NA NA 

Cadmium 1.73E-07 2.55E-08 1.34E-08 7.06E-09 4.45E-08 

Manganese 1.31E-06 1.92E-07 1.01E-07 5.32E-08 3.36E-07 

Molybdenum 3.43E-07 5.04E-08 2.66E-08 1.40E-08 8.80E-08 

Nickel 3.68E-05 5.42E-06 2.85E-06 1.50E-06 9.45E-06 

Tin NA NA NA NA NA 

Vanadium 1.39E-04 2.04E-05 1.07E-05 5.64E-06 3.56E-05 

Zinc 

BTEX 

1.27E-05 1.87E-06 9.83E-07 5.16E-07 3.25E-06 

Benzene 3.49E-07 1.99E-07 1.70E-07 9.05E-08 1.27E-07 

Toluene 7.26E-07 4.08E-07 3.63E-07 1.89E-07 2.75E-07 

Ethylbenzene 8.56E-08 5.23E-08 4.75E-08 2.46E-08 3.44E-08 

Xylenes 


5.94E-07 3.47E-07 3.07E-07 1.60E-07 2.25E-07 

>C6-C8 NA NA NA NA NA 






Page F-28 2010





(cont’d) 



Emsley 

Point 






PAH 

1-Methylnaphthalene NA NA NA NA NA 

2-Methylnaphthalene 1.09E-08 1.60E-09 8.44E-10 4.43E-10 2.80E-09 

Acenaphthene 9.19E-09 1.35E-09 7.13E-10 3.74E-10 2.36E-09 

Acenaphthylene 1.10E-10 1.62E-11 8.54E-12 4.49E-12 2.83E-11 

Anthracene 5.31E-10 7.82E-11 4.12E-11 2.16E-11 1.36E-10 

Benzo(a)anthracene 1.75E-09 2.57E-10 1.35E-10 7.11E-11 4.49E-10 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene a 6.45E-10 9.49E-11 5.00E-11 2.62E-11 1.66E-10 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene a 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 9.84E-10 1.45E-10 7.63E-11 4.01E-11 2.53E-10 

Benzo(a)pyrene 4.09E-10 6.02E-11 3.17E-11 1.67E-11 1.05E-10 

Benzo(e)pyrene 4.09E-10 6.02E-11 3.17E-11 1.67E-11 1.05E-10 

Chrysene 1.04E-09 1.53E-10 8.04E-11 4.22E-11 2.66E-10 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 7.27E-10 1.07E-10 5.64E-11 2.96E-11 1.87E-10 

Fluoranthene 2.11E-09 3.10E-10 1.63E-10 8.58E-11 5.41E-10 

Fluorene 1.95E-09 2.87E-10 1.51E-10 7.93E-11 5.00E-10 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.32E-10 1.37E-10 7.23E-11 3.80E-11 2.39E-10 

Naphthalene 4.92E-07 7.24E-08 3.82E-08 2.00E-08 1.26E-07 

Phenanthrene 4.57E-09 6.73E-10 3.55E-10 1.86E-10 1.17E-09 

Pyrene 1.85E-09 2.72E-10 1.44E-10 7.54E-11 4.75E-10 


2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NA NA NA NA 

2,4-Dinitrophenol NA NA NA NA NA 

Phenol NA NA NA NA NA 

2010 Page F-29





(cont’d) 



Emsley 

Point 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NA NA NA NA NA 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenze NA NA NA NA NA 

NOTES: 

a benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene are combined in the atmospheric deposition modelling. 


F.4 References 

F.4.1 Literature Cited 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2007. Canadian water quality guidelines for the 

protection of aquatic life: Summary table. Updated December, 2007. In: Canadian environmental 

quality guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008. Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil: Scientific Rationale Supporting Technical Document. 


crude oil: toxic potential and the toxicity of saturated mixtures. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 26(1): 24–36. 

Mackay, D., W.Y. Shiu and K.-C. Ma. 2000. Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate 


Peters, C.A., C.D. Knightes and D.G. Brown. 1999. Long-term composition dynamics of PAH-containing 

NAPLs and implications for risk assessment. Environmental Science and Technology 33: 

4499-4507. 

Prausnitz, J.M. 1969. Molecular Thermodynamics of Fluid-Phase Equilibria. Prentice-Hall. Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ. 



Shiu, W.Y. and D. Mackay. 1986. A critical review of aqueous solubilities, vapor pressures, Henry’s law 

constants, and octanol-water partition coefficients of the polychlorinated biphenyls. Journal of 

Physical and Chemical Reference Data 15(2): 911–929. 

Sterling, M.C.Jr., J.S. Bonner, C.A. Page, C.B. Fuller, A.N.S. Ernest and R.L. Autenrieth. 2003. 

Partitioning of crude oil polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aquatic systems. Environmental 

Science and Technology 37: 4429–4434. 

Page F-30 2010




United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. AERMOD: Description of Model 

Formulation. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards – Emissions Monitoring and Analysis 

Division. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

F.4.2 Personal Communications 

R. Sutter. Colt Engineering. E-mail. November 21, 2008. 

F.4.3 Internet sites 


New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Accessed: October 2008. 

Available at: http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_and_new_zealand_guidelines_ 

for_fresh_and_marine_water_quality 

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). 2006. Water Quality Guidelines (Criteria). 

Accessed: October 2008. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/wq_guidelines.html 

Environment Canada. 2006. Canadian Climate Normals or Averages 1971-2000. Accessed: October 

2008. Available at: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. AP 42 – Fifth Edition, Compilation of 

Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources – Chapter 1: 

External Combustion Sources – 1.3 Fuel Oil Combustion – Supplement E. Accessed: February 

2009. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/ 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Current National Recommended Water 

Quality Criteria. Accessed: October 2008. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/ 

2010 Page F-31



Appendix G: Characteristics of Modelled Species 

Appendix G Characteristics of Modelled Species 

2010 Page G-1





Appendix G Characteristics of Modelled Species ....................................... G-1 

G.1 Wildlife Exposure Factors .................................................................................. G-7 

G.2 Ingestion Rates .................................................................................................. G-7 

G.2.1 Bird Food Ingestion Rates ............................................................................. G-8 

G.2.2 Mammal Food Ingestion Rates ...................................................................... G-8 

G.3 Water Ingestion Rates ....................................................................................... G-8 

G.3.1 Bird Water Ingestion Rates ............................................................................ G-8 

G.3.2 Mammal Water Ingestion Rates .................................................................... G-8 

G.4 Ingestion Rates .................................................................................................. G-9 

G.4.1 Estimating Sediment Ingestion ...................................................................... G-9 

G.5 Characteristics of Species ............................................................................... G-10 

G.6 References ...................................................................................................... G-13 

G.6.1 Literature Cited ............................................................................................ G-13 


Table G-1 Estimated Percent Sediment Contents for Each Dietary Component ... G-10 

Table G-2 Avian and Mammalian Ingestion Parameters ....................................... G-11 

2010 Page G-3




Abbreviations 


COPC .............................................................................. contaminants of potential concern 

FI .................................................................................................................... food ingestion 

FMR ....................................................................................................... field metabolic rate 


U.S. EPA .................................................. United States Environmental Protection Agency 

2010 Page G-5




G.1 Wildlife Exposure Factors 

The three routes of exposure that may be of concern for wildlife near contaminated surface waters and 

terrestrial habitats are oral, inhalation and dermal (U.S. EPA 1993). Oral exposures might occur via 

ingestion of contaminated food (e.g., aquatic prey) or water, or incidental ingestion of contaminated 

media (e.g., soils and sediments) during foraging and other activities. Inhalation of gases or particulates 

might be a significant route of exposure for some animals, but is not expected to be significant for routine 

operations because the hydrocarbons will normally be contained in tanks, and releases of vapours would 

be mitigated to very low levels. Dermal exposures are likely to be most significant for burrowing 

mammals (i.e., via contact with contaminated soils) and animals that spend considerable amounts of time 

submerged in surface waters, but again, these exposures are considered to be of low importance for 

routine operations. 

Every effort was made to select species that are appropriate and representative of ecosystems modelled in 

a marine ERA, while generally following Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME 

1996) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1998) guidance. Wildlife species 

were chosen to represent various trophic levels and habitat preferences. Species are categorized into 

community resources (aquatic and sediment communities), avian and mammalian resources. Community 

resources are used to represent the general health of fish, invertebrate and plant communities, rather than 

individual species (as is the case for mammals and birds), and their exposure is evaluated based strictly on 

the COPC concentration in water or sediment. In contrast, the exposure of avian and mammalian species 

considers the daily intakes of water, sediment and food items, as well as other modifying factors such as 

the concentrations of COPC in those media, and the body mass of the receptor. 

The following mammalian species are identified for quantitative risk evaluation: 

• coastal-dwelling mink (Mustela vison) 

• harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 

• Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 

The following avian species are identified for quantitative risk evaluation: 

• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

• Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

• Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) 

• Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) 

G.2 Ingestion Rates 

Food ingestion rates vary with many factors including basal and daily (field) metabolic rates, quality and 

composition of diet, and environmental conditions. For homeotherms (including birds and mammals), 

metabolic rate (normalized to body mass) generally decreases with increasing body mass. Metabolic rates 

are typically higher in winter than in summer (although true hibernators lower their metabolic rate during 

winter). Birds tend to have higher metabolic rates than mammals of similar body weight due to the 

energetic demands of flight and higher body temperatures (Gill 1994). 

2010 Page G-7




G.2.1 Bird Food Ingestion Rates 

For birds, Nagy (1987) calculated food ingestion (FI) rates (as cited in U.S. EPA 1993) in grams dry 

matter per day from metabolizable energy (ME, kJ/g or kcal/g in diet) and field metabolic rate (FMR) as a 

function of body weight (Wt, grams) as follows: 

• FI = 0.648*Wt 0.651 (all birds) 

• FI = 0.398*Wt 0.850 (passerines) 

• FI = 0.301*Wt 0.751 (non-passerines) 

• FI = 0.495*Wt 0.704 (seabirds) 

G.2.2 Mammal Food Ingestion Rates 

For placental mammals, Nagy (1987) calculated FI rates (as cited in U.S. EPA 1993) in grams dry matter 

per day as follows: 

• FI = 0.235*Wt 0.822 (all mammals) 

• FI = 0.621*Wt 0.564 (rodents) 

• FI = 0.577*Wt 0.727 (herbivores) 

Herbivores tend to consume more food than carnivores on a dry weight basis due to the lower energy 

content of the herbivore diet; on an energy basis (kcal/day), the ingestion rates of herbivores and 

carnivores of equivalent size are similar. 

G.3 Water Ingestion Rates 

Dietary water requirements depend on the rate that animals lose water to the environment from 

evaporation and excretion. Loss rates depend on various factors including body size, ambient temperature 

and physiological adaptations for conserving water. Drinking water is only one way animals meet their 

water requirements. Some animals are capable of maintaining their water balance from the water content 

of food alone or from water produced as a metabolic byproduct of catabolism. In general, birds drink less 

water per day than do mammals, because birds can conserve water by excreting nitrogen as uric acid 

instead of urea or ammonia. 

G.3.1 Bird Water Ingestion Rates 

For birds, Calder and Braun (1983) calculated water ingestion rates (as cited in U.S. EPA 1993) in litres 

per day (L/d) based on 21 species ranging from 0.011 to 3.15 kg body weight, as follows: 

• FI = 0.059*Wt 0.67 (all birds), where Wt is body weight in kg 

G.3.2 Mammal Water Ingestion Rates 

For mammals, Calder and Braun (1983) calculated water ingestion rates (as cited in U.S. EPA 1993) in 

litres per day (L/d) for mammals, as follows: 

• FI = 0.099*Wt 0.90 (all mammals), where Wt is body weight in kg 

Page G-8 2010




G.4 Ingestion Rates 

Sediment is ingested by virtually all species of marine wildlife. In most cases, ingestion occurs 

incidentally during foraging (e.g., adhering to the surface of sediment dwelling invertebrate prey) or 

during other aspects of animal behaviour (e.g., burrowing or grooming). Beyer et al. (1994) estimated 

dietary percentages of soil ingestion for 28 species based on estimates of dietary digestibility, and the acid 

insoluble ash content of food, soil and scat. For most risk assessments, percent dietary soil ingestion for a 

specific ecological receptor is derived using an estimated value from one of these 28 species (the species 

most similar to the receptor in both diet and behaviour). Of the species assessed in Beyer et al. (1994), 

only the red fox has a diet consisting of a large proportion of meat. No fish-eating species are assessed for 

soil ingestion. Beyer et al. (1994) does not provide data for many species and are limited to specific 

observations. 

G.4.1 Estimating Sediment Ingestion 

The approach and data presented in Beyer et al. (1994) are used to determine the dietary composition and 

approximate the percent sediment content for each dietary component of each species considered. The 

percent sediment uses selected species and their respective soil ingestion estimates reported primarily by 

Beyer et al. (1994). Various literature sources were reviewed to estimate the dietary composition for each 

species. Where appropriate, diets are categorized as: 

• aquatic plants 

• aquatic invertebrates 

• fish 

Based on knowledge of existing studies, a range of reasonable percentages for the sediment content of 

each dietary component was derived. Using Monte Carlo sampling techniques (Crystal Ball ® 2000 

software), the percentage range for the soil or sediment content of each dietary compartment was assigned 

a uniform distribution. For each sampling of percent soil or sediment content, the resulting estimate of 

ingestion was calculated for all species based on their individual dietary compositions. The difference 

between this percent soil or sediment estimate and the value reported in the literature was calculated, and 

the sum of the squares difference for each species was determined. Crystal Ball ® was used to create 1,000 

combinations of percent soil or sediment content for each dietary component. Based on the sum of 

squares difference between the modelled and the measured (Beyer et al. 1994) data the mean percent 

sediment content of each dietary component for the best 1% (10 combinations) and 5% (50 combinations) 

were derived. There was little difference between the two sets of estimates, so the mean values based on 

the best 50 combinations as judged by the lowest sum of squares deviations from the original data 

provided by Beyer et al. (1994) was selected (see Table G-1). Using these mean soil or sediment values, 

and the dietary composition for each species, estimates of the dietary percentage of sediment ingestion 

were calculated. 

2010 Page G-9




The estimate of sediment ingestion for each species is based on the percent sediment values derived for 

each dietary component. However, certain aspects of animal behaviour may additionally contribute to the 

potential for sediment ingestion. For example, sandpipers forage on shorelines by probing their opened 

bills into the substrate to retrieve invertebrates, thereby increasing the opportunity for incidental sediment 

ingestion. For species that exhibit behaviour that are perceived to confer an additional source of sediment 

ingestion, professional judgment is used to adjust their estimated ingestion levels accordingly. 

Table G-1 Estimated Percent Sediment Contents for Each Dietary 

Component 

Dietary Component 

Sediment Content 

(%) 

Mammals, Birds 1.06 

Marine Plants 7.45 

Marine Invertebrates 9.12 

Fish 2.48 

G.5 Characteristics of Species 

Descriptions of species are based largely on the U.S. EPA Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. 

EPA 1993) or similar data acquired from credible sources like the primary literature or selected internet 

databases. Following the methods outlined above, the general parameters (e.g., body weight) and food 

ingestion rates for various exposure pathways for each avian and mammalian receptor are presented 

(see Table G-2). 

Page G-10 2010




Table G-2 Avian and Mammalian Ingestion Parameters 

General Parameters 

Units 

Coastaldwelling 

Mink 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Steller 

Sea Lion 

2010 Page G-11 

Bald 

Eagle 

Marbled 

Murrelet 

Spotted 

Sandpiper 

Surf 

Scoter 

Body weight kg 8.50E-01 5.50E+01 5.66E+02 4.50E+00 2.20E-01 4.71E-02 1.10E+00 

Food intake rate kg wet-wt/d 2.20E-01 4.32E+00 4.53E+01 6.48E-01 8.05E-02 2.29E-02 3.13E-01 

Water intake rate L/d 9.00E-02 3.65E+00 2.97E+01 1.62E-01 2.14E-02 7.62E-03 3.00E-02 

Ingestion of Seawater 

Ingestion rate L/d – a 3.65E+00 2.97E+01 – a 2.14E-02 7.62E-03 3.00E-02 

Intake factor (IFing-sw) L/kg·d – a 6.64E-02 5.25E-02 – a 9.73E-02 1.62E-01 2.73E-02 

Ingestion of Marine Sediment 

Fraction diet that is dry solid 2.80E-01 2.83E-01 2.78E-01 2.85E-01 2.74E-01 4.59E-01 2.19E-01 

Fraction of food intake rate 1.26E-02 1.00E-02 1.81E-02 9.50E-03 3.03E-02 4.31E-02 8.63E-02 

Ingestion rate kg dry-wt/d 7.76E-04 1.22E-02 2.28E-01 1.75E-03 6.68E-04 4.54E-04 5.92E-03 

Intake factor (IFing-sed) kg/kg·d 9.13E-04 2.22E-04 4.03E-04 3.90E-04 3.04E-03 9.63E-03 5.38E-03 

Ingestion of Marine Plants 

Fraction of food intake rate – a – a – a – a – a 2.00E-02 5.00E-02 

Ingestion rate kg wet-wt/d – a – a – a – a – a 4.59E-04 1.57E-02 

Intake factor (IFing-ap) kg/kg·d – a – a – a – a – a 9.74E-03 1.42E-02 

Ingestion of Marine Benthic Invertebrates 

Fraction of food intake rate 1.00E-01 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 – a 2.50E-01 4.50E-01 9.00E-01 

Ingestion rate kg wet-wt/d 2.20E-02 2.16E-01 4.53E+00 – a 2.01E-02 1.03E-02 2.82E-01 

Intake factor (IFing-ai) kg/kg·d 2.59E-02 3.93E-03 8.01E-03 – a 9.15E-02 2.19E-01 2.56E-01




Table G-2 Avian and Mammalian Ingestion Parameters (cont’d) 

Ingestion of Marine Fish 

Units 

Coastaldwelling 

Mink 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Steller 

Sea Lion 

Page G-12 2010 

Bald 

Eagle 

Marbled 

Murrelet 

Spotted 

Sandpiper 

Surf 

Scoter 

Fraction of food intake rate 3.50E-01 9.50E-01 9.00E-01 9.50E-01 7.00E-01 6.00E-02 5.00E-02 

Ingestion rate kg wet-wt/d 7.70E-02 4.10E+00 4.08E+01 6.16E-01 5.64E-02 1.38E-03 1.57E-02 

Intake factor (IFing-fsh) kg/kg·d 9.06E-02 7.46E-02 7.21E-02 1.37E-01 2.56E-01 2.92E-02 1.42E-02 

NOTE: 

a This pathway-receptor combination is not assessed.




G.6 References 

G.6.1 Literature Cited 

Beyer, W.N., S. Gerould and E.E. Connor. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58: 375-382. 


Assessment: General Guidance. 

Calder, W.A. and E.J. Braun. 1983. Scaling of osmotic regulation in mammals and birds. American 

Journal of Physiology 224: R601-R606. 

Gill, F.B. 1994. Ornithology. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY. 

Nagy, K.A. 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds. Ecological 

Monographs 57: 111-128. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. 

Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. 

Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk 

Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. 

2010 Page G-13



Appendix H: Uptake Factors from Water and Sediment to Marine Biota 

Appendix H Uptake Factors from Water and Sediment 

to Marine Biota 

2010 Page H-1





Appendix H Uptake Factors from Water and Sediment to Marine Biota ...... H-1 

H.1 Exposure Assessment ....................................................................................... H-7 

H.2 Biological Uptake Factors .................................................................................. H-8 

H.2.1 Seawater to Marine Plants, UPMWAP .............................................................. H-8 

H.2.2 Marine Sediment to Benthic Invertebrates, UPMSBI ...................................... H-15 

H.2.3 Seawater to Fish, UPMWF ............................................................................. H-19 

H.3 References ...................................................................................................... H-23 

H.3.1 Literature Cited ............................................................................................ H-23 


Table H-1 Summary of KOW and KOC Values for Organic COPC ............................. H-9 

Table H-2 Summary of Seawater to Marine Plant Uptake Factors for Organic 

COPC ................................................................................................... H-11 

Table H-3 Summary of Seawater to Marine Plant Uptake Factors for Trace 

Elements COPC ................................................................................... H-13 

Table H-4 Summary of Sediment to Benthic Invertebrate Uptake Factors for 

Organic COPC ...................................................................................... H-15 

Table H-5 Summary of Marine Sediment to Benthic Invertebrate Uptake 

Factors for Trace Element COPC ......................................................... H-18 

Table H-6 Summary of Seawater to Fish Uptake Factors for Organic COPC ....... H-20 

Table H-7 Summary of Seawater to Fish Uptake Factors for Trace Elements 

COPC ................................................................................................... H-22 

2010 Page H-3




Abbreviations 

BAF .................................................................................................. bioaccumulation factor 

BCF .................................................................................................. bioconcentration factor 

BSAF ............................................................................. biota sediment accumulation factor 



COPC ................................................................................... chemicals of potential concern 

CWS .................................................................................................. Canada-wide standard 

EPC ......................................................................................... exposure point concentration 

FMR ....................................................................................................... field metabolic rate 

KI ...................................................................................................................... key indicator 

MF ............................................................................................................... metabolic factor 


PCB ............................................................................................. polychlorinated biphenyls 



UPMSBI ............................................. marine sediment to benthic invertebrates uptake factor 

UPMWAP ................................................................... seawater to marine plants uptake factor 

UPMWF ..................................................................................... seawater to fish uptake factor 

VOC ......................................................................................... volatile organic compounds 

2010 Page H-5




H.1 Exposure Assessment 

To evaluate the exposure of each mammalian and avian key indicator (KI) to each of the chemicals of 

potential concern (COPC), it is necessary to first estimate the concentration of each COPC in various 

media or biological tissues (e.g., water, sediment and representative plant and animal tissues). A baseline 

sampling program characterized baseline COPC concentrations in water, sediment and a variety of 

biological tissues (including fish and invertebrates—see Appendix D). 

To estimate potential environmental effects, a Marine Water Quality Model was used to estimate daily 

average COPC concentrations in ten sections of Kitimat Arm (see Appendix A). The exposure point 

concentrations (EPC and measured as mg/L or mg/kg) for COPC in water and sediment are calculated 

using environmental fate and transport models. The model-estimated EPC are considered additive to the 

baseline concentrations when assessed for the Application Case scenario (see Section 3.2 of the main 

ERA report). The EPC for biota (i.e., COPC concentrations in marine plants, invertebrates and fish) are 

calculated directly in the model using COPC-specific uptake factors, which describe the relationships 

between chemical concentrations in environmental media and concentrations in biota. In the following 

sections, details of the equations and methods used to derive EPC for biota are discussed. 

Uptake factor will be used generically in this report to refer to any of several specific terms, including: 

• bioaccumulation factor (BAF), the ratio of a COPC concentration in an organism or biological tissue 

(e.g., a sediment invertebrate) to the concentration in a surrounding medium (e.g., sediment) 

• bioconcentration factor (BCF), a specific term that refers to the ratio of a COPC concentration in 

aquatic plants to the concentration in the surrounding water 

• biota sediment accumulation factor (BSAF), a term specifically applied to organic contaminants that 

refers to the ratio of the lipid normalized COPC concentration in an aquatic organism to the organic 

carbon normalized COPC concentration in sediment 

All chemical concentrations use units of mg/L or mg/kg. For water, all chemical concentrations and 

intakes use units of mg/L. For sediment, all concentrations are expressed on a dry weight basis (mg/kg 

dry weight sediment). For plant and animal tissues, all concentrations are expressed on a wet weight basis 

(mg/kg wet weight tissue). 

The uptake factor literature is inconsistent, with some uptake factors being expressed on a wet tissue 

basis, others on a dry tissue basis and still others (e.g., BSAF) being normalized on the basis of tissue 

lipid to sediment organic carbon content. The model requires EPC on a wet tissue basis for biota that are 

ingested as foods by ecological receptors. Therefore, where possible, uptake factors are expressed on a 

wet tissue basis; where necessary, correction factors are applied in order to convert from dry weight 

tissue, lipid- or carbon-normalized units, to a wet tissue basis. 

2010 Page H-7




H.2 Biological Uptake Factors 

The generalized uptake factor equation used to calculate a COPC concentration in an organism or 

biological tissue (e.g., sediment invertebrates) from the concentration in a surrounding medium 

(e.g., sediment) is as follows: 

EPCj = EPCi x UPij 

Where: EPCj = exposure point concentration in biological compartment j (e.g., mg/kg 

wet weight invertebrate tissue) 

EPCi = exposure point concentration in environmental medium i (e.g., mg/kg 

dry sediment) 

UPij = uptake factor from surrounding medium (in this case sediment) to the 

target biological tissue (e.g., mg/kg wet tissue / mg/kg dry sediment) 

H.2.1 Seawater to Marine Plants, UPMWAP 

H.2.1.1 Organics 

For organic COPC, marine plant concentrations (representing rockweed or eelgrass) are derived using the 

equation of Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) based on an equation developed for polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCB): 

UPMWAP = fOC x KOC x 0.23 

Where: UPMWAP = uptake factor from marine water to marine plants 

fOC = fraction of organic carbon present in dry plant tissue (assumed to be 

0.35 based on Vanier et al. (1999) where aquatic plant organic matter 

was measured as 79% of the dry plant tissue weight, and 44% of 

organic matter is carbon) 

KOC = organic compound water-organic carbon partitioning coefficient and 

0.23 is the conversion factor for dry weight to wet weight used in this 

particular equation (based on Marsham et al. (2007) where the 

average moisture content of aquatic plants was reported as 77%) 

Although initially developed for PCBs, it is reasonable to assume that this equation is applicable to other 

organic compounds having similar log KOW values, and that the relationship will be conservative. The 

PCB congeners exhibit a wide range of log KOW (and KOC), and the model represents a simple and 

fundamental balance between the tendencies of organic compounds to partition between water and plant 

tissues. 

Page H-8 2010




Various equations for estimating KOC from KOW values were evaluated from Gustafson et al. (1997), 

Mackay et al. (2000) and U.S. EPA (1999). The equation from Mackay et al. (2000) is used in the model, 

although all three equations gave generally similar results: 

log KOC = log (0.41 × KOW) 

This equation is used to derive log KOC values for the organic compounds (see Table H-1). For total 

petroleum hydrocarbons (F1, F2, F3), log KOC values were obtained (and extrapolated if necessary) from 

Gustafson et al. (1997), and the log KOW values were back-calculated using the formula from Mackay 

et al. (2000). For the estimated UPMWAP values for organic COPC, see Table H-2. 

Table H-1 Summary of KOW and KOC Values for Organic COPC 

BTEX 

COPC Log KOW KOW Log KOC a 

2010 Page H-9 

KOC 

KOW Reference 

Benzene 2.10 1.26E+02 1.71 5.10E+01 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Ethylbenzene 3.10 1.26E+03 2.71 5.13E+02 Mackay et al. (2000) 

Toluene 2.70 5.01E+02 2.31 2.04E+02 Average Mackay et al. 

(2000) and 

U.S. EPA (1999) 

Xylenes 


3.20 1.59E+03 2.81 6.46E+02 Average for m-, o-, 

p-xylenes; Mackay et al. 

(2000) 

Aromatics >C8-C10 3.59 3.89E+03 3.20 1.59E+03 Gustafson et al. (1997) b 

Aromatics >C10 - C12 3.79 6.17E+03 3.40 2.51E+03 Gustafson et al. (1997) b 



Aromatics >C21- C32 5.49 3.09E+05 5.10 1.26E+05 Gustafson et al. (1997) b 

Aliphatics >C6 - C8 3.99 9.77E+03 3.60 3.98E+03 Gustafson et al. (1997) b 








Acenaphthene 3.90 7.94E+03 3.51 3.24E+03 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Acenaphthylene 4.00 1.00E+04 3.61 4.07E+03 Mackay et al. (2000) 

Anthracene 4.50 3.16E+04 4.11 1.29E+04 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Fluorene 4.20 1.58E+04 3.81 6.46E+03 U.S. EPA (2005)




Table H-1 Summary of KOW and KOC Values for Organic COPC (cont’d) 

COPC Log KOW KOW Log KOC a 

Low Molecular Weight PAHs (cont’d) 

Page H-10 2010 

KOC 

KOW Reference 

1-Methylnaphthalene 3.87 7.41E+03 3.48 3.02E+03 Mackay et al. (2000) 

2-Methylnaphthalene 3.86 7.24E+03 3.47 2.95E+03 Mackay et al. (2000) 

Naphthalene 3.30 2.00E+03 2.91 8.13E+02 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Phenanthrene 4.50 3.16E+04 4.11 1.29E+04 U.S. EPA (2005) 


Fluoranthene 5.00 1.00E+05 4.61 4.07E+04 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Benzo(a)anthracene 5.70 5.01E+05 5.31 2.04E+05 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Benzo(a)pyrene 6.00 1.00E+06 5.61 4.07E+05 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Benzo(e)pyrene 6.44 2.75E+06 6.05 1.12E+06 EpiSuite v3.20 (2007) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.12 1.32E+06 5.74 5.50E+05 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 6.50 3.16E+06 6.11 1.29E+06 Mackay et al. (2000) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.10 1.26E+06 5.71 5.13E+05 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Chrysene 5.70 5.01E+05 5.31 2.04E+05 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6.50 3.16E+06 6.11 1.29E+06 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6.60 3.98E+06 6.21 1.62E+06 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Pyrene 4.90 7.94E+04 4.51 3.24E+04 U.S. EPA (2005) 


2,4-dimethylphenol 2.30 2.00E+02 1.91 8.13E+01 U.S. EPA (2005) 

2,4-dinitrophenol 1.54 3.47E+01 1.15 1.41E+01 U.S. EPA (2005) 

Phenol 1.50 3.16E+01 1.11 1.29E+01 U.S. EPA (2005) 

VOCs 

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 4.00 1.00E+04 3.61 4.07E+03 U.S. EPA (2005) 

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 3.42 2.63E+03 3.03 1.07E+03 U.S. EPA (2005) 

NOTES: 

a Log KOC values for all organic compounds, with the exception of PHC fractions, are derived from Log KOW values 

using the equation Log KOC = Log(0.41×KOW) from MacKay et al. (2000). 

b This reference applies to Log KOC values for PHC fractions.





