10 BACKGROUND

DST Consulting Engineers Inc. (DST) is currently completing Environmental Testing at

the former J.A. Mathieu Sawmill site located on Couchiching First Nation lands. During
the investigation completed in January 2009, DST identified the presence of
polychlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzo-furans (commonly
known as dioxins and furans) in soil and groundwater samples collected both at the
former sawmill site and on Harry’s Road near the McPherson and Jourdain residences.

Following consultation with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Health Canada
(HC) and Environment Canada (EC), DST was asked by Couchiching First Nation to
complete dust sampling in the homes on Harry’s Road, the Bingo Hall and the former
Rainy Lake Airways Hangar building. DST found that identifying the sources of dioxins
and furans in the dust samples was not possible using generally known methods. A
new approach to identifying the sources of dioxins and furans was developed by Dr
Hijazi that established a scientifically verifiable and defensible method to
qualitatively and semi-quantitatively determine the contribution of the former saw
mill wood treatment chemicals to the soil and house dust. The new method indicated
that the soil and dust at the Bingo Hall, McPherson and Jourdain residences were
impacted by the former sawmill operations. The scientific methods used for the
above analyses will be outlined in the sub-sequent Section...., Methodology.

After additional consultation with the regulatory agencies, the First Nation asked DST
to complete a Historical Review of the site. This review determined that a much
larger saw mill and wood treatment operation was present on Harry’s Road.
According to a review by Mr. Craig Hlady (INAC), there have been different legal
entities and different trade names that may have operated the saw mill and
associated wood treatment activities. Based on Mr Hlady’s findings and conclusions,
this report will refer to any combination of legal or trade names as the “Former
Federally Approved Facilities, FFAF”.

After Health Canada and Environment Canada review of the DST reports including
Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment (PQHHRA) and further
consultation within the project team, the First Nations asked DST to design and
implement an expedited surface soil characterization consistent with Environment
Canada guidelines.

20 SURFACE SOIL CHARACTERIZATION

The First Nations in consultation with INAC/Environment Canada/Health Canada

approved DST’s comprehensive proposal for surface soil characterization. Although

1
the CCME definition of surface soil is soil that exists from the surface to 1.5 meter
below the ground surface, DST used surface soil consisting of the top 15 cm (6 “).
This soil depth is particularly suited for detailed human health and ecological risk
assessment.

Traditionally a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is developed that identifies the

source/sources of contamination, the transport pathways from the source to the
receptors, and the exposure pathways, exposure point and exposure concentration.

A detailed CSM is possible to develop upon review of the detailed history of the site
which we understand has been undertaken by Mr Hlady (INAC). For the immediate
task of assessing potential exposure of human & ecological receptors to surface
soil, the sources of contamination have been identified as:
• Former Federally Approved Facilities (FFAF)
○ Wood treatment chemicals in a former dipping tank at the
MacPherson Residence and possible other treatment/storage
location at the former saw mill as well as dripping and leaching
processes of stored treated wood and movement of the same
around the overall site.
○ Combustion sources from wood/saw dust burning at the lumber/saw
mill
○ Pentachlorophenol treated wood that may have been used by the
former railway company
○ Pentachlorophenol treated utility poles
• Resident Activities
○ Chlorophenol treated wood that may have been/is used by
residents
○ Wood burning by residents
○ Barrel Burning by residents
• General Anthropogenic Sources
○ Wet and dry deposition of air pollution from human activities and
forest fires

The potential receptors and exposure pathways are Human Health and Ecological.

The Human Exposure Pathways can be summarized as:

• Toddler Exposure to soil through ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption
• Adult Gardening Exposure through ingestion, inhalation, and skin
absorption
• All ages through dust exposure on windy days
• All ages of human receptors through tracking of soil into indoor
environment
• Pet tracking of soil into indoor environment.

2
The Ecological Exposure Pathways can be summarized as:
• Pet exposure
• Plant rooting Zone
• Terrestrial Wildlife
• Runoff to the Lake
• Leaching to groundwater & discharge to the lake
• Aquatic Effects (Bioaccumulation & Biomagnification in Aquatic Species
then Human Health Exposure through fishing and fish consumption

The currently available data does not allow conduct of a risk assessment for all the
above exposure scenarios. However the exposure to surface soil can be
quantitatively evaluated as recommended by Health Canada review of the
Expedited Surface Soil Characterization.

In order to simulate actual exposure, surface soil samples were mixed

(homogenized) in a stainless steel bowl before placing in the pre-cleaned laboratory
supplied sampling containers.

3.0 SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING STANDARD & OBJECTIVES

3.1 SAMPLING STANDARDS

The traditional approach of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA)

is to follow the CSA or the ASTM Standards. This expedited soil characterization
(Phase II ESA) was designed using the US EPA Data Quality Objectives (DQO)
process which links the sampling and analyses efforts to an action and decision.
DQO sampling and analyses plan answers specific questions:
• What do you need?
• Why do you need it?
• How will you use it?
• What is your tolerance for errors (uncertainty)?

More formally, the DQO process consists of seven steps as shown in Table 1 with
the required input for this project.

Table 1: The DQO process as adapted to the specific First Nations Project
DQO Step Project Specific Input
1 State the Problem Did the FFAF use oil and/or oil with Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) for dust suppression that may have lead to wide
spread soil contamination?

3
 Did the FFAF use wood treatment chemicals that may have
lead to wide spread soil contamination?

2 Identify the To develop an appropriate decision regarding the

Decision current/future land use along Harry’s Road

Seven (7) residences constructed on potentially

contaminated land
Options:
Residences can stay
Residences have to move
3 Identify the Inputs First Nations & INAC (with input from Health Canada &
to the Decision Environment Canada)

DST to Generate Scientifically Valid, Defensible & Verifiable

Data

4 Define the Residential area at former wood treatment facility access

Boundaries of the road (Harry’s Road)
Study
5 Develop a If contaminants are due to FFAF, then legal contractual
Decision Rule. obligation between First Nations & INAC (Federal
Government) is applicable.

If contaminants exceed acceptable Health Canada Human

Health Criteria; then relocation of residents is required until
the site is remediated/restored according to Contractual
Obligations.

If contaminants exceed acceptable Environment Canada

Ecological Criteria; then site remediation/restoration is
required according to Contractual Obligations.
6 Specify Tolerable Generate scientifically defensible and verifiable soil quality
Limits on Decision data to answer previous questions.
Errors
(Uncertainty). Use “Precautionary Principle”
7 Optimize the Sample the top 15 cm of soil
Sampling & Human Exposure
Analyses Plan • Toddler Playing (Ingestion, Inhalation, skin absorption)
Design. • Adult Gardening (Ingestion, Inhalation, skin absorption)
• All ages (Dust on windy days)
• All Ages (Tracking into indoor air by humans & Pets)
Ecological Exposure
• Pet exposure
• Rooting Zone
• Terrestrial Wildlife
• Runoff to Lake
• Leaching to groundwater & discharge to lake

4
 • Aquatic Effects (Bioaccumulation & Biomagnification in
Aquatic Species then Human Health Exposure)

The use of the precautionary principle to protect human and environmental health
is based on the fact that:
• No one can afford absolute scientific certainty
• All data has some error
• Data Quality is only meaningful in the context of data use.

Stewart (2002) reformulated the precautionary principle (PP) into four basic
versions:

• Non-Preclusion PP

– Scientific uncertainty should not automatically preclude regulation of

activities that pose a potential risk of significant harm.

• Margin of Safety PP

– Regulatory controls should incorporate a margin of safety; activities

should be limited below the level at which no adverse effect has been
observed or predicted.

• BAT PP

– Activities that present an uncertain potential for significant harm

should be subject to best technology available requirements to
minimize the risk of harm unless the proponent of the activity shows
that they present no appreciable risk of harm.

• Prohibitory PP

– Activities that present an uncertain potential for significant harm

should be prohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it
presents no appreciable risk of harm.

3.2 SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the Harry’s Road expedited Surface Soil Sampling program
was to generate scientifically defensible and verifiable soil quality data to answer

5
the following questions that are needed by the First Nation and INAC to develop an
appropriate decision regarding the future use of the Harry’s Road area as stated in
Table 1, above:
• Did the FFAF including the former lumber mill use wood treatment chemicals
that may have lead to wide spread soil contamination?
• Did the FFAF including the former lumber mill use oil and/or oil with
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) for dust suppression that may have lead to
wide spread soil contamination?

A brief technical report was submitted by DST (2010) with scientifically defensible
and verifiable results with the appropriate data quality that is suitable to develop an
action plan and decisions about the current and future use of the Harry’s Road area
as described in the following sections.

