Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil Quality Remediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites in Canada

In response to a growing public concern over the potential environmental and human health-related effects associated with contaminated sites, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) initiated a five-year program in 1989 entitled the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program (NCSRP) for remediation of high priority contaminated sites in Canada

This report was prepared under this program to provide government environmental officers and site managers with guidance on the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites in Canada. A national framework for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites has been developed to provide interested parties with general guidance on the use of the various common scientific tools that have been developed to support contaminated site assessment and remediation. More specific guidance on the use of each of these tools is provided in a series of technical reports that have been prepared for the NCSRP or are in preparation. Together, these tools provide virtually all of the technical guidance required to efficiently and effectively assess and remediate contaminated sites in Canada

The CCME Subcommittee for Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites recommends specific procedures for deriving remediation objectives for soil using the guideline-based approach. These recommendations include procedures for evaluating the applicability of the generic guidelines to individual contaminated sites and for modifying these guidelines to account for a typical or unique site characteristics. In addition, examples to illustrate the application of the recommended procedures for deriving site-specific remediation objectives have been presented. However, the procedures developed to support the derivation of remediation objectives are not intended to supersede management decisions taken under the authority of the agency responsible for remediation of a contaminated site

Foreword

This report is a guidance manual for developing site-specific remediation objectives for contaminated sites designed to help provincial, territorial, and federal government staff, and other site managers as they address contaminated site remediation.

A general introduction to the scientific tools developed to help environmental quality managers in the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites in Canada is provided in Section 1. These tools were originally developed under the auspices of the CCME for the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program (NCSRP). The framework in Section 1 explains how these scientific tools may be used at various stages in site remediation. One of the major tools will be the set of effects-based environmental quality guidelines, developed using A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines (CCME 1996a). It is intended that these generic guidelines will be applicable as the basis for remediation objectives at many sites. Some sites, however, may have conditions that require greater investigation before the generic guidelines are used as the basis for setting the remediation objective. Therefore, Section 2 provides guiding principles and explanations on when the generic guidelines may be adopted, when they may be modified, and when further investigation through risk assessment may be done. Section 3 provides a theoretical example of the recommended procedure.

This guidance manual is based on a review of similar guidance in other world jurisdictions combined with the cumulative experiences of environmental and human health managers in Canadian jurisdictions. The process described herein is still evolving as are the science and management of contaminated sites. Therefore, this guidance manual is expected to be revised in order to reflect new advances. Comments from readers are welcomed. In this way, the experience of others may lead to improved environmental management.

Acknowledgments

The Subcommittee members gratefully acknowledge the work of Philippa Cureton and Sylvain Ouellet (Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Environment Canada), who prepared the report.

This report is based on discussion, information, and guidance from members of the CCME Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites. The members include Dr. Connie Gaudet (Environment Canada), Dr. Lee Hofmann (Previous Chair, Ontario Ministry of Environment), M. Michel Beaulieu and Mme Renée Gauthier (Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec), Dr. Glyn Fox (B.C. Ministry of Environment), Ms. Simone Godin (New Brunswick Department of Environment), and Dr. Ted Nason (Current Chair, Alberta Environment). The Subcommittee members also thank Mr. Micheal MacFarlane (British Columbia Ministry of Environment) for comments on earlier drafts.

This final report has evolved based in part on discussions on an earlier report by Donald D. MacDonald (MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.) and André Sobolewski (Microbial Technologies).

Glossary

Terminology with respect to contaminated site assessment may vary between individual jurisdictions and agencies. These terms are even used differently by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) in its various programs. The definitions here were adapted from CCME (1991a) and apply in the context of this guidance manual.

assessment criteria - approximate background concentrations or approximate analytical detection limits for contaminants in soil and water.

background concentration - representative ambient level for a contaminant in soil or water. Ambient concentrations may reflect natural geologic variations in relatively undeveloped areas or the influence of generalized industrial or urban activity in a region. Background concentrations should be determined from an area at the site under investigation, or at a nearby site, sufficiently removed from the source of contamination to be safely presumed to have been unaffected by contaminant release.

CCME Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites - a federalBprovincial working group to advise on the development and application of scientific tools for the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program. Herein referred to as the Subcommittee.

check mechanism - a subcomponent in the soil protocol that considers primarily cross-media transfers from soil to other media, pathways, or receptors.

contaminant - any chemical substance whose concentration exceeds background concentrations or that does not naturally occur in the environment.

criteria - generic numerical limits or narrative statements intended as general guidance for the protection, maintenance, and improvement of specific uses of soil and water. Previous CCME publications about the NCSRP used the term criteria; however, this term will be replaced by guidelines for consistency with other environmental media (water, sediments, etc.). Interim criteria refer to the CCME (1991a) set of values, which were adopted from other jurisdictions and are not effects-based.

final soil quality remediation objective (SQRO) - a numerical value for a substance; a remediation target that considers the recommended SQRO as well as technical, economic, and socio-political conditions.

guidelines - the numerical limits or narrative statements that are recommended to protect and maintain the specified uses of water, sediment, or soil. The guidelines that are developed in other CCME programs are functionally equivalent to the criteria used in the NCSRP.

interim criteria - the criteria that have either been adopted directly from existing criteria currently being used in other Canadian jurisdictions or derived using incomplete toxicological and/or environmental fate data sets as found in CCME (1991a). Interim criteria are reviewed and modified as new information becomes available.

modified soil quality remediation objective - the numerical value for a substance that uses the generic criteria as the basis for deriving a site-specific objective, is in the process of being cross-checked against the scientific considerations surrounding the human and environmental health conditions at the site, but has not yet been put forward as the recommended soil quality remediation objective.

objective - a numerical limit or narrative statement that has been established to protect and maintain a specified use of soil or water at a particular site by taking into account site-specific conditions. Unless otherwise specified, objectives refer to the concentration of a substance in bulk soil.

orphan site - a contaminated site for which the responsible party cannot be identified or appears to be incapable of initiating or unwilling to initiate remedial measures.

parameter - an element in an equation, the value of which may be modified at the site-specific level within limits. Parameters that may be modified include organic carbon levels in soil that affect attenuation of organic contaminants, and body weight or soil ingestion rate of human receptors.

polluter pays - the principle that the polluter is responsible for correcting or remediating whatever environmental degradation his or her actions have caused.

recommended soil quality remediation objective - the numerical value for a substance that reflects cross-checking of the scientific considerations surrounding the human and environmental health conditions at the site. The recommended value, together with documentation on how it was determined, is put forward as the starting point in determining a cleanup target that considers environmental and human health as well as technical, economic, and socio-political conditions.

remediation -the management of a contaminated site for prevention, minimization, or mitigation of damage to human health or the environment. Remediation options may include, but are not limited to, direct physical actions, such as treatment, removal, or destruction of contaminants, or other on-site risk management solutions, such as capping or containment of contaminants.

remediation guidelines - guidelines that are intended for generic use and do not address site-specific conditions. They are considered generally protective of human and environmental health for specified uses of soil and water at contaminated sites.

site - a property or legal parcel of land, that may include adjacent legal properties when affected by off-site movement of contaminants.

soil protocol - A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines (CCME 1996a). Herein referred to as the soil protocol.