COPC 

BTEX 

COPC 

UPMWAP 

mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L 

Reference 

Benzene 4.16E+00 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Ethylbenzene 4.16E+01 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Toluene 1.65E+01 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Xylenes 5.23E+01 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 


Aromatics >C8-C10 1.28E+02 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Aromatics >C10 - C12 2.02E+02 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 



Aromatics >C21- C32 1.01E+04 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Aliphatics >C6 - C8 3.20E+02 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 




Aliphatics >C16 - C21 Negligible toxicity or bioavailability CCME (2008) 




Acenaphthene 2.62E+02 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Acenaphthylene 3.30E+02 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Anthracene 1.04E+03 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Fluorene 5.23E+02 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

1-Methylnaphthalene 2.45E+02 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

2-Methylnaphthalene 2.39E+02 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Naphthalene 6.59E+01 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Phenanthrene 1.04E+03 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 


Fluoranthene 3.30E+03 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Benzo(a)anthracene 1.65E+04 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Benzo(a)pyrene 3.30E+04 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Benzo(e)pyrene 9.09E+04 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.39E+04 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.04E+05 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.16E+04 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

2010 Page H-11





COPC (cont’d) 

COPC 

High Molecular Weight PAHs (cont’d) 

UPMWAP 

mg/kg-wet tissue / mg/L 

Reference 

Chrysene 1.65E+04 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.04E+05 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.31E+05 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Pyrene 2.62E+03 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 


2,4-dimethylphenol 6.59E+00 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

2,4-dinitrophenol 1.14E+00 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

Phenol 1.04E+00 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

VOCs 

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 3.30E+02 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

1.3.5-trimethylbenzene 8.68E+01 Vanier et al. (1999, 2001) 

H.2.1.2 Trace Elements 

Seawater to marine plant uptake factors for inorganic COPC were derived from various published 

literature sources. Preference was given to studies reporting measured uptake factor values. For COPC 

that had no published uptake factors, values were derived using reported seawater and marine plant COPC 

concentrations from the same published source. If multiple values were available, preference was given to 

those most representative of the floral communities. Marine plant COPC concentrations were frequently 

reported in the literature on a dry weight basis. To determine wet weight uptake factors, the dry weight 

uptake factor was modified by multiplying by a dry fraction. If the dry fraction was reported in literature 

source, it was used; if no value was reported, the dry fraction is assumed to be 0.145 as reported by the 

U.S. EPA (1993) for algae and aquatic macrophytes. 

The uptake factors were calculated as the arithmetic mean of literature-acquired values when the range 

did not exceed one order of magnitude, and as the geometric mean if the values varied by more than one 

order of magnitude. For uptake factors for seawater to marine plants, see Table H-3. A short description 

of the uptake factor for each trace element is provided below. 

Barium 

The seawater to marine plant UP for barium is 72.5 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is a widely 

accepted compendium value (CSA 1987). 

Page H-12 2010




Table H-3 Summary of Seawater to Marine Plant Uptake Factors for Trace 

Elements COPC 

COPC 

UPMWAP 


Barium 7.25E+01 CSA (1987) 

Boron 1.65E+00 Gaudry et al. (2007) 

Reference 

Cadmium 5.88E+02 Multiple References (see text) 

Manganese 2.90E+03 CSA (1987) 

Molybdenum 1.45E+00 CSA (1987) 

Nickel 1.85E+03 Multiple References (see text) 

Tin 7.20E+03 Multiple References (see text) 

Vanadium 3.83E+02 Hou and Yan (1998); Gaudry et al. (2007) 

Zinc 2.22E+03 Multiple References (see text) 

Boron 

The seawater to marine plant uptake factor for boron is 1.65 mg/kg-wet tissue / mg/L. This value is based 

on a study reporting calculated uptake factor values (Gaudry et al. 2007). Because this value was obtained 

from dry weight measurements, it was multiplied by a dry fraction value of 0.145 to convert to a wet 

weight basis. 

Cadmium 

The seawater to marine plant uptake factor for cadmium is 588 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is 

based on various studies reporting calculated uptake factors (Vasconcelos and Leal 2001; Conti and 

Cecchetti 2003; Gaudry et al. 2007) and one reporting concentrations of cadmium in seawater and algae 

(Campanella et al. 2001) from which uptake factors were calculated. The value of 588 is the geometric 

mean (the number of individual values, n = 21) wet weight uptake factors; as values were obtained from 

dry weight measurements these were multiplied by a dry fraction value of 0.145, except for those 

obtained from Campanella et al. (2001), which were multiplied by reported dry fraction values of 0.186 

and 0.278 to convert to a wet weight basis. 

Manganese 

The seawater to marine plant uptake factor for manganese is 2,900 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is a 

widely accepted compendium value (CSA 1987). 

Molybdenum 

The seawater to marine plant uptake factor for molybdenum is 1.45 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is 

a widely accepted compendium value (CSA 1987). 

2010 Page H-13




Nickel 

The seawater to marine plant uptake factor for nickel is 1,850 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is based 

on various studies reporting calculated uptake factor values (Sanchez-Rodriguez et al. 2001; Vasconcelos 

and Leal 2001; Gaudry et al. 2007). The value of 1,850 is the geometric mean (n = 5) wet weight uptake 

factor; as values were obtained from dry weight measurements these were multiplied by a dry fraction 

value of 0.145 to convert to a wet weight basis. 

Tin 

The seawater to marine plant uptake factor for tin is 7,200 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is based on 

various studies reporting calculated uptake factor values (Seidel et al. 1980 as cited in ATSDR 2005; 

Gaudry et al. 2007). The value of 7,200 is the geometric mean (n = 2) wet weight uptake factor; values 

obtained from dry weight measurements (Gaudry et al. 2007) were multiplied by a dry fraction value of 

0.145 to convert to a wet weight basis. 

Vanadium 

The seawater to marine plant uptake factor for vanadium is 383 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is 

based on various studies reporting calculated uptake factor values (Hou and Yan 1998; Gaudry et al. 

2007). The value of 383 is the arithmetic mean (n = 4) wet weight uptake factor; as values were obtained 

from dry weight measurements these were multiplied by a dry fraction value of 0.145 to convert to a wet 

weight basis. 

Zinc 

The seawater to marine plant uptake factor for zinc is 2,220 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is based 

on various studies including studies reporting calculated uptake factor (Hou and Yan 1998; Sanchez- 

Rodriguez et al. 2001; Vasconcelos and Leal 2001; Conti and Cecchetti 2003; Gaudry et al. 2007), and 

one reporting concentrations of zinc in seawater and algae (Campanella et al. 2001) from which uptake 

factors were calculated, and a widely accepted compendium value (CSA 1987). The value of 2,220 is the 

geometric mean (n = 21) wet weight uptake factor; as values were obtained from dry weight 

measurements these were multiplied by a dry fraction value of 0.145, except for those obtained from 

Campanella et al. (2001), which were multiplied by reported dry fraction values of 0.186 and 0.278 to 

convert to a wet weight basis. 

Page H-14 2010




H.2.2 Marine Sediment to Benthic Invertebrates, UPMSBI 


Marine sediment to benthic invertebrate uptake factors (UPMSBI) for organic compounds (see Table H-4) 

were obtained from a BSAF equation derived by DiToro and McGrath (2000): 

BSAF = CL/CS,OC 

Where: CL = concentration of a chemical in the lipid of a benthic organism (mmol/kg lipid) 

CS,OC = concentration of the same chemical in the organic carbon fraction of the 

sediment (mmol/kg organic carbon) 

Using additional equations presented by DiToro and McGrath (2000), the equation can be simplified to: 

BSAF = 10 (-0.038 log(K ow )-0.00028) 

This equation yields theoretical BSAF values that range from 0.916 for a log KOW value of 1.0, to 0.592 

for a log KOW value of 6. BSAF can be normalized according to the organic carbon content of the marine 

sediment (foc) and lipid content of the invertebrates (flipid) by incorporating an adjustment factor (flipid/foc). 

The lipid fraction in invertebrates is set at 0.017, whereas the organic carbon fraction in marine sediment 

is set at 0.01. Also applied to Equation 5 was a metabolic factor (MF) between 0.01 (expected to be 

metabolized) and 1.0 (not expected to be metabolized), depending on the COPC and based on comparison 

to previously collected empirical data (JDAC 2002) to account for metabolism of organic COPC that 

are expected to be metabolized and a dry weight to wet weight conversion factor (0.24 based on 

Gewurtz et al. 2000). The final UPMSBI equation used in the Marine ERA model is: 

(-0.038 log(Kow)-0.00028) 

UPMSBI = MF x 0.24(flipid/foc) x 10 


Organic COPC 

COPC 

UPMSBI 

mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sed 

Reference 

BTEX 

Benzene 3.39E-03 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Ethylbenzene 3.11E-03 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Toluene 3.22E-03 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Xylenes 


3.08E-03 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Aromatics >C8-C10 1.49E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Aromatics >C10 - C12 1.46E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 


2010 Page H-15





Organic COPC (cont’d) 

COPC 

TPH - CCME CWS (cont’d) 

UPMSBI 


Reference 


Aromatics >C21- C32 2.52E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Aliphatics >C6 - C8 1.44E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 








Acenaphthene 2.90E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Acenaphthylene 2.87E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Anthracene 2.75E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Fluorene 2.82E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

1-Methylnaphthalene 2.91E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

2-Methylnaphthalene 2.91E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Naphthalene 3.05E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Phenanthrene 2.75E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Fluoranthene 



Benzo(a)anthracene 2.48E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.21E-01 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Benzo(e)pyrene 1.16E-01 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.39E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.15E-01 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.39E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Chrysene 2.48E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.15E-01 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.14E-01 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Pyrene 2.66E-02 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Page H-16 2010





Organic COPC (cont’d) 

COPC 


UPMSBI 


Reference 

2,4-dimethylphenol 3.33E-01 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

2,4-dinitrophenol 3.56E-01 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

Phenol 

VOCs 


1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 2.87E-01 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 3.02E-01 DiToro and McGrath (2000) 


Marine sediment to invertebrate uptake factors (UPMSBI) for inorganic COPC were derived from 

published literature sources. Preference was given to studies reporting measured uptake factors. For 

COPC with no published uptake factors, a value was derived using studies reporting concentrations in 

both sediment and marine invertebrates. Invertebrate concentrations are frequently reported in the 

literature on a dry weight basis. To determine wet weight uptake factors, the dry weight uptake factor was 

modified by multiplying by a dry weight fraction. Preference was given to dry fractions reported in 

literature sources reporting concentrations of COPC used in the BAF calculations. If this value was not 

available, it was selected from dry fraction values reported in the literature (Oshida and Word 1982; U.S. 

EPA 1993; Rahman et al. 1996; Lawson et al. 1998; Campanella et al. 2001; Topcuoglu et al. 2002; 

Hammerschmidt and Fitzgerald 2006) according to invertebrate species. 

The uptake factors used in the model were calculated as the arithmetic mean of literature acquired values 

when the range did not exceed one order of magnitude and as the geometric mean if the uptake factor 

values acquired varied by more than one order of magnitude. For the uptake factor values used, see 

Table H-5. A short description of the uptake factors values for each trace element is provided below. 

Barium 

The uptake factor for barium is 4.85E-02 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sediment. This value is based on 

two studies reporting concentrations of barium in sediment and invertebrates (JDAC 2002; Jacques 

Whitford 2008) from which wet weight uptake factors were calculated. The value of 4.85E-02 is the 

arithmetic mean (n = 4) wet weight uptake factors. 

Boron 

The uptake factor for boron is 3.39E-01 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sediment. This value is based on a 

study reporting concentrations of boron in sediment and invertebrates (Jacques Whitford 2008) from 

which wet weight uptake factors were calculated. The value of 3.39E-01 is the arithmetic mean (n = 3) 

wet weight uptake factor. 

2010 Page H-17




Table H-5 Summary of Marine Sediment to Benthic Invertebrate Uptake 

Factors for Trace Element COPC 

COPC 


UPMSBI 


Reference 

Barium 4.85E-02 JDAC (2002); Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Boron 3.39E-01 Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Cadmium 6.29E+01 Multiple References (see text) 

Manganese 1.11E-02 Multiple References (see text) 

Molybdenum 6.88E-01 Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Nickel 4.97E-02 Multiple References (see text) 

Tin 1.74E-02 Frithsen (1984); Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Vanadium 2.60E-02 Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Zinc 2.94E-01 Multiple References (see text) 

Cadmium 

The BAF for cadmium is 6.29E+01 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sediment. This value is based on several 

studies one reporting calculated uptake factors (Frithsen 1984), and studies reporting concentrations of 

cadmium in sediment and invertebrates (Phillips 1991; JDAC 2002; Topcuoglu et al. 2002; Jacques 

Whitford 2008) from which uptake factors were calculated. The value of 6.29E+01 is the arithmetic mean 

(n = 22) wet weight uptake factor; values obtained from dry weight measurements were multiplied by a 

dry fraction value corresponding to the invertebrate species considered. 

Manganese 

The uptake factor for manganese is 1.11E-02 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sediment. This value is based 

on several studies including one reporting calculated uptake factors (Frithsen 1984), and studies reporting 

concentrations of manganese in sediment and invertebrates (JDAC 2002; Topcuoglu et al. 2002; Beiras et 

al. 2003; Jacques Whitford 2008) from which uptake factors were calculated. The value of 1.11E-02 is the 

geometric mean (n = 21) wet weight uptake factor; values obtained from dry weight measurements were 

multiplied by a dry fraction value corresponding to the invertebrate species considered. 

Molybdenum 

The uptake factor for molybdenum is 6.88E-01 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sediment. This value is 

derived from a study that considered concentrations of molybdenum in sediment and invertebrates 

(Jacques Whitford 2008) from which uptake factors were calculated. The value of 6.88E-01 is the 

arithmetic mean (n = 2) wet weight uptake factor. 

Page H-18 2010




Nickel 

The uptake factor for nickel is 4.97E-02 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sediment. This value is based on 

several studies reporting concentrations of nickel in sediment and invertebrates (Phillips 1991; U.S. EPA 

2000; Topcuoglu et al. 2002; Beiras et al. 2003; Jacques Whitford 2008) from which UP were calculated. 

The value of 4.97E-02 is the arithmetic mean (n = 18) wet weight uptake factor; values obtained from dry 

weight measurements were multiplied by a dry fraction value corresponding to the invertebrate species 

considered. 

Tin 

The uptake factor for tin is 1.74E-02 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sediment. This value is based on two 

studies including one reporting calculated uptake factor (Frithsen 1984), and one reporting concentrations 

of tin in sediment and invertebrates (Jacques Whitford 2008) from which uptake factors were calculated. 

The value of 1.74E-02 is the arithmetic mean wet weight uptake factor calculated from recommended 

values for mussels (n = 1) and crustaceans (n = 4); values obtained from dry weight measurements were 

multiplied by a dry fraction value corresponding to the invertebrate species considered. 

Vanadium 

The uptake factor for vanadium is 2.60E-02 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sediment. This value is derived 

from a study which considered concentrations of vanadium in sediment and invertebrates (Jacques 

Whitford 2008) from which uptake factors were calculated. The value of 2.60E-02 is the arithmetic mean 

(n = 2) wet weight uptake factor. 

Zinc 

The uptake factor for zinc is 2.94E-01 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/kg-dry sediment. This value is based on 

several studies including one reporting calculated uptake factors (Frithsen 1984), and studies reporting 

concentrations of zinc in sediment and invertebrates (Phillips 1991; U.S. EPA 2000; JDAC 2002; Beiras 

et al. 2003; Jacques Whitford 2008) from which uptake factors were calculated. The value of 2.94E-01 is 

the geometric mean (n = 11) wet weight uptake factors; values obtained from dry weight measurements 

were multiplied by a dry fraction value corresponding to the invertebrate species considered. 

H.2.3 Seawater to Fish, UPMWF 


Marine water to fish uptake factors (UPMWF) for organic compounds (see Table H-6) are obtained from a 

BCF equation derived by Di Toro et al. (2000): 

BCF = CF/CW or, 

log(BCF) = logCF – logCW 

Where: CF = concentration of a chemical in fish (mg/kg wet weight) 

CW = concentration of the same chemical in water (mg/L) 

2010 Page H-19




Table H-6 Summary of Seawater to Fish Uptake Factors for Organic COPC 

BTEX 

COPC 

UPMWF 


Reference 

Benzene 6.31E-01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Ethylbenzene 6.31E+00 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Toluene 2.51E+00 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Xylenes 7.94E+00 Di Toro et al. (2000) 


Aromatics >C8-C10 1.94E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 





Aliphatics >C6-C8 4.87E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 




Aliphatics >C16-C21 Negligible toxicity or bioavailability CCME (2008) 

Aliphatics >C21-C34 Negligible toxicity or bioavailability CCME (2008) 


Acenaphthene 3.98E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Acenaphthylene 5.01E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Anthracene 1.58E+02 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Fluorene 7.94E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

1-Methylnaphthalene 3.72E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

2-Methylnaphthalene 3.63E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Naphthalene 1.00E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Phenanthrene 1.58E+02 Di Toro et al. (2000) 


Fluoranthene 5.01E+02 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Benzo(a)anthracene 2.51E+03 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Benzo(a)pyrene 5.01E+03 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Benzo(e)pyrene 1.38E+04 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6.67E+03 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.58E+04 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.31E+03 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Page H-20 2010




Table H- 6 Summary of Seawater to Fish Uptake Factors for Organic COPC 

(cont’d) 

COPC 

UPMWF 


Reference 

Chrysene 2.51E+03 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.58E+04 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.00E+04 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Pyrene 3.98E+02 Di Toro et al. (2000) 


2,4-dimethylphenol 5.00E-01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

2,4-dinitrophenol 8.69E-02 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Phenol 1.58E-01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

VOCs 

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 2.51E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

1.3.5-trimethylbenzene 1.32E+01 Di Toro et al. (2000) 

Using additional equations presented by Di Toro et al. (2000), the BCF can be linked to the Log KOW 

value, a fundamental property of individual organic compounds: 

BCF = 10 (log(Kow)-1.3) 

This equation yields theoretical BCF values that range from 0.501 for a log KOW value of 1.0, to 50,119 

for a log KOW value of 6. A MF between 0.05 (expected to be metabolized) and 1.0 (not expected to be 

metabolized) is also applied to account for metabolism of non-persistent organic COPC. This metabolic 

factor was determined based on comparison to previously collected empirical data (JDAC 2002). The 

final UPWF equation used in the model is: 


UPWF = MF x 10 (log(Kow)-1.3) 

Seawater to fish uptake factors (UPMWF) for trace elements assessed were derived from published 

literature sources. Preference was given to studies reporting actual measured uptake factors. For COPC 

with no published uptake factors, a value was derived using studies reporting concentrations in both 

seawater and marine fish. Fish concentrations are typically reported in the literature on a wet weight basis. 

If the fish concentrations were reported as dry weight basis, the wet weight uptake factor was determined 

by multiplying the dry weight uptake factor by a dry weight fraction. The dry weight fraction values were 

selected as 0.23 and 0.45 for fish muscle and liver respectively (Lee et al. 2000; Topcuoglu et al. 2002; 

Hammerschmidt and Fitzgerald 2006). 

2010 Page H-21




The uptake factors used in the model were calculated as the arithmetic mean of literature acquired values 

when the range did not exceed one order of magnitude and as the geometric mean if the uptake factor 

values acquired varied by more than one order of magnitude. For the uptake factors used in the model, 

see Table H-7. A short description of the uptake factor for each trace element is provided below. 

Table H-7 Summary of Seawater to Fish Uptake Factors for Trace Elements 

COPC 

COPC 

UPMWF 


Reference 

Barium 1.83E+01 CSA (1987); Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Boron 1.88E-01 Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Cadmium 3.89E+02 JDAC (2002); Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Manganese 2.74E+03 Multiple References (see text) 

Molybdenum 4.64E+00 Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Nickel 1.65E+03 Multiple References (see text) 

Tin 5.92E+03 Multiple References (see text) 

Vanadium 2.61E+02 Miramand et al. (1992); Jacques Whitford (2008) 

Zinc 2.00E+03 CSA (1987) 

Barium 

The uptake factor for barium is 1.83E+01 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is derived from a study 

reporting concentrations of barium in seawater and fish (Jacques Whitford 2008) from which an uptake 

factor was calculated, and a widely accepted compendium value (CSA 1987). The value of 1.83E+01 is 

the arithmetic mean (n = 2) wet weight BCF. 

Boron 

The uptake factor for boron is 1.88E-01 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is derived from a study 

reporting concentrations of boron in seawater and fish (Jacques Whitford 2008) from which an uptake 

factor was calculated. 

Cadmium 

The uptake factor for cadmium is 3.89E+02 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is derived from two 

studies reporting concentrations of cadmium in seawater and fish (JDAC 2002; Jacques Whitford 2008) 

from which uptake factors were calculated. The value of 3.89E+02 is the arithmetic mean (n = 2) wet 

weight uptake factor. 

Manganese 

The uptake factor for manganese is 2.74E+03 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is derived from 

concentrations of manganese in seawater and fish (Jacques Whitford 2008) and a second study reporting 

concentrations of manganese in seawater and fish (JDAC 2002) from which uptake factors were 

Page H-22 2010




calculated, as well as a widely accepted compendium value (CSA 1987). The value of 2.74E+03 is the 

arithmetic mean (n = 3) wet weight uptake factor. 

Molybdenum 

The uptake factor for molybdenum is 4.64E+00 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is derived from 

concentrations of molybdenum in seawater and fish (Jacques Whitford 2008) from which uptake factors 

were calculated. 

Nickel 

The uptake factor for nickel is 1.65E+03 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is derived from two studies 

reporting concentrations of nickel in seawater and fish (JDAC 2002; Jacques Whitford 2008), as well as a 

compendium value (IAEA 1985 as cited in Kumblad et al. 2006). The value of 1.65E+03 is the arithmetic 

mean (n = 3) wet weight uptake factor. 

Tin 

The uptake factor for tin is 5.92E+03 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is derived from a study reporting 

calculated uptake factors (Eisler 1989), as well as a compendium value (IAEA 1985 as cited in Kumblad 

et al. 2006). The value of 5.92E+03 is the geometric mean (n = 3) wet weight uptake factor. 

Vanadium 

The uptake factor for vanadium is 2.61E+02 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is derived from 

concentrations of vanadium in seawater and fish (Jacques Whitford 2008) from which uptake factors were 

calculated, as well as one study reporting calculated UP (Miramand et al. 1992). The value of 2.61E+02 is 

the arithmetic mean (n = 2) wet weight uptake factor. 

Zinc 

The uptake factor for zinc is 2.00E+03 mg/kg-wet tissue/mg/L. This value is a widely accepted 

compendium value (CSA 1987). 

H.3 References 

H.3.1 Literature Cited 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2005. Toxicological Profile for Tin and 

Tin Compounds. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health 

Services. Atlanta, GA. 

Beiras, R., J. Bellas, N. Fernandez, J.I. Lorenzo and A. Cobelo-Garcia. 2003. Assessment of coastal 

marine pollution in Galicia (NW Iberian Peninsula); metal concentrations in seawater, sediments 

and mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) versus embryo-larval bioassays using Paracentrotus 

lividus and Ciona intestinalis. Marine Environmental Research 56: 531-553. 

2010 Page H-23




Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 1987. Guidelines for Calculating Derived Release Limits for 

Radioactive Material in Airborne and Liquid Effluents for Normal Operation of Nuclear 

Facilities. Report No. CAN/CSA-N288.1-M87. 

Campanella, L., M.E. Conti, F. Cubadda and C. Sucapane. 2001. Trace metals in seagrass, algae and 

mollusks from an uncontaminated area in the Mediterranean. Environmental Pollution 111: 

117-126. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008. Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil: Scientific Rationale Supporting Technical Document. PN 1399. 

Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 1987. Guidelines for calculating derived release limits for 

radioactive material in airborne and liquid effluents for normal operation of nuclear facilities. 

CAN/CSA-N288.1-M87. 

Conti, M.E. and G. Cecchetti. 2003. A biomonitoring study: trace metals in algae and molluscs from 

Tyrrhenian coastal areas. Environmental Research 93: 99-112. 


polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon criteria. I. Water and Tissue. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 19: 1951-1970. 


hydrocarbon criteria. II. Mixtures and Sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19: 

1971-1982. 

Eisler, R. 1989. Tin Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.15), Laurel, MD. 

EpiSuite. 2007. Estimation Programs Interface Suite for Microsoft ® Windows. Version 3.20. United 

States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 

Frithsen, J.B. 1984. Metal incorporation by benthic fauna: relationships to sediment inventory. Estuarine, 

Coastal and Shelf Science 19: 523-539. 

Gaudry, A., S. Zeroual, F. Gaie-Levrel, M. Moskura, F.-Z. Boujrhal, R. Cherkaoui El Moursli, A. 

Guessous, A. Mouradi, T. Givernaud and R. Delmas. 2007. Heavy metals pollution of the 

Atlantic marine environment by the Moroccan phosphate industry, as observed through their 

bioaccumulation in Ulva lactuca. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 178: 267-285. 

Gewurtz, S.B., R. Lazar and G.D. Haffner. 2000. Comparison of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and 

polychlorinated biphenyl dynamics in benthic invertebrates of Lake Erie, USA. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 19: 2943-2950. 

Gustafson, J.B., J. Griffith Tell and D. Orem. 1997. Selection of Representative TPH Fractions Based on 

Fate and Transport Considerations. TPHCWG Series, Volume 3. 

Hammerschmidt, C.R. and W.F. Fitzgerald. 2006. Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of 

methylmercury in Long Island Sound. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 

51: 416-424. 

Page H-24 2010




Hou, X. and X. Yan. 1998. Study on the concentration and seasonal variation of inorganic elements in 35 

species of marine algae. The Science of the Total Environment 222: 141-156. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1985. Sediment Kds and Concentration Factors for 

Radionuclides in the Marine Environment. Vienna, Austria. Cited in Kumblad, L., U. Kautsky 

and B. Næslund. 2006. Transport and Fate of Radionuclides in Aquatic Environments – the Use 

of Ecosystem Modeling for Exposure Assessments of Nuclear Facilities. Journal of 

Environmental Radioactivity 87: 107-129. 

Jacques Whitford Limited. 2008. Marine Biophysical Environment Technical Study: Project Eider Rock – 

Proposed Petroleum Refinery and Marine Terminal in Saint John New Brunswick. Prepared for 

Irving Oil Company, Limited. Saint John, NB. 

JDAC Environment (JDAC ). 2002. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, North and South 

Ponds. Phase II/III Environmental Site Assessment, Muggah Creek Watershed. Report to Nova 

Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works. 

Kumblad, L., U. Kautsky and B. Næslund. 2006. Transport and Fate of Radionuclides in Aquatic 

Environmnents – the Use of Ecosystem Modeling for Exposure Assessments of Nuclear 

Facilities. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 87: 107-129. 

Lawson, J.W., A.M. Magalhães. and E.H. Miller. 1998. Important prey species of marine vertebrate 

predators in the northwest Atlantic: proximate composition and energy density. Marine 

Ecological Progress Series 164: 13-20. 

Lee, D.-C., C.-J. Park., J.-E. Yang, Y.-H. Jeong and H.-I. Rhee. 2000. Screening of hexavalent chromium 

biosorbent from marine algae. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 54: 597-600. 

Mackay, D., W.Y. Shiu and K.-C. Ma. 2000. Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate 


Marsham, S., G.W. Scott and M.L. Tobin. 2007. Comparison of nutritive chemistry of a range of 

temperate seaweeds. Food Chemistry 100: 1331-1336. 

Miramand, P., S.W. Fowler and J.C. Guary. 1992. Experimental study on vanadium transfer in the 

benthic fish Gobius minutes. Marine Biology 114: 349-353. 

Oshida, P.S. and L.S. Word. 1982. Bioaccumulation of chromium and its effects on reproduction in 

Neanthes arenaceodentata (Polychaeta). Marine Environmental Research 7: 167-174. 

Phillips, D.J.H. 1991. Heavy metals in sediments and shellfish from Cork Harbour, Ireland. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 22(9): 467-469. 

Rahman, M.S., C.O. Perera, X.D. Chen, R.H. Driscoll and P.L. Potluri. 1996. Density, shrinkage and 

porosity of Calamari mantle meat during air drying in a cabinet dryer as a function of water 

content. Journal of Food Engineering 30: 135-145. 

2010 Page H-25




Sanchez-Rodriguez, I., M.A. Huerta-Diaz, E. Choumiline, O. Holguin-Quinones and J.A. Zertuche- 

Gonzalez. 2001. Elemental concentrations in different species of seaweeds from Loreto Bay, Baja 

California Sur, Mexico: implications for the geochemical control of metals in algal tissue. 

Environmental Pollution 114: 145-160. 

Seidel, S.L., V.F. Hodge and E.D. Goldberg. 1980. Tin as an environmental pollutant. Thalassia 

jugoslavica 16 : 209-223. Cited in Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 

2005. Toxicological Profile for Tin and Tin Compounds. United States Department of Health and 

Human Services. Public Health Services. Atlanta, GA. 

Topcuoglu, S., Ç. Kirbasoglu and N. Güngör. 2002. Heavy metals in organisms and sediments from 

Turkish Coast of the Black Sea, 1997-1999. Environment International 27: 521-526. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. 

Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. 

Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-93/187. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1999. Screening Level Ecological Risk 

Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Bioaccumulation Testing and 

Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality Assessment: Status and Needs. 

Bioaccumulation Analysis Workgroup. Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment 

Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (HHRAP), Final. Washington, DC. 

EPA530-R-05-006. 

Vanier, C., D. Planas and M. Sylvestre. 1999. Empirical relationships between polychlorinated biphenyls 

in sediments and submerged rooted macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 56: 1792-1800. 

Vanier, C. and D. Planas. 2001. Equilibrium partition theory applied to PCBs in macrophytes. 

Environmental Science and Technology 35: 4830-4833. 

Vasconcelos, M.T.S.D. and M.F.C. Leal. 2001. Seasonal variability in the kinetics of Cu, Pb, Cd and Hg 

accumulation by macroalgae. Marine Chemistry 74: 65-85. 

