Strateco Resources Inc. 1225 Gay-Lussac Street, Boucherville

Transcription

Boucherville, July 22, 2011
Mr. Benoit Taillon
Président COFEX-Sud
Agence canadienne d’évaluation environnementale
1141, route de l'Église, 2e étage
C.P. 9514, succ. Sainte-Foy
Québec, (Québec) G1V 4B8
Canada
Subject:
COFEX-South Recommendation on Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment – Strateco Resources inc. Matoush Project
Mr. Taillon,
On June 30th, 2011, Strateco Resources inc. (Strateco) received a letter from the Federal
Administrator Mrs. Elaine Feldman regarding the COFEX-South recommendations on the
Matoush Project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This letter indicated the need to
inquire further about baseline and monitoring information, a revised ecotoxicological risk
assessment based on a new effluent discharge location as well as about an assessment of the
information, discussion and communication process with the community of Mistissini.
The present letter aims to provide an update of the work completed by Strateco in order to
comply with the federal authority requests.
Baseline and Monitoring
On January 13th, 2011, Strateco Resources inc. (Strateco) received a letter from the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) (see appendix 2-A) regarding the need for additional
baseline data collection at the Matoush site. The Ministère du Développement durable, de
l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP) has also shown concern on this matter. Therefore,
Strateco carefully considered the guidance and recommendations of both regulatory agencies
and established a program to complete and optimize baseline data collection at the site, before
proceeding with the underground development project at Matoush. In the same manner, the
Environmental Monitoring Program (see appendix 2-C) was revised to take into account CNSC
recommendations, which were also included in the January 13th letter.
The revised Environmental Monitoring Program and the proposed Additional Baseline Program
(see appendix 2-B) were submitted to the CNSC on March 31st, 2011. Strateco received
Strateco Resources Inc.
1225 Gay-Lussac Street, Boucherville (Québec) J4B 7K1
Tel: (450) 641-0775 * Fax: (450) 641-1601 * Toll Free : 1-866-774-7722
comments on these documents on May 16th (see appendix 2-D), and responded on May 17th,
2011. There have been several exchanges with the CNSC to clarify some aspects of these
programs. But overall, common agreement was attained.
Field work started at the site in the spring of 2011 to collect further baseline data, as stipulated in
the Additional Baseline Program.
Groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the site to obtain water level and water quality in
both overburden and rock formations. These wells will serve for the proposed spring and fall
groundwater monitoring. A first sampling round and water level measurement was completed in
June 2011; whereas pumping and permeability tests will be performed in July 2011.
Surface water quality in the local and regional study areas was also assessed at the end of June.
Six lakes, including a reference lake, were sampled during this campaign. Although not specified
in the Baseline Program, Lake 4 was also sampled following discussion with the CNSC. Water
samples were also collected in two streams and at three stations of Camie River. While the
spring program addresses surface water only, the upcoming fall program will include sediment,
benthos, fish, aquatic and terrestrial vegetation, as well as water.
Air monitoring program was adjusted to include recommendations made by the CNSC, but also
by the COFEX and COMEX, following their revision of the EIA. New powered equipment is being
installed at the site in order to measure additional parameters that could not be previously
evaluated, as their background concentrations were too low. This new instrumentation should
allow the collection of a greater air volume sample, increasing the chance of obtaining results
above the detection limit of the laboratory apparatus. An additional passive station was also
installed further downwind of site activities, as requested by the CNSC.
Strateco intends to apply progressively its Environmental Monitoring Program at the site. As the
construction of the underground ramp has not started yet, all data collected according to this
program will serve as baseline data.
Risk and Ecotoxicological Study
th
The January 13 2011 letter also discussed about overly-conservative predictions of effluent
quality being used in the water modeling. Following a meeting with the CNSC in January, it was
decided to amend the Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) by using more realistic source
terms while still using the maximum estimate discharge flow of 100 m3/h. This revised document
was submitted to the CNSC on April 29th, 2011 (see appendix 3-A).
On March 31st, 2011, Strateco submitted to the CNSC a report regarding an alternative for the
effluent discharge location (see appendix 2-B). This report presented the technical aspect of this
proposed scenario. To that, the CNSC requested an ecotoxicological risk study to assess
potential impact on the receiving environment. Strateco responded promptly to this demand and
Tel: (450) 641-0775 * Fax: (450) 641-1601 * Toll Free : 1-866-774-7722
worked with its consultants to provide the information to the CNSC. This ecotoxicological study,
based on the revised SLRA, was completed by SENES Consultants Limited (SENES) and
submitted to the CNSC on July 5th 2011 (see appendix 3-B). Minor comments were submitted to
Strateco, which were again addressed and forwarded to the CNSC on July 11th (see appendix 3C) and July 15th (see appendix 3-D), as requested.
Communication with the Cree Nation of Mistissini
Since 2006, Strateco has made considerable efforts to inform the Cree Nation of Mistissini of
various aspects of the Matoush Project. These efforts are well-documented in the environmental
impact statement and its appendices, which are currently under review.
Since the public hearings held in Mistissini and Chibougamau in November 2010, Strateco has
adapted the way it communicates with the Cree Nation of Mistissini, in an effort to address the
concerns raised during the public hearings, particularly with regard to the Cree community’s
participation in the information and monitoring process.
The section relating to the communication with the Cree Nation of Mistissini (see appendix 1) is a
description of what Strateco has done since November 2010, and what it intends to do, in
collaboration with the Cree Nation of Mistissini and the Grand Council of the Cree/CRA, over the
coming months and during the Matoush project advanced exploration phase. Please note that in
a collaborative context we shared with the chief of the Cree Nation of Mistissini, Mr. Richard
Shecapio, our reply to the third question and he was satisfied with its content.
We hope this meet your expectations. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions
or wish for clarifications,
Guy Hébert
President
c.c.:
Michael Binder, President, CNSC
Elaine Feldman, Federal Administrator, CEAA
Tel: (450) 641-0775 * Fax: (450) 641-1601 * Toll Free : 1-866-774-7722
[Tapez le titre du document] TABLE OF CONTENT APPENDIX 1. Communication with the Cree Nation of Mistissini 2. Baseline and Monitoring a. CNSC letter – Need for Additional Baseline Data (January 13, 2011) b. Program for additional baseline data (March 31, 2011) c. Environmental Monitoring Program (May, 2011) d. CNSC letter – CNSC Review of the Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment and the Baseline and Environmental Monitoring Programs (May 16, 2011) 3. Risk and Ecotoxicological Study a. Risk and Ecotoxicological Study (April 29, 2011) b. Dilution Scenario Update – Effluent Release into Stream 4‐6 (July 5, 2011) c. Aquatic SIs For Updated Dilution ‐ Effluent Release into Stream 4‐6 (July 11, 2011) d. Responses to CNSC Comments on SLRA (July 15, 2011) APPENDIX 1. Communication with the Cree Nation of Mistissini ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION, DISCUSSION AND COMMUNICATION MEASURES
FOR THE CREE NATION OF MISTISSINI
Introduction
Since 2006, Strateco Resources (“Strateco”) has made considerable efforts to inform the Cree Nation of
Mistissini of various aspects of the Matoush Project. These efforts are well-documented in the
environmental impact statement and its appendices, which are currently under review.
Since the public hearings held in Mistissini and Chibougamau in November 2010, Strateco has adapted
the way it communicates with the Cree Nation of Mistissini, in an effort to address the concerns raised
during the public hearings, particularly with regard to the Cree community’s participation in the information
and monitoring process.
The following is a description of what Strateco has done since November 2010, and what it intends to do,
in collaboration with the Cree Nation of Mistissini and the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and
the Cree Regional Authority (collectively the “GCCEI-CRA”), over the coming months and during the
Matoush Project advanced exploration phase.
I- Information on Uranium and the Matoush Project
Cree Mineral Board Agreement
On January 13, 2011, Strateco signed an agreement with the Cree Mineral Exploration Board (“CMEB”)
for the dissemination of complete information on the proposed Matoush Project advanced exploration
phase.
Mr. Allen Matoush of the Cree Nation of Mistissini (also 1st tallyman of a trapline located north-east of the
Matoush deposit) was the person selected by the CMEB with the concurrence of Chief Richard Shecapio
of the Cree Nation of Mistissini, to carry out the above-mentioned mandate. Mr. Matoush reports to Mr.
Jack Blacksmith, president of the CMEB, and Mr. Youcef Larbi, Chief Geologist of the CMEB.
The primary objective of this mandate is to provide relevant information to the Chief and Council and
Members of the Cree Nation of Mistissini concerning this specific project, in order to allow them to make
an enlightened decision, based on facts, not on fear and misconception of anticipated impacts. (Ref:
Agreement)
Through this mandate, “the CMEB believes that the Matoush Project, with proper explanation to Mistissini
People about the positive aspects of the Project and the negative side with an honest anticipation of the
Project's impacts on human and environment; the people of Mistissini may change their mind if they really
understand what this Project really involves.”. (Ref. Agreement)
Strateco is providing funding and outstanding collaboration for the technical aspect of the project but is not
directly involved in the performance of this mandate.
Mr. Matoush’s mandate officially started on March 1st. An important visit to Saskatchewan was
subsequently organized for some members of the community of Mistissini and some representatives
(mostly tallyman) of traplines on and around the Matoush Project. Ten (10) delegates participated in this
visit, which took place between April 4th and April 8th.
July 2011 Page 1
Among other things, the delegation was able to visit the facilities and underground operations of Cameco’s
Rabbit Lake (Eagle Point) mine during the visit, as well as the Cree village of Wollaston Lake, located
across the lake from Eagle Point.
From the comments Strateco heard, delegation members were very impressed by what they saw,
including the large number of Cameco Aboriginal employees, and found that many statements made by
anti-uranium activists from Mistissini were not factual.
The delegation also visited the Dene community of Hatchet Lake in Prince Albert, where they were able to
discuss various subjects with the elders.
This visit was the first step in informing the Cree delegates of Mistissini on uranium mines and thus better
informing them to properly address their concerns.
Meeting with the Families
On April 12th, four (4) Strateco representatives traveled to Mistissini to meet with trapline family
representatives to discuss and address their concerns. Twenty-six (26) individuals were present at the
meeting, including eight (8) tallymen and four (4) women. This meeting of nearly three (3) hours was very
constructive, paving the way for changes in the perception of the risks. During the meeting, two (2) of the
delegates who were part of the Saskatchewan visit (Mr. Samuel Shecapio and Mr. John Coonishish) took
15 to 20 minutes each to tell the other elders about their impressions of the visit, which were very well
received.
Meetings with the Chief of the Cree Nation of Mistissini
In terms of discussions with the Cree Nation of Mistissini to re-establish dialogue and assess the Council’s
willingness to negotiate an agreement on impacts and benefits beginning with the advanced exploration
phase, Strateco has already initiated a discussion process.
Two (2) official meetings were held in this regard with Chief Richard Shecapio, on June 1st and June 15th.
The dialogue was constructive, and other meetings are planned in order to develop a discussion and
communication process. Two (2) other meetings were also held with Mr. Abel Bosum, negotiator for the
GCCEI-CRA, to examine the possibility of initiating discussions regarding the communication process and
pre-development agreement.
The main objective of the first meeting with Chief Shecapio was to re-establish dialogue. Two (2)
representatives of Strateco, a legal advisor for Strateco and the Chief himself participated in this meeting.
Chief Shecapio indicated that he was not closed to the Project, stating that the issue was lack of
information and that it was necessary to provide more information to the entire community. A moratorium
was requested to allow more time to get information, not to stop the Project.
In terms of re-establishing dialogue and communication at the community level, we understand that the
most important thing is to ensure that the Cree will always have the possibility to use the land for the
practice of traditional activities in the future.
Strateco intends to work with the CMEB and leaders of Mistissini to continue to inform the community.
July 2011 Page 2
II- Environmental Committee
At a meeting held on June 15, 2011 in Mistissini, attended by Chief Richard Shecapio, two (2)
representatives of the Mistissini Environmental Department and four (4) Strateco representatives, Strateco
informed the participants that Dr. Monique Dubé, Canada Research Chair (Tier II) in Aquatic Ecosystem
Health Diagnosis at the University of Saskatchewan, had been asked to prepare a program of study and
monitoring of the regional water system. It should be noted that Dr. Dubé has acted as an expert for the
GCCEI-CRA as well as for the Mistissini Environmental Department with regard to the assessment of the
Matoush Project environmental impact statement, of which she was particularly critical.
Dr. Dubé is to present a monitoring program in August 2011, which will be discussed with Strateco and the
Mistissini Environmental Department. This future collaboration was well received by the Mistissini
Environmental Department.
III- Cree Nation of Mistissini/Strateco Committee
Strateco once again spoke to Chief Richard Shecapio regarding the importance of creating a MistissiniStrateco committee to provide proper consultation and collaboration with local organizations in terms of
such issues as monitoring of project advancement, the environment, hiring, supply and training.
Chief Shecapio agreed and indicated his intention to name a mining liaison coordinator to the Council in
order to facilitate such an initiative. The mining coordinator would act as the liaison between the Council,
the Cree Nation of Mistissini and Strateco.
IV- Pre-Development Agreement
Regarding discussions on a potential pre-development agreement, Strateco and the Council will attempt
to set up a discussion process in place, the whole in compliance with the Cree Nation Mining Policy
presented by Mr. Abel Bosum at the James Bay Mining Symposium held in early June in
Chibougamau/Mistissini.
Chief Shecapio will speak to the Council and get back to us for an upcoming meeting.
Conclusion
Strateco recognizes that uranium is a mineral substance whose characteristics are generally unknown to
the public and therefore, adequate information thereon must be given to all its stakeholders, including the
Cree Nation of Mistissini.
Also, Strateco is committed to developing the Matoush Project on the basis of sound environmental and
sustainable best practices. To that end, the concerns raised by the Cree must be discussed in an open,
transparent and honest manner. It is in this context that various initiatives are currently being pursued with
the Cree in order to establish a new dialogue based on trust, transparency and openness. Strateco's
objective is to pursue the development of the advanced exploration phase in collaboration with the Cree
and their active participation as partners. It is the firm intention of Strateco to abide with the discussion
process described in the Cree Nation Mining Policy and work towards the establishment of a sustainable
and collaborative partnership with the Cree.
We will keep you informed of the progress of the various processes described above as soon as they
occur.
July 2011 Page 3
APPENDIX 2. Baseline and Monitoring APPENDIX 2. a) CNSC letter – Need for Additional Baseline Data (January 13, 2011) APPENDIX 2. b) Program for additional baseline data (March 31, 2011) Matoush Project
Program for additional
baseline data collection
We find the Energy
March 31st 2011
Program for additional baseline data collection
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM .................................................................................... 4
3.0 ADDITIONAL BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................... 5
3.1 CURRENT BASELINE INTERPRETATION .............................................................................................. 5
3.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 6
3.2.1 SURFACE WATER (TABLE 2) ....................................................................................................................6
3.2.2 SEDIMENTS (TABLE 3) ............................................................................................................................7
3.2.3 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE (TABLE 4)............................................................................................................8
3.2.4 AQUATIC VEGETATION (TABLE 5) .............................................................................................................8
3.2.5 FISH (TABLE 6) .....................................................................................................................................8
3.2.6 TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION – LICHEN (TABLE 7) ...........................................................................................9
3.3 SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................................ 9
LIST OF TABLES AND MAP
MAP: LOCAL BASELINE DATA ................................................................................................................................. 10
TABLE 1 ACTUAL DATA FOR AQUATIC COMPONENTS AND ADDITIONAL 2011 BASELINE DATA ............................................ 11
TABLE 2 CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES FOR THE REFERENCE STATE OF THE RECEPTOR ENVIRONMENT – DATA COLLECTION ON
SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING CAMPAIGNS WILL TAKE PLACE IN SPRING AND FALL 2011......................................... 12
SEDIMENT QUALITY SAMPLING CAMPAIGN WILL TAKE PLACE IN FALL 2011 .................................................................... 13
RICHNESS AND DIVERSITY OF BENTHIC COMMUNITIES SAMPLING CAMPAIGN WILL TAKE PLACE IN FALL 2011 ....................... 14
AQUATIC VEGETATION SPECIES SAMPLING CAMPAIGN WILL TAKE PLACE IN FALL 2011 ..................................................... 15
FISH COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................................................ 16
LICHENS............................................................................................................................................................ 17
March 31 2011
Page 2 of 17
1.0 BACKGROUND
We understand that meaningful baseline data is essential before the project begins as it will be
used as a basis for comparison with the subsequently acquired data of our Environmental
Monitoring Program. The following paragraphs present how our complementary baseline data
collection program was designed to cover the extent of baseline data gathering.
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) and Senes Consultants Ltd. (Senes) have been collecting
baseline data at the site since 2007. The following components have been studied at the site:

Surface water;

Sediments;

Benthic invertebrates;

Fish and fish habitat;

Aquatic vegetation;

Soil and terrestrial vegetation;

Air and climate;

Groundwater; and

Wildlife and birds.
A fair amount of data has now been collected. However, as the project advances, fine-tuning
is currently required to ensure we have covered all aspects of baseline purposes and future
environmental monitoring. We have therefore compiled all gathered data and compared the
result to the actual status of the project to identify any potential gaps.
It should be noted that the project has greatly evolved since 2007 and some of these technical
changes have influenced data gathering. For instance, it was proposed at an early stage of the
project to discharge the final effluent into Lake 4. Baseline data gathering in 2007 and part of
2008 was therefore planned according to this design. However, it was decided to move this
effluent to Lake 5 due to the actual proposed surface infrastructure setting. The remaining
baseline data collection was based on this scenario.
When Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was elaborated in 2009, a Screening Level
Risk Assessment (SLRA) was completed using background information gathered at the site
along with the proposed technical setting (mine water treatment plant, waste and special
waste pads, etc.) and very conservative hypotheses. The SLRA raised some potential
concerns, mainly about surface water quality, that could influence the Environmental
Monitoring Program and baseline data collection. So prior to pursue any further with the
development of the Environmental Monitoring Program, it was decided to update the SLRA
using more realistic data than solely worst case scenarios, particularly with regards to the final
effluent concentrations. The conclusions of this updated SLRA are an integral part of both our
revised Environmental Monitoring Program and the proposed complementary baseline data
collection.
March 31 2011
Page 3 of 17
There have been several discussions with the MDDEP about the location of the final effluent
discharge into Lake 5. The fact that potable water is also pumped from this lake raised some
concerns and significantly influenced the proposed environmental objectives criteria provided
by the MDDEP. Given the possibility of releasing the effluent in a permanent stream in the
nearby area, that discharging in streams rather than lakes is common practice in Quebec and
that this is above all else favored by the MDDEP, Strateco finally decided to move the final
effluent discharge into the so-called Stream 4-6 connecting Lake 4 to Lake 6. It is our
understanding that the actual situation where potable water and final effluent release would be
in the same lake have also caused some questioning within the CNSC, so the key reasons
behind this change are as follow:

Fully separate the potable water intake from the effluent release;

Greater watershed compared to Lake 5;

Good flow;

Allow a better mix and dilution of the effluent in the natural environment; and

Allow a better oxygenation which helps biological and chemical activity, thus natural
treatment.
This modification does not cause significant technical impacts to our surface design. Gathered
baseline data remain as meaningful since all streams and lakes are linked and in the same
area. Although we were not anticipating any significant impact in Lake 5, this way of releasing
our final effluent will reduce even more the potential for impacts in the receiving environment
by increasing the natural treatment potential.
Physical characterization of Stream 4-6 was completed by Golder in 2007 and 2008, along
with the fish and fish habitat assessment. Flow measurements were collected by Genivar in
February 2011 to ensure permanent flow throughout the year in the stream.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
As previously mentioned, Strateco’s Environmental Monitoring Program will be updated based
on site specific conditions as well as predictions made in the EIA and the updated SLRA. The
objectives of this Environmental Monitoring Program will be to confirm the assumptions and
predictions made in the EIA and SLRA, validate the spatial extent of predicted effects (or the
lack of it) in the environment, and mostly to address the concerns of the Community of
Mistissini with regards to water quality and fish. It shall also be used to ensure compliance with
environmental regulations and facilitate any operational changes required if they are not met.
This updated program will be provided to the CNSC.
March 31 2011
Page 4 of 17
3.0 ADDITIONAL BASELINE DATA COLLECTION
At the early stage of a project, the collection of baseline data tends to be less specific and
more focused on getting information on a wider range of media and sites. Our consultant used
this preliminary study to better understand the site and then propose a more defined baseline
program. Data collection was refined as time went by for the project.
The way baseline data were gathered at the site may not always have been in the context of
an environmental monitoring program designed with clear objectives, but they are
nevertheless meaningful and valid as baseline data. Several exposed, upstream, downstream
and reference sites have been sampled for multiple media.
The program proposed for additional baseline data collection will mainly focus on the aquatic
environment as this is where potential impacts were identified in the EIA and SLRA. Although
the terrestrial exposure pathway did not anticipate potential impacts, Strateco is proposing a
terrestrial vegetation monitoring program due to the community’s concerns regarding wildlife
contamination via uptake in vegetation (total suspended particulate deposition). Additional
baseline data sampling will involve the following media:

Surface water;

Sediments;

Benthic invertebrates;

Aquatic vegetation;

Fish community and fish tissue chemistry; and

Terrestrial vegetation – lichen.
Sampling details including sampling locations, number of samples, sampling frequency,
analytical parameters and any relevant comments are presented in the subsequent tables and
figures. The following sub-sections present the rational of the proposed program for each
media.
3.1 CURRENT BASELINE INTERPRETATION
To this day, the surface water of twelve lakes and seven streams have been sampled.
Sediments have also been collected from nine of the twelve lakes sampled for surface water.
Among these twelve lakes, two have been considered as reference lakes in the environmental
impact study since they are located outside the local study zone.
Aquatic biota (benthos, fish, and vegetation) and terrestrial vegetation have also been studied
at the site in addition to surface water and sediments. Fish analyses were completed on fish
from 5 local lakes while benthos was analyzed from 6 lakes. Aquatic vegetation was analyzed
in 3 local lakes. Local and regional terrestrial sampling stations for lichen are also part of
existing data. The interpretation of actual baseline data on these media indicates that:
March 31 2011
Page 5 of 17
 The quality of surface water is similar between lakes:
- Metal concentrations are generally under the detection limit, apart from some
exceptions.
- Radionuclide concentrations are equal to or under detection limits.
 Sediment quality is good in general, sediments have a similar chemical signature:
- All lakes have similar grain-size distribution.
- Lake 5 is the only one to have shown higher concentrations of certain parameters
compared to other lakes.
- Uranium isotopes have not been measured, concentrations are under detection limits.
Lake 7 however has the highest Pb, Ra and Th isotope averages.
 The local study zone vegetation is poorly diversified:
- Lake shores are rocky.
- Vegetation is composed of bushes while aquatic vegetation is hardly developed, even
where tributaries discharge in lakes.
 Phytoplankton species diversity is somewhat similar through all lakes, following the
example of zooplankton species diversity.
 Benthic community densities are low in all lakes.
 The same fish species were met in all lakes with the exception of the Lake Whitefish, which
seems to prefer deeper lakes. Lake 5 appears to be the favoured habitat for this species as
this lake is the deepest one of the local area.
To this effect, because the majority of the study zone water bodies are relatively similar and
the data collected until now do not allow the observation of marked differences, the
information collected and to be collected during subsequent campaigns (spring and fall 2011)
will reflect actual conditions observed in the study zone before the beginning of works. This
information will be used for reference and control purposes during activities related to
exploration and ultimately to ore mining, if applicable. Table 1 presents the actual baseline
data collected for the Aquatic Components and the additional sampling to be conducted in
spring and fall of 2011.
3.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Sampling campaigns will be conducted respecting trade practices according to the various
available federal and provincial protocols (MDDEP and Environment Canada). Quality control
samples will also be collected (field blank, trip blank and duplicate). Analyses will be
performed in a Quebec accredited laboratory.
3.2.1 Surface Water (Table 2)
Sampling will be performed on 1 to 3 stations for each of the two connections (Stream 4-6 and
Stream 6-7) according to observed field conditions (e.g.: flow, presence of pits, aquatic
March 31 2011
Page 6 of 17
vegetation). The choice of a single sampling station could be explained by the presence of a
uniform and coarse substrate, a relatively significant flow and an absence of pits and/or
aquatic vegetation. By sampling a lake’s affluent and outlet, the connection can be considered
as characterized according to its premises and to the length of its connections. From this
perspective, sampling could be performed at the outlet of Lake 4.
According to the morphology of the lake and the fact that it is the receiving water body (via
Stream 4-6), five stations will be sampled on Lake 6 to complete baseline information.
Stations will be located at the affluent and the lake outlet as well as within the two southern
extensions where low flow could allow the settling of suspended solids. The pond located
immediately east of Lake 6 and named Lake 6B will have one sampling station.
Three stations will be sampled on Lake 5 as this lake is located in close proximity and
downwind of the site activities and immediately upstream of Lake 6. This additional sampling
program will complete baseline information. Sampling stations will be located in the northern
portion and outlet of the lake as well as in the center of the lake in proximity of the potable
water intake.
Two lakes downstream of Lake 6, namely Lakes 7 and 9, will be sampled to complete baseline
information. Two stations are proposed for each lake and involve the area of the affluent and
outlet.
The selected reference lake, Lake 14, will be sampled again to obtain more baseline data of
the “control” lake. As previously discussed, no marked differences were noted from within the
baseline data gathered as of today. Lakes in the area are similar and therefore, the control
lake used by Golder, Lake 14, will remain our reference lake for the exploration program. The
sampling station will be located in the center of the lake just like the previous sampling events.
3.2.2 Sediments (Table 3)
Sedimentation level observed in the region is low. This sector lacks any demonstration of the
presence of significant sedimentation areas (pre-requisite for sediment transport, followed by
sedimentation). Furthermore, the water system is divided in a chain of lakes which intercept
moving particles between themselves. There is therefore no cumulative effect leading to the
accumulation of an important sediment load and resulting in important sedimentation in any of
these lakes.
As several samples have already been collected to this day, additional baseline effort will
focus mainly on the receiving waters, similarly to the surface water program. Sediment
sampling will thus correspond to the surface water additional baseline, i.e., the same number
of stations at the same locations, as discussed in section 3.2.1 Surface Water.
Stream 4-6 and Stream 6-7 will be sampled if sediments are present. Based on field
characteristics (runs and riffles, cobles and boulders substrate), it is unlikely that Stream 4-6
and/or Stream 6-7 contain sufficient sediments however, forming a composite sample of what
is available for each stream could be a solution.
March 31 2011
Page 7 of 17
3.2.3 Benthic invertebrate (Table 4)
Additional benthic invertebrate sampling is proposed to complete the baseline information.
This complementary program will be completed in conjunction with the sediment sampling
program. The same number of stations at the same locations than those for sediment
sampling will be used to characterize the benthic fauna.
Based on field characteristics and as recommended by the MDDEP, using kick nets might be
the most appropriate method for benthos sampling in Stream 4-6 and Stream 6-7. Sampling
methodology will however be defined during the field program, pending observations.
3.2.4 Aquatic Vegetation (Table 5)
Aquatic vegetation sampling has been completed at three stations within the local study area:
an upstream location at Lake 1 as well as in the future exposed area represented by the
affluent and outlet of Lake 6. The complementary baseline program for aquatic vegetation
encompasses additional sampling for two stations within Lake 5, 3 stations within Lake 6 and
two stations within Lake 7. One reference station will be located within Lake 14.
3.2.5 Fish (Table 6)
An additional fishing effort will be made to complete baseline data for the fish community,
physical assessment and tissue chemistry. Based on previous fish sampling programs, we
have selected specific species for tissue analysis, namely the Lake chub and the Brook trout,
to complete the baseline study. The choice of these sentinel species was in part based on the
consumption of the First Nations, but also on the possibility of using it to perform a
reproducible statistical analysis.
The Brook trout is a species prized by Cree community
members, but both species are especially and above all present in the quasi-totality of lakes,
and their greater numbers will help to better complete the studies.
Fish survey will be completed in Lakes 5, 6, 7 and 9. The reference lake, Lake 14, will be
added to the study. Fishing effort will also be made in Streams 4-6 and 6-7. A fish community
survey has been conducted in most of these water bodies and fish chemistry was done on fish
collected in Lakes 6 and 7.
As prescribed by the MDDEP (2004), fish flesh analyses could be performed on a
homogenate per size class (age):
Fishes will be analyzed using size class homogenate (result obtained from grinding the
flesh of one or several fishes together to make the sample uniform) and by species (or
three analyses per species). They will however be analyzed individually in exceptional
cases to obtain more accurate information per species, notably when particularly high
levels will be measured in size class homogenates.
March 31 2011
Page 8 of 17
For example, if 40 specimens (of a same sentinel species) collected in a lake can be divided
into 4 size classes, 4 analyses could be performed on homogenates of 5 fish fillets allowing for
more accuracy than 4 analyses on 4 different fishes. The remaining fillets will be kept
individually for future analyses if necessary. It should be noted that the fishing effort (time) will
dictate the program (i.e. not the number of fish caught).
3.2.6 Terrestrial Vegetation – Lichen (Table 7)
Six stations have already been sampled for lichen in the area. Three stations are located in
the local study area, upwind and downwind the future site activities and three stations are
located in the regional study area. In order to complete the baseline study, a complementary
lichen sampling program will be conducted in the fall of 2011 at the site. The program will
encompass the sampling of previously sampled stations V2 and V3, located respectively
downwind and upwind of immediate site activities and one station located in proximity of Lake
9 further downwind of prevailing winds. This station will serve to evaluate dispersion, if any.
3.3 SCHEDULE
The additional baseline data collection program will be completed as follow:

Surface Water Sampling: Spring and Fall of 2011;

Sediment Sampling: Fall of 2011;

Benthic Invertebrates: Fall of 2011;

Aquatic Vegetation: Fall of 2011;