SQG_E and SQG_HH - the soil quality guidelines considering "environmental effects" and those considering "human health" effects, respectively, as put forward under the soil protocol.

standard - a legally enforceable numerical limit or narrative statement, such as in a regulation, statute, contract, or other legally binding document, that has been adopted from a criterion or an objective.

1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL CONTAMINATED SITES REMEDIATION PROGRAM

1.1 Background

In 1989, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) announced the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program (NCSRP) to address human health and environmental quality concerns at contaminated sites in Canada. This federal-provincial/ territorial program was intended to support the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites by providing a common framework and scientific tools for the consistent, scientifically defensible, and cost-effective assessment and remediation of contaminated sites. Specifically, it was intended to:

1.2 The National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program's Approach

In April and November of 1990, the CCME held multistakeholder workshops to discuss key factors developing a national framework for dealing with contaminated sites. Three key recommendations from these workshops indicated the need for:

Workshop participants also indicated that effective implementation of these major program objectives would require the development of a number of supporting scientific tools.

As a result of the workshops, the CCME established the Subcommittee on the Classification of Contaminated Sites and the Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites. Together these subcommittees have initiated a broad range of scientific tools, including:

In addition to these tools, other CCME and federal government documents may help the site manager in the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites in Canada. These include:

Together, these tools provide the key supporting scientific information that is available for assessing and remediating contaminated sites in Canada. The guidance on setting site-specific objectives for contaminated sites provides a context for these tools and is intended to be used together with these tools in the contaminated site assessment and remediation process.

1.3 National Framework for Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sites

The basic framework for site assessment and remediation (originally developed under the NCSRP) consists of progressing from the generic to the site-specific: from guidelines through objectives to jurisdictional application (Figure 1). Jurisdictional applications may include, but are not limited to, environmental protection orders, directives, approvals, or standards.

The national framework for assessment and remediation of contaminated sites is more detailed (Figure 2). As indicated, this guidance manual focuses on the development of site-specific objectives from generic environmental quality guidelines. As well, conditions where site-specific risk assessment may be appropriate are outlined.

1.3.1 Nomination of Contaminated Sites

The first step in the overall contaminated site assessment and remediation process is the nomination of sites for consideration. In general, this tends to be a relatively informal procedure that is implemented by jurisdictional agencies. For example, federal or territorial agencies may have information suggesting that sites under their jurisdiction have been contaminated by historical land use activities.

Likewise, provincial agencies may nominate candidate sites directly or may consider nominations from third-party interests. Typically, these sites would be identified based on information demonstrating that the site is significantly contaminated (e.g., soil chemistry data). However, any newly identified site may also be nominated if it has a number of similarities to other known contaminated sites. Sites nominated under the NCSRP were classified, using the National Classification System, to assess the need for further action to mitigate risks to human health and the environment. The classification system has general application beyond the NCSRP.

1.3.2 National Classification System for Contaminated Sites

Site classification is an important component of the overall contaminated site assessment and remediation process. In Canada, a national classification system for contaminated sites (CCME 1992) has been developed to provide a simple, consistent, and reliable basis for classifying sites in terms of the potential risks they represent to the environment and human health. The system provides a convenient basis for assessing the need for remediation at individual sites, for establishing the relative priority for implementing remedial measures among the sites that have been classified, and in the case of the NCSRP, for determining whether individual sites qualify for NCSRP funding. This classification system was specifically developed for the classification of sites having contaminated soils and groundwater. Detailed guidance on the use of the National Classification System is provided elsewhere (CCME 1992); therefore only a brief overview of this system is provided here. To complete the classification, information about the site is required (see the Appendix).

Classification of contaminated sites using the National Classification System is a five-step process that requires technical expertise and professional judgement (see Figure 3).

Critically evaluate information to determine if the minimum data requirements for site classification have been met. Information required includes:

If all of the requisite data are available, it is possible to proceed with the site classification. If not, additional data must be collected at the site to obtain the missing information.

Though the classification system was designed to use generally available information, it may be necessary to generate supplemental information on the contaminated site, if the checklist in Step 2 cannot be completed. While common environmental survey techniques are appropriate for collecting much of the required data at contaminated sites, sampling programs to establish the nature, extent, and severity of contamination at these sites must be designed to generate data of sufficient quality and quantity to support the site classification.

In response to the need for high quality data, the CCME has prepared a guidance manual to support sampling, chemical analysis, and data management in the NCSRP (CCME 1993a). While this manual provides a consistent basis for conducting data collection programs (including sampling and chemical analysis), medium-specific protocols (i.e., for water, sediment, and soil) that have been developed for broader applications should also be considered in the design and implementation of monitoring programs (e.g., CCME 1994; ASTM 1990; Mudroch and MacKnight 1991; other provincial manuals). Implementation of a focused, well-designed monitoring program will ensure that the resultant data will support a reliable site assessment.

Evaluate the nature, severity, and extent of contamination; determine the probable exposure pathways; and assess the sensitivity of the receptors at the site (by completing the site evaluation forms; CCME 1992). The Facility/Site Description and the Site Classification Worksheet allow you to organize and document the raw information needed to identify and classify the site. The generic environmental quality criteria developed under the NCSRP (CCME 1991a) and other CCME programs (CCREM 1987) are used in this process to assess the severity of contamination and the hazards posed to receptors at the site.

Check the Detailed Evaluation Form to be sure all of the required factors were considered during the site classification. The rationale for selecting the score for each factor is fully documented on the worksheet. Tally the final site score on the evaluation form and use the final site score to classify the site.

Possible Classifications Using the National Classification System

Depending on the final site score, contaminated sites are placed into one of five categories, namely:

Specific management actions that may be taken at these sites include further characterization, hazard assessment, risk assessment, and/or remediation. Classification of contaminated sites in this manner provides an effective screening tool for determining the relative priority that should be placed on individual sites. In addition, the information collected and evaluated during the site classification process may be used to focus detailed investigations at high priority sites, such as those that might be associated with an environmental or human health risk assessment. Furthermore, this information may be used to identify use-protection goals and priority contaminants at the site, in the derivation of site-specific remediation objectives, and in the development of the site management strategy.