Page H-26 2010



Appendix I: Marine Ecological Risk Assessment Toxicity Reference Values (TRV) 

Effect Magnitude Benchmark Values 

Appendix I Marine Ecological Risk Assessment 

Toxicity Reference Values (TRV) and 


2010 Page I-1



Appendix I: Marine Ecological Risk Assessment Toxicity Reference Values (TRV) and 



Appendix I Marine Ecological Risk Assessment Toxicity Reference Values 

(TRV) and Effect Magnitude Benchmark Values ..................................... I-1 

I.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... I-5 

I.2 Uncertainty Factors ............................................................................................. I-5 

I.2.1 Uncertainty Factors for Exposure Duration .................................................... I-6 

I.2.2 Uncertainty Factors for Toxicity Endpoint ....................................................... I-6 

I.2.3 Uncertainty Factors for Body Mass ................................................................ I-8 

I.2.4 Uncertainty Factors for Individual Risk ........................................................... I-9 

I.3 Oral Reference Dose Values ............................................................................... I-9 

I.3.1 Confidence in Reference Dose Values ........................................................... I-9 

I.3.2 Reference Dose For Trace Elements ........................................................... I-10 

I.3.3 Reference Dose for BTEX Compounds ........................................................ I-16 

I.3.4 Reference Dose for TPH Compounds .......................................................... I-18 

I.3.5 Reference Dose For Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons .............................. I-28 

I.3.6 Reference Dose For Other Organic Compounds ......................................... I-30 

I.4 Environmental Effect Magnitude ........................................................................ I-33 

I.4.1 Review of National Water-Quality Guidelines and Selection of 

Benchmarks .................................................................................................. I-34 

I.4.2 Evaluation of National Guidelines and Methodologies ................................. I-41 

I.4.3 Review of National Sediment Quality Guidelines and Selection of 

Benchmarks .................................................................................................. I-47 

I.5 References ........................................................................................................ I-57 

I.5.1 Literature Cited ............................................................................................. I-57 

I.5.2 Internet Sites ................................................................................................. I-65 


Table I-1 Breakdown of TPH Compounds Followed in the ERA Model ................ I-19 

Table I-2 Toxicity Thresholds for TPH Compounds .............................................. I-21 



Table I-5 CWS Tier 1 2008 Updated Soil Quality Guidelines ................................ I-25 

Table I-6 Summary of LOAEL-Based Mammalian Reference Dose Values for 

TPH Fractions and Products .................................................................. I-26 

Table I-7 Mammalian Reference Dose Values for Petroleum Hydrocarbons ........ I-26 

Table I-8 Avian Reference Dose Values for Petroleum Hydrocarbons ................. I-28 

Table I-9 Chemical-Class Correction Factors and Critical Tissue 

Concentrations for Aquatic Biota ........................................................... I-40 

Table I-10 Marine Water Effect Magnitude Benchmarks ........................................ I-43 

Table I-11 Marine Sediment Effect Magnitude Benchmarks ................................... I-51 

2010 Page I-3






Figure I-1 Tiered Approach for the Application of Uncertainty Factors in ERA ......... I-7 

Figure I-2 Conceptual Model of Environmental Effect Magnitude ........................... I-33 

Page I-4 2010





I.1 Introduction 

This document outlines the methods used to determine oral toxicity reference values (TRV) for mammals 

and birds and water and sediment toxicity benchmarks for aquatic plants, invertebrates and fish. Oral 

reference doses, the basis for TRV derivation, and toxicity benchmarks were obtained from toxicological 

studies found in the primary scientific literature and published government documents (e.g., Ontario 

Ministry of the Environment (OMOE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

(ORNL)). The TRV data are used as benchmark against which toxicological effects of chemicals of 

potential concern (COPC) can be judged. No preference was given to any single source of data; rather, 

sources and studies were evaluated for reliability (i.e., scientific confidence) and suitability for the ERA 

through scientific scrutiny and professional judgment. 

I.2 Uncertainty Factors 

The preferred toxicological database that would support a TRV for a KI should include chronic or multigenerational 

exposure studies of relevant test species (e.g., the KI of interest or a phylogenetically similar 

species) to appropriate chemical forms of the COPC of interest. One or more relevant biological 

endpoints such as growth, reproductive effects, or survival should be evaluated. Databases that meet these 

requirements are available for some chemicals, but in most cases toxicity of COPC to wildlife is generally 

based on dose-response studies conducted using laboratory animals such as mice, rats, chickens and ducks 

where acute (e.g., LD50, LC50) and chronic (e.g., NOAEL, LOEAL) toxicity endpoints are measured. In 

ecological risk assessments, it is wildlife species (rather than laboratory animals) that are evaluated for 

exposure to chemicals. Because it is impractical to evaluate the toxicity of all possible COPC in the 

environment to all possible wildlife species, it is standard practice, and a fundamental step in the ERA 

process, to apply uncertainty factors (UF; also known as safety factors) to laboratory-generated 

toxicological data to make them applicable to other mammalian and avian wildlife species. 

In the toxicological literature, UF are often applied as factors of 10; however, there is no well-defined 

scientific basis for this practice. As applied in human toxicology, UF can build upon each other to levels 

that would be unreasonable for ERA. For example, the U.S. EPA (1994a) uses a modification of 

guidelines for human toxicology proposed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS 1977; 1980) as 

follows: 

• use 10X when extrapolating from studies using healthy humans, to account for variation in sensitivity 

among members of the human population 

• use an additional 10X when extrapolating from long-term animal studies to humans 

• use an additional 10X when extrapolating from less than chronic studies on animals (less than chronic 

no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) to chronic NOAEL) 

• use an additional 10X when deriving a reference dose from a lowest observed adverse effect level 

(LOAEL) instead of a NOAEL, to account for the extrapolating uncertainty 

• use professional judgment to determine another uncertainty factor between 0 and 10, depending upon 

the overall scientific uncertainty of the study 

2010 Page I-5





Therefore, UF in human toxicology can range up to 10 5 . More recent documentation relevant to ERA 

practice (U.S. EPA 2002a) recommends that UF should range between 1 and 10, with “preferred” values 

of 1, 3 or 10 (the number 3 is identified as approximating half an order of magnitude on a log scale). 

In ERA, toxicological extrapolations can include those between species, those that address the difference 

between short-term studies and chronic exposures, those related to the selection of toxicological 

endpoints, along with other factors that may need to be addressed based upon the professional judgment 

of the practitioner. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME 1997) speaks to the 

important role of professional judgment in ERA. 

The use of chronic LOAEL data derived from studies that determine reproductive, survival, or growth 

endpoints was chosen as the basis for predicting KI population-level responses to COPC. The LOAELbased 

benchmark represents a threshold level at which adverse effects are likely to become evident 

(Sample et al. 1996). The use of the LOAEL is appropriate since a TRV based on the LOAEL is used as 

the denominator in the hazard quotient (HQ) calculation, and HQ values equal to or greater than is 

considered indicative of potential adverse effects. In cases where no chronic LOAEL value is available, a 

NOAEL toxicity value may be selected, or UF may be applied to other existing exposure and 

toxicological data using a tiered process to derive suitable ecological TRV (Figure I-1). When TRV are 

based on U.S. EPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (EcoSSL), NOAEL are often the selected endpoint, 

but this selection can vary depending on the chemical (Section 4.0). 

The UF scheme outlined in Figure I-1 is based on guidance provided by Ohio EPA (2003), U.S. EPA 

(2002a) and Sample and Arenal (1999). 

I.2.1 Uncertainty Factors for Exposure Duration 

In cases where a search of scientific data indicates a lack of chronic studies for any particular COPC, UF 

may be applied to adjust toxicity data to a chronic exposure basis. Acute studies are of short duration, 

generally less than one week. Subchronic exposures are of longer duration (generally less than 90 days) 

but may be considered equivalent to a chronic study if a critical life stage (such as the gestational period) 

is included. Chronic exposures would generally be greater than 90 days, exceeding 50% of the animal’s 

lifespan or including a reproductive period. An UF of 3.0 (half an order of magnitude on a log scale) is 

used to adjust from subchronic to chronic, and an UF of 10.0 is used to adjust from acute to chronic. It 

should be noted that preference is given to longer duration exposure studies in cases where published data 

are available; acute data are used otherwise. 

I.2.2 Uncertainty Factors for Toxicity Endpoint 

When a search of scientific data indicates the absence of reproductive or other performance-based toxicity 

endpoints indicating a potential for adverse effects at the population level, other less sensitive toxicity 

endpoints may be considered. Where only a lethal dose (LD50) is available, an UF of 10.0 (an order of 

magnitude) is applied to estimate a LOAEL from LD50 data. Preference is always given to sub-lethal data, 

and lethal data are used otherwise. 

Page I-6 2010





NOTES: 

* A NOAEL can be used if no appropriate LOAEL is available, but the resultant RfD should be considered more 

conservative than if it was derived using the LOAEL. Refer to document text for details. 

** No inter-class UF is used to derive TRV (i.e., mammalian data are not used as the basis to derive avian TRV). 

*** An UF of 3.0 is not required if the RfD for an endangered species is based on a NOAEL. Refer to document text 

for details. 

Figure I-1 Tiered Approach for the Application of Uncertainty Factors in 

ERA 

2010 Page I-7





NOAEL values were not adjusted upwards to estimate LOAEL values. Where the only chronic endpoint 

available is a NOAEL, it is used directly and reported as such in the discussion of uncertainties. Hazard 

quotient values based on the NOAEL may be permitted to slightly exceed a value of 1.0 because the 

NOAEL does not signify toxicological effects. 

I.2.3 Uncertainty Factors for Body Mass 

Laboratory data used to develop TRV for wildlife species are often modified to account for taxonomic 

(e.g., genus, family, order) or body mass differences between the test species and the wildlife species. 

Such modifications typically involve the application of UF of values 1.0, 3.0 or 10.0 (U.S. EPA 1995; 

Duke and Taggart 2000; Ohio EPA 2003). Aside from the use of UF, a number of other methods have 

been used to extrapolate toxicity data (both acute and chronic) between species with different body 

masses. The application of acute-based extrapolation factors (derived using LD50, HD5 and standard 

deviation) to reproductive toxicity data (Luttik et al. 2005), interspecies correlation estimation (ICE) 

models (Raimondo et al. 2007) and allometric scaling (Travis and White 1988; Chappell 1992; Mineau 

et al. 1996; Sample and Arenal 1999) have all been used. These methods are not exclusive of one another 

and combinations of methods can be applied. Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages, 

and none is ideal. For example, uncertainty factors between 1 and 10 are often arbitrarily assigned with no 

scientific basis; extrapolation factors require large statistical data sets; ICE models are restrained by 

limited chronic wildlife data; and there is incomplete chemical-specific data to support scaling factors for 

allometric relationships, especially for chemicals with daughter compounds that may be more toxic than 

the parent (Chappell 1992). Ultimately, the choice in method for use in ERA comes to scientific 

defensibility, practicality, and professional judgment. 

The rationale to apply allometric scaling to toxicity is that numerous physiological processes directly 

associated with metabolism (e.g., uptake, distribution and biotransformation) follow a predictable 

relationship with body mass (Travis and White 1988; Chappell 1992; Mineau et al. 1996; Sample and 

Arenal 1999). The slope of the line linking chemical toxicity to body mass is equivocal, and 

extrapolations based on body mass raised to the power of values between 0.6 and 1.5 have all been 

suggested for use in toxicity scaling among species with different mass (Davidson et al. 1986; Travis and 

White 1988; Chappell 1992; Mineau et al. 1996; Sample et al. 1996; Sample and Arenal 1999). There are 

undoubtedly circumstances where individual species sensitivity to toxicants will vary in ways that run 

counter to a generalized allometric model. Data from numerous sources support an allometric exponent 

for mammals that lies between 0.60 and 0.80 (Chappell 1992); however, the data underlying this 

relationship are mainly derived from acute exposure studies. 

Unlike the case for mammals, only one study has explicitly evaluated scaling factors in avian toxicity 

(Mineau et al. 1996). The “Mineau scaling factor” (U.S. EPA 2005a) of 1.15 has been applied by U.S. 

EPA in their T-REX model, and by Sample et al. (1996) for the assessment of interspecies avian acute 

toxicity. Mineau et al. (1996) cautioned against applying acute scaling factors to chronic toxicity. 

However, both the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada use this scaling factor with acute and chronic data 

(U.S. EPA 2005a; Canada Gazette 2008). Based on the Kleiber Power Law (Kleiber 1932) and given that 

bird species with a wide range of body weights were used to derive this factor (along with various 

mammals), there is no apparent reason to exclude birds from body mass scaling with an exponent of 0.75. 

Page I-8 2010





Based on the evidence supporting an allometric scaling relationship of body mass raised to 0.75, toxicity 

reference values (TRV) for mammalian and avian wildlife resources are estimated from laboratory data 

generated with species of different body weight (BW) using the following equation: 

(1 - 0.75) 

TRVKI = TRVtest species x (BWtest species / BWKI) 

I.2.4 Uncertainty Factors for Individual Risk 

The focus of an ecological risk assessment is normally to provide protection for wildlife at the population 

level. This focus differs from human toxicology and human health risk assessment, where protection of 

individuals is of paramount concern. However, an exception, which has regulatory force through federal 

legislation such as the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and equivalent legislation in most provinces, occurs 

when species that are formally protected are evaluated. In order to afford endangered species an 

appropriate level of protection in ERA, TRV were based on either NOAEL, or LOAEL divided by an UF 

of 3.0. This is value is based on professional judgment and is expected to be protective yet realistic. These 

two approaches are considered to be equivalent and are intended to protect endangered wildlife resources 

from exposure to doses of COPC that would cause an adverse effect at the individual level. 

I.3 Oral Reference Dose Values 

The following sections present the reference doses (expressed as milligrams COPC ingested, per kilogram 

body weight, each day, or mg/kg/d) selected for use in the ERA model for each COPC for mammalian 

and avian KI. For each reference dose, the supporting studies are discussed, a level of confidence in the 

reference dose is assigned, and, where appropriate, the promulgating agency is identified. 

I.3.1 Confidence in Reference Dose Values 

Depending upon the number of studies reviewed, the test species evaluated, and the toxicity endpoints 

reported, the scientific confidence in each reference dose value identified is ranked as being high, medium 

or low. High confidence exists where the reference dose is based upon a large number of scientific 

studies, with several test species, and with chronic toxicity data that represent growth, reproductive, or 

survival endpoints. In general, these reference dose values would include datasets such as those reported 

by the U.S. EPA in the EcoSSL series of reports. High confidence is also assigned to reference dose 

values that have gained general acceptance in the risk assessment community over a number of years, 

such as those presented in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) series of reports. A medium level 

of confidence would generally be assigned to reference dose values that are based on three or more 

studies, although the reported exposures may not have all been of chronic duration, exposure routes may 

not have been via food ingestion, or the toxicity endpoints may not have been optimal. A low level of 

confidence would be assigned to reference dose values that are based on fewer than three studies, studies 

of short duration, or studies that report relatively insensitive toxicological endpoints. A higher overall UF 

is applied to such studies in order to estimate the reference dose value. 

2010 Page I-9





I.3.2 Reference Dose For Trace Element 

I.3.2.1 Barium 

The U.S. EPA has recently conducted an in-depth review of the toxicological literature pertaining to the 

risk effects of barium on birds and mammals (U.S. EPA 2005b). Of 837 studies examined, ten studies met 

rigorous screening criteria and addressed risk effects on mammals, and one addressed risk effects on 

birds. 

Mammals 

The Marine ERA model uses the same TRV as the U.S. EPA (2005b) uses for deriving an EcoSSL that is 

protective of barium risk effects on mammals. Using the ten studies addressing risk effects on mammals, 

the U.S. EPA (2005b) applies the geometric mean of NOAEL from studies that monitored growth or 

reproductive endpoints as the EcoSSL TRV. This value (51.8 mg/kg/d) is lower than any bounded 

LOAEL for studies monitoring growth, reproductive, or survival endpoints. The chemical form of barium 

administered, however, is typically barium chloride or barium acetate, which would be considerably more 

bioavailable than most forms of barium found in the environment (some forms of barium, such as barium 

sulphate, have very low bioavailability when orally administered). The toxicological literature from which 

this geometric mean was calculated contained studies using various exposure durations (i.e., subchronic 

and chronic) and was therefore considered conservatively representative of chronic exposure without the 

application of uncertainty factors. Either rats or mice were the test subjects in each toxicological study 

considered for this geometric mean value. Therefore, body- weight-based scaling factors are not applied 

since this dose is considered representative of small mammals and conservative for larger mammals. This 

reference dose is assigned a high level of confidence, although it may be highly conservative for some 

forms of barium commonly found in the environment. 

Birds 

The U.S. EPA review and evaluation of primary toxicological literature pertaining to exposure of barium 

to birds identified only one study considered appropriate for the derivation of an avian EcoSSL (U.S. 

EPA 2005b). An avian TRV was not established because the U.S. EPA requires at least three studies from 

two species as a minimum for deriving EcoSSL values. The literature review for EcoSSL TRV is 

typically very thorough and the results generally provide a good representation of current toxicological 

knowledge for the chemical being reviewed. Sample et al. (1996) provide the results of one toxicological 

study addressing the risk effects of barium on birds. This study, by Johnson et al. (1960), was also 

identified by the U.S. EPA in the EcoSSL avian toxicity review for barium (U.S. EPA 2005b). Johnson et 

al. (1960) provided barium to one-day-old chicks as barium hydroxide. Chicks were provided barium in 

the diet for four weeks (subchronic duration) at eight dose levels (doses successively doubled from 250 to 

32,000 ppm). Based on observations of mortality (5%), 4,000 ppm was considered the subchronic 

LOAEL for this study. Based on both the estimated food consumption for two-week-old chicks (U.S. 

EPA 1988 as cited in Sample et al. 1996) and the mean body weight for chicks in the study (at day 14), 

this dose corresponds to a subchronic LOAEL of 416.53 mg/kg/d. This value is used in the Marine ERA 

model as the reference dose for TRV determination. Because of the paucity of toxicological information 

Page I-10 2010





about the risk effects of barium on birds, a comparison of interspecies sensitivity differences or additional 

endpoints was not possible. Consequently, this reference dose is assigned a low level of confidence. 

I.3.2.2 Boron 

Mammals 

The boron TRV selected for the Marine ERA model for mammals is based on the chronic LOAEL 

determined from studies performed by Weir and Fisher (1972), as cited in Sample et al. (1996). The study 

was based on oral exposure of rats to boric acid or borax in food. The study endpoint was reproductive. 

Rats exposed to doses of 1,170 ppm boron as boric acid or borax became sterile; however, no adverse 

effects were observed at doses of 117 or 350 ppm. Because the study duration extended over three 

generations and incorporated all life stages, the 1,170 ppm dose (93.6 mg/kg/d) was considered to be a 

chronic LOAEL, while 350 ppm (28 mg/kg/d) was considered a chronic NOAEL. The LOAEL of 

93.6 mg/kg/d is selected for use as the daily dose for mammal species for this model. 

Birds 

The boron TRV selected for the Marine ERA model for bird species is based on the chronic LOAEL 

determined from studies performed by Smith and Anders (1989), as cited in Sample et al. (1996). The 

study was based on oral exposure of mallard ducks to boric acid in their diet. The study endpoint was 

reproductive. Ducks exposed to doses of 1,000 ppm boric acid exhibited reduced egg fertility and 

duckling growth, increased duckling mortality and embryo mortality; however, no adverse reproductive 

effects were observed at lower dose levels. Because the study considered exposure throughout 

reproduction, the 1,000 ppm boron dose (100 mg/kg/d) was considered to be a chronic LOAEL, while 

288 ppm boron (28.8 mg/kg/d) was considered a chronic NOAEL. The LOAEL of 100 mg/kg/d is 

selected for the daily dose for bird species in the Marine ERA model. 

I.3.2.3 Cadmium 

The U.S. EPA has conducted an in-depth review of the toxicological literature pertaining to the risk 

effects of cadmium on birds and mammals (U.S. EPA 2005c). Of 1,953 studies examined through a 

rigorous screening procedure, 145 studies addressed risk effects on mammals, and 35 addressed risk 

effects on birds. These studies were considered in the selection of a TRV for cadmium. 

Mammals 

The U.S. EPA (2005c) uses a NOAEL value corresponding to the study with the lowest LOAEL of 

studies reporting values based on reproduction, growth, or survival endpoints as the EcoSSL TRV. Only 

studies presenting both a NOAEL and LOAEL value are considered for this selection. The Marine ERA 

model is based on LOAEL values when toxicological data permit. Therefore, the lowest LOAEL from 

these studies is selected as the reference value for TRV determination in the Marine ERA model. This 

value (1.0 mg/kg/d) was derived from a study by Merali and Singhal (1980) in which rats were exposed to 

cadmium (as cadmium chloride) via oral gavage at doses of 0, 0.1, or 1.0 mg/kg/d for 7 days. Adverse 

effects on growth (i.e., body weight) were first observed at the 1.0 mg/kg/d dose rate. The toxicological 

2010 Page I-11





literature from which this LOAEL was selected contained studies using several types of test animals (e.g., 

mouse, rat, dog, sheep) and different exposure durations (i.e., acute, subchronic, chronic); therefore, this 

LOAEL value has a high level of confidence and can be used for a variety of mammal species without 

additional uncertainty factors being applied. 

Birds 

The U.S. EPA (2005c) uses the geometric mean of NOAEL values from studies that monitored growth 

and reproductive endpoints. This value (1.47 mg/kg/d) is lower than any of the reported LOAEL for these 

endpoints and mortality and is used for TRV determination in the Marine ERA model. The test animals in 

the studies used towards calculation of the geometric mean included chicken, mallard, quail, and wood 

duck. The LOAEL carries a high level of confidence. 

I.3.2.4 Manganese 


risk effects of manganese on birds and mammals (U.S. EPA 2007a). Of 3,618 studies examined through a 

rigorous screening procedure, 58 studies addressed risk effects on mammals, and 21 addressed risk effects 

on birds. These studies were considered in the selection of a TRV for manganese. 

Mammals 

The Marine ERA model uses the same TRV as the U.S. EPA for deriving an EcoSSL that is protective of 

manganese risk effects on mammals. Using the 58 studies addressing risk effects on mammals, the 

U.S. EPA (2007a) applied the geometric mean of NOAEL from studies that monitored growth or 

reproductive endpoints as the EcoSSL TRV. This value (51.5 mg/kg/d) is lower than any bounded 

LOAEL for studies monitoring growth, reproductive, or survival endpoints (bounded LOAEL refers to a 

LOAEL from a study that reports both a NOAEL and LOAEL value). The collection of toxicological 

literature from which this geometric mean was calculated contained studies using several types of test 

animals (e.g., rat, pig, mouse, cattle and sheep), and exposure durations (i.e., acute, subchronic, and 

chronic); therefore, this NOAEL value can be used for a variety of mammal species without additional 

uncertainty factors being applied. This reference dose is assigned a high level of confidence. 

Birds 

Using the 21 studies addressing risk effects on birds, the U.S. EPA (2007a) applied the geometric mean of 

NOAEL from studies that monitored growth or reproductive endpoints as the EcoSSL TRV. This value 

(179 mg/kg/d) is lower than any LOAEL for studies monitoring growth, reproductive, or survival 

endpoints in the U.S. EPA database, and is used as the TRV for risk effects of manganese on bird species 

in the Marine ERA model. The collection of toxicological literature from which this geometric mean was 

calculated contained studies using large bird species as test animals (i.e., mallard, chicken, and Japanese 

quail) and primarily examined acute or subchronic exposures; however, it also included several of 

reproductive endpoints that had higher NOAEL values than the geometric mean NOAEL value. 

Therefore, the geometric mean NOAEL value can be used as the reference dose for a variety of avian 

Page I-12 2010





species without additional uncertainty factors being applied. This reference dose is assigned a high level 

of confidence. 

I.3.2.5 Molybdenum 

Mammals 

The molybdenum reference dose selected for mammal species is based on the chronic LOAEL 

determined from studies performed by Schroeder and Mitchener (1971), as cited in Sample et al. (1996). 

The study was based on oral exposure of mice to molybdate (MoO4) in the diet and drinking water. The 

study endpoint was reproductive. Mice were exposed to molybdenum at 10 mg/L in drinking water and 

0.45 mg/kg in diet over a period of 3 generations. A reduction in reproductive success and a high 

incidence of runts were observed from molybdenum-exposed mice. This dose corresponds to a daily dose 

rate of 2.60 mg/kg/d based on estimated body weight and measured food and water ingestion rates and is 

selected for use as the reference dose for mammalian species in the Marine ERA model. This reference 

dose is assigned a medium level of confidence. 

Birds 

The molybdenum reference dose selected for the Marine ERA model for avian species is based on a 

LOAEL determined from studies performed by Lepore and Miller (1965), as cited in Sample et al. (1996). 

The study was based on exposure of chickens to molybdenum in the diet. The study endpoint was 

reproductive. Chickens were exposed to molybdenum as sodium molybdate at concentrations of 500, 

1,000, or 2,000 ppm molybdenum in diet over a period of 21 days. Adverse reproductive effects (reduced 

embryonic viability) were observed at all concentrations tested. Therefore, the lowest concentration 

(500 ppm) is considered the LOAEL. The LOAEL diet was converted to a daily dose rate of 35.3 mg/kg/d 

based on estimated body weight and food ingestion rate and is selected for use as the reference dose for 

avian species in the Marine ERA model. Although exposure in this study was less than 90 days in 

duration (i.e., subchronic), it is considered chronic because it was administered during a critical lifestage 

(i.e., gestation). This reference dose is assigned a medium level of confidence. 

I.3.2.6 Nickel 


risk effects of nickel on birds and mammals (U.S. EPA 2007b). Of 1,169 studies examined through a 


on birds. These studies were considered in the selection of a TRV for nickel. 

Mammals 

The lowest LOAEL from these studies is selected as the reference value for TRV determination in the 

Marine ERA model. This value (2.71 mg/kg/d) was derived from a study by Pandey and Srivastava 

(2000), in which mice were exposed to nickel (as nickel sulfate) via oral gavage at dose rates of 0, 3.57, 

7.14 and 14.29 mg/kg/d for 7 weeks (5 days/week). Adverse effects on reproduction (reduced sperm cell 

count) were first observed at 14.29 mg/kg/d. The equivalent dose, adjusted to 7 days/week is 

2010 Page I-13





10.2 mg/kg/d, and is used as the reference dose for TRV determination in the Marine ERA model. The 

collection of toxicological literature from which this LOAEL was selected contained studies using several 

types of test animals (e.g., mouse, rat, meadow vole, cattle) and exposure durations (i.e., acute, 

subchronic, chronic); therefore, this LOAEL value can be used for a variety of mammal species without 

additional uncertainty factors being applied. This reference dose is assigned a high level of confidence. 

Birds 

The Marine ERA model uses the same TRV as the U.S. EPA for deriving an EcoSSL that is protective of 

nickel risk effects on birds. Using the 11 studies addressing risk effects on birds, the U.S. EPA (2007b) 

applies the geometric mean of NOAEL from studies that monitored growth or reproductive endpoints as 

the EcoSSL TRV. This value (6.71 mg/kg/d) is lower than any LOAEL for studies monitoring growth, 

reproductive, or survival endpoints in the U.S. EPA database. The collection of toxicological literature 

from which this geometric mean was calculated contained studies using mallards and chickens as test 

animals and primarily acute or subchronic exposures, but it also included two studies of reproductive 

endpoints that had higher NOAEL and/or LOAEL values than the geometric mean NOAEL value. 

Therefore, the value of 6.71 mg/kg/d is treated as equivalent to a chronic NOAEL. This reference dose is 

assigned a high level of confidence. 

I.3.2.7 Tin (inorganic) 

Mammals 

The reference dose selected for this ERA (44 mg/kg/day) is based on the average NOAEL from two 

subchronic dosing studies (FDA 1972 and Theuer et al. 1971, as cited in ATSDR 2005a) where female 

rats, mice and hamsters were given either stannous chloride, tin fluoride or sodium pentachlorostannite in 

food (available ad libitum) or water (gavage) during gestational days 0-20. A NOAEL of 31 mg/kg/day 

(stannous chloride) based on absence of reproductive effects (i.e., number of corpora lutea and 

implantation and resorption sites) in rats, mice and hamsters were identified in the FDA (1972) study. 

This dose was also identified as the NOAEL for developmental effects based on the lack of significant 

changes on fetal weight, the number of live or dead fetuses, and the incidence of external and internal 

malformations. In the Theuer et al. study, exposure of rats of up to approximately 45 mg tin/kg/day 

(sodium pentachlorostannite) or 56 mg tin/kg/day (tin fluoride) in the diet had no significant effect on the 

number of resorptions, placental weight, average fetal weight, or the number of live fetuses per litter. 

Though these studies were sub chronic in nature, they were conducted during a reproductive period and 

are therefore considered chronic because exposure was received during a critical lifestage. This reference 

dose is assigned a medium level of confidence. 

Birds 

No acceptable avian toxicological studies were identified for use in the derivation of a TRV; therefore, no 

avian reference dose can be established for this COPC. 

Page I-14 2010





I.3.2.8 Vanadium 

The U.S. EPA has conducted an in-depth review of the toxicological literature pertaining to the risk 

effects of vanadium on birds and mammals (U.S. EPA 2005d). Of 916 studies examined through a 


on birds. These studies were considered in the selection of a TRV for vanadium. 

Mammals 

The Marine ERA model is based on LOAEL values when toxicological data permits. Therefore, the 

lowest LOAEL from these studies is selected as the reference dose for TRV determination in the Marine 

ERA model. This value (5.11 mg/kg/d) was derived from a study by Daniel and Lillie (1938), in which 

rats were exposed to vanadium (as sodium metavanadate) in the diet at doses of 0, 0.44, 1.03, 5.11, 9.78 

and 19.0 mg/kg/d for 10 weeks. Adverse effects on growth (reduced body weight) were first observed at 

the 5.11 mg/kg/d dose. The collection of toxicological literature from which this LOAEL was selected 

included studies using rats and mice, and primarily acute and subchronic exposures, although some 

studies included a reproductive period and are therefore considered chronic because exposure was 

received during a critical life stage. This reference dose is assigned a high level of confidence. 

Birds 

The vanadium reference dose selected for the Marine ERA model for bird species is based on the chronic 

NOAEL determined from studies performed by White and Dieter (1978), as cited in Sample et al. (1996). 