Fish Community and Chemistry: Fall of 2011; and

Terrestrial Vegetation: Fall of 2011.
March 31 2011
Page 9 of 17
Table 1:
Actual Data for Aquatic components and additional 2011 baseline data
Surface Water
Sediment
Spring
Fall 08
09
X
Benthos
Summer
Fall 08
09
X
Spring
Water body ID Fall 07 Spring 08 Fall 08 Winter 09 Spring 09 Summer 09 Spring 11 Fall 11 Fall 07
Fall 11
08
Fall 11
Fall 07
Lake 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake 2
X
X
X
Lake 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake 5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake 6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake 6A
Lake 6B
(2)
X
X
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Lake 7
X
X
X
(2)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake 7A
Lake 8
X
X
X
X
Lake 9
X
X
X
X
Lake 10
Lake 11
Lake 12
X
X
X
X
Lake 12B
Lake 13
Lake 14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake 15
X
X
X
X
Stream 1-2
X
Stream 2-3
Stream 3-4
X
X
Stream 4-6
X
X
X
X
X
Stream 5-6
X
X
Stream 6-7
X
X
X
X
X
X
Stream 7
X
X
Stream 12-7
X
Stream A
Stream B
Note:
(1): Included in Lake 6 monitoring stations (one station is located in Lake 6B).
(2): Unable to obtain water quality sample because lake was frozen to bottom.
(3): Fishing effort done in a water body. Do not necessarily imply that fishes were captured.
Additional 2011 baseline data to be collected
Water profile
Chemical analyses on flesh or bone
Fish samples that remain frozen from the completed baseline: 10 brook trouts from Lake 3, 1 Pikes and 2 White suckers from Lake 4, 3 Pikes and 8 White suckers from Lake 6 and 2 Brook trouts from Lake 7.
March 31 2011
Fish(3)
Spring
08
Fall 08
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fall 11
X
X
Aquatic Vegetation
Summer
08
Fall 11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 11 of 17
Table 2:
Characterization Activities for the Reference State of the Receptor Environment – Data Collection on Surface Water Quality
Sampling campaigns will take place in spring and fall 2011
Water Body
Parameters
Lake 5
Lake 6
Lake 7
Lake 9
2 stations
2 stations
Mouth
Outlet
Mouth
Outlet
Lake 14 (control)
Stream 4-6*
Stream 6-7*
1 station
Between 1 and 3 stations
Physical Properties (measured at the site)
Conductivity
pH
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Physical Properties
Alkalinity
Conductivity
Hardness
TSS
pH
Total dissolved solids
Sum of ions
Turbidity
Major Ions and Nutrients
Ammonia (nitrogen)
Bicarbonates
Ca
Carbonates
Chlorides
DCO
TOC
Fluorides
K
Mg
Na
NH3
Nitrates
Nitrites - Nitrates
N KJELDAHL
N TOTAL
Dissolved oxygen
P TOTAL
P DISSOUS
Sulphates
3 stations
5 stations
Trace Elements and Metals
Ag
Al
As
Ba
Be
Bo
Cd
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Li
Hg
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
U
V
Zn
Radionuclides
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
Note:
* The number of stations will depend on observed flow conditions (e.g.: discharge, aquatic vegetation, presence of pits)
March 31 2011
Page 12 of 17
Table 3:
Characterization Activities for the Reference State of the Receptor Environment – Data Collection on Sediment Quality
Sampling campaign will take place in fall 2011
Water Body
Parameters
Lake 5
Lake 6
Lake 7
Lake 9
2 stations
2 stations
Mouth
Outlet
Mouth
Outlet
2 analyses
2 analyses
2 stations
2 stations
Mouth
Outlet
Mouth
Outlet
Lake 14 (control)
Stream 4-6 *
Stream 6-7 *
1 Station
1 analysis
Between 1 and 3
analyses
Between 1 and 3
analyses
1 station
Physical Properties
Grain size analyses
Humidity (%)
Loss on drying
pH
Depth
Major Ions and Nutrients
Ca
TOC
Fluorides
K
Mg
Na
NH3
Nitrites – Nitrates
N KJELDAHL
N TOTAL
Orthophosphates
P TOTAL
Sulphates
Ag
Al
As
Ba
Be
Bo
Cd
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Li
Hg
3 stations
5 stations
3 analyses
5 analyses**
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
U
V
Zn
Toxicity Analyses
Lethality test (48 hours)
Daphnia magna
Radionuclides
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
3 stations
5 stations
Note:
* Sediments could be taken from 3 stations in streams if in sufficient quantities.
** Toxicity analyses (survival and growth test) on Chironomus riparius and Hyalella azteca will be performed on some sediment samples collected from Lake 6: two (2) analyses on Chironomus and two (2) analyses on Hyalella will be completed.
March 31 2011
Page 13 of 17
Table 4:
Characterization Activities for the Reference State of the Receptor Environment – Data Collection on Richness and Diversity of Benthic Communities
Water Body
Parameters
Lake 5
Lake 6
Lake 7
Lake 9
2 stations
2 stations
Mouth
Outlet
Mouth
Outlet
Lake 14 (control)
Stream 4-6 *
Stream 6-7 *
1 station
1 station
Sample composed
of several kick
net hauls
Sample composed
of several kick
net hauls
Benthos Richness and Diversity
Complete characterization depending on the type of environment:
Ponar grab
Kick net
Density
Simpson diversity index
3 stations
5 stations
1 station
Evenness index
Bray-Curtis similarity index
Richness per taxon
Note:
* Benthos could be taken from 3 stations in streams if sediments are in sufficient quantity and/or in the presence of supportive environments.
March 31 2011
Page 14 of 17
Table 5:
Characterization Activities for the Reference State of the Receptor Environment – Data Collection on Aquatic Vegetation Species
Water Body
Parameters
Lake 5
Lake 6
2 stations
3 stations
Lake 7
Lake 14 (control)
Aquatic Vegetation Diversity
Characterization complements according to sampled stations
(e.g.: surface water, sediments, fishing):
Species present
Density
Al
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cu
Hg
Mn
Mo
Pb
Ni
Se
U
Zn
2 stations:
Mouth (Stream 6-7)
Outlet (Stream 7)
1 station
Radionuclides
Pb-210
Po-210
March 31 2011
Ra-226
Th-230
Page 15 of 17
Table 6:
Characterization Activities for the Reference State of the Receptor Environment – Data Collection on Fish Communities
Water Body
Parameters
Lake 5
Lake 6
Lake 7
Lake 9
Lake 14 (control)
Stream 4-6
Stream 6-7
Based on observations
during deployment
during deployment
during deployment
during deployment
during deployment
during deployment
during deployment
Non lethal physical
characteristics of all
caught individuals
Non lethal physical
caught individuals
Non lethal physical
caught individuals
Non lethal physical
caught individuals
Non lethal physical
caught individuals
Number of analysis
according to the catch
Number of analysis
Number of analysis
Number of analysis
Number of analysis
Non lethal physical
characteristics of caught
individuals
Non lethal physical
characteristics of caught
individuals
Number of analysis
Number of analysis
Number of analysis
Number of analysis
Number of analysis


Number of analysis
Number of analysis
Number of analysis
Number of analysis
Number of analysis