1.3.3 Generic Environmental Quality Criteria

Assessment Criteria. In 1991, the CCME recommended interim environmental quality criteria for soil and water to address the immediate need for management tools to support the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites (CCME 1991a). In general, criteria are used as general guidance for the protection, maintenance, and improvement of specific uses of soil and water. Assessment criteria are approximate background concentrations or approximate analytical detection limits for contaminants in soil or water. Generally, the assessment criteria are applied in identifying and classifying sites, to assess the general degree of contamination at a site, and to determine the need for further action. If concentrations of a substance in the soil or water at a site do not exceed the assessment criteria, further action is not usually required. When concentrations exceed assessment values, investigative action should be considered to assess the extent of contamination and the nature of any hazards at a site, and to determine the scale and urgency of further action, if required. These criteria are a general first approximation only.

Interim Remediation Criteria. The interim remediation criteria are considered generally protective of human and environmental health for specified uses of soil and water at contaminated sites, based on experience and professional judgement, and on a review of guidelines and criteria from other Canadian jurisdictions. Together, the interim environmental quality criteria for contaminated sites and the generic environmental quality criteria from other CCME programs (CCREM 1987; CCME 1991c, 1993b; 1995) provide a consistent basis for assessing the degree of contamination at specific sites and for determining the need for remedial action. The interim criteria are not effects-based and are recommended for use until effects-based replacements become available.¹

Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines. The 1990 multistakeholder workshops highlighted the urgent need for a consistent and defensible approach to setting national remediation criteria for soil. Such protocols were already developed or under development as part of existing CCME programs for water (HWC 1989; CCME 1991c, 1993b), sediment (CCME 1995), and biological tissues (Walker and MacDonald 1993). The soil protocol (CCME 1996a) provides a consistent method for deriving soil quality guidelines under defined exposure scenarios for ecological and human receptors. The exposure pathways and receptors that were considered under the four land-use categories are shown in Table 1. Until remediation guidelines developed using the soil protocol are available, site managers should use the interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria (EQC) for soil and water. The other CCME guidelines may be used as appropriate¹.

Effects-based Guidelines. Remediation criteria or guidelines can be used as generic benchmarks to evaluate the need for further investigation or remediation with respect to a specified land use. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment remediation guidelines are available for agricultural, residential/parkland, commercial, and industrial land uses. The degree by which contaminant levels at a site exceed these benchmarks reflects the scale and urgency of further action. Where it is not feasible to remediate the site due to technological or other constraints, the remediation guidelines can also provide guidance on the need for land use restrictions or other forms of risk management to protect human health and the environment.

The principal application of the remediation guidelines, however, is to provide the common basis for the establishment of site-specific remediation objectives. Moving from the generic guidelines to a site-specific remediation objective allows the proponent to ensure that the assumptions used in the soil protocol apply to the site-specific conditions.

Depending on local circumstances, the guidelines may be adopted directly (Method 1) or modified within limits to reflect site-specific conditions (Method 2). In either case, once guidelines are applied at the site-specific level in this way, they become remediation objectives.

In Canada, generic environmental quality remediation guidelines (or criteria, as they were usually termed in previous CCME publications about the NCSRP) from various CCME programs are derived to protect the most sensitive life stages of the most sensitive receptors that inhabit soils, sediment, or water. For soil, the soil protocol sets out conservative calculation procedures for the protection of human health and the environment under agricultural, residential/parkland, commercial, and industrial land uses. For this reason, the generic remediation guidelines tend to be conservative values that are protective of a wide range of receptors under a diverse array of potential environmental conditions. When adopted as remediation objectives on a site-specific level, these generic guidelines provide an effective basis for protecting and restoring designated land and water uses at contaminated sites.

¹Note that because the interim remediation criteria were not developed, using the soil protocol and its integral checks, they cannot be modified or deconstructed as shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6. If in the absence of effects-based criteria, interim remediation criteria are to be used as the basis for developing site-specific objectives, a number of factors may nonetheless be considered. The factors include, but are not limited to, background levels of the substance in soil, social, economic, and technological concerns.

Table 1. Receptors of concern considered for the derivation of effects-based soil quality guidelines for the NAtional Contaminated Sites Remediation Program (CCME 1996a).

Soil contact:

Agricultural
Crops/plants
invertebrates
nutrient cycling process
livestock/wildlife

Residential/parkland
plants
invertebrates
nutrient cycling process
wildlife

Commercial
plants
invertebrates
nutrient cycling process

Industrial
plants
invertebrates
nutrient cycling process

Soil and food ingestion:

Agricultural
livestock/wildlife

Multimedia exposure (human health):

Agricultural
child

Residential/parkland
child

Commercial
child

Industrial
child

1.3.4 Guidance on Developing Site-specific Environmental Quality Objectives

This report describes the core set of scientific tools available to assess environmental quality staff as it relates to the national framework for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites from site classification to development of environmental quality remediation objectives (Figure 2). Chapter 2 outlines adopting generic guidelines (Method 1), the modification of generic guidelines within limits (Method 2), and conditions where site-specific risk assessment (Method 3) may be recommended. Finally, Chapter 3 gives an illustration of the overall process and the use of the various scientific tools using a theoretical example.

Many contaminated sites also contain discrete waste material and products. It should be noted, that remedial objectives for soil and groundwater apply primarily to contaminated environmental media that remain on site after the removal and management of the discrete waste material.

As the generic soil quality guidelines are intended to provide a high level of protection for the designated land uses, they are considered to be broadly applicable to soils in this country. Therefore, these generic remediation guidelines are likely to serve as the basis for setting soil quality remediation objectives at most contaminated sites. Although the generic guidelines are appropriate for use under a wide range of environmental conditions, site-adapted environmental quality remediation objectives may be necessary under certain circumstances, such as at sites having atypical characteristics (e.g., high natural background levels of a contaminant), complex mixtures of contaminants (that could act synergistically or antagonistically), or unusual exposure scenarios (e.g., the presence of special populations or receptors). Two basic approaches have been proposed to support the development of site-specific remediation objectives in Canada. The first approach, known as the criteria-based approach, involves

For some sites, the direct adoption of the generic guidelines may be appropriate. In other cases, it may be appropriate to modify the generic guidelines. This guidance manual describes how check proceduresCthe subcomponents within the soil protocol that consider primarily cross-media transfers of contaminantsCmay either be considered or disregarded under site-specific conditions (Method 2). The parameters within certain equations that may be modified to reflect site-specific conditions are also listed. Site proponents should be aware that information in this report is guidance only and that the authority to accept the changes to equation parameters using site-specific data remains with the appropriate jurisdiction.