The study was based on oral exposure of mallards to vanadyl sulphate in the diet at concentrations of 

2.84, 10.36, and 110 mg/kg in food over a period of 12 weeks. The study endpoints considered were 

mortality, body weight, and blood chemistry changes. No adverse effects were observed at any dose level. 

Based on food consumption and body mass of the studied mallards, the maximum concentration of 

110 mg/kg was converted to a chronic NOAEL of 11.4 mg/kg/d. This reference dose is assigned a high 

level of confidence. 

I.3.2.9 Zinc 

Mammals 

The zinc reference dose used in the Marine ERA model for mammalian species is based on the chronic 

LOAEL determined from studies undertaken by Schlicker and Cox (1968), cited in Sample et al. (1996). 

The study was based on oral exposure of rats to zinc oxide. The study endpoint was reproductive. Rats 

were exposed to zinc oxide at concentrations of 2,000 and 4,000 mg/kg throughout days 1 to 16 of 

gestation. While rats exposed to zinc at 4,000 mg/kg displayed increased rates of fetal resorption and 

reduced fetal growth rates, no risk effects were observed from rats exposed to 2,000 mg/kg. Therefore, the 

4,000 mg/kg and the 2,000 mg/kg doses are considered to be a chronic LOAEL and NOAEL, 

respectively. A chronic LOAEL of 320 mg/kg/d was estimated from the 4,000 mg/kg concentration in 

feed based on body weight and feeding rate and is selected for use as the reference dose for mammalian 

species in the Marine ERA model. This reference dose is assigned a high level of confidence. 

2010 Page I-15





Birds 

The zinc reference dose used in the Marine ERA model for avian species is based on the chronic LOAEL 

determined from studies performed by Stahl et al. (1990), as cited in Sample et al. (1996). The study was 

based on oral exposure of White Leghorn hens to zinc sulphate in diet. The study endpoint was 

reproductive. Hens were exposed to zinc sulphate at concentrations of 20, 200, and 2,000 mg/kg 

supplemental zinc plus 28 mg/kg zinc in diet over a period of 44 weeks. Hens exposed to 2,028 mg/kg 

zinc in diet exhibited a 20% reduction in egg hatchability, while exposure to 48 and 228 mg/kg zinc in 

diet resulted in no adverse effects. Therefore, the 2,028 and 228 mg/kg zinc concentrations are considered 

to be a chronic LOAEL and NOAEL, respectively. A chronic LOAEL of 131 mg/kg/d was estimated 

from the 2,028 mg/kg concentration in feed based on the body weight and feeding rate and is selected for 

use as the reference dose for avian species in the Marine ERA model. This reference dose is assigned a 

high level of confidence. 

I.3.3 Reference Dose for BTEX Compounds 

I.3.3.1 Benzene 

Mammals 

A chronic LOAEL was determined from studies performed by Nawrot and Staples (1979), cited in 

Sample et al. (1996). The study was based on exposure of mice to benzene by gavage. The study endpoint 

was reproductive. Mice were exposed to benzene at doses of 0.3, 0.5 and 1 mL/kg bw/day on days 6-12 of 

gestation. Mice exposed to the 0.5 and the 1.0 mL/kg-bw/day dose levels showed increased maternal 

mortality and embryonic resorption, while fetal weights were reduced at all three dose levels. Therefore, 

the dose of 263.6 mg/kg/d (0.3 mL/kg/day converted based on the density of benzene) was considered by 

Sample et al. (1996) to be a chronic LOAEL. 

The ATSDR (2005b) reviewed numerous studies of short-, intermediate-, and long-term exposures of 

mammals (mainly rats and mice) to benzene via oral exposure. No chronic effects were observed at dose 

levels below 10 mg/kg/d. Minor risk effects on reproduction (ovarian hyperplasia in female mice and 

preputial gland hyperplasia in male mice) were observed at a dose rate of 25 mg/kg/d, and more serious 

risk effects (endometrial polyps) were observed in female rats at a dose rate of 100 mg/kg/d. Chronic 

effects on survival and body weight in mice and rates were also noted at dose rates between 100 and 

200 mg/kg/d. Based upon the ATSDR (2005b) review, a dose rate of 100 mg/kg/d is selected, in 

preference to the value reported by Sample et al. (1996), as a LOAEL for use as the reference dose for 

mammal species in the Marine ERA model. This reference dose is assigned a high level of confidence. 

Birds 



Page I-16 2010





I.3.3.2 Toluene 

Mammals 

Studies performed by Nawrot and Staples (1979), cited in Sample et al. (1996), involved oral exposure of 

mice to toluene by oral gavage. The study endpoint was reproductive. Mice were exposed to toluene at 

doses ranging from 0.3 to 1 mL/kg/bw during days 6-12 of gestation. The reported LOAEL for mice was 

an exposure concentration of 0.5 and 1 mL/kg-bw/day showed significantly reduced fetal weights. 

Therefore, the 0.3 mL/kg-bw/day dose was considered to be the chronic LOAEL. Using a density of 

0.866 g/mL (Sample et al. 1996), the LOAEL dose was converted to 260 mg/kg/d. Although the duration 

of the study was short, it was conducted during a critical life stage. Therefore, the study was considered a 

chronic exposure study. 

Based on the above considerations, a reference dose of 260 mg/kg/d was identified based on the LOAEL 

for significant reduction in fetal body weights at higher doses. This reference dose is assigned a low level 

of confidence as no other studies were found to confirm the results. 

Birds 



I.3.3.3 Ethylbenzene 

Mammals 

The ethylbenzene reference dose selected for the Marine ERA model is based on several sources. Studies 

performed by Wolf et al. (1956), cited in ATSDR (2007), involved oral exposure of rats to ethylbenzene 

by oral gavage. The study endpoint considered was hepatotoxicity. Mice were exposed to the 

ethylbenzene at doses ranging from control (0) to 1000 mg/kg/d, 5 days per week, for a period of 182 

days. The reported LOAEL for rats was an exposure concentration of 291 mg/kg/d or greater, which 

showed a significant increase in the absolute and relative liver weight. Therefore, the 291 mg/kg/d dose 

was considered to be the chronic LOAEL. Because of the non-continuous dosing of the reference study, 

an UF of 3.0 was applied to this LOAEL. 

One other study on rats performed by Mellert et al. (2007) and reported by ATSDR (2007) reported 

similar results. Risk effects consistent with hepatotoxicity include increased absolute and relative liver 

weights (greater than or equal to 250 mg/kg/d in males and 750 mg/kg/d in females), increased incidence 

of hepatocyte centrilobular (greater than or equal to250 mg/kg/d in males and 750 mg/kg/d in females), 

and increased serum liver enzyme activity (750 mg/kg/d in males and females). In this study, groups of 

ten male and ten female Wister rats were administered ethylbenzene (no vehicle) by oral gavage at doses 

of 0, 75, 250, or 750 mg/kg/d for 13 weeks. 


for significant effects on the liver in rats. This reference dose is assigned a medium level of confidence. 

2010 Page I-17





Birds 



I.3.3.4 Xylenes 

Mammals 

Studies performed by Marks et al. (1980), cited in ATSDR (2005c), involved oral exposure of mice to a 

xylene mixture (60.2% m-xylene, 9.1% o-xylene, 13.6% p-xylene, and 17.0% ethyl benzene) by oral 

gavage. The study endpoint was reproductive. Mice were exposed to the xylene mixture at doses of 520, 

1,030, 2,060, 2,580, 3,100, and 4,130 mg/kg/d on days 6 to 15 of gestation. Mice exposed to 

2,580 mg/kg/d or greater showed significantly reduced fetal weights and increased incidence of fetal 

malformities. Therefore, the highest dose that produced no adverse effects, 2,060 mg/kg/d, was 

considered the chronic NOAEL, and the 2,580 mg/kg/d dose was considered to be the chronic LOAEL. 

Other studies reported by ATSDR (2005c) report 15% decreases in body weight gain among rats 

chronically exposed to xylenes at 800 and 1,000 mg/kg/d. Mice exposed to xylene at 500 mg/kg/d for 

5 days per week over 103 weeks exhibited a 5 to 8% decrease in body weight at week 59. However, the 

majority of studies show no risk effects on physiological, developmental, reproductive, or survival 

endpoints at a dose rate of 1,000 mg/kg/d (ATSDR 2005c). 


for significant reductions in body weight of rats. This reference dose is assigned a high level of 

confidence. 

Birds 



I.3.4 Reference Dose for TPH Compounds 

Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) is a loosely defined aggregate measure of hydrocarbon compounds 

that depends on the method of analysis, as well as contaminating or interfering materials present, and 

represents the total mass of hydrocarbons (and in some cases other organic compounds) without 

identifying individual compounds. In general, indicator compounds or special hydrocarbon products are 

used to provide surrogate information for the whole class of compounds that falls within each TPH 

fraction. The fractions are defined based on the number or range of carbon atoms present and on whether 

the compounds are considered aromatic (consisting of carbon ring structures) or aliphatic (straight chain 

or branched compounds). 

Page I-18 2010





The compounds most commonly encountered in risk assessments include crude oil, as well as refined 

products such as lubricating oils, fuel oil or diesel oil (similar products, although diesel fuels contain 

additives not present in fuel oil) and gasoline. Petroleum products in the environment are subject to 

weathering, which results in the preferential loss of the lighter and more soluble products and thus in a 

general shift towards the heavier fractions in the residue. Fuel oils are complex mixtures comprising 80 to 

90% aliphatics, with 10 to 20% aromatics. The composition of gasoline varies widely according to the 

composition of the crude oil from which it was refined and the refining process (ATSDR 1999). 

A variety of different fractionations are used to represent the petroleum hydrocarbons, depending upon 

which agency is being cited. In Canada, there are two widely followed sets of guidance, namely: 

• the Atlantic Risk Based Corrective Action (ARBCA) methodology 

• the Canada Wide Standards (CWS) methodology, which describes four fractions 

(F1, C6-C10; F2, >C10-C16; F3, >C16-C34; and F4, >C34), with the aromatics and aliphatics being 

combined 

The TPH fractionation scheme presented in Table I-1, with the assumption that the BTEX compounds are 

subtracted from the TPH and evaluated separately. The F4 fractions are not assessed because they are 

assumed to be highly insoluble and not bioavailable, with negligible toxicity as a consequence. The F3 

aliphatic compounds are not considered to be sufficiently soluble in water to cause chronic effects on 

aquatic biota (marine plants, benthic invertebrates or fish), and the carbon chain length limits the 

bioavailability of these compounds. However, the oral toxicity of the F3 aliphatic fraction is considered 

for marine mammals and birds. 

Table I-1 Breakdown of TPH Compounds Followed in the ERA Model 

Fraction 1 (F1) Fraction 2 (F2) Fraction 3 (F3) Fraction 4 (F4) 

Aliphatics 

Aromatics 

Aliphatics C6-C8 

Aliphatics >C8-C10 

(BTEX not included) 



Aromatics >C10-C12 



Aromatics >C16-C21 

Not assessed 

because they are 

assumed to be highly 

insoluble and not 

Aromatics >C8-C10 Aromatics >C12-C16 Aromatics >C21-C34 bioavailable. 

The bioavailability of TPH compounds to mammals and birds varies according to the fractions present 

and the manner in which they are administered. Absorption via the digestive tract generally decreases 

with increasing molecular weight from about 80 to 97% for the BTEX range, to about 80% for the 

naphthalenes, although even the heavier aromatic compounds may be quite readily absorbed. The key 

factors in absorption include the lipophilicity of the compounds (represented by the log K OW value) which 

can increase absorption, as well as the molecular size, which can hinder absorption. The lighter aliphatic 

compounds are also readily absorbed; however, above the C16 fraction, compounds may be poorly 

absorbed (ranging from about 60% for C14 hydrocarbons to 5% for C28 hydrocarbons, with essentially no 

absorption above C32) because of their very low solubility and increasing molecular size (ATSDR 1999). 

2010 Page I-19





After absorption, the aromatic compounds are metabolized usually via oxidative metabolic pathways 

involving cytochrome P-450 oxidase enzymes and conjugation reactions to more water-soluble 

metabolites that are excreted in urine. The lighter aliphatic compounds are oxidatively metabolized and/or 

excreted. Hydrocarbons in the aliphatic C>8-C16 fraction may be metabolized slowly, especially following 

distribution in fatty tissues. The heavier aliphatic hydrocarbons, although poorly absorbed, are poorly 

metabolized, being preferentially distributed to the liver and fatty tissues where they may be deposited as 

granulomas (ATDSR 1999). Therefore, bioaccumulation of TPH compounds can occur, particularly for 

the heavier aromatics, as well as the middle and heavier range (F2 and F3) aliphatic compounds. 

The petroleum hydrocarbon fraction reference doses selected for the Marine ERA model for mammal 

species are based on a weight-of-evidence approach that combines data from numerous studies and 

compiled data sources. Four main reference documents were used as sources for the derivation of the 

daily doses used in the Marine ERA model: 

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry toxicological profile for Total Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons (ATSDR 1999) 

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series Volume 4 (TPHCWG 1997) 

• Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) petroleum hydrocarbon toxicity 

values (MADEP 2003) 

• CWS for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil (CCME 2000, 2008) 

Each source provides reference doses, or a range of reference doses for one or more subsets of petroleum 

hydrocarbons; however, only the CWS provide reference dose values and criteria that are specifically 

intended to be used for mammalian and avian KI. 

I.3.4.1 ATSDR Toxicological Profile 

The ATSDR (1999) toxicological profile provides summaries of LOAEL values for mammals taken from 

numerous supporting studies with various endpoints for various fractions of the aliphatic and aromatic 

hydrocarbons. The LOAEL values follow a general trend of decreasing toxicity with increasing carbon 

number, while the aromatic compounds have generally higher toxicity (lower LOAEL values) than those 

of the aliphatic compounds within the same range of carbon numbers. 

The ATSDR (1999) defines the TPH fractions as outlined in Table I-2, and relevant LOAEL values are 

identified in the table as those presented by ATSDR that reference levels of risk effects that relate to 

organism growth, body weight, survival, or reproductive endpoints (many of the reported biological 

endpoints reference histological, hematological, cancer, or other endpoints for which the population-level 

relevance to wildlife species is unclear). 

Page I-20 2010





Table I-2 Toxicity Thresholds for TPH Compounds 

TPH Fraction 

Aromatics 

C5-C9 

Aromatics 

>C9-C16 

Aromatics 

>C16-C35 

Aliphatics 

C5-C8 

Aliphatics 

>C8-C16 

Aliphatics 

>C16-C35 

SOURCE: ATSDR (1999) 

Background and Reported Risks 

The BTEX compounds are used as surrogates for the toxicity of this 

fraction. The BTEX compounds cause neurological effects, 

generally central nervous system depression, when administered 

orally. The lower range of relevant LOAEL values is between 10 and 

100 mg/kg/d for benzene, and greater than 100 mg/kg/d for toluene, 

ethylbenzene and xylenes. 

The oral toxicity of naphthalene (>C10-C12) is used as a surrogate 

for this fraction. The most common risk effects of naphthalene 

exposure are cataract formation and retinal damage; neurological 

effects and mild hepatic effects also occur. The lowest reliable 

LOAEL for population-level effects indicators begins at dose levels 

of around 100 mg/kg/d. 

The oral toxicities of fluorene and fluoranthene are used as 

surrogates for this fraction, although the fraction consists entirely of 

PAH, including anthracene, fluorene, phenanthrene and pyrene in 

the >C16-C21 range, and others, including fluoranthene, 

benz(a)anthracene, benzofluoranthenes and benzo(a)pyrene in the 

>C21-C35 range. The lowest reliable LOAEL for fluorene and 

fluoranthene occurs at dose levels around 100 mg/kg/d. 

The toxicity of n-hexane is used as a surrogate for this fraction. 

Effects on body weight as well as neurological responses are 

reported at a dose level of around 100 mg/kg/d. 

The oral toxicity of JP-8 fuel is used as a surrogate for this fraction; 

other similar products include JP-5, JP-7 and kerosene (fuel oil #1). 

The lowest reliable LOAEL for relevant endpoints included effects 

on development and body weight beginning at dose levels of around 

1,000 mg/kg/d. 

The health-effects data for mineral oils are used as surrogates for 

this fraction. Most health effects are related to hepatic deposits of 

fatty materials, as well as effects on mesenteric lymph nodes, both 

of which relate to the metabolic processing of these oils, which 

otherwise have low apparent bioavailability and toxicity. 

Toxicity 

Threshold 

(mg/kg/d) 

100 

2010 Page I-21 

100 

100 

100 

1,000 

>1,000





I.3.4.2 TPHCWG Reference Doses 

The TPHCWG was formed to develop scientifically defensible information for establishing soil cleanup 

levels that are protective of human health at hydrocarbon-contaminated sites. Toxicity criteria were 

developed for specific hydrocarbon fractions, with the intention of supporting risk assessment methods. A 

reference dose (RfD) was defined, following U.S. EPA risk assessment guidance, as "an estimate of daily 

exposure to the human population, including sensitive subgroups, that is likely to be without appreciable 

risk of deleterious risk effects during a lifetime". The RfD was developed by first choosing a critical study 

to determine the NOAEL, or if a NOAEL was not available, then a LOAEL was selected. The most 

appropriate sources for the NOAEL and LOAEL were considered to be chronic oral studies using 

laboratory animals, with subchronic oral data being accepted where chronic studies were not available. 

Uncertainty and modifying factors were used to make adjustments where chronic NOAEL values were 

not available and so that RfD values based on studies of laboratory animals are adequately protective of 

humans. Therefore, although the TPHCWG values are designed to be protective of humans, they are 

based on animal studies, and the underlying animal studies may be informative for the process of 

developing ecological reference dose values. A summary of the animal data upon which the TPHCWG 

RfD values are based is provided in Table I-3, although the suggested toxicity threshold values are based 

on professional judgment; they are not in TPHCWG document. 


TPH Fraction 

Aromatics 

>C5-C8 

Aromatics 

>C8-C16 


Based on the BTEX compounds and styrene, TPHCWG (1997) 

identifies a human RfD of 0.2 mg/kg/d. The animal studies and 

chemicals upon which this RfD was based included rats exposed 

to toluene (NOAEL = 223 mg/kg/d, LOAEL = 439 mg/kg/d based 

on liver and kidney weight changes); rats exposed to ethylbenzene 

(NOAEL = 97.1 mg/kg/d, LOAEL = 291 mg/kg/d based on 

histopathologic changes in liver and kidney); rats and mice 

exposed to xylenes (NOAEL = 179 mg/kg/d); and dogs exposed to 

styrene (NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/d, LOAEL = 400 mg/kg/d based on 

hematological changes). Based on the above, an appropriate 

toxicity threshold for light aromatic compounds is approximately 

300 mg/kg/d. 

TPHCWG (1997) refers to two studies of rats exposed to 

naphthalene and methylnaphthalenes. NOAEL values ranged from 

150 to 300 mg/kg/d. A LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/d was reported for 

decreased body weight in male rats after 13 weeks exposure, and 

a LOAEL of 300 mg/kg/d was reported for other histopathologic 

changes. A developmental NOAEL of >450 mg/kg/d was reported 

for fetal development with maternal exposure during days 6 to 15 

of gestation. Based on the above, an appropriate toxicity threshold 

for the >C8 to C16 aromatic fraction is approximately 500 mg/kg/d. 

Toxicity 

Threshold 

(mg/kg/d) 

300 

Page I-22 2010 

500





Table I-3 Toxicity Thresholds for TPH Compounds (cont’d) 

TPH Fraction 

Aromatics 

>C16-C35 

Aliphatics 

>C5-C8 

Aliphatics 

>C8-C16 

Aliphatics 

>C16-C35 

Aliphatic 

SOURCE: TPHCWG (1997) 


TPHCWG (1997) found no available data from which to develop an 

RfD, so the RfD for pyrene is used as a surrogate for the fraction. 

The RfD value for pyrene is based on the IRIS value, which in turn 

is based on a 13-week oral gavage study in mice. Nephropathy 

and decreased kidney weight were observed in male and female 

mice. The NOAEL was 75 mg/kg/d and the LOAEL was 125 

mg/kg/d. Reproductive endpoints were not examined, and it is 

unclear whether effects on growth, survival or reproduction would 

occur at a higher or lower dose than the recommended toxicity 

threshold of 125 mg/kg/d. 

The Oral RfD for humans was calculated by TPHCWG (1997) from 

the inhalation toxicity of commercial hexane. 

The TPHCWG (1997) used studies on de-aromatized petroleum 

streams and JP-8 (predominantly C9-C16) to address this fraction. 

Reported risk effects included: 

• decreased body weight in rats dosed orally for 90 days at 

2,500 mg/kg/d and microscopic effects on kidney at all dose 

levels 

• testicular effects on rats exposed for 13 weeks to 

1,000 mg/kg/d 

• effects on kidney and liver weights at 500 mg/kg/d 

• decreased body weight in rats exposed to JP-8 for 90 days at 

1,500 mg/kg/d (no effect at 750 mg/kg/d) 

• significant maternal or developmental toxicity in rats exposed 

to 1,000 mg/kg/d during gestational days 6 to 15 

Based on the above, a threshold for effects on reproduction and 

growth is around 1,000 mg/kg/d. 

Higher-molecular-weight aliphatic mineral oils are poorly absorbed 

by mammals. Rats fed up to 2,000 mg/kg/d showed no effect on 

body weight, clinical signs, or mortality (TPHCWG 1997), and liver 

granulomas were reported only at a dose of 2,000 mg/kg/d in rats 

exposed to the lighter end of the fraction. Therefore, for higher 

molecular weight aliphatic hydrocarbons, the threshold for risk 

effects is 2,000 mg/kg/d. 

Toxicity 

Threshold 

(mg/kg/d) 

125 

Not Available 

1,000 

2,000 

2010 Page I-23





I.3.4.3 MADEP Toxicity Values 

In 2003, MADEP updated its earlier (1994) approach to the evaluation of human health risks from 

ingestion exposures to complex hydrocarbon mixtures. MADEP (2003) states that the acute effects of 

volatile hydrocarbons are basically narcotic, with central nervous system disruption produced by 

hydrocarbons of diverse structures due to a physical interaction of the solvents with the cells of the central 

nervous system. After prolonged exposure, neurobehavioural effects are manifested as sensory, cognitive, 

affective, or motor abnormalities. Distinct from the general effects of hydrocarbons on the central nervous 

system are their associated specific organ toxicities (e.g., the hematopoietic toxicity of benzene or the 

neurodegenerative toxicity of n-hexane). 

Critical toxicity thresholds derived from the studies cited by MADEP (2003) are summarized in Table I-4 

for various aromatic and aliphatic fractions of petroleum hydrocarbon. 


TPH Fraction 

Aromatics 

C9-C32 

Aliphatics 

C5-C8 

Aliphatics 

C9-C18 

Aliphatics 

C19-C34 

SOURCE: MADEP (2003) 


MADEP (2003) combines the entire range of C9-C32 aromatic 

hydrocarbons and provides a toxicity value based on that of pyrene 

(a NOAEL of 75 mg/kg/d is cited, based on kidney effects in the 

rat). 

MADEP (2003) references a study by Krasavage et al. (1980) 

where rats were gavaged with practical grade hexane, or various 

isomers or metabolites of hexane. Numerous histological effects 

were identified on nerve cells, and effects on body weight generally 

paralleled the neurotoxic potency of each compound Atrophy of 

testicular germinal epithelium was also observed in some animals. 

Based on n-hexane, a LOAEL of 407 mg/kg/d was identified. 

Several studies are cited by MADEP (2003), although not all were 

fully satisfactory due to the presence of significant aromatic 

fractions in some of the substances tested. LOAEL values for rats 

exposed for 90 days or 13 weeks were generally in the range of 500 

to 750 mg/kg/d based on effects that included body weight, organ 

weights, changes in serum chemistry, and hematological effects. 

MADEP (2003) references studies with food-grade white mineral 

oils and waxes. For the C19-C32 aliphatic range, based on a 13 

weeks exposure, the LOAEL was 2,000 mg/kg/d, based on effects 

on liver granuloma formation, organ weights, decreased red blood 

cell and increased white blood cell counts. For the C>34 aliphatic 

fraction no risk effects were seen (NOAEL of greater than 

2,000 mg/kg/d). 

Toxicity 

Threshold 

(mg/kg/d) 

>75 

Page I-24 2010 

407 

500 

2,000





I.3.4.4 Canada-Wide Standard 

The CWS (CCME 2000; 2008) has developed Tier 1 (generic) ecologically protective soil quality levels 

that are intended to be sufficiently protective when applied to the majority of terrestrial sites within 

Canada at which petroleum hydrocarbon releases might be encountered. However, the greatest emphasis 

has been placed on direct contact between petroleum hydrocarbons in soil with plant roots or soil 

invertebrates, with very little emphasis on or consideration of aquatic resources or mammalian and avian 

wildlife species. This approach is based on the goal of preserving the principal ecological functions 

performed by the soil resource. 

An important point to note with respect to the CWS is that guideline values are set within the risk effects 

range (meaning that at the guideline level, some level of risk effects may be seen in sensitive species or 

endpoints). The CWS (CCME 2008) Tier 1 soil quality guidelines for the F1 to F4 fractions are presented 

in Table I-5. 

Table I-5 CWS Tier 1 2008 Updated Soil Quality Guidelines 

TPH 

Fraction 

Agricultural/Residential Soils 

(mg/kg) 

Commercial/Industrial Soils 

(mg/kg) 

Fine-grained Coarse-grained Fine-grained Coarse-grained 

F1 210 210 320 320 

F2 150 150 260 260 

F3 1,300 300 2,500 1,700 

SOURCE: CCME 2008 

Although the CWS (CCME 2008) guidelines do not address acceptable mammalian or avian ingested 

dose rates, a calculation is performed within the CWS to estimate TPH toxicity to livestock based on 

drinking water uptake. Based on the study of Coppock and Campbell (1997), CWS (CCME 2008) selects 

a lowest identified exposure dose exhibiting an risk effect in cattle (i.e., LOAEL = 2,100 mg unweathered 

crude oil/kg/day). In the absence of appropriate data on the toxicity of different TPH fractions, CWS 

(CCME 2008) apportions the dose between the fractions based on the composition of fresh crude oil. 

However, it is important to understand that the value of 2,100 mg/kg/d used by CWS (CCME 2008) 

relates to the whole suite of hydrocarbon fractions present in crude oil and is thus not directly comparable 

to the unique fraction toxicity thresholds presented above based on ATSDR, TPHCWG, and MADEP. 

I.3.4.5 Oral TPH Toxicity Reference Values Selected for the ERA Model 

Assuming that the TPH fractions advocated by the various agencies are roughly comparable to the F1 to 

F4 fractions followed by CWS and ARBCA, the LOAEL-based reference dose values extracted from the 

literature are summarized in Table I-6, along with the mammalian reference dose values selected, by 

professional judgment, for use in this study. Each value represents the approximate effect-threshold dose 

for a particular hydrocarbon fraction (or fresh crude oil). 

2010 Page I-25





Table I-6 Summary of LOAEL-Based Mammalian Reference Dose Values for 

TPH Fractions and Products 

Fraction / 

Agency 

Aliphatic 

ATSDR 

(1999) 

(mg/kg/d) 

TPHCWG 

(1997) 

(mg/kg/d) 

MADEP 

(2003) 

(mg/kg/d) 

CWS (CCME 

2000) 

(mg/kg/d) 

Selected 

Values 

F1 100 NA 407 NA 100 

F2 1,000 1,000 500 NA 500 

F3 >1,000 2,000 2,000 NA 2,000 

F4 NA NA NA NA Nontoxic 

Aromatic 

F1 100 300 >75 NA 100 

F2 100 500 NA NA 100 

F3 100 125 NA NA 100 

Crude Oil NA NA NA 2,100 NA 

NOTE: 

NA – data not available 

SOURCE: based on CCME (2008) 

The fraction-based (F1 to F4) reference doses listed in Table I-6 can be further subdivided into the 

aliphatic and aromatic sub-fractions, as outlined in Table I-7. These reference dose values cover the range 

of F1 to F3, and are assigned a medium level of confidence. 

Table I-7 Mammalian Reference Dose Values for Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

TPH Fraction 

TPH Subdivision 

Percent of TPH Fraction 

Daily Dose 

(mg/kg/d) 

F1 Aliphatics Aliphatics >C6-C8 – F1 50% 50 

Aliphatics >C8-C10 – F1 50% 50 

F1 Aromatics Aromatics >C8-C10 – F1 100% 100 

F2 Aliphatics Aliphatics >C10-C12 – F2 50% 250 

Aliphatics >C12-C16 – F2 50% 250 


Aromatics >C12-C16 – F2 50% 50 

F3 Aliphatics Aliphatics >C16-C21 – F3 50% 1,000 

Aliphatics >C21-C34 – F3 50% 1,000 


SOURCE: Based on CCME (2008) 

Aromatics >C21-C34 – F3 50% 50 

Page I-26 2010





The toxicological literature provides significantly less information on which to base avian reference dose 

values than for mammalian species. However, assuming that the general trends of higher toxicity of 

aromatic compounds than aliphatic compounds and decreasing bioavailability and toxicity with increasing 

molecular weight for aliphatic compounds can be generalized from mammals to birds, the following 

discussion outlines the development of a reference dose for avian species. 

The primary data sources used in the derivation of the avian species petroleum hydrocarbon fraction 

reference dose are papers by Szaro et al. (1978), Coon and Dieter (1981) and Stubblefield et al. (1995). 

In the study conducted by Szaro et al. (1978), ducklings were exposed to concentrations of 0.025, 0.25, 

2.5 and 5.0% South Louisiana Crude Oil in their diet from hatching to eight weeks of age. Birds receiving 

0.25, 2.5 and 5.0% crude oil showed depressed growth rates, but no mortalities resulted. At doses of 2.5 

and 5.0% crude oil in diet, liver hypertrophy and splenic atrophy were evidence of the gross pathological 

effects. These general observations are consistent with risk effects seen in mammalian test animals, 

supporting the assumption that the generalized mechanisms of hydrocarbon toxicity in birds are similar to 

those in mammals. Therefore, the 2.5% crude oil in diet is considered to be a subchronic effects threshold 

for endpoints that may be relevant to population-level responses. The ducks were reported to consume 

3.28 kg dry feed over the 56-day study (average 58 g/day), and the final weights of the ducks averaged 

about 1,100 g, indicating that the mean weight of ducks throughout the study was about 550 g. On this 

basis, the average crude oil dose to ducks in the 2.5% crude oil in diet group would have been 

approximately 2,730 mg/kg/d. 