Ichthyological Fauna Diversity
Fishing intrinsic data:
Method
Captured species
Effort (hours)
Number of catches
Capture per effort unit
Physical characteristics (L = Lethal):
Age (L)
Anomalies
Conditional factors
Fertility
Gonadosomatic index (L)
Hepatosomatic index (L)
Body weight
Adjusted body weight (based on height)
Weight of liver (L)
Weight of gonads (L)
Fork length
Size of eggs (L)
Trace Elements and Metals (flesh)
Al
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cu
Hg
Mn
Mo
Pb
Ni
Se
U
Zn
Radionuclides (flesh)
Pb-210
Po-210
March 31 2011
Ra-226
Th-230
Page 16 of 17
Table 7:
Characterization Activities for the Reference State of the Receptor Environment – Data Collection on Lichens
Parameters
Receptor Environment
Al
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cu
Hg
Mn
Mo
Pb
Ni
Se
U
Zn
2 samples from a new station near Lake 9, in the axis of prevailing winds (ventilation related dispersion)
2 samples from the vicinity of station V2 (impact study), south of Lake 5 (site related dispersion)
2 samples from the vicinity of station V3 (impact study), south of Lake 1
Radionuclides
Pb-210
Po-210
March 31 2011
Ra-226
Th-230
Page 17 of 17
APPENDIX 2. c) Environmental Monitoring Program (May, 2011) Environmental Monitoring Program
75-755
May 2011
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 TABLE OF CONTENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.4 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.5 DOCUMENT CONTROL .................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 CORPORATE POLICIES ............................................................................................................................ 6 3.0 ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................................... 8 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ......................................................................................................... 10 5.0 SURFACE WATER MONITORING ........................................................................................................... 11 5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 11 5.2 SAMPLING LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 11 5.3 FREQUENCY AND PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 12 6.0 FINAL EFFLUENT MONITORING ............................................................................................................ 15 6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 15 6.2 SAMPLING LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 15 6.3 FREQUENCY AND PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 15 7.0 SEDIMENT AND BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE MONITORING ...................................................................... 20 7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 20 7.2 SAMPLING LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 20 7.3 FREQUENCY AND PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 20 8.0 FISH COMMUNITY MONITORING ......................................................................................................... 23 8.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 23 8.2 SAMPLING LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 23 8.3 FREQUENCY AND PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 23 9.0 AIR MONITORING ................................................................................................................................ 25 This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
permitted in the absence of an express written agreement from Strateco Resources Inc.
Printed on: July 21, 2011
Uncontrolled when printed
Page 1 sur 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 9.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 25 9.2 SAMPLING LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 25 9.3 FREQUENCY AND PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 27 10.0 AQUATIC VEGETATION ........................................................................................................................ 28 10.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 28 10.2 SAMPLING LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 28 10.3 FREQUENCY AND PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 28 11.0 TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY ..................................................................................................... 31 11.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 31 11.2 SAMPLING LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 31 11.3 FREQUENCY AND PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 31 12.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING ........................................................................................................... 33 12.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 33 12.2 SAMPLING LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 33 12.3 FREQUENCY AND PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 33 13.0 ANNUAL EMP REVISION ...................................................................................................................... 36 14.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 37 15.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST .............................................................................................................................. 38 This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 2 sur 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 : SURFACE WATER SAMPLING ............................................................................................................................ 14 TABLE 2 : FINAL EFFLUENT ............................................................................................................................................ 16 TABLE 3 : CONTAINED WATER ‐ CATCH BASIN A ............................................................................................................... 16 TABLE 4 : CONTAINED WATER ‐ CATCH BASIN B ............................................................................................................... 16 TABLE 5 : SEDIMENT SAMPLING ..................................................................................................................................... 21 TABLE 6 : SEDIMENT TOXICITY SAMPLING ........................................................................................................................ 22 TABLE 7 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE SAMPLING ..................................................................................................................... 22 TABLE 8 : FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLING (ONE OF THE TWO LAKES) ........................................................................................ 23 TABLE 9 : AIR QUALITY MONITORING ............................................................................................................................. 27 TABLE 10 : AQUATIC VEGETATION MONITORING .............................................................................................................. 30 TABLE 11 : LICHEN MONITORING ................................................................................................................................... 32 TABLE 12 : GROUNDWATER MONITORING ....................................................................................................................... 35 TABLE 13 : EMP DISTRIBUTION LIST ‐ PAPER COPY ........................................................................................................... 38 TABLE 14 : EMP DISTRIBUTION LIST ‐ ELECTRONIC COPY .................................................................................................... 38 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 : ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ................................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 2 : SURFACE WATER, SEDIMENT & BENTHOS ......................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 3 : MINE WATER CONTROL AND EFFLUENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS ............................................................................. 18 FIGURE 4 : CONTAINED WATER AND FINAL EFFLUENT MONITORING ..................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 5 : AIR ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 FIGURE 6 : AQUATIC VEGETATION & LICHEN .................................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 7 : GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................................... 34 This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 3 sur 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION Purpose The Environmental Monitoring Program was established to examine all actual and potential radioactive and non‐radioactive effluents from the underground exploration project activities. The purpose of the program is to describe the environmental monitoring requirement for the underground exploration project, which reflects the provincial regulation (Directive 019) and the recommendations of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The Environmental Monitoring Program has been designed to confirm the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) and their environmental effects or lack of effects. Selected media are monitored to ensure that releases from the site remain within an acceptable range resulting in no negative impact on the surrounding environment, including all living organisms. 1.2
Scope To meet its purpose, the following program objectives have been identified: •
Meet the applicable regulatory requirements and perform the activities in accordance with Strateco commitments; •
Address specific concerns related to water quality and fish downstream of project activities; •
Examine the efficiency of the water treatment plant; •
Confirm the predictions made in the EIA and SLRA; •
Confirm the spatial extent of predicted impacts; •
Observe any long‐term build‐up and predict environmental trends from site‐released contaminants. Environmental monitoring focuses on the examination of the site’s biophysical components to assess against preoperational conditions whether certain chemicals and radionuclides are present and to what extent. Responses to releases from site activities are also examined. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 4 sur 38
Relevant Legislation The program is based in part on: 1.4
•
Nuclear Safety and Control Act and Regulations; •
Uranium Mines and Mills Facilities Regulations; •
Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (Fisheries Act); •
Directive 019 sur l’industrie minière (MDDEP). Definitions CNSC : Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission EIA : Environmental Impact Assessment EMP : Environmental Monitoring Program MDDEP : Ministère du Développement Durable de l’Environnement et des Parcs MMER : Metal Mining Effluent Regulations QA : Quality Assurance QC : Quality Control SLRA : Screening Level Risk Assessment TSS : Total Suspended Solid 1.5
Document Control Programs elaborated by Strateco are revised on an annual basis and updated as needed. The Quality Management System ensures that document users have the latest versions of their documents and that previous versions are removed from service. Section 15 of this document presents the program distribution list, which is part of Strateco’s document control system from the Quality Management System. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 5 sur 38
CORPORATE POLICIES One of Strateco’s policies is to reduce to its maximum the impact of the project on human health and environment. To do so, the company commits to the following: •
Manage activities within a global management frame; •
Identify, evaluate and control potential risks; •
Maximize sustainable practices, while considering social and economic factors; •
Respect laws and regulations as well as corporative policies, programs and procedures; •
Communicate information on ongoing activities; •
Teamwork with partners; •
Provide training; •
Ensure follow‐up on activities. Strateco is dedicated to meet environmental legislative requirements, at the least, and implement the best management practices. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 6 sur 38
ADMINISTRATION Strateco’s environmental department is responsible for the Environmental Monitoring Program. This department falls under the direction of the vice president, operations and engineering. 3.1
Responsibilities The organizational and reporting structure for the underground exploration project EMP is as follow: Vice President –
Operations and Engineering
Environmental Director
Environmental Technician/
Consultant
Figure 1 : Organizational Chart In order to facilitate effective management throughout the company, roles and responsibilities have been established and defined. Vice President, operations and engineering: •
Manage overall project operations; •
Revision and approval of all documents; •
Make sure subcontractors contracts comply with corporate policies and procedures and with regulatory agencies; •
Maintain license application; •
Communicate with the CNSC. Environmental director: • Elaborate environmental programs and procedures; • Manage and coordinate routine monitoring at the site as well as irregular sampling needs; • Incorporate energy and water efficiency in planning and operations; This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 7 sur 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 • Require that subcontracts specify compliance with all environmental procedures and protocols required by regulatory agencies; • Report incidents involving spills or improper releases to the vice president, operations and engineering and regulatory agencies; • QA/QC field and laboratory data; • Maintain permit‐related information and submit to the appropriate authority as required; • Review all environmental programs annually and update as needed; • Communicate with regulatory agencies; • Report annual monitoring results to the appropriate regulatory agencies. Qualified staff/subcontractors involved in environmental programs: •
Perform sampling activities at the site. Ensure activities are performed in compliance with Strateco’s health and safety program and with its procedures, QA/QC and EMP; •
Supervise contractor field work; •
Supervise the water treatment plant; •
Maintain environmental equipment in good condition; •
Ensure final effluent meets regulatory guidelines; •
Evaluate and report emergencies; •
Perform routine site inspections and report any unusual situation to the environmental director; 3.2
•
Note any unusual or reportable monitoring results and inform the environmental director; •
Perform cross‐functional duties or other responsibilities, as assigned and/or requested. General Environmental Responsibilities Strateco’s EMP is also based on general principles where everyone is involved: •
Employees, users, subcontractors and contractors take responsibility for improving their work environment and their environmental, safety and health performance; •
Subcontractors must provide Strateco with their environmental and health and safety programs and procedures; •
Employees, users, subcontractors and contractors are accountable for minimizing environmental impacts at the Matoush site; This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 8 sur 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 •
Employees, users, subcontractors and contractors must plan and work to minimize waste and prevent pollution, including selecting and purchasing environmentally preferable materials and equipment; •
Employees, users, subcontractors and contractors must consider potential environmental hazard before starting or changing tasks; •
Employees, users, subcontractors and contractors must minimize waste and properly dispose of any waste generated; •
Employees, users, subcontractors and contractors must maintain equipment and facilities to avoid spills or other releases in the air, water or ground. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 9 sur 38
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Monitoring programs included in this document are: •
Surface Water Monitoring; •
Groundwater Monitoring; •
Sediment Monitoring; •
Fish Communities and Tissue Chemistry Monitoring; •
Benthic Invertebrates Monitoring; •
Lichen Monitoring; •
Air Monitoring; •
Contained Water and Final Effluent Monitoring. A major element of this program is the routine submission of monitoring data required by the regulatory agencies. Strateco must keep them informed of its environmental monitoring performances on a monthly and quarterly basis. All cumulated data will be assembled into a comprehensive annual report, each year in the month of September, and submitted to the MDDEP and CNSC. The EMP provides the core environmental monitoring requirement specific to the Matoush project including sampling locations, frequency and parameters to be analyzed. The document 75‐755‐001 Sampling Procedures presents the methodology for the sampling of each media. This Environmental Monitoring Program was designed with a Before‐After‐Control‐Impact (BACI) approach. This design makes it possible to determine the impacts of site activities (or their absence) by comparing observations made (including chemical analyses) prior to site activities with others made during or after site activities. Permanent sampling stations for the different media are located in the study area as well as in the regional study area and slightly beyond (i.e. Camie River). Some sampling stations have been added since Golder Associates Ltd. and Senes Consultant Ltd. have completed the baseline works. These new stations will be sampled before underground development activities are initiated and will provide additional baseline data for 2011, or “before” observations. The monitoring of selected media in an active mine, or in one recognized as closed, is required under the MMER to evaluate the effects of project activity effluents on the receiving aquatic environment. The Matoush underground exploration project does not fall into one of the above‐mentioned categories, however, a monitoring program that follows similar trends has been planned by Strateco. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 10 sur 38
5.1
SURFACE WATER MONITORING Introduction The final effluent of the water treatment plant and the runoff water collected from catch basins will be discharged into Stream 4‐6, approximately 75 m upstream of Lake 6. This Lake was therefore selected for the surface water monitoring program, as well as Lakes 4, 5, 7 and 9. In order to confirm the prediction of the SLRA, three monitoring stations will be located in the vicinity of the Camie River. 5.2
Sampling Location Figure 2 shows the locations where surface water is sampled. Detailed locations for each sampling station will be presented after the first monitoring event, when the assessment on where samples should be collected will be made (specified) in the field. As stated previously, Lakes 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 will be monitored. Water quality monitoring will be performed monthly during the open water period, or from May to October. To this effect, two stations will be positioned in Lake 4 (L4‐SW1: small bay in the southern area, and L4‐SW2: outlet), two stations in Lake 5 (L5‐SW1: water intake, and L5‐SW2: outlet), five stations in Lake 6 (L6‐SW1: mouth, L6‐SW2: bay in northern area, L6‐SW3: lake center, L6‐SW4: bay in southern area, and L6‐SW5: Lake 6B), two stations in Lake 7 (L7‐SW1: mouth, and L7‐
SW2: outlet), and two stations in Lake 9 (L9‐SW1: mouth, and L9‐SW2: outlet). A sample will also be collected in winter from two stations in Lake 6 (L6‐SW1 and L6‐SW4), preferably around February, to make sure the natural environment remains impact‐free even with lower flows. Three stations (CR‐1, CR‐2 and CR‐3) located upstream, downstream and at the confluence of the Camie River will be sampled on an annual basis. Sampling locations correspond to the vicinity of the confluence with the outlet of the regional study area. Note that Strateco intends to vary the final effluent flow according to the flow of Stream 4‐6, such as prescribed in Directive 019 of the MDDEP. Section 2.1.3 of the Directive states that in the case of a mill whose waste water is (or could be) stored for long periods of time, it is recommended to reduce discharges as much as possible and progressively distribute the volumes to discharge on the longest period possible to adjust to the flows of the receptor environment. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 11 sur 38
Frequency and Parameters Surface water will be collected and analyzed as described in Table 1. All samples collected will be grabbed samples as opposed to composite samples. Collection will occur monthly throughout the open water months, i.e. from May to October, to obtain six months of surface water monitoring. Two stations will also be sampled during winter in Lake 6, ideally in February, when low flows are expected. Camie River stations will be sampled once a year during the open water months. Field measurements will be collected at varying depths for each sampled location using a portable probe. Parameters to be measured are: •
Conductivity; •
Dissolved oxygen; •
pH; •
Temperature. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is
Page 12 sur 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Figure 2 : Surface Water, Sediment & Benthos Page 13 sur 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : July 2011 Revision : 2 Table 1 : Surface Water Sampling Sampling location
Lake 4 Lake 5
Lake 6
Parameters L4‐SW1 Lake 7
L4‐SW2 L5‐SW1 L5‐SW2 L6‐SW1 L6‐SW2 L6‐SW3 L6‐SW4 Physical properties Alkalinity Conductivit
y Hardness pH Sum of ions TDS TSS Turbidity Major ions and nutrients Total ammonia Bicarbonat
e Ca Carbonate Chloride DOC TOC Fluoride K Mg Na NH3 Nitrate Nitrite ‐ Nitrate N KJELDAHL N TOTAL Dissolved oxygen P TOTAL P DISSOLVED Sulfate Total metals Ag Al As Ba Be Bo Cd Cr Co Cu Fe Li Hg Radionuclides Pb‐210 Po‐210 Mn
Mo Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Sr Ti Tl U V Zn Lake 14
Camie River L7‐SW1 L7‐SW2 L9‐SW1 L9‐SW2 L14‐SW1 CR‐SW1 CR‐
SW2 CR‐SW3 Frequency
A M M M M WS M M M WS M M M M M M A M M M M M WS M M M WS M M M M M M M A M A M M M M WS M M M: Monthly (May to October) L6‐SW5 M M Ra‐226 Th‐230 Lake 9
Sample Identification Number
M WS M M M M M M M M WS: Winter sampling M M M M M M M M M M A: Annually This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is permitted in the absence of an express written
agreement from Strateco Resources Inc.
Page 14 sur 38
6.1
FINAL EFFLUENT MONITORING Introduction The mine water treatment plant will be the only industrial waste water effluent generated at the site during the underground exploration project. Water produced at the site will mainly consist of dewatering waters. No process water will be generated at the site. Runoff water collected into the catch basins (catch basins A and B) will be released into Stream 4‐6 at the same location (different pipeline) as the treatment plant effluent final discharge. Monitoring of mining effluent discharge is required under the Directive 019. 6.2
Sampling Location Figures 3 and 4 show the sampling locations of the final effluent and catch basins, respectively. Final effluent samples will be collected at two locations within the water treatment plant: at the entry of the storage pond #1 (EFF‐1) prior to treatment and at the discharge pump of settling pond #2 (EFF‐2) after treatment is completed. Sample EFF‐1 will provide underground water quality prior to its treatment and will therefore be used to measure the efficiency of the treatment process when compared to sample EFF‐
2, which will represent the characteristics of the final effluent to be released in the environment. Sampling locations CB‐A‐1 and CB‐B‐1 (CB: catch basin) represent the samples to be collected in surface water catch basins A and B, respectively. This water represents the surface runoff collected from the site’s drainage system, north and south of the portal. 6.3
Frequency and Parameters The final effluent and the water contained within the catch basins will be sampled and analyzed as described in Tables 2, 3 and 4. An internal check will be completed at the mine water treatment plant as a due diligence. These additional tests will be performed on a daily basis at the location presented in Figure 3 (C: control) on selected parameters used for the control of treatment, i.e. pH and TSS. Control analyses will be carried out at the site laboratory while regulated analyses (EFF‐2) will be submitted to an external accredited laboratory. Sampling station EFF‐1 is part of our internal verification process to ensure the mine water treatment plant is working as planned. Selected parameters will however be submitted for analyses in Page 15 sur 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : July 2011 Revision : 2 order to obtain mine water quality results from an external accredited laboratory. Flow will be measured continuously. Table 2 : Final Effluent Sample Identification Number Sampling Location EFF‐1 At the entry of the contaminated water into storage pond#1 EFF‐2 Sample Type Parameters Frequency Composite pH, TSS, cond., temp., dissolved oxygen, Ra‐226 Monthly Composite As, Ba*, Cd*, Cr*, Hg*, Mo*, Ni, Pb, Se*, U* Quarterly Composite pH, TSS 3/week Composite pH, cond., temp.,dissolved oxygen, As, Ba*, Cd*, Cr*, Cu, Fe, Hg*, Mo*, Ni, Pb, Se*, U*, Zn, Ra‐226* 1/week Composite Sublethal toxicity: trout, daphnia Monthly Composite Alkalinity, chloride, cond., BOD5, COD, flow, hardness, fluore, C10‐C50, TSS, pH, TDS, phenol, sulfate, turbidity, NO3, NH3‐
N, TKN, Ptot, Al, As, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, Pb, K, Ra‐226*, Se, Si, Na, Zn, sublethal toxicity (trout, daphnia) Annually (July or August) At the exit of settling pond#2 (discharge pump) Note: *: Some parameters, although not part of the regulated Directive 019 monitoring, have been added to the program either to confirm the SLRA, because of the nature of the project, or because they have been added to the treatment process. Table 3 : Contained Water ‐ Catch Basin A Sample Identification Number CB‐A‐1 Sampling Location Surface runoff water north of portal (catch basin A) Sample Type Grab Parameters Frequency pH, TSS, cond., temp. 3/week As, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Zn, C10‐C50 1/week Ra‐226* semi‐annually Note: Water in catch basin A will be released in batch. Frequency might be adjusted once actual flow conditions are known. No sampling in winter. *: Parameter requested by the CNSC Table 4 : Contained Water ‐ Catch Basin B This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
herein is permitted in the absence of an express written agreement from Strateco Resources Inc.
Page 16 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : July 2011 Revision : 2 Sample Identification Number CB‐B‐1 Sampling Location Surface runoff water south of portal (catch basin B) Sample Type Grab Parameters Frequency pH, TSS, cond., temp. 3/week As, Cu, Fe, Pb, Ni, Zn, U* Ra‐226* 1/week Alkalinity, chloride, cond., BOD5, COD, flow, hardness, fluoride, C10‐
C50, TSS, pH, TDS, phenol, sulphate, turbidity, NO3, NH3‐N, TKN, Ptot, Al, As, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, Pb, K, Ra‐226*, Se, Si, Na, Zn, sublethal toxicity (trout, daphnia) Annually (July or August) Note: Water in catch basin B will be released in batch. Frequency might be adjusted once actual flow conditions are known. No sampling in winter. *: Parameter requested by the CNSC or MDDEP Unless internal analytical results (pH or TSS) show potential problems according to our Contaminated Water Code of Practice included in the Environmental Protection Program, water effluent from the treatment plant will be released continuously. Specific action levels from the administrative level to the action level provided in the Contaminated Water Code of Practice will allow a quick response to a potential “loss of control”. This procedure ensures proper monitoring of the effluent and compliance with regulations. Contained water will be released in batch following the reception of analytical results. Catch basin sampling locations and the final effluent are presented on Figure 4. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 17 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : July 2011 Revision : 2 Figure 3 : Mine Water Control and Effluent Sampling Locations This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 18 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : July 2011 Revision : 2 Figure 4 : Contained Water and Final Effluent Monitoring This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is permitted in the absence of an express
written agreement from Strateco Resources Inc.
Page 19 of 38
7.1
SEDIMENT AND BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE MONITORING Introduction As mentioned previously, the final effluent of the water treatment plant and the runoff water collected into the catch basins will be discharged into Stream 4‐6, approximately 75 m upstream of Lake 6. This Lake was therefore selected for the sediment and benthic invertebrate monitoring program, as well as Lakes 4, 5, 7 and 9. Sediment and benthic invertebrate monitoring in an active or recognized closed mine is required under the MMER to evaluate effects of the project activity effluent on the receiving aquatic environment. The Matoush underground exploration project does not fall in one of the aforementioned categories. However, Strateco has planned a sediment and benthic invertebrate monitoring program that follow similar trends. 7.2
Sampling Location Sampling for sediment and benthos will be completed at the same locations as surface water samples. Figure 2 shows sampling locations for sediments and benthic invertebrates. 7.3
Frequency and Parameters Fall was selected as the sampling season for the sediments and benthic invertebrates according to the baseline data collected in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Considering that additional sediment and benthic invertebrate samples will be collected in the fall of 2011 to complete baseline data, some of the selected monitoring locations will be comprised in the baseline program. In fact, Lake 4 will be the only one added to the fall 2011 monitoring program. We anticipate a time frame for the underground exploration program of approximately 24 to 32 months. Therefore, the second sediment and benthic invertebrate monitoring event should take place within 3 years of the first (i.e. baseline data collection). This second sediment and benthic invertebrate monitoring event will be conducted along with one of the monthly surface water sampling activities completed in fall (September or October). Sediments will be collected and analyzed as described in Tables 5 and 6, while benthic invertebrates will be collected and analyzed as described in Table 7. Page 20 sur 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Table 5 : Sediment Sampling Lake 4 Lake 5 Parameters Physical properties Humidity Loss on ignition Particle size pH Sampling depth Major ions and nutrients Ca Fluoride K Mg Na NH3 Nitrite ‐ Nitrate Total metals Ag Al As Ba Be Bo Cd Cr Co Cu Fe Li Hg N KJELDAHL N TOTAL Orthophosphate P TOTAL Sulphate TOC Mn Mo Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Sr Ti Tl U V Zn Radionuclides Pb‐210 Po‐210 L4‐S1 L4‐S2 L5‐S1 L5‐S2 L6‐S1 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Ra‐226 Th‐230 Sampling Location
Lake 6 Sample Identification Number L6‐S2 L6‐S3 L6‐S4 L6‐S5 Frequency Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Lake 7 Lake 9 Lake 14 L7‐S1 L7‐S2 L9‐S1 L9‐S2 L14‐S1 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is permitted in the absence of an express written
Printed on July 21, 2011
Page 21 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Table 6 : Sediment Toxicity Sampling Lake 4 Lake 5 Parameters Test of lethality (48 hours) Daphnia magna Test of survival and growth (7 days) Chironomus riparius and Test of survival and growth (7 days) Hyalella azteca L4‐B1 L4‐B2 L5‐B1 L5‐B2 L6‐B1 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Sampling Location Lake 6 Sample Identification Number L6‐B2 L6‐B3 L6‐B4 L6‐B5 Frequency Fall Fall Fall Fall 2011 2011 2011 2011 Fall Fall Fall Fall 2014 2014 2014 2014 Fall Fall 2011 2011 Fall Fall 2014 2014 Lake 7 Lake 9 Lake 14 L7‐B1 L7‐B2 L9‐B1 L9‐B2 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 L14‐B1 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Table 7 Benthic Invertebrate Sampling Lake 4 Lake 5 Parameters Diversity and richness Bray‐Curtis Index Density Evenness Simpson’s Diversity Index Taxon richness Sampling Location Lake 6 Sample Identification Number L6‐B2 L6‐B3
L6‐B4
L6‐B5
Frequency L4‐B1
L4‐B2
L5‐B1
L5‐B2
L6‐B1
Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Lake 7 Lake 9 Lake 14 L7‐B1
L7‐B2
L9‐B1
L9‐B2
Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is permitted in the absence of an express written
Printed on July 21, 2011
Page 22 of 38
L14‐B1 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 8.0
8.1
FISH COMMUNITY MONITORING Introduction Aquatic components, especially fish, are a significant issue for stakeholders like the Cree community. Aquatic component monitoring is required under the MMER. Although the Matoush underground exploration project is not a mine, Strateco has planned aquatic component monitoring that follows similar trends to respond to public apprehensions. 8.2
Sampling Location Fish community sampling will be performed in Lake 6 (near field exposure area) or in Lake 9 (far field exposure area) depending on the results obtained in the fall 2011 baseline data collection (see previous figures to locate Lake 6 and Lake 9). Sampling will be done in the lake having the highest diversity and richness to obtain sufficient fish specimens captured per unit effort. This will help reflect the intensity of the potential impact on the fish community. 8.3
Frequency and Parameters Fall was selected as the sampling season for the fish community according to the baseline data collected in 2007 and 2008. We anticipate a time frame for the underground exploration program of approximately 24 to 32 months. Therefore, the second fish community monitoring event should take place within 3 years of the first (i.e. additional baseline data collection of 2011). This second fish community monitoring event will be conducted along with the rest of the sampling activities realized in fall (September or October). Fish specimens will be collected and analyzed to characterize the community present in the chosen lake according to a sufficient fishery effort. Up to 20 specimens of the two sentinel species (brook trout and lake chub) will be collected and analyzed as described in Table 8. Table 8 : Fish Community Sampling (one of the two lakes) This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 23 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Sampling Location
Lake 6 Lake 9 Parameters Diversity Field measure: Catch method Catch per unit effort Effort Number capture Species Physical measurements (L = lethal): Abnormalities Age (L) Adjust body weight Condition factor Egg size (L) Fecundity (L) Fork length Gonadosomatic Index (L) Gonad weight (L) Liversomatic Index (L) Liver weight (L) Total weight Total metals and trace elements Al Mn As Mo Ba Pb Be Ni Cd Se Co U Cu Zn Hg Radionuclides Pb‐210 Po‐210 Ra‐226 Th‐230 According to the observations during the deployment According to the observations during the deployment Non lethal physical measurements of every fishes caught Up to 20 specimens analyzed from both sentinel species Ideally 10 of each sex Non lethal physical measurements of every fishes caught Up to 20 specimens analyzed from both sentinel species Ideally 10 of each sex Up to 20 specimens from both sentinel species Ideally 10 of each sex Up to 20 specimens from both sentinel species Ideally 10 of each sex Up to 20 specimens from both sentinel species Ideally 10 of each sex Up to 20 specimens from both sentinel species Ideally 10 of each sex Frequency Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 24 of 38
9.1
AIR MONITORING Introduction Airborne emissions will be evaluated and their potential for releasing materials harmful to the environment or human components will be assessed. Meteorological data have been collected at the site since 2007 and will continue to be monitored throughout the underground exploration project. Meteorological data are used in pair with air quality to evaluate the dispersion of potential contaminants. The underground project activities will not generate significant amounts of dust or gas emissions in the atmosphere considering all the mitigation measures in place. 9.2
Sampling Location Figure 5 shows the locations of the air sampling stations at the site. Air samples will be collected at the same locations as baseline information was collected, with the exception of station AIR‐1 which was moved from the former meteorological tower to Strateco’s office building located approximately 100 m to the west. One station (AIR‐4) was added to the monitoring program and is located east of Lake 5. All stations have strategic locations within the property: upwind from the site (RAD‐1), south of site activities (AIR‐2), north of site activities (AIR‐3), within site activities (RAD‐2), camp (AIR‐1) and downwind from the site on the east side of Lake 5 (AIR 4) in order to measure the extent of above background radon gas concentrations, if any. Underground monitoring will be completed throughout the Radiation Protection Program and is not part of the present Environmental Monitoring Program. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 25 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Figure 5 : Air This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is permitted in the absence of an express
Page 26 of 38
Frequency and Parameters Air emissions will be sampled and analyzed as described in Table 9. Table 9 : Air Quality Monitoring Sample Identification Number Sampling Location Sample Type Parameters Frequency AIR‐1 Camp Strateco’s office building HighVol sampler and Passive monitor Alpha‐track radon gas detector Dosimeter Total suspended particulate, Metals (32), PM2.5, PM10, NO2, NOx, SO2, Radionuclides (Ra‐226, Pb‐210, Po‐210, Th‐
230) Radon in air Gamma radiation Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly AIR‐2 South of local study area Passive monitor Alpha‐track radon gas detector Dosimeter NO2, NOx, SO2, Radon in air Gamma radiation Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly AIR‐3 North of local study area Passive monitor Alpha‐track radon gas detector Dosimeter NO2, NOx, SO2, Radon in air Gamma radiation Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly AIR‐4 Downwind (east) of site activities Passive monitor Alpha‐track radon gas detector Dosimeter NO2, NOx, SO2, Radon in air Gamma radiation Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Rad‐1 Upwind (northwest) of site activities and ore body Alpha‐track radon gas detector Dosimeter Radon in air Gamma radiation Quarterly Quarterly Rad‐2 East of ore body and west of camp Alpha‐track radon gas detector Dosimeter Radon in air Gamma radiation Quarterly Quarterly Page 27 sur 38
AQUATIC VEGETATION 10.1
Introduction Aquatic vegetation monitoring will be completed at the site to evaluate any potential impact from site activities. As aquatic vegetation is, among several others, a food source for many organisms, Strateco has planned on monitoring the receiving water body, namely Lake 6. The aquatic vegetation (yellow pondlilly) has previously been sampled in Lake 6 throughout baseline activities. 10.2
Sampling Location Figure 6 shows the locations of aquatic vegetation sampling stations at the site. Two stations will be sampled in Lake 6, the mouth and the outlet of the lake where vegetation was observed during baseline activities. 10.3
Frequency and Parameters Fall was selected as the sampling season for the aquatic vegetation according to the baseline data collected in 2008. We anticipate a time frame for the underground exploration program of approximately 24 to 32 months. Therefore, the second aquatic vegetation monitoring event should take place within 3 years of the first (i.e. the additional baseline data collection of 2011). This second aquatic vegetation monitoring event will be conducted along with the rest of the sampling activities realized in fall (September or October). Aquatic vegetation will be sampled and analyzed as described in Table 10. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 28 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Figure 6 : Aquatic Vegetation & Lichen
This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is permitted in the absence of an express written agreement from Strateco Resources Inc.
Page 29 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Table 10 : Aquatic Vegetation Monitoring Sample Identification Number Parameters L6‐AV1
L6‐AV2 Frequency
Aquatic vegetation diversity Species present Density Total metals and trace elements Al Mn
As Mo Ba Pb Be Ni Cd Se Co U Cu Zn Hg Fall 2011 Fall 2011 Fall 2014 Fall 2014 Radionuclides Pb‐210 Ra‐226
Po‐210 Th‐230 This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 30 of 38
TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY 11.1
Introduction The underground project activities will not generate significant amounts of dust or gas emissions in the atmosphere, thus contributing to aerial dispersion. Nevertheless, a terrestrial environmental monitoring program has been set up due to stakeholder concerns regarding a potential contamination of the wildlife and plants used by the local population. To this effect, lichens will be used for monitoring. These plants accumulate radionuclides and certain metals via aerial particle deposition. Lichens have an efficient accumulation capacity because they lack roots, they cover an important surface and they have great longevity. They also constitute the main food source for caribous during the winter season. 11.2