4.0 METHODOLOGY & RESULTS

4.1 DUST SUPPRESSION

The indicator parameters chosen for the use of oil/oil with PCBs for dust suppression
are:
• CCME Petroleum Fractions F2-F4
• PCB Aroclors and Total PCBs
• Chlorobenzenes which are the solvents used in the original Aroclor mixtures

PCBs and Chlorobenzenes were non-detectable in any of the samples. However,

some petroleum hydrocarbons, generally representing diesel fuel and/or lubricating
oil were detected in 7 out of 11 soil samples. The concentrations are well below the
CCME Criteria and the results do not indicate road oiling by the former saw mill since
these results can be explained by current site use.

Based on the detailed results, DST (2010), there is no evidence of the use of oil or
oil with PCBs for dust suppression along the Harry’s Road Area.

4.2 WOOD TREATMENT CHEMICALS

A complete listing of chemicals used in wood treatment processes was compiled

and reviewed by Dr Hijazi. Based on the review, the following indicator parameters
were selected for a comprehensive detection of wood treatment chemical use:

4.2.1 COAL TAR/CREOSOTE INDICATORS

6
The following chemicals were chosen as indicator chemicals:
– Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
– CCME petroleum indicators: BTEX & F1-F4 (F4 is asphaltene/coal tar)
– F4 Gravimetric Oil & Grease
– Chlorinated Solvents (which are the only solvents that can be used for
cleaning equipment, tools, etc after contact with coal tar/creosote)

The property specific results (DST 2010) show non-detectable concentrations except
for some PAHs in some samples but all results, with no exceptions, are well below
the applicable CCME/(MOE Table 3) Screening Criteria.

Based on the analytical results, there is no evidence that coal tar/creosote was used
at the former wood treatment facility along Harry’s Road.

Oral reports of the use of coal/creosote at the FFAF may relate to a reported Asphalt
Plant in the vicinity of the saw mill area. During the search for an old treated wood
sample in the saw mill area in November 2009, Dr Hijazi and Mr Tuttila noticed
visual evidence of coal tar/creosote/asphalt residual contamination, but it could not
be determined at the time whether this was a treatment area, a road or the asphalt
plant. Further investigation and site characterization in the former saw mill area
may be undertaken at a future date.

4.2.2 METAL INDICATORS

Toxic Metals and Arsenic were chosen as indicators of inorganic and metal wood
treatment.

Based on the currently available results, DST (2009 and 2010), only the locations
shown in Table 2 exceed the CCME screening criteria for the toxic metal indicators.

Table 2: Summary Table of Sample Locations Exceeding the CCME Screening

Criteria
Sample Sample Rationale for Selecting Analysis Parameters >
ID Location Regime CCME Criteria
SJ-6 Shawn Jourdain's Front yard adjacent contaminated Zn
Yard borehole from previous assessment
NWMM- Northwest of Potential impacts from former roadway Zn
2 Mark to wood storage area, low lying location
McPherson's
MM-5 Mark In ditch down from former treatment pit Zn
McPherson's
Yard
SHR-3 South of Harry's Adjacent pieces of treated wood, low Zn
Road lying area downgradient from former
wood treatment area

7
WLOF-1 West of Lorretta Ditch draining former wood treatment Zn
Foran's area and former wood storage area
LAF-6 Laura Foran's Walking trail beside house Zn, As, Cr, Cu, Pb
Yard
HY-1 Hangar Yard Beneath CCA treated stairway east of Zn
Hangar
HY-3 Hangar Yard Beneath sidewall to assess run-off from Zn
upgradient

The detection of zinc confirms the previous surface and sub-surface soil results, DST
(2008).

The particular detection of Cr (Chromium), Cu (Copper), As (Arsenic), Zn (Zinc) and

Pb (Lead) at the Laura Foran’s Property (LAF-6) is of particular concern from human
health perspective however resolving the dioxin/furan issue as recommended below
will resolve the metal exceedance.

The current data, DST (2010) indicates the use of Zinc (most likely Zinc Chloride) for
wood treatment by the FFAF. Zinc leaching from the treated wood stored or moved
around the site appears to indicate wide spread contamination due to the FFAF. The
human health impact of Zinc is of a lesser concern than the impact from
Dioxin/Furan and resolving the latter as recommended below will resolve the metal
exceedance.

4.2.3 CHLOROPHENOLS, DIOXINS & FURANS

Chlorophenols have been extensively used for wood treatment particularly in

treating railway ties, utility poles, and industrial/residential lumber board.
Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs)
are both formed as by-products during the manufacture of chlorinated phenols (2,4-
dichloro-, 2,4,6-trichloro-,2,3,4,6-tetrachloro- and pentachlorophenol). The
commercial chlorophenols are produced by two processes, i.e., by chlorination of
the phenol using various catalysts and by the alkaline hydrolysis of an appropriate
chlorobenzene. Both reactions lead to the formation of PCDDs and PCDFs.

(PCDD-PCDF) are a group of chlorinated chemicals with similar structures and

chemical properties and are often referred to collectively as "dioxins" . When found
in the environment or in human blood samples, dioxins are usually a mixture of
several of these congeners. While there are 210 dioxin and furan congeners, a
much smaller group of 7 dioxins and 10 furans are of most concern for human
health (See Table 3, below).

Figure 1 shows the chemical structure of the PCDD-PCDF with the 1-8 positions
where hydrogen can be substituted by chlorine.

8
 Figure 1: Chemical Structure of PCDD-PCDF with the 1-8 positions labelled.

Of all the congeners, the compound 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(commonly called 2,3,7,8-TCDD) is the compound that has been shown to be
the most toxic to some test animals. This is the compound that was present
in Agent Orange, the defoliant used in Vietnam, and when the term "dioxin"
is used, the reference is usually to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. It has been shown that:
dioxins and furans with chlorine substitutions at the 2,3,7,8 positions are
more toxic than those that have other substitutions. The World Health
Organization (WHO) developed relative Toxicity Equivalent Factors (TEF) for
the 17 congeners with the 2,3,7,8-chlorinated positions as shown in Table 4.

Table 3: PCDDs-PCDFs Congeners and Toxic Congeners

Congener Class No. Of Congeners No. Of Toxic Congeners
Mono-CDD 2 0
Di-CDD 10 0
Tri-CDD 14 0
Tetra-CDD 22 1
Penta-CDD 14 1
Hexa-CDD 10 3
Hepta-CDD 2 1
Octa-CDD 1 1
Mono-CDF 4 0
Di-CDF 16 0
Tri-CDF 28 0
Tetra-CDF 38 1
Penta-CDF 28 2
Hexa-CDF 16 4
Hepta-CDF 4 2
Octa-CDF 1 1

9
Total PCDD_PCDF 210 17

Table 4: World Health Organization (WHO) Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF)

Compound WHO 1998 TEF WHO 2005 TEF
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1 1
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.01
OCDD 0.0001 0.0003
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.03
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.01
OCDF 0.0001 0.0003

Laboratory analyses results for PCDDs-PCDFs are reported as the Total

Concentration of the Tetra- to Octa-congeners and the concentration of the
individual 17 Toxic Isomers with the WHO TEF for each. Multiplying the WHO TEF of
each toxic isomer by the concentration gives the individual Total Equivalent
Quantity (TEQ). Addition of all the TEQs gives the Total TEQ for the sample. The
Total TEQ for each sample is then compared to government standards or criteria for
exceedance/non-exceedance.

A significant application of the laboratory results is to calculate a congener or toxic

isomer profile which is equivalent to a finger print or signature. There are a number
of finger print variations that can be used including but not limited to:

1. Type 1: Ratio of individual toxic isomers concentration to total toxic isomers

concentration. This is a 17 point finger print.
2. Type 2: Ratio of individual toxic isomer concentration to total PCDD-PCDF
concentration. This is a 17 point finger print
3. Type 3: Ratio of Tetra-to-Octa- PCDD-PCDF congener concentrations to Total
PCDD-PCDF Concentration. This is a 10 point finger print.

Cleverly et al (1997) developed toxic isomer profiles using the ratio of specific
2,3,7,8-substituted CDDs-CDFs to the total PCDDs-CDFs (type 2 finger print). This
report and previous interpretation of the preliminary soil samples, vacuum samples,
wipe samples and the expedited surface soil characterization uses the Type 3 Finger
Print to identify the possible source of the PCDD-PCDF. Dr Hijazi experimented with

10
the three types above as well as other variants and concluded that Type 3 is best
suited to identify the source/sources of contamination by matching the finger prints
of individual samples to source area or product samples.

Cleverly et al (1997) suggested that man made PCDD-PCDF sources can be

classified as:
• Combustion /incineration sources, and
• Chemical manufacturing/processing sources.
• Each source type favours the formation and environmental release of certain
mixtures of PCDDs-PCDFs. These mixtures can be translated into what are
termed ‘congener profiles’ which represent the distribution of total PCDDs-
PCDFs present in the mixture.
• A congener profile may serve as a source finger print of the types of PCDDs-
PCDFs associated with particular environmental sources.
• A source finger print may aid in explaining source contributions to
environmental measurements in various matrices.