Coon and Dieter (1981) exposed young adult mallard ducks to South Louisiana Crude Oil for 26 weeks, 

during which the females were laying eggs. Crude oil was dosed to the ducks at 0.25 and 2.5% of the diet, 

and in a third treatment, ducks were fed a diet containing 1% of a paraffin mixture (predominantly 

aliphatic hydrocarbons). It is unclear whether the diet was dry or wet, and feeding rates are not explicitly 

given, leading to some uncertainty about the true hydrocarbon dose rates. However, the duck feed is 

referred to as a "mash", suggesting that hydrocarbons were introduced into a wet feed. No birds died 

during the study, nor were body weights significantly depressed. Ducks on oil-treated diets laid fewer 

eggs than control ducks; however, the hatchability of eggs was not affected by oil treatment. Oviduct 

weight at necropsy was lower in ducks fed 0.25 and 2.5% crude oil. Ducks fed the paraffin mixture did 

not show the same types of risk effects that crude oil elicited, suggesting that the active fraction in the 

crude oil may be in the aromatic or light aliphatic groups. Based on reduced egg production and effects on 

the oviduct, the 0.25% crude oil treatment is considered to be the risk effects threshold. Assuming a food 

ingestion rate of 0.61 kg/day (wet weight), and a stated mean duck weight of 1.27 kg, the 0.25% oil 

treatment would represent a crude oil dose rate of 1,200 mg/kg/d. 

The paper by Stubblefield et al. (1995) is the best documented, but it deals with weathered Alaskan north 

slope crude oil (i.e., most of the C





treatment is considered to be the risk effects threshold. Based on the reported food consumption rate of 

0.135 kg ration per day and the mean bird weight of 1,250 g, the crude oil dose rate is 2,160 mg/kg/d. 

The toxicity threshold values for ducks are similar to toxicity thresholds for other avian species, as 

reviewed by Stubblefield et al. (1995). Differences between and within studies are likely partially 

attributable to differences in the chemical makeup of the different crude and weathered crude oils. 

However, as with mammals, the extrapolation of whole product toxicity values to fraction-based toxicity 

values is problematic. 

Therefore, the lowest value from the three studies (1,200 mg/kg/day) is selected for comparison to the 

value of 2,100 mg/kg/day provided for cattle by Coppock and Campbell (1997). Based on this 

comparison, the avian reference dose values for hydrocarbon fractions are set at approximately 60% of 

the mammalian values, as outlined in Table I-8. These reference dose values are assigned a medium level 

of confidence. 

Table I-8 Avian Reference Dose Values for Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

TPH Fraction 

Reference Dose 

(mg/kg/d) 

Aliphatics >C6-C08 – F1 30 


Aromatics >C8-C10 – F1 60 









SOURCE: based on Coon and Dieter (1981) 

I.3.5 Reference Dose For Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are a class of compounds consisting of two or more aromatic 

ring structures. The primary source of PAH in the environment is from the extraction, refinement and 

combustion of petroleum or petroleum products (U.S. EPA 2007c). PAH typically exist in the 

environment as complex mixtures. Isolation and characterization of the individual compounds comprising 

the mixture is often very difficult. 

PAH may be categorized into two groups: low-molecular-weight compounds consisting of two or three 

aromatic rings, and high-molecular-weight compounds consisting of four or more aromatic rings. Health 

Canada acknowledges this categorization but assesses human health risks for PAH compounds 

individually. Human health risk assessment, particularly carcinogenic risk from PAH exposure, is 

Page I-28 2010





typically done using a relative potency approach where each compound is assigned a carcinogenic 

potency relative to benzo(a)pyrene, one of the most toxic PAH. However, this approach is not appropriate 

for wildlife species. 

The U.S. EPA (2007c) developed toxicological benchmarks for mammals and birds using the low- and 

high-molecular-weight categorization, rather than following an individual compound approach. The U.S. 

EPA acknowledges that the optimal approach may be to use a toxic equivalency scheme but states that 

current data limitations preclude this approach. Evaluating PAH as two groups of compounds (low and 

high molecular weight) also has significant benefits. This approach simplifies the inclusion of less-wellknown 

PAH for which compound-specific data are not available. 

To derive EcoSSL for terrestrial wildlife, the U.S. EPA considers toxicological data for constituents of 

each grouping, but the grouping process leads to a focus on the more toxic compounds. Also, the overall 

process is influenced by the availability of data for a relatively small number of compounds (particularly 

naphthalene in the low-molecular-weight range and benzo(a)pyrene in the high-molecular-weight range). 

I.3.5.1 Toxicity of PAH to Mammals 

Low-Molecular-Weight PAH 

The U.S. EPA (2007c) identified 76 toxicological results from studies that met stringent criteria for 

deriving EcoSSL. For results based on reproductive or growth endpoints, the geometric mean of NOAEL 

was calculated as 170 mg/kg/d. This value was higher than the lowest bounded LOAEL for these 

endpoints and, consequently, the U.S. EPA (2007c) adopted a value of 65.5 mg/kg/d, the highest bounded 

NOAEL that is below the lowest bounded LOAEL for growth, reproduction, or survival as the TRV. This 

approach is too strongly influenced by a single study in the context of a large data set and a weight-ofevidence 

approach. The value selected by the U.S. EPA is also specific for the chemical 1naphthalenacetic 

acid, which is not a mainstream PAH compound. Therefore, the U.S. EPA value is too 

conservative to be representative of all low-molecular-weight PAH. Instead, the geometric mean of 

NOAEL values (i.e., 170 mg/kg/d) is selected as the reference dose in the Marine ERA model. The 

collection of toxicological literature from which this NOAEL is selected included studies using rabbits, 

mice and rats, and primarily subchronic exposures, although some studies included a reproductive period 

and are therefore considered chronic because exposure was received during a critical life stage. Therefore, 

this NOAEL value is used for a variety of mammal species without additional uncertainty factors being 

applied. This reference dose value is assigned a high level of confidence. 


The U.S. EPA (2007c) identified 45 toxicological results based on various endpoints that met criteria for 

high-molecular-weight PAH. The geometric mean NOAEL for growth and reproduction endpoints was 

18 mg/kg/d. This value is higher than the lowest bounded LOAEL for these endpoints and, consequently, 

the U.S. EPA adopted a value of 0.615 mg/kg/d based on a study of benzo(a)pyrene, the highest bounded 

NOAEL that is below the lowest bounded LOAEL for growth, reproduction, or survival. However, this 

study was based on tumour induction. However, tumour induction is not a relevant endpoint for wildlife 

receptors; this value may be too conservative to be representative of all high-molecular-weight PAH 

2010 Page I-29





(i.e., those having four or more rings). Instead, the geometric mean of NOAEL values (i.e., 18 mg/kg/d) is 

selected as the reference dose for the Marine ERA model. The collection of toxicological literature from 

which this NOAEL was selected included studies using mice, rats and guinea pigs and primarily 

subchronic and chronic exposures. Therefore, this NOAEL value is used for a variety of mammal species 

without additional uncertainty factors being applied. This reference dose value is assigned a high level of 

confidence. 

I.3.5.2 Toxicity of PAH to Birds 

The U.S. EPA (2007c) identified nearly 5,500 papers with possible toxicity data for either birds or 

mammals; of those meeting EcoSSL acceptability criteria (46 papers), only two contained data 

concerning avian species. To derive TRV, the U.S. EPA requires at least three studies and at least two 

species. Therefore, EcoSSL were not derived for birds due to data limitations. However, during the 

EcoSSL literature review, it was observed that for the compounds that had toxicological results for bird 

species, mammals were always more sensitive (Kapustka 2004). On the basis of this observation, it has 

been suggested, and followed in this study, that mammalian TRV can be assumed to be protective of 

avian species also (Kapustka 2004). 

I.3.6 Reference Dose For Other Organic Compounds 

I.3.6.1 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 

Mammals 

The mammalian reference dose for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is based on a multi-generation reproduction 

study with rats by Robinson et al. (1981) as cited in IRIS (2008a). In this study, the F0 generation was 

randomly reduced to four males and four females at birth, and both male and female progeny were 

administered 0.0, 25, 100 or 400 ppm 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene via drinking water. The study extended a 

similar procedure for the F1 and F2 generations ending at day 32 of the F2 generation. Fertility of both 

the F0 and F1 generations was not affected by the treatment. However, an increase in adrenal gland 

weights was observed for the high-dose group for both females and males of the F0 and F1 generations. 

The reported chronic LOAEL for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene for this study is 53.6 mg/kg/d (Robinson et al. 

1981, as cited by US EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)). This reference dose is assigned a 

medium level of confidence. 

Birds 



Page I-30 2010





I.3.6.2 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 

Mammals 

The mammalian reference dose for 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was obtained from IITRI (1995) in which 

groups of Spraque-Dawley rats (10/sex/dose group) were administered 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene via oral 

gavage (in oil) for 90 days. Additional high-dose animals were tested and retained for 28 days post 

treatment for recovery before sacrifice. Significant increases in liver and kidney weights were observed in 

the high-dose group. These results did not persist, according to examinations of the recovery group. 

However, alkaline phosphatase and phosphorous levels associated with the high-dose group remained 

elevated in both sexes. 

The subchronic LOAEL of 429 mg/kg/d for 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene reported by IITRI (1995) and based 

on changes in blood serum chemistry is used as the reference dose for TRV determination in the ERA. A 

limitation of this study is that reproductive, growth or survival endpoints were not affected and therefore 

the selected LOAEL value may be conservative with respect to ecologically relevant endpoints. This 

reference dose is assigned a medium level of confidence. 

Birds 



I.3.6.3 2,4-dimethylphenol 

Mammals 

The U.S. EPA (1989) conducted a subchronic (90-day) gavage study in Albino mice using 

2,4-dimethylphenol and has based its human reference dose on this study (IRIS 2008b). Groups of albino 

mice (30/sex/dose group) were administered 5.0, 50 or 250 mg/kg/d 2,4-dimethylphenol via oral gavage. 

Squinting, lethargy, prostration and ataxia were observed in the high-dose group after week six. Lower 

mean corpuscular volume and hemoglobin concentration were observed in the high-dose group females at 

study termination. No significant differences were identified in mean body weights, body weight gains, 

food consumption or eye examinations at any dosage between the treated and control groups. A LOAEL 

of 250 mg/kg/d and a NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/d were reported from this study (IRIS). 

A more recent study was conducted (Daniel 1993) using a different dosing regime which allowed for a 

more accurate LOAEL to be derived. In this study, groups of Sprague-Dawley rats (10/sex/dose group) 

were administered 60, 180 and 540 mg/kg/d 2,4-dimethylphenol via oral gavage for 90 consecutive days, 

starting when the rats were 80 days old. Lethality was confined to the high-dose group. Other 

observations for this group includes a significant decrease in weight gain, a decrease in absolute lung 

weight, and reduced organ-to-body weight ratios for brain, kidney and testes. Furthermore, changes in 

hematology and clinical chemistry were also noted for the high-dose group. A subchronic LOAEL of 

180 mg/kg/d was established with a NOAEL of 60 mg/kg/d (Daniel et al. 1993). This subchronic LOAEL 

is used in the Marine ERA and is assigned a medium level of confidence. 

2010 Page I-31





Birds 



I.3.6.4 2,4-dinitrophenol 

Mammals 

The ATSDR (1995) cites a study by Tainter (1938) on chronic oral toxicity for mammals. In this study, 

groups of 5 or 6 white rats were administered 2,4-dinitrophenol in their diet at concentrations of 0, 0.005, 

0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.12 and 0.24% for the entire lifespan of the rats, starting shortly after 

weaning when they weighed approximately 30 g. Groups fed diets treated with 0.04% 2,4-dinitrophenol 

were unaffected by the chemical in terms of growth or survival, while groups fed between 0.06 to 0.24% 

2,4-dinitrophenol demonstrated reduced growth, lower final body weight or decreased survival. These 

observations revealed a LOAEL concentration of 0.06% 2,4-dinitrophenol in feed (48 mg/kg/d). 

In a more recent study (Takahashi et al. 2009), groups of rats (12/sex/dose group) were administered 3, 10 

or 30 mg/kg/d 2,4-dinitrophenol via gavage starting when the rats were 10 weeks old. Males were dosed 

for 46 days starting 14 days prior to mating, whereas females were dosed for 40-47 days, also starting 14 

days prior to mating, to day 3 of lactation. Lethality was not observed in any group. In the high-dose 

group, a significant decrease in body weight gain was observed, as well as significant increases in the 

relative weight of the liver in males, in the absolute and relative weights of the liver in females, in the 

relative weights of the kidneys in both males and females, and in the relative weight of the heart in 

females. Although no effects were noted for the reproductive parameters, developmental effects were 

noted in the high-dose group: these effects included decreases in live birth index, decreases in the 

numbers of live pups on postnatal days 0 and 4 and reduced body weights of live pups on postnatal days 0 

and 4. As such, a LOAEL of 30 mg/kg/d for 2,4-dinitrophenol, based on general and 

reproductive/developmental toxicity, was reported and used in this ERA. Although exposure in this study 

was less than 90 days in duration (i.e., subchronic), the LOAEL is considered chronic because it was 

administered during a critical lifestage (i.e., gestation) and the endpoints are based in part on 

reproduction. This reference dose is assigned a medium level of confidence. 

Birds 



I.3.6.5 Phenol 

Mammals 

The mammalian reference dose for phenol is based on a study by Ryan et al. (2001) as cited in ATSDR 

(2006). A two-generation reproductive study was conducted in which phenol was given to the parental 

generation in drinking water at doses up to 301-321 mg/kg/d. Administration of 301-321 mg/kg/d to 

parents resulted in a significant reduction in F1 pup weight (30% by post-natal day 21 relative to controls) 

Page I-32 2010





and F2 pup weight (37% by post-natal day 21 relative to controls). There was also a decrease in percent 

live pups on day 4 in both generations and for days 7–21 in the F2 generation at the high-dose level. A 

developmental LOAEL and a bounded NOAEL were determined based on decreased pup weight and 

reduced viability; the chronic LOAEL of 321 mg/kg/d is used in the Marine ERA and is assigned a high 

level of confidence. 

Birds 



I.4 Environmental Effect Magnitude 

A four-tier approach is used to evaluate environmental effect magnitude benchmarks for substances added 

to the marine environment. The four benchmarks (Figure I-2) are 

• negligible 

• low 

• moderate 

• high 

The negligible benchmark is defined as the concentration of a substance that falls below the routine 

analytical limit of detection for that environmental medium (water or sediment) (Figure I-2). If the 

concentration of the substance cannot be detected in the environment using current laboratory standards, 

it is deemed to have a negligible effect magnitude. 

Figure I-2 Conceptual Model of Environmental Effect Magnitude 

2010 Page I-33





The low benchmark is bounded at the lower limit by the analytical limit of detection and bounded at the 

upper limit by the CHC5 (“chronically hazardous concentration – 5 th percentile”). The CHC5 is defined as 

the 5 th percentile of the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) of chronic no observed effect concentrations 

(chronic NOEC) for all available data. This value for any particular substance is the concentration at 

which 95% of species tested would show no observable effect on any tested endpoint (typically growth, 

reproduction, and survival) during long-term exposure. Therefore, this value is likely to be protective of 

more than 95% of species in the environment and is likely protective of the integrity of the ecosystem. 

The moderate benchmark is bounded at the lower end by the CHC5 and at the upper end by the CHC50 

(“chronically hazardous concentration – 50 th percentile”). The CHC50 is similar to the CHC5, but instead 

uses the median or 50 th percentile of the species NOEC distributions. Effectively, at the CHC50 level, 50% 

of species are showing some level of risk effect on one or more of the tested endpoints, but equally 50% 

of species are showing no adverse effects. Note that this level of risk effects is still anticipated to be 

below any acute lethality threshold. The high environmental effect magnitude benchmark begins at the 

CHC50 level. 

The environmental effect magnitude benchmarks are intended to lie below any acute lethality threshold. It 

is also important to note that the benchmarks are intended to be protective based upon chronic or longterm 

exposure and therefore would be highly protective of short-term or acute exposures. It is generally 

anticipated that the existing CCME Guidelines for the protection of freshwater or marine aquatic life 

would lie in the low range of environmental effect magnitude benchmarks. 

I.4.1 Review of National Water-Quality Guidelines and Selection of 

Benchmarks 

Various published national water-quality guidelines were consulted to determine the most appropriate 

values to use as the CHC5 and CHC50 benchmarks for the aquatic environment. 

Canada 

In Canada, CCME (2007) released a new protocol for the derivation of water-quality guidelines for the 

protection of aquatic life (CCME 2007). Under this new protocol, three types of guidelines are proposed: 

A, B-1, and B-2. To date, no guidelines have been published following the new protocols; however, the 

approach to benchmark development outlined in this study is generally similar to the approach proposed 

by CCME. 

Type A water quality guidelines are derived using a statistical extrapolation of the species-sensitivity 

distribution using an approach described in Zajdlik (2005), based on the Aldenberg and Slob (1993) 

technique. The guideline value is calculated as the 5 th percentile of the SSD with a 50% confidence level. 

As only one value per species is used in the distribution, the order of preference for reported chronic 

effects is as follows: ECx representing a no-effect threshold, EC11-25, MATC, NOEC, LOEC, nonlethal 

EC26-49, and nonlethal EC50. Acceptable study endpoints are traditional endpoints (e.g., growth, 

reproduction, and survival) as well as non-traditional endpoints (e.g., behaviour and physiological 

changes), if the latter can be demonstrated to have ecological relevance. Where studies report multiple 

endpoints for a given species, the most sensitive of a given study is selected, and the geometric mean of 

the most sensitive values from various studies is used. The minimum data requirements to derive the 

Page I-34 2010





freshwater type A guidelines are three studies on fish (at least one salmonid and one non-salmonid), three 

aquatic invertebrate studies (at least one planktonic crustacean), and one vascular plant or algae species (if 

the substance is considered phytotoxic, then at least three studies on freshwater plants or algae are 

required). For the marine type A guidelines, the minimum data requirements are three fish studies (at least 

one temperate species), two studies on two or more species of aquatic invertebrates (at least one 

temperate species), one study on temperate marine vascular plant or algae (if the substance is considered 

phytotoxic, then at least three studies on marine plants or algae are required). 

Type B-1 guidelines are derived using a risk assessment-factor approach modified from the earlier CCME 

protocol (see below for details). This guideline is derived when the minimum data requirements for the 

type A guidelines are not met. The approach to determining this guideline is to apply a factor of 10 

against the lowest appropriate ECx value. The preferred risk effects threshold for the ECx value is one 

that has been derived by regression analysis of the toxicological data and has been demonstrated to be at 

or near the low effect threshold. When this value is not available, other chronic effects thresholds may be 

used in the following order of preference: ECx representing a low-effect threshold, EC11-25, LOEC, 

MATC, nonlethal EC26-49, and nonlethal EC50. The endpoints used in the derivation of this guideline are 

similar to the type A guidelines. The data requirements for the type B-1 guidelines are similar to the type 

A guidelines; the only difference is the risk effects threshold reported. 

Type B-2 guidelines are derived using a risk assessment factor approach modified from the earlier CCME 

protocol. This guideline is derived when the minimum data requirements for the type A and type B-1 

guidelines are not met. The approach to determining this guideline is to apply a factor of 20 or 100 against 

the lowest appropriate ECx value. The AF of 20 is used for non-persistent substances while the value of 

100 is applied to persistent substances. The preferred risk effects threshold for the ECx value is one that 

has been derived by regression analysis of the toxicological data and has been demonstrated to be at or 

near the low effect threshold. When this value is not available, other chronic effects thresholds may be 

used in the following order of preference: ECx representing a low-effect threshold, EC11-25, LOEC, 

MATC, EC26-49, nonlethal EC50, and LC50. The endpoints used in the derivation of this guideline are 

similar to the type A guidelines. The data requirements for the type B-2 freshwater guidelines are as 

follows: studies on two fish species (one salmonid and one non-salmonid) and two aquatic or semiaquatic 

invertebrates (at least one planktonic invertebrate). 

Under the 2007 protocol, CCME will report separate freshwater and marine water quality guidelines for 

the protection of aquatic life only where there is a statistical difference in the distribution of toxicity data 

between freshwater and marine organisms. 

Australia/New Zealand 

Australia and New Zealand developed benchmarks (called trigger values or TV) for freshwater and 

marine quality (ANZECC 2000). ANZECC (2000) reports three reliability levels for TV: High, Moderate, 

and Low. The high-reliability TV is based on statistical extrapolation of the SSD using the Aldenberg and 

Slob (1993) approach. This TV uses the distribution of chronic or subchronic NOEC data primarily from 

the U.S. EPA (1994b) ACQUIRE database. The database was screened for studies that received quality 

scores of 1 or 2 out of a 5-point scale and was examined for outlying data points that were individually 

reviewed and removed where appropriate. The protection level chosen was a 50% confidence level of the 

2010 Page I-35





5 th percentile (“95% protection”; 50/95) based on a review by Warne (1998) and on consistency with the 

Dutch approach (see below). Where there were chronic NOEC values for keystone or particularly 

important species, this value was required to fall below the reported NOEC. If it failed to do so, the 50% 

CL of the 1 st percentile (“99% protection”) was chosen. The data requirement for the statistical 

extrapolation method is a minimum of NOEC data for at least five different species from at least four 

different taxonomic groups. For chronic studies, ANZECC (2000) classifies endpoints into three 

categories: 

• functions of life endpoints, which include mortality, reproductive impairment, hatchability, 

immobilization, and inhibition of growth 

• behavioural endpoints, which include mobility, motility, burial rate, ventilation rates, swimming rate, 

phototactic responses, and feeding rate 

• biochemical endpoints, which include inhibition of bioluminescence, induction and activity of a range 

of enzymes including cytochrome P-450, EROD, acetylcholinesterase, and metallothionein, changes 

in DNA, histopathological lesions, and immune system dysfunction 

There is currently much debate about the appropriateness of these three types of endpoints and in order to 

adhere to scientific validity, ANZECC limited data used to studies that reported functions of life 

endpoints. This approach is supported by the OECD (1992). 

The moderate reliability TV is also based on the 50/95 statistical extrapolation of species sensitivity 

distributions, but instead of the chronic NOEC data, it uses the acute LC50 or EC50 data. This value was 

then converted to a moderate-reliability trigger value by applying an empirically derived acute-to-chronic 

ratio (ACR) or a default ACR of 10.0. The data requirements for the moderate reliability TV are similar to 

the high-reliability TV with the exception of E(L)C50 data instead of NOEC. 

When datasets were too small or did not satisfy reporting quality requirements for the high- or moderatereliability 

TVs, a low-reliability TV, or ecological concern level (ECL) was calculated as follows using a 

risk assessment-factor approach. The lowest of at least three chronic NOEC values was divided by 20 or 

the lowest of at least three acute E(L)C50 values was divided by 100 following the OECD (1992) 

recommendations. If there were not sufficient data to satisfy the OECD MPD requirements, a factor of 

1000 was applied to the lowest acute E(L)C50 value. For essential elements, the first factor applied was 2, 

instead of 10, resulting in an overall factor of 20 for acute MPD data and 200 when there were data for 

only one or two species. 

Netherlands 

The Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM; Crommentuijn et al. 1997; 

van de Plassche et al. 1999; Verbruggen et al. 2001; van Vlaardingen et al. 2005) outlines two guideline 

values that are considered relevant as potential benchmark values: the serious risk concentration (SRC) 

and the maximum permissible concentration (MPC). These guidelines are the sum of the serious risk 

addition (SRA) and maximum permissible addition (MPA) added to the background concentrations (Cb) 

in an added-risk approach (Struijs et al. 1997). While Cb are measured concentrations, the SRA and MPA 

are calculated according to methods discussed below. 

Page I-36 2010





Prior to 2003, MPA and SRA guidelines from the Netherlands were based on methods determined by 

RIVM. Since 2003, and the adoption of the EU directive and accompanying technical guidance document 

(TGD; ECB 2003), MPA guidelines have been calculated using methods outlined in the TGD. SRA 

guidelines are derived specifically within the Dutch national framework of environmental standards, and 

are, therefore, not subject to methods outlined in the TGD. The pre-2003 methods apply to values 

reported in Crommentuijn et al. (1997), van de Plassche et al. (1999), Verbruggen et al. (2001), and 

Lijzen et al. (2001). The methods outlined in the TGD apply to MPA values reported in van Vlaardingen 

et al. (2005) and the protocol described in van Vlaardingen and Verbruggen (2007). 

RIVM has developed two approaches to calculating the SRA and MPA values: the refined riskassessment 

and the preliminary risk-assessment methods. The refined risk-assessment approach used a 

statistical extrapolation of the SSD of the chronic NOEC data using the Aldenberg and Slob (1993) 

approach. Where multiple studies on the same species and using the same endpoint were available, the 

geometric mean of the reported values was used. When more than one toxicity endpoint was available, the 

lowest value or geometric mean of multiple values for the same endpoint was used for the given species. 

The SRA values are based on the 50 th percentile of the NOEC distribution (equivalent to the geometric 

mean of the log-distributed data), while the MPA is based on the 5 th percentile, each with a 50% 

confidence level. Prior to 2003 and the adoption of the EU directive, the minimum data requirement for 

both the SRA and MPA guidelines, derived using the refined risk-assessment approach, was 4 NOEC 

values of species from different taxonomic groups. 

Under the EU directive, the requirement for using the statistical extrapolation method of the SSD when 

calculating the MPA is a minimum of ten species representing eight taxonomic groups. Taxonomic 

groups should include fish, crustaceans, insects, algae and higher plants. As the SRA guideline is only 

derived within the Dutch framework, the data requirements for calculating the SRA became a minimum 

of studies on three taxonomic groups, which should represent the three specified trophic levels from the 

base set of the TGD: algae, Daphnia, and fish. 

Prior to adopting the EU directive methods, the preliminary risk assessment approach was used to derive 

SRA and MPA values when NOEC values were available for fewer than four taxonomic groups. This 

approach uses the application of various factors against available data. To calculate the SRA, when no 

NOEC values were available, a factor of 10 (the default acute-to-chronic ratio) was applied to the 

geometric mean E(L)C50 value. When greater than one NOEC value was available, the lesser of the 

geometric mean NOEC value and the geometric mean E(L)C50 value/10 was used. 

RIVM report guidelines for both fresh and marine water together as a surface-water-quality guideline, 

unless there is evidence that distributions of toxicity data are statistically different for organisms from 

each environment. This approach is supported by the Fraunhofer Institute and the EU Technical Guidance 

Document (van Vlaardingen and Verbruggen 2007) and is consistent with the CCME approach. 

United States 

The U.S. EPA (1986, 2002b) provides two water-quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life: the 

criterion continuous concentration (CCC) and the criterion maximum concentration (CMC). The CCC is 

equal to the lowest of the final chronic value (FCV), the final plant value (FPV), and the final residue 

2010 Page I-37





value (FRV), while the CMC is equal to one-half the final acute value (FAV). U.S. EPA uses a variety of 

data sources to calculate these criteria; the most recent update to the criteria was in 2002. 

The FAV is calculated using E(L)C50 data from a minimum of one study for freshwater animals in at least 

eight different families (including requirements for fish, crustaceans, insects, and other invertebrates). 

Where multiple values are reported for a particular species, the geometric mean of values is used in the 

calculation. The FAV is calculated as “the concentration of the material corresponding to a cumulative 

probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for the genera with which acceptable acute tests have been 

conducted on the material” (Stephan et al. 1985). This concentration corresponds approximately to the 5 th 

percentile of the SSD of the acute toxicity data. The FAV is therefore similar to the ANZECC moderate 

reliability TV prior to applying the ACR. The FCV can be calculated using two separate methods. If 

sufficient chronic data are available, the FCV can be calculated using the same approach as the FAV. The 

chronic data used are the mean of the NOEC and LOEC values reported in studies for the same species 

(equivalent to the maximum acceptable toxicity value; MATC). Otherwise, the FCV can be calculated 

from the FAV using an acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR). Where the ACR is less than 2.0, an ACR value of 

2.0 is applied so that the CCC is not less than the CMC. The FPV is calculated as the lowest value for 

which an adverse effect is observed in aquatic plant toxicity testing (chronic or acute). The FRV is 

obtained by dividing the maximum permissible tissue concentration (FDA action levels or maximum 

acceptable dietary intake for non-human consumers) by the bioaccumulation or bioconcentration factors. 

Should the FAV or FCV be greater than the mean acute value or mean chronic value, respectively, for a 

commercially or recreationally important species, the latter values are used as the FAV or FCV, 

respectively. The U.S. EPA (2002b) reports CCC and CMC values separately for freshwater and saltwater 

environments. 

I.4.1.1 The Target-Lipid-Model Framework for Non-Polar Organic Compounds 

For many organic compounds (i.e., those that meet the criteria to be classified as having Type 1 non-polar 

narcotic mode of action, Bradbury et al. 1989) a general approach to developing water-quality criteria, 

consistent with the U.S. EPA and species-sensitivity-distribution approaches, was proposed by Di Toro et 

al. (2000). This approach (also known as the Target Lipid Model) has been applied and validated for the 

development of water and sediment benchmarks for PAH, crude oil, and gasolines (Di Toro and McGrath 

2000; Di Toro et al. 2007; McGrath et al. 2004, 2005). The Target-Lipid Model has been shown to be 

applicable to algae, protozoa, invertebrates and fish. In its published applications, it follows a speciessensitivity-distribution-based 

approach to estimate FAV and FCV values that reflect the sensitivity of a 5 th 

percentile species in the species sensitivity distribution. Thus, the FCV represents an endpoint consistent 

with the CHC5 value. 

The toxicity of Type 1 narcotic chemicals, which include BTEX, PAH and other chemicals, should be 

treated as additive (Bradbury et al. 1989; Hermens 1989; Verhaar et al. 1992; Di Toro et al. 2000; Di Toro 

and McGrath 2000; Di Toro et al. 2007). The following sections demonstrate how this additive toxicity 

can be evaluated for aquatic biota, based on the concept of Toxic Units (TU; Di Toro et al. 2007). 

