Frontier Project - Volume 7: Health - Alberta...YOU ARE HERE Volume Number Volume Section 1 Project...

YOU ARE HERE

Volume Number Volume Section

1 Project Description

2 Baseline

3 EIA Methods

4 Acoustics and Air

5 Water

6 Terrestrial

7 Health

8 People and Places

1: Introduction 2: Options Analysis 3: Geology and Resource 4: Mine Plan 5: Extraction 6: Tailings Management 7: Water Management Plan 8: Utilities 9: Off-sites 10: Infrastructure 11: Material and Energy Balances 12: Implementation 13: Closure, Conservation and Reclamation Plan 14: Health, Safety and Environment 15: Conceptual Fish Habitat Compensation Plan 16: Socio-economic Impact Assessment 17: Aboriginal Community and Public Stakeholder Consultation 18: EIA Summary

1: Introduction 2: Climate 3: Groundwater 4: Hydrology 5: Surface Water Quality 6: Fish and Fish Habitat 7: Terrain and Soils 8: Vegetation 9: Wildlife 10: Palaeontology 11: Historical Resources 12: Resource Use 13: Traditional Land Use

1: EIA Overview and Approach

1: Introduction 2: Acoustics 3: Air Quality

1: Introduction 2: Groundwater 3: Hydrology 4: Surface Water Quality 5: Fish and Fish Habitat

1: Introduction 2: Terrain and Soils 3: Vegetation 4: Wildlife

1: Introduction 2: Human Health

1: Introduction 2: Palaeontology 3: Historical Resources 4: Resource Use 5: Visual Aesthetics 6: Traditional Land Use 7: Peace-Athabasca Delta

Frontier Oil Sands Mine ProjectIntegrated Application

Project Directory

There is a total of eight binders.

Volume 7: Health Frontier Project Table of Contents

September 2011 Page i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Key Issues and Key Questions ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.2 Study Areas ..................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.1.3 Assessment Cases ............................................................................................................ 1-3 1.1.4 Temporal Considerations ................................................................................................ 1-3

1.1.4.1 Reference Conditions ...................................................................................... 1-3 1.1.4.2 Snapshots ........................................................................................................ 1-3

1.1.5 Temporal Considerations ................................................................................................ 1-5 1.1.5.1 Reference Conditions ...................................................................................... 1-5 1.1.5.2 Snapshots ........................................................................................................ 1-5

1.1.6 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 1-6 1.1.7 Effects Analysis ............................................................................................................... 1-6 1.1.8 Management and Monitoring .......................................................................................... 1-6

1.2 Volume Content ........................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3 References .................................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.3.1 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................... 1-7

2 Human Health............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Scoping the Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Regulatory, Public and Aboriginal Community Input .................................................... 2-2

2.2.2.1 Regulatory and Public Stakeholder Input ....................................................... 2-2 2.2.2.2 Aboriginal Community Concerns ................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2.3 Regional Committees ...................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.3 Key Issues ....................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.4 Key Questions ................................................................................................................. 2-5

2.3 Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.1 Study Areas ..................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.2 Assessment Cases ............................................................................................................ 2-6 2.3.3 Temporal Considerations ................................................................................................ 2-6 2.3.4 Reference Conditions ...................................................................................................... 2-8 2.3.5 Prediction Confidence ..................................................................................................... 2-9

2.4 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 2-9 2.5 Problem Formulation .................................................................................................................. 2-10

2.5.1 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern ......................................................... 2-10 2.5.1.1 Air Emissions ................................................................................................ 2-10 2.5.1.2 Water Emissions ........................................................................................... 2-13 2.5.1.3 Groundwater Emissions ................................................................................ 2-14 2.5.1.4 Surface Water Emissions .............................................................................. 2-14

2.5.2 Characterization of Receptors ....................................................................................... 2-15 2.5.2.1 Locations Where Individuals Might Be Present ........................................... 2-15 2.5.2.2 Sensitive and Susceptible Individuals ........................................................... 2-22

Volume 7: Health Table of Contents Frontier Project

Page ii September 2011

2.5.3 Exposure Pathway Identification ................................................................................... 2-22 2.6 Exposure Assessment ................................................................................................................. 2-24

2.6.1 Inhalation Assessment ................................................................................................... 2-25 2.6.2 Multiple Pathway Assessment ....................................................................................... 2-26

2.6.2.1 Environmental Media Concentrations ........................................................... 2-27 2.6.2.2 Predictive Exposure Modelling ..................................................................... 2-34

2.7 Toxicity Assessment ................................................................................................................... 2-36 2.7.1 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern ......................................................... 2-39 2.7.2 Selection of Exposure Limits ........................................................................................ 2-39 2.7.3 Chemical Mixtures ........................................................................................................ 2-50

2.8 Risk Characterization ................................................................................................................. 2-51 2.8.1 Non-cancer Risk Estimates ........................................................................................... 2-52 2.8.2 Cancer Risk Estimates ................................................................................................... 2-52 2.8.3 Major Assumptions of the Human Health Risk Assessment ......................................... 2-53

2.9 Overview of Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................... 2-55 2.9.1 Exposure and Health Effects Studies ............................................................................ 2-55 2.9.2 General Health Indicators .............................................................................................. 2-57 2.9.3 Non-communicable Diseases ........................................................................................ 2-59

2.10 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 2-60 2.10.1 Acute Inhalation Health Risks ....................................................................................... 2-60

2.10.1.1 Acrolein ......................................................................................................... 2-67 2.10.1.2 NO2................................................................................................................ 2-70 2.10.1.3 PM2.5 .............................................................................................................. 2-74 2.10.1.4 Eye Irritants Mixture ..................................................................................... 2-75 2.10.1.5 Nasal Irritants Mixture .................................................................................. 2-77 2.10.1.6 Respiratory Irritants Mixture......................................................................... 2-79

2.10.2 Chronic Inhalation Health Risks ................................................................................... 2-83 2.10.2.1 Non-carcinogens ........................................................................................... 2-83 2.10.2.2 Carcinogens ................................................................................................... 2-93 2.10.2.3 Responses to Aboriginal Community Concerns ........................................... 2-96

2.10.3 Chronic Multiple Pathway Assessment ......................................................................... 2-97 2.10.3.1 Non-carcinogens ........................................................................................... 2-97 2.10.3.2 Carcinogenic Assessment ........................................................................... 2-121 2.10.3.3 Responses to Aboriginal Community Concerns ......................................... 2-122

2.10.4 Upset Conditions ......................................................................................................... 2-124 2.10.4.1 Description of Upset Conditions ................................................................. 2-124 2.10.4.2 Concentrations – Upset Conditions ............................................................. 2-125 2.10.4.3 Responses to Aboriginal Community Concerns ......................................... 2-126

2.10.5 Pit Lakes Assessment .................................................................................................. 2-126 2.10.5.1 Non-carcinogens ......................................................................................... 2-127 2.10.5.2 Carcinogens ................................................................................................. 2-128

2.10.6 Prediction Confidence ................................................................................................. 2-129 2.10.7 Management and Monitoring ...................................................................................... 2-129

2.10.7.1 Regional ...................................................................................................... 2-129 2.10.7.2 Project-specific ............................................................................................ 2-130

2.11 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 2-130 2.11.1 Acute Inhalation Health Risks ..................................................................................... 2-130

Volume 7: HealthFrontier Project Table of Contents

September 2011 Page iii

2.11.2 Chronic Inhalation Health Risks ................................................................................. 2-131 2.11.3 Chronic Multiple Pathway Health Risks ..................................................................... 2-131 2.11.4 Response to Key Questions ......................................................................................... 2-132

2.12 References ................................................................................................................................ 2-133 2.12.1 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................... 2-133 2.12.2 Internet Sites ................................................................................................................ 2-140

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................. GL-1

Volume 7: Health Frontier Project List of Tables

September 2011 Page v

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Key Issues and Key Questions ........................................................................................ 1-2 Table 2-1 Key Issues – Human Health ............................................................................................ 2-5 Table 2-2 Project Air Emissions Included in HHRA..................................................................... 2-12 Table 2-3 Chemicals Assessed in Groups ...................................................................................... 2-12 Table 2-4 Surface Water Emissions from the Project .................................................................... 2-14 Table 2-5 Discrete Locations Assessed in the HHRA ................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-6 Assumed Physical Characteristics and Ingestion Rates – Residential Group ............... 2-18 Table 2-7 Assumed Consumption Rates – Residential Group ....................................................... 2-19 Table 2-8 Assumed Physical Characteristics/Ingestion Rates of Workers .................................... 2-21 Table 2-9 Assumed Physical Characteristics and Ingestion Rates of Recreational Users ............. 2-22 Table 2-10 Exposure Pathways Assessed for Lifestyle Categories ................................................. 2-24 Table 2-11 Chemicals Included in the Multiple Pathway Assessment ............................................ 2-28 Table 2-12 Environmental Concentrations Used in the Multiple Pathway Assessment .................. 2-35 Table 2-13 Exposure Limits for the Chemicals Emitted from the Project....................................... 2-42 Table 2-14 COPC in Inhalation and Multiple Pathway Assessments .............................................. 2-48 Table 2-15 Chemical Mixtures Evaluated in the HHRA ................................................................. 2-50 Table 2-16 Major Assumptions Used in the HHRA ........................................................................ 2-53 Table 2-17 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Residents ............................................................. 2-61 Table 2-18 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Workers ............................................................... 2-62 Table 2-19 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Recreational Users .............................................. 2-64 Table 2-20 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Locations at the Project Area Boundary ............. 2-65 Table 2-21 Acute Acrolein Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations ................ 2-68 Table 2-22 Frequency of Meeting Acute Acrolein Health Benchmarks ......................................... 2-69 Table 2-23 Acute NO2 Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations ....................... 2-71 Table 2-24 Potential Acute Health Effects Associated with Short-Term NO2 Exposure ................ 2-73 Table 2-25 Frequency of Meeting Acute NO2 Health Benchmarks ................................................ 2-73 Table 2-26 Acute Eye Irritant Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations............ 2-76 Table 2-27 Acute Nasal Irritant Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations ......... 2-78 Table 2-28 Potential Acute Health Effects Associated with SO2 .................................................... 2-82 Table 2-29 Chronic Inhalation Non-carcinogenic Risk Quotients for Residential Group ............... 2-84 Table 2-30 Chronic Inhalation Non-carcinogenic Risk Quotients for Worker Group..................... 2-85 Table 2-31 Chronic Inhalation Non-carcinogenic Risk Quotients for Recreational Group............. 2-87 Table 2-32 Predicted Chronic Acrolein Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance

Locations ....................................................................................................................... 2-89 Table 2-33 Chronic Nasal Irritant Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations ..... 2-91 Table 2-34 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks per 100,000 for Residential Group1 ...................... 2-94 Table 2-35 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks per 100,000 for Worker Group1 ............................ 2-95 Table 2-36 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks per 100,000 for Recreational Group1 .................... 2-96 Table 2-37 Predicted Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for Residential Group ................ 2-98 Table 2-38 Predicted Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for Worker Group ...................... 2-99 Table 2-39 Predicted Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for Recreational Group ............ 2-101 Table 2-40 Mercury Concentrations in Alberta Fish ..................................................................... 2-107 Table 2-41 Recommended Fish Consumption Limits on the Athabasca River, downstream

from Fort McMurray ................................................................................................... 2-108

Volume 7: Health List of Tables Frontier Project

Page vi September 2011

Table 2-42 Average Predicted Water Quality Concentrations for Naphthenic Acids ................... 2-121 Table 2-43 Chronic Multiple Pathway Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks1 for Residential

Group ........................................................................................................................... 2-121 Table 2-44 Chronic Multiple Pathway Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks1 for Worker Group .. 2-122 Table 2-45 Chronic Multiple Pathway Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks1 for Recreational

Users Group ................................................................................................................. 2-122 Table 2-46 Short-term Risks Associated with Upset Conditions .................................................. 2-125 Table 2-47 Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for the Pit Lake Scenario, Residential

Group ........................................................................................................................... 2-127 Table 2-48 Chronic Multiple Pathway Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks for the Pit Lake

Scenario, Residential Group ........................................................................................ 2-128 Table 2-49 Response to Key Questions for Human Health ........................................................... 2-132

Volume 7: Health Frontier Project List of Figures

September 2011 Page vii

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 HHRA and SLWRA Study Areas ................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2-1 HHRA Study Area .......................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-2 Risk Assessment Paradigm ........................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-3 Human Health Receptor Locations in the HHRA Study Area ...................................... 2-16 Figure 2-4 Risk Quotients for Residential Locations Associated with Acute Acrolein

Exceedances .................................................................................................................. 2-68 Figure 2-5 Contributing Exposure Pathways (>1%) for Cobalt, Residential Toddler,

Application Case ......................................................................................................... 2-103 Figure 2-6 Contributing Exposure Pathways (>1%) for Manganese, Residential Toddler,

Application Case ......................................................................................................... 2-106 Figure 2-7 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Neurotoxicant Mixture, Residential Toddler,

Application Case ......................................................................................................... 2-110 Figure 2-8 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Neurotoxicant Mixture, Recreational Toddler,

Application Case ......................................................................................................... 2-111 Figure 2-9 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Reproductive and Developmental Mixture,

Residential Toddler, Application Case ........................................................................ 2-113 Figure 2-10 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Reproductive and Developmental Mixture,

Recreational Toddler, Application Case ..................................................................... 2-114 Figure 2-11 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Hepatotoxicant Mixture, Residential Toddler,

Application Case ......................................................................................................... 2-115 Figure 2-12 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Hepatotoxicant Mixture, Recreational Toddler,

Application Case ......................................................................................................... 2-116 Figure 2-13 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Renal Mixture, Residential Toddler, Application

Case ............................................................................................................................. 2-119

Volume 7: Health Frontier Project List of Appendices

September 2011 Page ix

List of Appendices

Appendix 2A Chemical Toxicity Profiles Appendix 2B1 Worked Example Appendix 2B2 Multiple Pathway Exposure Model and Predicted Exposure Point Concentrations Appendix 2B3 Predicted Game Meat Concentrations Appendix 2C Sample Data Appendix 2D Screening-level Wildlife Risk Assessment Appendix 2E Air Assessment Approach

Volume 7: Health Frontier Project Section 1: Introduction

September 2011 Page 1-1

1 Introduction The health volume of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Frontier Project) includes a human health risk assessment (HHRA) and a screening level wildlife risk assessment (SLWRA). The SLWRA is provided as an appendix to the HHRA.

The EIA was directed by the terms of reference (TOR) issued for the Frontier Project by Alberta Environment (AENV 2009), as well as by input from regulatory sources, potentially affected Aboriginal communities and public stakeholders.

The EIA forms part of the Application made to the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) pursuant to the Oil Sands Conservation Act. Provincial (AENV 2011) and federal (Government of Canada 2011) guidance for the preparation of EIAs was followed.

For a concordance table of the provincial TOR with EIA discipline sections, see Volume 3, Section 1, Appendix 1A.

1.1 Approach

1.1.1 Key Issues and Key Questions

Based on input gathered from regulatory meetings and consultations with potentially affected Aboriginal communities and public stakeholders, a series of key issues were defined for the assessment of human health. A summary of the key issues for each phase of the Frontier Project and their relevance to the Frontier Project is provided in Table 1-1.

Key questions were identified to:

• provide a framework for examining key issues identified by regulators, potentially affected Aboriginal communities and public stakeholders

• reflect the Frontier Project TOR

• provide a focus for the assessment

Issues over and above those captured in the key questions are also implicitly addressed. Key questions examined by the human health section are provided in Table 1-1.

Volume 7: Health Section 1: Introduction Frontier Project

Page 1-2 September 2011

Table 1-1 Key Issues and Key Questions Project Phase Key Issue Relevance to Project Key Questions

Human Health Construction and operation

Short-term (acute) risks to human health from Project and cumulative air emissions.

• Plant and mine fleet combustion emissions

• Fugitive plant, mine and tailings emissions • Upset conditions (e.g., upset flare,

emergency generator/fire pump emissions)

• HH1: Could short-term (acute) inhalation of air emissions from the Frontier Project, in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments, result in adverse human health effects?

• HH4: Could air emissions from the Frontier Project under upset/emergency conditions result in adverse human health effects?

Construction and operation

Long-term (chronic) risks to human health from Project and cumulative air emissions.

• Plant and mine fleet combustion emissions

• Fugitive plant, mine and tailings emissions

• HH2: Could long-term (chronic) inhalation of air emissions from the Frontier Project, in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments, result in adverse human health effects?

Construction, operation, closure and far future

Long-term (chronic) risks to human health from changes in water quality of watercourses, waterbodies and pit lakes in the local study area.

• Stream diversions • Closed-circuiting of mine areas • Muskeg drainage and overburden

dewatering flows • Basal water sands (BWS)

depressurization • Pit lake releases • Process-affected seepages from back-

filled mine pits and tailings disposal areas • Pit lakes, drainage from reclaimed mine

site and process-affected water remaining at the end of mining

• HH3: Could the Frontier Project, in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments, result in long-term (chronic) health effects from all possible routes of exposure combined (i.e., drinking water, soil contact, skin contact, country food ingestion, fish consumption, air inhalation)?



1.1.2 Study Areas

The HHRA and SLWRA focused primarily on potential health risks within an area of approximately 110 km x 110 km, centred on the Frontier Project (see Figure 1-1). The HHRA and SLWRA study area directly corresponds to the local study area (LSA) defined by air quality (see Volume 4, Section 3.3.1).

The study area includes several established residential and Aboriginal communities, as well as cabins, recreational and traditional areas, and worker camps. While the majority of the discrete locations evaluated in the HHRA lie within the boundaries of the LSA, a few locations of interest (such as the community of Fort Chipewyan) have also been included.

1.1.3 Assessment Cases

The HHRA and SLWRA were evaluated in the context of the following development scenarios:

• Base Case, which includes developments that are currently operating or under construction, and activities approved but not yet constructed or those likely to be approved in the near future

• Application Case, which includes developments and activities in the Base Case, with the Frontier Project added

• Planned Development Case (PDC), which includes developments and activities included in the Application Case with other planned developments that are reasonably foreseeable added

For more details on the assessment cases, the related developments and activities included in each case and considered relevant to the HHRA and SLWRA, see Volume 3, Section 1, Appendix 1C.

1.1.4 Temporal Considerations

1.1.4.1 Reference Conditions To provide a reference for the HHRA and SLWRA key issues, reference conditions or reference snapshots were evaluated at two specific points in time including:

• predevelopment (pre-1965)

• existing (2010)

1.1.4.2 Snapshots Snapshots representing discrete operational years are not appropriate for the HHRA or SLWRA. Rather, the HHRA assessed potential short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) health risks to people associated with the chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) emitted from the Frontier Project. Similarly, the SLWRA evaluated the potential chronic health risks to wildlife associated with the COPCs emitted or released from the Project.

Figure 1-1: HHRA and SLWRA Study Areas

!

!

T91

T95

T99

T92

T96

T93

T97

T94

T98

T90

T103

T104

T100

T107R17W4

T105

T101

T102

T106

R8R9 R7 R6 R5 R4R11 R10R15 R14 R13 R12R16

Wood Buffalo National Park

Birch MountainsWildland Provincial

Park

Richardson RiverDunes WildlandProvincial Park

Maybelle River Wildland Provincial Park

Athabasca Dunes Ecological Reserve

Marguerite River Wildland Provincial Park

Athabasca

River

Fort McKay

Fort McMurrayAcknowledgements: Base data: AltaLIS, Hydrology ground truthed by Golder (2009).

³

0 5 10 15

KILOMETRES

HHRA and SLWRA Study AreaProject Area

! MunicipalityHighwayTownshipsWatercourseWaterbodyNational ParkProvincial Park

File ID: 123510543-513Date: 20110825 (Original page size: 8.5X11)Author: CES Checked: CS

Frontier Project – Volume 7: Health, Section 1: Introduction September 2011

UV63

UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:750,000



For the HHRA, the two exposure durations assessed were:

• acute: exposure typically extends over a time period less than 24 hours

• chronic: exposure occurs continuously or regularly over an extended time, with periods lasting months through years, or possibly over an entire lifetime

As such, the temporal scope of the HHRA extends from acute exposure durations (less than 24 hours) to chronic exposure durations equivalent to a lifetime. Although the operational life of the Project is expected to be 37 years, the HHRA and SLWRA assumed that the chemical emissions attributable to the Project could continue for 80 years.

Because potential changes to air quality and water quality are essential to the HHRA and SLWRA, the temporal considerations for the HHRA and SLWRA match those of the surface water quality and air quality assessments (see Volume 5, Section 4.3.3 and Volume 4, Section 3.3.2).


1.1.5.1 Reference Conditions To provide a reference for the HHRA and SLWRA key issues, reference conditions or reference snapshots were evaluated at two specific points in time including:

• predevelopment (pre-1965)

• existing (2010)

1.1.5.2 Snapshots Snapshots representing discrete operational years are not appropriate for the HHRA or SLWRA. Rather, the HHRA assessed potential short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) health risks to people associated with the chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) emitted from the Frontier Project. Similarly, the SLWRA evaluated the potential chronic health risks to wildlife associated with the COPCs emitted or released from the Project.

For the HHRA, the two exposure durations assessed were:


• chronic: exposure occurs continuously or regularly over an extended time, with periods lasting months through years, or possibly over an entire lifetime

As such, the temporal scope of the HHRA extends from acute exposure durations (less than 24 hours) to chronic exposure durations equivalent to a lifetime. Although the operational life of the Project is expected to be 37 years, the HHRA and SLWRA assumed that the chemical emissions attributable to the Project could continue for 80 years.

Volume 7: Health Section 1: Introduction Frontier Project


Because potential changes to air quality and water quality are essential to the HHRA and SLWRA, the temporal considerations for the HHRA and SLWRA match those of the surface water quality and air quality assessments (see Volume 5, Section 4.3.3 and Volume 4, Section 3.3.2).

1.1.6 Mitigation

Mitigation measures for limiting Project effects are discussed in the HHRA and SLWRA. Project-specific design and mitigation measures and cooperative regional initiatives were both discussed as relevant. The effects of the Project were assessed with mitigation considered.

1.1.7 Effects Analysis

An analysis of effects was completed for each key question and for each assessment case if a valid linkage was identified between the Project and an effect. Validation of the link included consideration of mitigation measures.

When possible, a quantitative approach was used to complete the effects analysis for each key question, including the use of predictive models. The approach and methods used to complete the effects analysis for each key question are described in the EIA discipline sections.

Effects were evaluated relative to applicable guidelines, standards, thresholds and criteria, as discussed for each discipline, or the degree of change was quantified or qualitatively discussed.

1.1.8 Management and Monitoring

Management and monitoring are proposed to:

• confirm, where appropriate, that mitigation measures are functioning as predicted

• detect changes and trends in the environment

• identify cause-effect relationships for detected changes and trends in the environment

Management and monitoring may be project-specific or require participation in cooperative initiatives among other operators, public stakeholders and Aboriginal communities.



1.2 Volume Content

The following information is provided in the health volume of this EIA:

• Introduction (Section 1)

• Human Health Risk Assessment (Section 2)

• Appendices (on DVD)

• Chemical Toxicity Profiles (Appendix 2A)

• Worked Example (Appendix 2B.1)

• Human Health Risk Assessment Model (Appendix 2B.2)

• Ecological Risk Assessment Model (Appendix 2B.3)

• Sample Data (Appendix 2C)

• Screening Level Wildlife Risk Assessment (Appendix 2D)

• Air Assessment Approach (Appendix 2E)

1.3 References

1.3.1 Literature Cited

AENV (Alberta Environment). 2009. Final Terms of Reference Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed UTS Energy Corporation/Teck Cominco Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Alberta Environment. Edmonton, Alberta.

AENV. 2011. Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta – Updated February 2011. Alberta Environment, Environmental Assessment Team. Edmonton, Alberta. EA Guide 2009-2. 26 pp.

Government of Canada. 2011. Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Study Process Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Ottawa, Ontario.

Volume 7: Health Frontier Project Section 2: Human Health


2 Human Health

2.1 Introduction

This section of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Frontier Project):

• describes mitigation strategies to reduce Project effects on human health

• provides the methods and findings of the human health risk assessment

• describes the nature and significance of potential health risks to humans from air emissions and surface water releases from the Project

• examines potential health risks associated with environmental conditions that existed prior to development of the Project

• assesses the cumulative health effects to people in the area

A description of the Frontier Project is provided in Volume 1.

2.2 Scoping the Assessment

The scope of the human health risk assessment (HHRA) was directed by the terms of reference (TOR) issued for the Frontier Project by Alberta Environment (AENV 2009a), as well as by specific regulatory and public stakeholder inputs and concerns from potentially affected Aboriginal communities. These inputs helped identify the key issues of concern and define the key questions that are the focus of the assessment.

2.2.1 Terms of Reference

The requirements of the TOR relevant to the HHRA include:

• Describe those aspects of the Project that may have implications for public health or the delivery of regional health services for the Wood Buffalo region, including information specifically related to aboriginal communities and groups. Determine whether there may be implications for public health arising from the Project.

Specifically:

• assess the potential health implications of the compounds that will be released to the environment from the proposed Project in relation to exposure limits established to prevent acute and chronic adverse effects on human health;

• provide the data, exposure modeling calculations, and describe the methods UTS/Teck [now SilverBirch/Teck] used to assess impacts of the Project on human health and safety;

• provide information, including chemical analyses and modeling results, on samples of selected environmental media (e.g., soil, water, air, vegetation, wild game, etc.) used in the assessment;

Volume 7: Health Section 2: Human Health Frontier Project


• discuss the potential for changes to water quality, air quality and soil quality to increase human exposure to contaminants taking into consideration all Project activities;

• identify the human health impact of the potential contamination of country foods and natural food sources taking into consideration all Project activities;

• document any health concerns raised by stakeholders during consultation on the Project;

• document any health concerns identified by aboriginal communities or groups due to impacts of existing development and of the Project specifically on their traditional lifestyle and include an aboriginal receptor type in the assessment;

• assess the cumulative human health effects to receptors, including First Nations and Métis receptors;

• as appropriate, describe anticipated follow-up work, including regional cooperative studies. Discuss how such work will be implemented and coordinated with ongoing air, soil and water quality initiatives;

• describe the potential health impacts due to higher regional traffic volumes and the increased risk of accidental leaks and spills; and

• discuss mitigation strategies to minimize the potential impact of the Project on human health.

For a concordance table of the TOR and human health, see Volume 3, Section 1, Appendix 1A.

2.2.2 Regulatory, Public and Aboriginal Community Input

Input from a variety of potentially affected Aboriginal communities, public stakeholders and regulatory sources informed the HHRA. These sources included meetings with regulators, Aboriginal community and public stakeholder consultations and regional committees.

2.2.2.1 Regulatory and Public Stakeholder Input Since 2006, the Owners (Teck Resources Limited [Teck] and SilverBirch Energy Corporation [SilverBirch]) have consulted with industry members, adjacent leaseholders and public stakeholders. Teck is the Operator of the Project and Applicant on behalf of the Owners.

Key issues related to human health were brought forward by regulators at meetings and public hearings for similar oil sands developments, and during EIA reviews for these developments. Issues identified by public stakeholders and regulators include:

• specific questions regarding the methods employed in the toxicity and exposure assessments (e.g., approach used to assess chemical mixtures)

• questions about how potential changes in water quality might affect human health



• concerns about potential changes in the quality of traditional foods in the region

• questions about how cancer risks will be addressed in the HHRA

Input from regulatory and public sources has been incorporated into the HHRA.

2.2.2.2 Aboriginal Community Concerns Issues and concerns related to human health expressed during consultations with potentially affected Aboriginal communities included the following:

• Fish from the Athabasca River and other local waterbodies are thought to be unsafe to eat. In fact, some community members indicated that very few people from Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan now eat fish from the Athabasca River.

• The long-term health effects associated with frequent odours and accidental releases (e.g., ammonia) have yet to be investigated.

• The traditional Aboriginal diet is being replaced by store-bought foods. Some individuals are concerned about the health implications associated with a shift in diet.

• There might be effects on health related to pollution of local waterbodies and watercourses.

• High rates of cancer and respiratory diseases in the community of Fort Chipewyan is thought to exist. Community members indicated that these diseases were very uncommon in the past.

• The overall human health consequences of the Project in combination with the other industrial activity in the region.

Responses to concerns expressed by Aboriginal communities are provided following the assessment of each key issue. Concerns raised about odours in the community of Fort McKay are discussed in Volume 4, Sections 3.6.4.3 and 3.6.4.6 of the air quality assessment.

For a summary of the issues and concerns expressed during Aboriginal community consultations for the Project, see Volume 1, Section 17.

2.2.2.3 Regional Committees Until 2009, the former Human Exposure Monitoring Program (HEMP), managed under the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA), was mandated to carry out continuous monitoring of the levels of selected air contaminants in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Specifically, HEMP's objectives included:

• examining the relationship between concentrations of air contaminants in indoor and outdoor air

• examining the factors affecting human exposure to air contaminants

• determining any trends in air contaminant levels that people in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) are exposed to

• establishing potential links between air quality and health effects



In 2009, the committee responsible for HEMP reorganized the program to better address current air quality issues related to odours while continuing to meet the objectives of human exposure monitoring. The revised program is built around a number of key services and deliverables, such as (WBEA 2011):

• providing operational semi-continuous measurements for odour-causing air contaminants

• providing near-real time raw air quality data to regional health professionals

• implementing and employing the Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) set forth by Alberta Environment (AENV)

Regional committees created for the monitoring and management of air quality and water quality are also relevant to human health. The Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) and the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) are the main regional initiatives addressing surface water quality in the oil sands region.

• CEMA was designed to develop environmental objectives and management plans to address priority environmental issues expected from potential cumulative environmental effects of industry development in the RMWB. The main water quality initiatives of CEMA consist of the effects on water quality from pit lakes, water quality objectives and management for the lower Athabasca River, and the effects of air emissions on waterbodies.

• RAMP is an environmental monitoring program focused on the health of watercourses, waterbodies and wetlands in the oil sands region. RAMP is a multistakeholder initiative that includes industry members, regulators, Aboriginal groups, environmental non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders.

Air quality is also addressed through two primary regional committees, including CEMA and WBEA.

• The CEMA Air Working Group (AWG) is charged with developing recommendations for regional air quality and air-related deposition management. The focus is on air quality and deposition issues related to emissions associated with regional development that have the potential to significantly contribute to cumulative effects on air quality, human health, and/or regional ecosystems, including vegetation and wildlife. The former Trace Metals and Air Contaminants (TMAC) Group assessed the effect of air quality on human health and ecosystems under the existing environmental management systems and recommended changes to current management objectives to adequately manage the identified risks.

• WBEA operates an extensive air and environmental monitoring program that collects scientifically based ambient air quality data. The WBEA monitoring network includes 15 continuous and 27 passive ambient air quality monitoring stations. WBEA also continues to manage the human monitoring program that was discussed above.

Whenever possible and when appropriate, information from these regional committees was used as input in the HHRA.



2.2.3 Key Issues

Based on input gathered from regulatory sources and consultations with potentially affected Aboriginal communities and public stakeholders, a series of key issues were defined for the HHRA. A summary of the key issues for each phase of the Project and their relevance to the Frontier Project is provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Key Issues – Human Health Project Phase Key Issue Relevance to the Project


Short-term (acute) risks to human health from Project and cumulative air emissions.

• Plant and mine fleet combustion emissions • Fugitive plant, mine and tailings emissions


Long-term (chronic) risks to human health from Project and cumulative air emissions.

• Plant and mine fleet combustion emissions • Fugitive plant, mine and tailings emissions

Construction, operation, closure and far future

Long-term (chronic) risks to human health from changes in water quality of watercourses, waterbodies and pit lakes in the local study area.

• Stream diversions • Closed-circuiting of mine areas • Muskeg drainage and overburden dewatering flows • Basal water sands depressurization • Pit lake releases • Process-affected seepages from back-filled mine

pits and tailings disposal areas • Process-affected groundwater seepages • Pit lakes, drainage from reclaimed mine site and

process-affected water remaining at the end of mining

2.2.4 Key Questions

Four key questions were developed to address the key issues and focus this assessment on these issues of concern. The key questions for human health are presented below:

• HH1: Could short-term (acute) inhalation of air emissions from the Frontier Project, in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments, result in adverse human health effects?

• HH2: Could long-term (chronic) inhalation of air emissions from the Frontier Project, in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments, result in adverse human health effects?

• HH3: Could the Frontier Project, in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments, result in long-term (chronic) health effects from all possible routes of exposure combined (i.e., drinking water, soil contact, skin contact, country food ingestion, fish consumption, air inhalation)?

• HH4: Could air emissions from the Frontier Project under upset/emergency conditions result in adverse human health effects?



2.3 Approach

2.3.1 Study Areas

The HHRA will focus primarily on potential health risks to people in an area of approximately 110 km by 110 km, centred on the Frontier Project (see Figure 2-1). The HHRA study area generally corresponds to the local study area (LSA) as defined in the air quality assessment (see Volume 4, Section 3), with the addition of a few locations. The LSA is located in the regional study area (RSA), an area of 330 km by 240 km. While most of the discrete locations evaluated in the HHRA study area lie within the boundaries of the air quality LSA, a few locations of interest (such as the community of Fort Chipewyan) have also been included.

The HHRA study area includes a number of established residential communities (including Aboriginal communities), as well as cabins, recreational and traditional use areas, and worker lodges.

2.3.2 Assessment Cases

Human health key issues and associated key indicators (risks to human health) were evaluated in the context of the following development scenarios:

• Base Case, which includes developments and activities that are currently operating or under construction, activities approved but not yet constructed or those likely to be approved in the near future

• Application Case, which includes developments and activities in the Base Case with the Frontier Project added

• Planned Development Case (PDC), which includes developments and activities included in the Application Case with other planned developments that are reasonably foreseeable added

For more details on the assessment cases and the related developments and activities included in each case and relevant to the HHRA, see Volume 3, Section 1, Appendix 1C.


The HHRA assessed potential short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) health risks to people associated with the chemicals of potential concern (COPC) emitted from the Project. The two exposure durations used can be described as:


• chronic: exposure occurs continuously or regularly over an extended time, with periods lasting months through years, possibly over an entire lifetime. For the purpose of the HHRA, this was assumed to extend over an 80-year lifespan.

Figure 2-1: HHRA Study Area

!

!

T91

T95

T99

T92

T96

T93

T97

T94

T98

T90

T103

T104

T100

T107R17W4

T105

T101

T102

T106

R8R9 R7 R6 R5 R4R11 R10R15 R14 R13 R12R16

Wood Buffalo National Park

Birch MountainsWildland Provincial

Park

Richardson RiverDunes WildlandProvincial Park

Maybelle River Wildland Provincial Park

Athabasca Dunes Ecological Reserve

Marguerite River Wildland Provincial Park

Athabasca

River

Fort McKay

Fort McMurrayAcknowledgements: Base data: AltaLIS, Hydrology ground truthed by Golder (2009).

³

0 5 10 15

KILOMETRES

Human Health Local Study AreaProject Area

! MunicipalityHighwayTownshipsWatercourseWaterbodyNational ParkProvincial Park

File ID: 123510543-145Date: 20110818 (Original page size: 8.5X11)Author: JJS Checked: DC

Frontier Project – Volume 7: Health, Section 2: Human Health September 2011

UV63

UTM Zone 12 NAD 831:750,000



As such, the temporal scope of the HHRA extended from acute exposure durations in the order of 24 hours or less to chronic exposure durations equivalent to a lifetime. Although the operational life of the Project is expected to be 36 years, the HHRA assumed that the chemical emissions attributable to the Project will continue for 80 years.

Because the potential changes to air quality and water quality are essential to the HHRA, the temporal considerations for the HHRA match those of the surface water quality and air quality assessments.

2.3.4 Reference Conditions

To provide a reference for the assessment of human health risks, reference conditions or reference snapshots were evaluated at two specific points or snapshots in time. To be consistent with the air quality and surface water quality assessments, the following reference conditions were used:

• predevelopment (pre-1965) – represents the period prior to the start of the oil sands development and is described in terms of ambient concentrations relevant to that period. For surface water quality, the predevelopment condition concentrations actually equate to the existing concentrations for the LSA (see Volume 5, Section 4.10.3). No estimates for aerial deposition to surface water were available for the predevelopment condition, and no developments that affected surface water quality were identified. Predevelopment water quality concentrations were modelled in the absence of measured data (see Volume 5, Section 4). In the air quality assessment, it is noted that no measured ambient air quality concentrations were available, and that predevelopment concentrations were estimated by subtracting the estimated contribution from industry from existing measured values for a limited number of chemicals (see Volume 4, Section 3.3.2.2). The predevelopment condition is similar to the existing local conditions prior to the development of the Project.

• existing (2010) – refers to current conditions. For air quality, the existing condition was evaluated through the application of the air quality models using existing emission inventories, representative meteorological conditions, and recent ambient air quality data (2006 to 2009). Again, in the case of surface water quality, the existing conditions in the LSA actually correspond to the predevelopment conditions.

As discussed below, health risks are characterized and presented for the three assessment cases outlined in the TOR, namely the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. The health risks associated with the reference conditions are described in those instances where air concentrations or daily dose estimates for the three assessment cases exceed health-based guidelines. This was done to provide an additional point of reference against which the Base Case, Application Case and PDC health risks could be measured.

It is important to note that health risks could not be adequately characterized for the predevelopment condition, because the quality of measured air, soil and vegetation data prior to 1965 is low for COPCs relevant to the HHRA. Any comparisons to the reference conditions are based on the estimates of the existing condition alone.



2.3.5 Prediction Confidence

Assessment of Project effects has some inherent uncertainty associated with data, methods and the predictive nature of the assessment. In addition, changes in future environmental conditions could also result in added uncertainty. Assessment confidence was determined by considering:

• quality and quantity of baseline data used in the assessment

• confidence in measurements and analytical techniques

• confidence in the success of Project-specific mitigation measures

• potential changes in future environmental conditions

In addition, Project design and mitigation measures have been developed with the recognition of human health. For mitigation relevant to human health, see Volume 4, Section 3 and Volume 5, Section 4.

2.4 Methods

The HHRA assessed the potential health risks associated with the Project using a conventional risk assessment approach shown in Figure 2-2. This paradigm is consistent with those developed by:

• Health Canada (Health Canada 2009a)

• Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME 2006)

• California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA 2001, Internet site)

• United States National Research Council (U.S. NRC 1983, 1994)

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1989; U.S. EPA OSW 2005)

This approach has been endorsed in the past by regulatory authorities in Alberta, such as Alberta Health and Wellness, Alberta Environment and the Energy Resources and Conservation Board.

The four stages of the HHRA involve the following:

• problem formulation – identification of the chemicals released to the environment from the Project (i.e., selection of the COPCs), characterization of people potentially at risk and identification of all relevant chemical exposure pathways

• exposure assessment – conservative predictions of exposures to all COPCs released to the environment from the Project. Exposure pathways assessed involved air inhalation as well as potential exposures via soil, water, plants, berries, wild game and fish.

• toxicity assessment – identification of potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to each of the chemicals (acting either singly or in combination) released from the Project and the conditions under which these effects might be observed. Toxicity assessment determines of the maximum safe dose of the chemical for



sensitive human subjects following exposure for a prescribed period of time (i.e., identification of acute and chronic exposure limits for the chemicals released from the Frontier Project).

• risk characterization – comparison of estimated exposures (identified in the exposure assessment) with exposure limits (identified in the toxicity assessment) to identify potential human health risks for the different assessment cases

2.5 Problem Formulation

Problem formulation is the initial step of the assessment. Further information regarding each of the individual components of this step is provided in Sections 2.5.1 through 2.5.3.

2.5.1 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern

A comprehensive inventory was generated of potential chemical emissions to the environment from the Project. Because the Project is associated with discharges from air and from water, two emissions inventories were considered: air emissions, and water emissions. Chemicals of potential concern were identified from each inventory and are discussed in Sections 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.1.4.

2.5.1.1 Air Emissions The Project could emit the following chemicals to the air (see Volume 4, Section 3):

• criteria air contaminants (CACs), including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and sulphur dioxide (SO2)

• carboxylic acids

• metals

• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

• reduced sulphur compounds (RSCs)

• volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

• petroleum hydrocarbons

Chemical emissions from the Project that might occur based on conservative emission factors and modelling are listed in Table 2-2. Each of these chemicals was evaluated in the HHRA. In some instances, chemicals could not be evaluated on their own because of a lack of toxicity information. In these instances, chemicals were grouped according to chemical characteristics (see Table 2-3).



Figure 2-2 Risk Assessment Paradigm



Table 2-2 Project Air Emissions Included in HHRA CACs CO; NO2; PM2.5; SO2 Acids Carboxylic acids group Metals Aluminum; antimony; arsenic; barium; cadmium; chromium; cobalt; copper; lead; manganese;

nickel; silver; strontium; tin; vanadium; zinc PAHs 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene; benz(a)anthracene; benzo(a)pyrene; benzo(b)fluoranthene;

benzo(g,h,i)fluoranthene; benzo(g,h,i)perylene; benzo(k)fluoranthene; chrysene; cyclopenta[cd]pyrene; dibenz(a,h)anthracene; fluoranthene; indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene; naphthalene; phenanthrene; pyrene

RSCs Carbon disulphide; H2S VOCs 1,3-butadiene; 1,3-dioxolane; 2-chloronaphthalene; acetaldehyde; acrolein; aliphatic alcohols;

aliphatic aldehydes; aliphatic C3-C4 group; aliphatic C5-C8 group; aliphatic C9-C16 group; aliphatic C17-C34 group; aliphatic ketones; aniline; aromatic C9-C16 group; aromatic C17-C34 group; aromatic ketones; benzaldehyde; benzene; benzofuran; butyl isocyanate; dichlorobenzene; ethylbenzene; formaldehyde; 1-heptanamine; hexachlorobutadiene; hexane; methacrolein; phenothiazine; phenyloxirane; piperidine; propylene oxide; pyridine; styrene group; toluene; xylenes

Table 2-3 Chemicals Assessed in Groups Chemical Group Chemical Constituent

Aliphatic alcohols (VOCs)

1-methylcycloheptanol; 2,2-dimethyl-1-propanol; 2-butyl-1-octanol; 2-ethyl-1-butanol; 2-ethyl-1-hexanol; 3,7-dimethyl-1-octanol; cyclohexane ethanol; cyclopropyl carbinol

Aliphatic aldehydes (VOCs)

2-methyl-4-pentenal; butyraldehyde; crotonaldehyde; decanal; dodecanal; glyoxal; heptanal; hexaldehyde; methylglyoxal; nonanal; octanal; propionaldehyde; tridecanal; undecanal

Aliphatic C3-C4 group

1-propene; cyclopropane; propane; propane; propylene; propyne; propyne, 1-butene; 2-butene; butane; cis-2-butene; isobutane; isobutene; isobutylene; trans-2-butene

Aliphatic C5-C8 group (VOCs)

1,1,3-trimethylcyclopentane; 2-isocyano-2-methylpropane; (1.alpha)-1,2,3-trimethylcyclopentane; (1.alpha)-1,2,4-trimethylcyclopentane; (Z)-3-octene; 1,2,3-trimethylcyclopentane; 1,2,4-trimethylcyclopentane; 1,2-dimethylcyclopentane; 1,3-dimethylcyclopentane; 1,4-dimethylcyclohexane; 1-ethyl-2-methylcyclopentane; 1-ethyl-3-methylcyclopentane; 1-pentene; 1-trans-2-cis-3-trans-trimethylcyclopentane; 2,2,3-trimethylbutane; 2,2,4-trimethylbutane; 2,2,4-trimethylpentane; 2,2-dimethylbutane; 2,2-dimethylhexane; 2,2-dimethylpentane; 2,2-dimethylpropane; 2,3,4-trimethylpentane; 2,3-dimethylbutane; 2,3-dimethylhexane; 2,3-dimethylpentane; 2,4-dimethylhexane; 2,4-dimethylpentane; 2,5-dimethylhexane; 2-methyl-1-butene; 2-methyl-2-butene; 2-methyl-2-pentene; 2-methyl-4-methylenehexane; 2-methylheptane; 2-methylhexane; 2-methylpentane; 3,3-dimethylpentane; 3,4-dimethyl-1-pentene; 3-ethyl-2-methylpentane; 3-ethylhexane; 3-methyl-1-butene; 3-methyleneheptane; 3-methylheptane; 3-methylhexane; 3-methylpentane; 5-methyl-1-heptene; cis-1,1-dimethylcyclohexane; cis-1,2-dimethylcyclohexane; cis-1,2-dimethylcyclopentane; cis-1,3-dimethylcyclohexane; cis-1,3-dimethylcyclopentane; cis-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane; cis-1-ethyl-2-methylcyclopentane; cis-1-ethyl-3-methylcyclopentane; cis-1-methyl-2-ethylcyclopentane; cis-2-hexene; cis-2-pentene; cyclohexane; cyclohexane; cyclopentane; cyclopentane; cyclopentene; ethylcyclohexane; ethylcyclopentane; heptane; isopentane; isopropylcyclobutane; methylcycloheptane; methylcyclohexane; methylcyclohexane; methylcyclopentane; methylcyclopentane; octane; pentane; trans-1,1-dimethylcyclohexane; trans-1,2-dimethylcyclohexane; trans-1,2-dimethylcyclopentane; trans-1,2-dimethylcyclopropane; trans-1,3-dimethylcyclohexane; trans-1,3-dimethylcyclopentane; trans-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane; trans-2-hexene; trans-2-pentene



Table 2-3 Chemicals Assessed in Groups (cont’d) Chemical Group Chemical Constituent

Aliphatic C9-C16 group (VOCs)

nonane, 2-methyl octane, 1,1,3-trimethyl-cyclohexane, (E)- 2-undecene, methyl cyclooctane, decane, 2,4-dimethyl-heptane, 1-alpha-1,2,3-trimethyl cyclohexane, 1,2,4-trimethyl cyclohexane, 1-alpha-1,2,4-trimethyl cyclohexane, cis-1-ethyl-4-methyl cyclohexane, propyl cyclohexane, 1-methyl-2-propyl-cyclopentane, 4-methyl-Dodecane, 2,3-dimethyl heptane, 2,4-dimethyl heptane, 2,6-dimethyl heptane, 3-ethyl-2-methyl heptane, 3-ethyl-2,5-dimethyl-Hexane, octahydro-2-methyl pentalene, 4-methyl tridecane, undecane, 5,6-dimethyl undecane, 1-nonene, 1-methyl-2-(2-methylpropyl) cyclopentane, 2-isopropyl-1,3-dimethyl cyclopentane, butyl cyclopentane, n-dodecane, n-tridecane, n-tetradecane, n-pentadecane, n-hexadecane, norfarnesane, 2,6,10-trimethyldodecane, farnesane, 2,6,10-trimethyltridecane, pentylcyclohexane, hexylchclohexane, heptylchclohexane, octylcyclohexane, n-nonylcyclohexane, decyl cyclohexane

Aliphatic C17-C34 group

8B,13a-dimethyl-14B-n-butylpodocarpane, 8B,13a-dimethyl-14B- [3'-methylbutyl]-podocarpane, heptadecane, octadecane, nonadecane, eicosane, n-heneicosane, undecyl cyclohexane, dodecylcyclohexane, tridecylcyclohexane, tetradecylcyclohexane, n-pentadecylcyclohexane, norpristane, pristine, phytane

Aliphatic ketones (VOCs)

Acetone, 2,3,3-trimethyl-cyclobutanone, methyl ethyl ketone, biacetyl

Aromatic C9-C16 group (VOCs)

n-Propyl benzene, 1-methyl-4-ethylbenzene, 1-methyl-3-ethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,4-trimethylbenzene, 2-methylnaphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, C2-naphthalenes, C3-naphthalenes, C4-naphthalenes, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, methyl fluorene, anthracene, 3-methylphenanthrene, 2-methylphenanthrene, 2-methylanthracene, 9-methylphenanthrene, 1-methylphenanthrene, acephenanthrylene, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, isopropylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, 1-ethyl-3-methyl benzene, 1-ethyl-4-methyl benzene, C2-naphthalenes, C3-naphthalenes, C4-naphthalenes, fluorene, methyl fluorene, 3-methylphenanthrene, 3-methylphenanthrene, 2-methylanthracene, 9-methylphenanthrene, 1-methylphenanthrene

Aromatic C17-C34 group (VOCs)

Benzo(e)pyrene, perylene, 3-methylcholanthrene

Aromatic ketones (VOCs)

Acetophenone, 1-Indanone, 9-fluorenone, xanthone, biacetyl

Carboxylic acids 2-methyl-, 2-methylpropyl-butanoic acid, 3-methyl-, butyl ester (C) butanoic acid, octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, decanoic acid-TMS, undecanoic acid, lauric acid-TMS, tridecanoic acid-TMS, myristic acid-TMS, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-benzoate (methyl vanillate), methylbenzoic acid

Styrene group Styrene, phenyloxirane Xylenes o-xylene, m-xylene, p-xylene

2.5.1.2 Water Emissions Water emissions from tailings impoundments will be managed by the closed-circuit drainage system designed to isolate emissions from the adjacent receiving waters. The potential for seepage from the tailings areas to infiltrate to groundwater will be managed by an interception system comprised of pumping wells working in concert with seepage barrier walls (see Volume 1, Section 7). In addition to the tailings impoundments, various solid and liquid substances (e.g., product and diluent tanks) and waste (e.g., Class 2 landfill) will exist at the site. Dedicated secondary containment systems will prevent emissions to surface water and groundwater from these areas. They will be augmented by tertiary containment provided by the closed-circuit drainage and groundwater interception systems (see Volume 1, Section 14). In addition, regular maintenance inspections will be conducted, and surface and groundwater will be monitored at a frequency that enables remedial action to be undertaken in a timely manner, if required.