Cleverly, et al (1997) compiled the Toxic Congeners profiles, “Finger Prints”, for a
number of PCDDs-PCDFs emission sources in the USA: municipal, medical and
hazardous waste incineration; cement kilns burning and not burning hazardous
waste; industrial oil fired boilers; industrial/coal and wood combustors; unleaded
fuel combustion in vehicles; diesel fuel combustion in trucks; secondary aluminum
smelters; secondary lead smelters; sewage sludge incineration; bleached chlorine
paper pulp; technical pentachlorophenol, and 2,4-D salts and esters.

Cleverly et al (1997) concluded that there are similarities in the congener profiles of
pentachlorophenol (PCP), diesel truck emissions, unleaded gasoline vehicle
emissions, and industrial wood combustors. In these sources, OCDD dominates total
emissions, but the relative ratio of 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD to OCDD is also quite
similar. This finding has been verified by Dr Hijazi by reviewing the congener ratios
for the USEPA Dioxin Data Base which was publically released by the US EPA in
early April 2010.

The Saw Mill/FFAF use of wood treatment has been established by analyzing soil
and treated wood samples as follows (Table 5):
• Soil samples from the saw mill area (see Table 6 for details)
• Wood 1 Sample which is a piece of treated 2x4 lumber retrieved from the
saw mill area in November 2009
• Wood 2 Sample which was obtained in November 2009 from a hydro utility
pole in the saw mill area by the wood dust pile along Highway 17
• Wood 3 sample which is a railway tie sample obtained in November from
Laura Foran’s Garden.
• Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Product samples profiles calculated by Dr Hijazi
from literature values for the PCP product and the sodium PCP product (Na-
PCP) (see Table 7 for details)
• Tetrachlorophenol product sample which is the only analysis found in the
literature.

11
The source soil samples (Table 6) are from different locations across the former mill
site as shown in Figure 1 and from different depths. If the source finger print is
stable (invariant), then it can be used qualitatively and semi-quantitatively to
identify source related impact to residential soil and house dust samples and
possibly biological samples.

The stability of the source finger print is based on calculating the arithmetic mean,
Standard deviation (SD) and the co-efficient of variation (CV) for the total congener
distributions (Type 3 Finger Print). If CV is less than one (1), then the congener
ratios are normally distributed and the congener ratios can be used to identify
source versus non-source impacted samples.

Table 6 shows the congener ratios for the six “source” soil samples, the mean of the
congener distributions and the co-efficient of variation. The results show that the
congener distributions are stable horizontally and vertically across the former mill
site.

Tables 7 & 8 show the finger prints of the Pentachlorophenol (PCP) and the sodium
salt of PCP (Na-PCP) finger prints (congener profiles) calculated by Dr Hijazi from the
published literature.

Tables 5-8 show that:

• The FFAF used a chlorinated phenol as a wood treatment chemical;

• The chlorinated phenol has a unique PCDD-PCDF finger print with Hepta-CDF
as the predominant congener
• The Chlorinated phenol used by FFAF is not a pentachlorophenol but
resembles Tetrachlorophenol (Table 5) finger print.
• The identification of the chlorinated phenol used at the FFAF is important for
different reasons but was pursued in this project as a possible surrogate for
PCDD-PCDF for laboratory cost saving technique. Since the chlorinated
phenols were all non-detectable and this was explained in the DST (2010)
Expedited Soil Characterization Report, the exact nature of the chlorinated
phenol is not essential to achieve the stated objectives of the surface soil
sampling program and the obligation of INAC under the Agreement with the
First Nation.

The USEPA congener profiles (Cleverly et al (1997) and our analyses (Tables 5-8)
indicate that there are two sources of PCDD-PCDF on the subject site that will be
interpreted as follows:

• Wood treatment chemical with the Hepta-CDF as the dominant congener.

This will be allocated to the Former Federally Approved Facilities;
• Penta-chlorophenol, Industrial Wood Combustors, and other man made
sources where Octa-CDD is the dominant congener. If no local
pentachlorophenol source was identified (utility pole, railway ties, etc) then

12
 TEQs exceeding the screening value will be allocated to the wood burning
and plant fires at the Former Federally Approved Facilities.

Table 5: Congener finger print for saw mill source soil samples compared to saw mill treated
wood sample and other finger prints.
Na-PCP Tetra-CP
Soil Ave WOOD 1 WOOD 2 WOOD 3 PCP Ave
Ave (a)
Railway See Table
Notes See Table 6 Saw Mill Hydropole See Table 7
Tie 8
Tetra CDD 0.06 0 0.4 0 0.00 0.17 0.38
Penta CDD 0.12 0.3 0.1 0 0.00 0.09 2.85
Hexa CDD 1.97 0.9 3.5 1 0.25 1.76 5.21
Hepta CDD 2.28 1.3 12.9 34.4 10.84 16.79 3.07
Octa CDD 6.06 3.1 44.5 55.6 70.82 44.59 0.38
Tetra CDF 0.14 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.00 0.09 0.27
Penta CDF 2.29 3.4 1.5 0.1 0.01 0.38 5.49
Hexa CDF 18.86 18.4 6.3 0.5 0.45 4.96 38.42
Hepta CDF 57.13 59.6 22.2 4.5 6.40 14.93 38.42
Octa CDF 11.08 12.5 8 3.7 11.23 16.23 5.49
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Rappe et al (1979)

Table 6 Congener Distributions of soil samples from the former mill site, the mean,
standard deviation (SD) and the Coefficient of Variation (CV).
BHMW31 BHMW31 BHMW31 BHMW31 Source Finger Print
Sample ID BH309 BH309
1 1 1 3 (SFP)
Sample
m 0 - 0.6 1.2 - 1.8 0 - 0.6 1.8-2.4 3.0 - 3.6 0 - 0.6 Mean SD CV
Depth
Tetra CDD % 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.82

13
 Penta CDD % 0.15 0.04 0.14 0.09 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.05 0.39
Hexa CDD % 2.85 2.29 1.10 1.31 1.67 2.61 1.97 0.72 0.36
Hepta CDD % 2.56 2.59 2.07 1.96 1.90 2.61 2.28 0.34 0.15
Octa CDD % 6.82 6.70 6.35 5.34 5.22 5.93 6.06 0.68 0.11
Tetra CDF % 0.19 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.20
Penta CDF % 3.00 2.02 1.82 2.57 1.94 2.40 2.29 0.45 0.20
Hexa CDF % 18.47 18.60 16.86 23.11 18.36 17.75 18.86 2.18 0.12
Hepta CDF % 55.53 55.81 59.39 55.57 58.63 57.87 57.13 1.71 0.03
Octa CDF % 10.38 11.66 12.12 9.89 11.94 10.51 11.08 0.94 0.08
100.0
Total % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
0

2755.1 1080.50 105567. 101313.

Total pg/g 5452.59 40609.6
9 4 3 1
TEQ (@ DL) pg/g 19.52 7.45 561.51 28.07 535.62 275.35

Table 7: Pentachlorophenol (PCP) congener ratios and references.

PCP PCP PCP PCP PCP PCP Mean SD
Reference A A B C A D This Report
units % % % % % % %
Tetra
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CDD
Penta
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CDD
Hexa CDD 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.26 0.03 0.61 0.25 0.19
Hepta
13.40 9.26 14.19 15.60 3.68 8.91 10.84 4.42
CDD
Octa CDD 69.85 64.25 67.55 62.23 85.67 75.40 70.82 8.60
Tetra CDF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Penta
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
CDF
Hexa CDF 0.09 0.10 0.40 1.09 0.05 0.96 0.45 0.47
Hepta
5.92 10.09 6.82 10.00 3.11 2.47 6.40 3.26
CDF
Octa CDF 10.51 16.10 10.87 10.79 7.46 11.65 11.23 2.79
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00
Ref. A: Pentachlorophenol Task Force (1997); samples of "penta" manufactured in 1985, 1986, and
1988.
Ref. B: Hagenmaier and Brunner (1987); sample of Witophen P (Dynamit Nobel - Lot no. 7777)
(obtained in Germany).
Ref. C: Hagenmaier and Brunner (1987); sample of PCP produced by Rhone Poulenc (obtained in
Germany).
Ref. D: Harrad et al. (1991); PCP-based herbicide formulation from NY State Dept. Environmental