The site manager is referred to guidance manuals on ecological risk assessment (CCME 1996b) and human health risk assessment (HC 1995) for more detail on the application of risk assessment (Method 3).

The Criteria-based Approach. The criteria-based approach entails adoption or limited modification of generic guidelines in light of prescribed site-specific factors affecting contaminant mobility and receptor characterization. Previous CCME publications about the NCSRP used the terms soil criteria; however, the term criteria will be replaced by guidelines for consistency with other environmental media (water, sediments, etc.). Nevertheless, this approach will still be referred to as "criteria-based approach".

Under the criteria-based approach, modification of generic soil quality guidelines for individual contaminated sites in Canada necessitates the consideration of at least four factors (Figure 4), including:

Limited Modification. Figure 5 shows that limited modification of equation parameters may be allowed for

Removal of Management Checks. The check procedures within the soil protocol that may or may not be deemed appropriate at the site-specific level include:

The CCME recognizes that the check procedures used in the soil protocol are elementary. However they were deemed an appropriate level of detail for developing generic guidelines. More sophisticated and complex models exist and may be appropriate at a site-specific level; however, the CCME recommends that these more complex models be addressed under a risk-based approach.

Other factors at contaminated sites that could alter the use of the generic guidelines as remediation objectives may also be identified. These factors should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis within the appropriate jurisdiction, with professional judgement being exercised by the jurisdictional authority in deciding whether to permit modification of the generic guidelines. In contrast to risk assessment, the criteria-based approach is designed to require fewer resources while providing a scientifically defensible basis for protection that is sufficiently flexible to account for certain site-specific factors.

The Risk-based Approach. The risk-based approach is a complex and time-consuming procedure that involves at least the following steps:

The hazard and risk evaluation steps are complex and involve receptor characterization, exposure assessment, hazard assessment, and risk characterization. A risk assessment of considerable complexity may be required before sufficient information and understanding will allow the recommendation of site-specific risk-based remediation objectives. This approach requires a considerable commitment of experienced personnel, equipment, time, and money.

Risk assessment guidance manuals (CCME 1996b) provide guidance on the circumstances under which risk assessment may be the most appropriate means of setting site-specific objectives. The criteria-based approach is believed to provide an effective scientifically based conservative alternative to a detailed risk assessment.

1.3.5 Selection of Recommended Approaches for Modifying Guidelines

The approaches recommended in this book have evolved, in part, from a review by MacDonald and Sobolewski (1993) of existing approaches for formulating and modifying generic soil quality guidelines and site-specific remediation objectives. The approaches were considered if they were

2.0 RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR DERIVING SITE-SPECIFIC SOIL QUALITY REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES

The process of developing numerical soil quality remediation objectives necessitates the appropriate use of general and site-specific information. Guiding principles have been established to direct and focus this process. The guiding principles, which follow, are intended to provide guidance relevant to specific conditions and decisions common to most contaminated sites. It is recognized, however, that sound professional judgement will play a critical role in the interpretation and application of these guiding principles at the site-specific level.

2.1 Guiding Principles

The following guiding principles for the development of numerical soil quality remediation objectives for contaminated sites in Canada are based on the philosophy established by CCME (1991a, 1996a):

2.2 Explanations

Information on the nature of the site, including the current and historical activities, should be reviewed. National Guidelines for Decommissioning Industrial Sites (CCME 1991b) presents a two-phase site characterization schedule. Phase I is a site information assessment that consists of assessing the historical and current activities or practices that may have resulted in environmental contamination. Phase II is a reconnaissance testing program that characterizes the types and concentrations of contaminants present in various media on the site. This information will indicate whether more detailed testing is required in specific areas and will provide the initial inputs required to develop appropriate site cleanup guidelines. The reconnaissance testing program should target known and suspected areas of site contamination identified in Phase II, as well as areas believed to be relatively unaffected by site operations. In cases where contamination is suspected near site boundaries or is known to have moved off site (such as by aeolian, groundwater, or surface water transport), samples should be collected to assess off-site effects, potential liabilities, and remediation requirements. The components of Phase I and Phase II investigations follow; however, readers are directed to CCME (1991b) for further information. Procedures may also be available through the jurisdictional authority.

Historical and Current Setting - topography, geology, soils, terrestrial habitats, vegetation, surface water quality, groundwater and surface water quality, site layout, wastewater ponds, raw water reservoirs, pipelines, underground tanks, buried service lines, foundations, shipping/receiving areas, storage areas, spill areas, roads and rail lines, atmospheric dispersion patterns, landfill and buried pits, and surrounding land uses.

Process Information - product schematics and design, chemicals used and their composition, feedstock and by-product composition, liquid waste management, solid waste management, air pollution control, process changes, storage areas, toxic substance use, and on-site laboratory.

Site Inspections - lagoons, tailings ponds, storage areas, loading/receiving areas, drainage systems, well location, use and condition, wastewater, treatment/disposal, landfill and land farm areas, surface disturbances, underground workings, fuel storage, potential off-site impact, areas transformers, and chemicals/toxic substances.

Historical and Current Operations - development of interview questionnaire for key personnel, process changes, waste management changes, spills and leaks responses, regulatory actions, public complaints.

Regulatory Agency Concerns - compliance studies, air emissions, soil and water contamination concerns, land use compatibility, information from similar sites, public input requirements, contaminant assessment and remediation criteria, approved waste treatment/disposal options.

Health and safety, types of samples, background conditions, analytical procedures, quality assurance, sampling locations, sampling constraints, groundwater, surface water, soils and sediments, sludges, air emissions.

Explanation 2: Does Contaminant Concentration Exceed Assessment Criteria in Figure 4?

Data gathered on soil quality in the site characterization should now be compared with the CCME (1991a) assessment criteria. If contaminant concentrations at the site do not exceed the assessment criteria for the identified contaminant, it is likely that no further action is required. If site levels exceed the assessment criteria, proceed to Explanation 3.

The generic guidelines developed using the soil protocol are intended to protect generic ecological and human receptors that may be exposed to contaminants through a range of exposure pathways associated with four broad land use categories. The land use categories include agricultural, residential/parkland, commercial, and industrial and their definitions follow.

Agricultural land use: lands used for growing crops or producing livestock, and that are agricultural in nature. These also include lands that provide habitat for resident and transitory wildlife and native flora (e.g., transition zones).

Residential/Parkland land use: lands where the primary activity is occupation for residency and recreational purposes. These include lands used as buffer zones between areas of residence, but do not include wildlands, such as national or provincial parks, other than campground areas.