2.5.1.3 Groundwater Emissions As described in Volume 5, Section 2.7.2, the potential for releases of chemicals to groundwater is considered to be low. In addition, multiple management systems will exist to further reduce the potential for groundwater quality degradation. Under these combined circumstances, groundwater quality will not be affected.

Groundwater is not presently used as a potable resource nor is it likely to be used in the future (i.e., surface water is used).

2.5.1.4 Surface Water Emissions A number of COPCs identified in association with potential surface water releases from the Project (metals and PAHs) have been considered in the HHRA. A list of these COPCs is provided in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4 Surface Water Emissions from the Project Type Chemicals

Metals Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, methyl mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, strontium, vanadium, zinc

PAHs PAH Group 1 (benzo(a)pyrene, C1 substituted benzo(b&k)fluoranthene/benzo(a)pyrene, C2 substituted benzo(b&k)fluoranthene/benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene) PAH Group 2 (benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(b&j)fluoranthene, benzo(b&k)fluoranthene, C1 substituted benzo(a)anthracene/chrysene, C2 substituted benzo(a)anthracene/chrysene, indeno(c,d-123)pyrene) PAH Group 3 (benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(j)fluoranthene, chrysene, carbazole, C1 substituted carbazole, C2 substituted carbazole) PAH Group 4 (acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, C1 substituted acenaphthene) PAH Group 5 (1-methyl-7-isopropyl-phenanthrene, anthracene, C1 substituted phenanthrene/anthracene, C2 substituted phenanthrene/anthracene, C3 substituted phenanthrene/anthracene, C4 substituted phenanthrene/anthracene, phenanthrene) PAH Group 6 (biphenyl, C1 substituted biphenyl, C2 substituted biphenyl, C3 substituted biphenyl) PAH Group 7 (dibenzothiophene, C1 substituted dibenzothiophene, C2 substituted dibenzothiophene, C3 substituted dibenzothiophene, C4 substituted dibenzothiophene, fluorine, C1 substituted fluorene, C2 substituted fluorene, C3 substituted fluorene, fluoranthene) PAH Group 8 (naphthalene, C1 substituted naphthalenes, C2 substituted naphthalenes, C3 substituted naphthalenes, C4 substituted naphthalenes) PAH Group 9 (pyrene, C1 substituted fluoranthene/pyrene, C2 substituted fluoranthene/pyrene, C3 substituted fluoranthene/pyrene)



The PAH groups included in the surface water quality assessment were assessed in the HHRA as follows:

• PAH Groups 1 through 3 and PAH Group 7 – assessed as part of the benzo(a)pyrene group in the HHRA

• PAH Groups 4,5,6,8,9 – assessed as part of the aromatic C9-C16 group in the HHRA

The COPCs with respect to potential changes in the surface water quality were adopted from Volume 5, Section 4.

2.5.2 Characterization of Receptors

People potentially exposed to emissions from the Project include individuals who live near, or spend time in the vicinity of the Project (HHRA study area is shown in Figure 2-3). In this regard, for these potentially exposed individuals, consideration was given to:

• varying times spent in the area; the HHRA accounts for both lifetime residents, as well as workers and visitors or bystanders to the area

• the lifestyles (e.g., consumption patterns) and physical characteristics of the individuals in the HHRA study area

• the sensitivity or susceptibility of individuals in the region (e.g., infants and young children, the elderly, individuals with compromised health)

2.5.2.1 Locations Where Individuals Might Be Present Locations where people may be present include local communities as well as areas where individuals would spend time for work, recreation or other purposes.

Over 100 receptor locations were identified, as summarized below:

• 8 communities, including the communities of Anzac, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (Chipewyan IR 201F, IR 201G), La Loche, Fort McKay, and Fort McKay First Nation (Fort McKay IR 174, IR 174C and Namur Lake IR 174A). In addition to the locations identified in the LSA, three communities (Anzac, Fort Chipewyan and Fort McMurray) were included in the HHRA because of concerns historically expressed regarding oil sands development in the region.

• 93 cabins

• 4 permanent worker housing lodges

Twenty-nine recreational or traditional areas, including eight protected areas in the Richardson River Dunes Wildland Provincial Park, Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park and Wood Buffalo National Park, and several areas used for recreational or traditional purposes, such as campsites, cemeteries and gravesites, sacred places and hunting and fishing areas.

These locations are shown in Figure 2-3.

Figure 2-3: Human Health Receptor Locations in the HHRA Study Area

")")

")

") ")") ")")

")

")")

") ")

")

")")

")

")

")

")")")

")")

")

")")")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")")

")")

")

") ")")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")

")

")")

")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")") ")") ")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")

")

")")

")")

")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

Athabasca River

McClellandLake

ST63

Albe

rta

1287

1289

1285

1284

1283

1282

128112801279

1278

1277

127312571253

1250

1249

12471246

1243

1242

1241

12401237

1236

12351234 12331231

1230

12281227

12261225

1224

1222

1220121812171216

1214

1213

12111210

1203

1187

1185

1184

1183 1182

1181

11801179

1178

11771176

1175

11741173

1171

1170

11691168

11651164

1156

115511531136

1129

1112

1111

1110

1108

110611051104

1103

1101

1100

1098

1092

1091

1090

10891088

1087

10861085

1083

10821081

1077

1072

1069

106310621061

1060

10581057

10561055

10531052

10511050

1049

1048

1046

10431041

10401039

1036

1035 1033

1032

1031

1030 10291028

102710261021

1020

1019

10181017

1016

1015

1013

10121010

1009

100810071005

1172

11671166

1135

1102

1097

10841080

1042

1038

1037

1025

1024

1023

10021001

T091

T095

T092

T100

T088

T096

T099

T087

T105

T104

T093

T089

T101

T097

T085

T090

T094

T102

T098

T086

T103

T084

R11R12 R09R14 R10R13 R08 R07 R06 R04R05 R03R15R16 R02T106

R17W4

Acknowledgements: Base data: AltaLIS.

³

") Human Health ReceptorHuman Health Risk Assessment Study AreaProject AreaHighwayTownshipWatercourseWaterbody

(Original page size: 8.5X11)Author: CES Checked: CS

Frontier Project – Volume 7: Health, Section 2: Human Health September 2011

0 5 10 15 20

KILOMETRESUTM Zone 12 NAD 831:900,000

File ID: 123510543-451Date: 20110819



Groups of locations where people are likely to be located were established to represent different land uses and lifestyles in the HHRA study area. The land use of each location was identified, resulting in the following human groups:

• residents, including all permanent community residents as well as all individuals who use the cabins located in the HHRA study area as temporary residences

• workers who reside at the housing complexes or lodges

• recreational users, including all occasional or seasonal visitors to the HHRA study area for recreational or traditional activities such as camping, hunting, trapping, fishing, hiking, plant and berry gathering

• Project area boundary. In an attempt to capture the area where the Project is anticipated to have the greatest influence with respect to potential changes in air quality, the list of discrete HHRA locations was expanded to include locations in the immediate vicinity of the Project. In general, maximum ground-level air concentrations were predicted to occur in close proximity to the Project mine disturbance limit (or Project area boundary) (see Volume 4, Section 3). As public access inside the Project area will be restricted, the HHRA assessed potential health risks to individuals located at the perimeter of the Project disturbance limit (e.g. bystanders, transient visitors). In the context of the HHRA, these 1,265 locations are referred to as the Project area boundary group.

The highest predicted exposure in each group of locations was conservatively assumed to represent the potential exposures for all individuals in each group. Behavioural and lifestyle characteristics of each group are described in greater detail in the sections that follow.

The complete list of locations assessed as part of the HHRA is presented in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5 Discrete Locations Assessed in the HHRA Grouping Comment Corresponding Locations in HHRA

Residential locations Includes established communities, historic and trappers cabins, lodges

1001, 1002, 1008,1009,1010,1013,1015, 1016, 1017, 1018,1019, 1020, 1021, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1028, 1032, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1046, 1048, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1055, 1061, 1062, 1069, 1077, 1080, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1097, 1098, 1100, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1135, 1136, 1153, 1155, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1203, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1220, 1222, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1230, 1231, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1246, 1247, 1250, 1253, 1278, 1285, 1289, 1286, 1287, 1288

Recreational Locations Includes parks, traditional use areas, surface water locations, hunting and fishing locations, campsites

1027, 1029, 1030, 1049, 1053, 1072, 1086, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1101, 1156, 1170, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1237, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284

Workers Includes lodges constructed for workers at various sites in the area

1005, 1057, 1058, 1277



Information regarding the individual groups is provided in the sections below.

Residential Group The area residents were represented by discrete locations corresponding to actual cabins, communities found in the LSA. In order to assess potential health risks at these locations, all age classes or life stages were considered. The five life stages used to assess potential health risks to the residents are consistent with Health Canada guidance for the Canadian general population (Health Canada 2009a):

• infant – 0 to 6 months (0.5 years)

• toddler – 7 months to 4 years (4.5 years)

• child – 5 to 11 years (7 years)

• teen – 12 to 19 years (8 years)

• adult – 20 to 80 years (60 years)

Similarly, typical physical characteristics of the residents were obtained from Health Canada (2009a). Assumed physical characteristics for the residential group in the HHRA are summarized in Table 2-6.

Table 2-6 Assumed Physical Characteristics and Ingestion Rates – Residential Group

Physical Characteristic/(Ingestion Rate) Resident Life Stage

Infant Toddler Child Teen Adult Body weight (kg) 8.2 16.5 32.9 59.7 70.7 Inhalation rate (m³/d) 2.2 8.3 14.5 15.6 16.6 Soil ingestion rate (g/d) 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.02 Water ingestion rate (L/d) 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 Body surface area (cm²) • hands • arms • legs • total body

320 550 910

3,620

430 890

1,690 6,130

590

1,480 3,070 10,140

800

2,230 4,970 15,470

890

2,500 5,720 17,640

Soil adherence factor (g/cm²/d) • hands • surfaces other than hands

0.0001

0.00001

0.0001

0.00001

0.0001

0.00001

0.0001

0.00001

0.0001

0.00001

For the purpose of the HHRA, it was assumed that residents would:

• be present at their locations 24 hours per day, 365 days per year over an 80-year lifespan (Health Canada 2009a)

• practice a subsistence lifestyle, such that all traditional and non-traditional foods would be obtained from local sources (assumed resident consumption rates shown below)

• drink all water from local surface waterbodies

• swim in local waterbodies during the summer months (i.e., three months of the year)



Assumed consumption rates of traditional and non-traditional foods are listed in Table 2-7 for the five life stages.

Table 2-7 Assumed Consumption Rates – Residential Group

Physical Characteristics

Consumption Rate [grams/d]

Source Infant Toddler Child Teen Adult Moose 0 67 98 133 205 Health Canada 2009a; Wein et

al. 1989 Snowshoe hare 0 14 20 29 43 Health Canada 2009a; Wein et

al. 1989 Ruffed grouse 0 7 10 14 22 Health Canada 2009a; Wein et

al. 1989 Fish 0 20 33 40 40 Health Canada 2007 Wild mint or Labrador tea leaves

0 1 1 3 3 Wein 1989; Wein et al. 1991

Cattail roots 0 1 1 3 3 Wein 1989; Wein et al. 1991 Garden root vegetables 0 105 161 227 188 Health Canada 2009a Garden leafy vegetables 0 67 98 120 137 Health Canada 2009a Fruits, including wild berries 0 5 11 13 23 Wein (1989); AHW (2007) Breast milk 664 0 0 0 0 O’Connor and Richardson 1997

Assumed consumption rates for wild game were based on Health Canada’s food ingestion rates for Canadian Aboriginal populations (Health Canada 2009a) in combination with the frequency of consumption reported for native Canadians near Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) (Wein et al. 1989). Food consumption patterns were obtained by repeated 24-hour food recall surveys: two surveys were completed between late August and mid-November 1986; and, two surveys were completed between late April and mid-July 1987. One hundred and seventy-eight individuals over 12 years of age were interviewed. Large mammals constituted 76% of the wild game consumed by the 120 native households interviewed, small mammals constituted 14%, and upland birds 7%. For example, using Health Canada’s (2009a) adult ingestion rate of 270 grams per day of wild game, it was assumed that adult residents would consume 205 grams of moose per day (270 grams/d x 0.76).

With respect to fish consumption rates for the HHRA, Health Canada (2007) assumes an adult subsistence consumption rate of 40 grams of fish per day. This value was obtained from a Market Facts of Canada (1991) study on national seafood consumption and a Bureau of Chemical Safety (BCS) evaluation of current intake rates by Canadian consumers (BCS 2004, Internet site). The BCS study considered the information provided in multiple studies and recommended subsistence consumption rates that took into consideration sport, subsistence and Aboriginal fish eaters. Similar fish consumption rates have been reported in the 1997 diet and activity survey conducted in Swan Hills by Alberta Health and Wellness where the ‘medium consumer’ was reported to ingest 47 grams of fish per day (AHW 1997), and in a 1999 survey conducted by Health Canada of an Aboriginal population in the Lesser Slave Lake region of Alberta where a moderate consumer was reported to consume 46 grams of fish per day on average (AHW 2009b).



Plant and vegetable consumption rates were segregated into traditional above-ground plants (e.g., wild mint and Labrador tea leaves) and below-ground plants (e.g., cattail root), as well as garden above-ground vegetables (e.g., lettuce) and below-ground vegetables (e.g., potatoes). Wein (1989) reported a consumption rate of 134 grams per day, which was adjusted by the frequency of 2% (i.e., 7 days in 365 days) at which wild mint and Labrador tea leaves were reportedly consumed in the Aboriginal households interviewed (Wein et al. 1991). From this, an adult consumption rate of 3 grams per day was assumed for traditional above-ground plants (e.g., wild mint and Labrador tea leaves). Wein et al. (1991) reported that wild roots were seldom eaten in native households that were interviewed and thus did not provide consumption data for wild roots. As a result, it was assumed for the HHRA that the consumption rates for traditional below ground and above ground plants were equivalent (i.e., 3 g/d).

Health Canada provided vegetable (root and other) ingestion rates for the Canadian general population based on 24-hour recall data collected in 1970 and 1972 as part of the Nutrition Canada Survey (Health Canada 1994, 2009a). The dietary survey involved a statistically representative sample of the Canadian population, personal interviews conducted by trained interviewers, and physical models of meal portions to assist in determining food portion sizes for some 180 different foods. Summary data were provided by Health Canada for vegetable (root and other) ‘eaters only’, which exclude individuals reporting no vegetable consumption. Using statistics for ‘eaters only’ ensures that the consumption rates of the individuals who consume the majority of the vegetables were not under estimated. Health Canada’s vegetable ingestion rates were assumed to assess potential health risks associated with the consumption of garden vegetables.

The fruit consumption rates were based on information presented in Wein (1989) for populations in the area.

Worker Group The workers were represented by discrete locations corresponding to the housing complexes in the HHRA study area and LSA. It was assumed that these housing complexes would be occupied by adult workers only. Assumed physical characteristics as recommended by Health Canada (2009a) for adult construction workers are provided in Table 2-8.

Although workers would likely only reside at the housing complexes during their years of employment, it was conservatively assumed that they would maintain permanent residency at the housing complexes over their entire adult life (assumed to be 60 years, that is ages 20 through 80) (Health Canada 2009a).

It was further assumed that workers would obtain all of their food and water from the housing complex, which in turn would obtain all food from off-site (commercial) sources. The consumption of local foods and drinking water has not been considered for the worker group.



Table 2-8 Assumed Physical Characteristics/Ingestion Rates of Workers Physical Characteristic/(Ingestion Rate) Adult Worker

Body weight (kg) 70.7 Inhalation rate (m³/d) 33.61

Soil ingestion rate (g/d) 0.1 Water ingestion rate (L/d) 1.5 Body surface area (cm²) • hands • arms • legs • total body

890

2,500 5,720

17,640 Soil adherence factor (g/cm²/d) • hands • surfaces other than hands

0.001

0.0001 NOTE: 1 Health Canada (2009a) provides inhalation rates for both male and female workers. Because the inhalation rate for

the male worker is higher, it results in a higher exposure estimate and subsequently a higher health risk estimate. On this basis, the inhalation rate for the male worker was used in the HHRA.

Recreational Users For the HHRA, recreational user locations included:

• discrete locations corresponding to recreational and traditional use areas near the Project

It was assumed that recreational users (including individuals visiting the area for recreational purposes) in the HHRA study area might be present for varying lengths of time, ranging from less than a day to several months, depending on the activity. To ensure that potential risks to the recreational users of the area would not be understated, it was conservatively assumed that recreational users were exposed to Project emissions continuously for an assumed lifetime of 80 years.

It was also assumed that recreational receptors exhibited the same physical characteristics/ingestion rates as residential receptors, with the exception of fish consumption. For recreational users of the area, fish consumption rates applicable to the general Canadian population (sourced from Health Canada 2007) were used, instead of the high-fish consumer rates assumed for the resident group. The exposure assumptions regarding the recreational user are shown in Table 2-9.



Table 2-9 Assumed Physical Characteristics and Ingestion Rates of Recreational Users

Physical Characteristic/(Ingestion rate) Resident Life Stage

Infant Toddler Child Teen Adult Body weight (kg) 8.2 16.5 32.9 59.7 70.7 Inhalation rate (m³/d) 2.2 8.3 14.5 15.6 16.6 Soil ingestion rate (g/d) 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.02 Fish ingestion rate (g/d) 0 10 14 22 22 Water ingestion rate (L/d) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Body surface area (cm²) • hands • arms • legs • total body

320 550 910

3,620

430 890

1,690 6,130

590

1,480 3,070

10,140

800

2,230 4,970 15,470

890

2,500 5,720 17,640

Soil adherence factor (g/cm²/d) • hands • surfaces other than hands

0.0001

0.00001

0.0001

0.00001

0.0001

0.00001

0.0001

0.00001

0.0001

0.00001

Project Area Boundary Group This group of locations is intended to represent an individual who might be present along the Project area boundary, and could be exposed to peak concentrations of the COPC. As it is not feasible that a person would be exposed over the long-term along the Project area boundary, this group of locations was evaluated only in the acute inhalation assessment.

2.5.2.2 Sensitive and Susceptible Individuals Sensitive and susceptible individuals were addressed in the HHRA through the use of health-based exposure limits developed by leading scientific authorities and regulatory agencies as objectives, guidelines, standards, or reference concentrations for the protection of human health. These exposure limits are typically based on conservative assumptions in part to protect sensitive and susceptible individuals in the population. Detailed information on the basis of the exposure limits assumed in the HHRA is provided in the toxicity assessment (see Section 2.5.3) and in Appendix 2A (toxicity profiles).

2.5.3 Exposure Pathway Identification

Exposure pathways refer to the various avenues by which the chemical emissions might travel from the Project to the people living in the local area or those who might frequent the area (Health Canada 1995; U.S. EPA 2002). Since the emissions will be released directly into air from various sources, an obvious viable pathway by which the people could be exposed is via inhalation. As discussed in Section 2.5.3, water from tailings impoundments and groundwater seepage are managed in a manner that renders the exposure pathway invalid. Surface water is also managed; however, the pathway is arguable valid. Less obvious or secondary exposure pathways also exist that have been explored as part of the HHRA. A discussion of these pathways follow.



With respect to air, direct inhalation (i.e., primary pathway of exposure) was assumed to be an applicable exposure pathway for residents, workers and recreational users. This exposure pathway was determined to be the only applicable pathway of exposure for people who might be located along the Project area boundary (i.e. transient individuals or bystanders), as these individuals would not be expected to frequent and remain in the area for extended time periods (i.e., equal to or less than a 24-hour period).

Residents and workers, however, might be exposed to the chemical emissions on a long-term basis through secondary exposure pathways (e.g., inhalation of dust, food and water ingestion, and dermal contact). For example:

• Some chemicals emitted to air will be deposited onto soils surrounding the Project. Depending on the volatility of the chemical, deposition could affect local soil concentrations. Exposure through dust inhalation, inadvertent ingestion of soil and dermal contact with soil were necessarily included in the HHRA.

• Concentrations of some chemicals in local vegetation could be affected by both direct deposition of atmospheric emissions onto plant surfaces and uptake from soils. As a result, exposure through ingestion of local plants was necessarily included in the HHRA.

• Concentrations of some chemicals in local wild game could be affected by both the direct inhalation of the atmospheric emissions and the ingestion of the chemicals in soil, soil invertebrates, plants and water. Exposure through ingestion of local wild game was necessarily included in the HHRA.

The following exposure pathways were included in the multiple pathway exposure assessment:

• inhalation of air

• inhalation of dust

• ingestion of soil (inadvertent)

• ingestion of water from drinking and during swimming

• ingestion of local above-ground plants (including berries and above-ground plants)

• ingestion of local below-ground plants

• ingestion of local traditional plants (Labrador tea and cattail)

• ingestion of local fish (lake whitefish, northern pike and walleye)

• ingestion of local wild game (moose, ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare);

• skin contact with water while swimming

• skin contact with soil

A complete listing of the exposure pathways included in the HHRA for each of the lifestyle categories is provided in Table 2-10. In some cases, even though the opportunity for exposure was judged to be quite limited; the pathways were still included to ensure that potential exposures would not be overlooked.



Table 2-10 Exposure Pathways Assessed for Lifestyle Categories

Exposure Pathway

Lifestyle Category

Residents Workers Recreational

Users Project Area

Boundary Inhalation Inhalation of air Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhalation of dust Yes Yes Yes No Oral Ingestion of soil (inadvertent) Yes Yes Yes No Ingestion of treated groundwater as drinking water No No No No Ingestion of local surface water as drinking water Yes No Yes No Ingestion of local surface water while swimming (inadvertent)

Yes No Yes No

Ingestion of local wild game Yes No Yes No Ingestion of local fish Yes No Yes No Ingestion of local, natural foods (i.e., berries, cattail roots and tea leaves)

Yes No Yes No

Ingestion of local, garden foods (i.e., fruits and vegetables)

Yes No Yes No

Skin Contact Dermal contact with soil Yes Yes Yes No Dermal contact with surface water while swimming Yes No Yes No

2.6 Exposure Assessment

The primary objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate, based on the use of reasonable worst-case assumptions, potential chemical exposures to people in the area. Since the emissions will be released directly into air from various sources, people could be exposed via the primary exposure pathway of inhalation over both the short-term and long-term. Potential health risks associated with the inhalation of the chemical emissions are evaluated in the inhalation assessment, discussed in detail in Section 2.10.

As a principal outcome of the problem formulation step, it was determined that residents and workers might also be exposed to the chemical emissions on a long-term basis through secondary exposure pathways. Potential health risks associated with the secondary pathways of exposure are assessed in the multiple pathway assessment. Details concerning the multiple pathway assessment are provided below and in Appendix 2B.

A screening-level wildlife risk assessment (SLWRA) is included as Appendix 2D. The same baseline data inputs, exposure modelling approaches and predicted data are used in both the HHRA and the SLWRA (specifically, see Appendices 2B, 2B1, 2B2 and 2C).

Sections 2.6.1 to 2.6.2 focus primarily on the exposure assessment as it relates to the HHRA.



2.6.1 Inhalation Assessment

Inhalation exposure estimates were based on the results of air dispersion modelling described in the air quality assessment (see Volume 4, Section 3). The modelling results consisted of the maximum ground-level air concentrations of the chemicals emitted from the Project that could occur at each of the discrete locations identified in the problem formulation step of the assessment. The inventory of chemicals emitted by the Project is provided in Table 2-2. Each of the chemicals identified in the air emissions inventory was included in the inhalation assessment.

Air quality (see Volume 4, Section 3) also predicted the maximum ground-level air concentrations along the Project area boundary. To capture the potential maximum ground-level air concentration, a total of 1265 fixed locations along the Project area boundary were considered in the inhalation assessment.

Predicted ground-level air concentrations of the chemicals emitted from the Project were evaluated in association with different averaging periods (i.e., 10-minute, 1-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour and annual) to allow for the assessment of both short-term and long-term inhalation health risks. On a short-term basis, maximum (1st highest) 10-minute, 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour ground-level air concentrations were used to evaluate potential health risks in the order of 24 hours or less. Exceptions include 1-hour NO2, SO2 and 24-hour PM2.5, consistent with the required form of the U.S. EPA and CCME standards, respectively. Long-term health risks were assessed using maximum annual ground-level air concentrations.

In addition to the Project emissions, air quality (see Volume 4, Appendix 3A) provided predictions for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC for emissions associated with all major regional sources. These include:

• industrial stacks

• mines

• tailings management areas

• industrial plant fugitive emissions

• non-industrial sources

The non-industrial sources included residential traffic emissions, highway traffic, and domestic and commercial heating emissions from communities.



2.6.2 Multiple Pathway Assessment

To assess the potential health risks associated with possible secondary pathways, it was necessary to identify those chemicals emitted by the Project that, although emitted into air, could potentially be deposited nearby and then persist or accumulate in the environment. Two categories of chemicals emitted from the Project were identified:

• gaseous chemicals (e.g., CO, H2S, NO2, and SO2), which are unlikely to contribute to human exposure via secondary pathways as they will remain airborne for extended times and over extended distances. These chemicals act at the point of contact, therefore, health effects are strictly related to inhalation. Accordingly, the gaseous chemicals are not considered further in multiple pathway assessment. For results of the inhalation assessment, see Section 2.6.1.

• non-gaseous chemicals (e.g., acids, metals and minerals, PAHs, and certain VOCs), which were further segregated into:

• non-volatile chemicals (e.g., metals and minerals) that would likely deposit near the Project and persist or accumulate in the environment in sufficient quantities for residents and workers to be exposed via secondary pathways. These non-volatile chemicals were examined in both the inhalation and multiple pathway assessments.

• potentially non-volatile chemicals (e.g., acids, PAHs and certain VOCs) that might deposit near the Project and persist or accumulate in the environment. The volatility and accumulation potential of these chemicals was considered further (see below). Consideration was given to the physical-chemical properties of the chemicals that influence their fate and persistence in the environment, and subsequently their potential occurrence in the secondary pathways of exposure. This was accomplished via a multiple step process, described below.

Step 1 Comparison of Physical-Chemical Properties with Established Criteria for Volatility. The purpose of this step is to identify COPCs that are non-volatile and thus have the potential to accumulate in media other than air, in accordance with the following criteria from the U.S. EPA (2003):

• molecular weight ≥200 g/mol

• Henry’s Law Constant ≤0.00001 atm-m³/mol (or 1.0E-05 atm-m³/mol)

• vapour pressure ≤0.001 mmHg (or 1.0E-03 mmHg)

Step 2 Comparison of Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients (Kow). For COPCs that were identified as volatile in Step 1, the Log Kow values were evaluated. In the event that the Log Kow for a COPC exceeded 3.5, indicating a potential to bioaccumulate, the COPC was carried forward to Step 3.

Step 3 Fugacity Modelling. For COPCs from Step 2 that had Log Kow values greater than 3.5, fugacity modelling was completed to determine the potential relative apportionment of the chemical in environmental compartments other than air. If a COPC was less than 95% in air, or more than 5% in environmental compartments other than air, the COPC was included in the multiple pathway assessment. The justification for



including them is their potential for persistence and accumulation in soils, plants or other biota (Boethling et al. 2009).

The premise of this screening exercise is that if a chemical emitted to the air does not meet any of the previous criteria, the potential for the chemical to:

• deposit near the Project is negligible

• persist or accumulate in the environment is negligible

• result in exposure via secondary pathways is limited

However, if a chemical meets any one of the criteria, exposure via secondary pathways is possible and the chemical was retained in the multiple pathway assessment.

The physical-chemical screening exercise revealed that 30 COPCs are eligible for inclusion in the multiple pathway assessment, provided that defensible exposure limits are available. The multiple pathway assessment in the HHRA evaluates a total of 46 COPCs based on this analysis, with the following breakdown:

• acids (1)

• metals (21, plus hexavalent chromium and methyl mercury)

• PAHs (15, excluding the individual COPCs listed in surface water groups as these have been combined either with benzo(a)pyrene or aromatic hydrocarbon groups)

• VOCs (9, including PHC aromatic and aliphatic groups)

Relevant physical-chemical properties of each of the chemicals emitted from the Project are summarized in Table 2-11; those evaluated via secondary pathways in the multiple pathway assessment are also identified.

2.6.2.1 Environmental Media Concentrations Measured COPC concentrations in soil, water, plants, fish and wild game from the area of the Project were included where available to characterize the baseline environmental conditions. When measured data was not available or analytical results were below detection limits, exposure models were used to predict environmental media COPC concentrations (see Appendix 2B2 and Appendix 2B3).

Characterization of the baseline conditions involved collecting and analyzing these chemicals in environmental media from the LSA or surrounding area. A summary of the ambient information used in the HHRA is presented in Appendix 2C.

Brief descriptions of the measured COPC concentrations in soil, plants, surface water, game and fish are provided below.



Table 2-11 Chemicals Included in the Multiple Pathway Assessment

Chemical Category Chemical1

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Included in Multiple Pathway

Assessment

Molecular Weight (g/mol)

Henry’s Law Constant3

(atm-m³/mol) Vapour Pressure5

(mm Hg) Log Kow

Fugacity

>200

< 0.00001

≤ 0.001

> 3.5

< 95% (air)

VOCs 1,3-Butadiene 54.09 0.0736 2110 1.99 - No VOCs 1,3-Dioxolane 74.08 0.0000245 79 -0.37 - No VOCs 1-Heptanamine 115.22 0.0000415 2.74 2.57 - No VOCs 2-Chloronaphthalene 162.62 0.00032 0.0122 3.9 84 Yes VOCs Acetaldehyde 44.05 0.0000667 902 -0.34 - No VOCs Acrolein 56.07 0.000122 274 -0.01 - No VOCs Aliphatic Alcohols 186 0.000003 0.0014 - - No VOCs Aliphatic Aldehydes 198 0.00000027 0.0095 - - Yes VOCs Aliphatic C17-C34 270 120 0.00084 - - Yes

VOCs Aliphatic C5-C8 100 1.2 47.88 3.8 - No VOCs Aliphatic C9-C16 200 12 0.03648 - - No VOCs Aliphatic Ketones 112 0.000013 5.5 1.4 - Yes VOCs Aniline 93.13 0.00000202 0.49 - - Yes VOCs Aromatic C17-C34 240 0.000016 0.00000033 - - Yes VOCs Aromatic C9-C16 150 0.0013 0.03648 3.6 94 Yes VOCs Aromatic Ketones 197 0.00000019 0.000057 - - Yes

VOCs Benzaldehyde 106.13 0.0000267 1.27 1.48 - No VOCs Benzene 78.12 0.00555 2.13 - - No VOCs Benzofuran 118.14 0.000525 2.67 - - No VOCs Butyl Isocyanate 99.13 0.00217 2.26 - - No VOCs C3 (propane) 44.1 0.707 2.36 - - No VOCs C4 (butane) 58.12 0.95 2.89 - - No



Table 2-11 Chemicals Included in the Multiple Pathway Assessment (cont’d)




Assessment




(mm Hg) Log Kow

Fugacity

>200

< 0.00001

≤ 0.001

> 3.5

< 95% (air)

VOCs Carboxylic Acids 228 0.00000000000067 0.0000014 - - Yes VOCs Dichlorobenzene 147 0.00355 1.47 3.28 - No VOCs Ethylbenzene 106.17 0.00788 9.6 3.15 - No VOCs Formaldehyde 30.03 0.000000337 3890 - - Yes VOCs Hexachloro-1,3 butadiene 260.76 0.0103 0.22 - - Yes VOCs Hexane 86.18 1.8 151 3.9 - No VOCs Methacrolein 70.09 0.000232 155 0.74 100 No VOCs Phenothiazine 199.28 0.000000028 0.00000089 - - Yes

VOCs Phenyloxirane 120.15 0.0000158 0.3 1.61 - No VOCs Piperidine 85.15 0.00000445 32.1 - - Yes VOCs Propylene Oxide 58.08 0.0000696 538 0.03 - No VOCs Pyridine 79.1 0.000011 20.8 0.65 - No VOCs Styrene 104.15 0.00275 6.4 2.95 - No VOCs Toluene 92.14 0.00664 28.4 2.73 - No VOCs Xylenes 106.17 0.00642 7.91 3.16 - No VOCs Xylenes-(o) 106.17 0.00518 6.61 3.12 - No VOCs Xylenes-(m) 106.17 0.00718 8.29 3.2 - No VOCs Xylenes-(p) 106.17 0.0069 8.84 3.15 - No PAHs 7,12-

Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 256.35 0.00000376 0.00000068 - - Yes

PAHs Acenaphthene 154.21 0.000184 0.00215 3.92 76 Yes PAHs Acenaphthylene 152.2 0.000114 0.00668 3.94 85 Yes



Table 2-11 Chemicals Included in the Multiple Pathway Assessment (cont’d)




Assessment




(mm Hg) Log Kow

Fugacity

>200

< 0.00001

≤ 0.001

> 3.5

< 95% (air)

PAHs Anthracene 178.24 0.0000556 0.00000653 - - Yes PAHs Benzo(a)anthracene 228.3 0.000012 0.00000021 - - Yes

PAHs Benzo(a)pyrene 252.32 0.000000457 0.0000000055 - - Yes PAHs Benzo(b)fluoranthene 252.32 0.000000657 0.0000005 - - Yes PAHs Benzo(g,h,i)fluoranthene 226.28 0.00000134 0.0000002 - - Yes PAHs Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 276.34 0.000000331 0.0000000001 - - Yes PAHs Benzo(k)fluoranthene 252.32 0.000000584 0.00000000097 - - Yes PAHs Chrysene 228.3 0.00000523 0.0000000062 - - Yes PAHs Cyclopenta(cd)pyrene 226.28 0.000000865 0.0000005 - - Yes PAHs Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 278.36 0.000000141 0.00000000095 - - Yes PAHs Fluoranthene 202.26 0.00000886 0.00000922 - - Yes PAHs Indeno(1,2,3 cd)pyrene 276.34 0.000000348 0.00000000013 - - Yes PAHs Naphthalene 128.18 0.00044 0.085 3.3 - No PAHs Phenanthrene 178.24 0.0000423 0.000121 - - No PAHs Pyrene 202.26 0.0000119 0.0000045 - - Yes

TRS Carbon Disulphide 76.14 0.0144 359 1.94 - No TRS Hydrogen Sulphide 34.08 0.00856 15600 0.23 - No NOTES: 1 Metals were automatically retained in the multiple pathway assessment Bold values indicate that the physical-chemical substance meets or exceeds the criterion, and the chemical should be retained in the multiple pathway assessment - = step was not completed for the COPC, based upon the step-wise approach NA = No information available



Soil and Vegetation Soil, Labrador tea, cattail, alder and berry samples were collected from the Project terrestrial study area and analyzed for metals and PAHs. The majority of soil samples contained PAH concentrations below the analytical detection limit of 0.01 mg/kg. Conversely, most of the samples contained detectable concentrations of metals. Sufficient data (n=19) were available for the calculation of the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean (95UCLM) in most instances. The use of the estimated 95UCLM takes into account the observed variability and uncertainty in the data, thereby providing a conservative estimate of the long-term exposure point concentrations that are expected from harvesting foods and exposure to the local environment.

Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment at Federal Contaminated Sites (Health Canada 2009a) generally recommends using maximum values to represent exposure point concentrations. However, the same reference also suggests using the arithmetic mean or 95UCLM for site-specific assessments. The 95UCLM is judged to be a conservative metric for the HHRA because of the following:

• Human (and most wildlife) receptors will not be chronically exposed to a 95th percentile or higher concentration. Instead, exposures are likely well represented in most situations by the average concentration because of spatial averaging that would occur through harvesting or foraging in different areas and at different times of the year or season.

• Given data of sufficient quality, the use of the 95UCLM provides a reasonable and conservative estimate of chronic exposures (U.S. EPA 1996, 2001). As supported by the response to 4a, the site-specific data set was deemed to be sufficient to use 95UCLM values.

• The use of the estimated 95UCLM in the HHRA takes into account the observed variability and uncertainty in the data, thereby providing a conservative estimate of the long-term exposure concentrations.

Antimony, beryllium and silver were not detected and the sampling program for the Project excluded analysis of aluminum, boron, manganese and strontium. Therefore, the maximum 95UCLM or a suitable statistic (i.e., 90th percentile) for soil data from other oil sands developments in the area (e.g., Horizon, Jackpine Mine Expansions and Pierre River Mine [PRM] project and Joslyn North Mine project) were used in the HHRA.

Vegetation sampling data collected in support of the Project were compiled for the purpose of the multiple pathway assessment. In total, 11 samples of alder leaves, 11 samples of berries, 11 samples of cattail roots, and 11 samples of Labrador tea leaves have been collected from the Project area and analyzed for a suite of metals and PAHs. In most instances, metals were detected at or above the analytical detection limit in plants with sufficient vegetation data for the calculation of the 95UCLM. PAH concentrations were largely below their analytical detection limits, with some common exceptions being fluoranthene, phenanthrene and pyrene. In these circumstances the assessment used the maximum detected concentrations.

The soil concentrations were used to estimate wildlife soil ingestion and soil invertebrate concentrations, which is a food component of the ruffed grouse diet. In addition, alder



concentrations (i.e., browse) were used as a major food component for wildlife. The soil concentrations were used in the HHRA model for soil ingestion, predicting dust concentrations and predicting above-ground and below-ground plant concentrations.

Further details in regards to the sample data and exposure concentrations used in the HHRA and SLWRA are provided in Appendix 2B2, Appendix 2B3 and Appendix 2C.

Surface Water Surface water data were assumed from the surface water quality assessment (see Volume 5, Section 4). The following surface water quality nodes were used in the HHRA and ERA:

• Eymundson Creek (EC)

• Big Creek (BC)

• Redclay Creek (RC)

• Redclay Lake (RCL)

• Ronald Lake (RL)

• Athabasca River upstream from Redclay Creek (AR1)

• Athabasca River upstream from Embarras (AR2)

The surface water quality concentrations were used to estimate wildlife ingestion and aquatic plant concentrations, which is a food component of the moose diet. Wildlife receptors were assumed to be exposed to the greater of the average concentrations between the surface water quality receptors (i.e., EC, BC, RC, RCL and RL) and the Athabasca River (AR1 and AR2).

The surface water concentrations were used in the HHRA model for drinking water ingestion, swimming exposures and predicting fish fillet concentrations. The model assumes that people are exposed (via drinking and swimming) to the highest average concentration between the surface water quality receptor waterbodies (i.e., EC, BC, RC, RCL and RL) and Athabasca River (AR1 and AR2). Alternatively, Athabasca River concentrations were used to predict fish fillet concentrations.

For the pit lake scenario (i.e., closure phase or reclaimed landscape) in the HHRA, maximum pit lake water concentrations were used in the screening-level wildlife risk assessment (SLWRA; see Appendix 2D) to assess potential risks to wildlife and humans through ingestion of wild game. Four pit lakes were considered in the SLWRA (see Appendix 2D):

• south pit lake

• central pit lake A

• central pit lake B

• north pit lake

A summary of the water quality concentrations used in the HHRA are provided in Appendix 2B2 and 2B3.



Game Meat The Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring (TEEM) committee commissioned a traditional food sampling program that included the collection and analysis of wild game in 1999 and 2000 in the oil sands region, including the community of Fort McKay. Data from the sampling program were available from the WBEA (2009) internet site in a spreadsheet provided by Golder (2003). Measured concentrations of metals for snowshoe hare, grouse and moose from the oil sands region were used to characterize baseline game meat concentrations for the HHRA.

In total, 19 moose meat, 15 ruffed grouse and 36 snowshoe hare samples were collected, which is sufficient for the calculation of the 95UCLM in most instances. Measurements of PAH concentrations in wild game meat are not available; therefore, these concentrations were predicted (see Appendix 2B3). Further details with respect to the sample data and exposure concentrations used in the HHRA are provided in Appendix 2B2 and Appendix 2C.

Fish Fillet Fish samples, consisting of a fillet muscle collected from watercourses and waterbodies in northern Alberta as part of the metals in foods study, were available to determine baseline metal concentrations in fish tissue (Golder 2003). Whitefish, northern pike (jackfish) and walleye (pickerel) were identified as the fish most commonly consumed by Fort McKay residents, but other species (i.e., burbot, lake trout and goldeye) are also consumed by Fort Chipewyan residents. The subsistence samples were collected by community members and obtained from traditional fishing, hunting and trapping areas.

In addition to the metals in foods study (Golder 2003), analysis of fish tissue is also available from RAMP. The analysis from RAMP focused primarily on mercury concentrations in specific fish species (i.e., lake whitefish, northern pike and walleye) from the Athabasca and Muskeg rivers.

Baseline fish concentrations used in the HHRA are based on the 90th percentile. The data were derived from RAMP 2001 to 2008, and the Golder (2003) study. The 90th percentile was used for the following reasons:

• The 95UCLM is not appropriate since the dataset consists of heterogeneous populations of fish species that contain distinctly different distributions of metal concentrations.

• All of the fish are reported to be consumed by Aboriginal people (i.e., burbot, pike, whitefish, walleye, goldeye, trout, sucker); however, certain species are preferred or consumed more frequently than others. In addition, some species have dramatically different concentrations than others (e.g., walleye concentrations are four times higher than lake whitefish on average). Use of the 90th percentile provides an unbiased statistic that is not influenced by individual preferences or species differences.



• Over the past 10 years, fish harvesting has been inconsistent for certain species of fish (i.e., goldeye, burbot, trout) and consistent for others (i.e., walleye, white fish and pike by RAMP). This is because studies used as data sources (i.e., Golder 2003 and annual RAMP studies) focused on sentinel species in the main stem of the Athabasca River for human health. The 90th percentile represents an upper estimate that is not biased by the inconsistent sampling methods between species and years.

• There is also inconsistency in metals analyzed. The food contaminant study (Golder 2003) provided a fairly robust dataset for 76 metals; however, RAMP provides a sparse dataset for metals (less than 16 samples over the past 10 years), but very comprehensive dataset for mercury (n = 216).

Further details in regards to the sample data and exposure concentrations used in the HHRA are provided in Appendix 2B2 and Appendix 2C.