Page I-38 2010





The relationship between the LC50 for Type 1 narcotic chemicals (mmol/L) and the KOW value for fish is 

approximately (Di Toro et al. 2000 Equation 1): 

log(LC50) ≈ – log(KOW) + 1.7 

From Di Toro et al. (2000 Equation 3), the critical body burden corresponding to lethality is: 

C*Org = BCF × LC50 

The BCF varies with KOW, so that (Di Toro et al. 2000 Equation 4): 

log(BCF) = log(KOW) – 1.3 

Therefore, the critical body burden corresponding to the LC50 can be calculated by combining the toxicity 

and the bioaccumulation equations as: 

Or, 

log(C*Org) = log(BCF) + log(LC50) 

= log(KOW) – 1.3 – log(KOW) + 1.7 

= 0.4 

C*Org = 2.5 mmol/kg wet weight (Di Toro et al. 2000 Equation 6). 

Assuming that the lipid fraction of fish and invertebrates is approximately 5%, then, 

C*Org = 50 mmol/kg lipid (which can also be defined as C*L) 

Note that although initially based on fish, this result is in principle a universal concentration applicable to 

all aquatic biota and broadly validated for protozoa, coelenterates, polychaetes, crustaceans, molluscs, 

insects, fish and amphibians for a variety of Type 1 narcotic chemicals (Di Toro et al. 2000). 

From this concentration, and from considerations of multi-component organic compound solubility in 

water and sediment pore water, it is possible to derive models that can account for the toxicity of 

hydrocarbon mixtures in water and sediment for a broad range of aquatic biota. This approach is carried 

out and validated by Di Toro et al. (2000), Di Toro and McGrath (2000), McGrath et al. (2005), and 

Di Toro et al. (2007). Di Toro et al. (2007 Equation 1) note that: 

log(LC50) = m log(KOW) + b, 

where m has the value of approximately -1 and b has the value of approximately 1.7 for fish. It has been 

further shown that: 

• the slope (m) of approximately -1 (actually defined as -0.945 ± 0.014 by Di Toro et al. 2000) is 

universal across KOW values (i.e., for a broad range of narcotic chemicals) and independent of 

organism identity 

• the intercept (b), which varies according to individual species sensitivity and toxic endpoint, can be 

interpreted as the lipid-normalized critical body burden, C*L, that corresponds to an observed 

endpoint such as 50% mortality or LC50 (Di Toro et al. 2007) 

2010 Page I-39





Families of lines can be defined, each having the same slope (-0.945), but having different intercepts, to 

represent different endpoints (such as acute or chronic lethality) for different organisms. Di Toro et al. 

(2000) evaluate a variety of different species in order to define the 5 th percentile of sensitivity (as required 

by U.S. EPA, and as recently recommended by CCME in estimating water-quality criteria). Based upon 

multi-species evaluation (including protozoa, coelenterates, polychaetes, crustaceans, molluscs, insects, 

fish and amphibians), critical lipid concentrations for the more sensitive (5 th percentile) resources are 

defined as follows: 

C*L, FAV, 5% = 35.3 mmol/kg lipid 

C*L, FCV, 5% = 6.94 mmol/kg lipid 

An acute: chronic ratio (ACR) of 5.09 is assumed. 

Using this approach and data presented in Di Toro et al. (2000), the 50 th percentile of species sensitivity 

distribution (SSD) was also derived and the corresponding critical lipid concentrations are defined as: 

C*L, FAV, 50% = 144 mmol/kg lipid 

C*L, FCV, 50% = 28.3 mmol/kg lipid, where the same ACR of 5.09 is used 

The analysis presented in Di Toro et al. (2000) also showed that some classes of narcotic chemicals are 

systematically considered to have a greater toxic potency than others and correction factors are listed in 

Table I-9. 

Table I-9 Chemical-Class Correction Factors and Critical Tissue 

Concentrations for Aquatic Biota 

Chemical Class 

Chemical-Class 

Correction Factor 

5 th Percentile SSD 

(mmol/kg lipid) 

50 th Percentile SSD 

(mmol/kg lipid) 

cl log cl FAV FCV FAV FCV 

Baseline a 1 0 35.3 6.94 144 28.3 

Halogenated 0.570 -0.244 20.1 3.96 82.1 16.1 

Ketones 0.569 -0.245 20.1 3.95 81.9 16.1 

Halogenated 

Ketones 

0.324 -0.489 11.4 2.25 46.7 9.17 

PAH 0.546 -0.263 19.3 3.79 78.6 15.5 

Halogenated PAH 0.311 -0.507 11.0 2.16 44.8 8.80 

NOTE: 

a 

Baseline narcotic chemicals include aliphatics, ethers, alcohols and most aromatic compounds (e.g., 

BTEX and aromatic TPH). 

For each substance (j), the critical water concentration at which an adverse effect will occur is: 

log(C*W,j) = -0.945 log(KOW,j) + (log(C*L) + Δcj), 

where KOW,j is the octanol-water partition coefficient for substance j, and the term (log(C*L) + Δcj) is the 

critical effects concentration in the organism lipid fraction (mmol/kg lipid) from Table I-9. 

Page I-40 2010





The 5 th percentile in a SSD can be considered generally protective of aquatic resources, in a manner 

consistent with a recently published methodology for the development of Canadian Water-Quality 

Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (CCME 2007). 

The critical water concentrations for chronic exposures for the 5 th percentile SSD are based on the 

following equations: 

log(C*W,j,5) = -0.945 log(KOW,j) + 0.841 for BTEX and TPH 

log(C*W,j,5) = -0.945 log(KOW,j) + 0.578 for PAH 

log(C*W,j,5) = -0.945 log(KOW,j) + 0.597 for chlorinated baseline compounds 

The critical water concentrations for chronic exposures of 50 th percentile SSD are based on the following 

equations: 

log(C*W,j,50) = -0.945 log(KOW,j) + 1.451 for BTEX and TPH 

log(C*W,j,50) = -0.945 log(KOW,j) + 1.188 for PAH 

log(C*W,j,50) = -0.945 log(KOW,j) + 1.207 for chlorinated baseline compounds 

Critical water concentrations of the 5 th and 50 th percentile SSD for chronic effects are presented in 

Table I-10 as the chronic hazardous concentration–5 th percentile and 50 th percentile benchmarks 

respectively (CHC5 and CHC50). Table I-10 also includes a negligible benchmark based on the analytical 

detection limit for water as reported by RPC Laboratories. 

I.4.2 Evaluation of National Guidelines and Methodologies 

In an extensive review of methods used to derive water quality guidelines (WQGs), Warne (1998) 

provided the following brief summary: 

There are two principal approaches to determining WQGs. The original method called 

the assessment factor method divided the lowest toxicity value by an assessment factor, 

the magnitude of which was based on the number, character and quality of the available 

toxicity data. The more data, and the more realistic they were, the lower the magnitude of 

the assessment factor. Typical assessment factors used are 10, 100 and 1000. The aim of 

such methods is to protect all species from lifetime exposures to toxicants. This type of 

approach is used by a variety of countries including Australia, New Zealand, USA, 

Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands and South Africa and the OECD has recommended 

it. A new approach—statistical extrapolation methods—has been developed since 1986. 

They use toxicity for all species that are available and fit a particular distribution to the 

data and from this calculate the concentration that should protect any percentage of 

species. This type of approach has also been adopted by many countries—in fact all the 

above mentioned countries except Australia, New Zealand and Canada use both the 

assessment factor and statistical extrapolation techniques. The USA, The Netherlands, 

OECD and South Africa use the statistical extrapolation techniques in preference to the 

AF methods unless there is insufficient data whereas Denmark prefers the AF method to 

the statistical extrapolation techniques” (Warne 1998). 

2010 Page I-41





It should be noted as described above in a review of the national guideline development methods that 

Australia and New Zealand adopted the statistical extrapolation approach in 2000 and Canada followed 

suit in 2007. With the recent adoption of the statistical extrapolation of the SSD approach by CCME, all 

four national guidelines reviewed above now estimate guideline values using this method as a primary 

means and the AF approach as a secondary means (except U.S. EPA, which does not use a similar 

AF approach). 

One important consideration in reviewing the above guidelines is the use of NOEC data versus alternative 

risk effect concentrations for use in the species-sensitivity distributions. The use of NOEC values has 

been heavily criticized in peer-reviewed literature, as they are meant to represent the concentration at 

which there was no risk effect and because calculation methods vary and produce inconsistent results 

(Jager et al. 2006; Crane and Newman 2000; Chapman et al. 1996). Crane and Newman (2000) 

demonstrated that NOEC values actually may represent a risk effect ranging from 0% to 37% with a mean 

of approximately a 10% risk effect level. The U.S. EPA uses the geometric mean of NOEC and LOEC 

values (defined as the MATC value; Crane and Newman 2000) to determine appropriate risk effects 

thresholds which is higher than the NOEC and had an averaged response of approximately 28% (Crane 

and Newman 2000). Therefore, while the 95 th percentile of the NOEC distribution is assumed to be 

protective of 95% of species, this assumption would be premised on the assumption that a 10% risk effect 

level would not result in a population-level effect. Therefore, given the analysis conducted by Crane and 

Newman (2000), preference is given to guidelines derived using NOEC values (CCME, Australia/New 

Zealand, and the Netherlands) and not the U.S. EPA MATC values, though the latter are preferred over 

the AF approach. 

Given the various statistical techniques and data requirements, the following order of preference has been 

determined for selecting water quality guidelines used in ERA, where SE refers to statistical extrapolation 

approach and AF refers to the risk assessment-factor approach: 

1. CCME type A (SE) 

2. RIVM derived using the EU TGD (SE) 

3. ANZECC high reliability (SE) 

4. RIVM pre-TGD (SE) 

5. ANZECC moderate reliability (SE) 

6. U.S. EPA (SE) 

7. CCME type B-1 (AF) 

8. RIVM guidelines (AF) 

9. ANZECC low reliability (AF) 

10. CCME type B-2 (AF) 

11. CCME (1991) guidelines (AF) 

Table I-10 provides the selected benchmark values for determination of effect magnitude for the marine 

environment (water). 

Page I-42 2010





Table I-10 Marine Water Effect Magnitude Benchmarks 


Concentration 

(mg/L) 

DL Fresh a 

CHC5 

2010 Page I-43 

Reference 

Barium 2.0E-05 5.8E-03 MPA b 1.5E+01 SRAeco b 

Boron 2.0E-04 5.1E+00 ANZECC 9.8E+00 c 

Cadmium 5.0E-07 5.5E-03 ANZECC 2.7E-02 SRAeco d 

Manganese 2.0E-05 8.0E-02 ANZECC 3.6E+00 e 

Molybdenum 2.0E-05 2.3E-02 ANZECC 5.4E+01 SRAeco d 

Nickel 2.0E-05 7.0E-02 ANZECC 5.0E-01 SRAeco d 

Tin 2.0E-05 1.0E-02 ANZECC 4.0E-01 SRAeco b 

Vanadium 2.0E-05 1.0E-01 ANZECC 3.0E-01 f 

Zinc 2.0E-04 1.5E-02 ANZECC 8.9E-02 SRAeco d 

BTEX 

Benzene 5.0E-04 5.6E+00 Di Toro et al. 2000 2.3E+01 Di Toro et al. 2000 

EthylBenzene 5.0E-04 8.7E-01 3.5E+00 

Toluene 5.0E-04 1.8E+00 7.3E+00 

Xylenes (tot) 5.0E-04 7.0E-01 2.8E+00 

PAH 

Negligible 

Low 

1-Methylnaphthalene 1.0E-05 1.2E-01 Di Toro et al. 2000 4.8E-01 Di Toro et al. 2000 


Acenaphthene 1.0E-05 1.2E-01 4.9E-01 

Acenaphthylene 1.0E-05 9.4E-02 3.9E-01 

Anthracene 1.0E-05 3.8E-02 1.5E-01 

Benzo(a)anthracene 1.0E-05 3.5E-03 1.4E-02 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.0E-05 1.6E-03 6.4E-03 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.0E-05 1.6E-03 6.7E-03 

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.0E-05 7.5E-04 3.1E-03 

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0E-05 2.0E-03 8.3E-03 

Benzo(e)pyrene 1.0E-05 7.8E-04 3.2E-03 

Chrysene 1.0E-05 3.5E-03 1.4E-02 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.0E-05 7.6E-04 3.1E-03 

Fluoranthene 1.0E-05 1.4E-02 5.9E-02 

Fluorene 1.0E-05 6.8E-02 2.8E-01 

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 1.0E-05 6.1E-04 2.5E-03 

Naphthalene 5.0E-05 3.7E-01 1.5E+00 

Moderate 

CHC50 

Reference 

High





Table I-10 Marine Water Effect Magnitude Benchmarks (cont’d) 

Phenanthrene 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 

DL Fresh a 

1.0E-05 

CHC5 

2010 Page I-45 

Reference 

Pyrene 1.0E-05 1.8E-02 7.3E-02 


2,4-Dimethylphenol 1.0E-04 5.7E+00 Di Toro et al. 2000 2.3E+01 Di Toro et al. 2000 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.0E-04 4.5E+01 1.8E+02 

Phenol 5.0E-02 2.5E+01 1.0E+02 

TPH Fractions 

Aliphatics >C6-C8 5.0E-03 1.2E-01 Di Toro et al. 2000 4.8E-01 Di Toro et al. 2000 




Aliphatics >C16-C21 1.0E-02 --- – 

Aliphatics >C21-C32 2.0E-02 --- – 

Aromatics >C8-C10 5.0E-03 3.4E-01 1.4E+00 





VOCs 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.0E-03 1.2E-01 Di Toro et al. 2000 4.9E-01 Di Toro et al. 2000 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.0E-03 2.8E-01 1.1E+00 

NOTES: 

“–” Not considered because of negligible solubility and bioavailability. 

CHC – Chronic Hazardous Concentration 

DL – Detection Limit 

MPA – Maximum Permissible Addition concentration (as described by the RIVM; van Vlaardingen et al. 2005) 

SRAeco – Ecotoxicological Serious Risk Addition concentration (as described by the RIVM; Verbruggen et al. 2001; van Vlaardingen et al. 2005). 

ANZECC – Australian and New Zealand Environmental Conservation Council. 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. 

a 

Freshwater detection limits as provided by RPC Laboratories. 

b 

van Vlaardingen et al. 2005. (RIVM) 

c 

Geometric mean of chronic toxicity data (NOAEL) for freshwater species (marine chronic data not available, but acute marine and freshwater data were not significantly different). 

3.8E-02 

d Verbruggen et al. 2001. (RIVM) 

e Geometric mean of acute toxicity data (LC50 and EC50) for aquatic species divided by an uncertainty factor of 10. 

f Reliable CHC50 not available. Assumed to be three times the CHC5. 

CHC50 

1.5E-01 

Reference





I.4.3 Review of National Sediment Quality Guidelines and Selection of 

Benchmarks 

There are currently two common approaches to determining sediment-quality guidelines: co-occurrence 

and mechanistic. 

Co-occurrence SQG approaches are based on the statistical analysis of large databases of synoptic 

sediment chemistry and toxicity data to identify chemical concentrations associated with various levels of 

biological effects. Examples of this type of SQG include the effects range–low (ERL) and effects range– 

median (ERM) values, which are concentrations corresponding to the 10 th and 50 th percentiles of the 

distribution observed in toxic samples, respectively. Variations in chemical speciation and bioavailability 

are not directly addressed in co-occurrence SQG. Such risk effects are indirectly incorporated into the 

guidelines through the use of a database containing samples from diverse locations and sediment types. 

Co-occurrence SQG have two major practical advantages: they can be calculated for a large number of 

contaminants, and only routine chemical-analysis data are needed for their application. 

Co-occurrence-based SQG have been criticized in the literature for their lack of ability to properly 

determine a toxicity threshold because of interference caused by sediment containing multiple elements 

and the inability to determine which elements are responsible for the observed toxicity (von Stackelberg 

and Menzie 2002; Borgmann 2003; Jones-Lee and Lee 2005; Di Toro 2008). In essence, as the 

concentrations of many trace elements and other organic contaminants (petroleum hydrocarbons) are 

frequently correlated due to mutual sources of contamination, the relationship between concentrations of 

one contaminant and the apparent toxicity of the sediment become auto-correlated and do not represent a 

true concentration-response curve. Furthermore, it is frequently suggested that when determining cooccurrence 

SQG, the data should be pre-screened using various protocols (Field et al. 1999, 2002), which 

effectively inserts bias to the dataset and critically limits the ability to determine whether the resulting 

values can be applied to field data (Di Toro 2008). 

More recently, several studies have used a statistical extrapolation from species-sensitivity distributions to 

determine sediment-quality guidelines (Leung et al. 2005; Bjørgesæter 2006; Kwok et al. 2008). Leung et 

al. (2005) and Bjørgesæter (2006) report SQG for several contaminants measured in Norwegian Shelf 

sediment based on SSD for 2,200 benthic species and 4,200 sampling locations. While an improvement 

over the currently used co-occurrence databases used in Canada and previously in the United States 

(Leung et al. 2005), it is still subject to the problem of auto-correlation between contaminants, and species 

presence-absence because of the correlation between contaminants originating from a mutual source. This 

statistical defect of the current empirical approaches renders them unreliable for use as environmental 

effect magnitude benchmarks. 

Mechanistic models estimate the fraction of a contaminant that is bioavailable in sediment, and relates 

this concentration to known aquatic toxicity levels. For organic substances, these models use the 

Equilibrium Partition Model (EqP; Di Toro et al. 1990) as their general framework and apply empirical 

toxicity data to predict the toxicity of single chemicals or chemical mixtures. These models have been 

validated using large datasets of spiked sediments (Berry et al. 1996) and field datasets (Hansen et al. 

1996). Work by Di Toro and co-workers has recently applied these concepts to hydrocarbons and PAH in 

sediments. 

2010 Page I-47





The toxicity of metals in sediment is complicated by the presence of: 

• relatively immobile and non-available metals in the mineral lattice structures of mineral particles 

• more labile metal fractions associated with a variety of geochemical phases, including sorbed (readily 

exchangeable) metals 

• metals that may be associated with organic matter, carbonates, iron and manganese oxides, sulphides, 

and potentially other phases in the sediment 

Much work has focused on the role of acid-volatile sulphide (AVS) in sediment (Ankley et al. 1991), and 

for some metals, the ratio of AVS to simultaneously extractable metals (SEM) has been demonstrated to 

be a reliable predictor of sediment toxicity. 

Mechanistic SQG often require extensive geochemical data to apply, and as a result simpler models based 

on partition coefficients (KOW, KOC or KD values) are more suitable for use in large-scale risk assessments. 

Sediment quality guidelines based on equilibrium partitioning (EqP) for organics assume that non-ionic 

chemicals in sediment partition according to well defined KOC values between the organic carbon present 

in the sediment as well as in the interstitial (pore) water and the benthic organisms living on the sediment. 

For metals, a similar partitioning between the bulk sediment and water phases is assumed based upon KD 

values, although such values are inherently less well defined than KOW and KOC values. For this reason, in 

this study, high-quality KD values have been selected from major compilations representing coastal waters 

(Balls 1989, U.S. EPA 2005, IAEA 2004). To be conservative, these values have been divided by 10 

before using them in the Marine ERA sediment toxicity model. 

I.4.3.1 Toxicity of Type 1 Narcotic Chemicals in Marine Sediment 

The evaluation of organic COPC toxicity to marine sediment-dwelling organisms follows a similar 

approach to that applied to water (Di Toro and McGrath 2000), since it is the concentration of organic 

substances in sediment pore water that is considered to be available and potentially toxic to sediment life 

(i.e., the equilibrium partitioning or EqP approach). Sediment narcotic chemical concentrations are based 

on organic carbon (OC) normalization, where typical sediment organic carbon fractions may range from 

0.001 to 0.05 (and can be defined by the user, provided data are available to support a specific selection), 

with a default value of 0.01 (1% organic carbon). 

Two simple relationships can be exploited as follows. First, from Di Toro and McGrath (2000), Equations 

6 and 7: 

CS,OC = KOC × CW, where log(KOC) = 0.00028 + 0.983 log(KOW). 

Second, from Di Toro and McGrath (2000), Equations 9 and 10): 

log(CSQG) = log(KOC) + log(FCV), where log(FCV) = log(C*L) – 0.945 log(KOW). 

Then by substitution and simplification (Di Toro and McGrath, 2000, Equation 12): 

log(CSQG) = 0.00028 + log(C*L) + 0.038 log(KOW). 

Page I-48 2010





This is the desired equation, which provides a critical sediment concentration (CSQG, mmol/kg OC), based 

on C*L (as for water above) and KOW (a fundamental property of each substance). As stated previously, 

critical water concentrations for baseline hydrocarbons chronic exposures of the 5 th and 50 th percentile 

SSD are based on a C*L values of 6.9 and 28.3 mmol/kg lipid respectively, which are adjusted using 

correction factors to reflect higher toxicity of other chemical classes, such as PAH. 

I.4.3.2 Toxicity of Trace Elements in Sediment 

To derive sediment benchmarks for trace elements, the equilibrium partitioning theory was also used by 

assuming a similar partitioning between the bulk sediment and water phases. This approach takes into 

account the aquatic benchmarks developed herein and is similar to that used by the RIVM to define 

sediment guidelines (Lijzen et al. 2001) and has also been recommended by others (Leung et al. 2005). 

On the other hand, this approach requires KD values, which are inherently less well defined than KOW and 

KOC values. Although the highest quality reported KD values are used (see Appendix B), these values 

were conservatively divided by a factor of 10 before applying them in the derivation of sediment 

benchmarks. As such, sediment benchmarks values are derived using these equations: 

Sediment CHC5 Benchmark (mg/kg dw) = Water CHC5 Benchmark × KD / 10 

Sediment CHC50 Benchmark (mg/kg dw) = Water CHC50 Benchmark × KD /10 

The water benchmarks (CHC5 and CHC50, mg/L) are those listed previously in this Appendix, and KD is 

the water/sediment partition coefficient (L/kg) as found in Appendix B. 

Empirical measurements of trace element concentrations in sediment samples collected within Kitimat 

Arm (both near-shore and sub-tidal) were used to identify baseline concentrations of trace elements in 

sediment. The median reported values were selected, based on professional judgment, to represent a 

natural baseline concentration, and this concentration represents the expected concentrations in areas in 

Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel that are remote from industrial or other significant human activity (for 

example, Clio Bay). The maximum detected values are used to represent expected concentrations in areas 

considered to be affected by or proximal to areas of industrial or other significant human activity 

(compartments located adjacent to or inland from the Kitimat Terminal). It is considered conservative to 

use the maximum reported value to represent baseline conditions for these areas. 

Table I-11 presents selected benchmark values for determination of environmental effect magnitude for 

the marine sediments, and selected baseline concentrations for trace elements in sediment. 

2010 Page I-49





Table I-11 Marine Sediment Effect Magnitude Benchmarks 


Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 

Baseline Concentrations for Model Compartments a 


Near-shore Sub-tidal Near-shore Sub-tidal 


2010 Page I-51 

Negligible 

DL b 

Low 

CHC5 Ref. 

Moderate 

CHC50 Ref. 

Barium 2.9E+01 1.3E+02 3.6E+01 1.5E+02 2.0E-02 5.8E+00 EqP c 1.5E+04 EqP c 

Boron --- 3.9E+01 --- 5.8E+01 8.0E-04 2.0E+01 3.9E+01 

Cadmium < 1.0E-01 < 5.0E-02 1.0E-01 9.0E-02 5.0E-03 5.5E+01 2.7E+02 

Manganese --- 5.5E+02 --- 7.0E+02 1.5E+00 6.0E+03 2.7E+05 

Molybdenum 3.8E-01 < 5.0E-01 5.4E-01 < 5.0E-01 5.0E-02 5.8E+01 1.4E+05 

Nickel 8.2E+00 2.1E+01 9.4E+00 2.4E+01 6.3E-02 2.2E+02 1.6E+03 

Tin < 5.0E+00 < 2.0E+00 < 5.0E+00 < 2.0E+00 1.6E-01 7.9E+01 3.2E+03 

Vanadium d 4.4E+01 1.3E+02 5.4E+01 1.4E+02 1.0E-02 5.0E+01 1.5E+02 

Zinc 3.4E+01 8.0E+01 3.8E+01 8.6E+01 2.0E+00 1.5E+02 8.9E+02 

BTEX 

Benzene < 3.0E-02 < 8.0E-02 < 3.0E-02 < 8.0E-02 8.0E-02 6.5E+00 Di Toro and 

2.7E+01 Di Toro and 

EthylBenzene < 3.0E-02 < 1.0E-01 < 3.0E-02 < 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.7E+00 

McGrath 2000 

3.9E+01 

McGrath 2000 

Toluene < 3.0E-02 < 1.0E-01 < 3.0E-02 < 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 8.1E+00 3.3E+01 

Xylenes (tot) 

PAH 

< 5.0E-02 < 2.0E-01 < 5.0E-02 < 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 9.8E+00 4.0E+01 

1-Methylnaphthalene --- --- --- --- --- 7.6E+00 Di Toro and 


2-Methylnaphthalene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 7.6E+00 

McGrath 2000 

3.1E+01 

McGrath 2000 

Acenaphthene < 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 8.5E-03 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 8.2E+00 3.4E+01 

Acenaphthylene < 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 < 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 8.1E+00 3.3E+01 

Anthracene < 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 1.4E-02 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 1.0E+01 4.1E+01 

Benzo(a)anthracene 7.5E-03 < 5.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.7E-01 5.0E-02 1.4E+01 5.8E+01 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.4E-02 7.5E-02 2.9E-02 7.0E-01 5.0E-02 1.6E+01 6.7E+01 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 1.6E+01 6.7E+01 

Benzo(ghi)perylene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 2.3E-01 5.0E-02 1.9E+01 7.5E+01 

Benzo(a)pyrene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 3.6E-01 5.0E-02 1.6E+01 6.6E+01 

Benzo(e)pyrene --- --- --- --- --- 1.7E+01 6.9E+01 

Chrysene 1.1E-02 < 5.0E-02 2.8E-02 3.2E-01 5.0E-02 1.4E+01 5.8E+01 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene < 5.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 < 5.0E-03 6.0E-02 5.0E-02 1.9E+01 7.6E+01 

Fluoranthene 1.5E-02 4.3E-02 6.0E-02 3.9E-01 5.0E-02 1.2E+01 4.8E+01 

High





Table I-11 Marine Sediment Effect Magnitude Benchmarks (cont’d) 

Concentration 

(mg/kg dw) 




Fluorene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 


2010 Page I-53 

DL b 

5.0E-02 

CHC5 Ref. 

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 < 1.0E-02 2.5E-01 5.0E-02 1.9E+01 7.6E+01 

Naphthalene < 1.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 3.0E-02 < 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 6.5E+00 2.6E+01 

Phenanthrene 9.0E-03 < 5.0E-02 8.7E-02 1.8E-01 5.0E-02 1.0E+01 4.1E+01 

Pyrene 1.0E-02 4.3E-02 3.6E-02 4.0E-01 5.0E-02 1.2E+01 4.8E+01 

Phenolic Compunds 

9.1E+00 

CHC50 Ref. 

2,4-Dimethylphenol --- --- --- --- --- 1.0E+01 Di Toro and 


2,4-Dinitrophenol --- --- --- --- --- 1.5E+01 

McGrath 2000 

6.0E+01 

McGrath 2000 

Phenol 

TPH Fractions 

--- --- --- --- --- 7.5E+00 3.0E+01 

Al >C6-C8 < 2.0E-01 --- < 2.0E-01 --- 2.0E-01 9.8E+00 Di Toro and 


Al >C8-C10 < 4.0E-01 --- < 4.0E-01 --- 4.0E-01 1.4E+01 

McGrath 2000 

5.6E+01 

McGrath 2000 

Al >C10-C12 < 8.0E+00 --- < 8.0E+00 --- 8.0E+00 1.8E+01 7.5E+01 

Al >C12-C16 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 1.5E+01 2.6E+01 1.1E+02 

Al >C16-C21 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 1.5E+01 -- e --- e 

Al >C21-C32 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 1.5E+01 --- e --- e 

Ar >C8-C10 < 3.0E-01 --- 4.0E-01 --- 3.0E-01 1.1E+01 4.6E+01 

Ar >C10-C12 < 5.0E+00 --- 6.3E+00 --- 5.0E+00 1.3E+01 5.1E+01 

Ar >C12-C16 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 6.1E+01 

Ar >C16-C21 < 1.5E+01 --- < 1.5E+01 --- 1.5E+01 2.0E+01 8.0E+01 

Ar >C21-C32 

VOCs 

< 1.5E+01 --- 2.3E+01 --- 1.5E+01 2.7E+01 1.1E+02 

3.7E+01





Table I-11 Marine Sediment Effect Magnitude Benchmarks (cont’d) 



Concentration 


(mg/kg dw) 

DL b 


CHC5 Ref. 

CHC50 Ref. 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene --- --- --- --- 

--- 



1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene --- --- --- --- --- 6.4E+00 

McGrath 2000 

2.6E+01 

McGrath 2000 

NOTES: 

“---” Indicates results not reported by the laboratory or analysis not requested. 

CHC - Chronic Hazardous Concentration 

DL - Detection Limit 

dw - dry weight 

EqP - Equilibrium Partitioning 

Ref. - Reference 


CB - Clio Bay 

EP - Emsley Point 

K1 - Kitimat 1 

K2 - Kitimat 2 

T - Terminal 

a Reported concentrations for samples collected in compartments K1, K2 and T. For near-shore sediments, maximum concentrations are assigned to K1, K2 and T compartments 

whereas median concentrations were assigned to CB and EP. For offshore sediments, maximum concentrations of samples collected near the marine terminal are assigned to K1, 

K2 and T compartments whereas average concentrations of samples collected at a reference locations situated on the opposite shore are assigned to compartments CB and EP. 

Concentration of organics in sediments is assumed to be negligible in the derivation of benchmarks. 

b For trace elements, derived detection limit based on the equilibrium partitioning approach using the freshwater water detection limits and compound specific Kd values. 

c CHC5 and CHC50 benchmarks for trace elements are derived using the equilibrium-partitioning approach using corresponding seawater benchmarks and compound specific Kd values. 

d Total baseline vanadium sediment concentrations are reported although the bioavailable fraction, is assumed to represent 10% of the total vanadium concentration. 

e Not considered because of negligible solubility and bioavailability. 