Commercial land use: lands where the primary activity is related to commercial operations, such as the provision of goods and services (e.g., shopping mall) and occupancy is not for residential or manufacturing purposes. These do not include operations where the growing of food is the primary activity (i.e., agricultural).

Industrial land use: lands where the primary activity involves the production, manufacture, construction, or assembly of goods.

The proponent should consider the historical, existing, intended, and potential land use(s) of the site in categorizing the site according to these definitions. Land uses on adjacent sites should also be identified. Groundwater uses (current or likely future uses) (such as raw water for drinking, or crop or livestock watering) should also be identified.

The proponent should also consider land uses at surrounding sites. This is important because the migration of contaminants off-site by soil erosion (by wind or water) or by the movement of surface water or groundwater may contaminate surrounding properties with more susceptible land uses. For example, the off-site migration of soil from a remediated industrial site should not pose any unacceptable risk to a nearby residential site.

Explanation 4: Does Contaminant Concentration Exceed Relevant Background Levels in Figure 4?

Information on relevant background concentrations of metals and certain organic substances is essential for evaluating the applicability of generic soil quality guidelines at any specific contaminated site. In general, background levels of priority substances would be determined at a nearby site that is unaffected by specific contaminant sources (however, the site may be affected by diffuse sources, such as automobile exhaust).

Compare the concentrations of the contaminant of concern with the background levels relevant to the jurisdiction. Relevant background levels will be defined by the jurisdiction and may include, but are not limited to, the CCME interim assessment criteria (CCME 1991a) and provincial background limits.

If relevant site-specific background levels are not available, the proponent may be able to determine background levels, subject to approval by the jurisdictional authority. In general, background concentrations should be determined from an area at the site under investigation, or at a nearby site, sufficiently remote from the source of contamination to be safely presumed to have been unaffected by contaminant release. Areas considered as representative local background must not be subject to off-site impacts of the land under consideration. Similarly, sites containing fill material would compare site concentrations to regional, natural, or indigenous background concentrations, not to the fill concentrations.

If contaminant concentrations do not exceed the relevant background levels, it is likely that no further action is required. Information assembled and decisions taken to this point should, however, be documented.

If contaminant concentrations exceed the relevant background levels, proceed to Explanation 5.

Note that remediation to background concentrations may also be acceptable to the jurisdictional authority. (See Explanation 6.)

The soil protocol outlines a method to derive generic guidelines. Several exposure pathways, including direct soil contact, ingestion of soil and of food grown in soil, are used to derive conservative generic guidelines. Generally, guidelines derived using the soil protocol consider the exposure pathways expected for the receptors selected for each land use. In some cases, not all of these exposure pathways will be relevant given the current and likely future use of the site. The proponent may be allowed by the jurisdictional authority to make limited modifications to the generic guidelines in setting the site-specific objectives to reflect the known exposure pathways to the site receptors (Method 2) (Explanations 11 and 15 to 26). The proponent should therefore consider the nature of the contaminants, the receptors (human and ecological), the medium (soil, water, air), and the exposure pathways (direct contact, direct or indirect ingestion, inhalation, etc.) that occur or are likely to occur on the sitE.

Ambient background levels of contaminants of concern may be higher than the effects-based generic soil quality guidelines. For instance, background levels in an urban area may be subject to widespread atmospheric deposition of a contaminant. Generally, the NCSRP does not consider it appropriate to remediate contaminated sites to a level below relevant ambient background levels. Therefore the appropriate background level may be used as the site-specific remediation objective, subject to approval by the jurisdictional authority.

When site conditions are outside what was considered in developing the guidelines using the soil protocol, or beyond the limited modifications outlined under Method 2, the site-specific conditions may lead to a recommendation to perform risk assessment as the basis for developing site-specific remediation objectives. Some examples follow:

At this point, the site-specific conditions may lead to a recommendation to perform risk assessment as the basis for developing site-specific remediation objectives. The proponent/jurisdictional authority may also continue through the process outlined in Figure 4. As additional information about the site-specific conditions is considered, it may lead to a recommendation to perform risk assessment as the basis for developing the site-specific remediation objectives.

Use the appropriate CCME environmental quality guidelines for the soil and/or water uses identified under Explanation 2. If no appropriate generic guidelines are available, three options may be available to the proponent, according to the jurisdictional authority. First, site-specific objectives may be developed using risk assessment (Explanation 12). Second, site-specific objectives may be developed using the CCME soil protocol (Explanation 13). Third, other options within the jurisdiction may be available (e.g., adopting guidelines from other jurisdictions, setting remediation objectives based on background levels, etc.) (see Explanation 14). In any case, the jurisdictional approval for pursuing these options should be sought.

Explanation 9: Do Contaminant Concentrations Exceed Land Use Remediation Guidelines?

Data gathered on soil quality in the site characterization should now be compared with the CCME soil quality guidelines for the appropriate site land use. If contaminant concentrations at the site do not exceed the remediation guideline for the identified contaminant for the particular land use, it is likely that no further action is required. If site levels exceed the remediation guidelines, Method 1 (direct adoption of guidelines) or Method 2 (limited modification of the guidelines) may be used to develop site-specific remediation objectives. If Method 2 (limited modification of generic guidelines) is chosen, the proponent must demonstrate that the conditions outlined in Explanations 15 to 25 apply to the specific site. The proponent may also elect to use or may be required to use Method 3 (risk assessment) by the jurisdictional authority. In some jurisdictions, approval to perform risk assessment may be required by the jurisdictional authority.

Explanation 10: Method 1 - Adopt Generic Guidelines Directly as Site-specific Objectives

The generic guidelines derived using the soil protocol were developed from exposure scenarios that provide a general and conservative level of protection to both human and ecological receptors (see Table 1). Adopting the guidelines directly may be preferred since the exposure scenarios are explicitly stated in the soil protocol and are consistent for all contaminants. As well, the generic guidelines have been derived to provide a generally conservative level of protection for a variety of activities that are likely to occur under the specified land use.

Certain components of the generic exposure scenarios outlined in the soil protocol for the derivation of generic guidelines may not be applicable to the specific site. In recognition of this, regulatory authorities may allow the limited modification of the generic guidelines (Method 2). If Method 2 is to be used, further site characterization according to Explanation 15 will likely be required.

Explanation 12: Method 3 - Develop Site-specific Objectives Using Risk Assessment

Use A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance (CCME 1996b.) and/or Human Health Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites (HC 1995), or other appropriate guidance required by the jurisdictional authority.