14
Conservation

Table 8 Pentachlorophenol Sodium Salt (Na-PCP) Congener ratios

Na- Na- Na- Na- Na- Na- Mean SD
PCP PCP PCP PCP PCP PCP
Reference A B C D E F This Report
units % % % % % % %
Tetra CDD 0.88 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.35
Penta CDD 0.25 0.01 0.18 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.10
Hexa CDD 0.88 1.44 3.31 0.53 0.72 3.70 1.76 1.39
Hepta 10.00 16.10 15.70 13.26 19.29 26.40 16.79 5.64
CDD
Octa CDD 25.00 46.60 35.30 74.05 65.17 21.39 44.59 21.47
Tetra CDF 0.13 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.32 0.09 0.12
Penta CDF 0.38 0.02 0.12 0.06 0.01 1.69 0.38 0.66
Hexa CDF 8.75 4.66 2.55 0.21 0.67 12.94 4.96 5.00
Hepta CDF 26.88 19.91 11.20 1.97 5.63 24.03 14.93 10.19
Octa CDF 26.88 11.23 31.56 9.71 8.50 9.51 16.23 10.21
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00
Ref. A: Buser and Bosshardt (1976); mean of five samples of "low" CDD/CDF content PCP-Na
received from Swiss commercial sources.
Ref. B: Buser and Bosshardt (1976); sample of "high" CDD/CDF content PCP-Na received from a
Swiss commercial source.
Ref. C: Hagenmaier and Brunner (1987); sample of Dowicide-G purchased from Fluka; sample
obtained in Germany.
Ref. D: Hagenmaier and Brunner (1987); sample of Preventol PN (Bayer AG); sample obtained in
Germany.
Ref. E: Santl et al. (1994c); 1992 sample of PCP-Na from Prolabo, France.
Ref. F: Palmer et al. (1988); sample of a PCP-Na formulation collected from a closed sawmill in
California in the late 1980s.

15
5.0 APPLICABLE HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA

In the HHPQRA submitted by DST, the Health Canada Input Parameters were used in
the on-line USEPA Region III Excel Model. The latter is used by all USEPA regions
with input parameters suitable for regional climates. The USEPA model uses the
cancer (non-threshold) and non-cancer/threshold toxicity approach for PCDD-PCDF.
Health Canada recommended that their Excel Model be used to be consistent with
other Federal Sites. DST has conducted the modelling using the HC Excel Model
(Version October 31, 2008) in order to establish a site specific standard for the
Couchiching First Nation (CFN).

The Contractual Agreement between the Federal Government and the CFN requires
restoration of the site to original conditions, which in practice means
remediation/clean-up/restoration of the site to background conditions by eliminating
any impact due to the Former Federally Approved Facilities (FFAF). There are three
background condition standards to consider for contaminated soils:
• A National Background Standard: The CCME Canada Wide Background
Standard is 4 pg/g TEQ
• A Provincial Background Standard: The Ontario MOE Background Soil
Standard of 7 pg/g TEQ which is the Site Condition Standard for Residential
Soil in O. Reg. 153/04 Tables 1 (Background) & 9 (Sensitive Site within 30
meters of Surface Water in a non-potable groundwater situation).
• A Site Specific Background Standard: Our review of the data indicates that
background TEQ is equal to or less than 1 TEQ.

5.1 HEALTH CANADA BASE MODEL SCENARIO (BMS)

The BMS consists of the Health Canada default parameters in the Excel October
2008 Model except:
• Coarse Soil Classification with significant traffic on unpaved roads
• The input soil TEQ concentrations were:
– The CCME Soil Criteria (4 pg/g TEQ),
– The MOE background soil criteria (7 pg/g TEQ),

Table 9 shows the results of the BMS calculations for the Hazard Quotient (HQ) and
the Hazard Index (HI) for the 4 pg/g and 7 pg/g TEQ. The results show that:
• The CCME Soil Criteria (4 pg/g TEQ) meets the Health Canada HQ & HI
insignificant risk indicator of 0.2 (2.0E-01).
• The Ontario MOE Background Soil Criteria (7 pg/g TEQ) exceeds the Health
Canada HQ & HI insignificant risk indicator of 0.2 (2.0E-01).
• Incidental soil ingestion and soil dermal contact are the critical exposure
pathways.

16
 • The Critical Receptor is an infant as defined by Health Canada.

The use of a Hazard Quotient HQ=0.2 is a generic administrative rule by CCME &
HC indicating that only 20% of allowable exposure can come from contaminated soil
while 80% comes from every day exposure to other sources In the dioxin case, HC
(2005) states that “for most people, about 90% of overall exposure to dioxins
comes through diet”. This suggests that an HQ=0.1 would be a better indicator for
Dioxin exposure to contaminated soil. This leads to the conclusion that the CCME
screening criteria of 4 pg/g TEQ exceeds the HQ=0.1 and equals the HQ=0.2.

Table 9: HC Excel Model Results for 4 & 7 pg/g TEQ as the human health
screening criteria
CCME MOE
Generic BKD
Concentration (pg/g TEQ) 4 7
Exposure Routes
Oral/Dermal HQ 1.64E-01 2.7E-01
Inhalation HQ 4.34E-04 7.60E-04
Hazard Index - Total 1.64E-01 (=0.2) 2.88E-01 (=0.3)
Target Hazard Index (0.2) Meets Exceeds
Dioxin Hazard Index (0.1) See Below for
Exceeds Exceeds
Elaboration
Critical Receptors
Oral/Dermal (non-cancer effects) Infant Infant
Inhalation (non-cancer effects) Toddler Toddler
Total (non-cancer effects) Infant Infant

Based on the results in Table 9, it is recommended that 4 pg/g TEQ be adopted as

the human health screening criteria.

5.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES OF HEALTH CANADA MODEL

The Health Canada excel model was subjected to sensitivity analyses for the soil
concentration of 4 pg/g TEQ; soil classification (Coarse versus Fine) and significant
versus insignificant traffic on unpaved roads (Harry’s Road is unpaved). Table 10
shows the results of the sensitivity analyses for the four combinations of coarse soil,
fine soil, significant traffic on unpaved roads and insignificant traffic on unpaved
roads. The model sensitivity analyses indicate similar results as the Base Model
Scenario.

17
Table 10: Results of the sensitivity analyses for the four combinations of coarse soil, fine soil,
significant traffic on unpaved roads and insignificant traffic on unpaved roads. The soil concentration
is 4 pg/g TEQ.
Coarse Soil Fine Soil
Unpaved Rod & Yes No Yes No
Heavy Traffic
Infant Toddler Infant Toddler Infant Toddler Infant Toddler
Hazard Quotient – 1.64E- 1.43E- 1.64E- 1.43E- 2.20E-01 1.89E-01 2.20E-01 1.89E-01
Oral/Dermal 01 01 01 01
Hazard Quotient – 1.97E- 4.34E- 1.89E- 4.34E- 1.26E-04 2.78E-04 1.18E-04 2.60E-04
Inhalation 04 04 04 04
Hazard Index – 1.64E- 1.43E- 1.64E- 1.43E- 2.20E-01 1.90E-01 2.20E-01 1.90E-01
Total 01 01 01 01
Target Hazard 0. Meets Meets Meets Meets Exceeds Meets Exceeds Meets
Index: 2
Target Hazard 0. Exceed Meets Exceed Meets Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds
Index 1 s s

5.3 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING CRITERIA

Health Canada review of the DST (2010) brief Expedited Surface Soil
Characterization suggests that the MOE Human Health Component, MOE HHC (48
pg/g TEQ) be used instead of the 4pg/g. The MOE component approach consists of
calculating the acceptable human and ecological site condition standards. The
strictest (lowest) site condition standard is then adopted as the generic site
condition standard in Tables 1-9 of O. Reg. 153/04. Although the equations used to
calculate the MOE HHC and the Health Canada Base Model Scenario are the same,
the input parameters are different and therefore the final results are different. This
issue of comparative regulatory analyses is within the technical capabilities of Dr
Hijazi; however it is irrelevant to the site specific conditions since we are dealing
with a strictly Federal Jurisdiction and the rights and obligations of the Federal
Government and the CFN under a Contractual Agreement.

Based on the above analyses, it is our professional opinion that the CCME generic
criterion (4pg/g TEQ) is also the best suited criteria for human health screening
based on using the Health Canada Human Health Excel Model.

6.0 RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 FFAF AS CONTAMINANT SOURCE

The presence of the PCDD-PCDF with a unique finger print that is an exact match
among a piece of treated wood, saw mill area soils, and residential property soils
proves without doubt that the FFAF:

18
 • Used a chlorinated phenol wood treatment process that lead to wide spread
contamination with PCDD-PCDF with the Hepta-CDF as the dominant toxic
isomer
• Another source of PCDD-PCDF is wood combustion and the saw mill/lumber
mill fires with Octa-CDD as the dominant toxic isomer.

Based on this finding, the Federal Government (INAC) has a contractual obligation
to restore the site by remediation/clean-up of contaminated properties using the
Best Available Technology (BAT).