2.6.2.2 Predictive Exposure Modelling Predictive exposure models rely on the use of mathematical equations (algorithms) that define the movement of the chemicals from the point of release of the chemicals into the air or water (i.e., from the Project) to the point of contact with humans (Health Canada 2009a; U.S. EPA OSW 2005).

This approach was used only where baseline data were lacking for a particular chemical or media, to supplement existing measured data for some assessment cases (i.e. Base Case, Application Case and PDC), or in instances for which measured data are not relevant or available. In addition, predictive exposure models were used to predict the incremental changes over the Base Case.

The following information sources were considered as part of the predictive exposure modelling:

• the maximum ground-level air concentrations of a chemical because of atmospheric emissions from the Project, in combination with those from other regional sources

• the various physical-chemical characteristics (e.g., water solubility, volatility, deposition rates) that determine the fate and transport of the chemical in various environmental media and the food chain

• the concentration of each chemical transported from air to other environmental compartments (e.g., soil, water, vegetation, wildlife)

• the ambient or baseline concentration of each chemical measured in environmental media (i.e., soil, vegetation, surface water, game meat and fish fillet) from the Project area, when available

• the various exposure pathways identified in the problem formulation that could potentially contribute to uptake by humans

• absorption characteristics of each chemical once exposure has occurred

• the activity patterns and characteristics of the people potentially at risk (e.g., respiration rate, food consumption rates, etc.)



The multiple pathway models predicted concentrations of the chemicals in environmental media (i.e., soil, dust, plants, wild game and fish) under the Base Case, Application Case and PDC based on the maximum predicted annual average deposition for each applicable group (i.e., resident, recreational and worker). When possible, these predicted concentrations were added to the baseline concentrations contributed by existing conditions to arrive at the cumulative exposures associated with each of the assessment cases.

The general approach to predicting chemical concentrations in environmental media is summarized in Table 2-12.

Table 2-12 Environmental Concentrations Used in the Multiple Pathway Assessment

Media Description Air Air dispersion modelling incorporated meteorological data that represented conditions

contributing to maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations of the chemical emissions. The maximum annual average air concentrations were predicted for each fixed location at which people are known or anticipated to spend time. Ground-level air concentrations, including contributions from community sources, were predicted by Air Quality (see Volume 4, Section 3). In addition the air dispersion modelling predicted atmospheric deposition and the maximum deposition rate was used for each fixed location at which people are known or anticipated to spend time.

Soil Ambient concentrations of certain metals were measured in soil. Whenever possible, 95UCLMs were used in the multiple pathway models. Most PAHs were non-detect and thus ambient PAH concentrations in soil were not incorporated in the multiple pathway models. However, benz(a)anthracene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene and pyrene were detected in soil and the maximum concentration was used in the HHRA and SLWRA. In general, soil concentrations were predicted based on: • the highest predicted deposition at all receptor locations for the SLWRA • the highest predicted deposition at residential, recreational and worker receptor for the

HHRA • chemical losses due to degradation and volatilization

Plants Plants traditionally consumed by local residents (i.e., Labrador tea leaves, cattail roots and berries), were measured at or above the method detection for most metals and certain PAHs. Whenever possible, 95UCLMs were used in the multiple pathway models. Above-ground plant (i.e., Labrador tea leaves, berries and above-ground garden vegetables) concentrations were predicted for residents based on: • the highest predicted deposition at residential and recreational locations, with the

exceptions of the worker receptors • direct vapour uptake from the atmosphere • root uptake from soil Below-ground plant (i.e., cattail roots and below-ground garden vegetables) concentrations also were predicted for residents using the highest predicted soil concentration of all applicable fixed locations (described above). The multiple pathway assessment did not make any adjustments for washing or pealing of plants.



Table 2-12 Environmental Concentrations Used in the Multiple Pathway Assessment (cont’d)

Media Description Wild game tissue Wild game traditionally consumed by local residents (i.e., moose, ruffed grouse and

snowshoe hare), were measured at or above the method detection limit for most metals. Whenever possible, 95UCLMs were used in the multiple pathway models. Chemical concentrations were predicted in wild game tissues for resident and recreational consumption based on: • the highest annual average air concentration and deposition at all receptor locations,

with the exceptions of the worker housing complexes • ingestion of soil and alder leaves from the location described above • ingestion of water and aquatic plants from the project lease • chemical losses due to metabolism of the chemical

Surface water (including drinking water and fish)

Surface water concentrations were taken from the surface water assessment (see Volume 5, Section 4). The surface water quality concentrations were used in the SLWRA model for wildlife ingestion and predicting aquatic plant concentrations (i.e., component of moose diet). Wildlife was assumed to be exposed to the highest average concentration between the surface water quality receptors (i.e., EC, BC, RC, RCL and RL) and the Athabasca River (AR1 and AR2). The surface water quality concentrations were used in the HHRA model for drinking water ingestion, swimming exposures and predicting fish fillet concentrations. Receptors were assumed to be exposed to the highest average concentration between the surface water quality receptors (i.e., EC, BC, RC, RCL and RL) and Athabasca River (AR1 and AR2) for drinking and swimming exposures. Alternatively, the Athabasca River concentrations were used for predicting fish fillet concentrations.

To compensate, in part, for the uncertainty surrounding the use of modelled predictions of exposure, reasonable worst-case assumptions were applied to describe the movement of the chemicals to ensure that the predictions do not understate potential exposure. The uncertainties addressed and the assumptions used in the HHRA are documented as part of the risk characterization step of the assessment.

Additional details regarding the predictive exposure models used in the multiple pathway assessment are provided in Appendix 2B1 (example calculations and multiple pathway model).

2.7 Toxicity Assessment

The toxicity assessment component of the HHRA involves identifying and understanding potential health effects that can result from exposure to each chemical emitted from the Project, and the conditions under which these effects might be observed. The assessment relied on the following guiding principles that have been proven through years of scientific investigation and observation:

• All chemicals, regardless of type or source, possess some degree of intrinsic toxicity (i.e., all chemicals have the capacity to cause some level of harm or injury).

• The health effects produced by any chemical depend on both the intrinsic toxicity of the substance and the exposure, or dose, of the chemical that is received. Potential health effects associated with exposures to the chemical emissions, and the basis of the individual chemical exposure limits, are described in Appendix 2A.



• With few exceptions, the inherent toxicity of a chemical (i.e., the capacity to produce a harmful effect or physiological injury) is only expressed if the exposure exceeds a critical threshold level. Below this threshold dose, injury does not occur and health effects are not observed. A possible exception to this principle involves the actions of certain chemical carcinogens that act via genetically mediated mechanisms to produce certain forms of cancer. Some scientists contend that no safe dose levels exist for these carcinogens (Health Canada 2009b). Other scientific authorities disagree and argue that the threshold phenomenon applies equally to carcinogens and non-carcinogens; often this approach to carcinogens is chemically dependent (Health Canada 2009b; Klassen 1996). Debate also surrounds whether or not the threshold phenomenon applies to particulate matter or some other forms of air pollution (Health Canada 2009b; U.S. EPA 2004; WHO 2000, 2006). In each case, experimental data demonstrating the absence of a threshold dose are lacking, and the exceptions represent theoretical arguments only.

• If the threshold dose is exceeded, health effects might occur. The severity of these effects will depend on the level of exposure received, with more severe effects occurring with increasing dose.

• The toxicity of a chemical depends on its molecular structure. Within limits, chemicals with similar structures will produce similar evidence of toxicity. This principle allows the health effects of a chemical of unknown toxicity to be predicted by comparison with known health effects produced by a second chemical of similar molecular structure.

• The health effects produced by a chemical depend on the nature, extent and duration of exposure. It is important to distinguish between the health effects that might result from acute exposures of short duration and effects that might occur following chronic or long-term exposure. Also, health effects might differ according to the route of exposure (e.g., inhalation rather than oral exposure).

Chemicals might differ not only with respect to the dosage required to cause an adverse effect, but also in the mechanism by which the adverse effect is elicited. For this reason, two general categories were used to evaluate the chemical emissions based upon their mode of action or mechanism of toxicity: threshold and non-threshold.

In the case of threshold chemicals, which are generally non-carcinogenic chemicals, a benchmark or threshold level must be exceeded for toxicity to occur. The degree of toxicity expressed then increases with increasing dose. The threshold phenomenon applies to virtually all types of toxic responses and chemicals, with the exception of some carcinogens and some forms of cancer. For these chemicals, a no-observed-adverse-effects-level (NOAEL) can be identified. A NOAEL is the dose or amount of the chemical that results in no obvious response in the most sensitive test species and test endpoint. In some cases, a benchmark dose or concentration (BMD or BMC) is derived, which represents the dose associated with a specific magnitude of response (i.e., 5 or 10% incidence in the study population). In the derivation of exposure limits by leading regulatory and scientific agencies, uncertainty factors are applied to the NOAEL or BMD/BMC to provide protection for the most sensitive subjects following exposure over a prescribed period.



Non-threshold chemicals are capable of producing cancer through one or more of a number of possible mechanisms (e.g., mutagenicity, cytotoxicity, inhibition of programmed cell death, mitogenesis (uncontrolled cell proliferation) and immune suppression) that, in theory, do not require the exceedance of a threshold (U.S. EPA 2005a). In general, tumourigenicity data from animals or human epidemiological studies are evaluated and examined using mathematical models to determine the chemical-specific unit risks or slope factors, which are in-turn used to develop applicable exposure limits. Regulatory agencies such as Health Canada and the U.S. EPA assume that any level of long-term exposure to carcinogenic chemicals is associated with some hypothetical cancer risk. As a result, Health Canada and Alberta Environment have specified an incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) (i.e., over and above background) of 1.0 in 100,000, which these agencies consider acceptable, tolerable or essentially negligible (AENV 2009b; Health Canada 2009b). The regulatory benchmark of an acceptable cancer risk is policy-based and its interpretation by various regulatory agencies differs (CCME 2006).

An assumed incremental cancer risk of 1.0 in 100,000 increases a person’s LCR from 0.40000 for women (based on the 40% lifetime probability of developing cancer in Canada) to 0.40001, and 0.45000 for men (based on the 45% lifetime probability of developing cancer in Canada) to 0.45001 (CCS 2010, Internet site). Because this assumed acceptable cancer risk level was specifically developed to address cancer risks over and above background cancer incidence, a portion of which includes background exposure to environmental pollutants, background exposures were not included in the assessment of potential cancer risks for non-threshold (i.e., carcinogenic) chemicals (Wilson 2005).

The general terminology used to define threshold and non-threshold exposure limits differs according to the source and route of exposure. Also, it often varies between regulatory jurisdictions. Generic nomenclature has been developed, with the following terms and descriptions commonly used:

• Reference Concentration (RfC) – refers to the safe level of an airborne chemical for which the primary avenue of exposure is inhalation. It is expressed as a concentration of the chemical in air (e.g., µg/m³) and applies only to threshold chemicals

• Reference Dose (RfD) – refers to the safe level or dose of a chemical for which exposure occurs through secondary pathways (i.e., inhalation of dust, oral and dermal). It is most commonly expressed in terms of the total intake of the chemical per unit of body weight (e.g., µg/kg bw/d). This term applies only to threshold chemicals

• Risk-specific Concentration (RsC) – reserved for non-threshold or carcinogenic chemicals and refers to the level of an air-borne carcinogen for which the primary route of exposure is inhalation that results in a regulatory acceptable incremental increase in cancer (typically 1.0 in 100,000). It is expressed as a concentration of the chemical in air (e.g., µg/m³)

• Risk-specific Dose (RsD) – reserved for non-threshold or carcinogenic chemicals and refers to the dose of a carcinogen for which exposure occurs through secondary pathways that results in a regulatory acceptable increased incidence of cancer



(typically 1.0 in 100,000). It is expressed in terms of the total intake of the chemical (e.g., µg/kg bw/d)

2.7.1 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern

The overall intent of the toxicity assessment is to identify defensible exposure limits or toxicity reference values for chemicals or groups of chemicals. As a first step in this process, it is necessary to evaluate and identify chemicals that can be evaluated on their own, and those that can be combined into groups. As described previously, the COPCs from the air and water emissions inventories for the Project were identified through:

• the determination of whether or not sufficient toxicological information is available (i.e., the availability of regulatory exposure limits) to assess potential health risks for an individual chemical or chemical group; such as the assignment of chemicals to pre-defined aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons groups as well as carcinogenic PAHs for which exposure limits have been developed by reputable scientific and/or regulatory authorities for the chemical group as a whole

• the identification of reasonable surrogate compounds to represent a group of similar compounds, in the absence of a defined exposure limit for the group as a whole

Information regarding the specific chemical groupings of COPCs from the air and water emissions inventories for this Project is presented in the Problem Formulation (see Section 2.5).

2.7.2 Selection of Exposure Limits

For the purpose of the HHRA, reliance was placed on exposure limits developed or recommended by regulatory or reputable scientific agencies as criteria (i.e., objectives, guidelines or standards) for the protection of human health. Exposure limits were evaluated and selected from various organizations, including:

• Alberta Environment

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)

• American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)

• CCME

• Health Canada and Environment Canada

• Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)

• OEHHA

• Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE)

• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

• U.S. EPA

• World Health Organization (WHO)



By definition, exposure limits may include standards, guidelines, objectives, reference concentrations or doses, cancer risk estimates, etc. that have been derived for the protection of human health.

In general, these exposure limits typically incorporate a high level of conservatism, in view of the authorities’ mandate to offer guidance aimed at the protection of public health. The basis of these exposure limits might differ depending on the responsible regulatory jurisdiction or scientific authority charged with developing the safe or acceptable level of exposure. The limits also might differ in terms of the primary determinant(s) of concern (e.g., direct health effects versus odour) and the level of protection required.

For inclusion in the HHRA, exposure limits were required to be:

• established or recommended by a reputable scientific or regulatory agency

• supported by adequate documentation

• protective of the health of the general public based on current scientific knowledge of the health effects associated with exposure to the chemical

• protective of sensitive individuals (i.e., children and the elderly) through the incorporation of uncertainty

Emphasis was given to those limits that had adequate supporting documentation, so that the limits could be evaluated to ensure that their basis was relevant and sufficient. When these criteria were satisfied by more than one objective, guideline or standard, the most scientifically defensible limit was selected. The scientific rationale for the selection of the exposure limits for each COPC or group for this Project are provided Appendix 2A.

Because the toxicity and critical effect of a chemical has been observed to vary between acute and chronic exposure, it is important to differentiate exposure limits on the basis of exposure duration. The two exposure limit durations that will be used in the toxicity assessment can be described as follows:

• acute exposure limit – the amount or dose of a chemical that can be tolerated without evidence of adverse health effects on a short-term basis. These limits are routinely applied to conditions in which exposures extend over several hours or a day

• chronic exposure limit – the amount of a chemical that is expected to be without effect, even when exposure occurs continuously or regularly over extended periods, lasting for periods of at least a year, and possibly extending over an entire lifetime

Within the context of the chronic assessments, further distinction must be made between the exposure limits developed for the primary inhalation pathway and secondary exposure pathways. Consideration is also given to chronic limits that are based on non-carcinogenic effects and carcinogenic effects.

For those chemicals for which exposure limits have not been developed or recommended by the various regulatory or reputable scientific agencies either as individuals or as pre-defined chemical groups, surrogate chemicals were identified. This step relied on the toxicological principle that states that the molecular structure of a chemical has a distinct bearing on its reactivity, biological activity and toxicity. The principle allows for the



toxicity of a chemical for which little or no toxicological information exists to be predicted on the basis of information available on another chemical of similar molecular structure. The second chemical is termed a surrogate. Depending on the amount of information available for the various constituents of the group, and the relative defensibility of the values, different surrogates for a group may be identified on an acute and chronic basis.

A complete list of the exposure limits identified in the toxicity assessment is presented in Table 2-13. Additional information regarding the approaches used for identifying and selecting exposure limits on an acute and chronic basis, as well as details regarding the available limits for each COPC that were evaluated as part of the limit selection process, are provided in Appendix 2A (toxicity profile). Information regarding any surrogate compounds used to represent groups of chemicals is also presented in the individual profiles, where relevant.

Due to a lack of defensible exposure limits for COPCs for the acute, chronic inhalation or chronic multiple pathway assessments, not all COPCs could be evaluated. Table 2-14 builds upon the information presented in Section 2.5 (problem formulation) and Section 2.6 (exposure assessment) by presenting information as to whether or not COPCs identified in these two sections could be evaluated or not, based on the findings of the toxicity assessment (i.e., the availability of defensible limits).



Table 2-13 Exposure Limits for the Chemicals Emitted from the Project

Chemical

Acute Inhalation Exposure Limit Chronic Inhalation Exposure Limit Chronic Oral Exposure Limit Averaging

Time

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/kg bw/d]

Critical Effect

Agency

Acids Carboxylic acids — — — — — — — — — — — —

CACs CO 1-hour 40,000 Oxygen

carrying capacity of blood

U.S. EPA

— — — — N/A N/A N/A N/A

8-hour 10,000

NO2 1-hour 188 Respiratory irritation

U.S. EPA

RfC 100 Respiratory irritation

U.S. EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

PM2.5 24-hour 30 — CCME RfC 12 — CARB N/A N/A N/A N/A

SO2 10-minute 500 Respiratory irritation

WHO — — — — N/A N/A N/A N/A

1-hour 196 U.S. EPA

Metals and Minerals Aluminum — — — — RfC 5 Neurological

effects U.S. EPA RfD 143 Reproductive and

developmental effects, neurological, renal, and liver effects

WHO

Antimony — — — — — — — — RfD 0.2 Liver effects HC

Arsenic 1-hour 0.2 Reproductive and developmental effects

OEHHA RsC 0.0016 Lung tumours HC RsD 0.006 Bladder, liver, and lung tumours

HC

Barium — — — — RfC 1.0 Cardiovascular effects

RIVM RfD 200 (food) Kidney effects ATSDR

16 (water) Cardiovascular disease, increased blood pressure

HC

Beryllium(4) — — — — — — — — RfD 2 Gastrointestinal effects

ATSDR, OEHHA, U.S. EPA, WHO



Table 2-13 Exposure Limits for the Chemicals Emitted from the Project (cont’d)

Chemical


Time

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/kg bw/d]

Critical Effect

Agency

Metals and Minerals (cont’d) Boron(4) — — — — — — — — RfD 200 Reproductive and

development effects U.S. EPA

Cadmium 24-hour 0.03 Nasal irritation; respiratory irritation

ATSDR RsC 0.002 Lung tumours OEHHA RfD 1 (food) Kidney effects U.S. EPA

0.5 (water)

Chromium III 1-hour 12 Respiratory irritation

TCEQ RfC 0.14 Respiratory irritation

TCEQ RfD 1,500 — U.S. EPA

Chromium VI(1) — — — — RsC 0.00013 Lung tumours HC RfD 1.0 Gastrointestinal effects

ATSDR

Cobalt — — — — RfC 0.1 Respiratory irritation

ATSDR RfD 0.3 Thyroid effects; haematological effects

U.S. EPA

Copper 1-hour 100 Respiratory irritation

OEHHA RfC 1.0 Respiratory irritation; immunological effects

RIVM RfD 90 (age 0 to 4 y)

Liver effects HC

100 (age 5 and older)

Lead — — — — RfC 0.5 Neurological effects

WHO RfD 1.85 Neurological effects; developmental effects

HC

Manganese — — — — RfC 0.05 Neurological effects

HC RfD 140 Neurological effects U.S. EPA

Methyl Mercury(4) — — — — — — — — RfD 0.1 Reproductive and developmental effects; neurological effects

U.S. EPA

Mercury(4) — — — — — — — — RfD 0.3 Kidney effects U.S. EPA

Molybdenum(4) — — — — — — — — RfD 5 Serum uric acid effects

U.S. EPA

Nickel 1-hour 1.1 Respiratory irritation

TCEQ RsC 0.0077 Lung tumours HC RfD 22 Reproductive and developmental effects

WHO

Selenium — — — — — — — — RfD 5 Neurological effects; liver effects

U.S. EPA




Chemical


Time

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/kg bw/d]

Critical Effect

Agency

Metals and Minerals (cont’d) Silver — — — — RfC 0.4 Argyria ACGIH RfD 5 Argyria U.S. EPA

Strontium — — — — — — — — RfD 600 Reproductive and developmental effects

U.S. EPA

Tin — — — — — — — — RfD 200 Accumulation in bone RIVM

Vanadium 1-hour 30 Respiratory irritation

OEHHA RfC 0.1 Respiratory irritation

ATSDR RfD 2 Developmental effects RIVM

Zinc 1-hour 250 Respiratory irritation

ACGIH — — — — RfD 300 Change in copper status

U.S. EPA

PAHs Benzo(a)pyrene(2) (Approach 1)

— — — — RsC 0.00012 Lung tumours WHO — — — —

Benzo(a)pyrene PEQ(2)

(Approach 2) — — — — RsC 0.32 Lung tumours HC RsD 0.0014 Gastrointestinal

tumours U.S. EPA

Naphthalene(3) 1-hour 2,000 Eye irritation ACGIH RfC 3 Nasal irritation U.S. EPA — — — —

Pyrene — — — — — — — — RfD 30 Kidney effects U.S. EPA

RSCs Carbon disulphide 1-hour 6,200 Developmental

effects OEHHA RfC 100 Neurological

effects HC N/A N/A N/A N/A

H2S 1-hour 98 Respiratory irritation

ATSDR RfC 2 Nasal irritation U.S. EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

VOCs 1,3-Butadiene 24-hour 15 Reproductive

and developmental effects

U.S. EPA

RsC 0.3 Leukemogens U.S. EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

1,3-Dioxolane — — — — RfC 450 Immunological effects; liver effects

ACGIH N/A N/A N/A N/A

2-Chloronaphthalene — — — — — — — — RfD 80 Liver effects U.S. EPA




Chemical


Time

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/kg bw/d]

Critical Effect

Agency

VOCs (cont’d) Acetaldehyde 1-hour 470 Eye, nasal, and

respiratory irritation

OEHHA RsC 17.2 Nasal tumours HC N/A N/A N/A N/A

Acrolein 1-hour 2.5 Eye, nasal, and respiratory irritation

OEHHA RfC 0.35 Nasal irritation OEHHA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aliphatic alcohols — — — — — — — — — — — —

Aliphatic aldehydes 1-hour 110,000 Eye irritation; nasal irritation

U.S. EPA

RfC 8 Nasal irritation U.S. EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aliphatic C3-C4 group 1-hour 34,000 Maternal body weight effects

TCEQ RfC 3,000 Nasal irritation; kidney effects

OEHHA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aliphatic C5-C8 group 1-hour 51,250 Neurological effects

ACGIH RfC 18,400 Neurological effects

CCME, RIVM, TPHCWG

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aliphatic C9-C16 group — — — — RfC 200 Neurological effects

MA DEP N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aliphatic C17-C34 group — — — — — — — — RfD 2,000 Liver effects CCME, TPHCWG

Aliphatic ketones 1-hour 59,000 — TCEQ RfC 5,000 Developmental effects


Aniline 1-hour 30,000 Methemoglobinemia and cyanosis

U.S. EPA

RfC 1 Hematological effects

U.S. EPA RfD 7 Haematological effects; immunological effects

HC

Aromatic C9-C16 group

1-hour 2,000 Eye irritation ACGIH RfC 50 Liver effects; kidney effects

MA DEP RfD 40 Liver effects; kidney effects

CCME, MA DEP, RIVM, TPHCWG

Aromatic C17-C34 group

— — — — — — — — RfD 30 Kidney effects CCME, MA DEP, RIVM, TPHCWG

Aromatic ketones — — — — — — — — RfD 100 — U.S. EPA




Chemical


Time

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/kg bw/d]

Critical Effect

Agency

VOCs (cont’d) Benzaldehyde — — — — — — — — N/A N/A N/A N/A

Benzene 1-hour 580 Immune system effects

TCEQ RsC 1.3 Leukemogens U.S. EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Butyl isocyanate — — — — — — — — N/A N/A N/A N/A

Dibenzofuran — — — — — — — — N/A N/A N/A N/A

Dichlorobenzene 1-hour 3,000 Eye irritation; nasal irritation

TCEQ RfC 60 Nasal irritation ATSDR N/A N/A N/A N/A

Ethylbenzene 1-hour 21,700 Neurological effects

ATSDR RfC 260 Kidney effects ATSDR N/A N/A N/A N/A

Formaldehyde 1-hour 50 Eye irritation; nasal irritation

ATSDR RfC 11 Eye, nasal, and respiratory irritation

TCEQ RfD 150 Kidney effects; gastrointestinal effects

HC

Heptanamine — — — — — — — — N/A N/A N/A N/A

Hexachlorobutadiene — — — — — — — — RsD 0.1 Kidney tumours U.S. EPA

Hexane — — — — RfC 670 Neurological effects

TCEQ N/A N/A N/A N/A

Methacrolein 1-hour 53 Eye irritation TCEQ RfC 1.2 Eye irritation; nasal irritation


Phenothiazine — — — — RfC 180 Dermatological effects

ACGIH RfD 0.5 Liver effects; hematological effects

U.S. EPA

Piperidine 1-hour 20 Nasal irritation U.S. EPA

— — — — — — — —

Propylene oxide 1-hour 3,100 Nasal irritation OEHHA RsC 3 Nasal tumours U.S. EPA N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pyridine — — — — — — — — N/A N/A N/A N/A

Styrene group 1-hour 21,000 Eye, nasal, respiratory irritation, and neurological effects

OEHHA RfC 470 Neurological effects





Chemical


Time

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/m³]

Critical Effect

Agency

Type

Value [µg/kg bw/d]

Critical Effect

Agency

VOCs (cont’d) Toluene 1-hour 15,000 Eye irritation;

nasal irritation; neurological effects

TCEQ RfC 5,000 Neurological effects


Xylenes 1-hour 7,400 Respiratory irritation; neurological effects

TCEQ RfC 610 Eye irritation; upper respiratory irritation; neurological effects


NOTES: 1 For the inhalation assessment, it was assumed that chromium VI makes up 18% of total chromium emissions from the combustion of diesel fuels (U.S. EPA 2005b). In the multiple

pathway assessment, it was assumed that Chromium VI makes up 8.3% of total chromium concentrations in soil and plants (Fengxiang et al. 2004), and 100% in water (Health Canada 1994)

2 Potential chronic inhalation health risks associated with benzo(a)pyrene and the other carcinogenic PAHs were evaluated using two different approaches, as described in Appendix 2A). The two RsC values provided reflect these two approaches

3 Naphthalene was deemed a volatile chemical and therefore did not screen on for the multiple pathway assessment. However, naphthalene was assessed in the multiple pathway in the aromatic C9-C16 group because it was identified as a COPC in water

4 Beryllium, boron, methyl mercury, mercury, molybdenum, and selenium were only identified as COPCs in water; therefore only oral exposure limits were required for these chemicals. — = No value available, or no information available N/A Not applicable; These chemicals did not require chronic oral exposure limits as they were deemed gaseous or volatile, and therefore did not screen on for the multiple pathway

assessment HC Health Canada RfC Reference Concentration (a general term to describe a non-cancer inhalation exposure limit which represents various specific definitions of limits from regulatory agencies:

Alberta Environment’s AAQOs, ATSDR’s MRLs, Health Canada’s TC, OEHHA’s RELs, OMOE’s air quality Standards and Guidelines, RIVM’s TCA, TCEQ’s ReV, U.S. EPA’s RfC, and WHO’s AAQG)

RfD Reference Dose (a general term to describe a non-cancer oral exposure limit which represents various specific definitions of limits from regulatory agencies: ATSDR’s MRLs, Health Canada’s TDIs or ADIs, OEHHA’s CPFs, RIVM’s TDIs, U.S. EPA’s RfD, and WHO’s TDIs or ADIs)

RsC Risk-specific Concentration (a general term to describe a cancer inhalation exposure limit which represents various specific definitions of limits from regulatory agencies: Health Canada’s Tumorigenic Concentrations, inhalation slope factor and inhalation unit risk, OEHHA’s and U.S. EPA’s RsC or Unit Risk Estimates (URE) or Slope Factors (SF)

RsD Risk-specific Dose (a general term to describe a cancer oral exposure limit which represents various specific definitions of limits from regulatory agencies: Health Canada’s oral slope factor, OEHHA’s and U.S. EPA’s RsC or URE or SF)

.



Table 2-14 COPC in Inhalation and Multiple Pathway Assessments

Chemical Category COPC Acute Inhalation

Assessment Chronic Inhalation

Assessment

Chronic Multiple Pathway

Assessment

Acids Carboxylic Acids ○ ○ ○

CACs CO ● ○ --

NO2 ● ● --

PM2.5 ● ● --

SO2 ● ○ --

Metals Aluminum ○ ● ●

Antimony ○ ○ ●

Arsenic ● ● ●

Barium ○ ● ●

Beryllium ○ ○ ●

Boron ○ ○ ●

Cadmium ● ● ●

Chromium III ● ● ●

Chromium VI ○ ● ●

Cobalt ○ ● ●

Copper ● ● ●

Lead ○ ● ●

Manganese ○ ● ●

Methyl mercury ○ ○ ●

Mercury ○ ○ ●

Molybdenum ○ ○ ●

Nickel ● ● ●

Selenium ○ ○ ●

Silver ○ ● ●

Strontium ○ ○ ●

Tin ○ ○ ●

Vanadium ● ● ●

Zinc ● ○ ●

PAHs Benzo(a)pyrene ○ ● ○

Benzo(a)pyrene and equivalents

○ ● ●

Naphthalene(1) ● ● ●

Pyrene ○ ○ ●

RSCs Carbon disulphide ● ● --

H2S ● ● --

VOCs 1,3-Butadiene ● ● --

1,3-Dioxolane ○ ● --

Acetaldehyde ● ● --



Table 2-14 COPC in Inhalation and Multiple Pathway Assessments (cont’d)

Chemical Category COPC Acute Inhalation

Assessment Chronic Inhalation

Assessment

Chronic Multiple Pathway

Assessment

Acrolein ● ● --

Aliphatic alcohols ○ ○ ○

Aliphatic aldehydes ● ● --

Aliphatic C3-C4 group ● ● --

Aliphatic C5-C8 group ● ● --

Aliphatic C9-C16 group ○ ● --

Aliphatic C17-C34 group ○ ○ ●

Aliphatic ketones ● ● --

Aniline ● ● ●

Aromatic C9-C16 group ● ● ●

Aromatic C17-C34 group ○ ○ ●

Aromatic ketones ○ ○ ●

Benzaldehyde ○ ○ --

Benzene ● ● --

Butyl isocyanate ○ ○ --

Dibenzofuran ○ ○ --

Dichlorobenzene ● ● --

Ethylbenzene ● ● --

Formaldehyde ● ● ●

Heptanamine ○ ○ --

Hexachlorobutadiene ○ ○ ●

Hexane ○ ● --

Methacrolein ● ● --

Phenothiazine ○ ● ●

Piperidine ● ○ --

Propylene oxide ● ● --

Pyridine ○ ○ --

Styrene group ● ● --

Toluene ● ● --

Xylenes ● ● --

NOTES: 1 In the multiple pathway assessment, naphthalene was included in the aromatic C9-C16 group.

● Included in the assessment ○ No exposure limit was available -- Not applicable; only those chemicals that were deemed to be non-volatile were included in the multiple pathway

assessment.



2.7.3 Chemical Mixtures

Given that chemical exposures rarely occur in isolation, the potential health risks associated with mixtures of the COPCs were assessed in the HHRA. Although the interaction between chemicals can take many forms, additive interactions were assumed for the HHRA (Health Canada 2009a). Additive interactions apply most readily to chemicals that are structurally similar, act toxicologically through similar mechanisms or affect the same target tissue in the body (i.e., share commonality in effect) (Health Canada 2009a).

The endpoints of the exposure limits used in the HHRA provided the basis for an individual chemical’s inclusion in a chemical mixture. For example, the acute inhalation exposure limit for formaldehyde is based on its ability to cause eye and nasal irritation, thus formaldehyde was included in both the acute inhalation eye irritants and nasal irritants mixtures. For details concerning the critical effects of the chemicals included in each of the mixtures, see Table 2-15 and Appendix 2A (toxicity profiles).

A listing of the various chemical interactions that were assessed as part of the HHRA is also provided in Table 2-15.

Table 2-15 Chemical Mixtures Evaluated in the HHRA Exposure Duration Mixture Designation COPC

Acute Inhalation Eye Irritants Acetaldehyde, acrolein, aliphatic aldehydes, aromatic C9-C16 group, dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methacrolein, styrene group, toluene

Nasal Irritants Acetaldehyde, acrolein, aliphatic aldehydes, cadmium, dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, piperidine, propylene oxide, styrene group, toluene

Respiratory irritants Acetaldehyde, acrolein, cadmium, chromium III, copper, H2S, nickel, NO2, SO2, styrene group, vanadium, xylenes, zinc

Reproductive and developmental toxicants

1,3-Butadiene, arsenic, carbon disulphide group

Neurotoxicants Aliphatic C5-C8 group, ethylbenzene, styrene group, toluene, xylenes

Chronic Inhalation Eye Irritants Formaldehyde, methacrolein, xylenes Nasal irritants Acrolein, aliphatic aldehydes, aliphatic C3-C4 group,

dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, H2S, methacrolein, naphthalene, xylenes

Respiratory irritants Chromium III, cobalt, copper, formaldehyde, NO2, vanadium Hepatotoxicants 1,3-Dioxolane, aromatic C9-C16 group Renal toxicants (Kidney Effects)

Aliphatic C3-C4 group, aromatic C9-C16 group, ethylbenzene

Immunotoxicants 1,3-Dioxolane, copper Neurotoxicants Aliphatic C5-C8 group, aliphatic C9-C16 group, aluminum, carbon

disulphide, hexane, lead, manganese, styrene group, toluene, xylenes

Nasal Carcinogens Acetaldehyde, propylene oxide



Table 2-15 Chemical Mixtures Evaluated in the HHRA (cont’d) Exposure Duration Mixture Designation COPC

Chronic Inhalation (cont’d)

Lung Carcinogens Arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, cadmium, chromium VI, nickel Leukemogens 1,3-butadiene, benzene

Chronic oral exposure

Hepatotoxicants (Liver Effects)

2-chloronaphthalene, aliphatic C17-C34 group, aromatic C9-C16 group, aluminum, antimony, copper, phenothiazine, selenium

Renal toxicants (Kidney Effects)

Aluminum, aromatic C9-C16 group, aromatic C17-C34 group, barium, cadmium, formaldehyde, mercury

Haematological toxicants Aniline, cobalt, phenothiazine Neurotoxicants Aluminum, lead, manganese, methyl mercury, selenium Reproductive and developmental toxicants

Aluminum, boron, lead, methyl mercury, nickel, strontium, vanadium

Gastrointestinal toxicants Beryllium, chromium VI, formaldehyde NOTES: 1 Naphthalene was used as the chemical surrogate for the aromatic C9-C16 group on an acute basis. As a result,

naphthalene was not included in the acute inhalation assessment as an individual COPC, nor was it added to the eye irritants mixture as an individual COPC. It was, however, included in the eye irritants mixture as part of the aromatic C9-C16 group.

2 The highest risk estimate of the different averaging times for SO2 (i.e., 10-minute and 1-hour) was used in the prediction of potential health risks for the acute respiratory irritants mixture.

3 Because some COPCs were assessed both individually and as part of a chemical group, the corresponding risk estimates were likely exaggerated due to the double counting of these chemicals in the mixtures. For example, the chronic risk estimate for hexane was added to the chronic risk estimate for the aliphatic C5-C8 group, which includes hexane, in the assessment of the chronic health risks associated with neurotoxicants.

4 The highest risk estimate of the different approaches to assessing the carcinogenic PAHs was used in the prediction of potential health risks for the lung carcinogens mixture.

2.8 Risk Characterization

The final step of the assessment involves comparison of the estimated exposures with the selected exposure limits to determine potential health risks for the different assessment cases. In addition, sources of uncertainty and how these uncertainties were addressed are discussed.

The uncertainty associated with the prediction of potential health risks was addressed, in part, through the use of reasonable worst-case assumptions. Using this approach, any health risks identified by the assessment are likely to be overstated. Thus, it is important that the uncertainties and assumptions underlying the potential health risks be known and understood.



2.8.1 Non-cancer Risk Estimates

Risk quotients (RQ values) were calculated by comparing the predicted levels of exposure for the non-carcinogenic COPCs to their respective exposure limits, as described in the toxicity assessment (Section 2.7), that have been developed by regulatory and scientific authorities. Risk quotients, which are sometimes referred to as Exposure Ratios, were calculated as follows:

RQ = Predicted Exposure (µg/m³ or µg/kg bw/d)

Exposure Limit (µg/m³ or µg/kg bw/d)

Interpretation of the RQ values proceeded as follows:

• RQ ≤1.0 – indicates that the estimated exposure is less than or equal to the exposure limit (i.e., the assumed safe level of exposure). Risk quotients less than or equal to 1.0 are associated with low health risks, even in sensitive individuals given the level of conservatism incorporated in the derivation of the exposure limit and the risk estimate

• RQ >1.0 – indicates that the exposure estimate exceeds the exposure limit. This suggests an elevated level of risk, the significance of which must be balanced against the degree of conservatism incorporated into the HHRA

2.8.2 Cancer Risk Estimates

As previously mentioned, regulatory agencies such as Health Canada, Alberta Environment and the U.S. EPA assume that any level of long-term exposure to carcinogenic chemicals is associated with hypothetical cancer risk. On this basis, Health Canada and Alberta Environment have specified an incremental (i.e., over and above background) LCR of 1.0 in 100,000, which these agencies consider acceptable, tolerable or essentially negligible (AENV 2009b; Health Canada 2009b). Because this assumed acceptable cancer risk level was specifically developed to address cancer risks over and above background cancer incidence, a portion of which includes background exposure to environmental pollutants, background exposures were not included in the assessment of potential health risks for non-threshold (i.e., carcinogenic) chemicals.

Health Canada (2009b) requires that carcinogens be assessed on an incremental basis, and mandates an acceptable ILCR of 1.0 in 100,000. For the purposes of this assessment, ILCR estimates have been determined for the contribution of the Project on its own, as well as the incremental contribution of the planned future emission sources (PDC incremental).



The ILCR values were calculated for the Project and incremental PDC sources as follows:

ILCR = Incremental Exposure (µg/m³ or µg/kg bw/d)

Carcinogenic Exposure Limit (µg/m³ or µg/kg bw/d)

Interpretation of these ILCR values was based on comparison of the ILCR associated with the Project alone against the Health Canada (2009b) de minimus risk level of 1.0 in 100,000 (i.e., one additional cancer case in a population of 100,000 people).

2.8.3 Major Assumptions of the Human Health Risk Assessment

In an attempt to ensure that health risks would not be understated, reasonable worst-case assumptions were incorporated into the HHRA. A summary of the various assumptions that were incorporated into the HHRA is provided in Table 2-16 to address potential uncertainties, arranged according to the steps of the risk assessment paradigm (see Figure 2-2).

Table 2-16 Major Assumptions Used in the HHRA Risk Assessment

Step Assumption Discussion of Uncertainty Exposure Assessment

Air dispersion modelling incorporated meteorological data that represented conditions contributing to maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations of the COPCs.

Use of the maximum (1st highest) predicted ground-level air concentrations of the COPCs likely contributed to the overstatement of the actual exposures that might be received by people residing in or visiting the area under most circumstances.

Bystanders or transient individuals might be found along the Project area boundary, presenting the possibility that they could be exposed to the maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations associated with the Project.

The choice of these locations is expected to contribute to the overstatement of the exposures that might be received by the recreational users under most circumstances, as it is unlikely that individuals will be engaged in traditional or recreational activities at the MPOI at the exact time when the meteorological conditions contributing to the maximum concentrations occur.

The people with the highest predicted exposures in each lifestyle category (i.e., residents, workers and recreational users) were used to characterize the potential exposures for all people represented by the lifestyle category.

Potential exposure assumed for each lifestyle category represents a reasonable worst-case scenario. This contributes to the overstatement of the potential risks with which other people in the lifestyle category might be presented.



Table 2-16 Major Assumptions Used in the Human Health Risk Assessment (cont’d)

Risk Assessment Step Assumption Discussion of Uncertainty

Exposure Assessment (cont’d)

Predicted chronic exposures for the residents were based on the assumption that individuals would be exposed 24 hours per day, 365 days per year to the maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations of the COPCs for the entire duration of their lives (i.e., 80 years).

The operating life of the Project is expected to be 36 years; thus, assuming 80 years of COPC emissions into the air as well as 80 years of deposition likely overstates actual levels of exposures. Furthermore, residents would not be expected to maintain year-round occupancy at the lodges, cabins, or other temporary locations in the area.

Predicted chronic multiple pathway exposures associated with the non-carcinogens were estimated for all life stages, but only the results of the most sensitive age groups were reported.

Predicted exposures for the other life stages are lower than those reported.

Residents and recreational users were assumed to obtain 100% of their food from local sources (e.g., berries and plants, wild game, fish and garden produce) and drinking water from local waterbodies.

The assumption that people obtain all of their food and water over their lifetime from the area likely contributes to the overstatement of the exposures that might be received by these people under actual circumstances.

Tissue concentrations from local wild game, such as moose, snowshoe hare, and ruffed grouse, were based on the maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations of all discrete locations, as well as several WBEA monitoring locations and the predicted concentrations along the Project area boundary.

It is unlikely that wild game will forage at one fixed location over their entire lifetime, assuming that wild game will forage at the location where the maximum concentrations are predicted in air, soil, water and vegetation over their lifetime likely overstates the exposures to people who consume wild game.

Toxicity Assessment

Exposure limits were developed to be protective of sensitive and more susceptible individuals in the general population (e.g., infants and young children, the elderly, individuals with compromised health) (ATSDR 2009, Internet site; U.S. EPA 2002).

A considerable amount of conservatism is incorporated in the exposure limits. Limits are deliberately set to be protective of sensitive individuals. The limits were based on the most sensitive endpoints, and then adjusted to account for differences in sensitivity to chemicals among individuals. The use of uncertainty factors is already directed, in part, toward the protection of sensitive individuals.

The findings from toxicity studies with laboratory rodents can be used to gauge the types of responses and health effects that the chemicals might cause in humans and the findings from the laboratory rodent studies can be used, in part, to determine exposure limits for the chemicals.

Laboratory rodents have traditionally served as suitable surrogate species for humans. The use of uncertainty factors accounts for the possible differences in responses to chemicals that might be observed between laboratory rodents and other species, such as humans. Recent evidence suggests that rodents might be more sensitive to certain effects than humans because of higher doses reaching the critical target site in rodents (e.g., nasal effects).



Table 2-16 Major Assumptions Used in the Human Health Risk Assessment (cont’d)

Risk Assessment Step Assumption Discussion of Uncertainty

Toxicity Assessment (cont’d)

The exposure limits for surrogate chemicals adequately represent the toxicity of the chemicals being represented.

In the absence of toxicity data for a number of the individual chemicals in the initial inventory, it was necessary to assume that structural similarity to the surrogate was a sufficient basis for the assumption of toxicological similarity.

Possible interactions of the COPCs released by the Project, which might lead to enhanced toxicity, were adequately addressed in the assessment.

Consistent with Health Canada (2009a) guidance, potential health risks associated with the COPCs were considered to be additive if the exposure limit for the COPCs had the same toxicological endpoint. In some instances, it is possible that components of a mixture might have different mechanisms of effect, contributing some uncertainty in the predicted risk estimates for mixtures.

2.9 Overview of Baseline Conditions

2.9.1 Exposure and Health Effects Studies

The Alberta Oil Sands Community Exposure and Health Effects Assessment Program was a joint industry, government and community initiative that was established to investigate possible links between air quality and human health outcomes in the Fort McMurray region (AHW 2000). Results from the AHW (2000) study showed that:

• Chemical air concentrations were generally low in the Fort McMurray region, compared to air quality guidelines, regardless of whether they were measured indoors or outdoors.

• Air concentrations were not significantly different in Fort McMurray compared to the reference location (Lethbridge, AB), despite the high degree of oil and gas development in the Fort McMurray region.

• No significant differences in health status were found between Fort McMurray and Lethbridge regarding physician visits or prevalence of disease.

The AHW (2000) report and the more recent information from WBEA and the HEMP report suggest the following (WBEA 2007):

• NO2 concentrations were low compared to air quality guidelines, although levels have increased since the AHW (2000) study. Indoor concentrations were lower than outdoor concentrations. The most important exposure sources were local, suggesting that regional development has little influence.

• SO2 concentrations were low compared to air quality guidelines, and in general, outdoor air concentrations were similar to the AHW (2000) levels. Indoor concentrations were lower than outdoor levels. The most important exposure sources were local, followed by regional sources. Because regional emissions contribute to



exposure, industrial emissions in the area must be incorporated into the air quality assessment.

• Measured outdoor PM2.5 air concentrations were less than the Canada-Wide Standard (CWS) of 30 µg/m³. However, PM2.5 outdoor concentrations did not play an important role in personal exposure. The most important exposure sources were personal activity and indoor sources.

• Ozone (O3) indoor and personal concentrations were lower than the 1-hour Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective (AAAQO) of 160 µg/m³ and 8-hour CWS of 125 µg/m³; outdoor ambient levels were an order of magnitude higher and the most important exposure source was naturally occurring background sources.

• Indoor concentrations were the predominant factor affecting personal exposure to VOCs (including but not limited to benzene, ethylbenzene, hexane, toluene and xylenes).

Kindzierski et al. (2010) conducted a trend analysis of air quality data between 1998 and 2007 from WBEA. Through their analysis, Kindzierski et al. (2010) concluded that “there is little or no pattern to the changes in concentrations of various air pollutants across the oil region over the past 10 years.” The authors noted increasing hourly concentrations of nitrogen oxides at the Fort McMurray Patricia McInnes and Fort McKay ambient monitoring stations. In contrast, decreasing hourly concentrations were observed for PM2.5 at all of the community air monitoring stations (Fort McMurray, Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan). No trends were apparent for any of the other chemicals.