2010 Page I-55





I.5 References 

I.5.1 Literature Cited 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological Profile for 

Dinitrophenols. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 

Atlanta, GA. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Toxicological Profile for 

Ethylbenzene. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 

Atlanta, GA. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Total 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public 

Health Service. Atlanta, GA. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2005a. Toxicological Profile for Tin and 

Tin. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 

Compounds. Atlanta, GA. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2005b. Toxicological Profile for Benzene. 

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, GA. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2005c. Draft Toxicological Profile for 

Xylene. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, 

GA. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2006. Toxicological Profile for Phenol, 

Draft. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Atlanta, 

GA. 

Aldenberg, T. and W. Slob. 1993. Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically 

distributed NOEC data. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 25: 48–63. 

Ankley, G.T., G.L. Phipps, E.N. Leonard, D.A. Benoit, V.R. Mattson, P.A. Kosian, A.M. Cotter, 

J.R. Dierkes, D.J. Hansen and J.D. Mahony. 1991. Acid-volatile sulfide as a factor mediating 

cadmium and nickel bioavailability in contaminated sediments. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 10(10): 1299–1307. 

Balls, P.W. 1989. The partition of trace metals between dissolved and particulate phases in European 

coastal waters: a compilation of field data and comparison with laboratory studies. Netherlands 

Journal of Sea Research 23: 7–14. 

Berry, W.J., D.J. Hansen, J.D. Mahony, D.L. Robson, D.M. Di Toro, B.P. Shipley, B. Rogers, J.M. Corbin 

and W.S. Boothman. 1996. Predicting the toxicity of metal-spiked laboratory sediments using 

acid-volatile sulfide and interstitial water normalizations. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 15(12): 2067–2079. 

2010 Page I-57





Bjørgesæter, A. 2006. Field Based Predicted No Effect Concentrations (F-PNECs) for macro benthos on 

the Norwegian Continental Shelf. Environmental Risk Management System Report No 15. 

Borgmann, U. 2003. Derivation of cause-effect based sediment quality guidelines. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 352–360. 

Bradbury, S., R. Carlson and T. Henry. 1989. Polar narcosis in aquatic organisms. Aquatic Toxicology and 

Hazard Assessment 12: 59–73. 


Assessment: Technical Appendices. The National Contaminated Sites Program. Winnipeg, MB. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2007. A Protocol for the Derivation of Water 

Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life 2007. In: Canadian Environmental Quality 

Guidelines 1999. Winnipeg, MB. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008. Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale. Supporting Technical Document. Draft. 

Winnipeg, MB. 

Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1999. Canadian Environmental Quality 

Guidelines. Winnipeg, MB. 

Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada-Wide Standards for 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale. Supporting Technical Document. 

Winnipeg, MB. 

Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). 1993. Priority Substances List Assessment Report. 

Styrene. Health Canada, Ottawa, ON. 

Chapman, P.M., R.S. Cardwell and P.F. Chapman. 1996. A warning: NOECs are inappropriate for 

regulatory use. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15: 77–79. 

Chappell, W.R. 1992. Scaling toxicity data across species. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 

14(3): 71–80. 

Coon, N.C. and M.P. Dieter. 1981. Responses of adult mallard ducks to ingested south Louisiana crude 

oil. Environmental Research 24: 309–314. 

Coppock, R.W and C.A.J. Campbell. 1997. Risk Assessment. In G.E. Chalmers (ed.). A Literature Review 

and Discussion of the Toxicological Hazards of Oilfield Pollutants in Cattle. Alberta Research 

Council, Vegreville, AB. 363–381. 

Crane, M. and M.C. Newman. 2000. What level of effect is a no observed effect? Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 19(2): 516–519. 

Crommentuijn, T., D.F. Kalf, M.D. Polder, R. Posthumus and E.J. van de Plassche. 1997. Maximum 

Permissible Concentrations and Negligible Concentrations for Pesticides. National Institute of 

Public Health and the Environment. RIVM Report No 601501 002. Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 

Page I-58 2010





Daniel, E.P. and R.D. Lillie. 1938. Experimental vanadium poisoning in the white rat. Public Health 

Reports 53: 765–777. 

Daniel, F.B. M. Robinson, G.R. Olson, R.G. York and L.W. Condie. 1993. Ten and ninety-day toxicity 

studies of 2,4-dimethylphenol in Sprague-Dawley rats. Drug and Chemical Toxicology 16(4): 

351–368. 

Davidson, I.W.F., J.C. Parker and R.P. Beliles. 1986. Biological basis for extrapolation across mammalian 

species. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 6: 211–237. 

Di Toro D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, M.B. Hicks, S.M. Mayr and M.S. Redmond. 1990. 

Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: the role of acid volatile sulfide. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 9: 1487–1502. 


hydrocarbon criteria. II. Mixtures and sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19(8): 

1971–1982. 


polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon criteria. I. Water and tissue. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 19(8): 1951–1970. 


crude oil: Toxic potential and the toxicity of saturated mixtures. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 26(1): 24–36. 

Di Toro, D.M. 2008. Review of Sediment Quality Objectives for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of 

California. Peer review document for: California Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Water 

Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. Part 1. Sediment Quality. State Water 

Resources Control Board. 

Di Toro, D.M., C.S. Zarba, D.J. Hansen, W.J. Berry, R.C. Swartz, C.E. Cowan, S.P. Pavlou, H.E. Allen, 

N.A. Thomas and P.R. Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for 

nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 10: 1541–1583. 

Di Toro, D.M., J.A. McGrath, D.J. Hansen, W.J. Berry, P.R. Paquin, R. Mathew, K.B. Wu and 

R.C. Santore. 2005. Predicting sediment metal toxicity using a sediment biotic ligand model: 

methodology and initial application. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24: 2410–2427. 

Duke, L.D. and M. Taggart. 2000. Uncertainty factors in screening ecological assessments. Environmental 


European Chemicals Bureau (ECB). 2003. Technical Guidance Document in Support of Commission 

Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for New Notified Substances, Commission Regulation 

(EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for Existing Substances and Directive 98/9/EC of the 

European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Placing of Biocidal Products on the 

Market. Ispra, Italy. 

2010 Page I-59





FDA. 1972. Teratologic evaluation of FDA 71-33 (stannous chloride). Washington, DC: U.S. Food & and 

Drug Administration. PB221780. 

Field, L.J., D.D. MacDonald, S.B. Norton, C.G. Ingersoll, C.G. Severn, D. Smorong and R. Lindskoog. 

2002. Predicting amphipod toxicity from sediment chemistry using logistic regression models. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(9): 1993–2005. 

Field, L.J., D.D. MacDonald, S.B. Norton, C.G. Severn and C.G. Ingersoll. 1999. Evaluating sediment 

chemistry and toxicity data using logistic regression modeling. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 18: 1311–1322. 

Hansen, D.J., W.J. Berry, J.D. Mahony, W.S. Boothman, D.M. Di Toro, D.L. Robson, G.T. Ankley, D. Ma, 

Q. Yan and C.E. Pesch. 1996. Predicting the toxicity of metals-contaminated field sediments 

using interstitial concentrations of metal and acid volatile sulphide normalizations. Environmental 


Hermens, J. 1989. Quantitative structure-activity relationships in environmental pollutants. In 

O. Hutzinger (ed.). Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Volume 2E Reactions and Processes. 

Springer-Verlag. Berlin, Germany. 111–162. 

IIT Research Institute (IITRI). 1995. 90-Day Oral Gavage Toxicity Study of 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene in 

Rats with a Recovery Group. Industry Institute of Toxicology Research Institute. Study conducted 

for Koch Industries Inc., Wichita, KS. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2004. Sediment Distribution Coefficients and 

Concentration Factors for Biota in the Marine Environment. Technical Report Series No. 422. 

Jager, T., E.H.W. Heugens and S.A.L.M. Kooijman. 2006. Making sense of ecotoxicological test results: 

towards application of process-based models. Ecotoxicology 15: 305–314. 

Johnson, D., A.L. Mehring and H.W. Titus. 1960. Tolerance of chickens for barium. Proceedings of the 

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 104: 436-438. Cited in B.E. Sample, 

D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/. 

Jones-Lee, A. and G.F. Lee. 2005. Unreliability of co-occurrence-based sediment quality guidelines for 

contaminated sediment evaluations at superfund/hazardous chemical sites. Remediation 15(2): 

19–33. 

Kapustka, L.A. 2004. Establishing EcoSSL for PAH: Lessons revealed from a review of literature in 

exposure and effects to terrestrial receptors. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 10(2): 

185-205. 

Kleiber, M. 1932. Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia 6: 315–332. 

Krasavage, W.J., J.L. O'Donoghue, G.D. Divencenzo and T. Erhaar. 1980. Relative neurotoxicity of MBK, 

n-hexane, and their metabolites. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 52: 433–441. 

Page I-60 2010





Kwok, K.W.H., A. Bjørgesæter, K.M.Y. Leung, G.C.S. Lui, J.S. Gray, P.K.S. Shin and P.K.S. Lam. 2008. 

Deriving site-specific sediment quality guidelines for Hong Kong marine environments using 

field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 27(1): 

226-234. 

Lepore, P.D. and R.F. Miller. 1965. Embryonic viability as influenced by excess molybdenum in chicken 

breeder diets. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 118: 155–157. 

Cited in B.E. Sample, D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for 

Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/. 

Leung, K.M.Y., A. Bjørgsæter, J.S. Gray, W.K. Li, G.C.S. Lui, Y. Wang and P.K.S. Lam. 2005. Deriving 

sediment quality guidelines from field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environmental 

Science and Technology 39: 5148–5156. 

Lijzen, J.P.A., A.J. Baars, P.F. Otte, M.G.J. Rikken, F.A. Swartjes, E.M.J. Verbruggen and A.P. van Wezel. 

2001. Technical Evaluation of the Intervention Values for Soil/Sediment and Groundwater. 

National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM report No. 711701 023. 

Luttik, R., P. Mineau and W. Roelofs. 2005. A review of interspecies toxicity extrapolation in birds and 

mammals and a proposal for long-term toxicity data. Ecotoxicology 14: 817–832. 

Marks T.A., P.W. Fisher and R.E. Staples. 1980. Influence of n-hexane on embryo and fetal development 

in mice. Drug and Chemical Toxicology 3(4): 393–406. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). 1994. Interim Final Petroleum 

Report: Development of Health-Based Alternative to the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) 

Parameter. Office of Research and Standards. Boston, MA. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). 2003. Updated Petroleum 

Hydrocarbon Fraction Toxicity Values for the VPH/EPH/APH Methodology. Bureau of Waste Site 

Cleanup, Boston, MA. 

McGrath, J.A., T.F. Parkerton, F.L. Hellweger and D.M. Di Toro. 2005. Validation of the narcosis target 

lipid model for petroleum products: gasoline as a case study. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 24: 2382–2394. 

McGrath,J.A., T.F. Parkerton and D.M. Di Toro. 2004. Application of the narcosis target lipid model to 

algal toxicity and deriving predicted-no-effect concentrations. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 23: 2503–2517. 

Mellert, W., K. Deckardt, W. Kaufmann and B. van Ravenzwaay. 2007. Ethylbenzene: 4- and 13-week rat 

oral toxicity. Archives of Toxicology 81(5): 361–370. 

Merali, Z. and R.L. Singhal. 1980. Diabetogenic effects of chronic oral cadmium administration to 

neonatal rats. British Journal of Pharmacology 69(1): 151–157. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation of acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24: 24–29. 

2010 Page I-61





National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1977. Drinking Water and Health, Vol. 1. National Research 

Council. Washington, DC. 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1980. Drinking Water and Health, Vol. 3. National Research 

Council Washington, DC. 

Nawrot, P.S. and R.E. Staples. 1979. Embryofetal Toxicity and teratogenicity of benzene and toluene in 

the mouse. Teratology 19: 41A. 

Ohio EPA. 2003. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Document. State of Ohio EPA DERR-00-RR-031. 

Revised 2008. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1992. Report of the OECD 

Workshop on Extrapolation of Laboratory Aquatic Toxicity Data to the Real Environment. OECD 

Environment Monographs 59. Paris, France. 

Pandey, R. and S.P. Srivastava. 2000. Spermatotoxic effects of nickel in mice. Bulletin of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 64(2): 161–167. 

Raimondo, S., P. Mineau and M.G. Barron. 2007. Estimation of chemical toxicity to wildlife species using 

interspecies correlation models. Environmental Science and Technology 41: 5888–5894. 

Ryan, B.M., R. Selby, R. Gingell, J.M. Waechter, J.H. Butala, S.S. Dimond, B.J. Dunn, R. House and 

R. Morrissey. 2001. Two-generation reproduction study and immunotoxicity screen in rats dosed 

with phenol via the drinking water. International Journal of Toxicology 20(3): 121–142. 

Sample, B.E. and C.A. Arenal. 1999. Allometric models for interspecies extrapolation of wildlife 

toxicological data. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 62: 653–663. 

Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 

Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/. 

Schlicker, S.A. and D.H. Cox. 1968. Maternal dietary zinc, and development and zinc, iron, and copper 

content of the rat fetus. Journal of Nutrition 95: 287–294. Cited in B.E. Sample, D.M. Opresko 

and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/. 

Schroeder, H.A and M. Mitchener. 1971. Toxic effects of trace elements on the reproduction of mice and 

rats. Archives of Environmental Health 23: 102–106. Cited in B.E. Sample, D.M. Opresko and 

G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/. 

Smith, G.J. and V.P. Anders. 1989. Toxic effects of boron on mallard reproduction. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 8: 943–950. Cited in B.E. Sample, D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II. 

1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/. 

Page I-62 2010





Stahl, J.L., J.L. Greger and M.E. Cook. 1990. Breeding-hen and progeny performance when hens are fed 

excessive dietary zinc. Poultry Science 69: 259–263. Cited in B.E. Sample, D.M. Opresko and 

G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/. 

Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman and W.A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines 

for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic 

Organisms and their Uses. United States Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research 

and Development Environmental Research Laboratories. 

Struijs, J., D. Van de Meent, W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg, M.A.G.T. Van den Hoop and T. Crommentuijn. 1997. 

Added risk approach to derive maximum permissible concentrations for heavy metals: How to 

take natural background levels into account? Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 37: 

112-118. 

Stubblefield, W.A., G.A. Hancock, H.H. Prince and R.K. Ringer. 1995. Effects of naturally weathered 

Exxon Valdez crude oil on mallard reproduction. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14: 

1951-1960. 

Szaro, R.C., M.P. Dieter, G.H. Heinz and J.F. Ferreli. 1978. Effects of chronic ingestion of South 

Louisiana crude oil on mallard ducklings. Environmental Research 17: 426–436. 

Tainter, M.L. 1938. Growth, life-span and food intake of white rats fed dinitrophenol throughout life. 

Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 63: 51–57. 

Takahashi, M., M. Sunaga, M. Hirata-Koizumi, A. Hirose, E. Kamata and M. Ema. 2009. Reproductive 

and developmental toxicity screening study of 2,4-dinitrophenol in rats. Environmental 

Toxicology 24(1): 74–81. 

Theuer R.C., A.W. Mahoney, H.P. Sarett. 1971. Placental transfer of fluoride and tin in rats given various 

fluoride and tin salts. Journal of Nutrition 101:525–532. 

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG). 1997. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 

Criteria Working Group Series, Volume 4. Development of Fraction Specific Reference Doses 

(RfDs) and Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for Total Petroleum Hydrocrabons (TPH). Amherst 

Scientific Publishers. Amherst, MA. 

Travis, C.C. and R.K. White. 1988. Interspecific scaling of toxicity data. Risk Analysis 8: 119–125. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water: 1986. 

EPA-440-5-86-001. Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1988. Recommendations for and 

Documentation of Biological Values for Use in Risk Assessment. Environmental Criteria and 

Assessment Office. EPA/600/6-87/008. Cited in B.E. Sample, D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II. 



2010 Page I-63





United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1989. Ninety-day Gavage Study in Albino 

Mice using 2,4-Dimethylphenol. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, 

DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994a. Aquatic Toxicity Information 

Retrieval Database (AQUIRE) Standard Operation Procedures. Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994b. The Use of the Benchmark Dose 

Approach in Health Risk Assessment. Office of Research and Development. EPA/630/R-94/007. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative 

Technical Support Document for Wildlife Criteria. Office of Water. EPA/820/B-95/009. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002a. A Review of the Reference Dose and 

Reference Concentration Processes. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-02/002F. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002b. Revision of National Recommended 

Water Quality Criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047. Washington, DC. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005. Partition coefficients for metals in 

surface water, soil, and waste. Research and Development Report No. 600/R-05/074. 

van de Plassche, E., M. v.d. Hoop., R. Posthumus and T. Crommentuijn. 1999. Risk Limits for Boron, 

Silver, Titanium, Tellurium, Uranium, and Organosilicon Compounds in the Framework of EU 

Directive 76/464/EEC. Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM report No. 601501 

005. 

van Vlaardingen, P.L.A. and E.M.J. Verbruggen. 2007. Guidance for the Derivation of Environmental 

Risk Limits within the Framework of ‘International and National Environmental Quality 

Standards for Substances in the Netherlands’ (INS) – Revision 2007. National Institute of Public 

Health and the Environment. RIVM Report No 601782 001. Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 

van Vlaardingen, P.L.A., R. Posthumus and C.J.A.M. Posthuma-Doodeman. 2005. Environmental Risk 

Limits for Nine Trace Elements. Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM report 

No. 601501 029. 

Verbruggen, E.M.J., R. Posthumus and A.P. van Wezel. 2001. Ecotoxicological Serious Risk 

Concentrations for Soil, Sediment and (Ground)Water: updated proposals for first series of 

compounds. Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM report No. 711701 020. 

Verhaar, H., C. Van Leeuwen and J. Hermens. 1992. Classifying environmental pollutants. 1. 

Structure-activity relationships for prediction of aquatic toxicity. Chemosphere 25: 471–491. 

Von Stackelberg, K. and C.A. Menzie. 2002 A cautionary note on using species presence and absence data 

in deriving sediment criteria. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 466:472. 

Warne, M.St.J. 1998. Critical Review of Methods to Derive Water Quality Guidelines for Toxicants and a 

Proposal for a New Framework. Supervising Scientist Report No 135. 

Page I-64 2010





Weir, R.J. and R.S. Fisher. 1972. Toxicologica studies on borax and boric acid. Toxicology and Applied 

Pharmacology 23: 351–364. Cited in Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II. 1996. 

Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak 

Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/. 

White, D.H. and M.P. Dieter. 1978. Effects of dietary vanadium in mallard ducks. Journal of Toxicology 

and Environmental Health 4: 43–50. Cited in Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II. 



Wolf, M.A., V.K. Rowe, D.D. McCollister, R.L. Hollingsworth and F. Oyen. 1956. Toxicological studies 

of certain alkylated benzenes and benzene. Archives of Industrial Health 14: 387–398. 

Zajdlik, B. 2005. Statistical analysis of the SSD approach for development of Canadian water quality 

guidelines. Report for CCME Project Number 354-2005. 

I.5.2 Internet Sites 


New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Accessed: March 2009. Available 

at: http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_and_new_zealand_guidelines_for_fresh_ 

and_marine_water_quality 

Canada Gazette. 2008. Draft Screening Assessment for 4,4’-(1-methylethylidene)bisphenol (80-05-7). 

Part I, 142(16) Accessed: November 2008. Available at: 

http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/challenge-defi/batch-lot_2_e.html 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1991. A protocol for the derivation of water quality 

guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Originally published as Appendix IX of Canadian 

Water Quality Guidelines (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers 1987). 

Accessed online on March 9, 2009 from: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/wqg_aql_protocol.pdf 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2008a. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene – Reference Dose for Chronic 

Oral Exposure (RfD). National Centre for Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. 

Accessed: November 2008. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0466.htm 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2008b. 2,4-Dimethylphenol – Reference Dose for Chronic 

Oral Exposure (RfD). National Centre for Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. 


Robinson, K.S., R.J. Kavlock, N. Chernoff and E. Gray. 1981. Multi-generation study of 1,2,4trichlorobenzene 

in rats. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 8: 489-500. Cited in 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2008. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene – Reference Dose for 

Chronic Oral Exposure (RfD). National Centre for Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. 


2010 Page I-65





United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005a. User's Guide T-REX Version 1.2.3 

(Terrestrial Residue EXposure model). Accessed: November 2008. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex/trex_usersguide.htm 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for 

Barium, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 

Accessed: November 2008. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/ 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for 

Cadmium, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 


United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for 

Vanadium, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 


United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for 

Manganese, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 


United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for 

Nickel, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 


United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH). Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. Washington, DC. Accessed: November 2008. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/ 

Page I-66 2010



Appendix J: Estimated Hazard Indices and Hazard Quotients for Selected Species 

Appendix J Estimated Hazard Indices and Hazard 

Quotients for Selected Species 

2010 Page J-1





Appendix J Estimated Hazard Indices and Hazard Quotients for Selected 

Species .................................................................................................. J-1 

J.1 Linking Species to Water and Sediment Model Compartments ......................... J-5 

J.2 Effect Magnitude Estimates for Community Receptors ...................................... J-5 


Table J-1 Marine Species – Compartment Selection Matrix ..................................... J-5 

Table J-2 Base Case Effect Magnitude for the Marine Community-level 

Receptors Exposed to COPC in Kitimat 1 ............................................... J-6 

Table J-3 Project Case Effect Magnitude for the Marine Community-level 

Receptors Exposed to COPC in Kitimat 1 ............................................. J-10 

Table J-4 Application Case Effect Magnitude for the Marine Community-level 









Receptors Exposed to COPC in Terminal ............................................. J-30 






Receptors Exposed to COPC in Clio Bay .............................................. J-42 






Receptors Exposed to COPC in Emsley Point ...................................... J-54 





2010 Page J-3




Table J-17 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in 

Kitimat 1 ................................................................................................ J-66 




Terminal ................................................................................................ J-73 


Clio Bay ................................................................................................. J-76 


Emsley Point ......................................................................................... J-79 

Table J-22 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in 





Terminal ................................................................................................ J-88 


Clio Bay ................................................................................................. J-91 

Table J-26 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected 

Species in Emsley Point ........................................................................ J-94 


Species in Kitimat 1 ............................................................................... J-97 


Species in Kitimat 2 ............................................................................. J-100 


Species in Terminal ............................................................................. J-103 


Species in Clio Bay ............................................................................. J-106 


Emsley Point ....................................................................................... J-109 

Page J-4 2010




J.1 Linking Species to Water and Sediment Model Compartments 

Individual species are modelled according to their respective life strategies, diets and characteristics. At 

the same time, water and sediment quality are modeled spatially, with major model compartments 

representing different areas (K1, K2, T, CB and EP), and sub-compartments within these major 

compartments representing surface and deep water, and nearshore and offshore sediments. It is assumed 

that each species may live out its life cycle within each of the major model compartments. However, it is 

also important to explicitly link a species to the specific water and sediment compartments to which they 

may be exposed (see Table J-1). Where the species are modelled as ingesting food items, those food items 

are also assumed to be sourced from the identified water and sediment compartments. 

Table J-1 Marine Species – Compartment Selection Matrix 

Species 

Water Sediments 

Surface Deep Near-shore Off-shore 

Sediment Community X X 

Aquatic Community X X 

Spotted Sandpiper X X 

Surf Scoter X X 

Marbled Murrelet X X 

Bald Eagle X X 

Coastal-dwelling Mink X X 

Steller Sea Lion X X 

Harbor Porpoise X X 

J.2 Effect Magnitude Estimates for Community Receptors 

For the effect magnitude estimates for water and sediment community receptors for the Base Case, 

Project Case and Application Case, see Tables J-2 to J-16. 

For the hazard quotients for avian and mammalian species for the Base Case, Project Case and 

Application Case, see Tables J-17 to J-31. 

2010 Page J-5




Table J-2 Base Case Effect Magnitude for the Marine Community-level Receptors Exposed to COPC in 


BTEX 

Constituent 

Surface Sea Water Effect 

Magnitude 

Deep Sea Water Effect 

Magnitude 


Sediment Effect 

Magnitude 

Benzene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Ethylbenzene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Toluene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Xylenes Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Negligible Negligible 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 – a 

Aliph>C08-C10 - F1 – a 

Arom>C08-C10 - F1 – a 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 – a 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 – a 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 – a 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 – a 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a,b 


Arom>C16-C21 - F3 – a 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 – a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a,b 

– a,b 

– a 

– a 

Negligible – a 


Low – a 



Low – a 




Magnitude 

Page J-6 2010 

– a,b 

– a,b 

– a,b 

– a,b 


Low – a





Kitimat 1 (cont’d) 

Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Acenaphthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Negligible 

Acenaphthylene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Negligible 

Fluorene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

1-Methylnaphthalene – a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

2-Methylnaphthalene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Negligible 

Naphthalene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Negligible 

Phenanthrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 


Fluoranthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Benz(a)anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Benzo(a)pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Low 

Benzo(e)pyrene – a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Moderate c 

Moderate c 

Low Low 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Low 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Chrysene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Low 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Low 

Pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 



Magnitude 

2010 Page J-7






Constituent 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene – a 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene – a 


Phenol – a 

2,4-Dimethylphenol – a 

2,4-Dinitrophenol – a 


Barium Moderate c 


Magnitude 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 


Magnitude 

Moderate c 



Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Page J-8 2010 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

Moderate d 

Boron Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Low 

Cadmium Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Manganese Moderate c 

Moderate c 

Negligible Low 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

Moderate d 

Molybdenum Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Negligible 

Nickel Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Tin Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Vanadium Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Zinc Moderate d 

Moderate d 

Low Low 



Magnitude 

NOTES: 



a Effects magnitude not determined as empirical measurements were either not reported by the laboratory or analysis was not requested. 

b F3 aliphatics are insufficiently soluble in water to pose a risk to aquatic and sediment receptors. 

c Sample collected in Kitimat 2 compartment. 

d Sample collected in Terminal compartment. 

2010 Page J-9




Table J-3 Project Case Effect Magnitude for the Marine Community-level Receptors Exposed to COPC in 


BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Benzene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Ethylbenzene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Toluene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Xylenes Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 Negligible (CHC5/3) Negligible (CHC5/3) Low Low 




Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a 

– a 

– a 


Arom>C21-C34 - F3 Negligible (CHC5/3) Negligible (CHC5/3) Low Low 



Magnitude 

Page J-10 2010 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a






Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Acenaphthene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Acenaphthylene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Anthracene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Fluorene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

1-Methylnaphthalene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 


Naphthalene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Phenanthrene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 


Fluoranthene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Benz(a)anthracene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Benzo(a)pyrene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Benzo(e)pyrene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Chrysene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 



Magnitude 

2010 Page J-11






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Pyrene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 


Phenol Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

2,4-Dimethylphenol Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

2,4-Dinitrophenol Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 


Barium Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Boron Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Cadmium Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Manganese Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Molybdenum Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Nickel Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Tin Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 



Magnitude 

Page J-12 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Vanadium Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

Zinc Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Low Low 

NOTES: 



CHC5/3 - CHC5 divided by a factor of three. 



Magnitude 

2010 Page J-13




Table J-4 Application Case Effect Magnitude for the Marine Community-level Receptors Exposed to COPC 

in Kitimat 1 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 



Toluene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Xylenes Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 









Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a 

– a 

– a 





Magnitude 

Page J-14 2010 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a





in Kitimat 1 (cont’d) 

Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Acenaphthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Acenaphthylene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Fluorene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 


2-Methylnaphthalene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Naphthalene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 





Benzo(a)pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 



Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 


Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 



Magnitude 

2010 Page J-15






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 










Barium Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Boron Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 



Molybdenum Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 


Tin Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 



Magnitude 

Page J-16 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 


Zinc Moderate Moderate Low I Low 

NOTES: 




a F3 aliphatics are insufficiently soluble in water to pose a risk to aquatic and sediment receptors. 



Magnitude 

2010 Page J-17






BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 






Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 – a 

Aliph>C08-C10 - F1 – a 

Arom>C08-C10 - F1 – a 

Aliph>C10-C12 - F2 – a 

Aliph>C12-C16 - F2 – a 

Arom>C10-C12 - F2 – a 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 – a 



Arom>C16-C21 - F3 – a 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 – a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a,b 

– a,b 

– a 

– a 



Low – a 



Low – a 




Magnitude 

Page J-18 2010 

– a,b 

– a,b 

– a,b 

– a,b 


Low – a






Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 





1-Methylnaphthalene – a 

– a 








Benzo(e)pyrene – a 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Moderate c 

– a 

Moderate c 



Magnitude 

2010 Page J-19 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

Low Low 




Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Low






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 




1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene – a 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene – a 


Phenol – a 

2,4-Dimethylphenol – a 

2,4-Dinitrophenol – a 


Barium Moderate c 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

Moderate c 



Magnitude 

Page J-20 2010 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

Moderate d 



Manganese Moderate c 

Moderate c 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a 

Negligible Low 

Moderate d 



Tin Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 


Zinc Moderate d 

Moderate d 

Low Low 



Magnitude 

NOTES: 






2010 Page J-21






BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 













Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a 

– a 

– a 





Magnitude 

Page J-22 2010 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a






Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 





















Magnitude 

2010 Page J-23






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 




















Magnitude 

Page J-24 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 



NOTES: 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-25





in Kitimat 2 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 













Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a 

– a 

– a 





Magnitude 

Page J-26 2010 

– a 

– a 

– a 

– a






Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 





















Magnitude 

2010 Page J-27






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 




















Magnitude 

Page J-28 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 



NOTES: 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-29





Terminal 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Effect Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 






Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 – a – a Negligible – a 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 – a – a Low – a 




Arom>C12-C16 - F2 – a – a Negligible – a 

Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a,b – a,b – a,b – a,b 






Magnitude 

Page J-30 2010





Terminal (cont’d) 

Constituent 






Magnitude 



Magnitude 





1-Methylnaphthalene – a – a – a – a 








Benzo(e)pyrene – a – a – a – a 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Moderate c Moderate c Low Low 




Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Low 



Magnitude 

2010 Page J-31






Constituent 





Magnitude 



Magnitude 




1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene – a – a – a – a 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene – a – a – a – a 


Phenol – a – a – a – a 

2,4-Dimethylphenol – a – a – a – a 

2,4-Dinitrophenol – a – a – a – a 


Barium Moderate c Moderate c Moderate d Moderate d 



Manganese Moderate c Moderate c Negligible Low 



Tin Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 



Magnitude 

Page J-32 2010






Constituent 





Magnitude 



Magnitude 


Zinc Moderate d Moderate d Low Low 



Magnitude 

NOTES: 






d Sample collected in Terminal compartment. 