Health Canada review of the DST Report (2010) and previous input into this project
suggests that only soils/properties exceeding the human health criteria should be
risk managed/ cleaned-up/remediated. This stipulation is not part of the Contractual
Agreement with the CFN. However the surface soil results and previous soil and
house dust results show exceedance of the Human Health Criteria developed using
the Health Canada Excel Model. This will be discussed below.

6.2 HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA & MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION

The human health screening criteria was compared to the soil results. Any
exceedance of the 4 pg/g TEQ in the soil is considered exceeding the acceptable
Health Canada Screening criteria regardless of the source of contamination.
Exceedances that are due to the FFAF are considered subject to the Contractual
Obligations between the Federal Government and the CFN.

Dioxins and Furans surface soil concentrations exceed the human health/CCME
Criteria 4 pg/g TEQ at the following locations (the highest measured concentrations
are shown in brackets):
• Mike Parks (10 pg/g);
• Shawn Jourdain (6.9 pg/g);
• North of Bill Morrisseau (34 pg/g);
• North of Mark McPherson (4.7 pg/g);
• Loretta Foran (400 pg/g);
• Laura Foran (69 pg/g);
• Dale Dokuchie (45 pg/g);
• Bingo Hall (18 pg/g);
• South of Harry’s Road (23 pg/g); and
• Former Rainy Lake Airways Hangar (18 pg/g).

Two tested properties (Dean & Tina Bruyer’s) are not impacted at any of the six
sampling locations. Therefore these two properties do not require clean-up as will
be detailed in the specific property evaluations.

19
Mike Park’s property is the only property that indicates exceedance of the screening
criteria (4pg/g TEQ) that cannot be attributed in whole or part to the FFAF.

6.3 FURTHER ACTION OPTIONS

Traditionally there are two further action options:

Option I: Conduct Further delineation by surficial/vertical sampling of soil and

groundwater.

Option II: Develop and implement a clean-up plan for the contaminated soil. This
can be in conjunction with further surficial and vertical delineation.

However under the current circumstances the overriding objective is to reduce the
human exposure to levels as low as reasonably practicable. This can only be
achieved by restricting access to the contamination to authorized personnel and/or
by remediating the soil to less than 4pg/g TEQ. Thus conducting further
investigation while the residents are still living on contaminated soil cannot be
justified due to the extreme toxicity of the PCDD-PCDF mixture and the continued
exposure of residents. Any additional sampling should be focussed using the Data
Quality Objectives (DQO) process so that resources are not spent on generating
more data that does not contribute to the overall objectives of meeting the
contractual obligations between CFN and INAC and protecting human health.

Restricting access to contaminated soil means re-locating the residents to clean

areas. Any other approach is unlikely to be effective or implementable.

Remediating the soil is best achieved at this point in time by excavation and stock
piling at the former saw mill area where there is more contaminated soil and debris
that will ultimately need decontamination or risk management.

Remediating the soil by excavation and stock piling the soil at the former saw mill
area will generate dust, noise and nuisance. The remediation contractor is required
by best professional practices to supply their employees with personnel protective
equipment at Level A Protection which is shown photographically in Figure..... .

20
 Figure Remediation Contractor Level A Personnel Protection

It is not reasonable or possible to have remediation workers dressed to Level A

protection while residents are still living on their property dressed in normal
clothing.

In addition, it should be noted that “medically unexplained physical symptoms

(MUPS)” are a common occurrence in similar situations. Epidemiologic studies find
that MUPS are so common that we should expect that they would occur after all
events or exposures that affect any modest-sized group of people. When MUPS
occur after significant events involving environmental exposures, particularly if they
are noticeable and impressive, the affected individual often reflects back in search
of causes and then links MUPS to these worrisome exposures. This occurs even
when the best scientific evidence suggests that a causal relationship is unlikely. As
one example of many cases, after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center in New York City, concerns of a "WTC syndrome" consisting of
cough, indigestion, eye irritation, and other symptoms emerged.

The Human Health screening criterion (4pg/g TEQ) is based on assigned relative
toxicity of 17 congeners out of 210. The mono-, di-, and trichloro- congeners are
not included in these analyses. Such compounds are considered to be much less
toxic than the higher chlorinated congeners and are also much more volatile and
losses may occur during clean-up. Due to these factors, the human health screening
criteria should be thought of as an under estimate and a much lower screening
criteria may be applicable in the future if the PCDD-PCDF toxicity is adjusted in the
future as occurred with the WHO TEF between 1998 and 2005 (See Table 4, this
report).

7.0 JUSTIFICATION & PRIORITIZING RESIDENT RE-

LOCATION

The general justifications for moving the residents were given above. In this section,
the PCDD-PCDF and Zinc where applicable will be discussed. However for

21
scheduling purposes, the properties have been classified according to the following
priority items based on the toxicity of PCDD-PCDF:
• Priority 1: Protection of Infants, Toddlers and/or Children
• Priority 2: Protection of Sensitive Adults
• Priority 3: Dale Dokuchie’s
• Priority 4: Re-Location Due to Harry’s Road Closure
• Priority 5: Airways Hanger

7.1 PRIORITY 1: PROTECTION OF INFANTS, TODDLERS & CHILDREN

It is our understanding that the following properties have infants, toddlers and
children as defined by Health Canada:
• Shawn Jourdain
• Mark Macpherson
• Laura Foran
• Bill Mourissou

Tables 11- 14 show the contribution of each toxic congener to the Total TEQ with
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF indicator for the FFAF contribution highlighted.

Table 11: Shawn Jourdain’s Yard Soil Sample Summary Results

NSJ- WJS- WSJ- WSJ
Dioxins and Furans SJ-1 SJ-2 SJ-7X SJ-3 SJ-4 SJ-5 SJ-6 NSJ-2
1 1 2 -3
2,3,7,8-T4CDD 0.13 0.10 0.050 0.060 0.040 0.070 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.070 0.30 1.0
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD 1.4 0.41 0.37 0.090 0.080 0.20 0.40 0.50 0.14 0.10 0.40 2.0
0.008 0.006 0.03
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDD 0.25 0.080 0.070 0 0 0.040 0 0.040 0.010 0.010 0.030 0.30
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD 0.54 0.22 0.22 0.022 0.049 0.24 0.60 0.63 0.025 0.029 0.13 2.2
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDD 0.48 0.16 0.18 0.018 0.017 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.024 0.030 0.040 0.80
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD 0.99 0.42 0.46 0.040 0.082 0.84 0.20 0.22 0.021 0.029 0.064 31.0
0.02 0.003 0.006 0.006
O8CDD 0.21 0.090 0.10 0.011 0.028 0.30 1 0.027 9 6 9 9.6
0.04 0.03 0.09
2,3,7,8-T4CDF 2 0.026 0.024 0.012 0.014 0.047 8 0.049 0.013 0.015 0.030 0
0.01 0.009 0.01 0.009 0.03
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDF 5 0.012 0.015 6 0.011 0.011 8 0.027 0.011 0 0.015 0
2,3,4,7,8-P5CDF 0.15 0.12 0.090 0.060 0.066 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.027 0.024 0.12 0.30
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF 0.28 0.13 0.14 0.030 0.087 0.13 0.45 0.54 0.035 0.035 0.20 0.70
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.32 0.13 0.17 0.026 0.050 0.099 0.35 0.38 0.035 0.032 0.20 0.30
2,3,4,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.28 0.15 0.15 0.015 0.037 0.071 0.40 0.49 0.020 0.020 0.24 0.40
0.01 0.009 0.009 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.02 0.008 0.006
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.020 0 0 0.020 0.20
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF 1.5 0.97 1.2 0.065 0.41 0.46 4.4 4.6 0.17 0.10 3.7 3.1
0.02 0.002 0.005 0.02 0.002 0.001
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-H7CDF 5 0.011 0.013 0 4 0.013 3 0.022 0 0 0.012 0.14
0.04 0.001 0.004 0.03 0.002 0.001
O8CDF 5 0.017 0.021 1 8 0.042 3 0.036 3 2 0.023 0.14

22
TEQ (pg) @ DL = 1
TEQ 6.7 3.1 3.3 0.48 0.99 2.8 7.5 0.66 0.52 5.5 52 0.78
TEQ (pg) @ DL = 0
3.2
TEQ 6.7 2.9 0.35 0.86 2.6 6.9 0.65 0.31 4.6 48 0.70