Finally, the overall air quality at Fort Chipewyan appeared to be atypical when compared with the other stations. According to Kindzierski et al. (2010), Fort Chipewyan appears to be far enough away from the oil sands development that “it is only slightly influenced by regional development and activity that is influencing, to varying degrees, many of the monitoring stations in the airshed.”

In February 2009, the Alberta Cancer Board (ACB) published a study on the incidence of cancer in Fort Chipewyan. The study was completed in response to concerns from a local physician and the community that cancer rates appeared to be higher than expected in Fort Chipewyan. A cluster investigation was conducted based on the guidelines from the U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to determine if there was an elevated rate of cholangiocarcinoma (a rare cancer of the bile duct) and whether there was an elevated rate of cancers overall in Fort Chipewyan, based on data observed in the community from 1995 to 2006.

The overall findings of the ACB (2009) study were:

• incidence rates of cholangiocarcinoma were within the expected range

• overall cancer rate was higher in Fort Chipewyan than expected

• cancers of the blood and lymphatic system, biliary tract and soft tissue were higher than expected

• colon and lung cancer rates were within expected ranges



The ACB indicated that the increased rates were based on a small number of cases and could be due to chance, increased detection or increased risk in the community.

The ACB indicated that further investigation was required to determine whether the difference between observed and expected cancer rates was due to chance or if increased risk was associated with living in Fort Chipewyan. The study was not designed to determine the cause of any of the cancers experienced in Fort Chipewyan. Further analysis was recommended by the ACB to determine whether risk factors such as lifestyle, family history, occupational exposures or environmental exposures are contributing to the observed cancer incidence.

In their 2010 Royal Society of Canada report on the oil sands, the expert panel concluded that “there is currently no credible evidence of environmental contaminant exposures from oil sands reaching Fort Chipewyan at levels expected to cause elevated human cancer rates” (RSCEP 2010).

In 2009, Alberta Health and Wellness conducted a health risk assessment of mercury in fish collected as part of RAMP in the oil sands (AHW 2009a). They investigated the concentrations of mercury in various fish species collected from the waterbodies of the RAMP area and characterized the potential health risks associated with these concentrations. In addition, Alberta Health and Wellness discussed the overall benefits of fish consumption. An advisory to restrict or limit the consumption of walleye, northern pike and whitefish from certain lakes and rivers in the RAMP area was supported by the findings of the health risk assessment. The results also indicated that mercury concentrations in fish from the RAMP area were within the ranges for the same fish species from elsewhere in Alberta. Consequently, the health risks for the residents of the oil sands region do not appear to be higher than those for individuals who eat fish from other parts of the country.

2.9.2 General Health Indicators

In addition to the quality of a person’s ambient environment (e.g., air, water, etc.), many other factors play a role in determining a person’s overall health. These factors are referred to as health determinants and include such things as income and social status, social support networks, education, employment and working conditions, physical environment, biology and genetics, personal health practices and coping skills and access to health services, to name a few.

As described in the socio-economic impact assessment (see Volume 1, Section 16), research shows that Canadians in rural, remote and northern communities generally have a lower health status relative to other Canadians. This applies across a number of indicators, including lifestyle related illnesses, injuries, and cardiovascular diseases.

Volume 1, Section 16, Table 16-12 compares a number of high-level health indicators for Canada, Alberta, the former Northern Lights Health Region (where the Project is located) and the former Peace Country Health Region. For comparative purposes, the Peace Country Health Region was included as an alternate northern, mostly rural area.



The data indicate that, based on a number of key indicators, the overall health of residents of the Northern Lights Health Region was considered good when compared to Canada, Alberta, and the Peace Country Health Region. These indicators include:

• life expectancy

• infant mortality

• low birth weight

• perceived health

• perceived mental health

• potential years of life lost due to intentional self-harm

However, the Northern Lights Health Region scored lower than Canada, Alberta or the Peace Country Health Region on a number of other indicators, including:

• obesity

• heavy drinking

• smoking

• levels of physical activity

• potential years of life lost rates for unintentional injury

The recent Royal Society of Canada report on the oil sands further indicates that the health status in the Northern Lights Health Region (NLHR) is worse than the provincial average for several other non-environmental indicators, such as substance-related disorders, sexually transmitted infections, prevalence of diabetes, and mortality due to homicide as well as mortality rates due to motor vehicle collisions. The report also highlights the fact that the Northern Lights Health Region has the lowest availability of doctors. These indicators are typical of what the Royal Society of Canada report refers to as a boomtown effect (RSCEP 2010).

As described in the socio-economic impact assessment (see Volume 1, Section 16), the relationship between an individual’s health and the overall health of a population is complex and often unclear. In addition to the environment, the health of individuals and the population as a whole is influenced by a number of factors. In all likelihood, the development of the oil sands has influenced some of these factors both negatively and positively. Population growth has led to periodic doctor shortages and longer wait times, but also to public and private investment in hospital renovations, long-term care facilities, primary care networks, the attraction of new medical personnel and the development of recreational facilities. A wage economy can contribute to an overall sense of self-worth for Aboriginal people, although it presents challenges with respect to diminishing opportunities for the practice and passing on of cultural values.

Some of the current or planned initiatives aimed at addressing many of these issues are discussed in Volume 1, Section 16 (socio-economic impact assessment).



2.9.3 Non-communicable Diseases

In its 2006 Report on the Health of Albertans, Alberta Health and Wellness presented statistics on the most common non-communicable diseases, including:

• Cancer: In 2001 to 2003, the Age Standardized Incidence Rates (ASIR) for all invasive cancers (per 100,000 population, all ages) was lower in the NLHR than the provincial average for females and there was no significant difference in ASIRs for males (ACB 2006). Age Standardized Mortality Rates (ASMR) in the NLHR were similar (no significant difference) to the provincial average for both sexes (ACB 2006). These findings might be related. Rates of the most common cancers (i.e., prostate, breast, colorectal and lung) are discussed for the NLHR and province below (ACB 2006).

• Prostate: No significant differences in ASIRs and ASMRs were identified between the NLHR and the provincial average.

• Breast: ASIR (about 65 per 100,000) were significantly lower for females in the NLHR compared to the province (110 per 100,000), but there was no significant difference in ASMRs for breast cancer across the province.

• Colorectal: No significant differences in ASIRs and ASMRs were identified between the NLHR and the provincial average.

• Lung: No significant differences in ASIRs and ASMRs were identified between the NLHR and the provincial average.

• Cardiovascular disease: Age-standardized treated prevalence (per 100 population) of ischaemic heart disease was significantly higher in the NLHR than the provincial average.

• Cerebrovascular disease: In the NLHR, age-standardized treated prevalence (per 100 population) of cerebrovascular disease was significantly lower than the provincial average.

• Hypertension: Age-standardized treated prevalence (per 100 population) of hypertension was significantly higher in the NLHR than the provincial average.

• Chronic respiratory disorders: Age-standardized treated prevalence (per 100 population) for asthma was significantly lower in the NLHR than in the province, but significantly higher for chronic bronchitis and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

• Diabetes: Age-standardized treated prevalence (per 100 population) of diabetes was significantly higher in the NLHR than the provincial average.

• Chronic renal failure: Although not significant, age-standardized treated prevalence (per 100 population) of chronic renal failure was lower than the provincial average.

• Arthritis: Age-standardized treated prevalence (per 100 population) of arthritis was significantly higher in the NLHR than the provincial average.

The extent to which the Project and other industrial sources in the region will influence a number of these health indices will be addressed through the findings of this HHRA (Sections 2.10 and 2.11).



2.10 Results

Given that health effects are dependent, in part, on the duration of exposure, separate assessments were completed for the acute and chronic exposure durations. The pathway of exposure also influences the potential chronic health effects associated with each COPC. On this basis, the chronic assessment is further divided into those exposures received from direct inhalation versus secondary pathways.

Predicted risk estimates and discussion have been split into:

• acute inhalation (Section 2.10.1)

• chronic inhalation (Section 2.10.2)

• chronic multiple pathways (Section 2.10.3)

Predicted risk estimates are presented in scientific notation, as many of the calculated numerical values are well below 1.0.

2.10.1 Acute Inhalation Health Risks

The results of the acute inhalation assessment address Key Question HH1: What are the risks of adverse human health effects from short-term (acute) inhalation exposure to air emissions from the Frontier Project in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments?

Acute inhalation risk estimates, expressed as RQ values, were based on assumed exposure periods that range from a few minutes (e.g., 10-minute SO2) to a day (e.g., 24-hour PM2.5). The maximum acute RQ values for the residents, workers, recreational users and Project area boundary groups are presented in Tables 2-17 to 2-20. Results are provided for individual COPCs and acute mixtures.

In the air quality assessment (see Volume 4, Section 3.6.4.1), various vehicle emission standards are discussed relative to predictive air quality modelling results. For the HHRA, NO2 and PM2.5 values were used based on regional mining fleets complying with the more stringent U.S. EPA Tier IV emission standards, as these were considered most likely realistic of future conditions in the region. As such, the air concentrations associated with regional adoption of Tier IV-emission standards (see Appendix 2E) were incorporated in the assessment of PM2.5 and NO2-related health risks. This is also the case for the chronic inhalation assessment.



Table 2-17 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Residents

Chemical Category

Chemical of Potential Concern

Averaging Period

Risk Quotient2

Base Case

Application Case PDC

CACs CO 1-hour 7.9E-02 7.9E-02 7.9E-02

8-hour 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.8E-01

NO2 1-hour 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00

PM2.5 24-hour 9.9E-01 9.9E-01 9.9E-01

SO2 10-minute 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00

1-hour 8.5E-01 8.5E-01 8.5E-01

Metals Arsenic 1-hour 8.6E-03 8.6E-03 8.6E-03

Cadmium 24-hour 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.7E-01

Chromium 1-hour 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03

Copper 1-hour 2.5E-04 2.5E-04 2.5E-04

Nickel 1-hour 2.2E-02 2.2E-02 2.2E-02

Vanadium 1-hour 3.7E-04 3.7E-04 3.7E-04

Zinc 1-hour 6.7E-04 6.7E-04 6.7E-04

PAHs Naphthalene 1-hour 6.5E-04 6.5E-04 6.5E-04

RSCs H2S 1-hour 4.1E-01 4.1E-01 4.1E-01

VOCs 1,3-butadiene 24-hour 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01

Acetaldehyde 1-hour 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01

Acrolein 1-hour 2.5E+00 2.5E+00 2.5E+00

Aliphatic aldehydes 1-hour 9.2E-04 9.2E-04 9.2E-04

Aliphatic C3-C4 acute group

1-hour 2.5E-02 2.5E-02 2.5E-02

Aliphatic C5-C8 group 1-hour 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-01

Aliphatic ketones group 1-hour 2.9E-04 2.9E-04 2.9E-04

Aniline 1-hour 4.2E-06 4.2E-06 4.2E-06

Aromatic C9-C16 acute group1

1-hour 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02

Benzene 1-hour 5.9E-02 5.9E-02 5.9E-02

Carbon disulphide 1-hour 5.5E-03 5.5E-03 5.6E-03

Dichlorobenzene 1-hour 5.2E-06 5.2E-06 5.2E-06

Ethylbenzene 1-hour 6.3E-04 6.3E-04 6.3E-04

Formaldehyde 1-hour 8.2E-01 8.2E-01 8.3E-01

Methacrolein 1-hour 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01

Piperidine 1-hour 1.9E-03 1.9E-03 1.9E-03

Propylene oxide 1-hour 3.4E-05 3.4E-05 3.4E-05

Styrene group 1-hour 1.8E-05 1.8E-05 1.8E-05



Table 2-17 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Residents (cont’d)

Chemical Category


Averaging Period

Risk Quotient2

Base Case


VOCs (cont’d) Toluene 1-hour 4.9E-03 4.9E-03 4.9E-03

Xylenes 1-hour 8.8E-03 8.8E-03 8.8E-03

Mixtures3 Eye irritants N/A 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00

Nasal irritants N/A 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00

Respiratory irritants N/A 5.4E+00 5.4E+00 5.4E+00


N/A 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01

Neurotoxicants N/A 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-01

NOTES: 1 Although an acute exposure limit was identified for naphthalene, naphthalene was used as the chemical surrogate

for the aromatic C9-C16 group on an acute basis. As a result, naphthalene was not included in the acute inhalation assessment as an individual COPC, but was assessed as part of the aromatic C9-C16 group.

2 An RQ equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is equal to or less than the exposure limit. Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit.

3 Individual constituents of the chemical mixtures are identified in Table 2-15. Note that addition of the individual RQ values provided in the above table for a mixture’s chemical constituents might not equate to the RQ value provided for the mixture because the RQ values in the table represent the highest RQ for each lifestyle category regardless of the location at which it occurred.

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-18 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Workers

Chemical Category


Averaging Period

Risk Quotient2 Base Case


CACs CO 1-hour 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02

8-hour 3.9E-02 3.9E-02 3.9E-02

NO2 1-hour 8.3E-01 8.4E-01 8.4E-01

PM2.5 24-hour 9.7E-01 1.0E+00 1.1E+00

SO2 10-minute 6.8E-01 6.8E-01 6.8E-01

1-hour 5.4E-01 5.4E-01 5.4E-01

Metals Arsenic 1-hour 2.6E-03 2.6E-03 2.6E-03

Cadmium 24-hour 7.0E-02 7.0E-02 7.0E-02

Chromium 1-hour 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03

Copper 1-hour 4.2E-05 4.2E-05 4.2E-05

Nickel 1-hour 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.0E-02

Vanadium 1-hour 3.6E-04 3.6E-04 3.6E-04

Zinc 1-hour 2.2E-04 2.2E-04 2.2E-04

PAHs Naphthalene 1-hour 2.7E-04 2.7E-04 2.7E-04

RSCs H2S 1-hour 8.9E-02 8.9E-02 8.9E-02



Table 2-18 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Workers (cont’d)

Chemical Category


Averaging Period



VOCs 1,3-butadiene 24-hour 5.1E-02 5.1E-02 5.1E-02

Acetaldehyde 1-hour 3.3E-02 3.3E-02 3.3E-02

Acrolein 1-hour 5.0E-01 5.1E-01 5.1E-01

Aliphatic aldehydes 1-hour 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 1.8E-04

Aliphatic C3-C4 acute group

1-hour 2.2E-03 3.0E-03 3.0E-03

Aliphatic C5-C8 group 1-hour 3.1E-02 3.5E-02 3.5E-02

Aliphatic ketones group 1-hour 5.8E-05 5.9E-05 5.9E-05

Aniline 1-hour 1.6E-07 3.6E-07 3.6E-07

Aromatic C9-C16 acute group1

1-hour 7.5E-03 7.5E-03 7.5E-03

Benzene 1-hour 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E-02

Carbon disulphide 1-hour 1.3E-03 1.3E-03 1.3E-03

Dichlorobenzene 1-hour 3.7E-07 5.0E-07 5.0E-07

Ethylbenzene 1-hour 2.9E-04 2.9E-04 2.9E-04

Formaldehyde 1-hour 1.6E-01 1.7E-01 1.7E-01

Methacrolein 1-hour 2.8E-02 2.8E-02 2.8E-02

Piperidine 1-hour 7.3E-05 2.3E-04 2.3E-04

Propylene oxide 1-hour 2.8E-05 2.8E-05 2.8E-05

Styrene group 1-hour 3.7E-07 3.7E-07 3.7E-07

Toluene 1-hour 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03

Xylenes 1-hour 4.8E-03 4.8E-03 4.8E-03

Mixtures3 Eye irritants N/A 7.4E-01 7.4E-01 7.4E-01

Nasal irritants N/A 7.7E-01 7.8E-01 7.8E-01

Respiratory irritants N/A 2.2E+00 2.2E+00 2.3E+00


N/A 5.4E-02 5.5E-02 5.5E-02

Neurotoxicants N/A 3.6E-02 3.6E-02 3.6E-02

NOTES: 1 Although an acute exposure limit was identified for naphthalene, naphthalene was used as the chemical surrogate




N/A = Not applicable



Table 2-19 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Recreational Users

Chemical Category


Averaging Period



CACs CO 1-hour 1.2E-02 2.2E-02 2.2E-02 8-hour 3.1E-02 5.9E-02 5.9E-02

NO2 1-hour 6.1E-01 9.3E-01 9.3E-01 PM2.5 24-hour 7.4E-01 7.8E-01 7.9E-01 SO2 10-minute 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01

1-hour 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 Metals Arsenic 1-hour 1.5E-03 1.6E-03 1.6E-03

Cadmium 24-hour 4.5E-02 4.5E-02 4.6E-02 Chromium 1-hour 9.3E-04 9.3E-04 9.3E-04 Copper 1-hour 2.3E-05 3.7E-05 3.7E-05 Nickel 1-hour 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 Vanadium 1-hour 2.9E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 Zinc 1-hour 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 1.9E-04

PAHs Naphthalene 1-hour 8.6E-05 8.7E-05 8.7E-05 RSCs H2S 1-hour 2.6E-02 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 VOCs

1,3-butadiene 24-hour 1.8E-02 2.4E-02 2.4E-02 Acetaldehyde 1-hour 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 Acrolein 1-hour 3.1E-01 3.1E-01 3.1E-01 Aliphatic aldehydes 1-hour 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 Aliphatic C3-C4 acute group

1-hour 3.9E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-02

Aliphatic C5-C8 group 1-hour 7.3E-02 3.5E-01 3.5E-01 Aliphatic ketones group 1-hour 4.2E-05 4.2E-05 4.3E-05 Aniline 1-hour 6.1E-07 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 Aromatic C9-C16 acute group1

1-hour 2.2E-03 2.2E-03 2.2E-03

Benzene 1-hour 3.4E-03 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 Carbon disulphide 1-hour 1.7E-03 8.6E-03 8.6E-03 Dichlorobenzene 1-hour 2.4E-07 1.2E-06 1.2E-06 Ethylbenzene 1-hour 1.5E-04 1.5E-04 1.5E-04 Formaldehyde 1-hour 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 Methacrolein 1-hour 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 Piperidine 1-hour 2.8E-04 3.9E-04 3.9E-04 Propylene oxide 1-hour 1.1E-05 3.3E-05 3.3E-05 Styrene group 1-hour 2.4E-07 3.7E-07 3.7E-07 Toluene 1-hour 7.2E-04 7.3E-04 7.3E-04 Xylenes 1-hour 2.6E-03 2.6E-03 2.6E-03



Table 2-19 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Recreational Users (cont’d)

Chemical Category


Averaging Period



Mixtures3 Eye irritants N/A 4.5E-01 4.5E-01 4.5E-01 Nasal irritants N/A 4.7E-01 4.8E-01 4.8E-01 Respiratory irritants N/A 1.3E+00 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 Reproductive and developmental toxicants

N/A 2.1E-02 2.7E-02 2.7E-02

Neurotoxicants N/A 7.4E-02 3.5E-01 3.5E-01 NOTES: 1 Although an acute exposure limit was identified for naphthalene, naphthalene was used as the chemical surrogate





Table 2-20 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Locations at the Project Area Boundary

Chemical Category

Chemical of Potential Concern2

Averaging Period



CACs CO 1-hour 1.3E-02 3.4E-02 3.4E-02 8-hour 3.1E-02 8.5E-02 8.5E-02

NO2 1-hour 6.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 PM2.5 24-hour 7.5E-0 7.8E-01 8.0E-01 SO2 10-minute 6.8E-01 6.8E-01 6.8E-01

1-hour 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 Metals Arsenic 1-hour 3.2E-03 3.2E-03 3.2E-03

Cadmium 24-hour 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 4.7E-02 Chromium 1-hour 2.2E-03 2.2E-03 2.2E-03 Copper 1-hour 3.5E-05 3.5E-05 3.5E-05 Nickel 1-hour 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 Vanadium 1-hour 7.0E-04 7.0E-04 7.0E-04 Zinc 1-hour 4.3E-04 4.3E-04 4.4E-04

PAHs Naphthalene 1-hour 8.7E-05 1.2E-04 1.2E-04 RSCs H2S 1-hour 2.8E-02 1.3E-01 1.3E-01



Table 2-20 Acute Inhalation Risk Quotients for Locations at the Project Area Boundary (cont’d)

Chemical Category

Chemical of Potential Concern2

Averaging Period



VOCs 1,3-butadiene 24-hour 1.8E-02 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 Acetaldehyde 1-hour 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 Acrolein 1-hour 3.1E-01 3.1E-01 3.1E-01 Aliphatic aldehydes 1-hour 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 Aliphatic C3-C4 acute group

1-hour 7.1E-03 9.8E-03 9.8E-03

Aliphatic C5-C8 group 1-hour 4.0E-02 3.7E-01 3.7E-01 Aliphatic ketones group 1-hour 4.2E-05 7.5E-05 7.5E-05 Aniline 1-hour 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 Aromatic C9-C16 acute group1

1-hour 1.7E-03 1.7E-03 1.7E-03

Benzene 1-hour 4.4E-03 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 Carbon disulphide 1-hour 1.3E-03 8.9E-03 8.9E-03 Dichlorobenzene 1-hour 2.6E-07 6.8E-07 6.8E-07 Ethylbenzene 1-hour 8.6E-05 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 Formaldehyde 1-hour 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 Methacrolein 1-hour 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 Piperidine 1-hour 5.1E-04 7.5E-04 7.5E-04 Propylene oxide 1-hour 9.0E-06 2.6E-05 2.6E-05 Styrene group 1-hour 3.4E-07 6.3E-07 6.3E-07 Toluene 1-hour 4.6E-04 7.7E-04 7.7E-04 Xylenes 1-hour 1.4E-03 1.9E-03 1.9E-03

Mixtures Eye irritants N/A 4.5E-01 4.5E-01 4.5E-01 Nasal irritants N/A 4.7E-01 4.8E-01 4.8E-01

Respiratory irritants N/A 1.5E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 Reproductive and developmental toxicants

N/A 2.1E-02 3.5E-02 3.5E-02

Neurotoxicants N/A 4.1E-02 3.7E-01 3.7E-01 NOTES: 1 Although an acute exposure limit was identified for naphthalene, naphthalene was used as the chemical surrogate







With the exception of acrolein, NO2 and PM2.5, none of the estimated RQ values for the individual COPCs are greater than 1.0, in any of the three assessment cases (i.e., Base Case, Application Case and PDC) on an acute basis. This demonstrates that most of the predicted COPC air concentrations are less than their health-based exposure limits.

Acute mixture RQs greater than 1.0 are predicted for the eye, nasal and respiratory irritants mixtures.

The significance of the RQ values for acrolein, NO2, and PM2.5 and the three mixtures are discussed in the following sections.

2.10.1.1 Acrolein Acrolein RQ values exceeded 1.0 only for the residential group, as no exceedances were noted for the workers, recreational users or at the Project area boundary locations.

The analysis and interpretation of the acrolein exceedances for the residential group took into account:

• potential contributions from the Project and other planned future emission sources

• comparison of maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations to exposures that have resulted in observed adverse health effects in humans, as documented in the most recent scientific literature

• the likelihood of an exceedance occurring at the location associated with the maximum concentration

Acrolein RQ values for the residential group are greater than 1.0 in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC (RQ value of 2.5 in all three cases). The maximum predicted RQ value for the existing condition is 1.5, indicating an increase of about 1.0 for the Base Case. This equates to an increase in the 1-hour air concentration of about 2.5 µg/m³ going from the existing condition to the Base Case.

The maximum hourly acrolein concentration associated with the RQ of 2.5 is predicted to occur at residential location 1017. The lack of change between the Base Case and Application Case risks indicates that Project emissions of acrolein are anticipated to have a negligible effect at this location. The exceedances for the existing condition and the Base Case suggest that the predicted acrolein concentrations are likely attributable to existing and/or approved sources near location 1017.

In addition to location 1017, acrolein RQ values are predicted to exceed 1.0 at:

• location 1055 (RQ of 2.0 for all three assessment cases)







The RQ values for these residential locations are presented in Table 2-21 and Figure 2-4 (for the three assessment cases along with the existing condition). Together, these results suggest that existing or baseline sources of acrolein in the area are contributing to the predicted risk estimates in the Application and PDC cases, with negligible effect from the Project. Table 2-21 also presents the predicted RQ values for Fort McKay for comparison purposes, as Fort McKay represents the largest community in the Air Quality LSA. As shown, the acrolein RQ values are less than 1.0 in all cases at Fort McKay.

Table 2-21 Acute Acrolein Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations

Location Risk Quotient

Existing Base Case Application Case PDC 1017 1.5E+00 2.5 E+00 2.5 E+00 2.5 E+00 1015 1.1 E+00 2.0 E+00 2.0 E+00 2.0 E+00 1016 7.4E-01 1.2 E+00 1.2 E+00 1.2 E+00 1048 1.7E-01 1.1 E+00 1.1 E+00 1.1 E+00 1228 2.0E-02 1.1 E+00 1.1 E+00 1.1 E+00 1002 (Fort McKay)1 2.0E-01 8.0E-02 8.0E-02 8.0E-02 NOTES: An RQ equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is equal to or less than the exposure limit. Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit. 1 Additional air quality modelling was completed for Fort McKay with updated assumptions regarding combustion

sources being assumed for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. Additional information is provided in the air quality assessment (see Volume 4, Section 3.6.4.1).

Figure 2-4 Risk Quotients for Residential Locations Associated with Acute Acrolein Exceedances



The highest RQ value of 2.5, which is at location 1017, is associated with an hourly air concentration of 6.25 µg/m³. Two acute studies of human exposure to acrolein are available, and form the basis of the acute exposure limit of 2.5 µg/m³ used in the HHRA. Additional information regarding these studies is provided within the toxicity profile for acrolein (see Appendix 2A). The lowest-observable-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) determined from a study by Darley et al. (1960) was 140 µg/m³. For the study by Weber-Tschopp et al. (1977), a LOAEL of 160 µg/m³ was identified. Mild eye irritation was reported at these concentrations. At increasing concentrations (i.e., above 140 µg/m³ and 160 µg/m³), nasal and respiratory irritation also was reported by the exposed subjects. The results of these two studies suggest that the predicted hourly concentration of 6.25 µg/m³ is well below the concentrations at which irritation has been reported in scientific literature. There is a margin of safety (ratio of potential effect concentration to exposure concentration) of about 22 between the LOAEL of 140 µg/m³ and the predicted maximum exposure concentration of 6.25 µg/m³. Further, the maximum hourly acrolein concentration of 0.75 µg/m3 is less than one third of the acute exposure limit for acrolein and about 190 times less than the LOAEL of 140 µg/m3. These comparisons with toxicological thresholds suggest that the overall potential for adverse effects associated with acute acrolein exposure is low at the maximum discrete locations and negligible for the community of Fort McKay.

Consideration should also be given to the probability of the predicted hourly acrolein concentrations actually exceeding the acute exposure limit of 2.5 µg/m³. An analysis of time series data for acrolein in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC is presented in Table 2-22. In this table are the overall time percentages (based on five years of predicted data), wherein the predicted hourly acrolein concentrations would be less than or greater than the exposure limit of 2.5 µg/m³, or greater than the lowest LOAEL (140 µg/m³). Information is presented for the residential location with the highest RQ for the group (1017), and the closest community (1002, Fort McKay).

Table 2-22 Frequency of Meeting Acute Acrolein Health Benchmarks Concentration

Range (µg/m³)

Existing Condition

Base Case

Application Case

PDC

Residential (1017) < 2.5 99.7% 97.4% 97.4% 97.4% <140 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Residential (1002, Fort McKay)1 < 2.5 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% <140 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

NOTE: 1 Additional air quality modelling was completed for Fort McKay with updated assumptions regarding combustion sources being assumed for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. Additional information is provided in the air quality assessment (see Volume 4, Section 3.6.4.1).



The results in Table 2-22 suggest that, at the residential location associated with the highest predicted hourly acrolein concentration (location 1017), about 97% of the time, the acrolein concentrations will be below the health-based exposure limit of 2.5 µg/m³ in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. As well, there are no changes in the frequency of exceedances for the three assessment cases.

In no instances are the hourly acrolein concentrations predicted to exceed the acute effects threshold of 140 µg/m³. It is not known how often a person might be present at the cabin at location 1017. If this cabin is only occasionally used, the potential for exposure to acrolein exceedances is likely less than predicted.

The frequency analysis further indicates that at no time will the health-based exposure limit for acrolein be exceeded in the community of Fort McKay.

The overall potential for adverse health effects to arise in association acrolein is considered to be minimal, based on the following rationale:

• at the residential location with the highest predicted hourly acrolein concentration, there is a negligible to non-existent degree of change between the Base Case and Application Case in magnitude of predicted air concentrations or frequency of exceedances. This trend is consistent with what is being predicted for Fort McKay.

• in a study conducted by Golder Associates (Golder 2005) to monitor air quality for acrolein near Fort McKay, Fort McMurray and various active mining projects, all concentrations of acrolein were determined to be less than the analytical detection limit. It was concluded that the overall acrolein concentrations in the study area were low.

• the overall frequency with which exceedances of the acute exposure limit might occur is generally low. In no instances are ambient concentrations being predicted near the threshold at which people could experience symptoms of mild irritation.

• there is a margin of safety incorporated into the acute acrolein exposure limit. Thus, the exceedance of the limit does not necessarily indicate that people will be adversely affected. All predicted concentrations are well below the reported LOAEL of 140 µg/m³ in humans.

2.10.1.2 NO2 Short-term (acute) NO2 RQ values are predicted to exceed 1.0 for the residential and Project area boundary groups. No exceedances are predicted for the other two groups.

The analysis and interpretation of the acute exceedances for NO2 took into account:


• comparison of maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations to exposures that have resulted in observed adverse health effects in humans, as documented in the most recent scientific literature

• the likelihood of an exceedance actually occurring at the location associated with the maximum concentration



A discussion of the maximum RQ values for the residential and Project area boundary groups follow. A number of locations in each group exceeded RQ values greater than 1.0 (see Table 2-23).

Table 2-23 Acute NO2 Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations


Existing Condition Base Case Application Case PDC Residential Locations 1017 1.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1015 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1055 6.5E-01 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1048 5.9E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1016 1.2E+00 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1002 (Fort McKay)1 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 Project Area Boundary F873 3.0E-01 4.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 F874 3.0E-01 4.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 F875 3.0E-01 4.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 F876 3.0E-01 4.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 F877 3.0E-01 4.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 F878 3.0E-01 4.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 F879 3.0E-01 4.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 NOTES: An RQ equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is equal to or less than the exposure limit. Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit. 1 Additional air quality modelling was completed for Fort McKay with updated assumptions regarding combustion


In the residential group, the location associated with the maximum predicted hourly NO2 concentration (relevant to the U.S. EPA hourly standard) is location 1017 (381 µg/m³). In the Base Case, the predicted RQ was 1.8, indicating that existing and approved sources of NO2 exceed the exposure limit, without contribution from the Project. This is verified by the predicted RQ value of 1.7 at this location under the existing condition. Like the Base Case, the predicted Application and PDC RQ values are predicted to be 1.8 at location 1017. These findings suggest that at this location, existing sources of NO2

contribute the most to the predicted Application and PDC cases. Given the negligible change in the RQ value between the Base Case and Application Case, as well as the Base Case and PDC, the Project and other proposed sources of NO2 in the area appear to have a negligible effect on the magnitude of hourly NO2 exceedances.

Exceedances of the NO2 exposure limit are predicted at an additional four residential locations: 1015, 1016, 1048 and 1055. These RQ values are presented in Table 2-23, along with the predicted RQs for Fort McKay for comparison purposes.



Along the Project area boundary, the maximum predicted hourly NO2 RQ values exceed 1.0 for the Application Case and PDC only. There are a total of seven locations along the Project area boundary with predicted RQ values greater than 1.0. In all instances at the boundary locations, the incremental increase in NO2 concentrations between the Base Case and Application Case is about 140%, and are likely attributable to the release of NO2 from the Project.

No exceedances are predicted for the other 1258 locations along the Project area, suggesting that the occurrence of peak concentrations in exceedance of the U.S. EPA Standard of 188 µg/m³ are more likely to be isolated events.

The highest predicted 1-hour air concentration of NO2 (as per the U.S. EPA statistic) for all the locations assessed in the HHRA is 381 µg/m³, and occurred at location 1017. This concentration is within the range of concentrations in the literature where variable responses have been observed in asthmatics, but not healthy individuals. The predicted NO2 air concentration at Fort McKay—the largest community in the air quality LSA—is 114 µg/m³ for the Base Case, 115 µg/m3 for the Application Case and 115 µg/m3 for the PDC, all of which are below the U.S. EPA Standard of 188 µg/m3. An overview of potential dose-response effects in association with acute NO2 exposure is provided in Table 2-24.

While some studies have reported mild respiratory effects in asthmatics at levels of NO2 below 375 µg/m³, the findings are not considered to reflect the acute effects associated with NO2 exposure (WHO 2000; Forastiere et al. 1996; Cal EPA 2007, Internet site). This is because of the absence of a clear dose–response relationship and statistical uncertainty in these studies. A recent meta-analysis of NO2 exposure and airway hyper-responsiveness in asthmatics suggests that there is no evidence that NO2 causes clinically relevant effects in asthmatics at concentrations up to 1,100 µg/m³ (Goodman et al. 2009). The predicted air concentration of 381 µg/m³ at the maximum location is approximately one-third of this threshold. At Fort McKay, the predicted concentration of 115 µg/m³ is considerably less than the Goodman et al. (2009) threshold. Consequently, despite the predicted exceedances of the U.S. EPA standard, the potential for adverse effects to occur in asthmatics or healthy individuals is considered to be low.

To illustrate the potential frequency with which exceedances might occur, time series data were obtained for the residential location with the highest predicted hourly NO2 concentrations (location 1017), as well as the community of Fort McKay. Table 2-25 provides an analysis of the percentage of the predicted data (based on five years of data) that is below some of the health endpoints of interest from Table 2-24 (e.g. 190 µg/m³, 490 µg/m³, and 1,100 µg/m³), for each assessment case.



Table 2-24 Potential Acute Health Effects Associated with Short-Term NO2 Exposure

Air Concentration (µg/m³)

Potential Acute Health Effects1

190 to 560 Increased airway responsiveness, detectable by meta-analysis, among asthmatics. Large variability in both protocols and responses.

490 Allergen-induced decrements in lung function and increased allergen-induced airway inflammatory response among asthmatics. Most studies used non-specific airway challenges. No NO2-induced change in lung function. No documented effects among healthy individuals.

560 to 750 Potential effects on lung function indices, including inconsistent changes FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) and FVC (forced vital capacity) among patients with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) during mild exercise.

>1,100 Potentially clinically relevant effects in asthmatics. 1,900 to 3,700 Increased likelihood of inflammatory response and airway responsiveness among

healthy individuals during intermittent exercise. Symptoms have not been detected by most investigators among healthy individuals. Asthmatics might experience small decrements in FEV1.

≥ 3,700 Changes in lung function, such as increased airway resistance, in healthy individuals. NOTE: 1 The descriptions are mostly for the types of health effects that might be experienced among normal, healthy

individuals following acute exposure to NO2. Some descriptions refer to the types of symptoms that might occur among individuals with pre-existing eye or breathing disorders, such as asthma, bronchitis or COPD. The exact nature and severity of responses that might occur among individuals with pre-existing conditions will depend on several factors, including: i) the severity of the person’s condition; ii) the age of the individual; iii) the level of management of the disorder, including the availability and use of medications; iv) the person’s level of physical activity; and v) external environmental factors such as temperature and humidity. The symptoms that could be experienced by these individuals could be more or less severe that those described because of these factors.

REFERENCES: Azadniv et al. (1998); Beil and Ulmer (1976); Blomberg et al. (1997, 1999),; Cal EPA (2007, Internet site), Devlin et al. (1999); Gong et al. (2005);Goodman et al. (2009); Jorres et al. (1995); Morrow et al. (1992); Nieding et al. (1979, 1980); Nieding and Wagner (1977); Vagaggini et al. (1996).

Table 2-25 Frequency of Meeting Acute NO2 Health Benchmarks Concentration Range

(µg/m³) Existing Condition

Base Case

Application Case

PDC

Residential (1017) < 190 98.4% 97.7% 97.7% 97.7% <490 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% <1,100 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Residential (1002, Fort McKay) < 190 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% <490 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% <1,100 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



The time series data indicate that at location 1017, which is the worst-case residential, 100% of the predicted concentrations are less than 490 µg/m³, the concentration at which some asthmatics have been affected. At this location, the expected number of hourly NO2 concentrations greater than 190 µg/m³ over five years is not expected to increase because of the Project. Further, all of the predicted hourly NO2 concentrations are below 1,100 µg/m³ at this location, which is the concentration at which a recent review of the literature states that there is no consistent evidence that NO2 causes clinically relevant effects in asthmatics (Goodman et al. 2009).

At the community of Fort McKay, the hourly NO2 air concentrations are predicted to remain below 190 µg/m3 100% of the time.

2.10.1.3 PM2.5 Acute RQ values for PM2.5 were estimated to exceed 1.0 for the worker group for the PDC alone.

The analysis and interpretation of the PM2.5 exceedances took into account:


• the likelihood of an exceedance at the location associated with the maximum concentration

The highest predicted RQ value for 24-hour PM2.5 in the worker group was determined to be 1.1, in the PDC. All other RQ values were less than 1.0, indicating that the 24-hour PM2.5 air concentrations are predicted to meet the Canada-wide Standard at all other locations for all relevant assessment cases.

The highest 24-hour 98th percentile for the group is predicted to occur at location 1005 for the PDC (~34 µg/m3).The corresponding 24-hour PM2.5 air concentrations for the Base Case and Application Case are predicted to be 29 µg/m3 and 30 µg/m3, respectively. The Project is not expected to have an appreciable effect on the predicted 24-hour PM2.5 air concentrations at this location.

Fort McKay represents the closest community to the Project inside the LSA where the largest number of people may feasibly be exposed. The predicted existing condition concentration for Fort McKay (residential location 1002) is 19 µg/m³. This prediction appears to be slightly overstated when compared with air quality monitoring data from the Fort McKay monitoring station, where, in 2010, the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations was determined to be about 13 µg/m³. For the Base Case and Application Case at Fort McKay, the predicted 24-hour 98th PM2.5 concentration is 27.3 µg/m³, indicating that the Project is not expected to increase the 24-hour PM2.5 air concentrations at Fort McKay. The corresponding PM2.5 air concentration for the PDC is predicted to be 29.1 µg/m3.



2.10.1.4 Eye Irritants Mixture The RQ values for the acute eye irritants are predicted to be greater than 1.0 for the residential group in the Base Case (RQ 3.7), Application Case (RQ 3.7) and PDC (RQ 3.7). The RQ values for the eye irritants are predicted to be less than 1.0 for the other groups.

The analysis of the eye irritants mixture exceedances took into account:

• the potential risk estimates associated with the primary chemical contributors to the eye irritants


The constituents of the eye irritants mixture include:

• acetaldehyde

• acrolein

• aliphatic aldehydes

• aromatic C9-C16

• dichlorobenzene

• formaldehyde

• methacrolein

• styrene group

• toluene

The maximum eye irritant RQ value of 3.7 in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC all occurred at residential location 1017 (cabin). In addition to location 1017, nine other residential locations have predicted RQ values greater than 1.0. These locations and RQs are summarized in Table 2-26. In addition to the locations with exceedances, the eye irritant mixture RQs for the community of Fort McKay are included for discussion purposes.

The COPCs contributing the most to the maximum mixture RQ of 3.7 at location 1017 are:

• acrolein (68%)

• formaldehyde (22%)

• acetaldehyde (4%)

• methacrolein (4%)

Those four COPCs contribute the same portions of the risk at the other residential locations. Under the existing condition, the maximum eye irritants mixture RQ was 2.2, also predicted to occur at residential location 1017. Existing sources of acrolein (68%), formaldehyde (23%), acetaldehyde (5%) and methacrolein (4%) again contribute the most to the eye irritants mixture risks.



Table 2-26 Acute Eye Irritant Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations


Existing Condition Base Case Application Case PDC Residential Locations 1017 2.2E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 1055 3.9E-01 2.9E+00 2.9E+00 2.9E+00 1015 1.6E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 1016 1.1E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1048 2.6E-01 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1228 4.2E-02 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1217 4.4E-02 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1018 6.7E-01 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1218 4.5E-02 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1061 5.9E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1002 (Fort McKay)1 2.6E-01 1.2E-01 .2E-01 .2E-01 NOTES: Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates representing exceedances for the mixture. 1 Additional air quality modelling was completed for Fort McKay with updated assumptions regarding combustion


Of the four primary contributors to the risks, only acrolein is associated with exceedances for the residential group. The individual RQ values for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and methacrolein are all less than 1.0. Acrolein appears to consistently contribute over 65% of the eye irritant mixture risks. As discussed in Section 2.10.2, the RQ values predicted for acrolein are likely overstated and the potential for eye irritation to occur is thus low. This conclusion is based on the following observations:

• at the residential location with the highest predicted hourly acrolein concentration, there is no change between the Base Case and Application Case in magnitude of the predicted air concentration or frequency of exceedances. This trend is consistent with what is being predicted for Fort McKay.

• the overall frequency with which exceedances of the acute acrolein exposure limit might occur is generally low, occurring less than 3% of the time at location 1017 and 0% of the time at Fort McKay

• there is a margin of safety incorporated into the acute acrolein exposure limit. Thus, the exceedance of the limit does not necessarily indicate that people’s health will be adversely affected. All predicted concentrations are well below the reported LOAEL of 140 µg/m³ in humans.

It is not known how much time people actually spend at the cabin (i.e., location 1017). Therefore, it is not clear as to whether or not anyone would be present during the unlikely event of a peak hourly ground-level air concentration.



As discussed, all eye irritant mixture RQ values are predicted to be less than 1.0 for the community of Fort McKay. In addition, hourly acrolein concentrations at Fort McKay are predicted to be less than the acute exposure limit of 2.5 µg/m³ 100% of the time, based on five years of meteorological data.

For the reasons stated, the potential for area residents to suffer from eye irritation because of the Project’s emissions or those from other sources in the area is considered low.

Overall, emissions from the Project are expected to have a negligible effect on the eye irritant risks, given that:

• there is no appreciable increase in the Base Case and Application Case RQ values at any of the locations presented in Table 2-26. Future sources (in addition to the Base Case sources and the Project) also appear to have a minimal effect on the overall eye irritant risks.

• there is a considerable degree of conservatism incorporated into the assessment of the individual COPCs

• the predicted mixture RQ values at Fort McKay are less than 1.0, while the majority of the locations associated with exceedances represent cabins or other temporary residences

2.10.1.5 Nasal Irritants Mixture The RQ values for the acute nasal irritants mixture are predicted to be greater than 1.0 for the residential group in the Base Case (RQ 3.7), Application Case (RQ 3.7) and PDC (RQ 3.7). The RQ values for the nasal irritants are predicted to be less than 1.0 for all other groups.

The analysis of the eye irritants mixture exceedances took into account:

• the potential risk estimates associated with the primary chemical contributors to the respiratory irritants


The COPCs included in the acute nasal irritants group include:

• acetaldehyde

• acrolein


• cadmium

• dichlorobenzene

• formaldehyde

• piperidine

• propylene oxide

• styrene group

• toluene



The highest RQ values for the residential group in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC are predicted to occur at location 1017 (cabin). An additional nine locations have predicted RQ values that exceed 1.0. The individual mixture RQ values for these locations, plus the RQ values for the community of Fort McKay, are presented in Table 2-27.

Table 2-27 Acute Nasal Irritant Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations


Existing Condition Base Case Application Case PDC Residential Locations 1017 2.2E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 1055 3.9E-01 2.9E+00 2.9E+00 2.9E+00 1015 1.7E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 1016 1.1E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1048 2.7E-01 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1228 4.5E-02 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1217 4.6E-02 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1018 6.8E-01 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1218 4.9E-02 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1061 6.0E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1002 (Fort McKay)1 2.6E-01 41.3E-01 41.3E-01 41.3E-01 NOTES: Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates representing exceedances for the mixture. 1 Additional air quality modelling was completed for Fort McKay, with updated assumptions regarding combustion sources being assumed for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. Additional information is provided in the air quality assessment (see Volume 4, Section 3.6.4.1).

The COPCs contributing the most to the maximum predicted mixture RQ of 3.7 are:

• acrolein (67%)

• formaldehyde (22%)

• cadmium (4%)

• acetaldehyde (4%)

The maximum RQ value for the existing condition (RQ 2.2) is predicted to occur at location 1017 as well and was affected primarily by the same four COPCs: acrolein (63%), formaldehyde (21%), cadmium (10%) and acetaldehyde (4%).

As discussed previously, there is considerable conservatism built into the acute exposure limit for acrolein. All predicted acrolein concentrations are below the concentration at which nasal effects have been reported in humans, and the frequency with which predicted acrolein concentrations would exceed the exposure limit of 2.5 µg/m³ is low (less than 3%).



The degree of conservatism incorporated into the RQ values for formaldehyde, cadmium and acetaldehyde should also be considered, as the exposure limits for all of these COPCs included various uncertainty factors, and the maximum 1-hour predicted concentrations for each COPC were used in the calculation of the RQs. No exceedances are identified for formaldehyde or cadmium on an acute basis. As such, the predicted air concentrations for formaldehyde and cadmium are below the LOAELs (0.5 mg/m3 and 0.088 mg/m3) on which the exposure limits for these two COPCs were based (see Appendix 2A).

As a result, the RQ values for the four primary contributors to the nasal irritant risk are likely overstated.

It is important to note that the likelihood of the maximum hourly air concentrations of the primary contributors to the nasal irritant mixture occurring at precisely the same time is low. Further, considering that the location associated with the highest predicted nasal mixture RQ values (1017) represents a cabin, the likelihood of a person being at this location at the exact time that these maximum occur concurrently also is low.