Sampling Location Figure 6 shows the locations of the site’s lichen sampling stations. Two of the three stations used for the baseline study will be reused, stations V2 (south of Lake 5) and V3 (south of Lake 1). The new station located south of Lake 9 in the axe of prevailing winds will allow measuring the impact of atmospheric dispersion out of the local zone, which is rather associated with the underground drift ventilation duct. 11.3
Frequency and Parameters Fall was selected as the sampling season for lichen according to the baseline data collected in 2008. Also note that more lichen samples will be collected and analyzed in fall 2011 to ensure a complete baseline data collection. We anticipate a time frame for the underground exploration program of approximately 24 to 32 months. Therefore, the second lichen monitoring event should take place within 3 years of the first (i.e. additional baseline data collection of 2011). This second lichen monitoring event will be conducted along with the rest of the sampling activities realized in fall (September or October). Lichen will be collected and analyzed as described in Table 11. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 31 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Table 11 : Lichen Monitoring Sample Identification Number Parameters L1‐L1 L1‐L2
L5‐L1
L5‐L2
L9‐L1 L9‐L2
Frequency
Total metals and trace elements Al Mn As Mo Ba Pb Be Ni Fall 2011 Fall 2011 Fall 2011 Fall 2011 Fall 2011 Fall 2011 Cd Se Co U Fall 2014 Fall 2014 Fall 2014 Fall 2014 Fall 2014 Fall 2014 Cu Zn Hg Radionuclides Pb‐210 Ra‐226 Po‐210 Th‐230 This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 32 of 38
GROUNDWATER MONITORING 12.1
Introduction As required under the provincial Directive 019, groundwater will be monitored at the site through a set of observation wells to collect information on groundwater levels as well as groundwater quality. This monitoring will make it possible to verify if project activities have an impact on hydrogeological conditions at the site. 12.2
Sampling Location Figure 7 shows the locations of observation wells to be sampled at the site. Eleven observation wells installed in bedrock or in overburden material will ensure a proper monitoring of groundwater where specific infrastructures could potentially suffer impacts, namely in the vicinity of the waste pad, petroleum farm and water treatment plant. Some observation wells are also located upstream and downstream of site activities. It should be noted that three cased drillholes have been added to these observation wells to provide additional data on water levels in deeper aquifers. 12.3
Frequency and Parameters Groundwater will be sampled and analysed as described in Table 12. Additional parameters have been added to the ones required under Directive 019 to address the uranium nature of the project. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 33 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Figure 7 : Groundwater This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained herein is permitted in the absence of an express
Page 34 of 38
Title of document : Environmental Monitoring Program Document no.: 75‐755 Date : May 2011 Revision : 2 Table 12 : Groundwater Monitoring Observation Well ID Well Description1 Location Description M‐GD1 (overburden) 15m overburden Upstream of site activities M‐GD1 (rock) 50m rock Upstream of site activities M‐GD2 5m overburden Upstream of site activities M‐GD3 5m overburden M‐GD4 5m overburden Downstream of site activities (near camp) Downstream of site activities (near catch basin A) Downstream of site activities (mine water treatment ponds) M‐GD5 15m overburden M‐GD6 10m overburden Adjacent to waste pads M‐GD7 10m overburden Adjacent to petroleum farm M‐GD8 15m overburden Adjacent to water treatment ponds M‐GD9 (rock) 50m rock Upstream of site activities M‐GD9 (overburden) 5m overburden Upstream of site activities Parameters As, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Zn, Mg Ca, HCO3, K, Na, SO4 U, Ra‐226, C10‐C50 pH and conductivity Frequency Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Semi‐annually (spring and summer) Note: 1: Proposed depth based on current site drilling information. Depth will be confirmed following the completion of the mmonitoring ells installation work. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 35 of 38
ANNUAL EMP REVISION The Environmental Department, in collaboration with the involved parties, will proceed with the revision of the EMP annually. The environmental director is responsible for updating the program and issuing the document according to the distribution list presented in Section 15. The environmental director will meet with all parties to ensure the program is well‐founded and efficient. Subcontractors must inform Strateco of any changes associated to their analytical procedures or quality assurance. Regulatory agencies involved in the project are invited to comment on the program at any given time, although it is more likely that these authorities will comment after receiving the annual report. If these observations involve a modification to a procedure, sampling analysis, sampling frequency or other, changes will be made to the appropriate document and communicated to the relevant personnel. The record of revisions, if any, will be presented in the subsequent EMP revised version. All environmental documents will be filed and available for consultation in Strateco’s Environmental Department. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 36 of 38
REFERENCES Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. 1999. CNSC, Nuclear Safety and Control Act and Regulations. 2000. CNSC, Regulatory Guide G‐296 Developing Environmental Protection Policies, Programs and Procedures at Class I Nuclear Facilities and Uranium Mines and Mills. March 2006. CNSC, Regulatory Standard S‐296 Developing Environmental Protection Policies, Programs and Procedures at Class I Nuclear Facilities and Uranium Mines and Mills. March 2006. Environnement Canada, Metal Mining Effluent Regulation, Fisheries Act. May 2009. MDDEP, Directive 019 sur l’industrie minière. April 2005. Melis Engineering Ltd, Development Ramp Water Treatment Plant Process Package. Prepared for Strateco Resources Inc. June 2009. Melis Engineering Ltd, Development Ramp Water Treatment Plant Risk Assessment. Prepared for Strateco Resources Inc. June 2009. Strateco Ressources Ltd. Environmental Impact Assessment Underground Exploration Project. October 2009. This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 37 of 38
DISTRIBUTION LIST Copies of the EMP will be available and distributed as follows: Table 13 : EMP Distribution List ‐ Paper Copy Copy Number Location Person in Charge Version 1 Strateco Ressources Inc.
1225 Gay‐Lussac Street Boucherville, (Québec) J4B 7K1 Environmental Director May 2011 2 Matoush Camp Environmental Technician May 2011 Table 14 : EMP Distribution List ‐ Electronic Copy Copy Number Location Person in Charge Version 1 Strateco Ressources Inc.
1225 Gay‐Lussac Street Boucherville, (Québec) J4B 7K1 Environmental Director May 2011 2 Matoush Camp Environmental Technician May 2011 3 CNSC
280, Slater Street P.O. Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, (Ontario) K1P 5S9 Senior Project Officer May 2011 This document is the property of Strateco Resources Inc. No exploitation, transfer, or release of any information contained
Page 38 of 38
APPENDIX 2. d) CNSC letter – CNSC Review of the Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment and the Baseline And Environmental Monitoring Programs (May 16, 2011) APPENDIX 3.
Risk and Ecotoxicological Study APPENDIX 3.
a) Risk and Ecotoxicological Study (April 29, 2011) SCREENING LEVEL HUMAN HEALTH AND
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE
MATOUSH URANIUM EXPLORATION PROJECT
Prepared for:
STRATECO RESOURCES
1225, Gay-Lussac
Boucherville, Québec J4B 7K1
CANADA
Prepared by:
SENES Consultants Limited
121 Granton Drive, Unit 12
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4B 3N4
April 2011
Printed on Recycled Paper Containing Post-Consumer Fibre
SCREENING LEVEL HUMAN HEALTH AND
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE
MATOUSH URANIUM EXPLORATION PROJECT
Prepared for:
STRATECO RESOURCES
1225, Gay-Lussac
Boucherville, Québec J4B 7K1
CANADA
Prepared by:
L4B 3N4
_____________________
Leah Windisch, M.A.Sc.
Environmental Specialist
_____________________________
Stacey Fernandes, M.A.Sc. P.Eng.
Senior Environmental Engineer
Reviewed by:
D. Grant Feasby, M.Sc.
Senior Project Specialist, SENES Consultants Limited
April 2011
Printed on Recycled Paper Containing Post-Consumer Fibre
Screening Level Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Matoush Uranium
Exploration Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................................V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background.............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Approach ............................................................... 1-2 1.3 Human Health Risk Assessment.......................................................................... 1-3 2.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION........................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Regional Study Area ................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.2 Local Study Area ..................................................................................... 2-4 2.2 Measured Environmental Data ............................................................................ 2-4 2.2.1 Surface Water........................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.2 Ground Water........................................................................................... 2-9 2.2.3 Sediment .................................................................................................. 2-9 2.2.4 Soil ......................................................................................................... 2-10 2.2.5 Vegetation .............................................................................................. 2-11 2.2.6 Fish Tissue ............................................................................................. 2-12 2.2.7 Wildlife .................................................................................................. 2-13 2.2.8 Gamma Radiation .................................................................................. 2-14 2.2.9 Air .......................................................................................................... 2-14 3.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Conceptual Site Model......................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Selection of Constituents of Potential Concern ................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Surface Water........................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Soil ........................................................................................................... 3-8 3.3 Receptor Selection and Characterization ........................................................... 3-10 3.3.1 Ecological Receptors ............................................................................. 3-10 3.3.1.1 Aquatic Receptors...................................................................... 3-11 3.3.1.2 Terrestrial Receptors.................................................................. 3-13 3.3.1.3 Species at Risk ........................................................................... 3-17 3.3.1.4 Exposure Pathways and Characteristics..................................... 3-19 3.3.2 Human Receptors................................................................................... 3-20 3.3.2.1 Selection of Human Receptors................................................... 3-20 3.3.2.2 Human Exposure Pathways ....................................................... 3-20 3.3.2.3 Receptor Characteristics ............................................................ 3-24 4.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Exposure Calculations ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Ecological Receptors ............................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Human Receptors..................................................................................... 4-3 4.1.2.1 Inhalation Pathway....................................................................... 4-3 390122-300 – April 2011
i
Exploration Project
4.2 4.3 4.1.2.2 Ingestion Pathway........................................................................ 4-4 Predicted Environmental Concentrations ............................................................ 4-6 4.2.1 Air ............................................................................................................ 4-6 4.2.2 Surface Water........................................................................................... 4-8 4.2.3 Soil ........................................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.4 Sediment ................................................................................................ 4-10 4.2.5 Aquatic Biota ......................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.6 Terrestrial Biota ..................................................................................... 4-13 Total Predicted Doses ........................................................................................ 4-16 4.3.1 Total Predicted Dose for Radionuclides ................................................ 4-16 4.3.2 Total Intake to Wildlife from Non-Radiological COPC........................ 4-16 5.0 HAZARD ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Ecological Toxicity Evaluation............................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 Radionuclides........................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1.1 Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) Factors........................ 5-1 5.1.1.2 Aquatic Radiation Benchmarks ................................................... 5-2 5.1.1.3 Terrestrial Radiation Benchmarks ............................................... 5-3 5.1.2 Non-Radionuclides .................................................................................. 5-3 5.1.2.1 Aquatic Toxicity Reference Values ............................................. 5-3 5.1.2.2 Sediment Toxicity Benchmarks................................................... 5-8 5.1.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Toxicity Reference Values........................... 5-9 5.2 Human Toxicity Evaluation............................................................................... 5-13 5.2.1 Radiological Benchmarks ...................................................................... 5-13 5.2.2 Non-Radiological Benchmarks.............................................................. 5-14 6.0 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................... 6-1 6.1 Aquatic Ecological Assessment (Based on Water).............................................. 6-1 6.1.1 Radionuclides........................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.2 Non-Radionuclides .................................................................................. 6-2 6.2 Aquatic Ecological Assessment (Based on Sediment) ........................................ 6-4 6.3 Terrestrial Ecological Assessment....................................................................... 6-6 6.3.1 Radionuclides........................................................................................... 6-6 6.3.2 Non-Radionuclides .................................................................................. 6-8 7.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (HHRA) COMPONENT............................ 7-1 7.1 Non-Radionuclides .............................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Radiological ......................................................................................................... 7-5 8.0 UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT.................................. 8-1 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 9-1 10.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 10-1 390122-300 – April 2011
ii
Exploration Project
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Characteristics of Ecological Receptors and Transfer Factors
Soil Deposition Model
Detailed Sample Calculations
Summary of Results
Estimated Downstream Water Concentrations
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.2-1 Table 2.2-2 Table 2.2-3 Table 2.2-4 Table 2.2-5 Table 3.2-1 Table 3.2-2 Table 3.2-3 Table 3.2-4 Table 3.3-1 Table 3.3-2 Table 3.3-3 Table 3.3-4 Table 4.2-1 Table 4.2-2 Table 4.2-3 Table 4.2-4 Table 4.2-5 Table 4.2-6 Table 4.2-7 Table 4.2-8 Table 4.2-9 Table 4.2-10 Table 5.1-1 390122-300 – April 2011
Page No.
Surface Water Summary Statistics.................................................................. 2-7 Soil Quality Summary Statistics ................................................................... 2-11 Summary of Gamma Measurements on the Matoush Site............................ 2-14 Canadian Federal Ambient Air Quality Objectives ...................................... 2-15 Summary of Passive Monitoring (June 11th – July 22nd, 2009
Samples)........................................................................................................ 2-16 Selection of Surface Water Constituents of Potential Concern for the
Ecological Risk Assessment ........................................................................... 3-7 Selection of Surface Water Constituents of Potential Concern for the
Human Health Risk Assessment ..................................................................... 3-8 Selection of Soil Constituents of Potential Concern at the Matoush Site ....... 3-9 Final List of Constituents of Potential Concern............................................ 3-10 Terrestrial Receptors Selected for the Assessment ....................................... 3-16 Summary of Exposure Pathways for Ecological Receptors.......................... 3-19 Pathways of Exposure for Cree to COPC from Food Sources at the
Matoush Project Site ..................................................................................... 3-23 Human Receptor Characteristics Selected for Assessment........................... 3-24 Predicted Incremental, Baseline and Total Surface Water
Concentrations at Matoush.............................................................................. 4-9 Predicted Incremental, Baseline and Total Soil Concentration at
Matoush......................................................................................................... 4-10 Baseline and Estimated Total Sediment Concentrations at Matoush............ 4-11 Baseline and Estimated Total Concentrations in Fish at Matoush................ 4-12 Baseline and Estimated Total Concentrations in Aquatic Vegetation at
Matoush......................................................................................................... 4-12 Estimated Baseline and Total Concentrations in Benthic Invertebrates
at Matoush..................................................................................................... 4-13 Concentrations in Berries at Matoush ........................................................... 4-14 Concentrations in Lichen at Matoush ........................................................... 4-14 Concentrations in Browse at Matoush .......................................................... 4-15 Concentrations in Forage at Matoush ........................................................... 4-15 Aquatic Toxicity Reference Values ................................................................ 5-5 iii
Exploration Project
Table 5.1-2 Table 5.1-3 Table 5.1-4 Table 5.2-1 Table 5.2-2 Table 5.2-3 Table 6.1-1 Table 6.1-2 Table 6.2-1 Table 6.3-1 Table 6.3-2 Table 7.1-1 Table 7.2-1 Sediment Toxicity Benchmarks used in the Ecological Risk
Assessment –Radiological and Non-Radiological .......................................... 5-9 Mammal Toxicity Benchmarks Used in the Ecological Risk
Assessment – Non-Radiological COPC........................................................ 5-11 Avian Toxicity Benchmarks Used in the Ecological Risk Assessment –
Non-Radiological COPC............................................................................... 5-12 ICRP Ingestion Dose Coefficients for Members of the Public ..................... 5-14 ICRP Inhalation Dose Coefficients for Members of the Public.................... 5-14 Summary of Chronic Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic TRVs............... 5-15 Summary of Radiological Screening Index Values for Aquatic
Receptors......................................................................................................... 6-2 Aquatic Screening Index Values at Matoush Using Maximum
Measured/Predicted Concentrations................................................................ 6-3 Sediment Screening Index Values .................................................................. 6-4 Summary of Screening Indices for Radionuclides for Terrestrial
Receptors......................................................................................................... 6-7 Screening Index Values Based on NOAEL for Terrestrial Receptors
Located at Matoush – Non-Radionuclides...................................................... 6-9 Calculated Ingestion of Non-Radiological COPC Intakes by Pathways
– Adult Receptors for Baseline ....................................................................... 7-4 Estimate by Pathway of Radiation Exposure for People – Project
Increment ........................................................................................................ 7-5 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1-1 Figure 2.1-2 Figure 2.2-1 Figure 3.1-1 Figure 3.2-1 Figure 3.3-1 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 7.1-1 390122-300 – April 2011
Page No.
Matoush Project Location ............................................................................... 2-2 General Layout of the Surface Facilities to be Built for the Matoush
Exploration Project.......................................................................................... 2-3 Surface Water, Sediment, Soil, Vegetation and Fish Sampling Sites at
the Matoush Project Site ................................................................................. 2-6 Conceptual Site Model for the Matoush Underground Uranium
Exploration Ramp ........................................................................................... 3-3 Selection Procedures for Constituents of Potential Concern .......................... 3-5 Aquatic Receptors Included in the Assessment ............................................ 3-12 Human (Cree First Nations) Exposure Pathways Considered in the
HHRA ........................................................................................................... 3-22 Hazard Quotients for Exposure to Non-Radiological COPC - Uranium ........ 7-2 iv
Exploration Project
ACRONYMS
AAQO
Ambient Air Quality Objective
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACI
Before-After-Control-Impact
BQMA
Banque de Données sur la Qualité du Milieu Aquatique (Aquatic Environment
Quality Database)
CCME
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CEPA
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
COMEV
Le Comité d'évaluation [Committee of Evaluation]
COPC
Constituents of Potential Concern
CNSC
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
CO
Carbon Monoxide
COSEWIC
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
CSM
Conceptual Site Model
CWG
Canadian Water Quality Guideline
CWS
Canadian Wildlife Service
DC
Dose Coefficient
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
EC
Environment Canada
ECx
Effects Concentration (affecting x% of the study population)
Eco-SSL
Ecological Soil Screening Level
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
390122-300 – April 2011
v
Exploration Project
ERA
Ecological Risk Assessment
FEL
Frequent Effect Level
GPS
Global Positioning System
HC
Health Canada
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HQ
Hazard Quotient
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
ICx
Inhibitory Concentration (affecting x% of the study population)
ICP-AES
Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
ICP-MS
Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy
ICRP
International Commission on Radiological Protection
ISC-PRIME
Industrial Source Complex Plume RIse Model Enhancement System
ISQG
Interim Sediment Quality Guideline
Kd
Water-to-Sediment Transfer Factor
LCx
Lethal Concentration (lethal to x% of the study population)
LEL
Lowest Effect Level
LOAEL
Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level
LSA
Local Study Area
MDDEP
Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs
(Department of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks)
MDL
Method Detection Limit
MRNF
Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune (Department of Natural
Resources and Wildlife)
390122-300 – April 2011
vi
Exploration Project
NO2
Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
NOAEL
No Observable Adverse Effect Level
OEL
Occasional Effect Level
ORNL
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
PEL
Probably Effect Level
PM
Particulate Matter
PQRA
Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment
QSWC
Quebec Surface Water Criteria
RBE
Relative Biological Effectiveness
REL
Rare Effect Level
RSA
Regional Study Area
SEL
Severe Effect Level
SI
Screening Index
SLA
Screening Level Assessment
SLC
Screening Level Concentration
SO2
Sulphur Dioxide
TDI
Tolerable Daily Intake
TEL
Threshold Effect Level
TF
Transfer Factor
TLD
Thermo Luminescent Dosimeter
TRV
Toxicity Reference Value
390122-300 – April 2011
vii
Exploration Project
TSP
Total Suspended Particulate
UF
Uncertainty Factor
UNSCEAR
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
WLM
Working Level Month
390122-300 – April 2011
viii
Exploration Project
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Strateco intends to submit plans to the CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission), COMEV
(Le Comité d'évaluation [Committee of Evaluation]) and MDDEP (Ministère du Développement
durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs [Department of Sustainable Development, Environment
and Parks]) in support of existing conditions at the site for the proposed Matoush Underground
Uranium Exploration Project (the Project). The mineralized zones of Matoush have a vertical
depth of approximately 600 m with a granitic basement located at approximately 800 m
vertically below surface; as such, the project will require excavation of an underground
exploration ramp to be able to complete the diamond drilling exploration program according to
industry and securities exchange standards.
Radiological (radon and gamma radiation) baseline studies at the site were initiated in the spring
of 2009, and general environmental baseline studies have also been initiated. The information
generated from these studies will be important with respect to evaluating potential future
radiological and non-radiological impacts to human health and the environment. The primary
objective of the baseline studies is to provide a scientific and analytical basis for accurate
identification and quantification of the potential impacts of any releases to the environment due
to Project operations. This information has implications with respect to potential pathways of
exposure to humans and ecological receptors, as well as for strategic planning, evaluation, and
verification of any measures that may be needed to prevent or mitigate potential effects during
the operational phase of the Project.
This report briefly describes the baseline conditions at the site and provides a preliminary
conceptual site model (CSM) for the proposed exploratory ramp at Matoush. The CSM integrates
the site conditions, including the nature, extent and distribution of the constituents of potential
concern (COPC) with the potential exposure pathways and opportunities for human and
ecological receptors that will use or populate the site.
Potential physical, chemical and radiological hazards associated with the Project may present
ecological and human health risks. Based on the project description and the CSM, and in
combination with predictions of potential releases to air and water, and information on the local
environment and how people use it, representative exposure scenarios are developed. These
scenarios form the basis for the human health and ecological risk assessments (HHRA and
ERA). The results of the assessments will help guide Strateco in the development of the Project
including the monitoring program.
390122-300 – April 2011
1-1
Exploration Project
To the extent possible, data available from other study activities will be used, while traditional
knowledge gathered from consultation sessions with members of local communities (Cree) will
also be incorporated into the assessment framework.
1.2
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH
An Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) is the evaluation of the probability of ecological
receptors at the site experiencing adverse health effects as a result of releases of Constituents of
Potential Concern (COPC) from project operations to the surrounding environment. The
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (CCME, 1996) has provided general
guidance concerning its views on what constitutes an ERA. The recommended framework is
similar to that proposed by Environment Canada (1997). The CCME recommends three
increasingly stringent levels or tiers of evaluation for ERAs at contaminated sites. The rigour of
the risk assessment adopted for a particular situation should be commensurate with the degree
and extent of potential harm and may progress to a more stringent level where evidence indicates
that adverse effects may occur.
Each level in this tiered approach has the same structure and builds upon the data, information,
knowledge and decisions generated from the preceding level. Thus, each level is progressively
more rigorous and complex. Each level of the assessment includes the following elements:
•
Receptor Characterization: At this phase of the assessment, the potential receptors are
identified and the pathways of exposure are defined.
•
Exposure Assessment: The purpose of this stage is to quantify the interactions between
the receptors and the COPC.
•
Hazard Assessment: This stage identifies the potential effects of COPC on the receptors.
•
Risk Characterization: This stage combines the information collected in the exposure
assessment and the hazard assessment to estimate the potential for adverse ecological
effects occurring.
The potential for an adverse ecological effect is characterized by the value of a simple screening
index (generally considered to be 1). This index is calculated by dividing the expected exposure
concentration or dose by the selected toxicity reference value for each ecological receptor. An
ERA is concerned with estimating effects on populations, communities and ecosystems.
390122-300 – April 2011
1-2
Exploration Project
1.3
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Similar to an ERA, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) evaluates the probability of
human receptors experiencing adverse health effects as a result of releases of COPC from project
operations to the surrounding environment. In an HHRA, receptor characteristics (e.g., portion of
time spent in the study area, source of drinking water, composition of diet, etc.) and exposure
pathways (e.g., ingestion of berries, fish or game) are taken into consideration to quantify the
risk of adverse health effects. Unlike an ERA, which is concerned with population effects, the
HHRA focuses on potential effects on individuals. Additionally, an HHRA does not follow the
tiered framework of the ERA; rather, it relies mainly on measured data where possible and
concentrations of COPC in the flesh of animals calculated from the ERA. The HHRA uses
scenarios that are considered to be realistically conservative for the site in order to ensure that
potential exposures and risks are over-estimated. In this assessment, the HHRA examined the
potential adverse effects on individuals working at or visiting the Project site under predicted
future conditions as a result of the Project.
390122-300 – April 2011
1-3
Exploration Project
2.0
2.1
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
STUDY AREA
The site of the proposed underground uranium exploration Project is centrally located within the
Province of Quebec in the Otish Mountains, situated 275 km northeast of Chibougamau in the
Chibougamau Mining District (Figure 2.1-1). The property extends 31 km in a north-south
direction and ranges from about 1 km to 8 km in the east-west direction. The centre of the
currently defined AM-15 uranium mineralized zone is located at 699250 E, 5760600 N (NAD
27, Zone 18), within the boundaries of claims 1045781 and 1045782 (Scott Wilson Mining,
2008).
The proposed Project will include the construction of an access ramp decline exploratory drilling
from constructed underground openings and surface support facilities. Figure 2.1-2 presents the
general layout of the surface facilities that will be built for the exploration project. Temporary
buildings will be constructed to accommodate workers during excavation of the underground
development. Most of the buildings will be “megadome” type buildings, except for the thermal
power plant which will be a “fold-away” type structure. Some of the buildings will be
constructed on concrete pads equipped with sump pits and/or oil-water separators when required.
390122-300 – April 2011
2-1
Exploration Project
Figure 2.1-1 Matoush Project Location
390122-300 – April 2011
2-2
Exploration Project
Figure 2.1-2 General Layout of the Surface Facilities to be Built for the Matoush
Exploration Project
390122-300 – April 2011
2-3
Exploration Project
2.1.1
Regional Study Area
The regional study area (RSA) consists of an approximate 20 km radius around the anticipated
project site. The RSA was selected to capture any effect that may extend beyond the location
study area (LSA), and to measure baseline conditions at a large enough scale to capture the
maximum predicted spatial extent of combined direct and indirect effects from the project (i.e.,
maximum zone of influence). The RSA represents the reference or control area.
The RSA occurs in the Central Laurentians Ecoregion and the local bedrock geology is
dominated by massive Precambrian granites and gneisses (Scott Wilson Mining, 2008).
Quaternary glaciation has blanketed the area of the Otish Basin where the RSA is found, with a
variable but pervasive layer of glacial till. The overburden materials in the area consist mainly of
basal till with defined areas of washed out till, localized boulder fields and organic deposits
(peat). Drumlins showing consistent north-northeast alignment are also observed in the area.
Located in the western sub-domain of the spruce-moss bioclimatic domain in the boreal forest
sub-zone, the RSA is characterized by a near uniform forest cover dominated by black spruce
(Picea mariana). At this latitude, balsam fir (Abies balsamea) stands are rare and are only found
on hill slopes, and deciduous species such as paper birch (Betula papyrifera), trembling aspen
(Populus tremoloides) and balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) are present in small patches.
The understory is dominated by a brown moss layer and heath plant species, while forbs and
grass species are uncommon (Saucier et al., 2003). Fire is a key factor influencing plant
community composition, structure, distribution, and abundance in the boreal forest. Open stands
of jack pine (Pinus banksiana) occur in older burn areas, sandy soils, on the south side of eskers,
on linear ridges, and on shallow soils overlying bedrock. The RSA covers the claims properties
of several mining companies including Cameco, Pacific Bay and Areva.
2.1.2
Local Study Area
The local study area (LSA) encompasses the anticipated project footprint and extends
approximately 3.5 km around the Project area and 750 m on either side of the winter access road;
however, the actual area studied was varied according to the particular needs of the specific
environmental components. The LSA corresponds to the zone that would most likely be
impacted by project activities and covers an area of approximately 65 km2, centered on the
anticipated project site.
2.2
MEASURED ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Knowledge of the presence and amount of metals and organic chemicals in the environment prior
to project development is important so that future monitoring can detect areas that may have
increased concentrations of metals and could affect ecosystem components (i.e., vegetation or
wildlife). There have been a number of investigations carried out at the Matoush site. Golder
390122-300 – April 2011
2-4
Exploration Project
Associates (Golder) has been collecting surface water, sediment, soil, vegetation and fish data for
the site from 2007 to 2009. All of the available data can be reviewed in the final Golder report
(Golder, 2009). The following sections summarize the data thus far. Figure 2.2-1 presents the
sampling sites and stations for water, sediment, soil, vegetation and fish for the Project LSA and
RSA.
390122-300 – April 2011
2-5
Screening Level Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Matoush Uranium Exploration Project
Figure 2.2-1 Surface Water, Sediment, Soil, Vegetation and Fish Sampling Sites at the Matoush Project Site
390122-300 – April 2011
2-6
Exploration Project
2.2.1
Surface Water
A field program for the collection and analysis of surface water and sediment samples was
carried out and detailed by Golder (2009). Water samples were analyzed for metals,
radionuclides, major ions, nutrients and suspended solids. The program conducted in 2009 had
much lower detection limits than previously obtained and therefore this information was used in
this screening level risk assessment. The results are summarized in Table 2.2-1. Values reported
below the method detection limit (MDL) were converted to ½ the MDL.
Generally, the concentration of most parameters were below or equal to the MDDEP (Ministère
du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs) and CWQG (Canadian Water
Quality Guidelines) criteria. Most parameters were similar among sampling sites (see Golder
2009). Nutrient levels were generally low for both lakes and streams. Few exceedances were
observed when comparing the measured concentrations with the CWQG and the Quebec Surface
Water Criteria (QSWC). Aluminum and cadmium concentrations were above the CWQG for the
majority of the lake samples. Lead concentration in several lakes exceeded the MDDEP value
but remained below the CWQG. Mercury was detected at concentrations that exceed the
MDDEP criteria at most lakes sampled. For all lakes, the uranium concentrations are low with
the maximum measured concentration being 0.05 µg/L. Radionuclides were generally similar
among sampling sites, with most of the concentrations near or below detection limits (see Golder
2009).
Table 2.2-1
Constituent
Conventional
pH
Conductivity
Hardness
Alkalinity
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromide
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
390122-300 – April 2011
Surface Water Summary Statistics
Units
N
N<MDL
Mean
95th
Percentile
Maximum
µS/cm
mg/L CaCO3
mg/L CaCO3
mg/L
mg/L
12
12
12
12
12
12
0
0
0
1
1
11
4.75
5.2
1.16
1.01
27
1.7
5.25
8.5
1.38
1.75
57
2.6
5.30
8.9
1.39
1.80
65
4
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
153
0.02
0.15
5.4
0.01
0.76
2.6
0.02
0.14
0.06
0.23
200
0.03
0.17
6.2
0.01
0.90
3.2
0.038
0.17
0.07
0.37
200
0.03
0.19
6.3
0.01
0.90
3.4
0.06
0.17
0.07
0.50
2-7
Exploration Project
Table 2.2-1
Constituent
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Palladium
Platinum
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Major Ions
Bicarbonate
Calcium
Carbonate
Chloride
Flouride
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Sulphate
Sulphide
Nutrients
Ammonia (as N)
Nitrates (as N)
Nitrites (as N)
Nitrate and Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Dissolved
Phosphorus
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Surface Water Summary Statistics (Cont’d)
Units
N
N<MDL
Mean
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
12
12
0
6
0
12
3
0
0
0
0
128
0.40
0.11
3.3
0.003
0.01
0.13
0.004
0.003
0.15
0.52
9.0x10-4
4.1
0.003
0.02
2.4
0.02
0.18
2.4
95th
Percentile
165
0.60
0.15
4.8
0.004
0.02
0.18
0.008
0.003
0.15
0.74
0.002
4.8
0.003
0.05
3.4
0.05
0.22
3.9
Maximum
170
0.68
0.18
6.2
0.004
0.02
0.20
0.009
0.003
0.15
0.81
0.003
4.9
0.003
0.06
3.7
0.05
0.23
4.0
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
12
0
0.34
0.40
0.41
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
4
12
0
0
0
1
11
0.24
0.02
0.07
0.08
0.43
0.34
5.0x10-4
0.99
0.02
0.10
0.13
0.91
0.45
0.0007
2.0
0.02
0.11
0.15
1.5
0.50
0.001
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
8
12
10
0
0
0.01
0.001
0
0.01
0.47
0.01
0.01
0.0025
0.0003
0.025
0.61
0.016
0.01
0.003
0.0003
0.03
0.69
0.017
mg/L
11
0
0.003
0.008
0.010
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
12
12
12
12
10
0
10
12
0.013
0.018
0.0032
0.005
0.03
0.02
0.006
0.005
0.04
0.02
0.008
0.005
Notes:
MDL
Method Detection Limit; values below the MDL were converted to ½ the MDL
Based on data collected in 2009 by Golder
390122-300 – April 2011
2-8
Exploration Project
2.2.2
Ground Water
The ground water quality at Matoush is detailed in Golder (2009). In summary, the ground water
samples from the shallow bedrock aquifer at the site exhibited relatively low concentrations of
major ions: bicarbonates (4-8 mg/L), carbonates (<2 mg/L), chloride (<1 mg/L), sulphates
(<3 mg/L), calcium (0.91-1.8 mg/L), magnesium (0.23-0.45 mg/L), sodium (0.83-1.0 mg/L) and
potassium (0.53-0.92 mg/L). Although project-specific discharge criteria will be developed for
the Matoush Project as part of the permitting process, water quality discharge limits for the Cigar
Lake project in Saskatchewan (Cameco) and Québec Directive 019 have been used for