Explanation 13: Derive Site-Specific Objectives using the Soil Protocol (CCME 1996a)

Site-specific objectives may be developed for the appropriate land use exposure scenario for contaminants for which no effects-based guidelines exist, providing the minimal acceptable data requirements outlined in the soil protocol (CCME 1996a) are followed. Jurisdictional approval for pursuing this option should be sought.

Other options within the jurisdiction may be available (e.g., adopting guidelines from other jurisdictions, objectives based on background levels, etc.). Jurisdictional approval for pursuing this option should be sought.

To apply Method 2 more information concerning the allowable modifying parameters will likely be necessary. Data relating to the following factors should be collected and reviewed:

The Subcommittee has identified three cases within the soil protocol under which limited modification of the generic guidelines may be permitted through a modification of the equation parameters (see Explanations 17, 18, and 19). These cases were identified on the basis of the relative ease of determining a site-specific value for the parameter.

Note: While a recalculation may alter the SQG_HH (soil quality guidelines considering human health effects), it must be compared with all other allowable modifications for the SQG_HH and with the SQGE (soil quality guidelines considering environmental effects) and any of their allowable modifications (Figures 5 and 6). The lowest value will then be selected as the modified soil quality remediation objective.

Groundwater uses were identified under Explanations 3 and 15. If groundwater protection is not an issue, this check may be removed and the generic criteria recalculated. Note that jurisdictional authorization is required if explicit protection of groundwater is not an objective of the site remediation. Note also that this option may forego any future potential uses of groundwater. An example where such a decision may be appropriate is when the groundwater supply is already contaminated from other sources to an extent where it can no longer sustain a beneficial use.

If groundwater is to be protected, some guidelines modification may still be possible. First, the soil protocol (under the Human Health-based Process B Evaluation of Derived Guidelines Relative to Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality [CCME 1991a, Section 5]) recognizes that soil containing nonpolar organic substances in contact with groundwater may result in groundwater contamination. If this water is likely to be extracted, it should be of a quality that will not exceed water quality guidelines for that water use. For example, if the groundwater is to be used as raw water for drinking, the residual levels of contaminants in remediated soil should not be allowed to create soil pore water concentrations in excess of the CCME raw water for drinking guideline (CCREM 1987, Chapter 1). The soil protocol considers this in the following equilibrium partitioning equation:

where
Ya = total contaminant concentration in soil in equilibrium with groundwater at the drinking water guideline concentration
DF = generic dilution factor
cwa = the critical concentration in groundwater, set equal to the relevant drinking water guideline
Kd = distribution coefficient
2m = mass moisture content
The default value in the soil protocol for Cwa is the CCME raw water for drinking guideline. Following permission by the jurisdictional authority, the proponent may substitute an appropriate water quality guideline according to the current or likely future groundwater use. For example, if the groundwater will be used only to water livestock, the CCME livestock watering water quality guideline (CCREM 1987, Chapter 4) for the contaminant of concern, may be used for Cwa. (See note in Explanation 16.)

The characteristics of soils at contaminated sites have the potential to significantly alter the fate and effects of many contaminants. Ranges of organic carbon content and pH encountered in Canadian soil are reported in Alder et al. (1994). While pH, clay type, clay content, and cation exchange capacity of the soil are known to be strong influences, in some cases it was not possible to set a single range that would deal accurately with all types of contaminants. Site managers are strongly urged to read the sections in Alder et al. (1994) appropriate for contaminants of concern at the site.

The presence of atypical but not extreme levels of organic carbon content could affect the mobility and/or bioavailability of contaminants and provide sufficient grounds for a limited modification of the generic criteria. Following the review of Canadian soils by Alder et al. (1994), the Subcommittee nominated an applicable range of soil organic carbon content (foc), from 0.1 to 17%, for which the soil quality criteria would be widely applicable. The default value for foc used in the soil protocol (Evaluation of Derived Criteria Relative to Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality) was 0.1% soil organic carbon. However, if it can be demonstrated that soil organic carbon at the site is between 0.1 and 17%, the actual site value may be substituted in the equation. (See note in Explanation 16.)

If the soil organic carbon content at the site is outside the applicable range of 0.1 to 17% and if mobile organic contaminants are present, a risk assessment may be appropriate.

In general, soil organic carbon content decreases with depth. Consequently the greatest attenuation by organic matter is expected to occur at or near the soil surface. When the contamination occurs at depth (e.g., buried waste, leaking underground container, or old landfill site), it is expected that there will be a dramatically different degree of attenuation than would occur at the surface. Therefore, when contamination occurs at depth, the groundwater protection equations should use the soil organic carbon content that occurs at the point of the contamination and beneath (not the surface organic carbon content). (See note in Explanation 16.)

Actual site values for other factors may differ from the other default values. However, changing other equation parameters is not recommended by the Subcommittee unless a risk assessment is done. The Subcommittee recognizes that more sophisticated groundwater models which use site-specific data are available. However, due to the complexity of the model parameters, the Subcommittee suggests that if the proponent wishes to use such models, jurisdictional consent would be required.

Within the soil protocol, human receptors were considered for all land uses. On agricultural, residential, and parkland sites, children were considered to be the human receptors. On industrial and commercial sites, adults were considered to be the human receptors. In some site-specific circumstances, these may not be the relevant or likely human receptors. Therefore, some limited modification of the guidelines may be allowed by substituting the body weights and the soil ingestion rates of the relevant or likely human receptors at the site. (Reference body weight and soil intake for humans are found in the soil protocol). Note that this modification will require justification to and approval by the jurisdictional authority. (See note in Explanation 16.)

Information on the receptors that are (or that would be expected to be) present at a remediated site is important for evaluating the applicability of generic guidelines. The generic guidelines are likely to apply at most sites because of the data acceptability requirements. The soil protocol uses toxicological data on organisms that are native to or raised in Canada, and the preferred calculation uses "weight of evidence" of all acceptable toxicological studies that report no-observed-effect concentration (NOEC) and lowest-observed-effect concentration (LOEC) data.

Remediation objectives, however, may be required at sites that are characterized by the presence of atypical receptors or only a limited diversity of species. Under the rules presented here limited modification of the generic guidelines may be permitted. First, appropriate sampling and ecological classification information must be obtained to assemble a list of the families of terrestrial organisms that occur at the site as well as those that occur at a similar but uncontaminated reference site. The reference site list is important, since chronic contamination at a site may have limited the families of biota that could survive the exposure to contamination.

The data set used to derive the generic guidelines for the contaminant of concern may be modified on a site-specific level as detailed in the following administrative rules (1 to 9) if the families of biota are not found to be relevant to either the site under investigation or the reference site.