By comparison, the likelihood of exposure is greater for the community of Fort McKay. However, all predicted nasal mixture RQ values are predicted to be less than 1.0 in Fort McKay, suggesting that the overall risk of nasal irritation is low.

For all the residential locations listed in Table 2-27, the RQ values predicted for the Base Case and Application Case are the same. This indicates that the Project emissions are predicted to have a negligible effect on the potential for nasal irritation to occur. Similarly, there are no changes between the Base Case and PDC nasal irritant risks.

Overall, the contribution from the Project on the potential for additive nasal irritation effects is considered low, based on the following rationale:

• there is no appreciable increase in the RQ values at any of the locations presented in Table 2-27 between the Base Case and Application Case. Future sources (in addition to the Base Case sources and the Project) also appear to have a negligible effect on the cumulative RQ values, which is evident by the lack of difference between the Base Case and PDC risks.

• generally, there is considerable conservatism incorporated into the assessment of the individual COPCs

• the predicted mixture RQ values at Fort McKay are less than 1.0, and the majority of the locations with predicted exceedances represent cabins or other temporary residences

2.10.1.6 Respiratory Irritants Mixture The RQ values for the respiratory irritant mixture are predicted to be greater than 1.0 for the residential, worker, recreational and Project area boundary groups.

The analysis of the mixture exceedances considered:


• the potential contributions from the Project and other planned future emission sources



The constituents of the acute respiratory irritants mixture include:

• acetaldehyde

• acrolein

• cadmium

• chromium III

• copper

• H2S

• nickel

• NO2

• SO2

• styrene group

• vanadium

• xylenes

• zinc

For all four groups, the COPCs contributing the most to the respiratory risks are acrolein, NO2 and SO2. The relative contributions of the other mixture constituents are relatively minor. Further discussion of the contribution to the group maximums follows.

A similar trend was noted for the existing condition for the four groups, with the same three COPCs contributing the most to the respiratory risks.

For the residential group, the highest predicted respiratory RQ value is 5.4 at residential (cabin) location 1017 in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. The maximum existing RQ value of 4.2 is predicted at this location as well. As discussed earlier, it is unknown how often people spend time at this cabin. At the community of Fort McKay (residential location 1002), the predicted respiratory RQ values range from 1.7 (existing) to 1.8 (for the three assessment cases).

Overall there is a negligible change between the Base Case and Application Case RQ values at all residential locations for which Base Case exceedances are predicted. This suggests that the Project emissions are not expected to measurably increase the short-term respiratory risks relative to the Base Case estimates.

The maximum RQ values for the worker group (RQ 2.2 for the Base Case and Application Case and 2.3 for the PDC) are predicted to occur at location 1005. The highest existing RQ value of 1.5 is predicted to occur there as well. The respiratory irritant risks are estimated to increase 47% from the existing condition to the Base Case. As mentioned previously, existing and Base Case sources of NO2, SO2 and acrolein appear to contribute the most to the predicted risks. As is the case for the residential group, the Project emissions are not expected to measurably increase the short-term respiratory risks relative to the Base Case estimates at the worker locations.



For the recreational users, the maximum RQ value of 1.3 for the Base Case is predicted to occur at location 1053, and the maximum of RQ values of 1.4 for the Application Case and PDC are predicted to occur at location 1180. The maximum existing RQ value of 0.82 is predicted to occur at location 1053, which represents a recreational area that could be used for hunting. Of all the COPCs in the mixture, the three that contribute the most to the respiratory risks are acrolein, NO2 and SO2.

An increase in the RQ value was noted between the Base Case and Application Case at location 1180 (i.e., an increase from 0.8 to 1.4). This increase appears to be primarily attributable to an increase in the RQ values for NO2 at this location, which might be associated with the Project. However, it is important to note that no exceedances of the individual U.S. EPA air standards for NO2 are predicted at this location.

Overall, the contribution from the Project to the respiratory irritants group appears to be small, relative to the contribution from existing and Base Case emissions in the area.

Along the Project area boundary (modelled as 1265 discrete locations), exceedances are predicted for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. The maximum predicted RQ values for this group are 1.5 (Base Case) and 1.7 (Application Case and PDC). For the existing condition, the maximum respiratory RQ value is about 0.84. In the Base Case, the COPCs contributing the most to the respiratory mixture RQ appear to be SO2 (about 40%), NO2 (about 40%) and acrolein (about 10%).

As discussed, NO2, SO2 and acrolein appear to contribute the most risk to the respiratory mixtures for all of the groups evaluated in the HHRA. Together, these three COPCs accounted for over 90% of the acute respiratory risks. The interpretation of the respiratory risks must give consideration to the degree of conservatism incorporated into the assessment in the calculation of the RQ values for the individual COPCs that make up the mixture.

As discussed in Sections 2.10.2 and 2.10.3, the RQ values for acrolein and NO2 are thought to overstate the actual risks for these two COPCs, based on the following rationale:

• for acrolein and NO2, the predicted maximums were well below effect-thresholds from the scientific literature above which health effects might actually be observed

• the probability that the acrolein and NO2 maximum hourly concentrations would exceed their respective health-based exposure limits is low. Analysis of time series data for COPCs revealed that for well over 90% of the time, exceedances of the health-based exposure limits are not predicted to occur (at those locations with the maximum risks for acrolein or NO2). For the community of Fort McKay, no exceedances for either acrolein or NO2 were predicted to occur, with 100% of the predicted hourly concentrations being below the health-based exposure limits.

SO2 was predicted to contribute close to 48% of the mixture RQ in some instances. However, the SO2 RQ values, when evaluated on their own, were all below the U.S. EPA 1-hour standard of 196 µg/m³. This predicted SO2 concentration is well below the range of concentrations above which adverse effects have been observed in asthmatics or other sensitive individuals (530 µg/m³ to 1,300 µg/m³). Table 2-28 presents additional information regarding the dose-response characteristics of inhaled SO2 on a short-term basis.



Table 2-28 Potential Acute Health Effects Associated with SO2 Air Concentration

[µg/m³] Potential Acute Health Effects1

530 to 1,300 Increased airway resistance and potential bronchoconstriction in asthmatic or sensitive

individuals engaged in moderate exercise, but typically no effect on lung function in normal individuals.

1,300 to 2,600 Increased resistance in airways and difficulties breathing might be experienced by normal individuals (in addition to asthmatics and sensitive individuals). Sore throat and the ability to taste and smell SO2 might also be apparent. Effects in asthmatics and other sensitive individuals could include wheezing, dyspnea, and bronchoconstriction.

2,600 to 13,000 Odour is detectable. Increased resistance in airways, decreased lung volume, reduced bronchial clearance, and evidence of lung irritation (increased macrophages in lung fluid) were observed at this exposure level. Headache, coughing, throat irritation, nasal congestion, increased salivation might be evident, and some symptoms might persist for several days after exposure. Mucociliary transport in the nasal passages might also be impaired, potentially leading to nasal congestion. Respiratory effects could be more severe in asthmatics and sensitive individuals.

13,000 to 26,000 Increased resistance in airways, decreased respiratory volume, difficulties breathing, and lung irritation were reported at this exposure level. Nasal, throat, and eye irritation, nosebleeds, coughing, potentially accompanied by erythema of trachea and bronchi might occur. Respiratory effects could be more severe in asthmatics and sensitive individuals.

26,000 to 130,000 Symptoms of more severe respiratory irritation might appear, such as burning of nose and throat, sneezing, severe airway obstruction, choking, and dyspnea. Exposure might result in damage to airway epithelium that could progress to epithelial hyperplasia, an increased number of secretory goblet cells, and hypertrophy of the submucousal glands. A condition known as Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) might arise at this and higher concentrations because of bronchial epithelial damage. Chronic respiratory effects may develop. Eye irritation, watery eyes, and skin eruptions (rashes) might be evident. Respiratory effects could be more severe in asthmatics and sensitive individuals.

130,000 to 260,000 Symptoms of severe respiratory irritation might occur, such as bronchitis, intolerable irritation of mucous membranes in addition to other effects described above, such as decreased lung capacity and breathing difficulties, runny nose, eye and skin irritation.

>260,000 Immediately dangerous to life and health. Chemical bronchopneumonia and asphyxia were reported at high levels of exposure. Death could result from severe respiratory depression at concentrations of about 2 600 000 µg/m³.

NOTE: Note that the descriptions pertain largely to the types of health effects that might be experienced among normal, healthy individuals following acute exposure to SO2. Some descriptions refer to the types of symptoms that might occur among individuals with pre-existing eye and/or breathing disorders, such as asthma, bronchitis or COPD. The exact nature and severity of responses that might occur among these latter individuals will depend on several factors, including: i) the severity of the person’s condition; ii) the age of the individual; iii) the level of management of the disorder, including the availability and use of medications; iv) the person’s level of physical activity; and/or, v) external environmental factors such as temperature and humidity. The symptoms that could be experienced by these individuals could be more or less severe that those described because of these factors. SOURCES: NIOSH (1974), WHO (1979), ATSDR (1998), HSDB (2010, Internet site), Cal EPA (1999), WHO (2000)



It was assumed the acute NO2 and SO2 exposure limits used in the HHRA is unknown, it was assumed based on toxicological characteristics of the two COPCs that they both act as respiratory irritants. The assumption that the effects of short-term exposure to NO2 and SO2 and the other COPCs in the mixture are additive might be overly conservative, as the effect endpoints and the modes of action differ for some of the irritants (including NO2). For example, NO2 can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, acting as a deep-lung irritant, while SO2 is soluble in water and is readily absorbed through the upper respiratory tract, inducing increases in airway resistance higher up in the respiratory tract (Calabrese 1991). As such, the potential respiratory irritants mixture risks are likely overstated, as the effects of SO2 and NO2 exposure might not be truly additive.

The feasibility that a person would be exposed to the concentrations associated with the predicted respiratory mixture RQ values should also be considered. The values presented in the HHRA for the respiratory irritants mixture represent snapshots, based on the highest estimated RQ value at a given location. In many instances for the residential group, these maximums are predicted to occur at cabin locations. The individual COPC predictions for the respiratory irritants were based on predicted maximum hourly concentrations obtained from air dispersion modelling, which is conservative. The likelihood of the maximum hourly air concentrations of the primary contributors to the respiratory irritant mixture occurring at precisely the same time is low.

Overall, given the minimal change in the RQ values between the Base Case and Application Case, the Project appears to have a minimal effect on the predicted respiratory risks at the locations evaluated in the HHRA.

2.10.2 Chronic Inhalation Health Risks

The chronic inhalation results address Key Question HH2 for the HHRA: What are the risks of adverse human health effects from long-term (chronic) inhalation exposure to air emissions from the Frontier Project in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments?

Potential chronic inhalation health risks are based on the assumption that people would be continuously exposed to maximum predicted annual average air concentrations for an assumed lifespan of 80 years. The Project area boundary locations were not included in the chronic inhalation assessment, as it is not feasible that a person would be located along the Project boundary for an extended period. Many of the recreational locations include hunting, harvesting or traditional use areas, so this group was assessed on a chronic basis. This is based on the rationale that these types of activities could have people spending days to months at a location at any given time.

The evaluation of potential non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks was conducted separately, and the results for these assessments are presented under Sections 2.10.5.1 and 2.10.5.2.

2.10.2.1 Non-carcinogens The predicted chronic RQ values for the residents, workers and recreational users are presented in Tables 2-29 to 2-31.



Table 2-29 Chronic Inhalation Non-carcinogenic Risk Quotients for Residential Group

Chemical Category COPC1

Averaging Period



CACs NO2 Annual 5.9E-01 5.9E-01 6.1E-01 PM2.5 Annual 7.2E-01 7.4E-01 7.8E-01

Metals Aluminum Annual 1.6E-03 1.6E-03 1.6E-03

Barium Annual 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 4.0E-03

Chromium Annual 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 1.8E-03

Cobalt Annual 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 1.1E-02

Copper Annual 2.4E-03 2.4E-03 2.4E-03

Lead Annual 7.1E-03 7.1E-03 7.2E-03

Manganese Annual 9.2E-03 9.2E-03 9.2E-03

Silver Annual 3.2E-03 3.2E-03 3.3E-03

Vanadium Annual 8.4E-03 8.4E-03 8.4E-03

PAHs Naphthalene Annual 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 RSCs H2S Annual 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 6.0E-01 VOCs 1,3-dioxolane Annual 1.7E-07 1.7E-07 1.7E-07

Acrolein Annual 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 Aliphatic aldehydes Annual 9.9E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 Aliphatic C3-C4 chronic group

Annual 4.9E-02 4.9E-02 4.9E-02

Aliphatic C5-C8 group Annual 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.1E-02 Aliphatic C9-C16 group Annual 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 Aliphatic ketones group Annual 2.7E-04 2.8E-04 2.8E-04 Aniline Annual 2.1E-02 2.1E-02 2.1E-02

VOCs (cont’d) Aromatic C9-C16 chronic group

Annual 2.8E-02 2.8E-02 2.8E-02

Carbon disulphide Annual 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 Dichlorobenzene Annual 2.5E-05 2.5E-05 2.5E-05 Ethylbenzene Annual 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 Formaldehyde Annual 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 Hexane Annual 3.3E-02 3.3E-02 3.3E-02 Methacrolein Annual 4.9E-01 4.9E-01 4.9E-01 Phenothiazine Annual 2.0E-04 2.0E-04 2.0E-04 Pyridine Annual 7.1E-05 7.1E-05 7.1E-05

Styrene group Annual 6.1E-05 6.1E-05 6.1E-05 Toluene Annual 5.4E-04 5.4E-04 5.5E-04 Xylenes Annual 3.9E-03 3.9E-03 3.9E-03



Table 2-29 Chronic Inhalation Non-carcinogenic Risk Quotients for Residential Group (cont’d)


Averaging Period



Mixtures1 Eye irritants 7.9E-01 7.9E-01 7.9E-01

Nasal Irritants 3.5E+00 3.5E+00 3.5E+00

Respiratory irritants 8.9E-01 9.0E-01 9.1E-01

Hepatotoxicants 2.8E-02 2.8E-02 2.8E-02

Renal Toxicants 5.8E-02 5.8E-02 5.8E-02

Immunotoxicants 2.4E-03 2.4E-03 2.4E-03

Neurotoxicants 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 NOTES: 1 Individual constituents of the chemical mixtures are identified in Table 2-15. Note that addition of the individual RQ

values provided in the above table for a mixture’s chemical constituents might not equate to the RQ value provided for the mixture because the RQ values in the table represent the highest RQ for each lifestyle category regardless of the location at which it occurred.


Table 2-30 Chronic Inhalation Non-carcinogenic Risk Quotients for Worker Group


Averaging Period




Metals Aluminum Annual 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.5E-04 Barium Annual 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 1.6E-03 Chromium Annual 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.1E-03 Cobalt Annual 4.5E-04 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 Copper Annual 3.8E-04 3.8E-04 4.3E-04 Lead Annual 2.5E-03 2.5E-03 2.8E-03 Manganese Annual 7.3E-04 1.1E-03 1.2E-03 Silver Annual 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 Vanadium Annual 1.0E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03


Acrolein Annual 3.7E-01 3.7E-01 4.5E-01 Aliphatic aldehydes Annual 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 3.1E-01



Table 2-30 Chronic Inhalation Non-carcinogenic Risk Quotients for Worker Group (cont’d)


Averaging Period



VOCs (cont’d) Aliphatic C3-C4 chronic group

Annual 1.9E-03 2.9E-03 2.9E-03

Aliphatic C5-C8 group Annual 2.9E-03 7.7E-03 7.7E-03 Aliphatic C9-C16 group Annual 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 Aliphatic ketones group Annual 7.2E-05 7.2E-05 8.8E-05 Aniline Annual 6.5E-05 5.1E-04 5.1E-04 Aromatic C9-C16 chronic group

Annual 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 1.5E-02

Carbon disulphide group Annual 6.2E-03 6.3E-03 7.4E-03 Dichlorobenzene Annual 4.9E-07 2.8E-06 2.8E-06 Ethylbenzene Annual 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 Formaldehyde Annual 7.8E-02 7.8E-02 9.5E-02 Hexane Annual 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.5E-02 Methacrolein Annual 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.5E-01 Phenothiazine Annual 5.3E-05 5.3E-05 6.4E-05 Pyridine Annual 2.2E-07 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 Styrene group Annual 1.4E-07 8.0E-07 8.0E-07 Toluene Annual 2.4E-04 2.4E-04 2.5E-04 Xylenes Annual 2.7E-03 2.7E-03 2.7E-03

Mixtures1 Eye irritants 2.1E-01 2.1E-01 2.5E-01 Nasal Irritants 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1.3E+00 Respiratory irritants 4.2E-01 4.2E-01 5.0E-01 Hepatotoxicants 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 Renal Toxicants 1.8E-02 1.8E-02 1.8E-02 Immunotoxicants 3.8E-04 3.8E-04 4.3E-04 Neurotoxicants 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01

NOTES: 1 Individual constituents of the chemical mixtures are identified in Table 2-15. Note that addition of the individual RQ values provided in the above table for a mixture’s chemical constituents might not equate to the RQ value provided for the mixture because the RQ values in the table represent the highest RQ for each lifestyle category regardless of the location at which it occurred.




Table 2-31 Chronic Inhalation Non-carcinogenic Risk Quotients for Recreational Group


Averaging Period




Metals Aluminum Annual 2.5E-04 2.6E-04 2.7E-04 Barium Annual 9.0E-04 9.3E-04 9.5E-04 Chromium Annual 8.1E-04 8.1E-04 8.2E-04 Cobalt Annual 3.4E-04 4.8E-04 4.9E-04 Copper Annual 2.3E-04 2.5E-04 2.5E-04 Lead Annual 1.6E-03 1.7E-03 1.7E-03 Manganese Annual 4.5E-04 4.9E-04 5.1E-04 Silver Annual 7.5E-04 7.7E-04 7.9E-04 Vanadium Annual 9.1E-04 9.3E-04 9.4E-04


Acrolein Annual 3.8E-01 4.0E-01 4.0E-01 Aliphatic aldehydes Annual 2.7E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 Aliphatic C3-C4 chronic group

Annual 4.7E-03 1.6E-02 1.6E-02

Aliphatic C5-C8 group Annual 1.2E-02 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 Aliphatic C9-C16 group Annual 6.1E-02 5.6E-01 5.6E-01 Aliphatic ketones group Annual 9.0E-05 9.7E-05 9.7E-05 Aniline Annual 1.6E-03 2.1E-03 2.1E-03 Aromatic C9-C16 chronic group

Annual 6.5E-03 6.7E-03 6.8E-03

Carbon disulphide group Annual 1.2E-02 7.9E-02 7.9E-02 Dichlorobenzene Annual 4.1E-07 8.7E-07 8.9E-07 Ethylbenzene Annual 3.2E-04 1.3E-03 1.3E-03 Formaldehyde Annual 7.9E-02 8.4E-02 8.4E-02 Hexane Annual 2.1E-02 3.1E-02 3.1E-02 Methacrolein Annual 1.3E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 Phenothiazine Annual 5.4E-05 5.7E-05 5.8E-05

Pyridine Annual 5.4E-06 7.3E-06 7.3E-06

Styrene group Annual 2.2E-07 1.7E-06 1.7E-06

Toluene Annual 1.0E-04 3.4E-04 3.4E-04

Xylenes Annual 7.7E-04 3.4E-03 3.4E-03



Table 2-31 Chronic Inhalation Non-carcinogenic Risk Quotients for Recreational Group (cont’d)


Averaging Period



Mixtures1 Eye irritants 2.1E-01 2.2E-01 2.2E-01 Nasal Irritants 9.4E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 Respiratory irritants 4.8E-01 5.4E-01 5.5E-01 Hepatotoxicants 6.5E-03 6.7E-03 6.8E-03 Renal Toxicants 1.1E-02 2.3E-02 2.3E-02 Immunotoxicants 2.3E-04 2.5E-04 2.5E-04 Neurotoxicants 1.0E-01 8.2E-01 8.2E-01

NOTES: 1 Individual constituents of the chemical mixtures are identified in Table 2-15. Note that addition of the individual RQ

values provided in the above table for a mixture’s chemical constituents might not equate to the RQ value provided for the mixture because the RQ values in the table represent the highest RQ for each lifestyle category regardless of the location at which it occurred.


The annual acrolein concentrations are predicted to exceed chronic exposure limits for the residential group. In addition, mixture RQ values greater than 1.0 are predicted for the nasal irritants in association with the residential group, worker and recreational groups.

All other predicted RQ values are less than 1.0 in all assessment cases, suggesting that the potential for adverse health effects in association with the COPCs is considered low. A discussion of the exceedances for acrolein and the nasal irritants mixtures follow.

Acrolein The analysis of the acrolein exceedances took into account:

• contributions from the Project emissions

• the degree of conservatism incorporated in the development of the chronic inhalation exposure limit

The highest predicted chronic RQ values for the residential group are 1.4 in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC (see Table 2-32). These predicted maximums occur at residential location 1015, representing an increase from the existing condition RQ of 0.72 at this location. In addition to this location, exceedances are predicted at one other residential location – 1016. The highest existing condition RQ (0.74) is predicted to occur at residential location 1016. The RQ values at these two locations are summarized in Table 2-32, along with the predicted RQs for the community of Fort McKay.



Table 2-32 Predicted Chronic Acrolein Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations


Existing Condition Base Case Application Case PDC Residential Location 1015 7.2E-01 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 1016 7.4E-01 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1002 (Fort McKay)1 1.1E-01 7.0E-02 7.0E-02 8.0E-02 NOTES: An RQ equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is equal to or less than the exposure limit. Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit. 1 Additional air quality modelling was completed for Fort McKay with updated assumptions regarding combustion sources being assumed for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. Additional information is provided in the air quality assessment (see Volume 4, Section 3.6.4.1).

The acrolein exceedances appear to be as result of the emissions sources included in the Base Case. At both locations, there is no notable change in the risks between the Base Case and Application Case, suggesting that the Project’s acrolein emissions have a negligible effect on the predicted air concentration at these locations. All other acrolein RQ values are predicted to be less than 1.0. No exceedances were identified for the community of Fort McKay.

The analysis of the exceedances must also take into account the degree of conservativeness incorporated into the assessment. The chronic exposure limit of 0.35 µg/m³ selected for acrolein was derived by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA 2008, Internet site) and is based on a subchronic inhalation study in rats. A No-Observable-Adverse-Effect-Level (NOAEL) of 0.2 ppm (equivalent to 460 µg/m³) was identified by the OEHHA (2008, Internet site), based on the incidence of epithelial lesions in the upper airways of exposed rats at concentrations greater than 0.6 ppm (1,380 µg/m³). The segment of the airway most affected by acrolein exposure was found to be the nasal cavity, where both respiratory and olfactory epithelial lesions were observed in association with a dose-response relationship. The highest predicted chronic acrolein concentration for the residential group of 0.49 µg/m³ is about 940 times lower than the NOAEL of 460 µg/m³ from the key study. Because of the adjustments applied by the OEHHA (2008, Internet site) in the derivation of the exposure limit, there is a considerable margin of safety between the exposure limit and the actual concentration at which effects have been observed.

There is some evidence to suggest that rodents might be more susceptible to the occurrence of nasal lesions than humans. Laboratory rodents (i.e., rats, mice, hamsters and guinea pigs) are typically obligate nose breathers, given the proximity of the epiglottis to the soft palate, which prevents breathing from the mouth (Harkema et al. 2006; Reznik 1990). In contrast, the structure of the nasal and oral cavities of humans permits both nasal and mouth breathing (Harkema et al. 2006; Reznik 1990). In addition, there are marked differences in air flow patterns between humans and rodents, primarily because of variation in the shape of the nasal turbinate structures (Harkema et



al. 2006). Recent computational modelling has revealed that about 20% of inhaled air reaches the olfactory epithelium in rats, while only 3% of inhaled air reaches the olfactory epithelium in humans (Kimbell 2006). As a function of less inhaled air reaching the olfactory epithelium in humans than in rats, less toxicant would be deposited in the nasal cavity of humans than in macrosmatic species such as the rat (Reznik and Stinson 1983). The result is a lower overall inhaled dose of the toxicant for the human relative to the rat (Harkema et al. 2006). For these reasons, rodent species might be more susceptible to nasal lesions than humans.

The predicted acrolein RQ values are likely overstated because of:

• the margin of safety incorporated into the exposure limit

• the anatomical differences between rats and humans that are relevant to the route of exposure and effects observed

As stated previously, the emissions from the Project are not expected to have an appreciable effect on the predicted acrolein concentrations in the area, given the similarity of the RQ values for the Base Case and Application Case. The primary sources of acrolein in the area appear to be those included in the existing condition and the Base Case. Air quality monitoring in the oil sands region did not find detectable concentrations of acrolein (Golder 2005), suggesting that the predicted concentrations might be overestimated.

Nasal Irritants Mixture The RQ values for the nasal irritants are predicted to be greater than 1.0 for the residential, worker and recreational groups. The analysis of these exceedances took into account:


• the potential contributions from the Project and other planned future emission sources

The constituents of the chronic nasal irritants mixture include:

• acrolein


• aliphatic C3-C4 group

• dichlorobenzene

• formaldehyde

• H2S

• methacrolein

• naphthalene

• xylenes



A summary of the chronic nasal irritant mixture RQ values for each group is presented in Table 2-33, including the maximum predicted RQ for the residential, worker and residential groups, and the individual locations with RQ values greater than 1.0. In addition, the chronic nasal irritant risks at for Fort McKay (location 1002) are provided.

Table 2-33 Chronic Nasal Irritant Risk Quotients for Fort McKay and Exceedance Locations

Location Mixture Risk Quotient

Existing Condition Base Case Application Case PDC Residential 1015 1.7E+00 3.5E+00 3.5E+00 3.5E+00 1016 1.8E+00 3.1E+00 3.1E+00 3.1E+00 1055 3.7E-01 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 2.8E+00 1048 3.5E-01 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 2.5E+00 1017 1.2E+00 2.1E+00 2.1E+00 2.1E+00 1228 2.4E-02 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1217 2.8E-02 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 1036 1.8E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1002 (Fort McKay)1 3.5E-01 3.2E-01 3.3E-01 3.4E-01 Worker 1005 2.0E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 1.3E+00 Recreational 1178 2.0E-02 8.0E-02 1.1E+00 1.1E+00 NOTES: An RQ equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is equal to or less than the exposure limit. Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit. 1 Additional air quality modelling was completed for Fort McKay with updated assumptions regarding combustion sources being assumed for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. Additional information is provided in the air quality assessment (see Volume 4, Section 3.6.4.1).

For the residential group, the highest predicted mixture RQ values exceed 1.0 for the existing condition (RQ 1.8), Base Case (RQ 3.5), Application Case (RQ 3.5) and PDC (RQ 3.5). For the three assessment cases, the highest predicted RQ value is predicted for location 1015. The four COPCs expected to contribute the most risk to the mixture at this location are:

• acrolein (40%)

• aliphatic aldehydes (28%)

• formaldehyde (8.5%)

• H2S (6%)

For the other residential locations listed in Table 2-33, a similar trend is observed, with these same four COPCs contributing the most risk to the mixture RQ values. Under the existing condition, the highest mixture RQ of 1.8 for the group is predicted to occur at a



different location (1016). At this location, the same COPCs are contributing the most risk to the RQ, albeit at slightly different percentages: acrolein (56%), aliphatic aldehydes (29%), formaldehyde (9%) and H2S (6%). All nasal mixture RQs for the community of Fort McKay are less than 1.0, suggesting that the effect of the potential additive nasal effects at this location are unlikely to occur.

For the worker group, the maximum nasal irritant RQ value is 1.1 for all three assessment cases. The highest risks are predicted to occur at location 1005 for all three cases. At this location, the mixture constituents contributing the most to the risks again are: acrolein (34%), aliphatic aldehydes (24%), H2S (20%) and formaldehyde (7.3%).

For the recreational group, the maximum nasal irritant RQ value of 1.1 (for the Application Case and PDC only) is predicted to occur at location 1178, which is situated inside the Project area boundary situated in the Project boundary. The mixture constituents contributing the most to the nasal mixture RQ at this location are: H2S (82%), acrolein (7.2%) and aliphatic aldehydes (4.5%).

Acrolein appears to contribute the most risk to the nasal irritant risks for the residential and worker groups, and is the second highest contributor to the recreational group mixture risks. As discussed previously, there is a high level of conservatism incorporated into the chronic acrolein exposure limit, including:

• the conservative nature of the exposure limit, given the differences in nasal physiology and breathing patterns between rodents and humans

• the margin of safety between the effect threshold (where adverse effects were observed in the toxicity study) and the predicted exposure concentrations in the HHRA

Because of these factors, the actual risks associated with chronic acrolein exposure at the concentrations evaluated in the HHRA are likely overstated. As a result, the potential for nasal irritation, as predicted by the chronic nasal mixture RQ values for all groups, is most likely overstated because of the assumptions surrounding the acrolein exposure limit.

Similar to acrolein, the exposure limits for H2S and the aliphatic aldehydes group are based on rodent studies where nasal lesions were observed in the olfactory epithelium in the nasal cavity (see Appendix A1). Thus, the potential anatomical and histological differences in the upper airway between rodents and humans that were discussed in relation to chronic acrolein exposures are also relevant to chronic H2S and aliphatic aldehyde exposures. Given that humans are not obligate nasal breathers, there are potential differences in the deposition of nasal toxicants in the nasal cavity between the two species. In addition, by using one exposure limit to evaluate the entire group of aliphatic aldehydes, it is assumed that the potency of all of the constituents is the same as the surrogate chemical. Some uncertainty in the RQ results as a consequence of this. It is likely that the RQ values for both H2S and the aliphatic aldehydes group overstate the nasal irritant risks.

For the residential and worker groups, the nasal irritant RQ values do not appreciably increase between the Base Case and Application Cases (less than 1%), signifying a negligible effect in association with the predicted emissions from the Project. However,



for the recreational group, the nasal irritant RQ increases significantly between the Base Case and Application Case at recreational location 1178 (where the maximum Application RQ is predicted). As stated previously, this maximum recreational mixture RQ occurs in the Project boundary. It is unlikely that a recreational user would have access to the site inside the Project boundary on either a short-term or long-term basis. All other recreational nasal irritant mixture RQ values are less than 1.0 for all assessment cases.

Overall, the potential for adverse health effects to occur in association with the emission of nasal irritants from the Project is considered to be low, based on the following rationale:

• the degree of conservatism incorporated into the chronic inhalation exposure limits of the contributing COPCs (e.g. rodent studies, interspecies differences in physiology) affords a low rating

• the frequency with which people would be exposed at the locations with the highest exceedances over the long-term. All nasal irritant RQ values greater than 1.0 are predicted to occur at locations where people are not expected to spend their entire lifespans (e.g. worker lodges, trapper and historic cabins). The predicted nasal irritant risks at Fort McKay are less than 1.0 for the existing condition and for all three assessment cases.

• with the exception of the recreational location situated inside the Project area, the predicted nasal irritant risks did not increase from the Base Case to the Application Case, indicating a relatively minor contribution from the Project to the nasal irritant risks

2.10.2.2 Carcinogens The risk estimates for the carcinogenic COPCs, expressed as ILCRs, are presented for the Project Case as well as the planned future emission sources (i.e., PDC minus the Base Case = PDC incremental). The maximum ILCRs for each group of locations are presented in Tables 2-34 to 2-36 for the residential, worker and recreational groups. Risks for the Project area boundary group are not evaluated, as people are not expected to spend the durations of their lives along the Project boundary.

As discussed in Section 2.8 (risk characterization), ILCRs are expressed as risks per 100,000 individuals and compared with a benchmark of 1.0 in 100,000. The ILCR benchmark of 1.0 in 100,000 is policy-based and is considered to be essentially negligible by Health Canada (2009a), the CCME (2006) and Alberta Environment (2009).

As shown in Tables 2-34 to 2-36, all ILCRs for the individual carcinogens and the mixtures are predicted to be less than 1.0 in 100,000. This indicates that the incremental cancer risks from the Project and planned future oil sands developments (PDC incremental) are deemed to be essentially negligible.



Table 2-34 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks per 100,000 for Residential Group1

COPC Project PDC Incremental Acetaldehyde 2.9E-02 2.9E-02 1,3-butadiene 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 Arsenic 4.3E-03 4.3E-03 Benzene 5.4E-02 5.4E-02 Benzo(a)pyrene (approach 1) 4.9E-03 4.9E-03 Benzo(a)pyrene (approach 2) 4.4E-05 4.4E-05 Cadmium 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 Chromium VI 4.3E-02 4.3E-02 Nickel 6.0E-03 6.0E-03 Propylene oxide 1.1E-04 1.2E-04 Mixtures2 Nasal Carcinogens 2.9E-02 2.9E-02 Leukemogens 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 Lung Carcinogens 7.1E-02 7.1E-02 NOTES: 1 An ILCR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies an ILCR that is below the benchmark ILCR of 1.0 in 100,000 (i.e., within

the generally accepted limit deemed to be protective of public health). With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit. Since regulators have not recommended an acceptable cancer incidence rate ( LCR) for exposure to carcinogens associated with background or baseline conditions, interpretation of the significance of the baseline LCR values could not be based on the regulatory benchmark of 1.0 in 100,000 and were not included in the HHRA.

2 Individual constituents of the chemical mixtures are identified in Table 2-15. The addition of the individual ILCR values provided in the above table for a mixture’s chemical constituents may not necessarily equate to the ILCR value provided for the mixture, because the ILCR values in the table represent the highest ILCR for each group of locations, regardless of the fixed location at which it occurred.



Table 2-35 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks per 100,000 for Worker Group1 COPC Project PDC incremental

Acetaldehyde 1.1E-02 2.0E-02 1,3-butadiene 2.9E-02 2.9E-02 Arsenic 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 Benzene 6.1E-02 6.1E-02 Benzo(a)pyrene (approach 1) 4.1E-03 4.1E-03 Benzo(a)pyrene (approach 2) 8.6E-05 8.6E-05 Cadmium 1.2E-02 1.9E-02 Chromium VI 6.5E-02 6.5E-02 Nickel 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 Propylene oxide 9.5E-05 1.2E-04 Mixtures2 Nasal Carcinogens 1.1E-02 2.0E-02 Leukemogens 9.0E-02 9.0E-02 Lung Carcinogens 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 NOTES: 1 An ILCR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies an ILCR that is below the benchmark ILCR of 1.0 in 100,000 (i.e., within


2 Individual constituents of the chemical mixtures are identified in Table 2-15. The addition of the individual ILCR values provided in the above table for a mixture’s chemical constituents may not necessarily equate to the ILCR value provided for the mixture, because the ILCR values in the table represent the highest ILCR for each group of locations regardless of the fixed location at which it occurred.



Table 2-36 Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks per 100,000 for Recreational Group1

COPC Project PDC incremental Acetaldehyde 2.6E-02 2.6E-02 1,3-butadiene 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 Arsenic 4.4E-03 4.4E-03 Benzene 8.8E-01 8.8E-01 Benzo(a)pyrene (approach 1) 4.2E-03 4.2E-03 Benzo(a)pyrene (approach 2) 4.0E-05 4.0E-05 Cadmium 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 Chromium VI 4.8E-02 4.9E-02 Nickel 7.3E-03 7.3E-03 Propylene oxide 9.6E-05 1.1E-04 Mixtures2 Nasal Carcinogens 2.6E-02 2.6E-02 Leukemogens 9.0E-01 9.0E-01 Lung Carcinogens 7.7E-02 7.8E-02 NOTES: 1 An ILCR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies an ILCR that is below the benchmark ILCR of 1.0 in 100,000 (i.e., within


2 Individual constituents of the chemical mixtures are identified in Table 2-15. The addition of the individual ILCR values provided in the above table for a mixture’s chemical constituents may not necessarily equate to the ILCR value provided for the mixture, because the ILCR values in the table represent the highest ILCR for each group of locations regardless of the fixed location at which it occurred.

2.10.2.3 Responses to Aboriginal Community Concerns During consultations with potentially affected Aboriginal communities, concern was expressed about respiratory disease in the communities of Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan. The findings of the inhalation assessment are specifically relevant to these concerns.

Air quality monitoring in the oil sands indicates that the ambient levels of common air constituents such as NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 are consistently below air quality guidelines (see Section 2.9.1). As well, trend analysis of air quality between 1998 and 2007 suggests that the concentrations of various air constituents in the oil sands generally have not changed over the past 10 years.

Alberta Health and Wellness monitors the incidence of different types of disease and noted that the prevalence for asthma was significantly lower in the Northern Lights Health Region when compared against the rest of the Province. Alberta Health and Wellness also noted that the prevalence of chronic bronchitis and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is significantly higher in the Northern Lights Health Region.



However, the mortality rate for COPD in the Northern Lights Health Region is actually lower than the provincial average (RSCEP 2010).

The Fort McKay Specific Assessment on Air Quality used Health Canada’s recently developed Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) to evaluate air quality with respect to human health in the community of Fort McKay (Fort McKay IRC 2010). The AQHI is an effective screening tool for characterizing the potential health risks associated with a mix of air pollutants. It is based on Canadian epidemiological health studies that estimated health risks from exposure to air pollution. The short-term health risks of concern are predominantly the exacerbation of respiratory disorders and effects on cardiac function (Stieb et al. 2008). In its assessment of local air quality, the Fort McKay IRC (2010) found that “for those key common air contaminants of relevance to the community (i.e., NO2, O3 and PM2.5), upon which the AQHI is based, air quality is generally good”.

According to the findings of the HHRA, the overall health risks associated with the respiratory irritants are predicted to be low. None of the individual respiratory irritants exceed Fort McKay’s health-based guidelines, which is the closest community to the Project. Finally, given that the changes between the Base Case and Application Case risks are small, emissions from the Project are not expected to adversely affect the respiratory health in the region.

2.10.3 Chronic Multiple Pathway Assessment

The results of the chronic multiple pathway assessment address Key Question H3 for the HHRA: What are the long-term (chronic) risks of adverse human health effects from all possible routes of exposure combined (i.e., drinking water, soil contact, skin contact, country food ingestion, fish consumption, air inhalation) from the Frontier Project in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments?

The results of the multiple pathway assessment are presented separately for non-carcinogens and carcinogens in recognition of the different approaches used in calculating and interpreting risk estimates.

For all residents and recreational users, carcinogenic risks are estimated for people exposed via secondary exposure pathways over their entire lifespan of 80 years (Health Canada 2009a). In the case of the workers, it was assumed that secondary pathway exposures would be limited to the 60 years of their adult life (i.e., 20 to 80 years of age).

For the non-carcinogens, the maximum RQ values for all life stages (infant, toddler, child, adolescent and adult) are presented for each group. For the carcinogens, the ILCR is calculated over a person’s lifespan and thereby considers risks for a summed composite of a person’s life stages.

2.10.3.1 Non-carcinogens Chronic inhalation RQ values for the residential, worker and recreational groups are listed in Tables 2-37 to 2-39.



Table 2-37 Predicted Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for Residential Group

COPC Risk Quotients1

Base Case Application Case PDC Metals Aluminum (Al) 7.4E-01 7.4E-01 7.4E-01 Antimony (Sb) 2.2E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 Barium (Ba) 7.2E-02 7.2E-02 7.2E-02 Beryllium (Be) 1.1E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 Boron (B) 4.2E-01 4.2E-01 4.2E-01 Cadmium (Cd) 3.9E-01 4.0E-01 4.0E-01 Chromium (Cr) 3.1E-03 3.3E-03 3.3E-03 Chromium (CrVI) 7.1E-01 7.5E-01 7.5E-01 Cobalt (Co) 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 Copper (Cu) 1.2E-06 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 Lead (Pb) 6.6E-01 6.7E-01 6.7E-01 Manganese (Mn) 2.3E+00 2.3E+00 2.3E+00 Mercury (Hg) 3.7E-01 3.7E-01 3.7E-01 Methyl mercury (MeHg) 7.5E+00 7.5E+00 7.5E+00 Molybdenum (Mo) 3.1E-01 3.3E-01 3.3E-01 Nickel (Ni) 8.7E-02 8.8E-02 8.8E-02 Selenium (Se) 4.2E-01 4.2E-01 4.2E-01 Silver (Ag) 4.5E-02 4.6E-02 4.6E-02 Strontium (Sr) 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 Tin (Sn) 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 Vanadium (V) 7.1E-01 7.2E-01 7.2E-01 Zinc (Zn) 8.3E-01 8.4E-01 8.4E-01 PAHs Pyrene 1.2E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 VOCs 2-Chloronaphthalene 3.1E-08 3.1E-08 3.1E-08 Aliphatic C17-C34 group 8.1E-02 8.1E-02 8.2E-02 Aniline 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 Aromatic C17-C34 group 5.9E-04 7.1E-04 7.1E-04 Aromatic C9-C16 group 6.3E-02 7.1E-02 7.1E-02 Aromatic Ketones group 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 Formaldehyde 2.7E-02 2.7E-02 2.7E-02 Phenothiazine 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 Mixtures2 Gastrointestinal toxicants 7.5E-01 7.9E-01 7.9E-01 Hepatotoxicants 1.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00



Table 2-37 Predicted Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for Residential Group (cont’d)


Base Case Application Case PDC Mixtures2 (cont’d) Neurotoxicants 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 Renal toxicants 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 Reproductive and developmental toxicants

1.0E+01 1.0E+01 1.0E+01

NOTES: 1 An RQ equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is equal to or less than the exposure limit.

Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit.


Table 2-38 Predicted Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for Worker Group


Base Case Application Case PDC Metals Aluminum (Al) 3.5E-01 3.5E-01 3.5E-01 Antimony (Sb) 2.0E-03 2.1E-03 2.1E-03 Barium (Ba) 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 Beryllium (Be) 1.6E-03 1.6E-03 1.6E-03 Boron (B) 1.7E-04 1.9E-04 1.9E-04 Cadmium (Cd) 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 Chromium (Cr) 3.1E-05 3.1E-05 3.1E-05 Chromium (CrVI) 3.9E-03 3.9E-03 3.9E-03 Cobalt (Co) 7.2E-02 7.2E-02 7.2E-02 Copper (Cu) 2.1E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 Lead (Pb) 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 Manganese (Mn) 6.6E-02 6.6E-02 6.6E-02 Mercury (Hg) 3.8E-02 3.8E-02 3.8E-02 Methyl Mercury (MeHg) 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 Molybdenum (Mo) 1.4E-03 1.6E-03 1.6E-03 Nickel (Ni) 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 Selenium (Se) 6.8E-04 6.8E-04 6.8E-04 Silver (Ag) 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 Strontium (Sr) 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03



Table 2-38 Predicted Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for Worker Group (cont’d)


Base Case Application Case PDC Metals (cont’d) Tin (Sn) 1.5E-04 1.5E-04 1.5E-04 Vanadium (V) 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 Zinc (Zn) 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 PAHs Pyrene 1.1E-05 1.1E-05 1.1E-05 VOCs 2-Chloronaphthalene 3.6E-15 3.6E-15 3.9E-15 Aliphatic C17-C34 group 4.7E-10 4.7E-10 5.8E-10 VOCs (cont’d) Aniline 6.3E-12 5.4E-11 5.4E-11 Aromatic C17-C34 group 5.1E-07 6.2E-07 6.2E-07 Aromatic C9-C16 group 1.8E-07 2.5E-05 2.5E-05 Aromatic ketones group 1.1E-05 1.1E-05 1.4E-05 Formaldehyde 5.8E-12 5.9E-12 7.5E-12 Phenothiazine 4.8E-05 4.8E-05 6.2E-05 Mixtures2 Gastrointestinal toxicants 5.5E-03 5.5E-03 5.5E-03 Hepatotoxicants 3.6E-01 3.6E-01 3.6E-01 Neurotoxicants 4.3E-01 4.3E-01 4.3E-01 Renal toxicants 4.0E-01 4.0E-01 4.0E-01 Reproductive and developmental toxicants

4.3E-01 4.3E-01 4.3E-01

NOTES: 1 An RQ equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is equal to or less than the exposure limit.

Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit.




Table 2-39 Predicted Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for Recreational Group

COPCs Risk Quotients1

Base Case Application Case PDC Metals Aluminum (Al) 4.9E-01 4.9E-01 4.9E-01 Antimony (Sb) 1.3E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 Barium (Ba) 1.6E-02 1.6E-02 1.6E-02 Beryllium (Be) 6.8E-03 7.2E-03 7.2E-03 Boron (B) 7.2E-02 7.4E-02 7.4E-02 Cadmium (Cd) 2.4E-01 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 Chromium (Cr) 2.5E-03 2.7E-03 2.7E-03 Chromium (CrVI) 4.7E-01 5.0E-01 5.1E-01 Cobalt (Co) 5.6E-01 5.6E-01 5.6E-01 Copper (Cu) 1.2E-06 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 Lead (Pb) 5.2E-01 5.3E-01 5.3E-01 Manganese (Mn) 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 Mercury (Hg) 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 Methyl mercury (MeHg) 3.8E+00 3.8E+00 3.8E+00 Molybdenum (Mo) 1.5E-01 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 Nickel (Ni) 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 Selenium (Se) 2.6E-01 2.7E-01 2.7E-01 Silver (Ag) 7.7E-03 9.2E-03 9.2E-03 Strontium (Sr) 3.0E-02 3.1E-02 3.1E-02 Tin (Sn) 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 Vanadium (V) 5.2E-01 5.2E-01 5.2E-01 Zinc (Zn) 7.2E-01 7.3E-01 7.3E-01 PAHs Pyrene 1.6E-04 4.2E-04 4.2E-04 VOCs 2-Chloronaphthalene 2.9E-08 2.9E-08 2.9E-08 Aliphatic C17-C34 group 8.0E-02 8.0E-02 8.1E-02 Aniline 7.3E-04 7.3E-04 7.3E-04 Aromatic C17-C34 group 5.7E-04 6.8E-04 6.8E-04 Aromatic C9-C16 group 3.0E-02 3.8E-02 3.8E-02 Aromatic Ketones group 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 Formaldehyde 6.7E-03 6.7E-03 6.8E-03 Phenothiazine 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 Mixtures2 Gastrointestinal toxicants 4.9E-01 5.1E-01 5.2E-01 Hepatotoxicants 1.0E+00 1.1E+00 1.1E+00



Table 2-39 Predicted Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for Recreational Group (cont’d)

COPCs Risk Quotients1

Base Case Application Case PDC Mixtures2 (cont’d) Neurotoxicants 5.3E+00 5.3E+00 5.3E+00 Renal toxicants 9.4E-01 9.6E-01 9.6E-01 Reproductive and developmental toxicants

5.4E+00 5.4E+00 5.4E+00

Chronic multiple pathway RQ values are predicted to exceed 1.0 for cobalt, manganese and methyl mercury. The chronic mixtures assessment revealed mixture RQ values greater than 1.0 for the hepatotoxicants, neurotoxicants, renal toxicants, and reproductive and developmental toxicants. A discussion of these exceedances follows.