comparison purposes with the analytical results of the ground water samples collected during the
field program for the project. When the analytical results are compared with these discharge
criteria, none of the parameters are exceeded. Metal contents are low with concentrations of
<2 μg/L for arsenic, <3 to 19 μg/L for copper, 1 μg/L or less for lead, <100 to 1600 µg/L for
iron, <10 μg/L for nickel, <1 to 2 μg/L for selenium, <3 to 8 μg/L for zinc and <20 μg/L for
uranium. Radionuclide content in the samples ranged between 0.08 to 0.73 Bq/L for lead-210,
0.02 to 0.09 Bq/L for polonium-210, 0.02 to 0.19 Bq/L for radium-226, 0.02 to 0.03 Bq/L for
thorium-228, 0.01 to 0.02 Bq/L for thorium-230 and <0.01 Bq/L for thorium-232.
2.2.3
Sediment
Sediment chemistry results were compared to the applicable Interim Sediment Quality
Guidelines (ISQGs) and Probable Effect Levels (PELs) outlined by the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 2008), as well as the Rare Effect Levels (RELs),
Threshold Effect Levels (TELs), Occasional Effect Levels (OELs), PELs and Frequent Effect
Levels (FELs) outlined by the MDDEP (Québec Ministère du Développement durable, de
l’Environnement et des Parcs [Department of Sustainable Development, Environment and
Parks]) and Environment Canada (Environment Canada and MDDEP, 2007). Constituents that
exceeded one or more of these benchmarks were identified.
Sediment concentrations were similar among sampling stations in the streams and most of the
lakes sampled in 2007. A number of constituents were higher in Lake 5 (Lake Matoush) than the
other lakes, including aluminum, copper, manganese, titanium, zinc, and total organic carbon
(Golder 2009). Concentrations were below the provincial and federal criteria with the exception
of cadmium and lead. Cadmium concentrations at all sampling stations of Lake 5 (ranging from
0.6 mg/kg to 1.2 mg/kg) exceeded the REL of 0.33 mg/kg and exceeded or equalled the
TEL/ISQG of 0.6 mg/kg. Lead concentrations at one station in Lake 5 (Station 5-2: 28 mg/kg),
exceeded the REL of 25 mg/kg in 2007 (Golder, 2009). The MDL for arsenic in Lake 7 (6
mg/kg) during 2007 was above the REL and TEL/ISQG values of 4.1 mg/kg and 5.9 mg/kg,
respectively. Uranium concentrations were below the MDL of 5 mg/kg in all lakes. Radionuclide
390122-300 – April 2011
2-9
Exploration Project
concentrations were generally higher in Lake 7 and lower in Lake 3 in 2007 (Golder, 2009).
Constituent concentrations were similar among all sampling stations for the 2008 sampling
program.
As was the case for the surface water data, there are no applicable criteria for comparison of
radionuclide levels in sediment. Analyses revealed that all samples for both years contained
radionuclides at levels above the MDL for lead-210 and polonium-210 (Golder, 2009). For
radium-226 and thorium-230, a few samples exceeded the MDLs (Golder, 2009).
2.2.4
Soil
The pre-ramp operation soil chemical element levels at the Matoush site as measured by Golder
(2009) constitute the reference or local natural background levels that future analyses should be
compared to in order to assess the impacts of activities associated with the Project. The results
are provided in detail in the Golder report (2009) and are summarized here in Table 2.2-2. Since
the number of samples was below 10, 95th percentile values were not calculated.
Most elemental constituents showed comparable concentrations in soils for the LSA and RSA
with little discordance identified between both areas (Golder, 2009). Concentrations of cadmium
and lead were determined to be higher than regional background. The background concentration
for cadmium is 0.9 µg/g (MDDEP, 2008) and concentrations between 1.0 and 1.9 µg/g were
measured at two LSA stations and two RSA stations. The lead background is 40 µg/g and
concentrations ranging from 50 µg/g to 69 µg/g were measured at all LSA stations and one RSA
station. All other elemental concentrations were below regional background levels.
390122-300 – April 2011
2-10
Exploration Project
Table 2.2-2
Constituent
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Notes:
a
2.2.5
Soil Quality Summary Statistics
Units
N
N<MDL
Mean
Maximum
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
1868
0.4
2.3
82.2
0.1
11.7
1.2
1.4
0.4
5.6
940
51.7
32.3
0.14
0.37
2.7
0.73
0.15
25.8
0.2
1.0
32.2
0.17
2.9
47.7
3100
0.5
3.1
150
0.1
61
1.9
1.9
1
8.6
1480
69
40
0.18
0.6
3.8
1
0.4
44
0.2
1.6
54
0.4
4.4
73
Bq/kg
Bq/kg
Bq/kg
Bq/kg
6
6
6
6
0
0
2
6
658
587
22
20
840 (a)
740 (a)
40 (a)
20 (a)
Data obtained from Golder (2009)
Data converted from Bq/g to Bq/kg
Vegetation
The accumulation of metals and radionuclides by plants is important because of the potential
food chain transfer to wildlife and humans. A before-after-control-impact (BACI) design was set
up to measure potential impacts or changes in vegetation quality from project activities. This
design is used to compare results from before and after project activities, as well as reference
sites and potential exposure sites. Three terrestrial vegetation sampling stations were located in
the LSA, one about 1 km upstream from infrastructures and two downstream at around 0.5 km
and 1 km. Three RSA sampling stations were located near the outer limit of the area to avoid
effects from project activities but close enough to stay in the same environmental setting as the
390122-300 – April 2011
2-11
Exploration Project
LSA. RSA stations were located in different directions (north, east and south). The terrestrial
vegetation samples were obtained from the same stations as the soil stations, so that plant uptake
from soil could be calculated. Terrestrial sampling stations were positioned at the contact of
black spruce moss forest and black spruce lichen stands where all targeted plant species could be
found within one station. Aquatic vegetation was sampled only in the LSA at stations located as
close as possible to terrestrial stations.
Most chemical constituents showed comparable concentrations between the LSA and the RSA;
however, some marked discordances did arise. Mercury, lead and manganese were found at
higher concentrations in the LSA. Mercury was consistently measured in the LSA while it was
often undetected in the RSA. Lead concentrations were generally higher in the LSA in black
spruce and in blueberry foliage. Manganese concentrations were also higher at LSA stations, but
only in crowberries. Cobalt in birch was found at concentrations in the LSA which were double
those in birch at two RSA stations. High selenium levels were found in lichen, but only at one
RSA station. Strontium was generally higher in Labrador tea and crowberries in the RSA.
Titanium had higher levels in Labrador tea and blueberry vegetation. Zinc also showed slightly
higher concentrations in Labrador tea at two RSA stations. Polonium was found at higher
concentrations in black spruce at two RSA stations but it peaked in birch at one LSA station.
Antimony, beryllium, chromium, molybdenum, thallium and tin were not detected in vegetation
at any stations. There data were collected and summarized by Golder (2009).
2.2.6
Fish Tissue
Fish tissue samples were collected by Golder which served to document baseline tissue
concentrations of metals and radionuclides. Tissue samples (flesh and bone) were collected in the
fall of 2007 for two incidental brook trout mortalities from Lake 7. In 2008, tissue samples were
collected concurrently with the fish inventory and fish health surveys. Water bodies sampled
included lakes 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Fish were archived (frozen) and submitted to SRC Laboratory
located in Saskatchewan for chemical analysis. Flesh and bone were separated from one another
by the laboratory. These tissues were analyzed for metals and radionuclides. The objective of
these analyses was to begin collecting baseline data before the start of the proposed project so
that background (natural) levels of metals and radionuclides may be distinguished from potential
future contamination as a result of industrial activities.
Most constituents were not detectable (i.e., arsenic, antimony, chromium, beryllium, boron,
thorium, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, tin, vanadium, uranium, lead-210, and thorium-230). For
mercury, the results were between four and five times higher than the detection limit. The results
were between 4 and 7 times higher than the detection limits for cadmium, between 4 and
53 times higher for copper, between 4 and 29 times higher for lead, between 2 and 6 times higher
for nickel and between 14 and 140 times higher for zinc. For lead-210, the results were between
390122-300 – April 2011
2-12
Exploration Project
4 and 10 times higher than the detection limits for the fish bones but were at or just above the
detection limits for the fish flesh. For polonium-210, results were 4 times higher than the
detection limits for flesh analysis and between 16 and 41 times higher for bones analysis. For
radium-226, results were 2 times higher than the detection limits for flesh analysis and between 3
and 4 times higher for the bones analysis. Summaries of the baseline heavy metal and
radionuclide concentrations in fish sampled from the lakes in and around the Project site can be
found in the Golder report of October 2009.
Concentrations of constituents in flesh samples were generally below consumption guidelines
(Health Canada, 2009; FSANZ, 2009), with the exception of mercury. Mercury was above the
consumption guideline of 0.5 µg/g for northern pike flesh samples (lakes 1, 3, 4 and 6) (Golder,
2009). The consumption guidelines do not apply to bone samples. In general, concentrations in
bones were low and close to or below detection levels at all sites for many constituents.
2.2.7
Wildlife
Small mammals are in close contact with the soil, eat a wide range of animal and plant food, and
have small home ranges. These factors make small mammals ideal species to determine and
monitor baseline levels of chemicals in the environment. As such, a small mammal trapping
program was completed by Golder in the LSA and RSA from August 14 to August 18, 2008 to
determine baseline concentrations of metals and radionuclides in small mammals.
Laboratory methods for analysis of samples included ICP-MS, ICP-AES and alpha-particle
spectrometry. Small mammal samples were grouped by area captured (i.e., reference and
potential exposure), and by species. Samples from reference and potential exposure areas were
analyzed for metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
silver, strontium, thallium, tin, titanium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc), and four radionuclides
(lead-210, polonium-210, radium-226, and thorium-230).
Considering there are no CCME guideline values available for mammals, the data were
examined for differences in constituent concentrations between potential exposure areas and
reference areas to identify if or where constituents differ between these areas. This was
completed so that spatial differences in baseline conditions are known. This information will be
invaluable for interpreting future monitoring data.
The full suite of small mammal chemistry results can be found in Golder (2009). The mean
concentrations for each analyte were compared between potential exposure sites and reference
sites. This comparison was made between individual measurements from each exposure site and
the 95% percentile range (i.e., the mean ± 2 standard deviations) from each reference site. That
390122-300 – April 2011
2-13
Exploration Project
is, each potential exposure site was compared to the range of values expected for reference areas.
All concentrations in potential exposure and reference sites are currently considered baseline
values. In general, concentrations were similar between the range of reference values and
potential exposure sites; however, some differences were observed. Baseline concentrations at
some potential exposure sites were higher than the reference areas for aluminum, cadmium, lead,
manganese, mercury, strontium, titanium, zinc, and polonium-210. Baseline concentrations at
some potential exposure sites were lower than the range of reference values for mercury,
strontium, lead-210, and polonium-210. These differences appear to be site-specific for each
constituent and are a reflection of the natural background levels at the study area (Golder, 2009).
2.2.8
Gamma Radiation
A surficial gamma radiation scan was conducted in June 2009 by SENES Consultants Ltd.
(SENES), primarily of areas that may be disturbed by the exploration ramp development and
operation. The gamma survey data were collected with a Ludlum 2221 gamma radiation meter
connected to a handheld GPS.
In summary, background gamma radiation levels measured at the Matoush study area were
generally low with the highest levels of less than 0.10 µSv/hr measured on areas of exposed
sandstone. Gamma radiation levels on soil-covered areas were lower, with the lowest
measurements obtained on saturated and peaty soils. There was no evidence of surface
expression of the uranium deposit in the area of the proposed works. Table 2.2-3 provides a
summary of the gamma readings obtained from the site.
Table 2.2-3
Areas of Interest
Camp
Camp North
Camp South
Explosives
Dump
Organic Storage
Outfall
All
Outside Camp
Outside
2.2.9
Summary of Gamma Measurements on the Matoush Site
Number of
Blocks
Number of
Measurements
497
575
120
9
166
33
1400
18816
17153
3600
320
4853
985
45727
0.017
0.014
0.018
0.033
0.019
0.024
0.014
0.035
0.033
0.023
0.041
0.028
0.029
0.032
0.06
0.057
0.032
0.049
0.039
0.035
0.06
926
22268
0.015
0.037
0.079
Gamma Radiation Dose Rate (μSv/h)
Minimum
Mean
Maximum
Air
Programs have been implemented to establish baseline air quality for conventional air pollutants
(nitrogen oxides [NOx], nitrogen dioxide [NO2] and sulphur dioxide [SO2]), and airborne dust
390122-300 – April 2011
2-14
Exploration Project
(particulate matter [PM]) and metals. At this time only preliminary data are available. Results of
the monitoring to date are summarised in the air quality assessment report (Appendix G of the
Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA]) and are discussed here briefly.
Baseline metals in ambient air were found mostly to be below the MDLs. For metals that were
not detectable (nickel and uranium), the concentrations were taken to be half the MDL and are
denoted as being less than this calculated concentration. A summary of the resulting
concentrations for all metals and a comparison of these values to the reference air quality criteria
are provided in the air quality report.
The federal government has put forward guideline values for air pollutants under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999). These guideline values are referred to as the
Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAQO) and the values for PM (as total suspended particulate
[TSP]), SO2 and NO2 are presented in Table 2.2-4 for 1-hour, 24-hour and/or 1-year averaging
times. It is noted that nitrogen gas emissions are generally reported as NOx whereas the standard
is for NO2. Typically, approximately 30% of the nitrogen gases in the atmosphere exist as NO2.
In this assessment, nitrogen gas levels were modelled as NOx but it was assumed that 100%
would convert to NO2.
Table 2.2-4
Substance
TSP
SO2
NO2
Notes:
TSP
1
2
Canadian Federal Ambient Air Quality Objectives
1-year
24-hour
Maximum
Desirable
Level (µg/m3)
60 (1)
-
Maximum
Acceptable
Level (µg/m3)
70 (1)
120
Maximum
Tolerable Level
(µg/m3)
400
1-year
24-hour
1-hour
1-year
24-hour
1-hour
30 (2)
150
450
60 (2)
-
50 (2)
300
650
100 (2)
200
400
-
Averaging
Time
Total suspended particulate
Calculated as geometric mean
Calculated as arithmetic mean
Baseline concentrations of total suspended particulate matter (TSP) ranged from as low as 3.5
µg/m3 to 119.4 µg/m3. The maximum TSP concentration of 119.4 µg/m3 occurred at the Air-1
location on June 24th, 2009. The maximum TSP concentrations from stations Air-2 and Air-3
also occurred on this day. The maximum concentration of TSP of 119.4 µg/m3 was slightly
below the maximum acceptable level for a 24-hour period of 120 µg/m3 and is well below the
390122-300 – April 2011
2-15
Exploration Project
maximum tolerable level of 400 µg/m3. However, this maximum TSP concentration is thought to
be an outlier as on-site personnel reported a helicopter landing in the vicinity and is therefore not
representative of baseline conditions. Outside of this maximum day, the maximum concentration
of TSP at any station was 34.7µg/m3.
The baseline results of the passive monitoring for NO2, NOx and SO2 are summarized in Table
2.2-5. The maximum acceptable level of NO2 in Table 2.2-4 is 200 µg/m3 (or 106 ppb) on a 24hour basis. As detailed in the Air Quality Report and shown in Table 2.2-5, the appropriate
criteria for the June to July sampling period (41 days) is 50 ppb. The maximum concentration of
NO2 for the June to July sampling period was 2.3 ppb, or approximately 4.6% of the established
criteria. The 24-hour maximum desirable level of SO2 is 150 µg/m3 (or 57 ppb), or 27 ppb after
adjustment for the sampling period of 41 days. As shown in Table 2.2-5, the maximum
concentration of SO2 detected for the June to July sampling period was 0.3 ppb, or
approximately 1.1% of the adjusted criterion.
Table 2.2-5
Substance
NO2
NOx
SO2
Notes:
1
Summary of Passive Monitoring (June 11th – July 22nd, 2009 Samples)
Criteria (1)
(ppb)
50
27
Air-1
#1
(ppb)
2.1
3.7
0.1
Air-2
#2
(ppb)
2.3
3.8
0.2
#1
(ppb)
0.3
1.4
0.2
#2
(ppb)
0.3
1.3
0.1
Air-3
#1
(ppb)
0.2
1.5
0.3
#2
(ppb)
0.2
1.3
0.1
Federal Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAQO), adjusted for sampling period of 41 days
In addition to conventional air pollutants, a baseline radon monitoring program was set up.
Sampling is ongoing at the site with readings being taken quarterly. At the start of the radon
monitoring program (June 2009), radon was measured using Landauer’s Radtrack Long-Term
Radon Monitor (DRNM), which measures only ambient radon (Rn-222). For the sampling
conducted between June 2009 to February 2011 the baseline radon-222 levels ranged from
<1.5 Bq/m3 to 18.5 Bq/m3.
390122-300 – April 2011
2-16
Exploration Project
3.0
PROBLEM FORMULATION
The problem formulation stage of an HHRA/ERA integrates basic information about potential
risks into a conceptual site model (CSM) that describes how human and ecological receptors may
be exposed to COPC that represent a risk.
Information on the contaminant sources at the site, the resulting COPC, the potential human and
ecological receptors, and the exposure pathways by which the receptors can come into contact
with the COPC is used to formulate the problem. The problem formulation focuses the risk
assessment by eliminating COPC, receptors and pathways that are not applicable or are of little
or no concern. This is done by examining constituent-specific parameters, characteristics of the
study area (e.g., land use and geology) and the likely presence and activities of receptors. This
information is outlined in the CSM, describing the combinations of chemicals, receptors and
connecting pathways that require further examination.
3.1
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
A preliminary CSM is required to identify and describe possible pathways of concern with
respect to radiological and non-radiological COPC releases to the environment from project
operations at Matoush. Pathways of concern are defined with respect to potential human and
non-human biota exposures. The objective of the study was to evaluate the potential for effects
from chronic exposure to emissions from the underground exploration ramp project,
approximately 2 years in duration. The preliminary CSM is presented and described in detail
herein.
The CSM for the Project is presented in Figure 3.1-1 and is represented by a flow diagram
illustrating an overview of the relationship between the ecological and human receptors, and of
the potential pathways of exposure to COPC in the various environmental media (e.g. air, water,
aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals, soil, etc.). Potential contamination sources and
mechanisms for release of radiological and non-radiological COPC to environmental media are
shown in the first column of the CSM. The second column shows environmental media that
could be initially impacted near these sources (on-site contamination). The third column provides
mechanisms that can transport contamination through the environment and develop secondary or
off-site potential for human and ecological receptor contact and exposures (columns four and
five).
In general terms, transport of contamination is driven by the actions of wind and water and
through chemical or biological factors. Physical or chemical energy gradients can also play a role
in the transport and redistribution of radionuclides, other chemical COPC, dust, diesel engine
fumes and particulate matter. The details of the CSM are as follows:
390122-300 – April 2011
3-1
Exploration Project
1. Limited but potential releases to soil, surface water and sediment potentially increased
due to surface runoff from waste rock and subsequently transported and redistributed due
to precipitation-driven runoff and transport mechanisms. Human contact through surface
soil with ingestion and direct exposure are the likely exposure pathways.
2. Releases of radionuclide bearing particulates to air due to fugitive emissions and dust
generation from the mobilization of large quantities of material through a combination of
wind erosion and movements of heavy operating equipment, with subsequent wind
transport and deposition/accumulation in environmental media both at onsite and offsite
locations. Diesel fumes from underground and surface mobile equipment and electricity
generators will also likely be released to the air providing inhalation and immersion
pathways of exposure to people onsite and at locations nearby.
3. Releases of radionuclides to surface and subsurface soils from waste rock piles, special
waste rock piles, or transport spillage. Exposure pathways to people onsite and offsite via
inhalation, ingestion and direct exposure.
4. Radon-222 gas releases to air from the portal or the raise by ventilation fans. Potential
human exposure pathways through inhalation and immersion.
5. Exploration ramp water is pumped to surface, treated and discharged to a surface lake
where any COPC are subsequently taken up by plants and enter the food chain.
Further details on the components of the CSM, namely the COPC, receptors and exposure
pathways, are described in more detail in the following sections.
390122-300 – April 2011
3-2
Exploration Project
Figure 3.1-1 Conceptual Site Model for the Matoush Underground Uranium Exploration
Ramp
Primary
Source
Secondary
Source
Soil
Surface RunOff from
Waste Rock
Pile
Release
Mechanism
Wind &
Deposition
Pathways
Exposure
Routes
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Direct
Exposure
Surface
Water,
Sediment
Plant &
Faunal
Uptake
Food,
Production of
Crops/Meat
Air
Wind &
Deposition
Air
Plant
Uptake
Ground Water,
Food
Production
Radon
Releases
Gamma
Radiation
Inhalation
Immersion
Diesel Fumes
Fugitive Dust
Ramp Water
Pumped to
Surface,
Treated and
Discharged
Surface
Water
390122-300 – April 2011
3-3
Ingestion
Exploration Project
3.2
SELECTION OF CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
A selection process was used to identify the constituents of potential concern (COPC) in soil and
surface water as a result of proposed project operations. Baseline concentrations in surface water
and soil at the Project site were used to characterize the existing conditions of the site and were
compared to predicted incremental concentrations in the selection process. Section 4.2 details the
prediction of the incremental concentrations in the various environmental media. Briefly,
incremental surface water concentrations were estimated by applying a dilution factor of 2.5:1 to
estimated treated water quality (Melis, 2011), while incremental soil concentrations were
estimated from predicted incremental air quality using air-to-soil deposition equations provided
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, 2005a). The predicted air quality
considered emissions from sources related to the exploration activities (i.e., ramp, ventilation
raises, power generation equipment, fugitive dust from the storage pad, vehicular paths), which
were assumed to be 12 to 18 months in duration.
The selection process for COPC is detailed in Figure 3.2-1 and involved four main steps:
•
Step 1 – Measurements reported as below the laboratory MDL were assumed to be equal
to the MDL. Constituents without appropriate toxicity data were not assessed further.
•
Step 2 – Incremental (due to exploration) concentrations were compared to the applicable
screening criteria (e.g. Quebec surface water criteria and the CCME guidelines for fresh
water and soil) when available. The constituents identified to have incremental
concentrations higher than the screening criteria were considered COPC.
•
Step 3 – If the constituent did not exceed the screening criterion, or if no screening
criterion was available, then the incremental concentration was compared to the mean
baseline concentration. If the incremental concentration resulted in a less than 1%
increase in the mean baseline concentration, the impact of the exploration activities was
not considered to be significant and the constituent was not assessed further. The 1%
value was selected to represent a value which is lower than the level of analytical
uncertainty and natural variability and is therefore a conservative threshold.
•
Step 4 – If the constituent met or exceeded 1% of the mean baseline value, then the total
concentration (incremental + maximum baseline) was then compared to the screening
criterion. Those constituents with total concentrations below the respective screening
criteria were not further assessed, while those with total concentrations above the criteria
were considered COPC.
For both soil and water, the uranium-238 decay series of radionuclides (uranium-238, radium226, thorium-230, polonium-210 and lead-210) were automatically considered as COPC because
390122-300 – April 2011
3-4
Exploration Project
the site represents an exploratory uranium project and the uranium decay series are a key
concern. Therefore, the screening process did not include radionuclides. The following sections
discuss the selection results, using the above methodology, for surface water and soil data.
Figure 3.2-1 Selection Procedures for Constituents of Potential Concern
Water/Soil Quality
Guideline Available?
No
Incremental Water/Soil
Concentration >
1% of Baseline?
Yes
Toxicity Data
Available?
Yes
Assess
No
No
Yes
Stop
Concentration >
Guideline?
Concentration >
1% of Baseline?
No
No
Stop
`
Yes
Total Water/Soil
Concentration >
Guideline?
Yes
No
Stop
Yes
No
Toxicity Data Available?
Stop
Yes
Assess
3.2.1
Surface Water
Baseline water quality data collected in 2009 were used in the assessment (Golder, 2009). The
screening criteria used in the selection of surface water for the ERA were the Quebec Surface
Water Criteria (QSWC) from the Aquatic Environment Quality Database (BQMA - Banque de
données sur la qualité du milieu aquatique) provided by the MDDEP, and the CCME Canadian
Water Quality Guidelines (CWQG) for the protection of aquatic life in fresh water (CCME,
2008). For the HHRA, the Health Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality
(Health Canada, 2008) were used.
390122-300 – April 2011
3-5
Exploration Project
As detailed in Section 4.2.2, a dilution factor of 2.5:1 was applied to the treated water quality to
select the COPC. It is acknowledged that under certain circumstances there may be less dilution
at the site which would result in the selection of additional COPC. However, the chronic water
quality criteria were used in the screening therefore the use of the overall dilution factor is
appropriate.
Table 2.5-1 provides a summary of the selection process. Since the uranium-238 decay series of
radionuclides (uranium-238, radium-226, thorium-230, polonium-210 and lead-210) were
automatically considered as COPC, they are not included in the table.
The QSWC guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (chronic effect) for some of the metals
(barium, beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc) were expressed as a
function of water hardness. The exponential functions were developed for a hardness between 25
mg/L and 400 mg/L. All of the surface water samples collected at Matoush had hardness
measurements below the MDL of 1 mg/L, and thus a hardness of 20 mg/L was assumed in
determining the appropriate QSWC since, according to the Revised Aquatic Life Metals Criteria
in EPA’s National Toxics Rule (U.S. EPA, 1995), the allowable hardness values must fall within
the range of 25 to 400 mg/L. The EPA, however, now recommends that no lower limit be
assigned based on technical information provided by the EPA’s Office of Research and
Development.
The incremental concentrations of barium, cadmium, lead and mercury from the diluted treated
simulated mine water exceed the QSWC and/or the CWQG and these four constituents were
therefore selected as COPC. In addition, the contributions of the incremental concentrations of
antimony, arsenic, boron, chromium, cobalt, copper, molybdenum, nickel, selenium and titanium
are each more than 1% of the mean baseline concentrations; however, the total (incremental plus
baseline) concentrations do not exceed either the any of the guideline values and therefore these
constituents were not selected as COPC. Although the incremental and total uranium
concentrations are both below the guideline values, as discussed above uranium was
automatically selected as a COPC.
Based on the screening procedure, the following constituents were identified as COPC in surface
water at the site for the ERA: barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, uranium, uranium-238, radium226, thorium-230, polonium-210 and lead-210.
390122-300 – April 2011
3-6
Table 3.2-1
Project
Constituent
Metals (µg/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium (1)
Beryllium (1)
Boron
Bromide
Cadmium (1)
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper (1)
Iodide
Iron
Lead (1)
Lithium
Manganese (1)
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel (1)
Palladium
Platinum
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc (1)
Notes:
1
2
"-"
Source
Term
Diluted
(2.5:1)
Selection of Surface Water Constituents of Potential Concern for the Ecological Risk Assessment
Baseline
Concentrations
Mean
Max
Surface Water MDDEP Guidelines
Ratio of
Project/
Baseline
(Mean)
Baseline
(Max)+
Project
Protection
of Aquatic
Life
(Chronic
Effect)
Protection
of
Terrestrial
Ichtyophage
Fauna
Prevention of
Contamination
(Water and
Aquatic
Organisms)
CCME
Guideline
Protection
of Aquatic
Life
(Fresh
Water)
Project>
Guideline?
Baseline+
Project>
Guideline?
Project
>1%
Baseline?
Eco
Toxicity
Data
Available?
Surface
Water
COPC?
4
153
200
2.61%
204
87
200
5
N
Y
N
Y
N
0.024
0.02
0.03
112%
0.058
240
6
N
N
Y
Y
N
4
0.15
0.19
2712%
4.19
150
10
5
N
N
Y
Y
N
96
5.36
6.3
1792%
102
79
1000
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
0.004
0.007
0.01
53.9%
0.017
0.04
4
N
N
N
Y
N
8
0.76
0.9
1055%
8.9
1900
5000
N
N
Y
Y
N
NE
2.60
3.4
N
0.04
0.02
0.06
203%
0.10
0.08
5
0.0083
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
4
0.14
0.17
2892%
4.17
50
8.9
N
N
Y
Y
N
1.2
0.06
0.07
2084%
1.27
100
N
N
Y
Y
N
0.8
0.23
0.5
344%
1.3
2.36
1000
2
N
N
Y
Y
N
NE
0.28
0.6
N
N
40
128
170
31.2%
210
1300
300
300
N
N
N
Y
N
0.8
0.40
0.68
200%
1.48
0.41
10
1
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NE
0.11
0.18
N
2.64
3.34
6.2
79.0%
8.84
469
50
N
N
N
Y
N
0.02
0.003
0.004
609%
0.024
0.91
0.0013
0.0018
0.026
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
4
0.012
0.02
34286%
4.02
3200
70
73
N
N
Y
Y
N
2.4
0.13
0.2
1907%
2.6
13.4
20
25
N
N
Y
Y
N
NE
0.004
0.009
N
N
N
NE
0.003
0.003
0.00%
0.003
N
N
N
0.8
0.15
0.15
533.33%
0.95
5
10
1
N
N
Y
Y
N
NE
0.52
0.81
N
NE
0.0009
0.003
0.00%
0.003
0.1
100
0.1
N
N
N
Y
N
NE
4.1
4.9
0.00%
4.9
8300
N
N
N
Y
N
0.002
0.0025
0.0025
80.0%
0.0045
7.2
1.7
0.8
N
N
N
Y
N
NE
0.02
0.06
N
N
10
2.36
3.65
424%
13.7
Y
N
N
8
0.02
0.05
33934%
8.05
14
20
15
N
N
Y
Y
Y (2)
NE
0.18
0.23
0.00%
0.23
12
100
N
N
N
Y
N
0.4
2.43
4
16.5%
4.4
30.6
5000
30
N
N
N
Y
N
The uranium-238 decay series of radionuclides (uranium-238, radium-226, thorium-230, polonium-210 and lead-210) were automatically considered COPC and are not included in the table
Guideline values for barium, beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc were derived using the assumed water hardness of 20 mg/L.
Although the concentration is below the applicable criteria, uranium was automatically selected as a COPC.
Denotes no value available.
390122-300 – April 2011
3-7
Exploration Project
The guidelines for protection of aquatic life are more restrictive than those for the protection of
human health; as such, any constituents not identified as COPC in the screen for the ERA would
also not be selected as COPC in the screen for the HHRA. Thus, only those COPC identified in
the screen for the ERA need to be considered in the screen for the HHRA, namely barium,
cadmium, lead, mercury and uranium, as well as the radionuclides.
The maximum total concentrations in surface water are provided in Table 3.2-2, along with their
respective Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. From this table it can be seen that,
again, uranium is below the drinking water objective but was nonetheless carried through as a
COPC to ensure that any potential future issues arising from the development of the underground
uranium exploration are addressed. The total concentrations of the other metals (barium,
cadmium, lead, mercury) are all below the guideline values and are therefore not selected as
COPC for the HHRA. Hence, uranium, along with uranium-238, radium-226, thorium-230,
polonium-210 and lead-210, are the COPC to be assessed in the HHRA.
Table 3.2-2
Selection of Surface Water Constituents of Potential Concern for the Human
Health Risk Assessment
Constituent
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Units
Baseline
(Max)+
Project
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
102
0.10
1.48
0.024
8.05
Health Canada
Guideline for
Canadian Drinking
Water Quality
1000
5
10 (1)
1
20 (2)
Baseline+
Project>
Guideline?
N
N
N
N
N
Human
Surface
Toxicity
Water
Data
COPC?
Available?
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y (3)
Notes:
1
2
3
Faucets should be thoroughly flushed before water is taken for consumption or analysis
Interim maximum acceptable concentration
Although the concentration is below the drinking water guideline uranium was still included as a human health COPC.
3.2.2
Soil
The pre-ramp operation soil chemical element levels at the Matoush site as measured by Golder
(2009) constitute the baseline or local natural background levels that future analyses should be
compared to in order to assess the influence of activities associated with uranium mining.
The criteria used in the selection of soil were the CCME soil quality guideline for residential and
parkland use for the protection of environmental and human health (CCME, 2008). The
screening is summarized in Table 3.2-3. The incremental soil concentrations of all metals were
very low and significantly less than 1% of the baseline concentrations; therefore, no additional
COPC were identified in the soil screening process for either the ERA or the HHRA.
390122-300 – April 2011
3-8
Table 3.2-3
Project
Estimated Soil
Constituent
Concentration
due to
Deposition
Metals (mg/kg dw)
Aluminum
NE
Antimony
NE
Arsenic
3.1x10-10
Barium
1.0x10-1
Beryllium
1.5x10-7
Boron
NE
Cadmium
4.7x10-10
Chromium
1.7x10-3
Cobalt
1.8x10-5
Copper
7.1x10-5
Iron
NE
Lead
7.1x10-7
Manganese
8.4 x10-3
Mercury
1.9x10-7
Molybdenum
1.2x10-5
Nickel
1.9x10-8
Selenium
3.0x10-9
Silver
1.5x10-6
Strontium
1.6x10-2
Thallium
NE
Tin
3.6x10-6
Titanium
NE
Uranium
1.2x10-4
Vanadium
8.1x10-5
Zinc
3.1x10-8
Notes:
NE
Selection of Soil Constituents of Potential Concern at the Matoush Site
Baseline Data
Mean
Max
1868
0.4
2.3
82.2
0.1
11.7
1.2
1.4
0.4
5.6
940
51.7
32.3
0.14
0.37
2.7
0.73
0.15
25.8
0.2
1.0
32.2
0.17
2.9
47.7
3100
0.5
3.1
150
0.1
61
1.9
1.9
1
8.6
1480
69
40
0.18
0.6
3.8
1
0.4
44
0.2
1.6
54
0.4
4.4
73
Ratio of
Project/
Baseline
(Mean)
Baseline
(Max)+
Project
CCME
Guideline
Residential/
Parkland
Project >
Guideline?
Baseline +
Project >
Guideline?
Ratio of
Project/
Baseline
>1%?
Eco
Toxicity
Data
Available?
Soil
COPC?
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.06%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.07%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.03%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.04%
<0.01%
<0.01%
3100
0.5
3.1
150
0.10
61
1.9
1.90
1.00
8.60
1480
69.0
40
0.18
0.60
3.80
1.00
0.40
44.0
0.2
1.60
54
0.40
4.40
73.0
12
500
10
64
63
140
6.6
50
1
1
23
130
200
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Not estimated (air dispersion modelling was not carried out for aluminum, antimony, boron, iron, thallium and titanium and therefore soil concentrations could not be estimated)
390122-300 – April 2011
3-9
Exploration Project
The final list of COPC is presented in Table 3.2-4 for the ERA and HHRA.
Table 3.2-4
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238
3.3
Final List of Constituents of Potential Concern
COPC for
Ecological Risk
Assessment?
COPC for Human
Health Risk
Assessment?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
RECEPTOR SELECTION AND CHARACTERIZATION
One of the key considerations, which defines the scope of a risk assessment, is the selection of
ecological and human receptors and identification of their pathways of exposure to the COPC. In
selecting receptors it is important to identify plants, animals and people that are likely to be most
exposed to COPC at the Project site as well as those that may be important for other ecological
or social reasons. This section details the ecological (aquatic and terrestrial) and human receptors
that will be selected for the assessment and the rationale behind their selection, as well as the
ways in which the receptors may be exposed to the COPC (i.e., exposure pathways).
3.3.1
Ecological Receptors
The first step in an ecological risk assessment is the determination of which ecological species
should be examined. It is not practical or necessary to evaluate risks to all ecological species; it is
common practice to select representative species based on level of potential exposure,
importance as a food source for other species and/or humans, importance for cultural reasons, or
because they are endangered or rare species. Therefore, ecological receptors are generally chosen
to capture various levels of exposure via their different behavioural and dietary characteristics.
They are also selected if they are considered important: (1) in the functioning of the ecosystem;
(2) in the production of food for subsistence; or (3) due to their cultural, legal or medicinal
significance.
In this assessment, exposure is primarily from aquatic and atmospheric pathways. To assess the
former, several ecological receptors were selected to capture exposure from drinking water and
390122-300 – April 2011
3-10
Exploration Project
consumption of aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates and sediments. There is insufficient
information available to assess direct exposure to COPC in air by wildlife species and, as such,
this pathway is assessed indirectly by evaluating exposure to environmental media that may be
impacted by the project releases to the air. For example, COPC may be directly deposited onto
soil and plants, and plants may subsequently uptake the COPC via their roots. Thus, land-based
wildlife species that consume terrestrial vegetation are selected for the assessment. The
ecological receptors were selected to evaluate species potentially exposed to radioactive and nonradioactive releases from the Matoush project. The selection of the species was based on wildlife
survey information for the Matoush underground exploration ramp as well as visits to the site in
June 2009.
Ecological receptor characteristics were assumed to represent a worst-case exposure scenario, in
that cautious assumptions were made regarding the receptor’s behaviour and home range.
Ecological receptors were assumed to spend considerable amounts of time in the most exposed
areas of the site, e.g. on the waste rock areas, at the shore of Lake Matoush and in the numerous
bodies of water in the vicinity of the Project.
3.3.1.1 Aquatic Receptors
The aquatic Receptors chosen for this assessment cover all food chain (trophic) levels in lake
systems. Figure 3.3-1 provides a schematic representation of the selected ecological receptors for
the aquatic environment. The rationale for the receptors is provided below.
Primary Producers - Primary Producers occupy the lowest level in the food chain. These
organisms are generally plants that use the sun and inorganic molecules to produce food.
Aquatic plants in most lake ecosystems usually constitute the majority of the primary producer
biomass. Aquatic plants are often consumed by moose, muskrat and other animals, thereby
forming a link between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Besides being an important food
resource, aquatic plants also provide habitat to aquatic organisms.
Phytoplankton are also part of the first level in the aquatic food chain. Members of the division
Chlorophyta have been studied extensively and are relatively common in most northern aquatic
ecosystems. Even though the overall contribution of Chlorophyta to aquatic ecosystems in this
region is relatively small, they are a primary food resource for grazing zooplankton.
Primary Consumers - Primary consumers occupy the second level in the food chain. These
organisms generally feed on plant material such as phytoplankton.
390122-300 – April 2011
3-11
Exploration Project
Zooplankton such as Cladocerans are found in most northern aquatic ecosystems. Although
Cladocerans may be seasonally quite abundant, their overall contribution to aquatic ecosystems
in the region is relatively small.
Benthic invertebrates both live and feed within sediments and provide a link between aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems. For example, Chironomidae (midge) larvae are usually the most abundant
benthic invertebrate taxa present in aquatic ecosystems in the northern climate. Many species