Table 12: Bill Morrisseau's Yard Soil Sample Summary Results

BM- NBM- NBM-
Dioxins and Furans BM-1 BM-2 BM-3 BM-4 BM-5 BM-6
7X 1 2
2,3,7,8-T4 CDD 0.050 0.060 0.030 0.030 0.060 0.020 0.080 0.070 0.080
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD 0.10 0.050 0.040 0.040 0.10 0.060 0.38 0.30 0.30
0.009
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDD 0.020 0.0090 0.0040 0.0050 0 0.0040 0.030 0.020 0.020
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD 0.044 0.016 0.010 0.0080 0.090 0.016 0.26 0.21 0.32
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDD 0.030 0.010 0.011 0.0050 0.041 0.011 0.16 0.10 0.090
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD 0.034 0.016 0.015 0.0075 0.059 0.021 0.13 0.16 0.25
O8CDD 0.010 0.0033 0.0028 0.0016 0.011 0.0051 0.017 0.024 0.026
2,3,7,8-T4CDF 0.014 0.0090 0.0040 0.0060 0.015 0.020 0.11 0.015 0.040
0.0009 0.009
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDF 0.013 0.0087 0 0.0063 3 0.0093 0.018 0.012 0.036
2,3,4,7,8-P5CDF 0.048 0.021 0.0090 0.012 0.057 0.024 0.21 0.12 0.39
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF 0.047 0.031 0.012 0.015 0.10 0.026 0.25 0.28 0.70
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.046 0.027 0.011 0.015 0.10 0.024 0.17 0.44 1.5
2,3,4,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.038 0.020 0.012 0.0060 0.12 0.010 0.20 0.48 1.3
0.009 0.006 0.009
1,2,3,7,8,9-H7CDF 0 0.0070 0.0040 0.0030 0 0.0030 0 0.040 0.10
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
H7CDF 0.27 0.090 0.10 0.010 0.96 0.030 1.2 5.7 29
0.003 0.0007 0.0008 0.006 0.009
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-H7CDF 0 0.0020 0 0 0 0.0020 0 0.012 0.040
0.002 0.0009 0.0009 0.0001 0.007 0.0004 0.009
O8CDF 2 0 6 8 2 5 3 0.048 0.26

TEQ (pg) @ DL = 1
TEQ 0.78 0.38 0.27 0.17 1.8 0.29 3.2 8.0 34
TEQ (pg) @ DL = 0
TEQ 0.61 0.14 0.12 0.071 1.6 0.13 3.2 7.5 34

Table 13: Mark McPherson’s Yard Soil Sample Summary Results

Dioxins and MM- MM- MM- MM- MM- MM- MM- NWM NWM NEM
Furans 1 2 3 7X 4 5 6 M-1 M-2 M-1
0.07
2,3,7,8-T4CDD 0.050 0.040 0.040 0.10 0.040 0.050 0 0.040 0.050 0.080
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.60 0.040 0.10 0.17 0.040 0.050 0.33
1,2,3,4,7,8- 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.02 0.005 0.004 0.01 0.005 0.008
H6CDD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.020
1,2,3,6,7,8- 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.03 0.008 0.008 0.06 0.006
H6CDD 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0.016 0.21
1,2,3,7,8,9- 0.007 0.006 0.02 0.008 0.04
H6CDD 0.015 0 0 0 0 0.014 6 0.010 0.019 0.080
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 0.005 0.004 0.00 0.009 0.007 0.05 0.006
H7CDD 0.019 4 2 90 0 4 5 7 0.031 0.11

23
 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.002 0.001 0.00 0.001 0.007
O8CDD 3 78 81 12 9 7 93 6 2 0.014
0.005 0.004 0.004 0.00 0.004 0.003 0.00 0.004 0.008
2,3,7,8-T4CDF 0 0 0 50 0 0 70 0 0 0.020
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.001 0.006
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDF 2 2 2 30 90 90 39 90 5 0
0.03 0.04 0.009
2,3,4,7,8-P5CDF 0.012 0.012 0.015 0 0.012 0.012 2 0.012 0 0.18
1,2,3,4,7,8- 0.009 0.04 0.006 0.09 0.004
H6CDF 0 0.012 0.011 0 0.016 0 0 0 0.012 0.32
1,2,3,6,7,8- 0.006 0.008 0.008 0.02 0.003 0.07 0.003
H6CDF 0 0 0 0 0.011 0 9 0 0.011 0.31
2,3,4,6,7,8- 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.03 0.004 0.09 0.004
H6CDF 0 0 0 0 0.016 0 7 0 0.012 0.35
1,2,3,7,8,9- 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.02 0.005 0.004 0.00 0.004 0.005
H6CDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0.010
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.01
H7CDF 8 3 0 9 0.11 0 1.4 0.010 0.053 2.5
1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000
H7CDF 70 90 0 30 90 50 40 40 50 0.012
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.000 0.000
O8CDF 72 57 57 17 84 20 4 22 78 0.019

TEQ (pg) @ DL=

1 TEQ 0.24 0.22 1.1 0.29 0.23 2.2 0.15 0.29 4.6 4.8
TEQ (pg) @ DL= 0.02
0 TEQ 0.13 0.11 0.29 0.18 0.19 2.2 5 0.18 4.3 4.7

Table 14: Laura Foran’s Yard Soil Sample Summary Results

LAF-
Dioxins and Furans NLOF-1 LAF-1 LAF-2 LAF-3 LAF-4 LAF-5 LAF-6
7X
2,3,7,8-T4CDD 0.070 0.060 0.030 0.10 0.17 0.040 0.21 1.8
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD 0.50 0.090 0.050 0.79 1.3 0.16 1.5 16
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDD 0.090 0.010 0.0070 0.070 0.13 0.017 0.17 2.5
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD 0.54 0.023 0.038 0.55 0.91 0.025 1.3 6.3
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDD 0.26 0.021 0.029 0.32 0.53 0.045 0.64 8.3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD 1.2 0.039 0.018 0.51 1.0 0.055 1.6 9.2
O8CDD 0.51 0.0081 0.0026 0.13 0.24 0.012 0.39 0.93
2,3,7,8-T4CDF 0.017 0.0050 0.0040 0.025 0.042 0.0070 0.066 0.57
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDF 0.018 0.0012 0.0018 0.013 0.021 0.00090 0.039 0.081
2,3,4,7,8-P5CDF 0.18 0.012 0.015 0.19 0.30 0.0090 0.45 1.2
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF 0.48 0.015 0.027 0.45 0.80 0.011 1.4 1.9
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.37 0.016 0.025 0.38 0.60 0.0080 1.0 1.6
2,3,4,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.43 0.014 0.032 0.46 0.76 0.0090 1.0 1.9
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDF 0.070 0.0070 0.0040 0.020 0.070 0.0030 0.060 0.060
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF 6.2 0.085 0.20 4.4 8.2 0.050 14 16
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-H7CDF 0.040 0.0020 0.0020 0.040 0.070 0.00090 0.11 0.090
O8CDF 0.081 0.0016 0.0015 0.045 0.075 0.0010 0.14 0.16

TEQ (pg) @ DL = 1 TEQ 11 0.41 0.49 8.5 15 0.45 24 69

24
 TEQ (pg) @ DL = 0 TEQ 11 0.32 0.38 8.5 15 0.35 24 69

7.2 PRIORITY 2: PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE ADULTS

Table 15 shows the contribution of each toxic congener to the Total TEQ with
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF indicator for the FFAF contribution highlighted.

Table 15: Loretta Foran’s Yard Soil Sample Summary Results

Dioxins and WLOF- LOF- LOF- LOF- LOF- LOF- LOF- NLOF-
LOF-1
Furans 1 2 7X 3 4 5 6 1
2,3,7,8-T4CDD 0.040 0.030 0.030 0.040 0.060 0.090 0.040 2.0 0.070
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD 0.30 0.040 0.070 0.070 0.99 1.4 0.13 68 0.50
0.005
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDD 0.050 0.013 0.012 0.22 0.24 0.030 22 0.090
0
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD 0.28 0.012 0.041 0.054 0.69 1.5 0.18 49 0.54
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDD 0.15 0.012 0.034 0.038 0.56 0.72 0.10 50 0.26
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD 0.46 0.034 0.10 0.13 1.7 2.9 0.42 110 1.2
0.008
O8CDD 0.10 0.029 0.036 0.48 0.84 0.21 19 0.51
1
0.003
2,3,7,8-T4CDF 0.014 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.055 0.008 0.18 0.017
0
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.006
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDF 0.012 0.015 0.039 0.21 0.018
2 2 5 6
0.009
2,3,4,7,8-P6CDF 0.14 0.009 0.012 0.20 0.63 0.075 3.0 0.18
0
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF 0.36 0.012 0.035 0.045 0.70 2.0 0.29 10 0.48
0.005
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.50 0.021 0.032 0.43 1.4 0.16 11 0.37
0
0.004
2,3,4,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.38 0.030 0.036 0.63 1.6 0.21 12 0.43
0
0.004
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDF 0.010 0.005 0.006 0.030 0.080 0.020 0.20 0.070
0
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
3.4 0.042 0.28 0.32 6.3 16 2.7 36 6.2
H7CDF
0.000
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-H7CDF 0.021 0.003 0.004 0.050 0.12 0.026 1.0 0.040
7
0.000 0.003 0.004
O8CDF 0.033 0.075 0.15 0.025 1.7 0.081
69 6 5

TEQ (pg) @ DL = 1
TEQ 6.3 0.22 0.71 0.85 13 30 4 400 11
TEQ (pg) @ DL = 0
TEQ 6.2 0.16 0.66 0.78 13 30 4.6 400 11

7.3 PRIORITY 3: DALE DOKUCHIE’S

25
Table 16 shows the contribution of each toxic congener to the Total TEQ with
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF indicator for the FFAF contribution highlighted. This property
has the contribution from the wood burning and plant fires. This property is also the
last property between the Airways Hanger and the former saw mill burners where
the excavated soil stock piling is recommended. In addition, it is recommended that
an access road be constructed from Dale’s front yard to the saw mill burners.