Cobalt Chronic cobalt exposure is associated with a predicted RQ value of 1.4 in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC for the residential group. This RQ value, which doesn’t change for the three assessment cases, represents the highest risk for all the life stages in this group (i.e., toddler in this case). No cobalt exceedances are predicted for the worker or recreational users. The Project is not expected to measurably increase cobalt-related health risks in the region.

Cobalt is released into the environment by natural and anthropogenic sources (ATSDR 2004). It is an essential element in the human diet, and is necessary for the formation of vitamin B12 (Barceloux 1999). Although the primary route of human exposure to cobalt is food, food concentrations of cobalt are generally low (ATSDR 2004).

In most soils, the translocation of cobalt from the roots of plants to aboveground edible portions is not considered significant (ATSDR 2004). In the HHRA, aboveground plants accounted for about 34.5% of the total cobalt exposure to the toddler, with root vegetables contributing about 19%, soil ingestion 14%, moose/large game consumption 12% and cattail root consumption 9.5%. Figure 2-5 provides a visual representation of the relative contributions of the various pathways.

Soil (Barceloux 1999) and aboveground plants (ATSDR 2004) are not anticipated to represent significant exposure pathways to cobalt. However, in the HHRA these pathways together accounted for about 49% of the estimated daily intake for the toddler. The HHRA multiple pathway model (see Appendix B1) predicted aboveground-plant concentrations using soil concentrations and estimated aerial deposition rates.

The HHRA aboveground plant concentrations for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC are all about 0.037 mg/kg wet weight (or 0.24 mg/kg dry weight). In contrast, Mermut et al. (1996) reports that durum wheat grown in soils in Saskatchewan with cobalt concentrations ranging from 3.7 mg/kg to 16.0 mg/kg were found to contain 0.01 mg/kg to 0.02 mg/kg dry weight of cobalt. Soil samples from the Project area were found to contain 12 mg cobalt/kg dry weight. While the soil concentrations in the HHRA



are within the range of Mermut et al. (1996), the predicted aboveground plant concentration is about 12-times higher than what was measured in the wheat samples from Mermut et al. (1996).

Figure 2-5 Contributing Exposure Pathways (>1%) for Cobalt, Residential Toddler, Application Case

There is some uncertainty associated with the chronic oral exposure limit that was used to characterize the cobalt health risks (0.3 µg/kg/d). The value selected is the Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) from the U.S. EPA (2008) and was derived from a LOAEL of 1 mg/kg/d for impaired iodine uptake by the thyroid and polycythemia, based on the results of two relatively short-term studies. The first study, conducted in dogs, involved a small sample size and the administration of cobalt orally for a duration of three weeks, during and after which altered erythrocyte counts were observed. In the second study, twelve adults were exposed to radioactive iodine, and then to 150 mg/d of cobalt via capsules for a duration of two weeks. To account for the subchronic study duration and other uncertainties, the U.S. EPA (2008) applied a total uncertainty factor of



3000 to the LOAEL. This factor implies that the exposure limit is about 3000-times lower than the observed LOAEL.

It is not clear how representative of chronic oral cobalt toxicity the adverse effects observed in the two toxicological studies supporting the value are, particularly because of the relatively short exposure durations of the two studies. While the study duration was accounted for in the derivation of the PPRTV through the application of an uncertainty factor of 10, it is not clear whether this adjustment is over- or under-conservative in light of the limited amount of information regarding the chronic toxicity of cobalt via ingestion.

The most useful evaluation of the potential for the cobalt exposure concentrations predicted in the HHRA is with respect to comparisons of dietary intakes, as there is comparatively more information regarding cobalt intakes than cobalt toxicity.

A survey of the dietary intakes of various metals by Canadians conducted by Dabeka and McKenzie (1995) determined that the estimated daily intake of cobalt in children one- to four-years old was about 7 µg/d. For all age groups, the average cobalt intake was observed to be 11 µg/d. The types of foods associated with the highest cobalt intakes were baked goods, cereals, and vegetables (Dabeka and McKenzie 1995). The estimated daily intake for the toddler in this HHRA was about the same (7 µg/d) as what was observed in the Dabeka and McKenzie (1995) study, and is below the average intake of 11 µg/d.

Overall, the cobalt exposures predicted in the HHRA are not anticipated to result in adverse health effects for the following reasons:

• the highest estimated daily intake in the HHRA of 7 µg/d is consistent with typical Canadian dietary intakes.

• The use of a 3000-fold uncertainty factor in the derivation of the exposure limit suggests that, in all likelihood, there is a large margin of safety between the concentration at which effects might be observed and the exposures predicted in the HHRA. This conservative nature of the exposure limit is partly supported by the fact that cobalt is an essential element required for normal physiologic function.

Manganese The predicted chronic manganese exposure is associated with an RQ value of 2.3 in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC for the residential group. The highest RQ value is associated with the toddler life stage. No RQ exceedances are predicted for the worker and recreational group. The Project is not expected to measurably increase manganese-related health risks in the region.

Manganese is commonly present in the environment and, like cobalt, is an essential element. Manganese is involved in the formation of bone and in various aspects of metabolism (IOM 2001). Dietary sources are the primary route of human exposure to manganese, with people who consume a high amount of plant-based foods and legumes having potentially higher intake than other individuals (IOM 2001, ATSDR 2008, U.S. EPA 1996).



In the current assessment, the primary exposure pathways contributing to the RQ values for the toddler are the consumption of aboveground garden vegetables, root vegetables, Labrador tea and berries. Figure 2-6 presents a visual depiction of the relative contribution of the various exposure pathways to the residential toddler RQ in the Application Case. The contribution of these pathways is the same across the Base Case, Application Case and PDC for this life stage.

For the toddler, the consumption of aboveground plants represents about 58% of the overall manganese RQ, while consumption of root vegetables, Labrador tea and berries contribute 18%, 11.5% and 6.4%. These observations are consistent with those of the ATSDR, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the U.S. EPA in that those individuals who consume larger amounts of plant-based foods receive greater manganese exposures.

The RQ values for manganese are based on the chronic oral exposure limit of 140 µg/kg bw/d recommended by the U.S. EPA (2011, 1996). This chronic exposure limit is based on a NOAEL of 10 mg/d (or 0.14 mg/kg bw/d for a 70 kg adult) derived from several population-based studies that evaluated the relationship between manganese exposure and Central Nervous System effects in humans. The same NOAEL was identified by Health Canada (2009b) and the World Health Organization (WHO 2000) in their respective reviews of the toxicological effects associated with long-term exposure to manganese. In the current assessment, the estimated daily intake of manganese for the toddler is predicted to be 0.32 mg/kg-day or 5.3 mg/d. This intake level is below the recognized NOAEL of 10 mg/d (Health Canada 2009b; U.S. EPA 1996; WHO 2000).

To date, the manganese exposure levels at which adverse effects are expected in humans has not been clearly defined; although, the weight of evidence suggests that exposure below 10 mg/d is unlikely to be associated with adverse effects (IOM 2001; Santamaria and Sulsky 2010; Andersen et al. 2010). Furthermore, the WHO (2004) noted in its toxicological review that manganese is not considered very toxic to humans given the existence of homeostatic mechanisms, and that the incidence of adverse health effects at the upper range of dietary intake is negligible. Health Canada estimates the average daily intake of manganese to be 4.7 mg/d based on Canadian food consumption data in combination with the manganese content of the various food items (Health Canada 1987). As the estimated intake levels in this assessment fall within the range of typical Canadian exposure levels, at which adverse effects have not been observed, the predicted manganese RQ values are not expected to be associated with adverse health effects.



Figure 2-6 Contributing Exposure Pathways (>1%) for Manganese, Residential Toddler, Application Case

Methyl Mercury Predicted exposure to methyl mercury is associated with RQ values greater than 1.0 for the residential and recreational user groups in the multiple pathway assessment. No exceedances are predicted for the worker group. The maximum RQ value of 7.5 for the residential group is not predicted to change from the Base Case to Application Case to PDC. For the recreational group, the maximum RQ value is predicted to be 3.8 for the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. The Project is not expected to measurably increase methyl mercury-related health risks in the region.

Methyl mercury is the form of mercury that is of greatest concern with respect to accumulation in biological organisms, and subsequent consumption by people (Health Canada 2007). Food intake is the primary route of exposure to mercury compounds in humans, with fish and seafood being the most significant contributors to human exposure (ATSDR 1999). Mercury can cycle between its various forms and does not necessarily permanently exist as one form or another. Microbial activity in the environment can convert inorganic mercury to methyl mercury and vice versa (Health Canada 2007). In



the HHRA, it was assumed that methyl mercury concentrations were equivalent to 100% of total mercury concentrations in fish and surface water.

For residential and recreational groups, the highest RQ value is predicted for the toddler life stage, where 100% of the estimated daily intake of methyl mercury is attributable to local fish consumption. The methyl mercury concentration in fish used in the HHRA is 0.62 mg/kg wet weight. The methyl mercury levels in fish are not predicted to measurably change between the Base Case, Application Case and PDC.

Table 2-40 presents a summary of measured total mercury concentrations from various locations in Alberta (AHW 2009c,d), as well as information regarding mercury concentrations in fish sold by retailers in Canada (Health Canada 2007). If it is assumed that 100% of the mercury measured in the various Alberta and Canadian fish samples is methyl mercury, the methyl mercury concentration of 0.62 mg/kg used in the HHRA falls within the range of values measured at these other locations. This suggests that the fish mercury concentrations in the HHRA do not necessarily indicate an unusual risk level. Rather, the concentration used in the HHRA falls within the expected range for Alberta fish.

Table 2-40 Mercury Concentrations in Alberta Fish Location Total Mercury

(mg/kg ww) Canadian Retail Fish 0.02 to 1.82 Twin Valley Reservoir, Alberta 0.22 to 0.68 Little Bow River, Alberta 0.1 to 0.59 Willow Creek, Alberta 0.08 to 0.49 Pine Coulee Reservoir, Alberta 0.13 to 0.79 Lake La Nonne, Alberta 0.56 to 0.63 Lake Ste Anne, Alberta 0.13 to 0.14 Concentration used in HHRA (Base Case) 0.62 SOURCE: (AHW 2009 c,d; Health Canada 2007)

The fish consumption rates used in the HHRA represent rates cited by Health Canada (2007) for subsistence fish consumers for all types of fish. No adjustments for local fish consumption preferences (e.g. whitefish consumption vs. walleye) were applied, suggesting that the consumption rates used might be conservative. Some individuals might consume higher amounts of smaller fish rather than larger, predatory fish, which would make a difference on the amount of mercury ingested over time. By using a total fish consumption rate, such differences have not been accounted for.

The feasibility that people would be regularly consuming certain types of fish, such as walleye and pike, over others (e.g. whitefish, sucker) must also be considered in the evaluation of fish consumption patterns.

As mentioned previously, larger, predatory fish such as walleye and pike are anticipated to have higher mercury concentrations than smaller fish (AHW 2009e). At present, there is a consumption advisory on walleye caught from the Athabasca River, downstream of



Fort McMurray (Government of Alberta 2011). The recommended fish consumption limits are summarized in Table 2-41.

Table 2-41 Recommended Fish Consumption Limits on the Athabasca River, downstream from Fort McMurray

Species

Fish size. (>lb)

Consumption Limit (grams per week) Women

Child 1-4

Child 5-11

Adult

Walleye 2 150 37.5 75 600 NOTES: 1 lb = 454 grams. “Women” refers to women of child-bearing age (15-49 years) and pregnant women. “Adult” refers to adults and children over 12 years.

Alberta’s fish consumption advisories are based on existing contaminant levels (including mercury) in various fish species throughout the Province. Alberta Health and Wellness acknowledges that fish consumption advisories, like the one on the Athabasca River, are voluntary measures to reduce the potential risks to local fish consumers. The recommended restrictions of daily or weekly consumption patterns are based solely on public health considerations relating to exposure to individual contaminants, with limited consideration given to the counterbalancing benefits of fish consumption or alternative risks of other protein sources that might be consumed in place of fish (AHW 2009c).

The fish consumption advisory on this reach of the Athabasca River is related to methyl mercury concentrations. The advisory is relevant to the HHRA because it means that people probably eat much less locally caught fish than assumed for the characterization of potential health risks in the HHRA. The advisory suggests that in the Project study area, women of child-bearing age and children under the age of 12 should restrict their consumption of walleye that weigh more than two pounds. According to Alberta’s sport fishing regulations, a child aged 1 to 4 should not eat more than 5 g of fish per day, while pregnant women or women of child-bearing age should not eat more than 21 g of fish per day (Government of Alberta 2011). These ingestion rates are considerably less than those used in the HHRA (40 g/d for adults and adolescents, 33 g/d for children, and 20 g/d for residential toddlers, and are also less than the rates assumed for the recreational users (22 g/d for adults and adolescents, 14 g/d for children, and 10 g/d for toddlers). Information from the fish advisory suggests that the mercury-related risks associated with residents eating fish from the Athabasca River might be overstated in the HHRA.

Other factors also might have contributed to an over or understatement of the potential health risks in the analysis. Some of these factors include:

• a number of different fish species were considered in the calculation of the predicted fish concentrations. Mercury concentrations in fish are variable, depending on the species of fish and size of fish. In the past, Aboriginal community members have indicated an overall preference of whitefish over walleye. This suggests that the mercury risks presented herein likely overstate the actual risks posed to people in the area, considering that mercury concentrations in whitefish are significantly less than those measured in walleye.



• the proportion of local fish consumed by people living in the area. The estimated daily intakes and associated RQ values are based on the assumption that people rely on locally caught fish as a part of their diet. Data from Alberta Health and Wellness (1997) suggest that people consume a relatively low amount of locally caught fish. Given the access to supermarkets and other food sources, people are likely to obtain food (including fish) from sources other than the Athabasca River that might have variable mercury concentrations. In addition, a fish consumption advisory is currently in place on the Athabasca River. As such, the predicted daily intakes and associated RQ values may vary accordingly.

• the exposure limit used in this assessment (0.1 µg/kg/d) is based on developmental impairment in children. Three studies of maternal-infant pairs in areas of high fish consumption (Seychelles Islands, Faroe Islands and New Zealand) were studied. Mercury exposure was evaluated through cord blood concentrations or hair mercury concentrations. A benchmark dose (BMDL05) equivalent to a maternal intake of 0.596 µg/kg/d of methyl mercury was calculated. In the HHRA, the estimated maternal intake of methyl mercury (0.35 µg/kg/d) is estimated to be below this BMDL05. Health Canada (2007) cites a TDI of 0.2 µg/kg/d for methyl mercury. When compared with the Health Canada TDI, the RQ values for the residential and recreational toddler are reduced to 3.7 and 1.9. As a result of using the most conservative available exposure limit for methyl mercury, the RQ values probably overstate the actual health risks.

Aside from the potential risks of mercury exposure, Health Canada (2007) notes that fish is a high-quality source of dietary protein, and also contains fatty-acids and vitamin D. Regular fish consumption has been associated with the prevention of various diseases and conditions (Health Canada 2007; Ginsberg and Toal 2009). The health advantages related to eating fish is well-documented. However, any nutritional benefits associated with eating fish from the Athabasca River were not accounted for in the characterization of the potential health risks.

The predicted RQ values for methyl mercury remain consistent across the Base Case, Application Case and PDC for residential and recreational user groups. This suggests that the Project is not expected to measurably increase methyl mercury-related health risks in the region.

Neurotoxicants Mixture The RQ values for the chronic neurotoxicants mixture are predicted to be greater than 1.0 for the residential and recreational user groups. For workers, all neurotoxicant RQ values are predicted to be less than 1.0.

The COPCs included in the oral neurotoxicants mixture include:

• aluminum

• lead

• manganese

• methyl mercury

• selenium



For the residential group, the maximum neurotoxicant RQ value is estimated to be 12 (for the toddler) and is not expected to change between the three assessment cases. The COPCs contributing the most to the neurotoxicant risks are methyl mercury (63%) and manganese (19%).

For the recreational group, the maximum RQ is estimated to be 5.3 (also for the toddler) and, again, is not expected to change between the three assessment cases. Methyl mercury contributes the most to the risks (72%), followed by lead (10%), aluminum (6.2%), manganese (5%) and selenium (3.5%). Figures 2-7 and 2-8 present visual representations of the relative contributions of the mixture constituents for both groups.

Figure 2-7 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Neurotoxicant Mixture, Residential Toddler, Application Case



Figure 2-8 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Neurotoxicant Mixture, Recreational Toddler, Application Case

The methyl mercury RQ values for the residential and recreational groups are 100% attributable to local fish consumption, while the manganese RQ values are primarily from plant food intakes in the model. Together these two COPCs account for about 82% of the mixture risk for the residential toddler. As discussed in Section 2.10.3.1, the RQ values for manganese and methyl mercury are likely overstated because of conservative assumptions incorporated into the HHRA. Overall, the potential for adverse neurotoxicological effects is considered to be low.

For both the residential and recreational groups, there is no predicted change in the RQ values between the Base Case and Application Case. This suggests that the Project is not expected to measurably increase the overall neurotoxicant risks in the region.



Reproductive and Developmental Toxicants Mixture The maximum RQ values for the reproductive and developmental toxicants are predicted to be greater than 1.0 for the residential and recreational user groups, but not for the worker group.

The COPCs in the chronic oral reproductive and developmental toxicants mixture include:

• aluminum

• boron

• lead

• methyl mercury

• nickel

• strontium

• vanadium

For the residential group, the maximum reproductive and development toxicant mixture RQ value is estimated to be 10 (for the toddler). The COPC contributing the most to the risks is methyl mercury (75%), with smaller contributions from aluminum (7.4%), vanadium (7.1%) and lead (6.6%).

The maximum predicted RQ for the recreational group is 5.4. Again, methyl mercury contributes the most to the risk (70%), with smaller contributions from aluminum (9.6%), lead (9.6%) and vanadium (9.1%).

Figures 2-9 and 2-10 summarize the relative contributions of the various COPCs to the mixture RQ for the toddler life stage for each group.

As discussed in Section 2.10.3.1, the methyl mercury RQ values for both groups are likely overstated because of the conservative assumptions incorporated into the HHRA. All methyl mercury risks are attributable to the estimated consumption of local fish.

While the components of the mixture were grouped together on the basis that they might cause reproductive and development effects, consideration should be given to the various types of reproductive or developmental effects, and whether or not the RQs are additive or not.

Methyl mercury risks are neurotoxicological, and are classified as reproductive or developmental on the basis that fetuses and young children are most susceptible. Lead is associated with a similar endpoint, thus, it is feasible that these two COPCs are additive. The other COPCs, while representing minor contributions on their own, together contribute over 10% to the mixture RQ. The RQ for boron is based on an exposure limit for decreased fetal body weights, as opposed to a neurological effect. The endpoint of the vanadium exposure limit included reduced body weight, tail length and relative organ weight of the liver, spleen and kidneys in offspring. The strontium RQs are based on bone effects in fetuses, while the nickel RQs are based on the incidence of post-implantation lethality. Thus, the assumption that the potential risks of reproductive and developmental toxicity are additive is likely overly conservative, given the variety of



endpoints and mechanisms by which such effects might occur for the COPCs identified in this mixture. Additional information regarding the respective endpoints for the COPCs in this mixture is available in Appendix 2A.

For residential and recreational user groups, the RQ values do not change between the Base Case and Application Case. The Project is not expected to measurably increase the reproductive and developmental risks in the region.

Figure 2-9 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Reproductive and Developmental Mixture, Residential Toddler, Application Case



Figure 2-10 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Reproductive and Developmental Mixture, Recreational Toddler, Application Case

Hepatotoxicants Mixture The chronic RQ values for the hepatotoxicants mixture are predicted to be greater than 1.0 for the residential and recreational groups, but not for the worker group.

The COPCs included in the chronic oral hepatotoxicants mixture are:

• 2-chloronaphthalene

• aliphatic c17-c34 group

• aromatic c9-c16 group

• aluminum

• antimony

• copper

• phenothiazine

• selenium



The maximum hepatotoxicant RQ values for the residential group are predicted to be 1.7 (Base Case) and 1.8 (Application Case and PDC) for the toddler life stage. In the Application Case, the COPCs contributing the most to the hepatotoxicant risks are aluminum (42%) and selenium (24%), with smaller contributions from phenothiazine (17%), and antimony (13%).

For the recreational group, the maximum predicted hepatotoxicant RQ values are 1.0 (Base Case) and 1.1 (Application Case and PDC), also for the toddler life stage. In the Application Case, the COPCs predicted to contribute the most to the hepatotoxicant mixture RQ are aluminum (48%) and selenium (25%), with smaller contributions from antimony (13%), and phenothiazine (11%).

Figures 2-11 and 2-12 present visual summaries of the relative contributions of the COPCs to the hepatoxicant mixtures for the residential and recreational toddlers.

Figure 2-11 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Hepatotoxicant Mixture, Residential Toddler, Application Case



Figure 2-12 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Hepatotoxicant Mixture, Recreational Toddler, Application Case

Aluminum and selenium are the primary contributors to the hepatotoxicant risks. However, when evaluated on their own, neither COPC is associated with exceedances in the multiple pathway assessment. In fact, the maximum RQ values for aluminum (0.7 and 0.5) and selenium (0.4 and 0.3) are below 1.0 for the toddler in the residential and recreational groups in the Application case.

The primary pathways for aluminum exposure in the HHRA are soil ingestion (31% residential, 46% recreational), and moose consumption (residential 22%, recreational 33%) for the two groups. The predicted estimated daily intakes (EDI) for aluminum for the toddler are 105 µg/kg/d for the residential group and 71 µg/kg/d for the recreational group.

The exposure limit used in the HHRA (143 µg/kg/d) for aluminum represents the most recent tolerable daily intake (TDI) derived by the WHO, based on several animal and epidemiological studies. In these studies, a range of LOAELs for reproductive, neurological effects, liver and kidney effects of 50 mg/kg/d to 75 mg/kg/d were identified. The TDI is based on the lowest LOAEL within this range (50 mg/kg). Both of



the estimated EDIs for the toddler (105 µg/kg and 71 µg/kg) are well below the exposure limit and the LOAEL.

The actual health risks for aluminum are likely overstated, based on:

• the assumptions regarding soil and moose ingestion rates in the assessment, and that people would be regularly consuming local foods and incidentally ingesting soil on a regular basis

• the degree of conservatism incorporated into the exposure limit

• the potential for absorption of aluminum in the gastrointestinal tract of humans. WHO and FAO (2007) notes that the absorption of aluminum is variable between the types of aluminum, with some forms having been observed to have less than 1% absorption. In the HHRA, 100% absorption was assumed.

For selenium, the primary exposure pathways for the toddler life stage are fish ingestion (54% residential, 43% recreational) and snowshoe hare ingestion (31% residential, 50% recreational). The predicted EDIs for selenium are 2.1 µg/kg/d for the residential toddler, and 1.3 µg/kg/d for the recreational toddler. The exposure limit of 5 µg/kg/d is based on a NOAEL of 0.015 mg/kg/d observed in a large epidemiological study that included low, medium and high exposure areas in China. Both the predicted selenium EDIs for the toddler are well below the NOAEL of 0.015 mg/kg per day (15 µg/kg/d).

The actual health risks for selenium are likely overstated because of the:

• assumptions regarding local fish and snowshoe hare consumption applied in the HHRA, where it was assumed that people would be regularly consuming these local foods at the assumed rates

• degree of conservatism incorporated into the exposure limit for selenium

While aluminum and selenium are cited as having hepatic endpoints, the nature of these endpoints must be examined closely to determine whether or not the mechanisms and effects are additive.

The hepatotoxicant effects of aluminum cited by WHO and FAO (2007) include mild histopathological changes in the liver in various species, over acute and subchronic study durations. For the selenium exposure limit, the hepatic effects associated with clinical selenosis (the basis of the U.S. EPA RfD) were cited as including subclinical blood substances symptomatic of liver dysfunction, specifically the prolongation of clotting time and serum glutathione titres. However, the key study on which the U.S. EPA RfD is based (Yang et al. 1989) notes that in the high selenium intake areas studied, liver damage or disease has not been reported. Histological and subclinical endpoints were considered for antimony and phenothiazine as well. The antimony exposure limit (see Appendix 2A) included mild histopathological changes and clinical chemical changes related to the liver. The phenothiazine exposure limit (see Appendix 2A) is based on a no observable effects level (NOEL) for significant increases in the liver-related serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase and serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase enzymes. These effects are subclinical, meaning that they might not be related to actual, measurable adverse health effects. While there is some potential that these subclinical



effects might be additive (because of the variety of endpoints), it is also possible that the effects are less than additive.

A very small increase in the hepatotoxicant mixture RQ values was observed for both groups between the Base Case and Application Case (less than 10% change in the RQ values). This suggests that the Project emissions could have a minimal effect on the hepatotoxicant risks. Overall, the potential for adverse hepatoxic effects in association with the exposures predicted in the HHRA is considered to be low, because of the various conservative assumptions applied in the assessment.

Renal Toxicants Mixture The RQ values for the chronic renal toxicant mixture are predicted to be greater than 1.0 for the residential group only. For the recreational and worker groups, all renal toxicant RQ values are predicted to be less than 1.0.

The COPCs included in the chronic oral renal toxicant mixture include:

• aluminum

• aromatic C9-C16 group

• aromatic C17-C34 group

• barium

• cadmium

• formaldehyde

• mercury

The maximum RQ value for the residential group is 1.7, and is not predicted to change between the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. Figure 2-13 presents a visual representation of the relative contributions of the COPCs to the renal toxicant risks.

Aluminum contributes the most to the renal toxicant risks (45%), followed by cadmium (23%) and mercury (22%). When evaluated on their own, none of these three COPCs present exceedances in the multiple pathway assessment, as the RQ values for the toddler in the residential group are all below 1.0.

As discussed with the hepatoxicants mixture, there is a high level of conservatism incorporated into the aluminum RQ values from the exposure and toxicity assessments, suggesting that the RQ values are most likely overstated.

While the three COPCs shared the same general toxicological endpoint of renal effects, closer examination of the specific effects and mechanisms is necessary to evaluate the potential for additivity. The adverse renal effects cited by WHO and FAO (2007) in support of the aluminum exposure limit include mild histopathological changes in the kidney. The toxicological basis of the mercury exposure limit is autoimmune-mediated glomerulonephritis (see Appendix 2A). For cadmium, the basis of the exposure limit includes cadmium accumulation in the renal cortex and proteinuria (see Appendix 2A). As these endpoints are different and involved both immune and non-immune mediated mechanisms of effect, it is reasonable to question the actual additivity of these endpoints.



Overall, the potential for adverse renal effects to occur in the area residents is considered low, because of the level of conservatism incorporated into the HHRA. As there was no change in the RQ values between the Base Case and Application Case, the Project is not expected to measurably increase the renal toxicant risks in the region.

Figure 2-13 Contributing COPCs (>1%) to Renal Mixture, Residential Toddler, Application Case

Naphthenic Acids Naphthenic acids were not assessed quantitatively in the multiple pathway assessment, as an adequate health-based exposure limit has not yet been identified. However, given the general concerns expressed by stakeholders in the oil sands over naphthenic acids in water, the issue was investigated further.

Naphthenic acids occur naturally in petroleum sources such as crude oils and oil sands bitumen (Clemente and Fedorak 2005). Large volumes of water are used when separating the bitumen from oil sands, generating fluid tailings with elevated concentrations of naphthenic acids (Kavanagh et al. 2011), which are termed oil sands process-affected water. Oil sands operators contain process-affected water on site in ponds or lakes as part of a zero-discharge policy. Over time, process-affected water ponds or pit lakes are expected to be reclaimed and function as natural habitats (Kavanagh et al. 2011).



The toxicity and rate of degradation of naphthenic acids is dependent on the type of acids present in the mixture, e.g., their molecular weight and surfactant characteristics (Rogers et al. 2002). Although there is little information about human toxicity, the most recent results for mammalian toxicity indicate that while acute toxicity is unlikely, repeated exposure might have adverse health effects in wild animals (Rogers et al. 2002). Effects might include stimulation and inhibition of cellular respiration, increased vascular permeability and capillaries, and effects on the formation of red and white blood cells and platelets (Rogers et al. 2002).

Acute toxicity studies with rodents indicate that lethal doses (i.e., LD50) are observed when doses range from 3,000 mg/kg to 8,000 mg/kg body weight (API 2003). A chronic oral toxicity study with Wistar rats (Rogers et al. 2002) observed dramatic effects on female fertility at an oral dosage of 60 mg/kg bw/d during pre-breeding, breeding and gestation, while control and low dose (6 mg/kg bw/d) animals achieved 93 and 100% reproductive success. The protocol of this study is not compatible for guideline derivation, however, and the level of detail is insufficient to judge the applicability of the findings (API 2003).

Based on Raoult’s Law, the total vapour pressure of naphthenic acids is expected to be exceedingly low (API 2003). This indicates that volatilization will not be an important fate process. Additionally, oxidation half-lives indicate that any vapours emitted to the air would be rapidly oxidized and not persist in the atmosphere (API 2003). Calculating the multimedia distribution for a range of molecular weight and ring structures of naphthenic acids found in oil sands extracts revealed that, following a release to surface water, the principle distribution of these constituents over time would be to sediment (Rogers et al. 2002).

Naphthenic acids do occur naturally in surface waters in contact with oil sands deposits in Alberta. Naphthenic acids have been detected in groundwater near oil sands tailings ponds and at locations along the Athabasca River. Ambient levels of naphthenic acids in the oil sands watersheds range from non-detectable to 2 mg/L (Headley and McMartin 2004; WRS 2003).

Comparing predicted water quality concentrations for naphthenic acids for all assessment cases (see Table 2-42) reveals that concentrations in the small waterbodies exceed the typical range of background values. The Project pit lakes are predicted to have average naphthenic acid concentrations in water of about 3.5 mg/L.

At this time, health-based guidelines for human exposure to naphthenic acids are not available. No information was found on human effects from exposure to naphthenic acids in water. No drinking water standards were found (MOE 2004; MOE 1994, Internet site; Health Canada 2008, Internet site) and no occupational exposure limit has been established for naphthenic acids (RTECS 1997, Internet site; CHRIS 1999; New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services 1999; ACGIH 2006).

Because there is no available toxicity threshold or benchmark for naphthenic acids and human health, determining the likelihood for adverse health effects in humans following exposure is difficult to ascertain or quantify at this time.



Table 2-42 Average Predicted Water Quality Concentrations for Naphthenic Acids

Location

Base Case (mg/L)

Application Case (mg/L)

PDC (mg/L)

Pit Lake (mg/L)

Small waterbodies1 1.5 3.5 3.5 – Athabasca River2 0.370 0.370 0.370 – Pit Lake3 – – – 3.5 NOTES: 1 Average concentrations predicted for BC, EC, RCL, RC and EL. 2 Average concentrations predicted at two Athabasca River nodes. 3 Average concentration predicted for four Project pit lakes, 10-year snapshot. – = Not applicable

2.10.3.2 Carcinogenic Assessment Tables 2-43 to 2-45 present the predicted ILCR values for the residential, worker and recreational groups.

As discussed in Section 2.8 (risk characterization), the ILCR values represent potential risks per 100,000 individuals and should be compared against a benchmark of 1.0 in 100,000 (the level of risk determined to be ‘essentially negligible’ by Health Canada [2009a]).

As shown in Tables 2-43 to 2-45, the maximum predicted ILCR values associated with the Project alone and planned future emission sources in the area (i.e., PDC minus Base Case) are all less than 1.0 in 100,000. This suggests that the incremental cancer risk from the Project and planned emission sources are deemed to be essentially negligible.

Table 2-43 Chronic Multiple Pathway Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks1 for Residential Group

COPC Project PDC Incremental Arsenic 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 Benzo(a)pyrene 7.6E-01 7.6E-01 Hexachloro-1,3 butadiene 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 NOTE: 1 An ILCR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies an ILCR that is below the benchmark ILCR of 1.0 in 100,000 (i.e., within

the generally accepted limit deemed to be protective of public health). With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit.



Table 2-44 Chronic Multiple Pathway Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks1 for Worker Group



Table 2-45 Chronic Multiple Pathway Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks1 for Recreational Users Group



2.10.3.3 Responses to Aboriginal Community Concerns During consultations with potentially affected Aboriginal communities, concern was expressed about:

• contaminant levels in fish from the Athabasca River

• overall pollution of the watercourses and waterbodies and how this affects human health

• the shift in traditional diets towards store-bought foods and the consequences to health

• elevated rates of cancer in the community of Fort Chipewyan

The HHRA assessed the health risks associated with multiple routes of exposure, including those related to water, fish, wild game, plants, berries and soil. Risk estimates are based on a combination of measured data and predictive models. With a few exceptions (manganese, cobalt and methyl mercury), the estimates of exposure are currently, and will continue to be, below health-based guidelines. The daily intakes of cobalt and manganese in the HHRA are similar to those estimated for the Canadian general population. As well, the current and predicted future mercury concentrations in fish from the Athabasca River are comparable to fish collected from other areas of Alberta. As such, the overall health risks to the Aboriginal communities that are associated with multiple routes of exposure, including fish consumption and all water-



related pathways, appear to be similar to those posed to communities that are outside of the oil sands.

Specific concerns have been expressed about the contaminant levels in fish from the Athabasca River. As described in Section 2.10.3.1, there is presently a consumption advisory on walleye caught from the Athabasca River, downstream of Fort McMurray (Government of Alberta 2011). The advisory for voluntary restrictions on the amount of fish certain age groups eat from this stretch of the Athabasca River is related to existing mercury concentrations in walleye.

Aside from the potential risks of mercury exposure, Health Canada (2007) notes that fish are a high-quality source of dietary protein, and also contain essential fatty-acids and vitamin D. In fact, regular fish consumption has been associated with the prevention of various diseases and conditions (Health Canada 2007; Ginsberg and Toal 2009). The health advantages related to eating fish is well-documented. It is important to note that any nutritional benefits associated with eating fish from the Athabasca River were not accounted for in the characterization of the potential health risks or in the development of the consumption advisory.

The predicted risks for mercury remain consistent across the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. This suggests that the Project is not expected to measurably increase mercury-related health risks in the region. The predicted risks are primarily being driven by the existing mercury concentrations in walleye, which at times exceed Health Canada’s guideline of 0.5 ppm for retail fish. In contrast, mercury concentrations in lake whitefish from the Athabasca River are typically less than 0.2 ppm, which is below the level of concern for regular day-to-day fish consumers (Alberta Health and Wellness 2009). Overall, the mercury levels in fish from the Athabasca River do not differ from mercury levels in fish from watercourses from other parts of Alberta.

Residents in the area should comply with the existing walleye consumption advisory. This type of advisory is not unusual for a watercourse the size of the Athabasca and are common throughout Canada. However, the mercury levels in the lake whitefish from the oil sands region are typically low, suggesting that the benefits of eating these fish are expected to outweigh any associated health risks.

Concerns about the safety of traditional foods like fish, wild game and certain plants might be contributing to the overall shift away from the traditional Aboriginal diet in the oil sands region. However, it is important to note that the Project is not expected to adversely affect the quality of the foods traditionally consumed by the Aboriginal communities in the area. The regional monitoring planned for the area should confirm the safety of such dietary items as wild game and berries. As such, residents in the area should be encouraged to continue consuming traditional foods in and around the area of the Project.

Changes in the community (e.g., specific patterns of traditional food consumption, namely through reduced reliance on wild foods such as moose, deer and fish) could affect the health of Aboriginal communities in the region. Combined with the communities’ perceptions that game and fish are contaminated and unsafe to eat, alterations in consumption patterns could result from reduced access to areas used to harvest wild game



and berries and from a decline in wildlife abundance in the Project area. This issue was addressed in Volume 8, Section 6 (Traditional Land Use). Whenever possible, access to hunting opportunities will be provided to ensure availability of traditional protein sources. Concerns have also been raised about the rates of cancer in the community of Fort Chipewyan.

In an attempt to address these concerns, the ACB conducted an assessment of the cancer incidence in Fort Chipewyan. The purpose of the study was to determine if there was an elevated rate of cholangiocarcinoma (a rare cancer of the bile duct cancer) and whether there was an elevated rate of cancers overall in the community.

Based on data between 1995 and 2006, the ACB (2009) found that:

• the incidence rates of cholangiocarcinoma were within the expected range

• rates of certain cancers (including the overall cancer rate) were higher than expected

The ACB indicated that the increased rates were based on a small number of cases and could be because of chance, increased detection or increased risk in the community.

Further analysis was recommended by the ACB to determine whether risk factors such as lifestyle, family history, occupational exposures and/or environmental exposures are contributing to the observed cancer incidence.

In their 2010 Royal Society of Canada report on the oil sands, the expert panel concluded that “there is currently no credible evidence of environmental contaminant exposures from oil sands reaching Fort Chipewyan at levels expected to cause elevated human cancer rates.” (RSCEP 2010)

Finally, the results of the HHRA indicate that all predicted incremental cancer risks are less than 1.0 in 100,000. This suggests that the cancer risk from the Project is predicted to be negligible.

2.10.4 Upset Conditions

The evaluation of upset conditions addresses Key Question HH4 for the HHRA: What are the risks of adverse human health effects from short-term (acute) inhalation exposure to air emissions from the Frontier Project under upset/emergency conditions?

2.10.4.1 Description of Upset Conditions As described in Volume 4, Appendix 3A and Appendix 3B, plant upsets are expected to be infrequent and short-term in nature. Abnormal emissions might occur periodically with fire pump/generator emergency and upset flaring scenarios, as follows:

• upset flaring will occur only during power failures, cooling water failures and instrument failures. On average, an upset flaring event might occur for one hour per week, and start-up and shutdown flaring might occur eight times per year (twice a year for each phase).

• the Project has 12 diesel-fired emergency generators that will be used during power outages. The generators will operate about 0.5 hours per month for testing, with each typically in service 12 times per year. As well, the Project will have six diesel-fired



fire pumps, each operating about 0.5 hours per month for testing and in service 12 times per year.

Using the entire five-year meteorological period, the SCREEN3 and CALPUFF air dispersion models were applied to the upset flaring scenario to predict ambient short-term NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 concentrations. Because the distances between the fire pumps and generators (some located in the northern part of the MDA and some located in the SDA) are considerable, the SCREEN3 model was not applied to the fire pump and generators.

2.10.4.2 Concentrations – Upset Conditions The maximum predicted concentrations are shown in Table 2-46. For all three COPCs, the predicted air concentrations for the fire pump/generator emergency scenario exceeded those of the upset flaring scenario. Consequently, only the air concentrations for the fire pump/generator emergency scenario are presented.

As shown, all RQ values under the upset condition are less than 1.0, indicating that the predicted air concentrations are all less than their health-based guidelines and the additive interactions of the COPCs are not predicted to result in health-related effects. For this reason, ground-level air concentrations associated with the upset scenarios are not expected to result in adverse health effects.

Table 2-46 Short-term Risks Associated with Upset Conditions

Location

COPC

Averaging-Time

Exposure Limit

[µg/m³]

Maximum Air Concentration1

[µg/m³] Risk Quotient2

Maximum along the Project Area Boundary

SO2 10-minute 500 0.8 0.002 1-hour 196 0.2 0.001

NO2 1-hour 188 70.4 0.4 PM2.5 24-hour 30 1.0 0.03 Respiratory Irritants

N/A N/A N/A 0.4

Fort McKay SO2 10-minute 500 0.005 0.00001 1-hour 196 0.002 0.00001

NO2 1-hour 188 1.4 0.007 PM2.5 24-hour 30 0.05 0.002 Respiratory Irritants

N/A N/A N/A 0.007

NOTES: 1 Based on the maximum predicted air concentrations for all locations (e.g., fixed locations and Project area boundary

locations). 2 An RQ equal to or less than 1.0 signifies that the estimated exposure is equal to or less than the exposure limit and

no health effects are expected.



2.10.4.3 Responses to Aboriginal Community Concerns During consultations with potentially affected Aboriginal communities, concerns have been expressed about the potential health risks posed by upset releases from oil sands developments. These concerns are based, in part, on an incident that occurred in 2006, during which odours were detected in the community of Fort McKay and a number of children were sent for medical observation. The odours were eventually traced back to an ammonia release from a flue gas desulphurisation unit.

The Project is not expected to cause accidental releases of ammonia. There is no upgrading or FGD unit associated with the Project, nor are there any other sources of possible accidental ammonia releases planned for the Project, such as selective catalytic reduction at the cogeneration plant.

For the Project, abnormal emissions of SO2, NO2 and PM2.5 might periodically occur with fire pump/generator emergency and upset flaring scenarios. However, the resultant ground-level air concentrations in the community of Fort McKay would be low and would not be expected to cause adverse health effects.

The potential odours associated with the Project are described in Volume 4, Sections 3.6.4.3 and 3.6.4.6. To further address concerns related to odour, the Project will follow WBEA regional odour monitoring protocols and procedures. The odour response process will result in prompt investigation of all odour complaints and remediation, if required. By maintaining site-wide odour monitoring, the Project will be able to effectively track, and follow up on, potential odour events.

2.10.5 Pit Lakes Assessment

Public access to the Project pit lakes will be restricted until considered safe. Consideration was not given to the potential for direct human exposure to the water in the pit lakes given this risk management action. However, ecological exposure to water in the pit lakes was assumed for the prediction of game meat concentrations in the HHRA, as it is possible that wild game commonly consumed people in the area could have access to the pit lakes over time.

For the non-carcinogenic COPCs, health risks were predicted using all assumptions and predicted media concentrations for the HHRA of the PDC, with the exception of game meat concentrations that took into account pit lake water exposures. Incremental cancer risks attributable to the pit lakes were based on assumptions and predicted media concentrations for the PDC incremental case, with the exception of game meat concentrations, which were based on pit lake water quality. Risks are only presented for the residential group in the pit lake assessment, as this group represents the likeliest exposure scenario.

Substances to be used for assessing pit lakes and potential effects on human health will be identified and addressed through participation in the CEMA End Pit Lake Guidance Task Group and in cooperation with Alberta Environment and other regulatory agencies. Based on this work, access and use of pit lakes will be restricted to prevent use, if water quality is considered to pose a threat to human health.



2.10.5.1 Non-carcinogens The predicted chronic multiple pathway RQ values for the residential group are presented in Table 2-47. Overall, the RQ values are essentially identical or similar to the predicted risks in the PDC. For a discussion of the predicted risks in the pit lake scenario, see Section 2.10.3.1.

Table 2-47 Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for the Pit Lake Scenario, Residential Group

COPC Risk Quotient Metal Aluminum (Al) 7.7E-01 Antimony (Sb) 3.2E-01 Barium (Ba) 7.3E-02 Beryllium (Be) 1.2E-02 Boron (B) 4.2E-01 Cadmium (Cd) 4.1E-01 Chromium (Cr) 4.2E-03 Chromium (CrVI) 9.0E-01 Cobalt (Co) 1.4E+00 Copper (Cu) 2.1E-01 Lead (Pb) 8.3E-01 Manganese (Mn) 2.3E+00 Mercury (Hg) 3.6E-01 Methyl mercury (MeHg) 7.5E+00 Molybdenum (Mo) 3.4E-01 Nickel (Ni) 8.8E-02 Selenium (Se) 4.3E-01 Silver (Ag) 4.9E-02 Strontium (Sr) 2.6E-01 Tin (Sn) 1.5E-02 Vanadium (V) 7.1E-01 Zinc (Zn) 8.6E-01 PAHs Pyrene 1.4E-03 VOCs 2-Chloronaphthalene 3.1E-08 Aliphatic C17-C34 group 8.2E-02 Aniline 3.6E-03 Aromatic C17-C34 group 2.1E-04 Aromatic C9-C16 group 7.0E-02 Aromatic Ketones 7.0E-02



Table 2-47 Chronic Multiple Pathway Risk Quotients for the Pit Lake Scenario, Residential Group (cont’d)

COPC Risk Quotient VOCs (cont’d) Formaldehyde 1.9E-01 Phenothiazine 2.7E-02 Mixture Gastrointestinal toxicants 9.4E-01 Hepatotoxicants 2.1E+00 Neurotoxicants 1.2E+01 Renal toxicants 1.7E+00 Reproductive and Developmental Toxicants 1.1E+01 NOTE: Values in bold signify the estimated exposure is equal to or less than the exposure limit. Individual constituents of the chemical mixtures are identified in Table 2-15.

2.10.5.2 Carcinogens The carcinogenic assessment for the pit lakes focused on incremental exposures associated with the predicted water quality in these lakes, primarily because of wildlife exposure to the pit lake water, given that human access will be restricted. Table 2-48 presents the ILCRs for the three carcinogenic COPCs assessed in the multiple pathway assessment. For all carcinogenic COPC, ILCR values are less than 1.0 indicating that incremental lifetime cancer risks are below the acceptable level of 1 in 100,000 risk or considered essentially negligible.