feed on decaying organic matter and thereby form an important link between the decomposer and
primary consumer levels. Furthermore, midge larvae are a main food source for small/juvenile
fish and larger omnivorous fish. The adults are capable of flight and are frequently consumed by
birds and bats. This life stage provides an important link between aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems in the region.
Secondary Consumers - Ecological receptors at the secondary consumer level include forage
fish that feed primarily on benthic invertebrates and smaller individuals, and are an important
food source for larger predatory fishes. Examples of forage fish are lake whitefish and white
sucker. Lake whitefish are commonly an important component of the Native Cree diet.
Tertiary Consumers - Tertiary consumers are found at the top end of the aquatic food chain and
consist of larger predatory fish species that consume other fish species. Examples include
northern pike and lake trout. Predatory fish are also an important component of the human food
chain. Both forage and predatory fish are an important component of the diet of omnivores (e.g.,
bear) and carnivores (e.g., osprey).
Figure 3.3-1 Aquatic Receptors Included in the Assessment
390122-300 – April 2011
3-12
Exploration Project
3.3.1.2 Terrestrial Receptors
The terrestrial receptors that are expected to be present in the general vicinity of the Project are
presented in Table 3.3-1. The risk assessment cannot evaluate all the ecological species found in
the area; rather, the risk assessment evaluates species that cover a wide range of dietary habits
that can act as surrogates for other species. Those receptors selected for the assessment are
identified in bold and italics. The receptors were selected to represent a wide range of exposures
and are consistent with what would be expected for the particular ecological setting at Matoush
and field observations during the site assessment. The rationale for the selection of the receptors
is provided below.
Terrestrial Vegetation - The terrestrial vegetation communities were determined based on
1:50,000 forestry maps produced in 1991 and on recent satellite images of the regional study area
(RSA). As discussed in Section 2.1.1., the RSA is characterized by a near uniform forest cover
dominated by black spruce (Picea mariana), present as either old growth or open forest stands.
Both forest stands differ from the typical forest of the bioclimatic domain they belong to, since
they have characteristics similar to those of the spruce-lichen domain that has more open forest
stands. This situation likely results from the location of the study area in high altitude and the
proximity to the northern limit of the spruce-moss domain. The old growth black spruce forest
and the open black spruce forest cover 2,214 ha and 2,933 ha, respectively, corresponding to
35% and 45% of the total study area. Although not numerous, other tree species include paper
birch (Betula papyrifera), trembling aspen (Populus tremoloides), balsam poplar (Populus
balsamifera) and jack pine. Bare ground areas are present but they are scarce and their surface is
negligible (Golder, 2009). The understory is dominated by a brown moss layer and heath plant
species, while forbs and grass species are uncommon (Saucier et al., 2003).
Direct effects on terrestrial vegetation from exposure to COPC as a result of the Project are not
evaluated in the assessment as there insufficient information available to do so. However,
vegetation is evaluated as a food source for other receptors.
Mammals - According to the MRNF (Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune
[Department of Natural Resources and Wildlife]), the RSA supports a relatively simple wildlife
community, and only a few wildlife species of different orders have been known to occur in the
area. This is supported by field observations by SENES staff that were on site in June of 2009 to
set-up air, radon and thermo luminescent dosimeter (TLD) monitoring stations. No mammals,
reptiles or amphibians were observed; however, a variety of bird species were seen or heard.
According to data sources searched, large mammals such as moose, and black bear are typically
found in various habitat types, including dense and open forests, peat and heath meadows, ponds,
marshes and riparian areas. Beaver and river otter are aquatic mammal species found in riparian
390122-300 – April 2011
3-13
Exploration Project
habitats and water bodies and are expected onsite. Carnivores such as the red fox and marten
occur in coniferous and mixed wood forests and are also to be expected on site. Small mammals,
including snowshoe hare, red squirrel, deer mouse, southern red-backed vole, masked shrew and
northern water shrew are expected on site as they live in a range of habitats, including forests,
wooded patches, marshes, open lands and riparian habitats (Prescott and Richard, 1996. The
tracks of four mammal species were identified in the local study area (LSA) during the 2008
winter track count survey. These included marten, mink, snowshoe hare and weasel. Caribou was
given due consideration for inclusion in the risk assessment; however it was not included since
caribou have only been observed at distances of approximately 20 km or more from the site and
thus it is unlikely that caribou spend significant amounts of time in the area, and that they would
be hunted from this area by Cree First Nations. In addition, caribou are more sensitive to air
releases which are expected to be minimal from the Project.
Birds and Waterfowl - Bird species likely to be found in the RSA are divided into three main
guilds: raptors, upland breeding birds, and waterfowl. During the 2009 site visit by SENES staff,
a variety of birds were either seen or heard including ducks, osprey (Pandion haliaetus), spruce
grouse (Falcipennis Canadensis), sandpiper species (Scolopacidae sp.), raven (Corvus sp.),
American robin (Turdus migratoriu), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), white-crowned sparrow
(Zonotrichia leucophry), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) and yellow-rumped warbler
(Dendroica coronate).
Raptors such as the osprey are typically found near rivers, lakes and large wetlands and, the redtailed hawk prefers open areas such as marshes, haylands, fields and woodlands. Short-eared
owls may also occur in the area and are typically found in marshes and meadow habitats. Greathorned owls can be found in forests, thickets, watercourse edges and open areas, while the barred
owl and the northern hawk owl both prefer forests or wooded wetlands (Peterson and Peterson,
2004; Sibley and David, 2006).
Upland birds such as spruce grouse and willow ptarmigan are common to the LSA year-round in
coniferous forests, peat lands and willow riparian areas. Shorebird species that may be found in
the RSA include the spotted sandpiper, greater yellowlegs, and solitary sandpiper. These birds
are associated with marshes, watercourses, ponds and sometimes peat lands. Red-breasted
nuthatch, blackpoll warbler and ruby-crowned kinglet prefer coniferous forests, while the yellow
warbler, fox sparrow and Wilson’s warbler are generally found in thickets, riparian areas and
edge habitats. Species such as the swamp sparrow, rusty blackbird and yellow-bellied flycatcher
are normally found near wetlands and riparian areas (Peterson and Peterson, 2004; Sibley and
David, 2006).
Waterfowl can be highly exposed ecological receptors, since their diet is almost entirely obtained
from the aquatic environment. The waterfowl diet includes aquatic vegetation, fish, and benthic
390122-300 – April 2011
3-14
Exploration Project
invertebrates. Ducks are also part of the local Cree diet. Waterfowl that may be found in the
RSA, season permitting, may include the black duck, Canada goose, common loon, common
merganser, mallard, northern pintail, and scaup. These birds are synonymous with open, shallow
fresh water marshes, bays, rivers and lakes with marshy shorelines (Peterson and Peterson,
2004). Three species were selected to take into account differences in the diets of waterfowl:
mallard (consumes primarily aquatic plants), common merganser (consumes mainly fish) and
scaup (consumes mostly benthic invertebrates). It should be noted that ducks are migratory and
are thus only exposed when on site the open water period (from May/June to
October/November).
Wetlands - Wetlands are very common in northern Québec, but they are scarce in the study area
and account for only 3% of the total study area (225 ha). Available data do not allow the precise
identification of wetland types but they are mostly small wet depressions and riverine wetlands
along watercourses, with few larger patterned peat lands. Satellite images reveal that many small
wetlands were not mapped and that some large peat land areas may be overestimated.
Nonetheless, the study area is located in a zone where the extent of wetland loss is moderate,
according to the federal policy on wetland conservation (Environment Canada, 1996).
Reptiles and Amphibians - The common garter snake is likely to be the only reptile species to be
found in the RSA. It can be found in forests, fields and riparian habitats (Desroches and
Rodrigue, 2004). Amphibian species likely to be found in the RSA include mink frog, green
frog, northern leopard frog, yellow spotted salamander and blue-spotted salamander. Typically,
the first three species are associated with marshes, larger wetlands, lakes and streams, and
adjacent meadows, while the last two species are generally found in mixed wood forests, peat
lands and transition environments. The four-toed salamander, a species designated susceptible in
Quebec (MRNF 2009), may also be found in the RSA. Reptiles and amphibians were not
included in the ERA as there is currently no published toxicity data available with which to
evaluate risks.
390122-300 – April 2011
3-15
Exploration Project
Table 3.3-1
Terrestrial Receptors Selected for the Assessment
Environmental Subcomponent
Terrestrial Vegetation (1)
Birds and Waterfowl
Mammals
Wetlands / Amphibians and
Reptiles
Notes:
1
Ecological Receptor
Black spruce (dominant species)
Paper birch
Trembling aspen
Balsam poplar
Jack pine
American robin
Black buck
Common loon
Common merganser
Dark-eyed junco
Greater yellowlegs
Hermit thrush
Mallard
Northern harrier
Osprey
Raven
Red tailed hawk
Scaup
Short-eared owl
Spotted and solitary sandpipers
Spruce grouse
Swamp sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
Willow ptarmigan
Yellow-rumped warbler
American mink
Beaver
Black bear
Marten
Moose
Muskrat
Northern water shrew
Porcupine
Red fox
Red squirrel
River otter
Silver-haired bat
Snowshoe hare
Southern red-backed vole
Weasel
Garter snake
Northern leopard frog
Yellow-spotted salamander
Receptors in italics and bold were selected as representative species for the ecological risk assessment.
Terrestrial species are not evaluated directly in the assessment but are accounted for as a food source for other species
390122-300 – April 2011
3-16
Exploration Project
3.3.1.3 Species at Risk
Based on the wildlife surveys completed to date, no rare or unique wildlife habitats, nesting,
breeding or staging areas have been identified near the proposed ramp infrastructure locations.
Mitigation measures related to vegetation clearing will also apply to wildlife habitat, particularly
completion of progressive restoration and re-vegetation at sites no longer needed for operations
once the ramp and associated facilities have been constructed.
Protected Areas - Information requests from Strateco were sent on September 5 and 6, 2007 to
the MDDEP, the MRNF, and the CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service) regarding protected areas,
wildlife reserve or sanctuary, protected or special habitats, and provincial or national parks.
According to the MRNF (Rodrigue Hebert, pers. comm. with Strateco 2007), the LSA is located
within the Lac-Albanel-Mistassini-et-Waconichi Wildlife Reserve. Wildlife reserves in Quebec
are set aside for conservation and development, as well as for recreational activities. There are no
specific requirements with regards to industrial and mining activities, and they may be allowed
with appropriate authorisation from the requisite regulatory bodies. However, the RSA also
overlaps a portion of the Albanel-Témiscamie-Otish biodiversity reserve, which is in the process
of being classified as a national park. The boundaries of the proposed park have not been
finalized. If this area is officially designated as a national park, no mining, industrial, or forest
harvesting activity would be allowed to occur within the reserve.
Figure 4.1-1 is a map illustrating the Matoush Camp and the local and regional study areas in
relation to the protected reserve areas. As can be seen from this map approximately two thirds of
the RSA is inside the Lacs-Albanel-Mistissini-et-Waconichi Wildlife Reserve. The AlbanelTemiscamie-Otish Biodiversity Reserve also impacts the RSA where it encroaches onto the
eastern side of the study area, covering approximately one tenth of the RSA. It is noted that the
limits of the Lac-Albanel- Mistassini-et-Waconichi Wildlife Reserve have changed slightly over
the last 6 years.
Plant Species at Risk - According to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC, 2007), four special status plant species can potentially be present in the
study area. The Orange false dandelion, American alpine lady and Highland cudweed occur
principally in wet subalpine meadows, a habitat that may be present in the study area given its
location at high altitude. The other species, Woolly hudsonia, grows in dry conditions, especially
open sands, a habitat that is not common in the study area.
Wildlife Species at Risk - There are a number of wildlife species at risk/endangered or are to be
designated threatened, as well as species that are monitored by federal and provincial agencies
that may be found in the RSA (Prescott and Richard, 1996; Desroches and Rodrigue, 2004;
Sibley and David, 2006). These species include the pygmy shrew, silver-haired bat, red bat,
390122-300 – April 2011
3-17
Exploration Project
hoary bat, rock vole, southern bog lemming, least weasel, wolverine, lynx, woodland caribou,
harlequin duck, Barrow’s goldeneye, bald eagle, golden eagle, peregrine falcon, red knot, shorteared owl, rusty blackbird, Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, and the four-toed salamander.
Figure 4.1-1 Map Illustrating the Matoush Camp and the Local and Regional Study
Areas in Relation to the Protected Reserve Areas
390122-300 – April 2011
3-18
Exploration Project
3.3.1.4 Exposure Pathways and Characteristics
Ecological receptor characteristics were chosen to represent a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario, in that cautious assumptions were made regarding the receptor’s behaviour and home
range. Ecological receptors were assumed to be present at the location of the maximum
concentration for the entire time on site when, in reality, wildlife will move around the area. The
characteristics were obtained from various sources and are provided in Appendix A.
Exposure pathways are the routes by receptors may be exposed to COPC while in the Project
area. Several different pathways were considered in the ecological assessment, which are linked
to either the aquatic environment and/or the terrestrial environment. The exposure pathways that
were considered in this assessment for the selected ecological receptors are summarized in Table
3.3-2. Aquatic receptors (fish, aquatic plants, benthic invertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton)
are only assessed by comparing the water concentrations of COPC to toxicological reference
values and thus these receptors are not included in the table.
Table 3.3-2
Summary of Exposure Pathways for Ecological Receptors
Receptor
American Mink
Beaver
Black Bear
Mallard
Merganser
Moose
Muskrat
Pathways of Exposure
Water, sediment, aquatic vegetation, benthic
invertebrates, duck, fish, hare, muskrat
Water, sediment, terrestrial vegetation, aquatic
vegetation
Water, soil, terrestrial vegetation, berries, fish,
moose
Water, sediment, benthic invertebrates, aquatic
vegetation
Water, sediment, fish
Water, sediment, browse, aquatic vegetation
Water, sediment, aquatic vegetation, benthic
invertebrates,
Osprey
Water, sediment, fish
Red Fox
Water, soil, berries, duck, hare
Red Tailed Hawk
Water, soil, birds, rodents
Scaup
Water, sediment, benthic invertebrates, aquatic
vegetation
Snowshoe hare
Water, soil, terrestrial vegetation
Spruce Grouse
Water, soil, browse, berries
390122-300 – April 2011
3-19
Exploration Project
3.3.2
Human Receptors
The following section outlines the assessment of potential incremental exposures to humans that
may access the Matoush site. For the purposes of this assessment, assumed human characteristics
were defined to calculate potential exposures under predicted future site conditions. This
assessment considers the potential for adverse effects on hypothetical individuals who may visit
the area for hunting and gathering activities, and on a camp cook who may be present during the
operational phase of the exploration project.
3.3.2.1 Selection of Human Receptors
The Project site is remote and currently can only be accessed by land for a few months of the
year in winter via the winter road. For the rest of the year, the only access to the site is by air.
There are no fishing lodges in the LSA or RSA. According to preconsultation activities, the area
in the immediate vicinity of the site has little interest for fishing and hunting; however, the area
around Indicator Lake, approximately 16 km east of the property limits, is traditionally used and
preferred by the Cree community.
The Cree community closest to the projected site is the Cree Nation of Mistissini which is
located 210 km south-west of the projected site. The closest non-Cree community is the town of
Chibougamau which is located 275 km south-west of the Matoush Property. The site is located
on public land that falls under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, where the Cree
have exclusive rights to harvest certain aquatic species and furbearing mammals and to
participate in the administration and development of the land
Based on the above, it is understood that the site is not used for recreational purposes; however,
Cree may access the RSA for gathering and hunting/trapping activities. No children or toddlers
are reported to access the site. The human health risk assessment was therefore carried out for
adults who may periodically access the site and obtain game from the RSA. Sensitive individuals
(e.g. immunocompromise individuals) were considered implicitly by the use of toxicity reference
values (TRVs) derived by regulatory agencies (i.e., Health Canada, the U.S. EPA) to be
protective of sensitive sub-populations. Exposure to a camp cook was also evaluated, assuming
the cook would be on-site 24 hours per days per week for 6 months of the year. Potential
exposure to underground workers was assessed in the Industrial Risk Assessment. Off-site
receptors were not considered since any potential exposure to these receptors would be
encompassed by the evaluation of the adult Cree and the camp cook.
3.3.2.2 Human Exposure Pathways
Figure 7.2-1 summarizes the theoretical exposure pathways that a Cree First Nations adult could
be exposed to COPC while in the Project area and include:
390122-300 – April 2011
3-20
Exploration Project
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consumption of treated lake water from Lake Matoush at the maximum measured
concentration.
Consumption of fish (flesh, maximum measured concentrations from Lake 5).
Consumption of hare (flesh) exposed to COPC in water, soil and terrestrial vegetation
from the site.
Consumption of moose (flesh) exposed to COPC in water, soil, and terrestrial and aquatic
vegetation from across the site, including the waste rock areas.
Consumption of duck (flesh) exposed to COPC in water, soil sediment and aquatic biota
from Lake Matoush.
Consumption of beaver (flesh) exposed to COPC in water, sediment and aquatic biota
from the ramp drainage discharge.
Consumption of berries and other terrestrial vegetation growing on site.
Consumption of spruce grouse exposed to COPC in water, soil and terrestrial vegetation
from the site.
Exposure to external gamma radiation from waste rock at the site.
The Cree traditionally use several plant species for purposes such as food, housing, tools, and
medicine. Three separate interviews were conducted by Golder in 2008 with representatives of
the Cree community (Golder, 2009). The interviewees stated that they did not harvest plants
from the LSA, but that they did collect blueberries when available. Traditional-use plants were
not identified as a concern during an open house and focus groups. Bouchard et al. (2004)
compiled existing data and conducted interviews with Cree representatives from James Bay
communities including Mistissini, the closest Cree community to the project. Two ethnobotanical studies involving the Mistissini community also investigated the medicinal uses of
plants by the Cree (Leduc et al., 2006; Fraser et al., 2007). These studies reported that around 60
species were traditionally used by the Cree. The vegetation baseline report from Golder (2009)
confirms the poor diversity of the study area. However, all species were found in the AlbanelTémiscamie-Otish region except for Northern Labrador tea (Rhododendron tomentosum ssp.
Subarcticum), chives (Allium schoenoprasum), wolf’s claw clubmoss (Lycopodium clavatum),
and bulrush (Typha latifolia) (Gouvernement du Québec, 2006). There is no data relating to
abundance of traditional-use species but Bouchard et al. (2004) state that most are widespread.
However, the LSA is at the northern limit of the distribution for some of these traditional-plant
use species (Golder, 2009).
390122-300 – April 2011
3-21
Exploration Project
Figure 3.3-2 Human (Cree First Nations) Exposure Pathways Considered in the HHRA
The above-discussed pathways represent theoretical exposure pathways for Cree who may access
the LSA and/or RSA. Based on interviews with representatives of the Cree community
conducted by Golder (2009), the most desirable foods to be hunted are moose and fish. However,
moose are not common in this area and therefore it is not expected that a significant amount of
game (beyond fish) would be obtained from the study area. Many of the potential food sources
are primarily exposed to COPC through the air pathway, which will be minimally impacted by
the project. As such, not all theoretical exposure pathways were evaluated in the assessment.
Table 3.3-3 provides the rationale for the inclusion or exclusion of the various food sources in
the assessment. Although the interviews revealed that blueberries may be collected when
available, berries and other terrestrial vegetation were not included in the assessment since there
are expected to be only minor changes in the concentrations of COPC. This is discussed further
390122-300 – April 2011
3-22
Exploration Project
in Section 4.2. Additionally, as discussed above, it is not expected that significant amounts of
berries and vegetation will be collected from the Project area. It should also be noted that while
beaver are trapped on site, only their pelts are used.
The background gamma radiation levels measured at the Matoush study area were generally low
with the highest measurements of less than 0.10 µSv/hr on areas of exposed sandstone. Although
potential increases above background in gamma radiation was considered, this is likely to be
insignificant since it is not expected that there will be any surface material with elevated levels of
radioactivity.
The entire food supply of the camp cook would be transported to the site. The drinking water
supply would be water obtained from the nearby lake, known locally as Lake Matoush, and
would be treated before consumption. The drinking water intake is at least 600 metres upstream
of the discharge. It must be accentuated that the assumptions used are extremely conservative
and that Native interaction with the site is, and will continue to be, very minimal.
Table 3.3-3
Pathways of Exposure for Cree to COPC from Food Sources at the Matoush
Project Site
Exposure
Source
Hare
Moose
Spruce Grouse
Duck
Muskrat
Beaver
Berries
Fish
Drinking Water
Soil
Rationale for Inclusion or Exclusion in the Assessment
Not explicitly evaluated – hare are primarily influenced by air which will have minimal impact
from the project. Therefore, the ingestion of mallard was increased to represent all game.
Not explicitly evaluated – moose have some connection to the aquatic environment but are
primarily influenced by air which will have minimal impact from the project. Additionally,
moose are not common in the study area. Therefore, the ingestion of mallard was increased to
represent all game.
Not explicitly evaluated – grouse are primarily influenced by air which will have minimal
impact from the project. Therefore, the ingestion of mallard was increased to represent all
game.
Exposed to drinking water, sediment, aquatic vegetation and benthic invertebrates from the
lakes found in the LSA 50% of the year.
Not explicitly evaluated – mallard is a more desirable game and was used to represent all game
intake.
Not explicitly evaluated – beaver have some connection to the aquatic environment but are
heavily influenced by air which will have minimal impact from the project. In addition, beaver
are primarily trapped for their pelts, and mallard are a more desirable food choice. Therefore,
the ingestion of mallard was increased to represent all game.
Not explicitly evaluated – berries are primarily influenced by air which will have minimal
impact from the project. Predicted concentrations of berries are provided in Section 4.2 which
show that minor changes are expected in berry concentrations.
Maximum measured COPC concentrations from Lake 5
Water from Lake Matoush
Maximum soil/waste rock concentrations measured on site (incidental ingestion only)
390122-300 – April 2011
3-23
Exploration Project
3.3.2.3 Receptor Characteristics
The native Cree are assumed to consume a mixture of local food obtained and supermarket
foods. Traditional knowledge from the Mistissini Lake Cree indicates that the most desirable
foods to be hunted are moose and fish. However, moose are not common in this area and
therefore it is not expected that a significant amount of game (beyond fish) would be obtained
from the area. However, to account for the consumption of game that may be obtained from the
area and that therefore could be influenced by the Project, a nominal amount of duck was
assumed to be consumed. Although, as discussed previously, access would be largely in winter
months when waterfowl would not be present, the selection of the duck to account for the
consumption of game from the area is a conservative measure since it is one of the most
potentially exposed receptors. The Project is anticipated to primarily impact the aquatic
environment and ducks are exclusively aquatic species, unlike beaver and moose. Additionally,
they have a small home range and so may reside entirely on one waterbody, unlike moose. It
should also be noted that game was assumed to be obtained from the site during the period of
operation of the underground ramp, during which time few biota are expected to frequent the
area so that it is unlikely that people would actually obtain game from the area during this time.
Although the above information indicates that there is generally little interest in use of the area
by Cree, as a conservative approach it was assumed that there would be potential for some
interaction. The exposure characteristics are summarized in Table 3.3-4 for the Camp Cook and
Cree First Nations Adult and are expected to be greatly overestimated. In general, the values
were obtained from Health Canada (2009b).
Table 3.3-4
Notes:
a
b
c
390122-300 – April 2011
Human Receptor Characteristics Selected for Assessment
Characteristics
Camp Cook
Age (y)
Inhalation Rate (m3/d)
Body weight (kg)
Fish
Fish Intake rate (g/d)
Fraction from Site (-)
Game - Mallard (g/d)
Soil Ingestion Rate (g/d)
Water Intake Rate (L/d)
Fraction of Time Spent at Site (-)
≥ 20 (a)
15.8 (b)
70.7 (a)
Cree First
Nations Adult
≥ 20 (a)
15.8 (b)
70.7 (a)
220 (a)
0
0
0.02 (a)
1.5 (a)
0.5
220 (a)
0.1
23 (c)
0.02 (a)
1.5 (a)
0.1
Health Canada 2009b
Richardson 1997
Estimated at 5% of total intake of game by Hatchet Lake band in Northern Saskatchewan of
464 g/d (CanNorth 2000); equivalent to approximately 10% of total wild game intake of 270
g/d (Health Canada 2009b).
3-24
Exploration Project
4.0
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Exposure of the human and ecological receptors to the COPC were calculated using a pathways
modelling approach. Pathways modelling combines the receptor characteristics with
environmental media concentrations of the COPC to estimate exposures for each receptor. This
section provides the equations used to estimate exposure by ecological and human receptors to
the COPC in the pertinent media of exposure and summarizes the predicted incremental media
concentrations as a result of the Project.
4.1
EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS
4.1.1
Ecological Receptors
The ecological risk assessment (ERA) was carried out using pathways calculations that SENES
has successfully applied to numerous other uranium mining projects across Canada. These
calculations facilitate the assessment of the integrated effects of the Project on the atmospheric,
aquatic and terrestrial environments. A quantitative estimate of the exposure was conducted for
each of the ecological receptors. For the aquatic assessment, the toxicity to aquatic receptors
(i.e., aquatic receptors (plants, fish, zooplankton, phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates) is based
on measured water and sediment concentrations. An examination of the intake for these receptors
is therefore not necessary and the following section pertains to the terrestrial receptors only.
Intakes for the selected ecological receptors were estimated. In essence, the total intake of the
COPC for a receptor is equal to the sum of COPC intake from all the appropriate pathways
including the ingestion of sediment or soil, aquatic vegetation, benthic organisms, fish, terrestrial
vegetation, and other mammalian receptors (e.g., hare, waterfowl, etc.). When calculating the
intake via the oral route of exposure, it is customary to take into account the food, water and soil
pathways.
As
there
was
insufficient
information
to
derive
site-specific
bioavailability/bioaccessibility factors, it was assumed that all the COPC were 100% available
from all sources. This is a highly conservative assumption as the reality is that the
bioaccessibility of COPC from soil/sediment is generally less than 100%. Equation 4-1 was used
to calculate each of the intake routes as follows:
In = Cn × IRn × floc× CF
Where:
In
Cn
IRn
floc
CF
=
=
=
=
=
390122-300 – April 2011
(4-1)
Intake of COPC via “n” exposure pathway [mg/d]
COPC concentration in “n” medium [mg/kg]
Intake rate of “n” by the receptor [g/d]
Fraction of time at site [-]
Conversion factor 1.0x10-3 [kg/g]
4-1
Exploration Project
In order to compare the total COPC intake to the toxicological reference value (which has the
units of mg/kg-d), the total intake was divided by the body weight of the ecological receptor.
For a number of the ecological receptors, ingestion of other organisms (i.e., benthic
invertebrates, fish) needs to be considered. Smaller organisms such as benthic invertebrates and
fish are exposed to COPC through sediment or surface water from the site prior to ingestion by
the receptor organism. Concentrations in these organisms are estimated using transfer factors
(TFs) from literature sources. Transfer factors are empirical values that provide a measure of the
partitioning behaviour of a COPC between two environmental media and are available from
literature sources to describe partitioning between many different media, including water-to-fish,
water-to-sediment, water-to-benthic invertebrates, food-to-animal flesh and other media. For
aquatic biota, TFs were applied to water concentrations according to the following equation:
C biota = C water × TFwater − to−biota
(4-2)
Where:
Cbiota =
Concentration of COPC in aquatic biota (i.e., fish, benthic invertebrates,
aquatic vegetation) [mg/(kg ww)]
Cwater =
Concentration of COPC in surface water [mg/L]
TFwater-to-biota=water-to-biota transfer factor [units vary with biota]
More complex organisms such as the hare and moose are exposed through multiple pathways
before being ingested by other mammals. To calculate the amount of COPC ingested through
these food sources, the rate of uptake of COPC by each of these ingested mammals was first
calculated using Equation 4-1. Transfer factors are then used to estimate the resulting
concentration of the COPC in the flesh of the animal that will be ingested. Transfer factors from
literature for beef or poultry were scaled for each ingested mammal using their respective body
weights and were then applied as shown in Equation 4-3 to calculate the concentration of COPC
in the flesh of each ingested mammal:
C flesh = I total × TF flesh
(4-3)
Where:
Cflesh =
Itotal =
TFflesh=
COPC concentration in flesh of ingested mammal [mg/(kg ww)]
Intake of COPC via all pathways for ingested mammal [mg/d]
Feed-to-flesh transfer factor [d/(kg ww)]
The concentrations of the COPC used in the assessment are presented in Section 4.2 while the
TFs are provided in Appendix A.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-2
Exploration Project
4.1.2
Human Receptors
Standard methodology was used to assess human exposures to COPC. The calculations of the
doses received by people are provided in Appendix C.4 and are summarized in this section.
Baseline radiation exposure for people does not have to be evaluated as all dose benchmarks are
to be applied to the incremental (i.e., above the baseline) exposure. However, baseline and total
(baseline plus project) intakes from chemical uranium do need to be calculated.
4.1.2.1 Inhalation Pathway
Inhalation intake by human receptors can be calculated using Equation 4-4 for radiological
COPC:
Dair ,i = C air ,i × Rair × Fsite × 365 × DCinh
(4-4)
Where:
Dair,i
Cair,i
Rair
Fsite
365
DCinh
=
=
=
=
=
=
Incremental dose of radionuclide through air inhalation [µSv/y]
Incremental air concentration [Bq/m3]
Air inhalation rate [m3/d]
Conversion factor [d/y]
Inhalation dose coefficient [µSv/Bq]
The incremental concentrations are discussed in Section 4.2 and the dose coefficients are
discussed in Section 5.0. The dose from each of the radionuclides is calculated using the
equation shown above and summed to provide a total inhalation dose. For non-radiological
COPC (i.e., chemical uranium), the intake as a result of air inhalation is simply equal to the
baseline or total (baseline plus project) concentration of the COPC in air, in mg/m3.
The air quality modelling results in an estimation of the radon-in-air concentration (Bq/m3). This
concentration must be converted to a dose (actually a dose rate measured in units of µSv/y) so
that it can be added to the doses from the other exposure pathways being evaluated.
Since it is the radon progeny rather than the radon that produces the dose to the receptor, the
radon-in-air concentration must be converted to an appropriate radon progeny concentration.
This conversion requires an estimation of the equilibrium factor, F, between radon and its
progeny. Theoretically, F can range from 0.0 (no radon progeny) to 1.0 (complete radon progeny
ingrowth). The value of F outdoors at the receptor depends only on the transit time between the
radon source and the receptor if it is assumed that there are no radon progeny removal
mechanisms other than radioactive decay. Since in reality the progeny are removed by several
other mechanisms that are difficult to quantify (e.g., attachment to dust that falls to the ground)
390122-300 – April 2011
4-3
Exploration Project
and since the major exposure occurs indoors where F is dependent on several additional factors
(such as the building ventilation rate), it has been customary to select an F factor that is
representative of annual average indoor conditions. The radon concentration at the receptor is
converted to a radon progeny concentration using this F factor. For this assessment, the assumed
F value ranges from 0.3 to 0.5 (ICRP 65, 1993).
ICRP Publication No. 65 (1993) suggests, based on equality of detriment, that 1 WLM (Working
Level Month) corresponds to (about) 5 mSv for workers and 4 mSv for members of the public
(para 56). A working level month is defined as 3,700 Bq/m3 per WL and there are 170 h per
working month.
Based on these factors, the dose from inhalation of radon can be calculated for indoor and
outdoor exposure.
4.1.2.2 Ingestion Pathway
Ingestion intake by human receptors was calculated using Equation 4-5 for the water pathway,
Equation 4-6 for the soil pathway and Equation 4-7 for the food pathway:
Dwater ,i (radionuclides ) = C water ,i × Rwater × Fsite × 365 × DCing
I water (non − radionuclides ) =
C water × Rwater × Fsite
BW
(4-5)
Where:
Dwater,i
Iwater
Cwater,i
Cwater
Rwater
Fsite
365
DCing
BW
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Incremental dose of radionuclide through water ingestion [µSv/y]
Intake of non-radionuclide through water ingestion [mg/(kg d)]
Incremental water concentration of radionuclide [Bq/L]
Baseline or total water concentration of non-radionuclide [mg/L]
Water intake rate [L/d]
Ingestion dose coefficient [µSv/Bq]
Body weight [kg]
Dsoil ,i (radionuclides ) = C soil ,i × Rsoil × Fsite × 365 × DCing
I soil (non − radionuclides ) =
C soil × Rsoil × Fsite
BW × 1000
(4-6)
Where:
Dsoil.i =
Isoil
=
390122-300 – April 2011
Incremental dose of radionuclide through soil ingestion [µSv/y]
Intake of non-radionuclide through soil ingestion [mg/(kg d)]
4-4
Exploration Project
Csoil,i
Csoil
Rsoil
Fsite
365
DCing
BW
1000
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Incremental soil concentration of radionuclide [Bq/g]
Baseline or total soil concentration of non-radionuclide [mg/kg]
Soil intake rate [g/d]
Body weight [kg]
Conversion factor [kg/g]
D food ,i (radionuclides ) = C food ,i × R food × Fintake × 365 × DCing
I food (non − radionuclides ) =
C food × R food × Fintake
(4-7)
BW × 1000
Where:
Dfood,i
Ifood
Cfood,i
Cfood
Ri
Fintake
365
DCing
BW
1000
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Incremental dose of radionuclide through food ingestion [µSv/y]
Intake of non-radionuclide through food ingestion [mg/(kg d)]
Incremental concentration in item [Bq/g ww]
Baseline or total concentration in item (mg/kg ww)
Intake rate of item [g ww/d]
Fraction of total intake of food item from the site [-]
Body weight [kg]
Conversion factor [kg/g]
The incremental concentrations are discussed in Section 4.2 and the dose coefficients are
discussed in Section 5.0. The dose from each of the radionuclides is calculated using the
equation shown above and summed to provide a total water ingestion dose.
The camp worker is assumed to not be exposed through ingestion of local game and therefore the
only ingestion pathways that are relevant are ingestion of soil and water. The Cree First Nations
adult, however, is assumed to consume fish and ducks from the local area. The incremental
concentrations are discussed in Section 4.2 and the dose coefficients are discussed in Section 5.0.
The estimated doses and intakes from each ingestion pathway are summed to provide total doses
and intakes from the ingestion pathway.
All other pathways of exposure (e.g. radon, gamma) were not quantitatively examined as the
incremental exposure was determined to be insignificant.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-5
Exploration Project
4.2
PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS
The pathways analysis, or exposure assessment, will be performed assuming receptors are
exposed to the on-site environment. When available, measured COPC will be used in the
pathways analysis as baseline conditions, which will be added to predicted incremental
concentrations as a result of the Project. As discussed in Section 2.2, measured data are available
for surface water, sediment, fish, aquatic vegetation, soil and terrestrial vegetation (including
berries and lichen). When measured data are not available, such is the case with benthic
invertebrates, transfer factors (TFs) are used to estimate concentrations. The TFs used in the
assessment are provided in Appendix A. The predicted incremental concentrations that may
result from operation of the underground exploration ramp are discussed in the following
sections.
4.2.1
Air
The Project has the potential to impact the local atmospheric environment. Possible sources of
air emissions include the underground exhaust air, fugitive dust from the waste rock handling,
and combustion emissions from power generators on site. Diesel generators that supply power to
the offices and camps emit conventional pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur
dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO). Underground exhaust air is expected to contain radon222, dust (particulate matter [PM]) and various metals at low concentrations, as well as
conventional pollutants (NOx, SO2, CO) that are generated by the underground diesel equipment
and propane heaters located on surface. Dust (PM) emitted from the waste rock handling is
expected to have the same metal composition as that in the underground exhaust air. Dust
generated by vehicle movement and wind erosion of stockpiled waste rock is expected to be
negligible due to dust management practices, expected wet or frozen conditions on haul roads,
and rock characteristics of the waste piles.
A screening level air quality assessment was undertaken (SENES, 2009) to evaluate the potential
effects of the Project on the local atmospheric environment as a result of emissions of radon-222,
uranium-238 and associated decay chain radionuclides, airborne dust (particulate matter [PM])
and metals), and conventional pollutants (NOx and SO2, the most frequently examined of the
conventional pollutants). The predicted effects on air quality were assessed against Quebec air
quality standards where available, and other air quality reference levels established by the federal