Table 16: Dale Dokuchie’s Yard Soil Sample Summary Results

Dioxins and DD- DD- NDD-
DD-1 DD-2 DD-4 DD-5 DD-6
Furans 3 7X 1
2,3,7,8-T4CDD 0.030 0.010 0.40 0.10 0.030 0.20 0.29 0.10
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD 0.050 0.060 2.5 0.96 0.40 0.49 1.0 0.30
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDD 0.0050 0.0090 2.0 0.22 0.060 0.070 0.058 0.010
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD 0.010 0.029 3.8 0.41 1.15 0.19 0.25 0.072
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDD 0.010 0.022 5.2 0.43 0.14 0.18 0.44 0.044
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD 0.014 0.037 16 1.4 0.42 0.43 0.35 0.085
O8CDD 0.0022 0.0063 4.5 0.25 0.084 0.078 0.12 0.018
0.04 0.009
2,3,7,8-T4CDF 0.0060 0.0040 0 0.025 0.013 0.020 0.010 0
0.0006 0.0009 0.01 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDF 0 0 8 1 0 1 0 0
2,3,4,7,8-P5CDF 0.0090 0.024 0.30 0.051 0.057 0.060 0.054 0.060
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF 0.010 0.035 1.4 0.095 0.081 0.085 0.16 0.043
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.010 0.032 0.20 0.079 0.074 0.050 0.15 0.070
2,3,4,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.0060 0.020 0.72 0.040 0.065 0.10 0.030 0.056
0.07 0.009 0.009 0.009
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDF 0.0050 0.0030 0 0.010 0.080 0 0 0
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
H7CDF 0.078 0.44 8.0 0.51 0.62 1.6 0.81 0.36
0.0006 0.004 0.008 0.005 0.002
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-H7CDF 0 0.0018 0.35 0.012 8 0 0 0
0.0006 0.008 0.007 0.003
O8CDF 0 0.0039 0.48 0.013 4 0.015 8 6

TEQ (pg) @ DL = 1
TEQ 0.25 0.74 46 4.6 2.3 3.6 3.7 1.2
TEQ (pg) @ DL = 0
TEQ 0.17 0.64 45 4.6 1.9 3.2 3.7 0.70

7.4 PRIORITY 4: RE-LOCATION DUE TO HARRY’S ROAD CLOSURE

Tables 17- 18 show the contribution of each toxic congener to the Total TEQ with
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF indicator for the FFAF contribution highlighted.

26
Dean Bruyere's property meets the human health screening criteria at all tested
locations. Mike Parks’ property exceeds the human health screening criteria at two
tested locations. Neither of the two locations can be attributed to the FFAF based on
the congener finger prints. The MP-1 sample was collected from the soil
immediately outside a barrel burner while MP-5 is at the low point in the surface
drainage in the front yard.

Due to the recommended closure of Harry’s Road beyond the parking lot of the
Bingo Hall, Dean Bruyere and Mike Parks have to be relocated or provide them with
an alternate road as an extension of the road to Tina Bruyere’s property.

Table 17: Mike Parks’ Yard Soil Sample Summary Results

Dioxins and Furans MP-1 MP-2 MP-3 MP-7X MP-4 MP-5 MP-6
2,3,7,8-T4CDD 0.41 0.030 0.030 0.040 0.040 0.40 0.040
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD 1.3 0.030 0.090 0.090 0.13 1.5 0.25
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDD 0.14 0.0040 0.017 0.028 0.030 0.46 0.080
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD 0.25 0.0040 0.034 0.047 0.066 0.95 0.16
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDD 0.43 0.011 0.039 0.069 0.070 1.1 0.17
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD 0.64 0.014 0.13 0.18 0.23 3.7 0.63
O8CDD 0.15 0.0033 0.029 0.051 0.063 0.81 0.16
2,3,7,8-T4CDF 1.7 0.0030 0.0050 0.0040 0.0030 0.0040 0.0040
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDF 0.078 0.00090 0.00090 0.00090 0.0012 0.0024 0.0015
2,3,4,7,8-P5CDF 1.7 0.0090 0.0090 0.0090 0.012 0.027 0.012
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF 0.44 0.0050 0.014 0.015 0.020 0.19 0.058
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.36 0.0020 0.0080 0.011 0.012 0.086 0.029
2,3,4,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.63 0.0030 0.012 0.014 0.012 0.13 0.047
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDF 0.030 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0040 0.0050 0.0050
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
H7CDF 0.37 0.0090 0.030 0.040 0.060 0.57 0.20
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-H7CDF 0.019 0.0010 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.047 0.0070
O8CDF 0.011 0.00022 0.0015 0.0023 0.0036 0.042 0.0084

TEQ @ DL = 1 TEQ 8.7 0.13 0.45 0.61 0.76 10 1.9

TEQ @ DL = 0 TEQ 8.7 0.041 0.39 0.51 0.64 10 1.8

Table 18: Dean Bruyere's Yard Soil Sample Summary Results

DB-
Dioxins and Furans DB-1 DB-2 DB-3 DB-4 DB-5 DB-6
7X
2,3,7,8-T4CDD 0.050 0.040 0.050 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD 0.050 0.030 0.060 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.040
0.005
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDD 0.0070 0.0040 0.0060 0.0050 0.0060 0.0060 0
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD 0.0060 0.0040 0.0090 0.0040 0.012 0.015 0.015

27
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDD 0.010 0.0090 0.018 0.0060 0.031 0.021 0.020
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD 0.023 0.0094 0.014 0.0029 0.022 0.057 0.048
0.0008
O8CDD 0.0042 0.0022 0.0026 4 0.0057 0.014 0.013
0.003
2,3,7,8-T4CDF 0.0040 0.0030 0.0050 0.0040 0.0050 0.0040 0
0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.001
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2,3,4,7,8-P5CDF 0.0090 0.0090 0.0090 0.012 0.012 0.0090 0.012
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF 0.0050 0.0030 0.0040 0.0040 0.017 0.011 0.010
0.005
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.0040 0.0020 0.0060 0.0030 0.0090 0.0060 0
0.005
2,3,4,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.0050 0.0030 0.0040 0.0040 0.013 0.0040 0
0.004
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDF 0.0050 0.0030 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF 0.0060 0.0040 0.020 0.0050 0.090 0.035 0.040
0.0007 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.001
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-H7CDF 0 0 0 0 0.0020 0.0010 0
0.0005 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0007 0.001
O8CDF 1 4 5 4 5 0.0013 3

TEQ (pg) @ DL = 1
TEQ 0.19 0.13 0.21 0.14 0.32 0.29 0.26
TEQ (pg) @ DL = 0
TEQ 0.044 0.028 0.13 0.014 0.20 0.23 0.11

Table 19: Tina Bruyere's Yard Soil Sample Summary Results

Dioxins and Furans TB-1 TB-2 TB-7X TB-3 TB-4 TB-5 TB-6
2,3,7,8-T4CDD 0.050 0.030 0.030 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.080
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD 0.13 0.030 0.060 0.10 0.10 0.080 0.10
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDD 0.020 0.0030 0.0070 0.015 0.010 0.0060 0.010
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDD 0.068 0.0060 0.010 0.090 0.074 0.028 0.020
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDD 0.067 0.0080 0.010 0.071 0.068 0.030 0.023
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDD 0.25 0.013 0.010 0.061 0.047 0.026 0.046
O8CDD 0.063 0.0030 0.0020 0.0099 0.0084 0.0051 0.012
2,3,7,8-T4CDF 0.060 0.0030 0.0090 0.0070 0.0060 0.0070 0.024
0.0009
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDF 0.0084 0 0.0066 0.0030 0.0021 0.0012 0.0054
2,3,4,7,8-P5CDF 0.054 0.0090 0.021 0.042 0.027 0.015 0.027
1,2,3,4,7,8-H6CDF 0.097 0.0070 0.016 0.079 0.042 0.021 0.025
1,2,3,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.049 0.0060 0.016 0.060 0.032 0.015 0.020
2,3,4,6,7,8-H6CDF 0.048 0.0040 0.0080 0.090 0.046 0.022 0.014
1,2,3,7,8,9-H6CDF 0.030 0.0050 0.0070 0.0050 0.0040 0.0040 0.0080
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-H7CDF 0.15 0.020 0.014 0.84 0.29 0.11 0.083
0.0008
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-H7CDF 0.0030 0 0.0010 0.0050 0.0020 0.0010 0.0021

28
 0.0003 0.0002 0.0008
O8CDF 0.0023 3 5 0.0066 0.0024 7 0.0015

TEQ (pg) @ DL = 1 TEQ 1.1 0.15 0.23 1.5 0.80 0.41 0.50
TEQ (pg) @ DL = 0 TEQ 1.1 0.043 0.074 1.4 0.66 0.41 0.26

7.5 PRIORITY 5: RE-LOCATION DUE TO HARRY’S ROAD CLOSURE

Due to the recommended closure of Harry’s Road beyond the parking lot of the
Bingo Hall and limiting access to the contaminated area, the use of the Airway
Hanger has to be restricted to occasional use with some form of Personnel
Protection Equipment. This has to be assessed in conjunction with the petroleum
contamination at the airway hanger. If the above recommended approach is taken,
then one of the existing houses may be used for maintenance and storage
purposes. This will require further detailed evaluation which is not possible at this
stage of the project.