Table 2-48 Chronic Multiple Pathway Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks for the Pit Lake Scenario, Residential Group

COPC ILCR Arsenic 3.7E-01 Benzo(a)pyrene 9.5E-01 Hexachloro-1,3 butadiene 5.0E-02 NOTES: 1 An ILCR equal to or less than 1.0 signifies an ILCR that is below the benchmark ILCR of 1.0 in 100,000 (i.e., within the generally accepted limit deemed to be protective of public health). With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates exceeded the exposure limit.



2.10.6 Prediction Confidence

The uncertainty associated with the prediction of potential health risks is accommodated through the use of assumptions, which embrace a high degree of conservatism. Consequently, health risks identified by the HHRA are unlikely to be understated, but may be considerably overstated. Thus, it is important that the uncertainties and assumptions underlying the potential health risks be known and understood. The uncertainties addressed and the assumptions used in the health risk assessments are documented in Section 2.8.2.

The baseline data applied to the HHRA included measured concentrations in soil, vegetation, fish, wild game and water. Sufficient environmental data were available to confidently characterize the baseline conditions.

There is moderate to high confidence in the estimation of the future environmental conditions. This is generally consistent with the prediction confidence ratings described in the air quality and surface water quality assessments. Although there is less confidence in the estimates of the air emissions for some of the non-criteria air contaminants (e.g., manganese, chromium and nickel), this is offset by the overall conservative nature of the HHRA, specifically as this relates to the exposure and toxicity assessments.

The overall prediction confidence for conclusions on potential risks to public health in the area is high—considering the conservative assumptions used in the HHRA, such as maximum estimates of exposure and the margins of safety built into the exposure limits. As well, the findings of the HHRA are supported by a number of studies that have been conducted on air quality, water quality and public health in the Athabasca Oil Sands.

2.10.7 Management and Monitoring

2.10.7.1 Regional Several monitoring studies have been undertaken, or are underway in the region:

• A Physician Working Group has been established to develop options for a community health study for the community of Fort Chipewyan. The options were presented to the Nunee Health Authority in August 2010. This Working Group is made up of representatives from Health Canada, Alberta Health and Wellness, and doctors who are familiar with the community. In addition to this, a biomonitoring program is planned that will consider a number of exposure indices for the residents of the community. Like the community health study, the biomonitoring program will be a collaborative effort between various levels of government and the community of Fort Chipewyan (Government of Alberta 2011).

• A comprehensive contaminant load study by the Government of Alberta, which will eventually involve a comprehensive health risk assessment. As a companion piece to the contaminant load study, a Traditional Food Study is currently being conducted by staff at Alberta Environment.

• Traditional Food Studies from the CEMA have been undertaken, including a traditional food consumption study and a traditional environmental knowledge study.



Human health can be influenced by a number of environmental factors, including water quality and air quality. RAMP currently monitors receiving water quality at several sites throughout the regional municipality of Wood Buffalo, while CEMA has several initiatives to study changes in water quality effects. Participation is planned in the development of regional monitoring and environmental management measures and in regional initiatives such as RAMP, CEMA, including CEMA’s End Pit Lake Guidance Task Group and End Pit Lake Modelling Task Group.

Regarding air quality, participation is planned in CEMA’s Air Working Group (AWG), which is charged with developing recommendations for regional air quality and air-related deposition management. Support and participation is also planned in WBEA, which is responsible for regional ambient air quality monitoring in the region.

With respect to some of the non-environmental factors, several initiatives to improve health services in the region have been identified, including improving access to primary health services. Further to this, actions are being taken on a number of other infrastructure and service provider fronts which serve to improve health, including increased social housing, improved traffic infrastructure and increased quality and quantity of social and emergency services.

2.10.7.2 Project-specific Other than the project-specific monitoring and management programs already planned for surface water quality and air quality, based on the results of the HHRA, there are no additional health-related monitoring and management programs planned for the Project.

The Project-specific monitoring and management planned for surface water quality is described in Volume 5, Sections 4.6.9 and 4.12.8 (pit lake water quality).

The Project-specific monitoring and management planned for air quality is described in Volume 4, Section 3.7.

2.11 Conclusions

Overall, emissions from the Project alone, and in combination with emissions from other sources, are not expected to result in adverse health effects in the oil sands region. The changes between the Base Case and Application Case risks are generally small, suggesting that the Project is not expected to contribute appreciably to health risks in the region. Similarly, the changes between the Base Case and PDC risks are generally small. Cumulative environmental risks associated with the additional projects and activities planned for the region are not expected to result in adverse health effects.

2.11.1 Acute Inhalation Health Risks

Acute health risks associated with the air emissions from the Project were characterized by comparing predicted maximum short-term air concentrations with health-based guidelines.



The majority of the predicted acute inhalation risks, when expressed as RQ values, do not exceed 1.0 with the exceptions of acrolein, PM2.5, and NO2 in the Base Case, Application Case and PDC. For these COPCs, existing and Base Case emission sources appeared to be associated with the most risk. An analysis of the magnitude of the predicted air concentrations as well as the frequencies with which exceedances may occur, revealed a considerable degree of conservatism in the assessment. Overall, the anticipated health risks associated with short-term acrolein and NO2 exposure are expected to be low. The acute inhalation mixtures that included acrolein or NO2 (eye, nasal and respiratory irritant mixtures) are also associated with exceedances because of the predicted risk quotients for these two COPCs. However, because of the conservative nature of the HHRA, the overall risks to residents, workers and recreational users in association with exposure to these acute mixtures are expected to be low.

The incremental change between the Base Case and Application Case acute health risks are generally negligible, suggesting that the Frontier Project will have a minimal short-term effect with respect to emissions of the COPCs in air.

2.11.2 Chronic Inhalation Health Risks

Chronic health risks associated with the air emissions from the Project were characterized by comparing predicted maximum long-term air concentrations with health-based guidelines.

Overall, the majority of the predicted chronic inhalation health risks evaluated in the HHRA, when expressed as risk quotients, were predicted to be low. Two exceptions included chronic acrolein and PM2.5 exposure. Because of the conservatism incorporated into the chronic acrolein exposure limit, the predicted risks are anticipated to overstate the actual risks. The chronic nasal irritant mixture is also associated with exceedances in the HHRA, resulting from the predicted acrolein concentrations. Because of the margin of safety incorporated into the assessment, exposures to these mixtures are not expected to result in adverse health effects.

The change between the Base Case and Application Case risks for non-carcinogens are generally negligible, indicating that the Project’s emissions are not expected to affect the long-term health of the area residents or workers.

The predicted incremental cancer risks for the Project are all less than the level considered to be essentially negligible by Health Canada (2009a).

2.11.3 Chronic Multiple Pathway Health Risks

For the chronic multiple pathway assessment, the exposures are predicted to be below the health-based exposure limits for most of the COPCs, with a few exceptions. Exceedances were identified for cobalt, manganese and methyl mercury. However, the estimated daily intakes for cobalt and manganese are consistent with predicted intakes for the general population, and thus the risks are likely overstated. Overall, the predicted mercury concentrations in fish are comparable to fish collected from other areas of Alberta. The



potential for adverse health effects because of exposure to these COPCs over the long-term is considered to be low.

Chemical mixtures evaluated in the HHRA that included these three COPCs are associated with exceedances as well. These mixtures include the oral neurotoxicants, the oral reproductive and developmental toxicants, oral hepatotoxicants and renal toxicants. For all of the chemical mixtures, the degree of conservatism incorporated into the assessment for each of the individual COPCs in the mixture, as well as the assumption that the predicted adverse effects are additive, have likely resulted in the overstatement of the actual risks to these mixtures.

All predicted incremental cancer risks for COPCs with carcinogenic oral exposure limits are less than 1.0 in 100,000. Consequently, the contribution from the Project on potential cancer risks in the area in relation to human exposure via multiple pathways (e.g., food, water and soil) is anticipated to be negligible.

A pit lake scenario was evaluated in the HHRA to evaluate the potential health risks associated with exposure to water from these lakes. The exceedances predicted for the pit lake scenario are comparable to the PDC case for the residential group. In all instances, the conservative assumptions applied in the HHRA, specifically the exposure and toxicity assessments, likely resulted in the predicted risks being overstated.

2.11.4 Response to Key Questions

Table 2-49 summarizes the responses to the key questions for the HHRA.

Table 2-49 Response to Key Questions for Human Health Key Question Response

HH1: What are the risks of adverse human health effects from short-term (acute) inhalation exposure to air emissions from the Frontier Project in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments?

The short-term potential health risks associated with inhalation exposure to the COPCs from the Project and other sources are considered to be low. In the communities in the LSA, the potential for adverse health risks are low.

HH2: What are the risks of adverse human health effects from long-term (chronic) inhalation exposure to air emissions from the Frontier Project in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments?

The long-term potential health risks associated with inhalation exposure to the Project and other sources are considered to be negligible to low.

HH3: What are the long-term (chronic) risks of adverse human health effects from all possible routes of exposure combined (i.e., drinking water, soil contact, skin contact, country food ingestion, fish consumption, air inhalation) from the Frontier Project in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments?

The potential long-term risks associated with exposures to the COPCs via multiple pathways of exposure are generally considered to be low for all locations.

HH4: What are the risks of adverse human health effects from short-term (acute) inhalation exposure to air emissions from the Frontier Project under upset/emergency conditions?

Ground-level air concentrations associated with the upset scenarios are not expected to result in adverse health effects.



2.12 References

2.12.1 Literature Cited

ACGIH (American Conference of Industrial Hygienists), 2006. TLVs and BEIs Based on the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents. Cincinnati, OH.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1998. Toxicological Profile for Sulphur Dioxide. Atlanta, GA: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. December 1998.

ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Methylmercury. US Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR. 2003. Toxicological Profile for Selenium. US Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR. 2004. Toxicological Profile for Cobalt. US Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR. 2008. Draft Toxicological Profile for Manganese. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

ACB (Alberta Cancer Board). 2006. Cancer in Alberta: A Regional Picture. Division of Population Health & Information of the Alberta Cancer Board. June 2006.

ACB. 2009. Cancer Incidence in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta 1995-2006. Alberta Cancer Board, Division of Population Health and Information Surveillance.

AENV (Alberta Environment). 2009a. Final Terms of Reference. Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed UTS Energy Corporation/Teck Cominco Ltd. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project.

AENV. 2009b. Alberta Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Environment. February 2009.

AHW (Alberta Health and Wellness). 1997. Swan Hills Special Waste Treatment Centre Human Health Impact Assessment. Health Surveillance Branch, Alberta Health and Wellness. October 1997.

AHW. 2000. The Alberta Oil Sands Community Exposure and Health Effects Assessment Program. Technical Report. Prepared by a Consortium of Government, University and Corporate Partners. Alberta Health Surveillance, Edmonton, AB.

AHW. 2007. Assessment of the Potential Lifetime Cancer Risks Associated with Exposure to Inorganic Arsenic among Indigenous People Living in the Wood Buffalo Region of Alberta. Prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. March 2007.

AHW. 2009a. Human Health Risk Assessment – Mercury in Fish. The Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP). October 2009. ISBN 978-0-7785-8245-8.

AHW. 2009b. Human Health Risk Assessment Mercury in Fish in Central Alberta. Surveillance and Environmental Health, Alberta Health and Wellness. Edmonton, Alberta. March 2009. ISBN 978-0-7785-7427-9. Cited from: Health Canada. 1999. Lesser Slave Lake Health Study. Unpublished. Medical Service Branch, Health Canada.



AHW. 2009c. Human Health Risk Assessment. Mercury in Fish in Central Alberta. Lac La Nonne and Lac Ste. Anne. March 2009. ISBN: 978-0-7785-7428-6

AHW. 2009d. Human Health Risk Assessment. Mercury in Fish. Pine Coulee and Twin Valley Water Management Projects, Southern Alberta. October 2009. ISBN: 978-0-7785-8242-7

AHW. 2009e. Common Questions about Methylmercury Levels in Alberta Fish. October 23, 2009.

API (American Petroleum Institute). 2003. Robust Study of Information on Reclaimed Substances: Naphthenic Acids. Prepared by American Petroleum Institute. December 15 2003. 40 pages.

Andersen ME, Dorman, DC, Clewell HJ III, Taylor MD, Nong A. 2010. Multi-Dose Route, Multi-Species Pharmacokinetic Models for Manganese and their Use in Risk Assessment. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A. 73: 217-234.

Azadniv, M., M.J. Utell, P.E. Morrow, F.R. Gibb, J. Nichols, N.J. Roberts, Jr., D.M. Speers, A. Torres, Y. Tsai, M.K. Abraham, K.Z. Voter and M.W. Frampton. 1998. Effects of nitrogen dioxide exposure on human host defense. Inhal Toxicol 10(6): 585-601.

Barceloux DG. 1999. Cobalt. Clinical Toxicol 37(2): 201-216.

Beil, M. and W.T. Ulmer. 1976. Wirkung von NO2 im MAK-Bereich auf Atemmechanik und bronchiale Acetylcholinempfindlichkeit bei Normalpersonen [Effect of NO2 in workroom concentrations on respiratory mechanics and bronchial susceptibility to acetylcholine in normal persons]. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 38: 31-44.

Blomberg, A., M.T. Krishna, R. Helleday, M. Söderberg, M C. Ledin, F.J. Kelly, A.J. Frew, S.T. Holgate and T. Sandström. 1999. Persistent airway inflammation but accommodated antioxidant and lung function responses after repeated daily exposure to nitrogen dioxide. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 159: 536-543.

Blomberg, A., M.T. Krishna, V. Bocchino, G.L. Biscione, J.K. Shute, F.J. Kelly, A.J. Frew, S.T. Holgate and T. Sandstrom. 1997. The inflammatory effects of 2 ppm NO2 on the airways of healthy subjects. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 156: 418-424.

Boethling RS, Fenner K, Howard P, Klecka G, Madsen T, Snape JR, and Whelan MJ. 2009. Environmental persisitence of organic pollutants: guidance for development and review of POP risk profiles. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5(4): 539-556

Calabrese, E.J. 1991. Multiple Chemical Interactions. Toxicology and Environmental Health Series. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers Inc.

Cal EPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Part I: Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants. Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. March 1999.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2006. A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, MB: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

CHRIS (Chemical Hazards Response Information System). 1999. Naphthenic acid. Published by the U.S. Coast Guard.



Clemente, J.S and Fedorak, P.M. 2005. A review of the occurrence, analyses, toxicity, and biodegradation of naphthenic acids. Chemosphere 60 (5): 585-600.

Dabeka RW, McKenzie AD. 1995. Survey of Lead, Cadmium, Fluoride, Nickel and Cobalt in Food Composites and Estimation of Dietery Intakes of these Elements by Canadians in 1986-1988. J AOAC International 78(4): 897-909.

Darley, E., Middleton, J. and Garber, M. 1960. Plant damage and eye irritation from ozone-hydrocarbon reactions. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 8(6): 483-484.

Devlin, R.B., D.P. Horstman, T.R. Gerrity, S. Becker and M.C. Madden. 1999. Inflammatory response in humans exposed to 2.0 ppm nitrogen dioxide. Inhalation Toxicol. 11: 89-109.

Fengxiang, X.H., Y. Su, B.B. Maruthi Sridhar and D.L. Monts. 2004. Distibution, transformation and bioavailability of trivalent and hexavalent chromium in contaminated soi. Plant and Soil 265: 243-252.

Forastiere, F., G.M. Corbo, V. Dell'Orco, R. Pistelli, N. Agabiti and D. Kriebel. A longitudinal evaluation of bronchial responsiveness to methacholine in children: role of baseline lung function, gender, and change in atopic status. 1996. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Mar; 153(3): 1098-104.

Fort McKay IRC (Industry Relations Corporation) 2010. Fort McKay Specific Assessment. March 2010.

Ginsberg, GL and BF Toal 2009. Quantitative approach for incorporating methylmercury risks and omega-3 fatty acid benefits in developing species-specific fish consumption advice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117: 267-275.

Golder (Golder Associated Ltd.). 2003. Trace Metals in Traditional Foods within the Athabasca Oil Sands Area. Submitted to Fort McKay Environmental Services and Wood Buffalo Environmental Association, Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring Science Subcommittee. April 2003.

Golder. 2005. Acrolein Monitoring in the Oil Sands Region. Submitted to Suncor Energy Inc., Albian Sands Energy Inc., Imperial Oil Resources.

Gong, H., Jr., W.S. Linn, K.W. Clark, K.R. Anderson, M.D. Geller and C. Sioutas. 2005. Respiratory responses to exposures with fine particulates and nitrogen dioxide in the elderly with and without COPD. Inhalation Toxicol. 17: 123-132.

Goodman, J.E., J.K.Chandalia, S. Thakali and M. Seeley. 2009. Meta-analysis of nitrogen dioxide exposure and airway hyper-responsiveness in asthmatics. Critical Reviews of Toxicology 39(9): 719–742.

Government of Alberta. 2011. 2011 Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations.

Harkema JR, Carey SA, Wagner JG. 2006. The Nose Revisited: A Brief Review of the Comparative Structure, Function, and Toxicologic Pathology of the Nasal Epithelium. Toxicol Pathol 34: 252-269.

Headley J.V. and McMartin D.W. 2004. A review of the occurance and fate of naphthenic acids in aquatic environments. Jour. Environ. Sci. Health A Tox. Hazard Subst. Environ. Eng. 38(8): 1989-2010.

Health Canada. 1987. Manganese. Technical document. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/water-eau/manganese/manganese-eng.pdf.



Health Canada. 1994. Human Health Risk Assessment for Priority Substances. Canadian Communication Group Publishing. Ottawa, ON.

Health Canada. 1995. Investigating Human Exposure to Contaminants in the Environment: A Handbook for Exposure Calculations. Volume 1-3. Published by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

Health Canada. 2007. Human Health Risk Assessment of Mercury in Fish and Health Benefits of Fish Consumption. Bureau of Chemical Safety. Food Directorate. Health Products and Food Branch. March 2007.

Health Canada. 2009a. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Part I: Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA) Version 2.0. Prepared by: Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments Programme. May 2009.

Health Canada. 2009b. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Part II: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and Chemical Specific Factors Version 2.0. Contaminated Sites Division. Safe Environments Programme. May 2009.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2001. Dietary reference intakes for vitamin A, vitamin K, arsenic, boron, chromium, copper, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium, and zinc. Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Washington DC. National Academy Press. P. 10-1 to 10-22.

Jorres, R., D. Nowak, F. Grimminger, W. Seeger, M. Oldigs, and H. Magnussen. 1995. The effect of 1 ppm nitrogen dioxide on bronchoalveolar lavage cells and inflammatory mediators in normal and asthmatic subjects. Eur. Respir. J. 8: 416-424.

Kavanagh, R.J, Frank, R.A, Oakes KD, Servos MR, Young RF, Fedorak PM, MacKinnon MD, Solomon KR, Dixon DG, Van Der Kraak G. 2011. Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) reproduction is impaired in aged oil sands process-affected waters. Aquat Toxicol. 101(1): 214-20.

Kindzierski WB, Chelme-Ayala P, El-Din MG. 2010. Wood Buffalo Environmental Association Ambient Air quality Data Summary and Trend Analysis. Report Summary. Department of Public Health Sciences. School of Public Health, University of Alberta. April 2010.

Kimbell JS. 2006. Nasal Dosimetry of Inhaled Gases and Particles: Where do Inhaled Agents go in the Nose? Toxicol Pathol 34: 270-273.

Klassen, C.D. 1996. Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology – the Basic Science of Poisons. 5th ed. McGraw Hill New York: 1996.

Market Facts of Canada. 1991. Research Report: National Seafood Consumption Study. Conducted for: Health and Welfare Canada. #C388/JdeB.

Mermut AR, Jain JC, Song L, Kerrich R, Kozak L, Jana S. 1996. Trace element concentrations in selected soils and fertilizers in Saskatchewan Canada. J Environ Qual 25(4): 845-853.

MOE. 2004. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.



Morrow, P.E., M.J. Utell, M.A. Bauer, A.M. Smeglin, M.W. Frampton, C. Cox, D.M. Speers and F.R. Gibb. 1992. Pulmonary performance of elderly normal subjects and subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exposed to 0.3 ppm nitrogen dioxide. Am Rev Respir Dis 145: 291-300.

New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. 1999. Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet for Naphthenic Acid.

NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health). 1974. Criteria for a Recommended Standard - Occupational Exposure to Sulphur Dioxide. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 74-111.

Nieding, G. von and H.M. Wagner. 1977. Experimental studies on the short-term effect of air pollutants on pulmonary function in man: two-hour exposure to NO2, O3 and SO2 alone and in combination. In: Kasuga, S., N. Suzuki, T. Yamada, G. Kimura, K. Inagaki and K. Onoe (eds.). Proceedings of the fourth international clean air congress, May, Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Japanese Union of Air Pollution Prevention Associations. Pp. 5-8.

Nieding, G. von, H.M. Wagner, H. Casper, A. Beuthan and U. Smidt. 1980. Effect of experimental and occupational exposure to NO2 in sensitive and normal subjects. In: Lee, S. D. (ed.). Nitrogen oxides and their effects on health. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. P.p. 315-331.

Nieding, G. von, H.M. Wagner, H. Krekeler, H. Loellgen, W. Fries and A. Beuthan. 1979. Controlled studies of human exposure to single and combined action of NO2, O3, and SO2. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 43: 195-210.

O’Connor Associates Environmental Inc. and G Mark Richardson (O’Connor and Richardson). 1997. Compendium of Canadian Human Exposure Factors for Risk Assessment.1155-2720 Queensview Dr., Ottawa, Ontario.

RAMP (Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program). 2002. Oil Sands Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) 2001 Volume I: Chemical and Biological Monitoring. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee. June 2002.

RAMP. 2003. Oil Sands Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) 2002. Technical Report. April 2003. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee. April 2003.

RAMP. 2004. 2003 Annual Report. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee by Hatfield Consultants Ltd., Jacques-Whitford Ltd., Mack, Slack, and Associates Inc., and Western Resource Solutions. March 2004.

RAMP. 2005. 2004 Technical Report. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee by Hatfield Consultants Ltd., Jacques-Whitford Ltd., Mack, Slack, and Associates Inc., and Western Resource Solutions. April 2005.

RAMP. 2006. 2005 Technical Report. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee by Hatfield Consultants Ltd., Mack, Slack & Associates Inc., Stantec Consulting Ltd. and Western Resource Solutions. April 2006.



RAMP. 2008. 2007 Technical Report. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee by Hatfield Consultants, Stantec Consulting Ltd. Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd. And Western Resource Solutions. April 2008. RAMP 1312

RAMP. 2009. 2008 Technical Report. Prepared for the RAMP Steering Committee by Hatfield Consultants, Kilgour and Associates Ltd., Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd. and Western Resource Solutions. April 2009.

Reznik G, Stinson SF (eds). 1983. Nasal Tumours in Animals and Man. Volumes 1 and 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Reznik GK. 1990. Comparative Anatomy, Physiology and Function of the Upper Respiratory Tract. Environ Health Perspect 85: 171-176.

Rogers, V.V., M. Wickstrom, K.Liber and M.D. MacKinnon. 2002. Mammalian toxicity of naphthenic acids derived from the Athabasca Oil Sands (AOS). Toxicologist 66(1-5): 64-5.

RSCEP (Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel). 2010. Environmental and health impacts of Canada’s oil sands industry. Report. The Royal Society of Canada. The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada. December 2010.

Santamaria AB, Sulsky SI. 2010. Risk Assessment of an Essential Element: Manganese. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 73: 128-155.

Stieb, D.M., Burnett, R.T., Smith-Dorion, M., Brion, O., Shin, H.H., and Economou, V. 2008. A New Multi-Pollutant, No-Threshold Air Quality Health Index Based on Short-term Associations Observed in Daily Time-Weighted Analyses. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 58: 435-450.

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC 20450. December 1989. EPA/540/1/89002.

U.S. EPA. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Process: Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/630/P-02/002F. December 2002.

U.S. EPA. 2003. Attachment 1-3 Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) Evaluation of Dermal Contact and Inhalation Exposure Pathways for the Purpose of Setting Eco-SSLs. OSWER Directive 92857-55. November 2003.

U.S. EPA. 2004. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Volume II of II. EPA/600/P-99/002bF.

U.S. EPA. 2005a. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/630/P-03/001F. March 2005.

U.S. EPA. 2008. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Cobalt. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment.

U.S. EPA. 2010. Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for Particulate Matter. Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-452/R-10-005. June 2010.



U.S. EPA OSW (United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste). 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, Final. Database: Chemical-Specific Parameter Values. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VI. Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division. Center for Combustion Science and Engineering. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 530-R-05-006. September 2005.

U.S. NRC (United States National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

U.S. NRC. 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Committee on risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1994.

Vagaggini, B., P.L. Paggiaro, D. Giannini, A.D. Franco, S. Cianchetti, S. Carnevali, M. Taccola, E. Bacci, L. Bancalari, F.L. Dente and C. Giuntini. 1996. Effect of short-term NO2 exposure on induced sputum in normal, asthmatic and COPD subjects. Eur Respir J 9: 1852-1857.

Weber-Tschopp. A., Fischer, T., Gierer, R. and Grandjean, E. 1977. Experimentally induced irritating effects of acrolein on men. Int. Arch Occup Environ Health 40(2): 117-130.

Wein, EE, JH Sabry and FT Evers. 1989. Food health beliefs and preferences of Northern Native Canadians. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 23:177-188

Wein, EE, JH Sabry and FT Evers. 1991. Food Consumption Patterns and Use of Country Foods by Native Canadians near Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada. Arctic 44(3): 196-205.

Wein, EE. 1989. Nutrient Intakes and Use of Country Foods by Native Canadians Near Wood Buffalo National Park. Thesis presented to the Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Guelph. February 1989.

WRS (Western Resource Solutions). 2003. Development of Reach Specific Water Quality Objectives for Variables of Concern in the Lower Athabasca River: Identification of Variables of Concern and Assessment of the Adequacy of Available Guidelines. Final report Prepared for: Cumulative Environmental Management Association Wood Buffalo Region. July 2003. ACB. 2005.

Wilson, R.M. 2005. Guidance on Air Quality Risk Assessment, Version 1. Prepared for Health Canada. HECS-SEP-BC/Yukon-04/05-06. August 8, 2005.

WBEA (Wood Buffalo Environmental Association). 2007. Human Exposure Monitoring Program. Part I – Methods Report, Part II – 2005 Monitoring Year Results. February 2007.

WHO. 1979. Environmental Health Criteria 8. Sulfur Oxides and Suspended Particulate Matter. Geneva, Switzerland: International Programme on Chemical Safety, United Nations Environment Programme and World Health Organization. ISBN 92 4 154068 0.

WHO. 2000. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, Second Edition. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen.

WHO. 2004. Manganese in Drinking-water. Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.

WHO. 2006. Air Quality Guidelines: Global Update. 2005. Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide. ISBN 92 890 2192 6.



Yang, GR, Zhou R, Yin S, Gu L, Yan B, Liu Y, Liu Y, Li X. 1989. Studies of safe maximal daily dietary selenium intake in a seleniferous area in China. I. Selenium intake and tissue selenium levels of the inhabitants. J Trace Elem Electrolytes Health Dis. 3(2): 77-87.

2.12.2 Internet Sites

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2009. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) Narrative. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp. September 2009.

BCS (Bureau of Chemical Safety). Health Canada. 2004. Fish Consumption: Review and Recommendation of Current Intake Figures for Canadian Consumers. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/mercur/merc_fish_poisson-eng.php

Cal EPA. 2007. Review of the California Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide. Technical Support Document. Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. January 5, 2007. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/no2-rs/no2tech.pdf.

CCS (Canadian Cancer Society) 2010. General Cancer Statistics for 2010. Available at: http://www.cancer.ca/canada-wide/about%20cancer/cancer%20statistics/stats%20at%20a%20glance/general%20cancer%20stats.aspx.

Health Canada. 2008. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Summary Table. Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment May. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/water-eau/sum_guide-res_recom/summary-sommaire-eng.pdf

HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank). 2010. Database Online Search for Sulfur dioxide. Available at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~ME7p1C:1.

MOE (Ministry of Environment and Energy). 1994. Water Management Policies Guidelines. Provincial Water Quality Objectives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. July. Available at: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/3303e.htm#2. Accessed: Dec 07 2009.

OEHHA (California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment) 2008. TSD for Noncancer RELs. Appendix D. Individual acute, 8-hour, and chronic reference exposure levels. Acrolein (page 42). December 2008. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD1_final.pdf

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2001. Guide to Health Risk Assessment. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.OEHHA. 2008. Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) Summary. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html

RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemicals). 1997. Naphthenic acid. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemicals (RTECS). RTECS #: QK8750000. Updated October 1997.modellingAvailable at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/rtecs/qk8583b0.html. Accessed: Dec 07 2009.



U.S. EPA. 1996. IRIS Summary of Manganese (CASRN 7439-96-5). Reference Dose for Chronic Oral Exposure (RfD). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0373.htm#reforal.

U.S. EPA. 1998. Integrated Risk Information System. Profile for Beryllium. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0012.htm

U.S. EPA. 2005b. 2005 National Emissions Inventory Data & Documentation Source: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2005inventory.html.

U.S. EPA. 2011. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database on-line search. A-Z List of Substances. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm?fuseaction=iris.show SubstanceList&list_type=alpha&view

WBEA 2011. Human Exposure Monitoring. Available at: http://wbea.org/content/view/31/72/

WBEA. 2009. Excel file Downloaded: Table VI-3 (animal fish). Trace Metals in Traditional Foods in the Oil Sands Region. Available at: http://wbea.org/component/option,com_docman/ task,cat_view/gid,29/Itemid,104/. Accessed June 2011.

WHO (World Health Organization) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2007. Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Contaminants. Sixty-seventh report of the Joint FAO WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO Technical Report Series 940. Geneva. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_940_eng.pdf

Frontier Project Glossary

September 2011 Page GL-1

Glossary

µg/L micrograms per litre

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic metre

µm micrometre

μS/cm microsiemens per centimetre

3H:1V A method used to describe the steepness of a slope, e.g., 3 units horizontal to 1 unit vertical.

7Q Lowest 7-day consecutive average flow – This can be measured at different intervals. Commonly 7Q10 (10-year) but also 7Q2 (2-year) or 7Q100 (100-year).

95UCLM upper 95 percentile confidence limit on the mean

/a per annum, year

AADT average annual daily traffic

AAAQG Alberta Ambient Air Quality Guideline

AAAQO Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective

AAC annual allowable cut

AAFRD Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

AANDC Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

ABMI Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute

ACB Alberta Cancer Board

ACCS Alberta Culture and Community Spirit

ACFN Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

ACGIH American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

acidification A gradual increase in the acidity of a soil due to deposition processes. Acidification is caused by acid depositions which originate from anthropogenic emissions of three main pollutants: sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and ammonia (NH3).

ACIMS Alberta Conservation Information Management System

ACMF Air Contaminants Management Framework

Glossary Frontier Project

Page GL-2 September 2011

ACR acute-to-chronic ratio

ADAG Alberta Acid Deposition Assessment Group

adaptive management A continuous improvement process of planning, implementing and evaluating results through monitoring and research programs and developing new plans from lessons learned.

ADMF Acid Deposition Management Framework

admixing Mixing topsoil with subsoil. It is of particular concern when subsoil is of poorer quality than topsoil.

advanced low NOx burner system

A fuel burner system that produces low nitrogen oxides during combustion.

advection The process of transport of an atmospheric property solely by the mass motion of the atmosphere.

AENV Alberta Environment

AEP Alberta Environmental Protection

AESA Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture

AESO Alberta Electric System Operator

AFB absolute fractional bias

AFE authority for expenditure

aggregate Sand, gravel, crushed stone, or other granular material used for construction or industrial purposes.

AGRASID Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database

AGS Alberta Geological Survey

AHS Alberta Health Services

AIES Alberta Interconnected Electric System

alkalinity A measure of the buffering capacity of a watercourse or waterbody, it provides an indication of sensitivity to acid deposition. It is expressed in terms of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and mainly reflects the presence of carbonates, bicarbonates and hydroxides.

alluvial channel A river channel cut in alluvium. Its form reflects the load and discharge of the river rather than bedrock constraints.



alluvial fan A fan-shaped deposit of sand and gravel, usually located at the mouth of a tributary valley. Material is transported and deposited by concentrated running water; the fan is typically formed by a combination of stream flood and debris flow activity.

alluvium Loose, unconsolidated soil or sediments, eroded, deposited and reshaped by water in a non-marine setting. It typically comprises a variety of materials, including fine particles (silt and clay) and larger particles (sand and gravel).

Al-Pac Alberta-Pacific Industries Limited Inc.

ALS ALS Laboratory Group

AMD Air Monitoring Directive

AMP access management plan

ANC acid-neutralizing capacity

anion A negatively charged ion.

ANPC Alberta Native Plant Council

anthropogenic Human-made or caused

anuran Vertebrate species such as frogs and toads that have long legs specialized for hopping and no tail.

AOGCM Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model

AOP annual operating plan

AOSA Athabasca Oil Sands Area

AOSERP Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research Program

APEGGA Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta

Application Case Assessment case that includes developments and activities in the Base Case with the Frontier Project added.

AQA air quality assessment

AQG air quality guideline

AQHI Air Quality Health Index

aquiclude An impermeable stratum or material that acts as a barrier to the flow of groundwater.



aquifer A rock mass or layer containing saturated permeable material that can yield useable quantities of water to wells and springs (i.e., that can both store and transmit water). Aquifers are generally thought of as groundwater reservoirs that are extensive and that may be overlain or underlain by a confining layer.

aquifuge A geologic unit that does not transmit or contain water.

aquitard A material of intermediate permeability between an aquifer and an aquiclude. An aquitard allows some measure of leakage between the aquifers it separates.

arboreal Species that are adapted to living and moving in trees.

ARC Alberta Research Council

archaeological potential The likelihood that unrecorded archaeological sites are present in a given area. Its determination is often used to guide field studies.

areal evapotranspiration The amount of water that evapotranspirates to the atmosphere from a specified area, in a given time interval, and under specific energy and climatic conditions.

argillaceous Rocks or sediments made of (or largely composed of) clay-sized particles or clay minerals.

ARM Athabasca River Model

ash Non-combustible residue from the combustion of coal.

ASIR Age-standardized incidence rates

ASL ambient sound level – Background sound or noise that includes transportation sources, animals, nature and non-ERCB regulated industrial facilities. It does not include industrial noise subject to Directive 038. The ASL does not include any energy-related industrial component and must be measured without it.

ASL acid-sensitive lakes

ASMR Age-standardized mortality rates

ASP area structure plan

asphaltenes A component of crude oil, heavy oil or bitumen that is insoluable in paraffinic solvents and is soluble in carbon disulphide.

ASRD Alberta Sustainable Resource Development

assessment case A description of environmental and development conditions at certain times that provides context from which to evaluate the environmental effects of the Project. For this assessment, three development scenarios are considered: Base Case, Application Case and Planned Development Case.



assessment node A specific geographical site selected to quantify changes in watercourses and waterbodies in the local and regional study areas.

ATC Athabasca Tribal Council

atm-m³ atmospheres metres cubed

ATPRC Alberta Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registery

attenuation A reduction of an effect (e.g., sound intensity or streamflow) by various means.

ATV all-terrain vehicle

AVI Alberta Vegetation Inventory

avulsion event A rapid abandonment of an existing river channel and a formation of a new river channel.

AWG Air Working Group

AWI Alberta Wetland Inventory

B/L battery limit

bajada A broad, gently inclined, alluvial piedmont slope extending from the base of a mountain to a basin and formed by the lateral coalescence of a series of alluvial fans. The term is usually restricted to constructional slopes of intermontane basins.

bankfull condition The water level or stage when a stream, river or lake is at the top of its banks.

basal aquifer Water-bearing strata located at the lowest portion of a stratigraphic unit.

Base Case Assessment case that includes developments that are currently operating or under construction, activities approved but not yet constructed, or those likely to be approved in the near future.

baseflow That part of river flow that is not attributable to direct runoff from rainfall or from melting snow.

baseline Conditions at a reference point in time with which later conditions are compared to assess the degree and character of change.

BATEA Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

bbl barrel, petroleum (42 U.S. gallons)

bbl/cd barrels per calendar day



bbl/sd barrels per stream day

BC base cation

BCF bioconcentration factor

bcm bank cubic metres

BCS Bureau of Chemical Safety

benthic The ecological region at the lowest level of a sea or lake, including the sediment surface and some sub-surface layers. Organisms living in this zone are called benthos.

BFW boiler feed water

bitumen A naturally occurring viscous mixture of complex hydrocarbons, with a specific gravity of about 1.0, that in its naturally occurring state will not flow to a well.

bitumen froth Air-entrained bitumen with a froth-like appearance that is the product of the primary extraction and flotation bitumen recovery steps in the water-based extraction process.

bitumen grade The amount of bitumen in oil sands usually expressed as a percentage by weight.

BLM Biotic Ligand Model

blowdown Water drained from the cooling tower basin to ensure, through make-up, that the circulating water quality remains acceptable.

BMC benchmark concentration

BMD benchmark dose

BOD biochemical oxygen demand

BOF base of feed – the bottom of the mineable ore zone based on the TV:BIP cut-off ratio applied such that each ore zone in the vertical column passes the cut-off ratio on an incremental and cumulative basis.

bog Mineral-poor, acidic and peat-forming wetlands that receive water only from precipitation.

boiler feed water Water that meets required purity specifications and is used in a steam generator to produce steam.

BP before present

braid delta A flat-topped and triangular or fan-shaped landform, made up of gravel, sand and finer sediment deposited by a glacial meltwater river discharging into a lake or the ocean. Commonly grades into a braidplain.



breccia A rock composed of angular fragments of broken previously existing rocks. These lithic fragments are typically held together by a mineral cement or by a fine-grain matrix.

brunisols Upland forest soils that have a thin leaf litter layer overlying reddish brown, sandy materials. They generally are prone to drought due to coarse texture and have low fertility levels.

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes

BTF Biotransfer factor

bw/d body weight per day

BWS basal water sands – McMurray Formation sand layers that are water saturated, and which occur in the interval between Devonian surface and oil sands.

CAC criteria air contaminant – contaminants for which there are provincial or federal air quality objectives or standards.

CaCO3 calcium carbonate

CAEAL Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories

CALA Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc.

calendar day rate The average daily rate achieved (typically over a one-year period), determined by multiplying stream day rate (the maximum sustainable rate) by the process system availability factor.

Cambrian Rocks that were laid down or otherwise formed between 570 and 510 Ma are assigned to a chronostratigraphic unit known as the Cambrian System.

Canadian Shield Also known as the Precambrian Shield, it is an ancient platform of impermeable rock occurring in the Fort McMurray region.

CANMET Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology

CAPEX capital equipment expenditure

CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Carboniferous Rocks that were laid down or otherwise formed in the timespan between approximately 360 Ma (end Devonian) and 290 Ma (begin Permian) are assigned to a chronostratigraphic unit known as the Carboniferous System.

CASA Clean Air Strategic Alliance

CaSO4 calcium sulphate, gypsum

cation A positively charged ion.



CC&R closure, conservation and reclamation

CCAB Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business

CCC criterion continuous concentration

CCEMA Climate Change and Emissions Management Act

CCL compacted clay liner

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

cd calendar day

CEA cumulative effects assessment

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

CEB chronic effects benchmarks

CEM continuous environmental monitoring

CEMA Cumulative Environmental Management Association

CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system

center reject Lean oil sand waste located below top of ore and above base of feed.

CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act

CFA consolidated frequency analysis

CFHCP conceptual fish habitat compensation plan

CFT centrifuged fluid tailings – a process whereby fluid fine tailings, to which flocculent has been added, is processed in centrifuges to produce a partially dewatered underflow and an overflow containing mostly water. Nominal underflow solids concentration from the centrifuges is 55% on a mass basis.

CGKN Canadian Geoscience Knowledge Network

CH4 methane

CHD closed hydrocarbon drain

CHRS Canadian Heritage Rivers System

CL critical load

clast An individual constituent or fragment of a sediment or rock, produced by the weathering of a larger rock mass.



clastic Relates to a sediment or sedimentary rock whereby the particles (e.g. sand grains) have been derived from pre-existing rocks or minerals and have been transported some distance from their place of origin.

CLI Canada Land Inventory

closed-circuit operation A system in which potentially contaminated water is not discharged into a receiving stream but is reused (recycled).

closure The Project phase after shutdown of operations and the site is remediated to a stable productive condition. Also used to describe the point when regulatory certification is received and the area is returned to the crown.

cm/s centimetres per second

CMC criterion maximum concentration

CMS Completions Management System (software)

CMT construction management team

CNR Canadian National Railway

CNRL Canadian Natural Resources Limited

CNS central nervous system

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

COD chemical oxygen demand

cogeneration The co-production of electricity and steam from the same unit or plant.

coke A high-carbon byproduct produced by delayed or fluid coking in the process to upgrade heavy hydrocarbons to useable products.

colluvium Materials deposited as a result of downslope movements due to gravity (e.g., rockfalls, landslides and debris flows). Colluvial deposits are composed of rock fragments of all sizes. Deposits are generally poorly sorted and poorly consolidated.

compaction The process of pore space reduction in soil or sediments from heavier overlying material weighing the soil down.

condensate extraction pump A pump that conveys the water out of the condenser hotwell and through the low pressure feed water system to the deaerator



conductivity Measure of the ability of water to carry an electrical charge, determined by the concentration of dissolved substances. The major ions associated with conductivity are bicarbonate, carbonate, magnesium, calcium, sodium, chloride, potassium and sulphate.

cone of depression A depression in the groundwater surface created when groundwater is pumped from a well. It is typically shaped as an inverted cone.

confined aquifer Where an aquifer is encased above and below by a layer of comparatively low hydraulic conductivity.

connate water Water entrapped in the pore space of a sedimentary deposit.

CONRAD Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development

Consortium Alberta Oil Sands Tailings Consortium

constructed reclamation lake

A lake associated with external tailings areas and closure seepage remediation systems. For the location of constructed reclamation lakes for the Frontier Project, see Volume 1, Figure 13.6-4.

COPC chemical(s) of potential concern

COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

CPDFN Chipewyan Prairie Dené First Nation

CPLA central pit lake A

CPLB central pit lake B

CPUE catch-per-unit-effort

CR carcinogenic risk

Cretaceous Period A period of geologic time 145 to 65 million years before present.

CRISP Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan

critical load The highest annual input of a pollutant that, at steady-state, does not cause unacceptable ecological or human health effects.

CSE culturally significant ecosystem – Those areas within Fort McKay First Nation traditional lands that exhibit high value for renewable resource harvesting.

CSL comprehensive sound level – The sound level that is a composite of different airborne sounds from many sources far away from and near the point of measurement; used to determine whether a facility is complying with Directive 038.



CSM cutter soil mixing

CSSC Canadian System of Soil Classification

CST coarse sand tailings – A coarse tailings stream from the cyclone underflow, consisting predominantly of water and sand but including a fluid fine tailings component. Fines content of CST deposits is typically in the 4-5% range, corresponding to a sand-to-fines ratio of about 20:1. CST is a segregating stream which produces FFT. Fines content of the CST stream is about 9%, corresponding to a sand-to-fines ration of about 10:1.

CSTA coarse sand tailings area

CT consolidated tailings – A mixture of sand and fines to which a coagulant has been added. Upon deposition, the sand and fines do not segregate and water is released.

CTL coniferous timber licence

CV coefficient of variation

CWP construction work package

CWS Canada-wide standard

D/S downstream

d50 The average particle size is defined as the diameter when 50% mass of the material particles have a larger climate.

dam3 Equals 1,000 cubic metres.

daytime adjustment An adjustment that allows a 10 dBA increase because daytime sound levels are generally about 10 dBA higher than nighttime values.

dB decibel – Logarithmic units associated with sound pressure level, sound power level or acceleration level.

dBA A-weighted sound level expressed in decibels; where the sound pressure signal has been filtered using a frequency weighting that mimics the response of the human ear to quiet sound levels. The resultant sound pressure level is representative of the subjective response of the human ear.

dBC C-weighted sound level expressed in decibels; often used in low-frequency noise analysis as the filtering effect is nearly flat at lower frequencies.

DCS distributed control system

DDA dedicated disposal area – An area dedicated solely to the deposition of captured fines using a technology or a suite of technologies.



deaerator A device in which entrained air, oxygen, carbon dioxide and other non-condensable gases are removed from a process stream, such as bitumen froth, boiler feed water and steam condensate.

dean stark A laboratory procedure used to determine the bitumen, water and solids content of oil sands.

deep-seated Large landslide with a slide plane located at depth, rather than near the landslide surface. The slide moves as a coherent unit along this slide plane.

deglaciation The uncovering of an area from glacier ice as a result of melting of the glacier.

DEM Digital Elevation Model

depositional habitat Still or slow-moving water where substrate consists of fine sediments such as sand, silt or clay. Organisms in these environments mostly live on top of the substrate or burrow into it.

depressurization The process of reducing the pressure in an aquifer, by withdrawing water.

development area Any area altered to an unnatural state. This represents all land and water areas altered by activities associated with the development of the Project oil sand leases.

Devonian Period A period of geologic time 400 Ma to 360 million years before present.

dewatering Removal of groundwater from a geological formation using wells or drainage ditch systems. The sediment is thus drained to an unsaturated condition.

DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada

diagenesis The historical sequence of all chemical, physical and biological changes experienced by a sediment after its initial deposition and during and after it becomes a rock.

diamicton Very poorly sorted sediment, composed of a particle sizes ranging from silt/clay to boulders. Coarse fragments are contained in a fine earth matrix.

dilbit Diluted bitumen

diluent A light liquid hydrocarbon added to bitumen to lower viscosity and density for the purpose of pipeline transportation.

disconformity A significant interruption in the sequence of sedimentary rocks, generally by a considerable interval of erosion (or sometimes of nondeposition), and usually marked by a visible and irregular or uneven erosion surface.



dispersivity Represents the mechanical mixing caused by groundwater velocity variations associated with the pores. Mixing that occurs along the flowpath is called longitudinal dispersion. Likewise, divergence across the flowpath results in transverse mixing, and this dilution effect is called transverse dispersion. Dispersion can be caused by mechanical mixing of groundwater flow through a porous medium and by chemical diffusion.

disposal area An area dedicated to disposal of overburden and interburden. The disposal area can be located either inpit or expit.

disturbed land Area where vegetation, topsoil or overburden is removed, or where topsoil, overburden and tailings are placed (as in mining).