government or the province Ontario, where the province of Quebec has not yet established a
standard.
The Industrial Source Complex Plume RIse Model Enhancement System (ISC-PRIME) was
chosen as the air dispersion modelling program for the assessment to estimate incremental
concentrations of radon-222, PM, metals, NOx and SO2. The modelling domain was set up as a
390122-300 – April 2011
4-6
Exploration Project
30 km x 30 km area with a grid spacing of 1 km x 1 km. A finer spacing was applied of 20 m
within 200 m of the sources, 50 m within 500 m, 100 m within 1 km, 200 m within 2 km, and
500 m within 5 km of the operation area. Air emission rates were estimated and input into ISCPRIME. Concentration of expected air pollutants were predicted for 1-hour, 24-hour and annual
periods at the closest receptor, at the edge of the Wildlife Reserve on Matoush property.
Concentrations of radionuclides in air were estimated using a different approach. The
concentration of uranium-238 in air was estimated from the measured chemical level of uranium
in air (in μg/m3) using the specific activity of uranium-238 of 1.23x104 Bq per g of natural
uranium. The levels of the other radionuclides in the uranium decay series were based on the
predicted uranium levels by assuming them to be in secular equilibrium with uranium-238. This
assumption is accurate in compartments with long-term storage (e.g. rock).
The maximum annual incremental radon-222 concentration at the park is predicted to be about
0.05 Bq/m3; in the area of the site, radon is expected to rise by 0.9 Bq/m3. These values are much
less than the CNSC limit of 60 Bq/m3 that is attributable to a licensed activity (CNSC 2000).
The maximum incremental concentration of PM (airborne dust) in close vicinity of the Wildlife
Reserve is estimated to be in the range of 219-230 µg/m3 for a 1-hour period, 19-20 µg/m3 for a
24-hour period, and 0.7-0.8 µg/m3 for an annual period. These incremental concentrations are
well below the air quality reference levels established for this project (discussed in the air quality
assessment report).
The predicted incremental effects on annual levels of metals including barium, cadmium, lead
and mercury are summarized in the air quality report (SENES, 2009). In all cases, the predicted
are small compared to the annual reference levels. The predicted increase in all cases is at least
an order of magnitude less than the reference levels.
The predicted incremental concentrations for NOx and SO2 are well below the reference levels.
At 30% of the reference level, NOx (assumed to be 100% NO2) has the highest incremental
concentration at the Wildlife Reserve.
Predicted incremental effects of the Matoush Project on air quality in the vicinity of the nearby
proposed Albanel-Témiscamie-Otish National Park were shown to be very small. In fact, the
effects on most constituents would not be measurable or distinguishable from baseline levels in
the area. The full details of the assessment for incremental air quality effects for the Matoush
underground site are given in the air quality assessment (SENES, 2009).
390122-300 – April 2011
4-7
Exploration Project
4.2.2
Surface Water
Treated water quality was prepared by Melis Engineering Ltd (Melis, 2011) and this information
was used to predict the incremental surface water quality at Matoush. The quality of the water
that needs to be treated was based on an assumed 50/50 split for clean groundwater and
mineralized groundwater. Treatment efficiencies were applied to these values (Melis, 2011) to
obtain an estimate of the treated water quality. The source term for the surface water modelling
was determined as the higher of the estimated treated water quality (for those which were
reported as less than detection it was assumed to be present at half of the detection limit) and the
appropriate environmental detection limit. The water treatment system will be designed to meet
both the provincial and federal (including CNSC) mine effluent water quality discharge criteria.
All treated water will be tested to ensure it meets the water quality criteria prior to being
released.
For the assessment, simple water quality estimates were made by assuming complete mixing in
the water body assuming a 2.5:1 dilution. This corresponds to a high effluent release rate of 100
m3/h, of which 80 m3/h is treated water and the remaining 20 m3/h is site run-off. The estimate of
80 m3/h of treated water from the site is believed to be very conservative. The estimated
incremental water concentrations were added to the mean baseline concentrations (as provided in
Table 2.2-1) to estimate total concentrations. Mean baseline concentrations were used since the
number of measurements was greater than 10. The incremental, baseline and total concentrations
are provided in Table 4.2-1. Again, the concentration of uranium-238 was estimated from the
measured chemical level of uranium using the specific activity of uranium-238 of 1.23x104 Bq
per g of natural uranium.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-8
Exploration Project
Table 4.2-1
Predicted Incremental, Baseline and Total Surface Water Concentrations at
Matoush
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (2)
Notes:
1
2
Units
Project
Diluted
Source
(2.5:1)
Term
Source
Term
Baseline
Mean
Total
Diluted
Project +
Mean
Baseline
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
µg/L
240
0.1
2
0.05
20
96
0.04
0.8
0.02
8
5.36
0.02
0.40
0.003
0.024
101
0.06
1.2
0.023
8.0
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
Bq/L
0.02
0.005 (1)
0.05
0.005 (1)
0.247
0.008
0.002
0.02
0.002
0.099
0.01
0.02
0.003
0.005
0.0003
0.021
0.020
0.023
0.007
0.10
Baseline concentrations were provided in Table 2.2-1
Based on ½ the MDL.
Calculated using the specific activity of uranium-238 of 1.23x104 Bq per g of natural uranium
The spatial extent of the potential impact of the effluent release was examined through a
preliminary analysis of dilution downstream of Lake 5. This assessment, provided in
Appendix E, shows that downstream of the Carnie River only molybdenum and uranium are
expected to be elevated from baseline however it is noted that these concentrations are well
below water quality objectives.
4.2.3
Soil
The potential impact of the exploration program on the concentration of COPC in soil was
estimated from the predicted incremental air concentrations using a soil deposition model
developed by the U.S. EPA in the document Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for
Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2005a).
Table 4.2-2 provides the maximum incremental air emissions from the air dispersion model, the
estimated incremental soil concentration due to deposition, and the total concentrations used in
the assessment. Details of the equations of the soil deposition model were given in Appendix C.
Again, the concentration of uranium-238 was estimated from the measured chemical level of
uranium using the specific activity of uranium-238 of 1.23x104 Bq per g of natural uranium and
the other radionuclides were assumed to be in equilibrium with uranium-238.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-9
Exploration Project
The predicted incremental soil concentration of all metals was very low and significantly less
than 1% of the baseline concentration and it can therefore be concluded that the Project would
have no impact on the soil at Matoush.
Table 4.2-2
Predicted Incremental, Baseline and Total Soil Concentration at Matoush
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides (2)
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (3)
Notes:
1
2
Units (1)
Project
Predicted
Estimated
Incremental
Incremental
Air
Soil
Concentration
Concentration
3
(μg/m )
Baseline
Total
Maximum
Incremental
Soil +
Maximum
Baseline
mg/kg dw
mg/kg dw
mg/kg dw
mg/kg dw
mg/kg dw
5.2x10-4
7.9x10-9
8.0x10-7
7.9x10-9
5.8x10-7
1.0x10-1
4.7x10-10
7.1x10-7
1.9x10-7
1.2x10-4
150
1.9
69
0.18
0.40
150.1
1.9
69
0.18
0.40
Bq/kg dw
Bq/kg dw
Bq/kg dw
Bq/kg dw
Bq/kg dw
-
1.47x10-3
1.47x10-3
1.47x10-3
1.47x10-3
1.47x10-3
840 (4)
740 (4)
40 (4)
20 (4)
4.9
840
740
40
20
4.9
-
-
-
3
4
Assume air release over a two year period; baseline concentrations were provided in Table 2.2-2
Unless otherwise noted
Predicted radionuclide levels are based on incremental uranium as no air to soil deposition modelling was carried out for the
radionuclides.
4.2.4
Sediment
Project concentrations in sediment were estimated from baseline sediment concentrations using a
water-to-sediment transfer factor (Kd) applied to the increment. For example, if the total water
concentration was 10% above baseline, then the Kd was applied to the 10% increase which was
added back to the maximum measured sediment concentration. Table 4.2-3 summarizes the
maximum baseline concentrations of COPC for the sediments at Matoush and the incremental
total (baseline + project) concentrations. The Kd values are provided in Appendix A.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-10
Exploration Project
Table 4.2-3
Baseline and Estimated Total Sediment Concentrations at Matoush
Baseline (1)
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (3)
Notes:
1
2
Units
Maximum
Total
Maximum
Baseline +
Project (2)
mg/kg dw
mg/kg dw
mg/kg dw
mg/kg dw
mg/kg dw
45
1.3
33
0.2
5
51
1.5
33
0.2
5.4
Bq/kg dw
Bq/kg dw
Bq/kg dw
Bq/kg dw
Bq/kg dw
660 (4)
650 (4)
360 (4)
130 (4)
61.7
676
676
508
490
62
3
4
From Golder 2009; maximum from samples collected from Lake 1, Lake 3, Lake 4, Lake 5, Lake 6, Lake 7
Estimated using the Kd (Appendix A) applied to the incremental increase in the water concentration due to the project, which is then
added to the baseline sediment
4.2.5
Aquatic Biota
Project concentrations in fish and aquatic plants were estimated from baseline concentrations in
the same manner as sediment (i.e., transfer factor applied to the increment and added back to the
baseline concentration). The maximum baseline and total (baseline + project) concentrations of
COPC for fish flesh and whole flesh at Matoush are summarized in Table 4.2-4, while the values
for aquatic vegetation are summarized in Table 4.2-5. Total concentrations were not estimated
for fish flesh. Measured data were not available for benthic invertebrates. Therefore, the
concentrations in this biota were estimated from the water concentration using a transfer factor.
These transfer factors are provided in Appendix A. The implication of the potential increases in
concentrations in fish and aquatic vegetation is evaluated in Section 6.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-11
Exploration Project
Table 4.2-4
Baseline and Estimated Total Concentrations in Fish at Matoush
COPC
Units
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (3)
Notes:
1
2
3
4
Fish Flesh
Maximum
Maximum
Baseline +
(1)
Baseline
Project (2)
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
0.9
0.019
0.022
1.4
0.014
1.0
0.027
0.042
1.5
0.021
80
0.067
0.77
0.31
0.012
80.1
0.075
0.79
0.43
0.02
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
4(4)
12(4)
3(4)
2(4)
0.17
4.2
12.1
3.1
2.2
0.26
40
63
9.9
2
0.15
40
63.07
9.98
2.20
0.25
From Golder 2009; maximum of whole body analysis of Lake Chub collected from Lake 1, Lake 3, Lake 4, Lake 6 and Lake 7.
Maximum of flesh analyses of Northern Pike and Brook Trout collected from Lake 1, Lake 3, Lake 4, Lake 6 and Lake 7.
Estimated using the transfer factor (Appendix A) applied to the incremental increase in the water concentration due to the project,
which is then added to the baseline fish
Table 4.2-5
Baseline and Estimated Total Concentrations in Aquatic Vegetation at
Matoush
Baseline (1)
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (3)
Notes:
1
2
3
4
Whole Fish
Maximum
Maximum
Baseline +
(1)
Baseline
Project (2)
Units
Maximum
Total
Maximum
Baseline +
Project (2)
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
73.5
0.11
1.23
0.0017
0.003
122
0.14
1.35
0.012
1.85
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
75 (4)
18 (4)
84 (4)
1.2 (4)
0.037
89
22
124
7.2
23
From Golder 2009; maximum of samples collected at V1, V2, V3. Converted from a dry weight concentration using an assumed 85%
moisture content.
which is then added to the baseline aquatic vegetation
Calculated using the specific activity of uranium-238 of 1.23x104 Bq per g of natural uranium.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-12
Exploration Project
Table 4.2-6
Estimated Baseline and Total Concentrations in Benthic Invertebrates at
Matoush
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (3)
Notes:
1
2
Units
Baseline (1)
Total (Baseline
+ Project) (2)
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
1.07
1.97x10-3
8.82x10-3
2.46x10-3
4.01x10-3
20.3
5.97x10-3
2.64x10-2
1.75x10-2
1.36
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
2.93x10-1
3.67x102
3.17x10-1
1.45x101
4.95x10-5
0.47
407
2.32
20.3
1.68x10-2
3
Estimated using the transfer factor (Appendix A) applied to the baseline water concentration
which is then added to the baseline benthic invertebrate concentration
4.2.6
Terrestrial Biota
Project concentrations in terrestrial plant were estimated from baseline vegetation concentrations
in a similar manner as done for the aquatic biota, using the ratio of the total to baseline
concentrations for soil. For example if baseline + project increment soil was 2% above baseline
then the vegetation concentration was increased to 2% above the baseline concentration. This
approach is appropriate for small changes in concentrations. Different types of terrestrial
vegetation were included in the assessment: berries, lichen, browse and forage. Table 4.2-7
through to Table 4.2-10 show the maximum baseline and total (baseline plus incremental)
concentrations of COPC for the terrestrial vegetation at Matoush. It is acknowledged that lichen
does not have a significant root structure and the potential for an increase in concentration is
from air; however, as soil concentration is related to air concentration the same approach was
adopted for all terrestrial vegetation.
From the information provided in the following tables it can be concluded that the estimated
project concentrations of COPC on the whole will not be significantly greater than the current
baseline levels, i.e. the underground exploration ramp will not significantly impact the terrestrial
vegetation at the Matoush site.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-13
Exploration Project
Table 4.2-7
Concentrations in Berries at Matoush
Baseline (1)
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (3)
Notes:
1
2
3
4
Units
Maximum
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
1.24
0.01
0.014
0.34
0.002
1.24
0.01
0.014
0.34
0.002
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
5.2 (4)
3 (4)
0.8 (4)
0.4 (4)
0.025
5.20
3.00
0.80
0.40
0.025
From Golder 2009; maximum of crowberries collected at V1, V2, V3, VR1, VR2, VR3. Converted from a dry weight concentration
using an assumed 80% moisture content.
Estimated from the ratio between baseline soil and baseline + project increment soil. For example if baseline + project increment soil
was 10% above baseline then the terrestrial vegetation concentration was increased to 10% above baseline.
Table 4.2-8
Concentrations in Lichen at Matoush
Baseline (1)
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (3)
Notes:
1
2
3
4
Total
Maximum
Baseline +
Project (2)
Units
Maximum
Total
Maximum
Baseline +
Project (2)
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
3.00
0.03
0.53
0.43
0.006
3.00
0.03
0.53
0.43
0.006
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
264 (4)
210 (4)
2.4 (4)
1.8 (4)
0.07
264
210
2.40
1.80
0.07
From Golder 2009; maximum from samples collected at V1, V2, V3, VR1, VR2, VR3. Converted from a dry weight concentration
using an assumed 40% moisture content.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-14
Exploration Project
Table 4.2-9
Concentrations in Browse at Matoush
Baseline (1)
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (3)
Notes:
1
2
3
4
Units
Maximum
Total
Maximum
Baseline +
Project (2)
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
17.7
0.39
0.27
0.17
0.003
17.7
0.39
0.27
0.17
0.003
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
60 (4)
204( 4)
4.5 (4)
0.9 (4)
0.037
60
204
4.50
0.90
0.037
From Golder 2009; maximum of samples collected from V1, V2, V3, VR1, VR2, VR3. Browse represented by black spruce foliage,
birch foliage and blueberry foliage. Converted from a dry weight concentration using an assumed 70% moisture content.
Table 4.2-10 Concentrations in Forage at Matoush
Baseline (1)
COPC
Metals
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Radionuclides
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238 (3)
Notes:
1
2
3
4
Units
Maximum
Total
Maximum
Baseline +
Project (2)
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
mg/kg ww
16.80
0.002
0.01
0.07
0.002
16.81
0.002
0.01
0.07
0.0020
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
Bq/kg ww
4.0 (4)
3.4 (4)
9.8 (4)
0.6 (4)
0.025
4.0
3.4
9.80
0.6
0.025
From Golder 2009; maximum of samples collected from V1, V2, V3, VR1, VR2, VR3. Forage represented by Labrador Tea.
Converted from a dry weight concentration using an assumed 80% moisture content.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-15
Exploration Project
4.3
4.3.1
TOTAL PREDICTED DOSES
Total Predicted Dose for Radionuclides
The assessment of effects from exposure to radioactive constituents involves estimation of the
combined (total) dose which a receptor may receive from radionuclides taken into the body as
well as from exposure to radiation fields in the external environment. In addition, it is standard
practice to take into account differences in the effects of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. The
different RBEs are discussed in Section 5.1.1. A sample calculation of the dose estimate is
provided in Appendix C. The detailed results are summarized in Appendix D.
4.3.2
Total Intake to Wildlife from Non-Radiological COPC
A pathways model was used to estimate the intake of a non-radiological COPC by wildlife
receptors. The intake depends on the amount consumed of the environmental compartments (e.g.
water, fish, and terrestrial vegetation). The general characteristics of the selected receptors were
discussed previously. Appendix A provides a more detailed discussion of the characteristics.
Appendix D provides the results of the assessment in terms of estimated intake values.
390122-300 – April 2011
4-16
Exploration Project
5.0
HAZARD ASSESSMENT
The hazard assessment involves the selection of toxicity reference values (TRVs) for all COPC
for the aquatic, terrestrial and human receptors that will be evaluated in the assessment.
Radiological and non-radiological toxicity will be considered. It is to be noted that SENES has a
great deal of this information in house and is constantly reviewing and updating such
information.
5.1
ECOLOGICAL TOXICITY EVALUATION
The objective of an ecological risk assessment is to evaluate the potential for adverse effects on a
population basis. Due to the difficulty in measuring direct effects on assessment endpoints,
“measurement endpoints” are adopted to provide a framework for the evaluation of predicted
effects. A measurement endpoint is defined as “…a quantitative summary of the results of a
toxicity test, a biological study, or other activity intended to reveal the effects of a substance”
(Suter, 1993). In lieu of direct assessment endpoint effects measures, the adoption of
measurement endpoints provides a consistent basis for the evaluation of potential effects due to
exposure of assessment endpoints.
Measurement endpoints are commonly selected at the individual level of biological organization,
and are typically based on exposure responses that are meant to act as a proxy for key population
and community characteristics such as reproduction and abundance (Environment Canada,
1997). Such measurement endpoints are commonly based on literature-derived toxicity doseresponse relationships, examined through laboratory experimentation (i.e., the response of a
particular organism to a certain level of exposure). When derived from toxicity studies which
was the case in this study, such measurement endpoints are often referred to as toxicity
benchmarks or toxicity reference values (TRVs).
These TRVs are used in risk assessments to judge whether the predicted (estimated) exposures
(or doses or intakes) may potentially have an adverse effect on ecological species. Site-specific
information was incorporated into the selection process for TRVs where available. A discussion
of selected literature and the associated TRVs consulted in this assessment is provided in the
following sections.
5.1.1
Radionuclides
5.1.1.1 Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) Factors
Radiation effects on biota depend not only on the absorbed dose but also on the relative
biological effectiveness (RBE) of the particular radiation. For example, internally deposited
alpha particles can produce observable damage at lower absorbed doses than gamma radiation.
390122-300 – April 2011
5-1
Exploration Project
Thus, in order to estimate the potential harm to non-human biota from a given absorbed dose, the
absorbed dose is multiplied by an appropriate radiation weighting factor, which is derived from
experimentally determined RBE.
A wide range of RBE values for internally deposited alpha particles has been published. The
Priority Substances List assessment (Environment Canada/Health Canada [EC/HC], 2003)
suggests an RBE of 40. An RBE of 40 is also recommended by the CNSC. A report of the
(former) Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection (ACRP, 2002) suggested a nominal
RBE value of 10 with a range of about 5 to 20 for non-human biota. A report from the European
Community (FASSET, 2003) suggests using an RBE of 10 to illustrate the effect of alpha RBE
on non-human biota. For the purposes of this particular assessment, and to take into account the
uncertainty associated with the choice of RBE it was decided to use RBE values of 10 and 40 to
illustrate the effects of this uncertainty.
5.1.1.2 Aquatic Radiation Benchmarks
For radioactivity, a dose rate of 10 mGy/d is suggested as the reference dose level below which
population effects to aquatic biota would not be expected (IAEA, 1992). This value is also
suggested by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
(UNSCEAR, 1996). It is acknowledged that there is ongoing debate on the appropriate dose rate
limit.
The CNSC recommends that a dose limit value of 0.6 mGy/d be used for fish, a value of
3 mGy/d be used for aquatic plants (algae and macrophytes) and a value of 6 mGy/d be applied
for benthic invertebrates (Bird et al,. 2002; EC/HC 2003). A value of 0.6 mGy/d was found to be
in the range where both effects and no effects were observed. The aquatic plant benchmark was
based on information related to terrestrial plants (conifers), which are considered to be sensitive
to the effects of radiation. Reproductive effects in polychaete worms were used to derive the
dose limit for benthic invertebrates.
In light of the CNSC recommendations, it is proposed that the following reference dose rate
levels be used in this risk assessment:
•
fish – 0.6 mGy/d and 10 mGy/d;
•
aquatic plants (algae and macrophytes) – 3 mGy/d and 10 mGy/d;
•
benthic invertebrates – 6 mGy/d and 10 mGy/d.
390122-300 – April 2011
5-2
Exploration Project
5.1.1.3 Terrestrial Radiation Benchmarks
A level of 1 mGy/d is generally used as an acceptable level for terrestrial biota as per the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 1992). Recently the CNSC has provided a dose rate
guideline of 3 mGy/d as an appropriate limit for small mammals and terrestrial plants (Bird et
al., 2002; EC/HC, 2003). This limit is based on reproductive endpoints for small mammals. In
the absence of data for avian species, the CNSC suggest that the dose limit for small mammals
should also apply. It is recognized that the selection of reference dose levels is a topic of ongoing
debate; therefore, dose limits of 1 mGy/d and 3 mGy/d were selected for the assessment of
impacts on terrestrial biota.
5.1.2
Non-Radionuclides
5.1.2.1 Aquatic Toxicity Reference Values
In this assessment, EC20 or EC25 (effects concentration) values which have the potential to affect
20% or 25% of the population were used to determine whether COPC are likely to cause adverse
effects in aquatic receptors in the evaluated water. Where possible, EC data were collected over
lethal concentration (LC; i.e., mortality) data, and values were converted to EC20 or EC25 values.
Different models exist for translating chemical exposure (or dose) to toxic responses. For EC50
toxicity values, in the absence of detailed dose-response functions, a linear approximation is
commonly applied assuming zero effect at zero exposure. This linearization is conservative since
the predicted effect will be greater than that observed using the commonly encountered
sigmoidal dose-response function for low dose exposures. For acute toxicity values (LC50 values
derived from 96-hour tests), a factor of 10 was applied in the derivation of appropriate TRVs for
this assessment (EC/HC, 2003). For LC50 data derived from chronic tests, a factor of 4 was
applied to determine the TRV. This is an empirical factor based on the results of other toxicity
tests.
It was not the intent of this assessment to extensively search the primary literature to obtain
TRVs; rather, this assessment relied on TRVs that have been collated and peer reviewed by
various agencies for use in risk assessments. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) database
(Suter and Tsao, 1996) on aquatic TRVs was the primary source of toxicity information. This
database contains TRVs for the protection of aquatic life from chemicals in water. EC20 values
provided in this database were selected as appropriate TRVs. The advantage to using these TRVs
is that they were developed for use in risk assessments and have been peer reviewed. This
database provides documentation on the sources and derivations of the values and discusses the
relative conservatisms in the TRVs.
If data were not available from the U.S. DOE database then the U.S. EPA Ecotoxicology
(ECOTOX) database was consulted for infilling purposes. The data summarized in this database
390122-300 – April 2011
5-3
Exploration Project
are from a variety of sources, including peer reviewed literature. Toxicity information provided
in the CCME Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life was also
used in the development of TRVs for this assessment.
When more than 20 acceptable records for a biotic group were available, the 5th percentile value
of the adjusted chronic EC20 values was selected as the TRV. When fewer than 20 records were
available, then the minimum of the acceptable adjusted chronic EC20 values was selected.
Decision rules for the selection of test species were developed around the available data. For
aquatic plants, the lowest of the toxicity values for Lemna sp. or Myriophyllum sp. test species
was chosen. These two species are considered to be the most sensitive aquatic plant species for
which toxicity data are available. For benthic invertebrates, the lowest available toxicity values
for any invertebrate test species were used. For the fish species, data were chosen for the species
based on feeding habits (i.e., predatory or forage). The lowest toxicity value of these species was
chosen to represent the respective predatory or forage fish.
Table 5.1-1 summarizes the aquatic TRVs for COPC used in this ERA. In general, data from
laboratory tests were used for the derivation of the aquatic TRVs. The table details the COPC
and the aquatic receptor group and species used to develop the TRV.
390122-300 – April 2011
5-4
Table 5.1-1
Aquatic Receptor
Test Species
LC/EC50
TRV
Aquatic Plants
Lemna minor
26
10
Phytoplankton
Scenedesmus
quadricauda
-
34
Benthic Invertebrates
Hyalella azteca
1
0.25
Zooplankton
Daphnia magna
8.9
3.56
Predator Fish
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
42.7
10.675
Forage Fish
Gambusia affinis
37.75
37.75
Test Species
LC/EC50
TRV
Aquatic Plants
Myriophyllum
7.4
3.0
Phytoplankton
Scenedesmus
0.008
0.003
Chironomus sp.
1.2
0.12
Zooplankton
Daphnia sp.
--
7.5x10-4
Predator Fish
Rainbow Trout
--
0.002
Fathead Minnow
0.09
0.009
Aquatic Receptor
Forage Fish
390122-300 – April 2011
Aquatic Toxicity Reference Values
Barium (mg/L)
Reference
Comments
From
U.S.
EPA
ECOTOX;
4-d EC50 (growth) ; derived an EC20
Wang (1986)
by linear extrapolation
Bringmann and Kuhn
Suspected EC20 value
(1959)
Derived TRV using a factor of 4 based on empirical relationship
Borgmann et al. (2005)
between chronic LC50 and an EC20
Biesinger and
Lowest value of 4 samples
Christensen (1972)
Derived TRV using a factor of 4 based on empirical relationship
Birge et al. (1980)
between chronic LC50 and an EC20
Wallen et al. (1957)
Suspected EC20 value
Cadmium (mg/L)
Reference
Comments
from U.S. EPA ECOTOX; EC50 (population) 32-d; used an
Stanley (1974)
EC20 from linear extrapolation
from U.S. EPA ECOTOX; EC50 (population) 12-d; used an
Fargasova (1994)
from U.S. EPA ECOTOX; LC50 (mortality) 96-hr; derived
Rehwoldt et al. (1973)
TRV using a factor of 10 based on an empirical relationship
between an acute LC50 and EC20
from Suter and Tsao (1996); lowest chronic test EC20 – lifeElnabarawy et al. (1986)
cycle tests
from Suter and Tsao (1996); lowest chronic test EC20 – early
Carlson et al. (1982)
life stage tests
from IPCS (1992); 96-hr LC50; derived TRV using a factor of
10 based on an empirical relationship between an acute LC50
Hall et al. (1986)
and EC20
5-5
Table 5.1-1
Aquatic Receptor
Aquatic Toxicity Reference Values (Cont’d)
Lead (mg/L)
Reference
Comments
From U.S. EPA ECOTOX; EC50 (population) 32-d; used an
Stanley (1974)
From Suter and Tsao (1996); EC20 (growth inhibition)
U.S. EPA (1985)
from U.S. EPA ECOTOX; LC50 (mortality) 96-hr; derived
Mackie (1989)
between an acute LC50 and EC20
From Suter and Tsao (1996); lowest chronic test EC20 – lifeChapman et al. (1980)
cycle tests
From Suter and Tsao (1996); lowest chronic test EC20 – early
Sauter et al. (1976)
life stage tests
From U.S. EPA ECOTOX; lowest value of fathead minnow,
snakehead catfish and goldfish LC50 (mortality) 7-d; derived
Birge et al. (1979)
between a chronic LC50 and an EC20.
Test Species
LC/EC50
TRV
Aquatic Plants
Myriophyllum sp.
363
182
Phytoplankton
Chlorella sp.
--
0.63
Hyallela azteca
0.018
0.002
Zooplankton
Daphnia sp.
--
0.02
Predator Fish
Rainbow Trout
--
0.028
Forage Fish
Goldfish
1.66
0.415
LC/EC50
TRV
Reference
U.S. EPA (1985)
From Suter and Tsao (1996); lowest chronic test EC20; used as TRV.
No data available.
No data available.
From Suter and Tsao (1996); lowest chronic test EC20; used as TRV.
No data available.
From Suter and Tsao (1996); lowest chronic test EC20, early life
stage test; used as TRV.
Aquatic Receptor
Mercury - Inorganic (mg/L)
Test Species
--
0.005
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Microcystis
aeruginosa
--Daphnia sp.
--
-----
--0.00087
--
--Biesinger et al. (1982)
--
Forage Fish
Fathead Minnow
--
0.00087
Call et al. (1983)
Aquatic Plants
390122-300 – April 2011
5-6
Comments
Table 5.1-1
Aquatic Toxicity Reference Values (Cont’d)
Uranium (mg/L)
Aquatic Receptor
Test Species
LC/EC50
TRV
7.4
3.7
Aquatic Plants
Lemna minor
Phytoplankton
Multiple Species
--
0.011
Hyallela azteca.
8.2
0.82
Zooplankton
Multiple Species
--
0.011
Predator Fish
Rainbow Trout
6.2
0.62
Forage Fish
Fathead Minnow
1.6
0.16
390122-300 – April 2011
Reference
Vizon SciTec
(2004)
Comments
7-day IC50 based on growth inhibition (low hardness and alkalinity); derived
an EC25 by linear extrapolation.
Geometric mean of ENEVs for three species including Chlorella for hardness
Franklin et al.
of < 100 mg/L. Conservative compared to data on Selenastrum capricornutum
(2000); EC/HC
from Vizon SciTec (2004) - 72-h IC50 of 0.16 mg/L based on growth
(2003)
inhibition (low hardness and alkalinity).
Liber and White- LC50 96-hr; derived TRV by dividing by a factor of 10. Data on Hyalella
Sobey (2000)
azteca (Vizon SciTec 2004) had high uncertainty and therefore, was not used.
Geometric mean of ENEVs for Ceriodaphnia, Daphnia and Chlorella for
Franklin et al.
hardness of < 100 mg/L. Comparable to data on Ceriodaphnia dubia (Vizon
(2000); EC/HC
SciTec 2004) - 24-96 hr IC50 of 0.046 mg/L based on reproduction (low
(2003)
hardness and alkalinity).
96-hr LC50 (morbidity); derived TRV by dividing by a factor of 10.
Comparable to data on rainbow trout (Vizon SciTec 2004) Davies (1980)
96-hr LC50 of 4.2 mg/L based on mortality of fry (low hardness and
alkalinity).
96-hr LC50 for fathead minnow; derived TRV by dividing by a factor of 10.
Tarzwell and
Comparable to data on fathead minnow (Vizon SciTec 2004) - 7-d IC50 of
Henderson (1960)
>1.3 mg/L based on larval growth (low hardness and alkalinity).
5-7
Exploration Project
5.1.2.2 Sediment Toxicity Benchmarks
The possible ecological effects of COPC in sediment at the Matoush Underground Exploration
Ramp were addressed in part through the examination of potential effects on benthic
invertebrates. Further ecological effects of sediment concentrations are addressed by calculating
screening indices using sediment quality guidelines.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 2008) guidelines provides what
are designated as Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQGs) and Probable Effect Levels
(PELs). In narrative description, an ISQG corresponds to threshold level effects below which
adverse biological effects are not expected. A PEL defines the level above which adverse effects
are expected to occur frequently (i.e., more than 50% of adverse effects occur above the PEL, or
above which adverse effects are usually or always observed). The CCME are developed with the
intention of being conservative (CCME, 2008). The CCME acknowledges the associative basis
of the guidelines and maintains that the use of ISQGs in exclusion of other information (such as
background concentrations of naturally occurring substances and biological tests) can lead to
erroneous conclusions.
Thompson et al. (2005) developed sediment toxicity benchmarks specific to uranium-bearing
regions of Canada (e.g., northern Saskatchewan and northern Ontario) and these are considered
CNSC working reference values. Thompson et al. (2005) used the Screening Level
Concentration (SLC) approach to derive Lowest Effect Level (LEL) and Severe Effect Level
(SEL) concentrations for nine metals and metalloids (arsenic, chromium, copper, lead,
molybdenum, nickel, selenium, uranium and vanadium) which are naturally occurring substances
often released to the aquatic environment during the mining and milling of uranium ore. The data
were collected in uranium ore-bearing regions of northern Saskatchewan and Ontario where most
Canadian decommissioned or operating uranium mines and mills are located. Two statistical
methods were used by Thompson et al. (2005) to define the percentiles corresponding to LELs
and SELs. A “weighted method” produced somewhat higher values than a “closest observation
method”. When the predictive ability of the sediment quality guidelines was assessed, all of the
LELs derived using the weighted method, with the exception of the chromium LEL, were found
to be highly reliable (>85% accuracy) in predicting sites unimpacted by uranium mining/milling.
Caution is to be employed when using the SEL values as they may not be a reliable predictor of
potential effects.
Given that each methodology discussed has limitations, it is felt that the use of the various
sediment toxicity benchmarks in this assessment provides a broader range of values. Table 5.1-2
outlines the selected sediment toxicity benchmarks from the literature. As seen in the table,
where several toxicity benchmarks exist for a particular metal, there is a range of data for
390122-300 – April 2011
5-8
Exploration Project
possible effects. It should be noted that values for radionuclides are also presented in this table.
No sediment toxicity benchmarks exist for thorium-230.
Table 5.1-2
Sediment Toxicity Benchmarks used in the Ecological Risk Assessment –
Radiological and Non-Radiological
COPC
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
CCME, 2008
(µg/kg)
ISQG
PEL
600
3500
35 000
91 300
170
486
-
Thompson et al., 2005
(µg/kg)
LEL
SEL
104.4
5874.1
0.9
20.8
0.8
12.1
0.6
14.4
-
Interim sediment quality guideline
Probable effect level
Lowest effect level
Severe effect level
5.1.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Toxicity Reference Values
To determine possible effects on terrestrial ecological receptors, Lowest Observable Adverse
Effect Level (LOAEL) and No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) values are used as
the TRVs. NOAELs are generally used for screening level type assessments whereas LOAELs
are used to determine potential effects on ecological species since more specific assumptions
have been made to obtain a more realistic estimate of COPC exposure (Sample et al., 1996).
Databases of information are available that contain TRVs for specific receptors. In general, these
focus on agricultural animals and common laboratory species, but may encompass a range of
species including some wildlife. For this assessment, a report produced by Sample et al. (1996)
from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was used as the primary data source. Sample
et al. (1996) examined data from different studies and selected an appropriate toxicity value
based on studies in which reproductive and developmental endpoints were considered (endpoints
that may be directly related to potential population-level effects), multiple exposure levels were
investigated, and the reported results were evaluated statistically to identify any significant
differences from control values. In the absence of toxicity data for most of the terrestrial animal
receptors, data for laboratory animals (usually mice and rats) are used. For avian receptors, the
test species are generally ducks or chicks. When values were not available from Sample et al.
390122-300 – April 2011
5-9
Exploration Project
(1996), geometric mean NOAELs and/or LOAELs reported in the U.S. EPA’s Ecological Soil
Screening Level (Eco-SSL) documents (various years) were used.
The background information for the toxicity reference values developed for the test species are
provided in Table 5.1-3 for mammals and Table 5.1-4 for birds. These tables include test species,
study duration and toxicological endpoint for those COPC for which toxicity data are available.
390122-300 – April 2011
5-10
Table 5.1-3
COPC
Notes:
*
Mammal Toxicity Benchmarks Used in the Ecological Risk Assessment – Non-Radiological COPC
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Mercury *
Uranium
Source of TRV
Barium
Eco-SSL
(U.S. EPA (
2005b))
Eco-SSL
(U.S. EPA (2005c))
Sample et al.
(1996)
Sample et al. (1996)
CCME Tissue
Residue Guidelines
Original Reference
Various
U.S. EPA2005c
Azar et al. (1973)
Chamberland et al.
(1996)
Paternain et al.
(1989)
Chemical Species
Various
Various
Lead Acetate
Methyl Mercury
Uranyl Acetate
Test Species
Body Wt. (g)
Rat, mouse
Various
Vole, shrew, weasel
Various
Rat
350
Aulerich et al.
(1974)
Mercuric Chloride
(HgCl2: 73.9% Hg)
Mink
1000
Mink
1000
Study Duration
Various (10 days to
520 days)
-
3 generations (>1
yr)
6 months
12 weeks
Mouse
28
60 d prior to
gestation, gestation,
delivery and
lactation
Endpoint
Reproduction and
growth
Reproduction, growth &
survival
Reproduction
Reproduction
Neurotoxicity,
reproduction and
death
Reproduction
Comments
The studies were
carried out over
various life stages
and were
considered to be
chronic exposure.
The database as a whole
was evaluated and is
treated as such.
This study was
carried out during
critical life stage –
taken as chronic
exposure.
This study was
carried out during
taken as chronic
exposure.
Female mink were
fed a natural fish
diet from James Bay
reservoirs.
This study was
carried out during
taken as chronic
exposure.
None of the lead
exposure levels
affected the
pregnancy rate,
live birth rate or
other reproductive
indices. But, 1000
ppm exposure
gave reduced
offspring wt. and
produced kidney
damage in young
8
80
While kit weight was
somewhat reduced
(9% relative to
controls), fertility,
and kit survival were
not reduced. Because
the study considered
exposure through
reproduction, the
7.39 ppm Hg dose
was considered to be
a chronic NOAEL.
1.0
-
The CCME derived
a TDI considering
both the NOAEL
and LOAEL
(LOAEL –
NOAEL)0.5/UF. The
LOAEL was based
on mortality
therefore an
uncertainty factor
(UF) of 5 was
applied.
0.022
-
Logic
51.8 mg/kg/d is the
geometric mean of
the available
NOAELs for
growth and
reproduction
0.77 mg/kg/d is the
highest bounded NOAEL
lower than the lowest
bounded LOAEL for
reproduction, growth and
survival
NOAEL (mg/kg/d)
LOAEL (mg/kg/d)
51.8
-
0.77
-
No adverse effects
observed at 3.1 mg
U/kg-d, therefore
considered a
NOAEL. At 6.1 mg
U/kg-d significant
differences in
mortality, size and
weight of offspring,
etc., were observed.
3.07
6.13
TRV for receptors consuming fish
390122-300 – April 2011
5-11
Table 5.1-4
COPC
Avian Toxicity Benchmarks Used in the Ecological Risk Assessment – Non-Radiological COPC
Barium
Cadmium
Source of TRV
Eco-SSL
(U.S. EPA (2005c))
Original Reference
Johnson et al. 1960
Various
Edens et al. (1976)
Chemical Species
Barium hydroxide
Test Species
1-day old chicks
Body Wt. (g)
121
Study Duration
4 weeks
Endpoint
mortality
Various
Chicken, mallard,
Japanese quail, wood
duck
Various
Various (7 days to 12
months)
Growth and
reproduction
Comments
The study was carried
out over a period of
less than 10 weeks
and is considered to
be subchronic
Logic
NOAEL (mg/kg/d)
LOAEL (mg/kg/d)
Notes: *
At a dose of 2000
ppm mortality was not
observed. Doses in the
range of 4000 – 32000
ppm resulted in 5100% mortality,
therefore 2000 ppm
and 4000 ppm are
considered to be the
subchronic NOAEL
and subchronic
LOAELs respectively.
Chronic NOAELS and
LOAELs were
estimated by
multiplying the
subchronic value by a
factor or 0.1.
20.8
41.7
The studies were
carried out over various
life stages and were
considered to be
chronic exposure.
Lead
Mercury
Mercury *
CCME Tissue Residue
Guidelines
Lead acetate
Hill and Schaffner
(1976)
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Japanese quail
Japanese quail
Mallard
150
150
12 weeks
1 year
Reproduction
Reproduction
out over 10 weeks and
is considered to be
chronic exposure.
out through the
