Detailed Ecological Risk Assessment: N.E. British Columbia: Wildlife Protection and Extractable Aliphatic Hydrocarbons

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Detailed Ecological Risk Assessment: N.E. British Columbia: Wildlife Protection and Extractable Aliphatic Hydrocarbons"

Elaine Easter Armstrong
5 years ago
Views:

1 Detailed Ecological Risk Assessment: N.E. British Columbia: Wildlife Protection and Extractable Aliphatic Hydrocarbons Craig Harris, M.Sc., P. Geo., R.P. Bio. October 18, 2012

2 Oil & Gas Commission BC MoE Linkage Site Profile / Risk Classification BC OGC High Risk BC MoE oversight Investigations/ Numerical Remediation Detailed Risk Proposed Investigations/ Numerical or Detailed Risk-Based Remediation OGC Review De-classify as High Risk MoE Review CoR Optional EMA Instrument REMTECH 2012 Page 2

3 Detailed Ecological Risk Assessment Content 1. Comprehensive Problem Formulation 2. Comprehensive Understanding of Exposure 3. Ecologically Relevant Effects Assessment 4. Risk Characterization 5. Uncertainty Analysis REMTECH 2012 Page 3

4 Rationale for Selection of Wildlife Receptors Receptor Societal Value Ecology/ Feeding Guild Susceptibility/ Exposure Habitat scale Data Availability Nelson s sharp-tail sparrow BC Red Listed (high) Migratory passerine insectivore Ground nesting and ground foraging (high) Small wetland areas Limited Caribou BC Red Listed SARA Sch. 1 (high) Ungulate mammalian herbivore Observed feeding on site (high/moderate) Large home range Moderate/ limited Wolverine BC Blue Listed Fur bearing (moderate) Mammalian omnivore/ carnivore Contaminants not bioaccumulative (low) Large home range Limited Meadow vole (low) Small mammalian herbivore/ insectivore Close contact with soil (high) Small within site Good REMTECH 2012 Page 4

5 Conceptual Site Model REMTECH 2012 Page 5

6 Wildlife Exposure Models ADD pot = ( m k 1 (C k x FS x I df x FR k ))/BW Incidental soil ADD pot = ( m k 1 (C k x I ff x FR k ))/BW Dietary food items ADD adj = SUF x ADD pot Seasonal Adjusted Dose REMTECH 2012 Page 6

7 Do Aliphatic Hydrocarbons Transfer Through Food Chains? MacLeod et al. (2004) _ fugacity model predicting food chain transfer to fish, mammals and birds No field validation and used carbon ranges too low (C 3 C 12 ) for weathered crude Chaineau et al. (1996) _ field scale uptake study using 1.2% hyrocarbon contaminated soil After 110 days of growth maize stems and leaves showed no detectable aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbon Brandt et al. (2002) _ field scale, multi year quantification of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in soil and terrestrial biota mice and grasshoppers consistently displayed lower tissue PAH then frogs and vegetation REMTECH 2012 Page 7

8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Food Chains: Salix leaves REMTECH Page 8

9 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Food Chains: Frogs REMTECH Page 9

10 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Food Chains: Carex shoots EPH19-32 = 211 µg/g REMTECH Page 10

11 Soil Vegetation Tissue EPH Relationship Salix Leaves Carex Shoots 4.5x Linear Tissue EPH (mg/kg) 4.0x x x x x x10 2 Log Scale Tissue EPH (mg/kg) Log Scale Peat Total EPH (mg/kg) Log Scale Peat Total EPH (mg/kg) REMTECH 2012 Page 11

12 Carex shoot EPH influenced by adsorbed peat? REMTECH 2012 Page 12

13 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: Wildlife Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs)

14 EPH Wildlife Toxicity Reference Values CCME CWS Basis for Livestock Protection: Stober (1962),Vetraglichkeitsprufungen mit roh und Heizol an Rindern (Research of cattle tolerability to raw and heating oil) CCME CWS Basis for Human Health Protection (aliphatic fractions c8-c16 & c17-c34) Edwards et al, (1997), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series, Volume 4 REMTECH 2012 Page 14

15 Toxicological Studies Used in CCME TRVs Stober (1962) Stalled cattle orally dosed raw oil Toxic threshold (weathered) = 8 ml / kg body weight Toxic threshold (fresh) = 2.5 ml / kg body weight Toxic threshold (naptha) = 4 ml / kg body weight Effects on digestive system and liver n = 1 Edwards et al. (1997) Rats orally dosed Aliphatic c8-c17 hydrocarbon streams (unpublished) Lowest observed effects = 500 mg / kg body weight Increased liver weight and size (reversible) Aliphatic c17-c34 mineral oil (Smith et al. 1996) Lowest observed effects = 2000 mg / kg body weight Mineral oil nodules in the liver tissue with associated inflammation REMTECH 2012 Page 15

16 Log scale mg/ kg body weight Application of Uncertainty Factors (UF) in TRVs All Lowest Observed Adverse Effects (LOAEL) data within the grey area. Livestock TRV: Application of UF of 10 to Stober,1962 LOAEL Wildlife TRV: Apply range of UF to Edwards et al, 1997 LOAELs Range of LOAEL Data CCME livestock TRV Range of Proposed Wildlife TRVs based on LOAEL Data Human TRV: Application of UF to Edwards et al, 1997 NOAELs CCME human TRV c17-c34 CCME human TRV c8-c17 RemTech 2012 Page 16

17 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons and Wildlife Protection: Results

18 Results: Incidental Soil Exposure Caribou Meadow vole Sparrow 6e e Hazard Quotient 4e-5 3e-5 2e-5 ADD << TRV ADD < TRV ADD ~ TRV 1e Sch. 4 (PL) Sch. 4 (CL) REMTECH 2011 Page 18 Upper Cap (PL)

19 Results: Incidental Soil + Dietary Exposure (vole) Caribou Meadow vole Sparrow 6e e Hazard Quotient 4e-5 3e-5 2e ADD > TRV e Soil biota EPH uptake factor of 0.14 REMTECH 2012 Page 19

20 Risk-based remediation currently under utilized in NE British Columbia BC MoE process has well defined guidance and can be navigated by experienced professionals Ecological risk decisions will continue to be driven by protection of eco-contact receptors and not wildlife Thank You

Mink and PCDF/D s in the Tittabawassee River Basin

Mink and PCDF/D s in the Tittabawassee River Basin Matthew Zwiernik 1 Jeremy Moore 1 Dustin Tazelaar 1 Denise Kay 2 David Hamman 1 Alan Blankenship 2 John P. Giesy 1 1 2 Field Studies in Support of a Baseline