29
REFERENCES

BUSER, H.R. (1975) Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins. Separation an identification

of isomers by gas chromotagrophy mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr., 114: 95-108.

BUSER, H.R. & BOSSHARDT, H.P. (1976) Determination of polychlorinated dibenzo-

p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in commercial pentachlorophenols by combined gas
chromatography - mass spectrometry. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 59: 562-569.

Canadian Soil Quality Guideline (CSoQG) for dioxin and furan:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/English/Pdf/GAAG_DioxinFuranSoil_e.pdf

Cleverly, D.; Schaum, J.; Schweer, G.; Becker, J.; Winters, D. 1997. The congener
profiles
of anthropogenic sources of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated
dibenzofurans in the United States. Presentation at Dioxin ‘97, the 17th
International Symposium on Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds, held
August 25-29 in Indianapolis, IN, USA. Short paper in, Organohalogen Compounds,
Volume 32:430-435.

HC. 2007c. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part IV: PQRA
Spreadsheet Tool and User Documentation, Version 2. Contaminated Sites Division,
Safe Environments Programme, Health Canada, Ottawa.

Health Canada. 2005. It's Your Health - Dioxins and Furans. Management of Toxic
Substances Division. Ottawa, Ontario. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/alt_formats/pacrb-
dgapcr/pdf/iyh-vsv/environ/dioxin-eng.pdf

The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, an expert group of the World Health
Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, has
set a “tolerable monthly intake” level for dioxins, furans and similar substances. The
“tolerable” level (meaning no serious health effects are expected) is 70 picograms
per kilogram of body weight / month. This is roughly 2.3 picograms per kilogram of
body weight / day.

US EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS); available on line at:

http://www.epa.gov/iriswebp/iris/index.html. TRVs are generally identified by the
US EPA as reference doses (RfD), reference concentrations (RfC), and oral slope
factors (SForal), inhalation slope factors (SFInhalation) and inhalation unit risks (UR)

van den Berg, M., L.S. Birnbaum, M. Denison, M. De Vito, W. Farland, M. Feeley, H.
Fiedler, H. Hakansson, A. Hanberg, L. Haws, M. Rose, S. Safe, D. Schrenk, C.
Tohyama, A. Tritscher, J. Tuomisto, M. Tysklind, N. Walker and R.E. Peterson. 2006.
The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic
Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds. Toxicological Sciences,
93(2):223-241.

30
World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Program on Chemical Safety
(IPCS); various sources including: http://www.inchem.org/;
http://jecfa.ilsi.org/index.htm; http://www.who.dk/air/activities/20020620_1. TRVs
are generally identified by the WHO and IPCS as tolerable daily intakes (TDI) or
acceptable daily intakes (ADI). Although carcinogenic effects are evaluated, TRVs
for carcinogenic substances are not routinely prescribed as slope factors or unit
risks.

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (OMEE). 2007. Rationale for the
Development of Generic Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at
Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Standards Development Branch, OMEE, Toronto

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2006. A Protocol for the
Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines [Revised].
Report CCME PN 1332, CCME, Winnipeg, MB. ISBN 13-978-1-896997-45-2

HC (Health Canada). 2005. Health Canada Workshops on Screening Level Risk

Assessment Guidance: Summary of Comments.
Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments Programme, Health Canada,
Ottawa, ON.

HC. 2007a. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada: Part I: Guidance
on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative
Risk Assessment (PQRA), Version 2. Environmental Health Assessment Services
Division, Health Canada, Ottawa. Spring
2007.

HC. 2007b. 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, Health Canada,
Ottawa.

HC. 2007c. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part IV: PQRA
Spreadsheet Tool and User Documentation,
Version 2. Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments Programme, Health
Canada, Ottawa.

HC. 2007d. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part V: Human
Health Site-Specific Risk Assessment for
Chemicals (SSRAChem). Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments
Programme, Health Canada, Ottawa.

HC. 2007e. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part VI: Human
Health Site-Specific Risk Assessment for
Radioactive Substances (SSRARad). Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments
Programme, Health Canada, Ottawa.

31
HC. 2007f. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada: Supplemental
Guidance on Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment of Indoor Vapour Intrusion by
Volatile Chemicals in the Sub-surface Environment (PQRAVap) (HC, 2007f).
Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments Programme, Health Canada,
Ottawa

HC. 2007g. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada: Supplemental

Guidance on Human Health Risk Assessment on Air Quality (HHRAAir) (HC 2007g).
Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments Programme, Health Canada,
Ottawa.

HC. 2007h. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada: Supplemental

Guidance on Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment of Indoor Vapour Intrusion by
Volatile Chemicals in the Sub-surface Environment (PQRAVap) – Spreadsheet Model.
Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments Programme, Health Canada,
Ottawa, ON.

US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Exposure Factors

Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. National
Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. US
EPA, Washington, DC. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/efh/front.pdf

US EPA. 2000. Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data
Analysis. EPA QA/G-9. QA00 UPDATE. EPA/600/R-96/084. Office of Environmental
Information. US EPA, Washington, DC. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g9-final.pdf

US EPA. 2002a. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point

Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. OSWER 9285.6-10. US EPA, Washington, D.C. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/pdf/ucl.pdf

US EPA. 2002b. Children’s Exposure Factors Handbook, External Review Draft. EPA-
600-P-00-002B. US EPA, Washington, DC.
Available online at: http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56747

US EPA. 2005a. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-30/001F. US

EPA, Washington, DC. Available online at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=116283

US EPA. 2005b. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life

Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F US EPA, Washington, DC. Dated March
2005. Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?
deid=116283

RAPPE, C. (1978b) Decontamination of products formed during the industrial

preparation of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol. In: Cattabeni, F., Cavallero, A., & Galli, G., ed.

32
Dioxin: toxicological and chemical aspects, New York, SP Medical and Scientific
Books, pp. 179-183.

RAPPE, C. (1984) Analysis of polychlorinated dioxins and furans. Environ. Sci.

Technol., 18: 78A-90A.

RAPPE, C. (1987) Global distribution of polychlorinated dioxins (PCDDs) and

dibenzofurans (PCDFs). In: Solving hazardous waste problems: Learning from
dioxins, New York, American Chemical Society, pp. 20-23 (ACS Symposium Series
No. 338).

RAPPE, C., ANDERSSON, R., BERGQVIST, P.-A., BROHEDE, C., HANSSON, M., KJELLER,
L.-O., LINDSTROM, G., MARKLUND, S., NYGREN, M., SWANSON, S.E., TYSKLIND, M., &
WIBERG, K. (1987) Overview on environmental fate of chlorinated dioxins and
dibenzofurans, sources, levels and isomeric pattern in various matrices.
Chemosphere, 16: 1603-1618.

Stewart, R.B. (2002) "Environmental Regulatory Decision Making Under Uncertainty"

Research in Law and Economics Vol. 20, pp.76 (2002)

HAGENMAIER, H. & BRUNNER, H. (1987) Isomer specific analysis of PCDD and PCDF
pentachlorophenol and sodium pentachloro- phenate samples in the sub-PPB range.
Chemosphere, 16: 1759-1764.

RAPPE, C., BUSER, H.R., KUROKI, H., & MASUDA, Y. (1979) Identification of polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDFs) retained in patients with Yusho. Chemosphere, 4: 259-266.

MILES, W.F., SINGH, J., GURPRASAD, N.P., & MALIS, G.P. (1985) Isomer specific determination
of hexachlorodioxins in technical pentachlorophenol (PCP) and its sodium salt.
Chemosphere, 14(6/7): 807-810.

33