Decisions regarding the modification of the data set through the elimination of irrelevant data must be supported by detailed rationale. The revised data set must be examined to determine whether the minimum data requirements of the soil protocol are satisfied, to derive a modified environmental soil quality guideline (SQGE). (See note in Explanation 16.)

The modification of the generic soil quality guidelines using an adjusted data set must follow these administrative rules:

Implicit to the recalculation procedure approach is the requirement that the site-specific toxicological data set used in the recalculation procedure continue to satisfy the minimum requirements of the soil protocol. The information in the data set used to derive the generic criteria has been intensively screened and assessed for its acceptability. For this reason the use of toxicological data derived for the site or the use of supplemental literature data not previously contained in the database used for generic guidelines can be considered for the site in question only as a component of the risk assessment approach and not for recalculation of the generic guidelines. (See note in Explanation 16.)

Certain management checks in the soil protocol may be reconsidered under specified land uses as described in Explanations 20 to 25 and in Figure 6.

The guiding principles within the human health procedure of the soil protocol state that

The generic soil quality guidelines were derived as conservative benchmarks intended to protect, maintain, or enhance soil quality for given land uses and scenarios. The generic guidelines consider many likely activities for a given land use. The Subcommittee recognizes that some of these scenarios may not occur on the remediated site. Therefore, under Method 2, limited modification of the guidelines may be possible if any of the four generic scenarios outlined in Explanations 21 to 24 will not apply at the remediated site. Note that the limited modifications allowed under Explanations 21 to 24 consist of removing the check from the derivation. Other parameter values within the equations for the human health-based process are not to be altered under Method 2. Other models or other parameter values may be nominated under a site-specific risk assessment, if permitted by the jurisdictional authority. (See note in Explanation 16.)

The generic guidelines for residential/parkland land use will not normally be protective of human exposure to local produce consumption. Therefore, this management check is applicable to residential/parkland land uses only where consumption of backyard garden food is, or is likely to be, significant. In such cases, the backyard garden food check may be added to the derivation of the SQG_HH. This check in the soil protocol assumes that 10% of produce consumed will be grown on site and that no meat or milk will be produced on site (for a residential setting). (See note in Explanation 16.)

Other parameter values within the equations for the backyard garden check are not to be altered under Method 2. Other models or other parameter values may be nominated under a site-specific risk assessment, if permitted by the jurisdictional authority.

This is applicable to the agricultural land use remediation guidelines only, and consists of three components. The generic scenario assumes that 50% of the produce and meat, and 100% of the milk consumed is grown or produced on site. The generic agricultural remediation guidelines will be protective of exposure from/to local produce consumption. Note that if any one of the three is grown on site, the original assumptions should be upheld for that food item. If any of the produce, meat, or milk will be not grown on the remediated site, this check may be removed for that food item. The modified guidelines will be based on an assumption that 100% of the produce, meat, and milk will be grown or produced off site and purchased. The equations to change depend on which food items will not be grown on site and may include

Ip, Ib, and Im (CCME 1996a, Appendix B, Section 4.1, Equation 12) will then reflect the fact that either produce, or meat, or milk will not be produced on the remediated site. (See note in Explanation 16.)

Other parameter values within the equations for the human consumption of produce, meat, or milk check are not to be altered under Method 2. Other models or other parameter values may be nominated under a site-specific risk assessment, if permitted by the jurisdictional authority.

In the derivation of SQG_HH for volatile organic contaminants, an uncertainty factor will be applied to address the possible leaking of the volatile organic contaminant through basements (HC 1995). If no basements are present or likely to be present at the remediated site, the uncertainty factor may be removed. (See note in Explanation 16.)

Other parameter values within the volatile-organics-in-basement check are not to be altered. Equations for the other parameter values may be nominated under a site-specific risk assessment if permitted by the jurisdictional authority.

This is applicable to guidelines intended for industrial land use only. The exposure scenario used for deriving the industrial land use soil quality guidelines accommodates the potential movement of remediated soil from an industrial property to a more sensitive adjacent land use, such as commercial, residential/parkland, or agricultural. However, if the adjacent land use is industrial, this check may not be required. In such cases, the SQG_HH need not be compared with Ci (the concentration of contaminant in eroded soil) (CCME 1996a, Appendix E). (See note in Explanation 16.)

Other parameter values within the equations for the off-site movement of dust are not to be altered under Method 2. Other models or other parameter values may be nominated under a site-specific risk assessment if allowed by the jurisdictional authority.

Ambient background levels of contaminants of concern may be higher than the effects-based generic soil quality guidelines. For instance, background levels in an urban area may be subject to widespread atmospheric deposition of a contaminant. In terms of relevant background concentrations, the CCME suggests that proponents and jurisdictional authorities make use of local or regional data on background concentrations, but if such information is not available, explicit information on background concentrations at or near the site may be considered. Remediation to a level below relevant ambient background levels is generally not considered to be appropriate. Therefore, if Method 1 (adopting generic criteria directly) is under consideration and if the generic soil quality guideline is below the relevant ambient background level, the relevant background level may be used as the site-specific remediation objective.

If Method 2 (limited modification according to Explanations 17 to 25) has been used and if the modified soil quality guideline is below the relevant ambient background level, that relevant background level may be used as site-specific remediation objective.

The modified criterion may be used as the site-specific remediation objective. However, note that this guidance manual has dealt with issues of a scientific nature as they relate to the assumptions and calculations of effects-based guidelines under the exposure scenarios defined in the soil protocol. The Subcommittee acknowledges the importance of considering socioeconomic and technical factors in setting site-specific remediation objectives. However, guidance on the consideration of these factors is beyond the scope of the scientific mandate of the Subcommittee.

Further consideration of technical feasibility, socioeconomic factors, and risk management strategies may be appropriate in establishing a final soil quality remediation objective. The Subcommittee recommends, however, that all management decisions made during the development of the site management strategy should be fully documented and justified. In this way, the transparency of the process will be maintained and public confidence in the resulting decisions will be enhanced.

3.0 HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES

Directly adopt the effects-based soil quality remediation guidelines for arsenic and cadmium for agricultural land use as the recommended site-specific remediation objectives.