2010 Page J-33





Terminal 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 













Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a – a – a – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a – a – a – a 





Magnitude 

Page J-34 2010






Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 





















Magnitude 

2010 Page J-35






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 




















Magnitude 

Page J-36 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 



NOTES: 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-37





in Terminal 

BTEX 

Constituent 




Magnitude 



Magnitude 













Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a – a – a – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a – a – a – a 





Magnitude 

Page J-38 2010





in Terminal (cont’d) 

Constituent 






Magnitude 



Magnitude 





















Magnitude 

2010 Page J-39






Constituent 





Magnitude 



Magnitude 




















Magnitude 

Page J-40 2010






Constituent 





Magnitude 



Magnitude 



NOTES: 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-41




Table J-11 Base Case Effect Magnitude for the Marine Community-level Receptors Exposed to COPC in Clio 

Bay 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 



















Magnitude 

Page J-42 2010





Bay (cont’d) 

Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Acenaphthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 


Anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 



2-Methylnaphthalene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Naphthalene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Phenanthrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 


Fluoranthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Benz(a)anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Benzo(a)pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 


Benzo(b)fluoranthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 


Chrysene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 



Magnitude 

2010 Page J-43






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 









Barium Moderate Moderate Negligible Negligible 

Boron Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Cadmium Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Manganese Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Molybdenum Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Nickel Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 




Magnitude 

Page J-44 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Vanadium Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Zinc Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 



Magnitude 

NOTES: 





2010 Page J-45





Clio Bay 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 













Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a – a – a – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a – a – a – a 





Magnitude 

Page J-46 2010





Clio Bay (cont’d) 

Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 





















Magnitude 

2010 Page J-47






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 




















Magnitude 

Page J-48 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 



NOTES: 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-49





in Clio Bay 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 













Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a – a – a – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a – a – a – a 





Magnitude 

Page J-50 2010





in Clio Bay (cont’d) 

Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 














Benzo(b)fluoranthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-51






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 














Manganese Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 






Magnitude 

Page J-52 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 


Zinc Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

NOTES: 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-53





Emsley Point 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 



















Magnitude 

Page J-54 2010





Emsley Point (cont’d) 

Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Acenaphthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 


Anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 



2-Methylnaphthalene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Naphthalene Negligible (DL) Negligible (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Phenanthrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 


Fluoranthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Benz(a)anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Benzo(a)pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 


Benzo(b)fluoranthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 


Chrysene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 



Magnitude 

2010 Page J-55






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Pyrene Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 









Barium Moderate Moderate Negligible Negligible 

Boron Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Cadmium Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Manganese Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Molybdenum Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Nickel Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 




Magnitude 

Page J-56 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 

Vanadium Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 

Zinc Low (DL) Low (DL) Negligible Negligible 



Magnitude 

NOTES: 





2010 Page J-57





Emsley Point 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 













Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a – a – a – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a – a – a – a 





Magnitude 

Page J-58 2010






Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 





















Magnitude 

2010 Page J-59






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 




















Magnitude 

Page J-60 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 



NOTES: 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-61





in Emsley Point 

BTEX 

Constituent 


Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 













Aliph>C16-C21 - F3 – a – a – a – a 

Aliph>C21-C34 - F3 – a – a – a – a 





Magnitude 

Page J-62 2010





in Emsley Point (cont’d) 

Constituent 




Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 














Benzo(b)fluoranthene Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-63






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 














Manganese Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 






Magnitude 

Page J-64 2010






Constituent 



Magnitude 


Magnitude 



Magnitude 


Zinc Low (DL) Low (DL) Low Low 

NOTES: 







Magnitude 

2010 Page J-65




Table J-17 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Kitimat 1 

BTEX 

COPC 

Coastal 

Dwelling 

Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 

Sandpiper Surf Scoter 

Marbled 

Murrelet Bald Eagle 

Benzene 6.76E-07 3.63E-06 2.47E-06 – – – – 

Ethylbenzene 2.03E-06 8.70E-06 5.32E-06 – – – – 

Toluene 1.14E-06 5.56E-06 3.49E-06 – – – – 

Xylenes 1.77E-06 7.57E-06 4.62E-06 – – – – 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 3.21E-06 6.57E-06 – 4.26E-05 3.09E-05 – 1.89E-06 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 6.48E-06 1.32E-05 – 8.60E-05 6.28E-05 – 3.79E-06 

F1 - Total 1.60E-05 3.27E-05 – 2.12E-04 1.54E-04 – 9.46E-06 



Arom>C10-C12 - F2 2.03E-04 4.16E-04 – 2.70E-03 1.96E-03 – 1.19E-04 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 2.40E-04 4.92E-04 – 3.19E-03 2.31E-03 – 1.42E-04 

F2 - Total 5.13E-04 1.05E-03 – 6.81E-03 4.93E-03 – 3.05E-04 



Arom>C16-C21 - F3 3.03E-04 5.91E-04 – 3.90E-03 3.17E-03 – 1.42E-04 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 8.99E-04 1.76E-03 – 1.16E-02 9.29E-03 – 4.35E-04 

F3 - Total 1.22E-03 2.39E-03 – 1.58E-02 1.26E-02 – 5.92E-04 

Total TPH HQ = 1.75E-03 3.48E-03 – 2.28E-02 1.77E-02 – 9.06E-04 

Page J-66 2010




Table J-17 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Kitimat 1 (cont’d) 

COPC 



Coastal 

Dwelling 

Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Acenaphthene 3.47E-06 2.39E-06 2.36E-06 – – – – 

Acenaphthylene 3.44E-06 2.39E-06 2.37E-06 – – – – 

Anthracene 3.50E-06 2.40E-06 2.39E-06 – – – – 

Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.40E-06 2.39E-06 – – – – 

1-Methylnaphthalene – – – – – – – 

2-Methylnaphthalene 4.16E-06 3.33E-06 3.48E-06 – – – – 

Naphthalene 3.59E-06 2.46E-06 2.42E-06 – – – – 

Phenanthrene 1.20E-05 6.48E-06 4.98E-06 – – – – 

Total LPAH HQ = 3.37E-05 2.19E-05 2.04E-05 – – – – 


Fluoranthene 6.34E-06 3.63E-06 3.24E-06 – – – – 

Benz(a)anthracene 3.34E-05 2.70E-05 3.06E-05 – – – – 

Benzo(a)pyrene 3.26E-05 2.49E-05 2.95E-05 – – – – 

Benzo(e)pyrene – – – – – – – 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.10E-05 3.88E-05 4.77E-05 – – – – 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.26E-05 2.31E-05 2.56E-05 – – – – 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.26E-05 2.25E-05 2.23E-05 – – – – 

Chrysene 4.67E-05 3.26E-05 3.31E-05 – – – – 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3.25E-05 2.25E-05 2.29E-05 – – – – 

2010 Page J-67





COPC 


Coastal 

Dwelling 

Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3.26E-05 2.38E-05 2.67E-05 – – – – 

Pyrene 4.71E-05 2.99E-05 3.03E-05 – – – – 

Total HPAH HQ = 3.37E-04 2.49E-04 2.72E-04 – – – – 

Total PAH HQ = 3.71E-04 2.70E-04 2.92E-04 – – – – 


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene – – – – – – – 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene – – – – – – – 


Phenol – – – – – – – 

2,4-Dimethylphenol – – – – – – – 

2,4-Dinitrophenol – – – – – – – 



Boron 8.86E-04 1.74E-02 1.53E-02 7.15E-03 2.13E-03 2.54E-02 1.46E-03 





Tin 6.61E-04 2.07E-03 9.21E-04 2.88E-03 3.93E-03 1.36E-03 1.21E-03 


Page J-68 2010





COPC 


Coastal 

Dwelling 

Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Zinc 9.68E-03 3.06E-02 1.63E-02 6.28E-02 6.92E-02 6.23E-02 2.38E-02 

Max HQ 5.64E-02 2.17E-01 1.23E-01 1.49E-01 1.34E-01 1.65E-01 7.58E-02 

2010 Page J-69




Table J-18 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Kitimat 2 

BTEX 

COPC 

Coastal Dwelling 

Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 6.76E-07 3.63E-06 2.47E-06 – – – – 


Toluene 1.14E-06 5.56E-06 3.49E-06 – – – – 

Xylenes 1.77E-06 7.57E-06 4.62E-06 – – – – 




Arom>C08-C10 - F1 6.48E-06 1.32E-05 – 8.60E-05 6.28E-05 – 3.79E-06 

F1 - Total 1.60E-05 3.27E-05 – 2.12E-04 1.54E-04 – 9.46E-06 



Arom>C10-C12 - F2 2.03E-04 4.16E-04 – 2.70E-03 1.96E-03 – 1.19E-04 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 2.40E-04 4.92E-04 – 3.19E-03 2.31E-03 – 1.42E-04 

F2 - Total 5.13E-04 1.05E-03 – 6.81E-03 4.93E-03 – 3.05E-04 



Arom>C16-C21 - F3 3.03E-04 5.91E-04 – 3.90E-03 3.17E-03 – 1.42E-04 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 8.99E-04 1.76E-03 – 1.16E-02 9.29E-03 – 4.35E-04 

F3 - Total 1.22E-03 2.39E-03 – 1.58E-02 1.26E-02 – 5.92E-04 


Page J-70 2010





COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.40E-06 2.39E-06 – – – – 














Chrysene 4.67E-05 3.26E-05 3.31E-05 – – – – 



2010 Page J-71





COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 4.71E-05 2.99E-05 3.03E-05 – – – – 







Phenol – – – – – – – 





Boron 8.86E-04 1.74E-02 1.53E-02 7.15E-03 2.13E-03 2.54E-02 1.46E-03 





Tin 6.61E-04 2.07E-03 9.21E-04 2.88E-03 3.93E-03 1.36E-03 1.21E-03 


Zinc 9.68E-03 3.06E-02 1.63E-02 6.28E-02 6.92E-02 6.23E-02 2.38E-02 

Max HQ 5.64E-02 2.17E-01 1.23E-01 1.49E-01 1.34E-01 1.65E-01 7.58E-02 

Page J-72 2010




Table J-19 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Terminal 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 6.76E-07 3.63E-06 2.47E-06 – – – – 


Toluene 1.14E-06 5.56E-06 3.49E-06 – – – – 

Xylenes 1.77E-06 7.57E-06 4.62E-06 – – – – 




Arom>C08-C10 - F1 6.48E-06 1.32E-05 – 8.60E-05 6.28E-05 – 3.79E-06 

F1 - Total 1.60E-05 3.27E-05 – 2.12E-04 1.54E-04 – 9.46E-06 



Arom>C10-C12 - F2 2.03E-04 4.16E-04 – 2.70E-03 1.96E-03 – 1.19E-04 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 2.40E-04 4.92E-04 – 3.19E-03 2.31E-03 – 1.42E-04 

F2 - Total 5.13E-04 1.05E-03 – 6.81E-03 4.93E-03 – 3.05E-04 



Arom>C16-C21 - F3 3.03E-04 5.91E-04 – 3.90E-03 3.17E-03 – 1.42E-04 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 8.99E-04 1.76E-03 – 1.16E-02 9.29E-03 – 4.35E-04 

F3 - Total 1.22E-03 2.39E-03 – 1.58E-02 1.26E-02 – 5.92E-04 


2010 Page J-73




Table J-19 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Terminal (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.40E-06 2.39E-06 – – – – 














Chrysene 4.67E-05 3.26E-05 3.31E-05 – – – – 



Page J-74 2010




Table J-19 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Terminal (cont’d) 

COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 4.71E-05 2.99E-05 3.03E-05 – – – – 







Phenol – – – – – – – 





Boron 8.86E-04 1.74E-02 1.53E-02 7.15E-03 2.13E-03 2.54E-02 1.46E-03 





Tin 6.61E-04 2.07E-03 9.21E-04 2.88E-03 3.93E-03 1.36E-03 1.21E-03 


Zinc 9.68E-03 3.06E-02 1.63E-02 6.28E-02 6.92E-02 6.23E-02 2.38E-02 

Max HQ 5.64E-02 2.17E-01 1.23E-01 1.49E-01 1.34E-01 1.65E-01 7.58E-02 

2010 Page J-75




Table J-20 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Clio Bay 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 4.12E-07 1.33E-06 9.87E-07 – – – – 


Toluene 2.34E-07 8.17E-07 6.15E-07 – – – – 

Xylenes 2.81E-07 9.83E-07 7.38E-07 – – – – 




Arom>C08-C10 - F1 2.43E-06 4.97E-06 – 3.22E-05 2.35E-05 – 1.42E-06 

F1 - Total 1.19E-05 2.45E-05 – 1.58E-04 1.14E-04 – 7.10E-06 



Arom>C10-C12 - F2 8.06E-05 1.65E-04 – 1.07E-03 7.79E-04 – 4.73E-05 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 2.40E-04 4.92E-04 – 3.19E-03 2.31E-03 – 1.42E-04 

F2 - Total 3.90E-04 8.01E-04 – 5.19E-03 3.74E-03 – 2.33E-04 



Arom>C16-C21 - F3 3.03E-04 5.91E-04 – 3.90E-03 3.17E-03 – 1.42E-04 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 2.93E-04 5.75E-04 – 3.79E-03 3.03E-03 – 1.42E-04 

F3 - Total 6.14E-04 1.20E-03 – 7.93E-03 6.34E-03 – 2.98E-04 


Page J-76 2010




Table J-20 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Clio Bay (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.37E-06 2.35E-06 – – – – 














Chrysene 3.29E-05 2.26E-05 2.23E-05 – – – – 



2010 Page J-77




Table J-20 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Clio Bay (cont’d) 

COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 3.29E-05 2.27E-05 2.26E-05 – – – – 







Phenol – – – – – – – 





Boron 8.18E-04 1.61E-02 1.33E-02 6.60E-03 1.97E-03 1.86E-02 1.35E-03 





Tin 5.28E-04 1.84E-03 9.03E-04 1.91E-03 2.06E-03 1.31E-03 1.20E-03 


Zinc 7.11E-03 2.61E-02 1.56E-02 2.29E-02 2.27E-02 5.63E-02 2.31E-02 

Max HQ 1.97E-02 7.60E-02 4.26E-02 9.60E-02 7.93E-02 1.05E-01 3.59E-02 

Page J-78 2010




Table J-21 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Emsley Point 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 4.12E-07 1.33E-06 9.87E-07 – – – – 


Toluene 2.34E-07 8.17E-07 6.15E-07 – – – – 

Xylenes 2.81E-07 9.83E-07 7.38E-07 – – – – 




Arom>C08-C10 - F1 2.43E-06 4.97E-06 – 3.22E-05 2.35E-05 – 1.42E-06 

F1 - Total 1.19E-05 2.45E-05 – 1.58E-04 1.14E-04 – 7.10E-06 



Arom>C10-C12 - F2 8.06E-05 1.65E-04 – 1.07E-03 7.79E-04 – 4.73E-05 

Arom>C12-C16 - F2 2.40E-04 4.92E-04 – 3.19E-03 2.31E-03 – 1.42E-04 

F2 - Total 3.90E-04 8.01E-04 – 5.19E-03 3.74E-03 – 2.33E-04 



Arom>C16-C21 - F3 3.03E-04 5.91E-04 – 3.90E-03 3.17E-03 – 1.42E-04 

Arom>C21-C34 - F3 2.93E-04 5.75E-04 – 3.79E-03 3.03E-03 – 1.42E-04 

F3 - Total 6.14E-04 1.20E-03 – 7.93E-03 6.34E-03 – 2.98E-04 


2010 Page J-79




Table J-21 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Emsley Point (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.37E-06 2.35E-06 – – – – 














Chrysene 3.29E-05 2.26E-05 2.23E-05 – – – – 



Page J-80 2010




Table J-21 Hazard Quotients Summary (Base Case) for Selected Species in Emsley Point (cont’d) 

COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 3.29E-05 2.27E-05 2.26E-05 – – – – 







Phenol – – – – – – – 





Boron 8.18E-04 1.61E-02 1.33E-02 6.60E-03 1.97E-03 1.86E-02 1.35E-03 





Tin 5.28E-04 1.84E-03 9.03E-04 1.91E-03 2.06E-03 1.31E-03 1.20E-03 


Zinc 7.11E-03 2.61E-02 1.56E-02 2.29E-02 2.27E-02 5.63E-02 2.31E-02 

Max HQ 1.97E-02 7.60E-02 4.26E-02 9.60E-02 7.93E-02 1.05E-01 3.59E-02 

2010 Page J-81




Table J-22 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Kitimat 1 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 1.10E-08 9.60E-08 6.21E-08 – – – – 


Toluene 4.68E-08 2.44E-07 1.48E-07 – – – – 

Xylenes 7.39E-08 3.26E-07 1.92E-07 – – – – 


Aliph>C06-C08 - F1 1.31E-05 5.35E-05 3.10E-05 1.91E-05 2.17E-05 4.97E-05 3.83E-05 


Arom>C08-C10 - F1 3.18E-07 1.33E-06 7.75E-07 4.89E-07 5.33E-07 1.22E-06 9.32E-07 

F1 - Total 2.70E-05 1.10E-04 6.36E-05 3.89E-05 4.48E-05 1.02E-04 7.91E-05 











Total TPH HQ = 9.14E-04 3.69E-03 2.13E-03 1.30E-03 1.52E-03 3.45E-03 2.68E-03 

Page J-82 2010




Table J-22 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Kitimat 1 (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 4.16E-10 3.32E-10 3.44E-10 – – – – 










Benzo(e)pyrene 4.08E-11 3.21E-11 3.30E-11 – – – – 




Chrysene 1.87E-11 1.48E-11 1.52E-11 – – – – 



2010 Page J-83





COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 1.64E-08 1.29E-08 1.33E-08 – – – – 




1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.62E-07 6.25E-07 3.50E-07 – – – – 

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.69E-08 7.09E-08 4.12E-08 – – – – 


Phenol 1.58E-14 3.56E-13 2.43E-13 – – – – 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 7.93E-13 7.83E-12 5.12E-12 – – – – 

2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.09E-12 3.94E-11 2.72E-11 – – – – 



Boron 1.78E-12 5.81E-12 2.62E-12 1.18E-11 1.22E-11 3.77E-12 3.36E-13 





Tin 1.50E-07 5.97E-07 3.41E-07 1.06E-07 1.31E-07 4.17E-07 4.63E-07 


Zinc 2.22E-08 6.70E-08 3.23E-08 1.72E-07 1.84E-07 1.09E-07 4.98E-08 

Max HQ 9.14E-04 3.69E-03 2.13E-03 1.30E-03 1.52E-03 3.45E-03 2.68E-03 

Page J-84 2010




Table J-23 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Kitimat 2 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 1.23E-08 1.07E-07 6.90E-08 – – – – 


Toluene 5.20E-08 2.71E-07 1.64E-07 – – – – 

Xylenes 8.21E-08 3.62E-07 2.13E-07 – – – – 

















2010 Page J-85





COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 4.62E-10 3.69E-10 3.81E-10 – – – – 














Chrysene 1.64E-11 1.30E-11 1.33E-11 – – – – 



Page J-86 2010





COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 1.82E-08 1.43E-08 1.47E-08 – – – – 







Phenol 1.75E-14 3.95E-13 2.70E-13 – – – – 





Boron 1.97E-12 6.45E-12 2.76E-12 1.31E-11 1.36E-11 3.31E-12 3.73E-13 





Tin 1.67E-07 6.63E-07 3.78E-07 1.18E-07 1.46E-07 4.59E-07 5.15E-07 


Zinc 1.95E-08 5.89E-08 2.82E-08 1.51E-07 1.62E-07 9.17E-08 4.38E-08 

Max HQ 1.02E-03 4.10E-03 2.37E-03 1.44E-03 1.69E-03 3.83E-03 2.97E-03 

2010 Page J-87




Table J-24 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Terminal 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 1.14E-08 9.92E-08 6.41E-08 – – – – 


Toluene 4.83E-08 2.52E-07 1.53E-07 – – – – 

Xylenes 7.64E-08 3.36E-07 1.98E-07 – – – – 

















Page J-88 2010




Table J-24 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Terminal (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 4.30E-10 3.43E-10 3.55E-10 – – – – 














Chrysene 1.36E-11 1.07E-11 1.10E-11 – – – – 



2010 Page J-89




Table J-24 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Terminal (cont’d) 

COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 1.69E-08 1.33E-08 1.37E-08 – – – – 







Phenol 1.63E-14 3.68E-13 2.51E-13 – – – – 





Boron 1.84E-12 6.00E-12 2.51E-12 1.22E-11 1.26E-11 2.76E-12 3.47E-13 





Tin 1.55E-07 6.17E-07 3.51E-07 1.10E-07 1.36E-07 4.26E-07 4.79E-07 


Zinc 1.61E-08 4.87E-08 2.32E-08 1.25E-07 1.34E-07 7.43E-08 3.62E-08 

Max HQ 9.44E-04 3.81E-03 2.20E-03 1.34E-03 1.57E-03 3.56E-03 2.76E-03 

Page J-90 2010




Table J-25 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Clio Bay 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 1.13E-08 9.81E-08 6.34E-08 – – – – 


Toluene 4.78E-08 2.49E-07 1.51E-07 – – – – 

Xylenes 7.56E-08 3.33E-07 1.96E-07 – – – – 

















2010 Page J-91




Table J-25 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Clio Bay (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 4.25E-10 3.40E-10 3.51E-10 – – – – 














Chrysene 1.35E-11 1.06E-11 1.09E-11 – – – – 



Page J-92 2010




Table J-25 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Clio Bay (cont’d) 

COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 1.67E-08 1.32E-08 1.35E-08 – – – – 







Phenol 1.61E-14 3.64E-13 2.49E-13 – – – – 





Boron 1.82E-12 5.94E-12 2.62E-12 1.21E-11 1.25E-11 3.47E-12 3.44E-13 





Tin 1.54E-07 6.10E-07 3.48E-07 1.09E-07 1.34E-07 4.24E-07 4.74E-07 


Zinc 1.60E-08 4.84E-08 2.35E-08 1.24E-07 1.33E-07 8.15E-08 3.60E-08 

Max HQ 9.34E-04 3.77E-03 2.18E-03 1.33E-03 1.55E-03 3.52E-03 2.74E-03 

2010 Page J-93




Table J-26 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Emsley Point 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 4.19E-07 1.39E-06 1.03E-06 – – – – 


Toluene 2.64E-07 9.74E-07 7.11E-07 – – – – 

Xylenes 3.28E-07 1.19E-06 8.62E-07 – – – – 

















Page J-94 2010




Table J-26 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Emsley Point (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.37E-06 2.35E-06 – – – – 














Chrysene 3.29E-05 2.26E-05 2.23E-05 – – – – 



2010 Page J-95




Table J-26 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Emsley Point (cont’d) 

COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 3.29E-05 2.27E-05 2.26E-05 – – – – 







Phenol 1.02E-14 2.30E-13 1.57E-13 – – – – 





Boron 8.18E-04 1.61E-02 1.33E-02 6.60E-03 1.97E-03 1.86E-02 1.35E-03 





Tin 5.28E-04 1.84E-03 9.03E-04 1.91E-03 2.06E-03 1.31E-03 1.20E-03 


Zinc 7.11E-03 2.61E-02 1.56E-02 2.29E-02 2.27E-02 5.63E-02 2.31E-02 

Max HQ 1.97E-02 7.60E-02 4.26E-02 9.60E-02 7.93E-02 1.05E-01 3.59E-02 

Page J-96 2010




Table J-27 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Kitimat 1 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 6.87E-07 3.72E-06 2.53E-06 – – – – 


Toluene 1.19E-06 5.80E-06 3.64E-06 – – – – 

Xylenes 1.85E-06 7.90E-06 4.81E-06 – – – – 

















2010 Page J-97




Table J-27 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Kitimat 1 (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.40E-06 2.39E-06 – – – – 














Chrysene 4.67E-05 3.26E-05 3.31E-05 – – – – 



Page J-98 2010





COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 4.71E-05 2.99E-05 3.03E-05 – – – – 







Phenol 1.58E-14 3.56E-13 2.43E-13 – – – – 





Boron 8.86E-04 1.74E-02 1.53E-02 7.15E-03 2.13E-03 2.54E-02 1.46E-03 





Tin 6.62E-04 2.07E-03 9.21E-04 2.88E-03 3.93E-03 1.36E-03 1.22E-03 


Zinc 9.68E-03 3.06E-02 1.63E-02 6.28E-02 6.92E-02 6.23E-02 2.38E-02 

Max HQ 5.64E-02 2.17E-01 1.23E-01 1.49E-01 1.34E-01 1.65E-01 7.58E-02 

2010 Page J-99




Table J-28 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Kitimat 2 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 6.88E-07 3.73E-06 2.54E-06 – – – – 


Toluene 1.20E-06 5.83E-06 3.66E-06 – – – – 

Xylenes 1.86E-06 7.94E-06 4.83E-06 – – – – 

















Page J-100 2010





COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.40E-06 2.39E-06 – – – – 














Chrysene 4.67E-05 3.26E-05 3.31E-05 – – – – 


2010 Page J-101





COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 



Pyrene 4.71E-05 2.99E-05 3.03E-05 – – – – 







Phenol 1.75E-14 3.95E-13 2.70E-13 – – – – 





Boron 8.86E-04 1.74E-02 1.53E-02 7.15E-03 2.13E-03 2.54E-02 1.46E-03 





Tin 6.62E-04 2.07E-03 9.21E-04 2.88E-03 3.93E-03 1.36E-03 1.22E-03 


Zinc 9.68E-03 3.06E-02 1.63E-02 6.28E-02 6.92E-02 6.23E-02 2.38E-02 

Max HQ 5.64E-02 2.17E-01 1.23E-01 1.49E-01 1.34E-01 1.65E-01 7.58E-02 

Page J-102 2010




Table J-29 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Terminal 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 6.87E-07 3.73E-06 2.54E-06 – – – – 


Toluene 1.19E-06 5.81E-06 3.64E-06 – – – – 

Xylenes 1.85E-06 7.91E-06 4.82E-06 – – – – 

















2010 Page J-103




Table J-29 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Terminal (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.40E-06 2.39E-06 – – – – 














Chrysene 4.67E-05 3.26E-05 3.31E-05 – – – – 


Page J-104 2010




Table J-29 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Terminal (cont’d) 

COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 



Pyrene 4.71E-05 2.99E-05 3.03E-05 – – – – 







Phenol 1.63E-14 3.68E-13 2.51E-13 – – – – 





Boron 8.86E-04 1.74E-02 1.53E-02 7.15E-03 2.13E-03 2.54E-02 1.46E-03 





Tin 6.62E-04 2.07E-03 9.21E-04 2.88E-03 3.93E-03 1.36E-03 1.22E-03 


Zinc 9.68E-03 3.06E-02 1.63E-02 6.28E-02 6.92E-02 6.23E-02 2.38E-02 

Max HQ 5.64E-02 2.17E-01 1.23E-01 1.49E-01 1.34E-01 1.65E-01 7.58E-02 

2010 Page J-105




Table J-30 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Clio Bay 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 4.24E-07 1.43E-06 1.05E-06 – – – – 


Toluene 2.82E-07 1.07E-06 7.66E-07 – – – – 

Xylenes 3.56E-07 1.32E-06 9.34E-07 – – – – 

















Page J-106 2010




Table J-30 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Clio Bay (cont’d) 


COPC 

Mink 



Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 3.45E-06 2.38E-06 2.35E-06 – – – – 














Chrysene 3.29E-05 2.26E-05 2.23E-05 – – – – 



Pyrene 3.29E-05 2.27E-05 2.26E-05 – – – – 

2010 Page J-107




Table J-30 Hazard Quotients Summary (Application Case) for Selected Species in Clio Bay (cont’d) 

Coastal Dwelling Steller Sea Harbour Spotted 

Marbled 

COPC 

Mink 

Lion Porpoise Sandpiper Surf Scoter Murrelet Bald Eagle 







Phenol 1.61E-14 3.64E-13 2.49E-13 – – – – 





Boron 8.18E-04 1.61E-02 1.33E-02 6.60E-03 1.97E-03 1.86E-02 1.35E-03 





Tin 5.28E-04 1.84E-03 9.03E-04 1.91E-03 2.06E-03 1.31E-03 1.20E-03 


Zinc 7.11E-03 2.61E-02 1.56E-02 2.29E-02 2.27E-02 5.63E-02 2.31E-02 

Max HQ 1.97E-02 7.60E-02 4.26E-02 9.60E-02 7.93E-02 1.05E-01 3.59E-02 

Page J-108 2010




Table J-31 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Emsley Point 

BTEX 

COPC 


Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Benzene 7.13E-09 6.21E-08 4.01E-08 – – – – 


Toluene 3.02E-08 1.57E-07 9.54E-08 – – – – 

Xylenes 4.78E-08 2.11E-07 1.24E-07 – – – – 

















2010 Page J-109




Table J-31 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Emsley Point (cont’d) 

COPC 




Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 





Fluorene 2.69E-10 2.15E-10 2.22E-10 – – – – 














Chrysene 1.05E-11 8.26E-12 8.50E-12 – – – – 



Page J-110 2010




Table J-31 Hazard Quotients Summary (Project Case) for Selected Species in Emsley Point (cont’d) 

COPC 



Mink 

Steller Sea 

Lion 

Harbour 

Porpoise 

Spotted 


Marbled 


Pyrene 1.06E-08 8.34E-09 8.56E-09 – – – – 







Phenol 1.02E-14 2.30E-13 1.57E-13 – – – – 





Boron 1.15E-12 3.76E-12 1.59E-12 7.64E-12 7.90E-12 1.81E-12 2.17E-13 





Tin 9.72E-08 3.86E-07 2.20E-07 6.87E-08 8.50E-08 2.67E-07 2.99E-07 


Zinc 1.24E-08 3.76E-08 1.77E-08 9.65E-08 1.03E-07 5.53E-08 2.79E-08 

Max HQ 5.91E-04 2.38E-03 1.38E-03 8.40E-04 9.82E-04 2.23E-03 1.73E-03 

2010 Page J-111

Marine Ecological Risk Assessment for Kitimat ... - Northern Gateway

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?