DL detection limit

DLN Dry low NOx technology

DO dissolved oxygen – The amount of oxygen that is dissolved in a liquid, usually represented in parts per million (ppm).

DOAG Delegation of Authority Guideline

DOC dissolved organic carbon

DQRA detailed quantitative risk assessment

drawdown The amount that the groundwater level is lowered when water is pumped from a well.

dried fines Materials created by the treatment of fluid fine tailings (FFT) in the thin-lift drying (TLD) process.

drill hole A hole drilled into the ground using a drilling rig; used to determine the surficial geological stratigraphy.

dS/m decisiemen per metre (a measure of soil salinity)

DTED daily threshold exposure dose

DUA domestic use aquifer (or domestically useable aquifer)

dustfall The total amount of fine particles deposited by the atmosphere and falling onto the surface.

dv deciview

E Simpson’s evenness index

EC Eymundson Creek

EC25 Effective concentration (25% test population); a measure of chronic toxicity



EC50 Effective concentration (50% test population); a measure of chronic toxicity

echolocation Process by which bats emit high-frequency sound waves to search for food and navigate at night. It involves sensing the pattern of the reflected sound waves.

Eco-SSL ecological soil screening level

ETDA external tailings disposal area – An area dedicated solely to deposition of captured fines.

EDI estimated daily intake

EDP emergency dump pond

EH&S environment, health and safety

EIA environmental impact assessment – A review of the effects or changes that a proposed development will have on the local and regional environment.

ELC ecological land classification

EMB energy and mass balance

emergency pond A pond located in the main plant facilities or along a pipe corridor to accommodate the emergency dumping of vessels or pipelines (mainly slurry containing) in the event of a plant upset or shutdown.

energy equivalent sound level (Leq)

An energy-average sound level taken over a specified period of time. It represents the average sound pressure encountered for the period. The time period is often added as a suffix to the label (e.g., Leq(24) for the 24-hour equivalent sound level). Leq is usually A-weighted. An Leq value expressed in dBA is a good, single value descriptor of the annoyance of noise.

entrainment Occurs when a fish is drawn into a water intake and cannot escape.

entrenchment ratio A measure of the vertical confinement (bank height) of the stream.

eolian Pertaining to sediment deposited by wind. Dunes and sheet sand deposits are made of sand, while silt forms blankets called loess.

EP engineer/procurement

EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency

EPC engineer/ procure/construct (subcontractor)

EPCM engineer/procure/construction management (subcontractor)

EPEA Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act



epicontinental sea A sea on a continental shelf or within a continent.

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (community)

ERA ecological risk assessment

ERCB Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (formerly the Energy Utilities Board or EUB) – The agency responsible for deciding whether proposed oil, gas and oil sands projects should be approved and for many aspects of energy industry regulation.

erosion risk An expression of the inherent sensitivity of a soil to erosion or its maximum erosion potential. Infiltration capacity and structural stability are considered the most important factors in controlling water erosion. Soil erosion risk increases as fine sand or silt content increases. As organic matter depth and vegetation cover increases, erosion risk decreases.

ERP emergency response plan

ERT electrical resistivity tomography

ESL effects screening level

ESA environmentally significant area (also: environmental site assessment)

esker A long, narrow ridge-like body of stratified sand and gravel that was deposited by a subglacial or englacial steam.

ET extraction and tailings – An area in the main plant facilities that deals with initial bitumen extraction, tailings processing, and tailings lines to the external tailings areas.

ETA external tailings area - Tailings deposition area external to pit 1 and 2. Typically required in the initial years of mining and then as water clarification or storage facilities for longer term.

EUB [Alberta] Energy Utilities Board

euphotic The upper portion of the water column in a lake or river where light can still be found and photosynthesis can occur.

evaporite A sedimentary rock composed of minerals produced by evaporation of a saline solution.

evapotranspiration The combined losses of water from the earth’s surface to the atmosphere through evaporation and transpiration. A major climatic process that return precipitated water to the earth’s atmosphere as vapour.

evenness Degree to which taxa of the same level are equal in abundance; a measure of biodiversity.

existing conditions A reference condition or reference snapshot that approximately represents the conditions present today. This snapshot is characterized by baseline studies that were undertaken for the Project.



F1 fraction 1 (of a petroleum hydrocarbon target and scan), also F2, F3, F4

FAA U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

facies An observable characteristic of a rock or stratigraphic unit, such as overall appearance or composition.

fairway The main channel of a river or bay.

false negative The probability of concluding that a substance is absent when it is actually present.

false positive The probability of concluding that a substance is present when it is actually absent.

fan A gently sloping, fan-shaped mass of detritus forming a section of a low-angle cone; common where there is a notable decrease in gradient.

FAT factory acceptance testing

fault zone A fault where the displacement between two main rock masses occurs via several contributory minor faults rather than one single or main dislocation.

FB fractional bias

FCSS family and community support services

FCV final chronic value

feed water heater A heat exchanger used to increase the temperature of the condensate and feed water.

FFT fluid fine tailings – Any fluid discard from bitumen extraction facilities containing more than 1 mass percent suspended solids and which behaves like a fluid. FFT comprises both thin fine tailings (TFT) and mature fine tailings (MFT).

FGA Facies Group Association

FHCL fish habitat compensation lake – acronym only refers to the Frontier Project FHCL

FHOSP Fort Hills Oil Sands Project

FHP final harvest plan

fibric A textural descriptor applied to organic materials. The least decomposed organic material: it consists largely (>40%) of fibres whose botanical origin are readily identifiable; they retain their character when rubbed.

field parameter Parameters that are routinely measured in the field using calibrated meters (e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity).



fines Mineral solids with particle sizes equal to or less than 44 microns based on sieve-hydrometer analysis or a method approved by the ERCB. (ERCB Directive 074).

fines cake Any concentrated fines material, with low SFR, that is produced by application of fines management technology such as CFT, MFTD, PATLD or TLED.

fines content Ratio of fines to total mineral solids on a mass basis.

flocculant A chemical agent that enhances the solids removal rate by increasing the particle size; used to aid in the settling or consolidation of suspended material and the clarification of water and wastewater.

fluid tailings Any fluid discard from bitumen extraction facilities containing more than 1 mass percent suspended solids and having less than an undrained shear strength of 5 kPa. (ERCB Directive 074).

fluvial deposits Sediment transported and deposited by streams and rivers, including floodplain deposits, river terraces and alluvial fans.

fluvial outwash sands Sand that is removed or washed out from a glacier by meltwater streams (i.e. a fluvial process) and deposited in front of or beyond the margin of a glacier.

Fm (Geological) formation – A formally named and defined body of rock strata.

FMA forest management agreement

FMFN Fort McKay First Nation

FMP Forest Management Plan

FMU forest management unit

FMZ fish management zone

fossiliferous Sedimentary rocks containing fossils.

FRD Fire Road

freshet A sudden rise in the level of a stream caused by heavy rains or the rapid melting of snow and ice.

froth Air-entrained bitumen with a froth-like appearance; the product of primary extraction and flotation bitumen recovery in the water-based extraction process.

FRQ frequency analysis

fry The period from hatching until one year; also referred to as young-of-the-year.



FSMB fish scale marker bed – A regional stratigraphic marker in the western interior of Canada.

FSU froth separation unit

FT froth treatment – An area in the main plant facilities that receives froth generated in the extraction area and further treats it by adding solvent and heat to separate the bitumen from the water and solids, recover the solvent and send the treated tailings to the external tailings area.

FTT froth treatment tailings

fugitive emissions Trace amounts of uncombusted hydrocarbon substances that are released into the atmosphere during normal operations (except those from stacks and vents). Typical sources include gaseous leakage from valves, flanges, drains and volatilization from ponds.

FVC forced vital capacity

FWMIS Fish and Wildlife Information Management System

g/cc grams per cubic centimetre

g/s grams per second

GCL geosynthetic clay liner

GCM global climate model

GCOS Great Canadian Oil Sands

GDP gross domestic product

geomorphic survey A survey of the earth’s shape, surface configuration and material.

geomorphology The scientific study of the formation, alteration and configuration of landforms and their relationship with underlying structures.

GHG greenhouse gas – Any gas in the atmosphere that absorbs infrared radiation (e.g., water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halogenated fluorocarbons, ozone, perfluorinated carbons and hydrofluorocarbons). GHGs are transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing terrestrial (infrared) radiation, and in turn re-emit it into the atmosphere. The net effect is a trapping of energy and a tendency to warm the earth's atmosphere, land and water surfaces.

GIR government and industrial relations

GIS geographic information system

GJ gigajoule (109 Joules)

GJ/h gigajoules per hour



GJ/MWh gigajoules per megawatt hour

GJ/sd gigajoules per stream day

glacial till Unsorted and unstratified material deposited by a glacier; consists of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders.

glaciofluvial deposits Sediment formed by meltwater issuing from or within a glacier. The deposits are stratified and can occur in the form of outwash plains, deltas, kame terraces and eskers.

glaciogenic A sediment or terrain feature that owes its origin to glacial processes.

glaciolacustrine deposit Material ranging from fine clay to sand derived from glaciers and deposited in glacial lakes by water originating mainly from the melting of glacial ice.

glauconitic Containing glauconite, a blue-green or yellow-green mineral, typically found in shallow marine sedimentary rocks.

gleysols Mineral soils formed in wet areas with a water table within 1 m of the surface. These soils exhibit characteristics caused by chemical reducing conditions and tend to be too wet for good tree growth.

glide Shallow (less than 0.3 m deep), wide, slow-flowing (less than 0.2 m/s), non-turbulent water lacking a defined thalweg. Substrate is usually silt/sand but may sometimes consist of gravel to small cobble.

gneiss A rock that is formed by regional metamorphism. Bands of granular minerals alternate with bands of flake-like minerals showing a planar parallelism.

GPS global positioning system

ground truthing Field observations and measurements done to determine whether a map or interpretation of an aerial or satellite image accurately represents features on the surface of the earth.

groundwater Subsurface water that occurs beneath the water table, in sediments or soils and geologic formations that are fully saturated.

GTG gas turbine generator

GWC general works contractor (all construction disciplines)

H horizontal

H2S hydrogen sulphide

ha hectare

habitat potential The likelihood that a particular habitat can satisfy the requirements of a given life stage of a species.



HADD harmful alteration, disruption and destruction

hardness Measure of the amount of calcium and magnesium compounds in water, and other dissolved minerals (usually combined with carbonates or sulphates). Expressed as milligrams per litre (mg/L) calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

haze A general reduction in visibility over a wide geographic area that cannot be attributable to a single source and is usually due to cumulative emissions from multiple sources.

HAZOP hazard & operability (study)

HC5 Value Concentration that is hazardous to no more than five percent of species in the community

HD-MAPP high-definition mapping and applications

HDPE high-density polyethylene

HEC human equivalent concentration

HEMP human exposure monitoring program

HEP habitat evaluation procedure

heritage value A measure of the relative importance of a palaeontological or archaeological resource, collection or site as determined by the palaeontological consultant during the palaeontological assessment.

HHRA human health risk assessment

historic archaeological sites Can be Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal and date from the time of European contact until approximately 1960.

historic period sites Can include structures (e.g., homesteads, cabins, and forts), artifacts (e.g., industrial and folk-manufactured items made of metal, glass, ceramic, stone and other materials) or features (e.g., trails, foundations and campsites).

historical resources Works of nature or of man, valued for their paleontological, archaeological, prehistoric, historic, cultural, natural, scientific or aesthetic interest.

HMW high molecular weight

Holocene Epoch The epoch of the Quaternary Period of geologic time following the Pleistocene Epoch (from present to about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago).

Hp horsepower

HRIA historical resources impact assessment – A review of the effects that a proposed development will have on the local and regional historic and prehistoric heritage of an area.



HRMB Historic Resources Management Branch

HRSG heat recovery steam generation

HRV historic resource value

HSI habitat suitability index

HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN model

HTFT high temperature froth treatment

HU habitat unit

hummocky Irregular hillocks and hollows with slopes generally steeper than 10%; a landscape formed of small hills and depressions created by glacial deposition.

HVAC heating, ventilation, air conditioning

Hz Hertz – Unit of measurement of frequency, numerically equal to cycles per second.

hydraulic conductivity (K) The permeability of soil or rock to water.

hydrocyclone A device for separating sand from extraction tailings slurry using a rotating (cyclone) action. Water, fine tailings and residual bitumen separate to the overflow, and sand flows out the bottom of the device in a dense slurry.

hydrogeology The science dealing with the occurrence of surface and groundwater and the related geologic aspects of surface water.

hydrology The science of waters of the earth, their occurrence, distribution, and circulation; their physical and chemical properties; and their reaction with the environment, including living beings.

hygric Soil moisture conditions where water is removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for most of the growing season.

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

I/O input/output

IC25 inhibitory concentration (25% of test animals)

IC50 inhibitory concentration (50% of test animals)

ID interim directive

IDA internal disposal area

IDF intensity-duration-frequency



IFD issued for design

IFE issued for estimate

IFN instream flow needs – Minimum flow of water required for river habitat; used to define periods when river water withdrawls are not permitted

IFR issued for review

igpm Imperial gallons per minute

IHS inclined heterolithic stratification

ILCR Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

ILM integrated land management

impingement Occurs when an entrapped fish is help in contact with a water intake screen and is unable to free itself.

interbedded Beds lying between or alternating with others of different character; especially rock material or sediment laid down in sequence between other beds, such as interbedded sands and gravels.

interburden Formation material located between layers of oil sands ore that is removed for disposal to a waste area.

interfingering Contrasting rock types that change laterally from one type to another, forming interpenetrating wedges.

interflow A lateral movement of water that directly enters a stream channel or other body of water without having occurred first as surface flow. Usually measured in cubic metres per second.

interfluve The area between rivers, especially the relatively undissected upland or ridge between two adjacent valleys containing streams flowing in the same general direction.

intra-orebody aquifer Water-containing sand lenses (i.e., water-wet sand with little or no oil) commonly present within the oil sands.

IOB intra-orebody

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IR Indian Reserve

IRC Industry Relations Corporation

IRP Integrated Resource Plan

ISO International Organization for Standardization



isopach map A map that shows the thickness distribution of a geologic unit by means of contour lines of thickness.

isopleth A line on a map connecting locations having the same value of a given parameter.

isostatic rebound The gradual upward recovery of continents that have been depressed under the weight of continental ice sheets. This happens once the ice melts and continues for some time afterward.

ISQG Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines

ITA internal tailings area

JME Jackpine Mine Expansion

joint A planer fracture in a rock; across the fracture, there is no displacement.

Jurassic Rocks that were laid down or otherwise formed between 200 Ma to 210 Ma (end Triassic) and 135 Ma to 145 Ma (early Cretaceous).

juvenile stage (fish) From one year old until a fish becomes sexually mature.

ka kilo annum (1,000 years before present)

Keq H+/ha/a kiloequivalents of hydrogen ions (protons) per hectare per annum (a measure of acid deposition)

kettle Steep-sided depressions formed by ice melt beneath sediment (most commonly beneath glaciofluvial sediment). A kettle with water in it is called a kettle lake.

kg/a kilogram per annum

kg/h kilogram per hour

kg/MWh kilogram per megawatt-hour

kJ kilojoule

kJ/h kilojoules per hour

kJ/kg kilojoules per kilogram

kJ/kWh kilojoules per kilowatt-hour

Kow octonol-water partition coefficient

kPa kilopascal

kV kilovolt

kW kilowatt



kWh kilowatt hour

L/d litres per day

L/s litres per second

Lacustrine A surficial geologic formation produced by, related to or formed in a lake.

lamination A discrete layer of sedimentary rock less than 1 cm thick, differing from other layers in colour, composition or particle size.

LAR Lower Athabasca Region

LARP Draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan

LC25 lethal concentration (25% test animals); a measure of acute toxicity

LC50 lethal concentration (50% of test animals); a measure of acute toxicity

LCC land capability class

LCCS land capability classification system

LEE low energy extraction

Leq energy equivalent sound level

LFN low frequency noise – Noise that ranges from infrasonic sounds (<20 Hz) up to 100 Hz.

LIDAR light detecting and ranging

lineament A geological feature that displays a line-like character.

LIS low impact seismic

lithology Defining characteristics of rocks, granular soil or sediment (e.g., mineralogy, grain size, texture and other physical properties).

littoral The zone in a lake that extends from the shoreline to the maximum water depth where rooted aquatic plants have sufficient light to become established.

LLD legal land description

LLDPE liner low-density polyethylene

LMW low molecular weight

LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level

LOC license of occupation



LOEC lowest-observed-effects concentration

lower heating value The heating value of a fuel that does not account for the effects of water vapour formed during the combustion process.

low-flow event A period when low-flow conditions occur in a watercourse for a defined period of time.

lowstand A geologic system where the sea level is below the shelf edge.

LSA local study area – The maximum area where project-specific environmental effects can be predicted or measured with a reasonable degree of accuracy and confidence. Different LSAs are defined for each discipline.

LSAS Land Status Automated System

LSD legal subdivision

LTFT low-temperature froth treatment

LTRN Long-Term River Network

luvisols Upland forest soils with a leaf litter layer over a gray washed-out layer, 15 to 20 cm thick, over grayish brown clayey subsoil. These are normal soils with respect to moisture and nutrient supply.

m amsl metres above mean sea level

m bgl metres below ground level

m/s metres per second

m3/d cubic metres per day

m3/s cubic metres per second

m3/sd cubic metres per stream day

Ma mega annum (millions of years before present)

macrophyte An aquatic plant that grows in or near water and is either emergent, submergent or floating.

MAH Municipal Affairs and Housing

make-up water The process water required to replace that lost by evaporation or leakage in a closed-circuit, recycle operation.

maltene A component of bitumen that is not associated with asphaltenes.



mass movement Any process or sediment resulting from dislodging and downslope transport of soil and rock material as a unit under direct gravitational stress. The process may include slow displacement (e.g., creep, solifluction) or rapid movement (e.g., landslides, rock slides and falls, avalanches).

MATC maximum allowable toxicant concentration

matrix The groundmass of smaller grains in which larger particles are supported.

MAWP maximum allowable working pressure

maximum build-out All planned disturbances for a development.

MBCA Migratory Birds Convention Act

Mbcm million bank cubic metres

MCFN Mikisew Cree First Nation

MCR maximum continuous rating

MD municipal district

MDA main development area – Includes the North pit, Main pit and other main development facilities and landforms.

MDA-SDA Corridor Area connecting the main development area (MDA) with the south development area (SDA).

MDL method detection limit

MDP Municipal Development Plan

measureable parameter The metric used to measure and evaluate a key indicator.

MeHg methyl mercury

member A formally defined portion of a geological formation.

meq/L milliequivalents per litre (or molar equivalent per litre)

merchantable timber Trees that are cut down during clearing and can be marketed.

mesic A descriptor of soil texture or moisture regime; organic material that is at a stage of decomposition that is intermediate between fibric and humic.

metamorphism The process by which a pre-existing rock derives a new form that reflects mineralogical, chemical or meso to micro structural changes. The change(s) are usually promoted by temperature, pressure, shearing stresses and geochemical conditions.



meta-sedimentary rocks Sedimentary rocks that were altered by metamorphic processes in Precambrian times.

MFT mature fine tailing

MFTD mature fine tailings drying – A process whereby fine fluid tailings, to which a flocculent has been added, is spread in thin lifts and then worked with large equipment using land-farming techniques to achieve a solids concentration in the 60% to 80% range by weight.

MGA Municipal Government Act

MIE municipal impact exploration

mineral soil A soil consisting predominantly of, and having its properties determined predominately by, mineral matter. Usually contains less than 30% organic matter, but may contain an organic surface layer up to 0.4 m thick.

MIP mixed-in-place

MISAC minimal impact seismic and access construction

mist net Refers to a net suspended between two poles made out of fine nylon mesh that is used to capture flying bats.

MJ/h megajoule per hour

MLL miscellaneous land lease

MLP miscellaneous lease permit

Mm3 million cubic metres

mm Hg millimetre of mercury

MOA memorandum of agreement

model domain The region of interest for a numerical model (e.g., groundwater flow or air quality).

MODFLOW regional groundwater flow model

moisture regime The supply of moisture available for plant growth at a site.

mol mole

moraine An accumulation of earth, generally with stones, carried and finally deposited by a glacier.

MOSA Mineable Oil Sands Area

MPa megapascal



MPMO major project management office

MPOI maximum point of impingement

MRL minimum risk level

MSL mineral surface lease (also maximum sound level)

MtCO2e/a million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent per annum

muskeg A soil type comprised primarily of decayed vegetation prevalent in wet boreal regions.

mustelid Mammals belonging to the weasel family (e.g., fisher, marten, otter and wolverine).

MVA megavolt ampere

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt-hour

NA naphthenic acids

NAABA Northeastern Alberta Aboriginal Business Association

NAAQO National Ambient Air Quality Objective

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NAD North American Datum

NEB National Energy Board

NFC no fish captured

NFPA National Fire Prevention Association

NG natural gas

ng/L nanograms per litre

NGO nongovernmental organization

NIA Noise Impact Assessment - Identifies the expected sound level emanating from a facility

NLP Northern Lights project

nm nanometre

NO nitrogen oxide



NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level

NOEC no-observed-effect concentration

non-sport fish species not specifically targeted by sport fishers, including species such as white and longnose suckers.

NOX oxides of nitrogen (NO, NO2) (gas), or all nitrogen species (e.g., NOx, N2O, N3O)

NPRI National Pollutant Release Inventory

NPV net present value

NRBS Northern River Basins Study

NRC National Research Council

NSMWG NOx-SOx Management Working Group

NTP National Toxicology Program

NTS National Topographic System

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

nutrient regime The relative supply of nutrients available for plant growth at a given site.

NWPA Navigable Waters Protection Act

O3 ozone

O & M operation and maintenance

obliquity The tilt of earth’s axis of rotation. It is one of three parameters that contribute to major ice age fluctuations of climate.

OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

OHS occupational health and safety

oil sands A sand deposit containing a heavy hydrocarbon (bitumen) in the pore space of sands and fine-grained particles.

OLM ozone limiting method

OMF Ozone Management Framework

OMOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment

OPEX operating expenditure(s)



OPP ore preparation plant – Consists of: truck dump, crusher, surge bin (stockpile) conveyors, rotary breakers and conditioning line.

Ordovician Rocks that were laid down or otherwise formed between 510 Ma (end Cambrian) and 440 Ma (begin Silurian).

organic compound Includes petroleum hydrocarbons, phenols, PAHs and naphthenic acids; these may originate from natural sources, such as eroding oil sands deposits (e.g., PAHs) or released from industrial sources.

organic soil Soils with peat accumulations of 40 cm or more, found in bogs, fens and swamps. Water tables are commonly shallow or at the surface.

orogency The process of generation of mountains.

orthogonal joint sets Two sets of systematic joints that have propagated at right angles.

OSCA Oil Sands Conservation Act

OSDG Oil Sands Developers Group

OSL oil sands lease

OSRIN Oil Sands Research and Information Network

OSSP off-stream storage pond

OSTC Oil Sands Tailings Consortium

OTHWG once-through hot water generator

OTSG once-through steam generator

overburden The soil, sand, silt or clay that overlies an oil sands deposit and must be removed to expose ore.

P&ID piping & instrument diagrams

PA/GA public address/general alarm

PAA Project assessment area – Includes the Project disturbance area (PDA) and areas where vegetation clearing may occur but is not currently planned.

PAC polycyclic aromatic compounds

PAD Peace-Athabasca Delta

PADD Petroleum Administration for Defence District

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PAI potential acid input



PAL protection of aquatic life

palaeoclimate The prevailing climate at a given point in time in Earth’s geologic past.

palaeontological potential The likelihood of encountering fossils of high heritage value in a particular geological unit.

palaeosol A soil that was formed in the past. Paleosols are usually buried beneath a layer of sediments and are thus no longer being actively created by soil formation processes like organic decay.

palaeotopography The landscape or topographic relief of an area at a particular time in Earth’s geologic past.

PANH polycyclic aromatic nitrogen heterocycles

parabolic dune A sand dune with a long, scoop-shaped form, convex in the downwind direction so that its horns point upwind, whose ground plan, when perfectly developed, approximates the form of a parabola.

parent material The unconsolidated and more or less chemically weathered mineral or organic matter from which a soil’s solum is developed by pedogenic processes.

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PCN primary care network

PDA Project disturbance area – Includes the Project area and reflects the anticipated limit of disturbance at the completion of operations in 2057. It includes all lands subject to direct disturbance from the Frontier Project and associated infrastructure. This includes the surface ground area within the Project site that has either been previously cleared and/or disturbed (brownfield) or will be cleared and/or disturbed for construction and operation of the mine.

PDC Planned Development Case – Assessment case that includes developments and activities included in the Application Case with other planned developments that are reasonably foreseeable added.

PDD public disclosure document

PDS plant design system (drafting software by Intergraph)

peat Unconsolidated soil material consisting largely of undecomposed, or slightly decomposed, organic matter accumulated under conditions of excessive moisture.

PEF potency equivalence factor

PEL probable effects level

pelagic Of or relating to the open ocean.



PEP project execution plan

Permian Rocks that were laid down or otherwise formed between 290 Ma (end Carboniferous) and 245 Ma (begin Triassic) are assigned to a chronostratigraphic unit known as the Permian System.

PFD process flow diagrams

Phanerozoic All rocks that were laid down or otherwise formed between end Precambrian and present are assigned to a chronostratigraphic unit known as the Phanerozoic Eon.

PHC petroleum hydrocarbon

piezometer A slimline (small diameter, e.g. 52 mm) well used to obtain information about groundwater surface elevations, hydraulic gradients and direction of flow, and hydraulic conductivity.

pit lake A man-made lake used to fill a mine pit area.

PLA public land area

PLC programmable logic control

Pleistocene Epoch The epoch of the Quaternary Period of geologic time (from about 10 to 12,000 to 1.6 million years ago), following the Pliocene Epoch and preceding the Holocene.

plume blight Visual impairment of air quality that manifests itself as a coherent plume.

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 µm in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in diameter

PMF predicted maximum flow

PO purchase order

POI point of impingement

polishing pond Pond designed to remove suspended sediment from waters before discharge into a receiving environment.

ponding The natural formation of a pond by an interruption of the normal runoff.

POP preferred operating procedure (also: persistent organic pollutants)

porewater Water contained between grains of a soil or rock.

porosity The percentage of the bulk volume of a rock or soil that is occupied by interstices minute openings or crevices), whether isolated or connected.



post-glacial Pertaining to the time interval since the disappearance of glaciers or ice sheets from a particular area; similar to the Holocene Epoch.

potential evapotranspiration The maximum quantity of water capable of being evaporated from the soil and transpired from the vegetation of a specified area, in a given time interval, under existing climatic conditions, and without limiting available surface moisture.

power generator A device that converts rotational energy into electricity

ppb parts per billion

PPC plume path coefficient

ppm parts per million

PPRTV Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value

PQRA preliminary quantitative risk assessment

PR piperock

Precambrian Rocks formed before the start of the Cambrian Period (540 million years ago). It covers about 90% of all geologic time.

precession The trend in the direction of the Earth's axis of rotation, with a period of roughly 26,000 years. It is one of three parameters that contribute to important climatic and geologic cycles.

precontact archaeological sites

Include remains (e.g., stone tools, butchered bones, fire-broken rock and features such as hearths) resulting from the traditional occupation of Alberta by Aboriginal people before contact with European traders in the late 1700s.

predevelopment A reference condition or reference snapshot, pre-1965, used to describe conditions and provide a reference from which to assess Project effects. Pre-1965 was chosen as a period prior to oil sands development activity

PRM Pierre River Mine

proglacial Immediately in front of or just beyond the limit of a glacier or ice sheet.

Project area Includes all major works, such as mine pits, reclamation material storage, external tailings areas and bitumen processing.

PSC primary separation cell

PSD particle size distribution – The relative amounts of particles present, sorted according to size.

PSL permissible sound level – The maximum sound level that a facility should not exceed at a point 15 m from the nearest or most affected dwelling unit.



PSV (or PSC) primary separation vessel (or cell) – Primary extraction process equipment used in the first stage of separation of bitumen from the mineral solids contained in the oil sands feed. The PSV is generally situated after size-reduction equipment, such as rotary breakers, and before froth flotation equipment.

PSV U/F primary separation vessel underflow – Also referred to a “coarse tailings”, PSV U/F is a mixture of sand, fines, water and bitumen that can be used for sand dyke or beach construction.

PT proficiency testing

pulverizer Grinding machine used to crush coal to a very fine powder.

PWMP process water management pond

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

quartzose A substance which contains quartz as a principal constituent.

Quaternary Period The most recent geologic time period, encompassing the last 2.6 million years. The Quaternary includes the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs.

RAC Regional Advisory Committee

RADS Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome

rain shadow An area having relatively low precipitation because a barrier causes prevailing winds to lose part or most of their moisture.

RAM analysis reliability, availability and maintainability analysis

RAMP Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program

rankine cycle A thermodynamic cycle which converts heat into work. The heat is supplied externally to a closed loop, which usually uses water as the working fluid.

RCM regional climate model

RCT recombined tailings – A tailings stream formed by the recombination of coarse sand tailings and thickened tailings.

RCTA recombined tailings area

RCW reclaim water – Water recovered from the tailings. Reclaim water will be pumped from external tailings area to recycle water pond.

receptor A permanent or seasonally occupied human dwelling that is regularly in use for at least six weeks per year.



recharge When water is added to an aquifer directly (i.e., rainfall or snowmelt enters the subsurface and moves downward) or indirectly (i.e., following runoff to low lying areas, lakes or rivers with subsequent infiltration of water into the subsurface).

recharge zone An area where geologic conditions are favourable for an infiltrating rainfall and snowmelt component to enter an aquifer, coinciding with a prevailing downward component of hydraulic head.

reclamation The process of stabilizing and returning disturbed land to a state of equivalent or better capability, compared to predisturbance conditions.

recycle water Recycle water is a combination of reclaim water and river water makeup. Recycle water is used for process water needs, especially slurry preparation.

regeneration wastewater Water that is rejected from the water treatment process.

regolith A general term for the blanket of fragmental and unconsolidated material that nearly everywhere forms the surface of the land.

regosols Young soils with minimal soil formation and weakly developed horizons or layers.

REL Reference Exposure Level

relative humidity The ratio of actual water vapour in the air to the amount needed to saturate the air at the same temperature. Evaporation and evapotranspiration rates depend on the relative humidity of the air.

RENEW Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Initiative

RfC reference concentration

RfD reference dose

RFMA Registered Fur Management Area

RFO ready for operations

RFP request for proposal

RFQ request for quotation

Rge range

riffle Partially to totally submerged pebble to cobble substrate, causing moderate turbulence and ripples in watercourses, with little to no whitewater

riparian Of, relating to, or located on the banks of a river or stream.

RIVM Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and the Environment



RIWG Regional Issues Working Group

RMA resource management area

RMS reclamation material stockpile – An area for storing materials to be used during reclamation operations.

RMWB Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo

RNV range of natural variability

RO reverse osmosis – A method of water treatment.

RoC record of communication

Roche Moutonnee A glacially moulded rock mound exhibiting an asymmetrical form with a gently sloping and smoothly abraded, up-valley face contrasting with the steeper, broken, ice-plucked, down-valley face.

rotary dump unloading A system used to unload coal railcars by rotating them upside down.

ROW right of way

RPD relative percent difference – A measure of precision.

rpm revolutions per minute

RQ risk quotient

rs Spearman rank order correlation coefficient

RSA regional study area – The area within which cumulative environmental effects are likely to occur, depending on physical and biological conditions (e.g., air sheds, watersheds, seasonal range of movements, population unit), and the type and location of other past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects or activities. Different RSAs are defined for different valued environmental components.

RsC risk-specific concentration

RSC reduced sulphur compound

RsD risk-specific dose

RSDS Regional Sustainable Development Strategy

RTMP Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology

runoff Water from rain or snow that flows over land to waterbodies or watercourses.

run-on Similar to runoff, but referring to water that flows onto a property or any piece of land of interest.



RUS resource user survey

RUSLEFAC revised universal soil loss equation for application in Canada

RWG Reclamation Working Group (of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association)

RWI river water intake

S storativity

SAGD steam-assisted gravity drainage

salinity The amount of soluble salts (for soil, it is expressed as electrical conductivity in dS/m).

SAR sodium adsorption ratio

SARA Species at Risk Act

SCA soil correlation area

SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition

SCO synthetic crude oil – A mixture of hydrocarbons, similar to crude oil, derived from upgrading bitumen from oil sands.

SCR selective catalytic reduction – A method of removing NOx from a flue gas stream.

SCRAM U.S. Support Centre for Regulatory Air Models

SCS soil conservation service

SD standard deviation

SDA south development area – Includes the Equinox pit and other south development facilities and landforms.

sediment yield The volume or weight of sediment transported from a watershed per unit area in one year.

seepage The slow movement of water or other fluid through a porous material, such as soil. Also refers to an area where water oozes from the ground.

segregation Separation of fine and coarse fractions in tailings, during or after deposition. (ERCB Directive 074).

SEIA Socio-economic Impact Assessment

sep cells separation cells – Large, cylindrical open-top vessels that are used as the primary bitumen extraction device in water-based extraction processes.



SEWG Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group

SF slope factor

SFR sand-to-fines ratio

SIL soil intensity level

Silurian Rocks that were laid down or otherwise formed between 440 Ma (end Ordovician) and 440 Ma (begin Devonian).

sinkhole A depression in the landscape in a karst region. Drainage is subterranean, and a funnel shape is common.

sinuosity Ratio of stream length to valley length.

SIRs supplemental information requests

SL sound level – the A-weighted sound pressure level expressed in dBA.

SLERA screening-level environmental risk assessment

slope stability The susceptibility of slope to landslides and the likelihood of slope failure.

slump Material that has been deposited at the base of the slope by gravity during an event where part of the hillside has collapsed.

SLWRA screening-level wildlife risk assessment

SMA surface mineable area

SMC surface material licence

SME surface material exploration

SML surface mineral lease

SMP stormwater management plan

SMV species mean value

snapshot A point in time, often defined by a specific project milestone, and serving as a specific reference point to assess environmental conditions.

SO2 sulphur dioxide

SO4 sulphate

soil moisture deficit The difference between the amount of water in the soil and the amount of water that the soil can hold.



soil profile A vertical section of the soil through all its horizons and extending into the parent material.

soil series Subdivisions of soil families based upon relatively detailed properties, including colour, texture, structure, consistence, thickness, abundance of coarse fragments, depth, concentration of soluble salts, pH, and lithology.

SOPC substance of potential concern

SOX sulphur oxide

species occurrence Refers to the presence of a species. It indicates the use of the area by a species for all or part of its life cycle. Species occurrence can be used to confirm presence; however, a species not detected does not confirm species absence.

species richness The number of species or genera in a given area.

sport fish Species which are actively sought by sport or recreational fishers, including northern pike, whitefish, walleye, arctic grayling and trout.

SQG soil quality guideline

SQS supplier quality surveillance – Specific QA criteria inspections and tests executed on behalf of Owner.

SSD Species Sensitivity Distribution – A statistical extrapolation method that uses data from multiple species to derive a guideline.

SSHE safety, security, health & environment

STEL short-term exposure limit

STG steam turbine generator

storativity The volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage due to pressure change.

stormwater Water that is generated by rainfall and is often routed into drain or retention systems in order to prevent flooding.

stratification The horizontal or inclined layered or bedded nature of a sequence of sedimentary strata.

stratigraphy The succession and age of strata of rock and unconsolidated material. Also concerns the form, distribution, lithologic composition, fossil content and other properties of the strata.

stratum A sheet-like body or layer of sedimentary rock.

stream day rate The maximum sustainable daily rate (design capacity) for a process system.



stream seomorphology The study of the shape, form and bed material of watercourses and their interpretation based on geology, climate and hydrology.

streamflow The movement of surface water in a stream channel, usually measured in cubic metres per second (m3/s). It describes the rate of flow past a specific location along the watercourse.

subglacial Processes that occur in the bottom part of a glacier or ice sheet or immediately beneath a glacier.

subhygric Soil moisture conditions where water is removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for a significant part of the growing season.

sublimation The transfer of frozen water (i.e., ice, snow and frost) from the land surface to the gas phase in the atmosphere without passing through an intermediate liquid phase.

subnivean Small mammals such as mice, voles and shrews that rely on winter snow cover for survival.

subsoil The B horizon of soils with distinct profiles. In soils with weak profile development, the subsoil can be defined as the soil below the plowed soil (or its equal of surface soil) in which roots normally grow.

sub-watershed A smaller geographic section of a larger watershed unit, generally corresponding to an area drained by a small tributary.

subxeric Soil moisture conditions where water is removed rapidly in relation to supply.

surface flow A portion of water from precipitation that flows over a land to watercourse or waterbody, usually measured in cubic metres per second (m3/s).

surficial aquifer A deposit containing water at or near the surface of the earth.

surrogate substance A parameter that has conservative attributes relative to the substance of interest. Typical attributes of a surrogate are that it (i) is more persistent in groundwater than the chemical of more direct interest, (ii) will be conveyed by the groundwater without retardation, and therefore it will arrive first, and (iii) is present at comparatively high concentrations, and therefore a high level of laboratory accuracy is better assured. The surrogate should be present in the same source as the substance or substances of direct interest. Chloride is a key surrogate for the oil sands region.

suspended sediments Particles of matter such as sand or silt, often originating from the streambed, which become suspended in the water column as the water flows downstream. This is usually reported as total suspended solids (TSS).

SVOC semi-volatile organic compounds

SWMF Surface Water Quality Management Framework



SWQG surface water quality guideline

SWWG Surface Water Working Group

t Tonne – a metric ton (1,000 kg)

t/a tonnes per annum

t/cd tonnes per calendar day

t/d tonnes per day

t/d/MWh tonne per day per megawatt-hour

t/h or tph tonnes per hour

t/sd tonnes per stream day

t/sh tonnes per stream hour

tailings A byproduct of the bitumen extraction process composed of water, sand, fines and residual bitumen. (ERCB Directive 074).

tailings ponds Man-made impoundments structures used to contain tailings.

tailings release water Water expelled from tailings during the course of consolidation.

T-Alkalinity total alkalinity

taxonomic richness The number of different species or genera within a community.

TC tolerable concentration

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TCU total colour unit

TDGR Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Regulation

TDI tolerable daily intake

TDP total dissolved phosphorous

TDS total dissolved solids – Measure of the combined content of all inorganic and organic substances contained in a liquid in a molecular, ionized or colloidal form; usually defined as a measure of all solids small enough to pass through a filter of two micrometres.

TEEM Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring Program

TEF toxic equivalency factor

TEH total extractable hydrocarbons



TEMF Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework

TEQ toxic equivalency quotient

terrain integrity The stability of the landscape over time with respect to such factors as mass wasting (including erosion), settlement, seismic motion, tsunami activity and acid rock drainage. The capacity of the soils, surficial materials and bedrock to resist potential failure along a slope.

TFA temporary field authorizations

TFT thin fine tailings – A tailings product which forms from the segregation of tailings streams upon or after deposition. A portion of the fines from the tailings stream is trapped in coarse beach deposits but the remaining fines are dispersed and remain in suspension in water. TFT typically has a solids concentration of between 1% and 30% by weight.

thalweg Path of the deepest thread of water in a watercourse.

THC total hydrocarbon compound

till Unsorted, unstratified glacial drift, deposited directly by and underneath a glacier without subsequent reworking by meltwater, and consisting of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders.

tillite A consolidated or indurated sedimentary rock formed by lithification of till, especially pre Pleistocene till.

TJ terajoule

TK traditional knowledge – Aboriginal knowledge and understanding of traditional resource and land use, harvesting and special places. May also be referred to as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).

TKN Total Kjeldahl nitrogen

TLD thin lift drying – The process used to increase the solids concentration of fluid fine tailings (FFT) through a combination of drainage and evaporation to create a material capable of supporting terrestrial reclamation.

TLDA thin lift drying area

TLED thin lift evaporative drying – A process whereby mature fine tailings (MFT) is spread in thin layers and allowed to dry prior to placement of another lift over the first. TLED does not use flocculent.

TLU traditional land use – Activities involving the harvest of traditional resources including hunting and trapping, fishing, plant harvesting, cultural activities, or any travel related to these activities. Land use maps document locations where the activities occur or are occurring.

TLUOS traditional land use and occupancy study

TLV threshold limit value



TMAC Trace Metals and Air Contaminants Group

TN total nitrogen

TOC total organic carbon

top of ore For each column of blocks in the three-dimensional geology and mining models, the top of the first zone passing ore cut-off grade (7 wt% bitumen) and minimum mining thickness (3 m) criteria.

top reject Lean oil sand waste (below ore grade) located above the top of ore and below top of McMurray Formation.

top waste Mine waste located above the top of McMurray Formation (i.e. above the top reject).

TOR terms of reference

total alkalinity Measure of the ability of water to neutralize acids to the equivalence point of carbonate or bicarbonate (pH 4.5).

Total P total phosphorous

total particulate matter Airborne particulate matter with an upper size limit of approximately 100 micro metre (µm) in aerodynamic equivalent diameter.

toxicity Relating to harmful effects caused by a chemical substance present in water or sediments.

TPA trapline agreement

TPU tainting potential units

traditional trail A trail identified as an historic or current travel route by Aboriginal peoples.

trafficable deposit A deposit typically created through a process involving self-weight consolidation, enhanced drainage and/or capping, with minimum shear strength of 5 kPa one year after deposition. The trafficable surface layer must have a minimum undrained shear strength of 10 kPa five years after active deposition. (ERCB Directive 074)

transmissivity The volume of water that will move in a porous medium per unit time under a unit hydraulic gradient through a unit width (at right angles to flow) over the whole thickness of the aquifer (e.g., m3 per m per day, or simply m2/day).

Triassic Rocks that were laid down or otherwise formed between 245 Ma (end Permian) and 200Ma to 210 Ma (begin Jurassic).

tributary A watercourse that flows into a larger (parent) watercourse or a waterbody.

trophic level A group of organisms that occupy the same position in a food chain.



TRS total reduced sulphur

TRU true colour unit

TRV toxicological reference value

TSP total suspended particulates

TSRU tailings solvent recovery unit – A process unit designed to remove solvent from the froth treatment plant tailings stream.

TSRUT tailings solvent recovery unit tailings - Tailings generated by the froth treatment process. The stream consists of fine and coarse solids, water, rejected asphaltenes, and low levels of process solvent.

TSS total suspended solids – Solid particles in a water sample that do not pass through a standard size filter. Usually measured in milligrams per litre (mg/L).

TT thickened tailings – tailings produced using a thickener with the assistance of a flocculant acting on a hydrocyclone overflow stream in the tailing preparation process. The TT stream is designed to contain a high concentration of fines and to form a non-segregating deposit that releases additional water and consolidates to form a reclaimable surface over time.

TTA thickened tailings area (associated with ETA 1)

TUa acute toxicity unit CO2e

TUc chronic toxicity unit

turbidity The cloudiness or haziness of a fluid caused by individual particles (suspended solids) that are generally invisible to the naked eye; The measurement of turbidity is a key test of water quality.

TUS traditional use study

TV:BIP Ratio total volume to bitumen in place – The ratio of the total volume mined to the bitumen-in-place in the mined ore (m3/m3).

Twp township

U.S EPA OSW United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

U/S upstream

unconformity A substantial break or gap in the geologic record where a rock unit is overlain by another that is not next in stratigraphic succession, such as an interruption in the continuity of a depositional sequence of sedimentary rocks.



upgraded product Often referred to as synthetic crude oil, upgraded product is bitumen that has undergone alteration to improve its hydrogen-carbon balance to a lighter specific gravity product.

upgrader A facility for processing heavy oil or bitumen to reduce the density and viscosity of oil, and otherwise improve the value of the oil.

URE unit risk estimates

US NRC United States National Research Council

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

V volt

VCE vegetation control easement

VFD variable frequency drive – A method of controlling an electric motor by controlling the frequency of the electric power supplied to it.

viewshed A binary raster indicating the visibility of a viewpoint for or from an area of interest. A pixel with a value of unity indicates that the viewpoint is visible from that pixel, while a value of zero indicates that the viewpoint is not visible from the pixel.

visual aesthetics A perception of visual beauty based on character, quality and scenic value.

visual receptor An area of interest that could be adversely affected by visual changes caused by development. Receptors are used to measure change and evaluate potential visual effects.

VOC volatile organic compound

VRU vapour recovery unit

Vug A small cavity in rock.

W/m² watt per square metre

W4M West of the Fourth Meridian

water yield Runoff contributed by the entire land area to a watercourse, including groundwater outflow that appears in the watercourse. Water yield is the volume of runoff from a watershed per unit area in one year.

WBEA Wood Buffalo Environmental Association

WBNP Wood Buffalo National Park



WBS work breakdown structure

WCR [Alberta] Waste Control Regulation

WDS [Alberta Environment’s] Water Data System

wetted width The area in which water touches a stream channel’s walls.

WFP work face planning

WHMIS Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System

WHO World Health Organization

winterkill When decomposition of organic material and use by fish and other organisms depletes oxygen to a point where fish begin to die.

WMF Water Management Framework

WMP waste management plan

WMU wildlife management unit

WQG Water Quality Guideline

WRLIC water resources licence

WSC Water Survey of Canada

WT whole tailings

wt% weight-percent

WTA waste transfer area

ZOI zone(s) of influence

Frontier Project - Volume 7: Health - Alberta...YOU ARE HERE Volume Number Volume Section 1 Project...

Documents

Transcript of Frontier Project - Volume 7: Health - Alberta...YOU ARE HERE Volume Number Volume Section 1 Project...