The site values of soil organic carbon content, foc, (5%), replace the default value of 0.1% in:

where
Ya = total contaminant concentration in soil in equilibrium with pore water at the drinking water guideline concentration
DF = dilution factor
Cwa = concentration in the aqueous phase, set at the drinking water guideline
Kd = distribution coefficient, such that Kd = foc ´ Koc
foc = organic carbon content
Koc = sorption coefficient for soil organic carbon, predicted form correlation with the water solubility, or n-octanol/water partition coefficient, Kow
2m = mass moisture content
Since Kd is much larger than 2m, the moisture content can be ignored. With all factors except foc staying constant, the resulting change in groundwater is to increase the human health soil quality guidelines for groundwater protection 50 times, hypothetically from 0.4 mg PCP/kg to 20 mg PCP/kg dry soil (Figure 7). The environmental guideline is hypothetically 1 mg PCP/kg dry soil. Therefore, when the modified human health soil quality guideline (20 mg PCP/kg dry soil) is compared with the environmental soil quality guideline (1 mg PCP/kg dry soil), the lower of the two (1 mg PCP/kg dry soil), is the recommended soil quality remediation objective.

The combination of the presence of a complex mixture of contaminants that were close by and that would likely affect the critical habitat downstream led to the recommendation to perform a risk assessment to establish the site-specific remediation objective.

References

Alder, V.J., L.J. Evans, and G.A. Spiers. 1994. Evaluation and distribution of master variables affecting solubility of contaminants in Canadian soils. Prepared for the Environment Canada, Eco-Health Branch, Ottawa. 81 pp.

ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials). 1990. Standard guide for collection, storage, characterization, and manipulation of sediments for toxicological testing. ASTM Designation: E 1391-90. 15 pp.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1991a. Interim Canadian environmental quality criteria for contaminated sites. The National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, Report No. CCME EPC-CS34. Winnipeg.

---. 1991b. National guidelines for decommissioning industrial sites. Report No. CCME-TS-WM-TRE013E. 98 pp.

---. 1991c. Appendix IX-A protocol for the derivation of water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (April 1993). In: Canadian water quality guidelines, Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. 1987. Prepared by the Task Force on Water Quality Guidelines. [Updated and reprinted with minor revisions and editorial changes in Canadian environmental quality guidelines, Chapter 4, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999, Winnipeg.]

---. 1992. National Classification System for Contaminated Sites. Report CCME-EPC-CS39E. Winnipeg. 54 pp.

---. 1993a. Guidance manual on sampling, analysis, and data management for contaminated sites. Vol. I, Main report (CCME-EPC-NCS-62E). Vol. II, Analytical method summaries (CCME-EPC-NCS-66E). CCME, Winnipeg.

---. 1993b. Appendix XV-Protocols for deriving water quality guidelines for the protection of agricultural water uses (October 1993). In: Canadian water quality guidelines, Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. 1

---. 1994. Subsurface assessment handbook for contaminated sites. Report No. CCME-EPC-NCSRP-48E. Winnipeg. 293 pp.

---. 1995. Protocol for the derivation of Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. CCME EPC-98E. Prepared by Environment Canada, Guidelines Division, Technical Secretariat of the CCME Task Group on Water Quality Guidelines, Ottawa. [Reprinted in Canadian environmental quality guidelines, Chapter 6, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999, Winnipeg.]

---. 1996a. A protocol for the derivation of environmental and human health soil quality guidelines. Prepared by the CCME Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites in Canada. CCME-EPC-101E. En 108-4/8-1996E. ISBN 0-662-24344-7. [A summary of the protocol appears in Canadian environmental quality guidelines, Chapter 7, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999, Winnipeg.]

---. 1996b. A framework for ecological risk assessment: General guidance. Prepared by the CCME Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites in Canada.

CCREM (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers). 1987. Canadian water quality guidelines. Prepared by the Task Force on Water Quality Guidelines.

EC (Environment Canada). 1994a. A framework for ecological risk assessment at contaminated sites in Canada: Review and recommendations. Sci. Ser. Rep. No. 199. Prepared for Environment Canada, Ecosystem Conservation Directorate, Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Ottawa. 108 pp.

---. 1994b. A review of whole organism bioassays for assessing the quality of soil, freshwater sediment and freshwater in Canada. Sci. Ser. Rep. No. 198. Prepared for Environment Canada, Ecosystem Conservation Directorate, Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Ottawa. 118 pp.

HC (Health Canada). 1995. Human health risk assessment for contaminated sites. Prepared for the CCME Subcommittee on Soil Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites and Health Canada.

---. 1996. Human Health risk assessment of chemicals from contaminated sites. Vol. 1, Risk assessment guidance manual. Health Canada, Environmental Health Directorate, Ottawa. In prep.

HWC (Health and Welfare Canada). 1989. Derivation of maximum acceptable concentrations and aesthetic objectives for chemicals in drinking water. Prepared by the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health.

MacDonald, D.D., and A. Sobolewski. 1993. Recommended procedures for developing site-specific environmental quality remediation objectives for contaminated sites in Canada. Prepared for CCME Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites. 194 pp.

Mudroch, A., and S.D. MacKnight (eds.). 1991. Bottom sediment sampling. In: CRC handbook of techniques for aquatic sediments sampling. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. 210 pp.

O'Connor Associates. 1995. Movement of volatile organics in basements. Prepared for Health Canada, Hazardous Waste Section, Ottawa.

Walker, S., and D.D. MacDonald. 1993. Protocol for the derivation and use of Canadian tissue residue guidelines for the protection of wildlife in aquatic ecosystems. Prepared for Environment Canada, Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Guidelines Division, Ottawa. Unpub. [The protocol, published in 1997 and released in 1998, is reprinted in Canadian environmental quality guidelines, Chapter 8, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999. Winnipeg.].

Appendix:

Checklist for the National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (CCME 1992)

Type of contaminants or materials likely to be present at site (and/or description of historical activities)

Geological map or survey information (soil, overburden, and bedrock information)

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1996. Guidance manual for developing site-specific soil quality remediation objectives for contaminated sites in Canada. National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg. [Reprinted in Canadian environmental quality guidelines, Chapter 7, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999, Winnipeg.]

For further scientific information, contact:

Environment Canada
Guidelines and Standards Division
351 St. Joseph Blvd.
Hull, QC K1A 0H3
Phone: (819) 953-1550
Facsimile: (819) 953-0461
E-mail: ceqg-rcqe@ec.gc.ca
Internet: http://www.ec.gc.ca

For additional copies, contact:
CCME Documents
c/o Manitoba Statutory Publications
200 Vaughan St.
Winnipeg, MB R3C 1T5
Phone: (204) 945-4664
Facsimile: (204) 945-7172
E-mail: spccme@chc.gov.mb.ca

	\| What's New \| About Us \| Topics \| Publications \| Weather \| Home \|
	\| Français \| Contact Us \| Help \| Search \| Canada Site \|
	The Green LaneTM, Environment Canada's World Wide Web site
	Last updated: 2004-03-01 Last reviewed: 2004-03-01	Important Notices