reproductive cycle and
is considered to be
chronic exposure.
1.47 mg/kg bw/d is the
geometric mean of the
NOAELs available for
growth and
reproduction.
Reproduction not
impaired by the 10 ppm
dose, but egg hatching
success reduced at the
100 ppm dose.
Therefore 10 and 100
ppm are considered the
NOAEL and LOAEL,
respectively.
1.47
-
1.13
11.3
While egg production
increased with
increasing Hg dose,
fertility and
hatchability
decreased. Adverse
effects of Hg were
evident at the 8 mg
Hg/kg dose. Because
the study considered
exposure during
reproduction, the 4
and 8 mg Hg/kg dose
levels were considered
to be chronic
NOAELs and
LOAELs,
respectively.
0.45
0.9
Uranium
Heinz 1976a,b
3 generations
Behaviour, growth, survival
and reproduction
Adults in the second
generation displayed
aberrant nesting behaviour
and their offspring had
reduced growth and
survival rates.
No Applicable Data
Available
The CCME derived a TDI
by calculating the
geometric mean of the
LOAEl and NOAL. The
study was conducted on
Canadian wildlife species
that were fed MeHg over
three generations and a
relevant dosage.
0.031
TRV for receptors consuming fish
390122-300 – April 2011
5-12
Exploration Project
5.2
HUMAN TOXICITY EVALUATION
The human health assessment identifies what potential adverse effects are associated with the
identified COPC, and what is the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and the
probability of occurrence of adverse effects. In general, the hazard assessment uses results from
animal (and when available human) studies to determine the likelihood of an adverse health
effect occurring as a result of a given exposure. However, it should be noted that exposure above
a TRV does not necessarily mean that an effect will occur, but instead indicates that there is an
increased risk of an adverse effect occurring.
5.2.1
Radiological Benchmarks
Assessment of radiation exposures to human receptors is commonly based on estimations of the
incremental effects of the project or site. Such assessments consider the radiation dose received
from direct exposure to gamma radiation as well as the dose received from ingestion of
radionuclides. The human receptor model converts radionuclide intake by the human receptors
from the various pathways into a dose. Theoretical effects from radiation were compared to an
incremental dose limit of 1,000 µSv/y (1 mSv/y) recommended estimated radiation dose to
people by the CNSC for the protection of members of the public.
The dose coefficients (DCs) used in the assessment to relate the exposure to a dose are those
recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Ingestion
DCs depend on the chemical form of the radionuclide and the consequent gut-to-blood transfer
factor (f1). Table 5.2-1 reflects the ICRP Publication 72 (1996) recommended f1 values and DCs
for members of the public.
The ICRP inhalation dose conversion factors are shown on Table 5.2-2. Inhalation DCs depend
on the chemical form of the radionuclide and the consequent rate of clearance from the lungs to
body fluids - slow (S), moderate (M) or fast (F). The ICRP recommends type M for most
unspecified conditions with the exception of Th-230 for which type S is recommended. To be
conservative, the generally larger DCs (i.e. less soluble S type DCs) were used for all
radionuclides in this assessment. Because of this conservative assumption, the small contribution
(Lowe, 1997) of the U-235 series radionuclides may be ignored.
Potential doses to the camp worker and Cree are compared to an annual incremental dose limit of
1 mSv/y (1000 Sv/y).
390122-300 – April 2011
5-13
Exploration Project
Table 5.2-1
ICRP Ingestion Dose Coefficients for Members of the Public
Radionuclide
Uranium-238
Uranium-234
Uranium-natc
Thorium-230
Radium-226
Lead-210
Polonium-210
f1
0.02
0.02
-5.0 x 10-4
0.2
0.2
0.5
ICRP 72 (1996)
Adulta
DC (Sv/Bq)
4.5 x 10-8
4.9 x 10-8
4.7 x 10-8
2.1 x 10-7
2.8 x 10-7
6.9 x 10-7
1.2 x 10-6
Childb
DC (Sv/Bq)
8.0 x 10-8
8.8 x 10-8
8.4 x 10-8
3.1 x 10-7
6.2 x 10-7
2.2 x 10-6
4.4 x 10-6
Notes:
a
Values shown are ICRP Publication 72 (1996) default values recommended for adult members of the public.
b
Values shown are ICRP Publication 72 (1996) default values recommended for a 5-year old child.
c
U-nat calculated value assumes equal activities of U-238 and U-234, and that the small (<5%) activity
contribution from U-235 can be ignored.
Table 5.2-2
ICRP Inhalation Dose Coefficients for Members of the Public
ICRP 72 (1996)
Radionuclide
Uranium-238
Uranium-234
Uranium-natd
Thorium-230
Radium-226
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Notes:
a
b
c
d
5.2.2
Typea
Adultb
Childc
DC (Sv/Bq)
DC (Sv/Bq)
-6
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
8.0 x 10
9.4 x 10-6
8.7 x 10-6
1.4 x 10-5
9.5 x 10-6
5.6 x 10-6
4.3 x 10-6
1.6 x 10-5
1.9 x 10-5
1.8 x 10-5
2.4 x 10-5
1.9 x 10-5
1.1 x 10-5
8.6 x 10-6
Type S - slow rate at which radionuclides are cleared from the lungs.
DCs for adults and 1 µm AMAD (activity median aerodynamic diameter) particles are from ICRP
Publication 72 (1996).
DCs shown are for a 5-year old child from ICRP Publication 72 (1996).
U-nat calculated value assumes equal activities of U-238 and U-234, and that the small (<5%) activity
contribution from U-235 can be ignored.
Non-Radiological Benchmarks
Exposure to non-radionuclides is conventionally assessed against human TRVs. Toxicity is the
potential of a chemical to cause some type of damage, either permanent or temporary, to the
structure or functioning of any part of the body. The toxicity depends on the amount of the
chemical taken into the body (generally termed the intake or dose) and the length of time a
person is exposed. Every chemical has a specific dose and duration of exposure that is necessary
to produce a toxic effect in humans. Toxicity assessments generally involve the evaluation of
scientific studies, based either on laboratory animal tests or on workplace exposure
investigations, by a number of experienced scientists in a wide range of scientific disciplines in
390122-300 – April 2011
5-14
Exploration Project
order to determine the maximum dose that a human can be exposed to without having an adverse
health effect.
Carcinogenic TRVs - Carcinogenesis is generally assumed to be a "non-threshold" type
phenomenon whereby it is assumed that any level of exposure to a carcinogen poses a finite
probability of generating a carcinogenic response. Carcinogenic TRVs or slope factors are used
to estimate an upper-bound lifetime probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of
exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen. The carcinogenic TRV is, therefore, the
incremental lifetime cancer risk per unit of dose.
Non Carcinogenic TRVs - For many non-carcinogenic effects, protective biological mechanisms
must be overcome before an adverse effect from exposure to the chemical is manifested. For this
reason, scientists generally agree that there is a level (threshold) below which no adverse effects
would be measurable or expected to occur. This is known as a "threshold" concept. Noncarcinogens are often referred to as "systemic toxicants" because of their effects on the function
of various organ systems and are usually expressed as the quantity of a chemical per unit body
weight per unit time (mg/kg-d) or as an air concentration (mg/m3) and have generally been
derived for sensitive individuals in the public using the most sensitive endpoint available. These
factors involve the incorporation of “uncertainty factors” by regulatory agencies to provide
protection for members of the public.
The toxicity assessment involves collection of both qualitative and quantitative toxicity
information. The TRV provides an estimate of the relationship between the extent of exposure to
a COPC and the increased likelihood and/or severity of health effects. TRVs were selected from
well documented and reviewed information taken from the regulatory such as Health Canada and
the U.S. EPA. When TRVs were available from more than one information source then the
information was reviewed and a determination was made on the most appropriate TRV. Table
5.2-3 summarizes the TRVs selected for this assessment. None of the COPC selected for the
HHRA are carcinogenic and, as such, no carcinogenic TRVs are presented. Few, if any, TRVs
exist specifically for the dermal exposure pathway and therefore dermal exposure is routinely
evaluated using the oral TRV.
Table 5.2-3
COPC
Uranium
Notes:
a
ATSDR
Summary of Chronic Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic TRVs
Pathway of
Exposure
Effect Type
Value
Units
oral (a)
non-carcinogenic
6 x 10-4
mg/(kg-d)
inhalation
non-carcinogenic
3 x 10-4
mg/m3
Health Effect
Reference
Degenerative lesions
in kidney tubules
Renal effects
Health Canada
(2009c)
ATSDR (2008)
Oral toxicity data used for evaluation of dermal exposure
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
390122-300 – April 2011
5-15
Exploration Project
6.0
SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
In this study, ecological impacts from COPC were characterized by the value of a simple
screening index. Screening index (SI) values provide an integrated description of the potential
hazard, the exposure (or dose) -response relationship, and the exposure evaluation (U.S. EPA,
1992; AIHC, 1992). The SI value was calculated for each receptor by dividing the expected
exposure or dose concentration by the TRV for non-radionuclides, or by the reference dose for
radionuclides, as shown in equation (6-1).
Screening Index =
Equivalent Dose
Exposure
or
Re ference Dose
Toxicity Re ference Value
(6-1)
The SI values reported in this section are not estimates of the probability of ecological impact.
Rather, the values are positively correlated with the potential of an effect, i.e., higher index
values imply greater potential of an effect. Different magnitudes of the screening index have
been used in other studies to screen for potential ecological effects. A screening index value of
1.0 has been used in some instances (e.g., Suter, 1991). In other work, Cadwell et al. (1993)
suggested an index value of 0.3, based upon a conservative approach designed to account for
potential chronic toxicity and chemical synergism. In this study, an index value of 1.0 was used
to examine the impacts of COPC for aquatic receptors. For terrestrial receptors, background
levels are incorporated within the calculations; however, the time spent at the site is varied,
therefore, the screening index value is determined by multiplying fraction of time at site by 1.0.
6.1
AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (BASED ON WATER)
The aquatic assessment focused on potential adverse effects in waterbodies on and surrounding
the Matoush underground exploration site. The assessment of adverse effects on the aquatic
receptors exposed to the COPC was based on comparison of measured water concentrations to
the aquatic toxicity reference values and did not take into account intakes. The water
concentrations used for the aquatic ecological assessment were presented in Section 4.2 and the
toxicity reference values were presented in Section 5.1.
6.1.1
Radionuclides
Dose equivalents were derived from the absorbed dose by applying a Relative Biological
Effectiveness (RBE) factor. As discussed in Section 5.1.1, there remain unresolved scientific
issues regarding the practical application of RBE values to ecological assessments. In
recognition of this uncertainty two RBE factors were considered, i.e. 10 and 40.
As can be seen in Table 6.1-1, the SI values calculated for most of the aquatic receptor groups
are well below the benchmark value of 1 for each of the radiation weighting factors (RBE) of 10
390122-300 – April 2011
6-1
Exploration Project
and 40. The results indicate that the potential for adverse ecological effects from radionuclide
exposures to aquatic receptors at the Matoush site are not expected even given the conservative
assumptions used in the assessment (i.e., conservative RBE of 40 and measured concentrations
(worst-case scenario)).
Table 6.1-1
Aquatic
Receptors
Summary of Radiological Screening Index Values for Aquatic Receptors
Reference
Dose
(mGy/d)
Baseline
3
10
6
10
0.6
10
0.6
10
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.110
0.007
0.111
0.007
Aquatic Plants
Benthic
Invertebrates
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
RBE=10
Baseline + Project
Increment
0.09
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.111
0.007
0.111
0.007
RBE=40
Baseline
0.20
0.06
0.19
0.11
0.44
0.027
0.44
0.027
Baseline + Project
Increment
0.34
0.10
0.23
0.14
0.44
0.027
0.44
0.027
Notes:
Values shown are for RBE 10 and 40; values shaded and in bold indicate the water concentration exceeds the aquatic TRV.
6.1.2
Non-Radionuclides
The assessment of potential adverse effects on aquatic receptors exposed to non-radionuclides in
the aquatic environment was based on comparison of measured water concentrations to the
aquatic toxicity reference values.
Table 6.1-2 presents the baseline and total (baseline plus project) aquatic SI values for nonradionuclides in the aquatic environment at Matoush. A value greater than one indicates that the
toxicity reference value for an aquatic receptor is exceeded by the water concentration, and these
values are identified in shading and in bold. This table indicates that none of the TRVs were
exceeded since all of the SI values are below 1. The screening indices indicate quite clearly that
the project will have minimal incremental impact on the aquatic environment at Matoush.
Moreover, the local plant populations and animals have acclimated to the naturally high
background levels of some constituents at Matoush. Gene flow can accelerate local adaptation by
providing genetic variation with the result that species are locally adapted due to natural
selection and isolation. Morgan et al. (2007) and Medina et al. (2007) discussed the biological
reality of genetically differentiated, metal-resistant, populations in metal contaminated habitats.
390122-300 – April 2011
6-2
Exploration Project
Table 6.1-2
Aquatic Screening Index Values at Matoush Using Maximum
Measured/Predicted Concentrations
COPC and Aquatic
Receptor
Barium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Cadmium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Lead
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Mercury
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Uranium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Notes:
Aquatic Toxicity
Benchmark
(mg/L)
Baseline
Baseline + Project
10
34
0.25
3.56
10.675
37.75
<0.001
<0.001
0.021
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.01
0.003
0.405
0.028
0.009
0.003
3
0.003
0.12
0.00075
0.002
0.009
<0.001
0.007
<0.001
0.0
0.01
0.002
<0.001
0.02
<0.001
0.1
0.03
0.007
182
0.63
0.002
0.02
0.028
0.415
<0.001
<0.001
0.2
0.02
0.014
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
0.6
0.06
0.043
0.003
0.005
0.00087
0.00087
<0.001
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.027
0.027
3.7
0.011
0.82
0.011
0.62
0.16
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
0.729
0.01
0.729
0.013
0.05
Values shaded and in bold indicate the water concentration exceeds the aquatic TRV.
390122-300 – April 2011
6-3
Exploration Project
6.2
AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (BASED ON SEDIMENT)
Ecological effects of sediment concentrations at Matoush were addressed by calculating SI
values for the predicted concentrations and sediment toxicity benchmarks presented in Sections
4.2 and 5.1, respectively. Four sets of toxicity benchmarks values were discussed in Section 5.1,
and all four are presented in this section.
Table 6.2-1 summarizes the SI values for the maximum baseline and total (baseline plus
increment) concentrations of COPC for the sediments at Matoush for both radiological and nonradiological COPC. As can be seen from this table cadmium and mercury are the only COPC
with sediment SI values greater than 1 compared to the ISQG, no exceedances of the PEL are
noted. For these two COPC, the baseline only numbers also exceed the ISQG and the
baseline+project is only a slight increase. The comparison indicates that there is very little or no
potential for adverse effects on the benthic community from the activities of the underground
exploration ramp at Matoush
Table 6.2-1
Sediment Screening Index Values
Sediment
Toxicity
Benchmark
(μg/g)
Baseline
Baseline +
Project
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
-
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
0.6
3.5
-
2.17
0.37
ND
ND
2.45
0.42
ND
ND
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
35
91.3
36.7
412.4
0.94
0.36
0.90
0.08
0.95
0.36
0.91
0.08
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
0.17
0.486
-
1.18
0.412
ND
ND
1.29
0.453
ND
ND
COPC, Source and
Type of Sediment
Toxicity Benchmark
Barium
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
Cadmium
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
Lead
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
Mercury
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
390122-300 – April 2011
6-4
Exploration Project
Table 6.2-1
Sediment Screening Index Values (Cont’d)
Sediment
Toxicity
Benchmark
(μg/g)
Baseline
Baseline +
Project
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
104.4
5874.1
ND
ND
0.048
<0.001
ND
ND
0.052
<0.001
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
0.9
20.8
ND
ND
0.73
0.032
ND
ND
0.75
0.033
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
0.8
12.1
ND
ND
0.81
0.054
ND
ND
0.85
0.056
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
0.6
14.4
ND
ND
0.60
0.025
ND
ND
0.85
0.035
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
-
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ISQG
PEL
LEL
SEL
-
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
COPC, Source and
Type of Sediment
Toxicity Benchmark
Uranium
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
Lead-210
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
Polonium-210
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
Radium-226
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
Thorium-230
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
Uranium-238
CCME 2008
Thompson et
al. 2005
Notes: Values shaded and in bold indicate the sediment concentration exceeds the benchmark.
ISQG: Interim sediment quality guideline
PEL: Probable effect level
LEL: Lowest effect level
SEL: Severe effect level
390122-300 – April 2011
6-5
Exploration Project
6.3
6.3.1
TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Radionuclides
Dose equivalents for the terrestrial receptors were derived from the absorbed dose by applying an
RBE factor. Similar to the aquatic receptors, RBEs of 10 and 40 were used to account for the
uncertainty associated with the choice of RBE. Table 6.3-1 provides the SI values. This
appropriate comparison level for the SI is adjusted for the fraction of time that a species is
assumed to be present in the area. For example, the assessment assumed that ducks are only
present on the site for 50% of the time and thus the SI is compared to a value of 0.5.
As can be seen in Table 6.3-1 below, the SI values calculated for all of the terrestrial receptors
are well below the adjusted screening benchmark. These results indicate that potential adverse
effects resulting from baseline radionuclide exposures to terrestrial receptors at the Matoush site
are not expected given the conservative assumptions and measured concentrations (worst-case
scenario) used for this assessment.
390122-300 – April 2011
6-6
Table 6.3-1
Species
RBE 10
Baseline
Baseline +
Project
RBE 40
Baseline
Baseline +
Project
SI
Benchmark
Summary of Screening Indices for Radionuclides for Terrestrial Receptors
Osprey
Red
Tailed
Hawk
Scaup
Mallard
Spruce
Grouse
Common
Merganser
Beaver
Black
Bear
American
Mink
Muskrat
Snowshoe
Hare
Red
Fox
Moose
0.029
0.008
0.15
0.10
0.029
0.029
0.004
<0.001
0.003
0.011
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
0.029
0.009
0.18
0.12
0.029
0.029
0.004
<0.001
0.004
0.016
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
0.11
0.029
0.62
0.41
0.11
0.11
0.009
0.001
0.007
0.038
0.001
<0.001
0.014
0.11
0.031
0.70
0.47
0.11
0.11
0.012
0.001
0.008
0.057
0.001
<0.001
0.014
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
1
0.1
1
1
0.3
0.3
0.1
Notes: Values shown are for RBE’s of 10 and 40 and are provided for a reference dose of 1 mGy/d; values shaded and in bold indicate the SI value exceeds the applicable benchmark.
390122-300 – April 2011
6-7
Exploration Project
6.3.2
Non-Radionuclides
The potential adverse effects of non-radiological COPC on terrestrial receptors were evaluated
by comparing the dose to various terrestrial receptors to a toxicity reference value. As this is a
screening assessment the no observable adverse effects level toxicity reference value (NOAEL)
was selected as the appropriate TRV.
Conservative estimates were made for the amount of time that a receptor would be expected to
be at the site, exposed to water and soil. The exposure and SI were adjusted for the fraction of
time that a species is assumed to be present in the area. This factor however, becomes irrelevant
for a chronic assessment. For example, the assessment assumed that migratory ducks are only
present on the site for 50% of the time. Thus the exposure includes a factor of 0.5. Since it was
assumed that this length of time was sufficient for chronic effects to be induced, the SI is
compared to a value of 0.5. If a receptor was present for 100% of the time at the site it was
compared to an SI of 1 for chronic exposure. Moose and bear were assumed to spend 10% of
their time on the site and snowshoe hare and spruce grouse were assumed to spend 30% of their
time on the site.
The SI values are provided in Table 6.3-2 for the predicted baseline and total (baseline plus
project) concentrations from Section 4.2 using the NOAEL values provided in Section 5.1.
Of the non-radiological COPC, mercury is the only COPC for which any exceedances of the SI
benchmarks are observed, and these occur or the osprey, merganser and mink. The SI values
were exceeded for both the project and the baseline scenarios for the avian species. The SI values
slightly increase with the addition of the project however it is anticipated that incremental effects
associated with the project are within the natural variation or range for these receptors. For the
mink, the incremental addition of mercury to the system is predicted to result in an increase of
the SI above the reference level. This is a conservative assessment as a cautious approach was
taken to determine the source term. Mercury was not detected in the treated water thus the water
quality was taken to be half of the detection limit. Significant amount of mercury is not expected
to be released as the rock contains almost no mercury: the mercury concentration is below the
laboratory’s detection limit for all the waste rock samples analyzed as of March 2009. The tests
considered as the most representative (SPLP) and the most aggressive (TCLP) show that the
there is very little mercury present in the rocks.
390122-300 – April 2011
6-8
Table 6.3-2
Screening Index Values Based on NOAEL for Terrestrial Receptors Located at Matoush – Non-Radionuclides
Species
Osprey
SI Benchmark
Barium
Baseline
Baseline + Project
Cadmium
Baseline
Baseline + Project
Lead
Baseline
Baseline + Project
Mercury
Baseline
Baseline + Project
Uranium
Baseline
Baseline + Project
0.5
Red
Tailed
Hawk
0.5
0.49
0.49
Notes:
Scaup
Mallard
Spruce
Grouse
Common
Merganser
Beaver
Black
Bear
American
Mink
Muskrat
Snowshoe
Hare
Red
Fox
Moose
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
1
0.1
1
1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.26
0.11
0.26
0.06
0.06
0.48
0.49
0.04
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
0.24
0.27
0.42
0.70
0.02
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.14
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.11
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.27
1.77
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.11
0.01
0.07
<0.01
0.03
1.26
1.75
<0.01
0.17
<0.01
<0.01
0.20
2.86
<0.01
0.19
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.18
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Values shaded and in bold indicate the SI value exceeds the benchmark.
390122-300 – April 2011
6-9
Exploration Project
7.0
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (HHRA) COMPONENT
A human health risk assessment (HHRA) evaluates the probability of adverse health
consequences caused by the presence of constituents in the environment. In a HHRA, receptor
characteristics (e.g., portion of time spent in the study area, source of drinking water,
composition of diet) and exposure pathways (e.g., ingestion of berries) are taken into
consideration to quantify the risk of adverse health effects. Unlike an ecological risk assessment
(ERA), which is concerned with population effects, the HHRA focuses on effects on individuals.
Additionally, a HHRA does not follow the tiered framework of the ERA; rather, it relies mainly
on measured data where possible and concentrations of constituents of potential concern (COPC)
in the flesh of animals calculated from the ERA. The HHRA uses scenarios that are considered
to be realistically conservative for the site in order to ensure that potential exposures and risk are
over estimated. In this assessment, it is proposed to assess Project effects on gamma radiation,
radon, total suspended particulates (TSP) and standard pollutant levels (i.e. SO2 and NOx) at
specific human receptor locations including any nearby communities, hunters and trappers who
might access the site (or nearby) and are represented by a First Nations adult, and camp workers
represented by a camp cook. In addition, potential Project effects related to COPC in major
dietary food sources also need to be considered (e.g. locally caught species of fish, plants or
animals that are part of local diets). Both radiological and chemical toxicity were considered.
7.1
NON-RADIONUCLIDES
For non-radionuclides, the risk characterization involves the integration of the information from
the exposure assessment and the toxicity assessment. Both threshold (non-carcinogenic) and
carcinogenic effects are considered.
For non carcinogenic compounds, a hazard quotient (HQ) is determined by comparing the
estimated exposure (in mg/kg-d or mg/m3) to the TRV (also in mg/kg-d or mg/m3). Figure 7.1-1
shows the calculated HQ values for baseline as well as the project increment for both the cook
and First Nations adult. In risk assessments, 20% of the dose or an HQ value of 0.2 is generally
used to assess acceptable exposure from each individual pathway. For the camp cook, three
pathways were considered (air intake, drinking water and exposure to soil) however they are
only present for half the year, therefore a value of 0.2 was used as the benchmark HQ value for
comparison. For the First Nations member, additional pathways were considered (e.g., ingestion
of fish and game); however, they are only present for 10% of the year, therefore a value of 0.1
was used as the benchmark HQ for this receptor.
As can be seen from the figure, the HQ values for the adult cook exceed the benchmark value of
0.2 for exposure to baseline and total (baseline plus project) uranium. Incremental exposure to
390122-300 – April 2011
7-1
Exploration Project
uranium as a result of project operations is expected to be minimal. From Table 7.1-1, which
provides a breakdown of the intakes and HQ values by pathways, it can be seen that the exposure
pathway driving the HQ values is the inhalation of air. It should be noted that the uranium was
not detected in baseline air samples and the air concentration was therefore assumed to be at half
the method detection limit. As such, the HQ values may be overestimated. No changes are
anticipated in the HQ value as a result of air inhalation. Additional baseline sampling of
particulate, once power is available and samplers such as Hi-Vols can be used, should reduce the
detection limits of uranium in particulate and provide a better indication of the exposure through
this pathway.
Figure 7.1-1 Hazard Quotients for Exposure to Non-Radiological COPC - Uranium
0.7000
e
u
la 0.6000
V
)
Q0.5000
H
(
t 0.4000
n
ei
t 0.3000
o
u
Q0.2000
d
r
a
z 0.1000
a
H
HQ=0.2
HQ=0.1
0.0000
Adult Cook
Baseline
First Nations Adult
Project + Baseline
From Table 7.1-1, it can also be seen that the project is predicted to increase the HQ values for
ingestion and dermal contact, from 0.001 to 0.14 for the cook and from 0.007 to 0.06 for the First
Nations adult. This is largely as a result of ingestion of water. Considering the conservative
assumptions that were used in the assessment with respect to exposure it is not expected that
there would be any concern with respect to exposure to uranium.
Consideration was also given to the consumption of fish with mercury. Health Canada provides a
value of 0.5 mg/kg as a guideline for mercury levels in fish. In the Province of Québec the
Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux uses the following as recommended fish
consumption guidelines for mercury for the general population: 8 meals per month ≤ 0.5 mg/kg,
4 meals per month 0.5-1.0 mg/kg, 2 meals per month 1.0-1.5 mg/kg, 1 meal per month > 1.5
mg/kg. (Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec, March 2001). The maximum measured
mercury measured in fish flesh was 1.4 mg/kg and the mean concentration was 0.64 mg/kg.
390122-300 – April 2011
7-2
Exploration Project
Based on the maximum measured flesh concentration, the fish concentration may rise to 1.5
mg/kg of mercury. This indicates that although there should be some restrictions on the amount
of fish consumed in the area due to the presence of mercury, this project is not expected to result
in any change to this situation.
390122-300 – April 2011
7-3
Table 7.1-1
Calculated Ingestion of Non-Radiological COPC Intakes by Pathways – Adult Receptors for Baseline
Intake Through Ingestion Pathways (mg/(kg d))
Oral TRV
(mg/kg-d)
Oral +
Dermal
HQ
(-)
Air
Conc.*
(mg/m3)
Inhalation
TRV
(mg/m3)
Inhalation
HQ
(-)
Water
Fish
Mallard
Soil
Total
Dermal
Dose
(mg/kg-d)
2.50x10-7
-
-
5.66x10-8
3.07x10-7
4.84x10-8
0.0006
0.001
1.45x10-4
0.0003
0.48
3.73x10-6
1.81x10-7
1.13x10-8
3.98x10-6
9.69x10-9
0.0006
0.007
2.90x10-5
0.0003
0.10
-
-
5.66x10-8
8.52x10-5
4.84x10-8
0.0006
0.14
1.45x10-4
0.0003
0.48
1.31x10-5
7.31x10-6
1.13x10-8
3.74x10-5
9.69x10-9
0.0006
0.06
2.90x10-5
0.0003
0.10
COPC
BASELINE
Adult Cook
Uranium
First Nation Adult
Uranium
5.00x10-8
TOTAL (BASELINE + PROJECT)
Adult Cook
Uranium
8.51x10-5
First Nation Adult
Uranium
Notes
*
"-"
1.70x10-5
Values shaded and in bold indicate the HQ exceeds the applicable benchmark of 0.2 for the cook and 0.1 for the First Nations adult
Air concentration adjusted for time at the site
Cook is assumed to not ingest fish or game from the area
390122-300 – April 2011
7-4
Exploration Project
7.2
RADIOLOGICAL
Exposure to radionuclides was assessed by integrating the radiation doses from all pathways to
the camp cook and a First Nations adult. The pathways contributions to the incremental dose
from the project for the human receptors present at Matoush are provided in Table 7.2-1, from
which it can be seen that the incremental dose estimates for both the First Nations adult and the
camp cook are below the regulatory limit of 1000 µSv/y. The incremental exposure to the camp
cook is primarily due to drinking water and for the First Nation person, the largest source is
ingestion of ducks. It is noted that the exposure assumptions for the First Nations person are very
conservative and were set to maximize the potential exposure for this screening level assessment.
It can be concluded that it is expected that the change in radiation exposure due to exploration
will be small and the incremental dose will be below the acceptable level.
Table 7.2-1
Estimate by Pathway of Radiation Exposure for People – Project Increment
Ingestion Dose (µSv/y)
Receptor
Adult Cook
First Nations
Adult
Total
Inhalation
Dose
(µSv/y)
Total
Radon
Dose
(µSv/y)
Incremental
External
Gamma
(µSv/y)
Total
Incremental
Dose (µSv/y)
Duck
Fish
Soil
Water
-
-
1.3x10-5
6.4
8.7x10-4
2.0
0
8.4
1.3
-4
2.0
0
20.9
15
390122-300 – April 2011
2.4
2.7x10
-6
7-5
1.7x10
Exploration Project
8.0
UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT
When hazardous substances are released into the environment, an evaluation is necessary to
determine the possible impact these substances may have on human health and non-human biota.
To address this question, a risk assessment is performed to quantify the potential detriment and
evaluate the effectiveness of proposed remediation measures. A baseline risk assessment
performed according to currently recommended Canadian Council of the Environment (CCME,
1996) methods produces a single point estimate of risk. Such point estimates don’t address the
inherent uncertainty in the estimates of risk; rather the single values obtained from this method
may be considered as upper bound (conservative) estimates of risk to a maximally exposed
individual. The chance of underestimating the true risk to an exposed individual is minimized.
However, the chance of overstating the risk may be large.
There are many areas of uncertainty involved in a risk assessment. This is due to the fact that
assumptions have been made throughout the assessment either due to data gaps, environmental
fate complexities, or in the generalization of receptor characteristics. To be able to place a level
of confidence in the results, an accounting of the uncertainty, the magnitude and type of which
are important in determining the significance of the results, must be completed. In recognition of
these uncertainties, some cautious assumptions are used throughout the assessment to ensure that
the potential for an adverse effect would not be underestimated. Several of the major
assumptions are outlined below.
The primary uncertainties in many assessments are associated with prediction of environmental
concentrations using transfer factors, as well as the toxicity data used to define the toxicity
reference values (TRVs) for each ecological receptor. Both contribute to uncertainties in the
screening index (SI) values. Transfer factors and toxicity data are both highly dependent on the
form (e.g., in solution, organically or inorganically bound complexes, etc.) of a COPC. The
conditions at a site differ from those studied for the derivation of transfer factors and toxicity
data from field or laboratory studies; therefore, there is uncertainty in the applicability of data
from the literature to this or any other site. However, this issue was of a lesser concern at the
Matoush underground uranium exploration ramp site due to the availability of measured data for
many of the environmental media. Some assumptions were made in the absence of available data
such as that for the water-to-benthic invertebrate transfer factors and feed-to-flesh transfer
factors for mammals and birds.
Given that no complete toxicological database is available that determines the concentrations of
contaminants that impact all of the terrestrial indicator species, toxicity data from laboratory
species such as rats and mice were used. Additionally, for terrestrial mammals and birds, toxicity
information for a COPC was used regardless of its form in the test procedure, even though this
may not be the same form as exists at the Matoush site. Chemical forms and animal species were
390122-300 – April 2011
8-1
Exploration Project
selected where possible to be most representative of those anticipated to be present at the site. It
is difficult to determine the effects of these assumptions; however, it is unlikely that the overall
conclusions of this screening level risk assessment would change significantly.
The bioavailability/bioaccessibility of the radionuclide and non-radionuclide COPC in all
environmental media was assumed to be 1, or 100% bioavailable. This assumption generally
tends to overestimate the exposure from all exposure pathways since typically not all of the
COPC content in soils, for example, is 100% bioavailable.
Uncertainty exists around whether the terrestrial receptors would spend all of their time at a
given area of the site, for example in or on the waste rock pile areas. For this assessment, it was
conservatively assumed that large terrestrial receptors or animals with large home ranges such as
moose and black bear spend 10% of their time at the site and that smaller animals with small
home ranges such as the hare, grouse and fox spend more time at the site. Overall, the
assumptions made regarding the fraction of time terrestrial receptors spend exposed to waste
rock are likely conservative.
The dietary characteristics (food, water and soil or sediment consumption) of ecological
receptors were obtained from the literature. These values are sometimes obtained from studies
using relatively sedentary animals held in captivity and may not be fully representative of the
receptor characteristics (e.g., activity levels) of free-range animals in the wild. An underestimate
of exposure might result from this, but there are other conservative assumptions that tend to
compensate for the use of these receptor characteristics (e.g., receptors were assumed to be
always exposed to maximum concentrations measured at the site).
Another area of uncertainty in this screening level risk assessment is the potential effect of
multiple COPC. When dealing with multiple toxic COPC, there is potential interaction with
other constituents that may be found at the same location. It is well established that synergism,
potentiation, antagonism or additivity of toxic effects occurs in the environment. A quantitative
assessment of these interactions is outside the scope of this study and, in any event, would be
constrained, as there is not an adequate base of toxicological evidence to quantify these
interactions. This may result in an under- or over-estimation of the risk for some COPC.
In summary, although uncertainties exist, it is highly likely that the overall assessment results in
the overestimate of exposure and risk.
390122-300 – April 2011
8-2
Exploration Project
9.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Several sampling programs have been conducted to capture the existing conditions at the
Matoush site. The available data for the site were used to identify constituents of potential
concern (COPC) to be carried through the assessment. The objective of this assessment was to
determine the current state of the environment pre-development of the underground uranium
exploration ramp and to assess or predict the potential impact of the underground exploration
activities on the environment at and within a prescribed distance of the site.
Pathways’ modelling was used to estimate exposure levels (intakes or doses) to ecological
receptors and people from COPC in the environment taking into account the dietary
characteristics of the receptors. The modelling relied on measured data but also employed
transfer factors to estimate concentrations in environmental media and for food chain effects that
were not measured. Exposure estimates were then compared to toxicity reference values for
metals and dose limits for radioactivity to identify combinations of COPC and receptors that may
require further investigation.
The COPC identified for the ecological risk assessment included: barium, cadmium, lead,
mercury, uranium (chemical toxicity), and radioactivity. For the human health risk assessment,
the COPC were limited to uranium (chemical toxicity) and radioactivity.
For the ecological risk assessment, a range of ecological receptors were examined from different
trophic levels in the aquatic and terrestrial environments. Two human receptors were considered,
including a camp cook and a Cree First Nations adult. As there are camp workers currently living
on-site, it was assumed for the human health risk assessment that a camp cook would spend six
months per year on-site and a First Nations Cree adult would spend one month.
The results of the radionuclide assessment for aquatic receptors revealed that releases from the
underground exploration ramp would not pose any risk of adverse effects to aquatic biota.
Projected exposure to non-radionuclide COPC also indicated no adverse effects.
The exposure assessment of terrestrial wildlife to radionuclides indicated that there are no risks
of adverse effects from radiation exposure. Projected exposure to non-radionuclides
demonstrated a similar outcome.
The radiological dose estimates for the hypothetical people on the site were below the regulatory
incremental dose limit of 1000 µSv/y. Incremental exposures to the non-radionuclides on site are
not predicted to result in adverse health effects to individuals who might spend time on-site.
High method detection limits for uranium in air are suggesting potential risks from inhalation;
however, it is recommended that further air monitoring be conducted with increased sensitivity
in order to determine actual measurements of uranium in air.
390122-300 – April 2011
9-1
Exploration Project
In conclusion, it appears that the natural background levels of some parameters in the water, soil
and sediments exceed the MDDEP and CWQG criteria. It was determined that any incremental
effects due to exploration would be insignificant. Therefore, the criteria eventually set up for
Strateco’s activities should be developed taking into account the current levels.
Should the uranium exploration ramp proceed to a full underground mine it is recommended that
air sampling should be carried out with better detection limits. More detailed water quality and
pathways modelling will also be required. The management of treated effluent release will also
need to be addressed if the ramp is to progress to a full scale underground mine.
390122-300 – April 2011
9-2
Exploration Project
10.0 REFERENCES
Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection (ACRP), 2002. Protection of Non-Human Biota
from Ionizing Radiation. Published by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
INFO-0703, March.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2008. Toxicological Profile for
Uranium. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service.
American Industrial Health Council (AIHC), 1992. Improving Risk Characterization, American
Industrial Health Council, Washington, DC, p25
Aulerich, R.J., R.K. Ringer and S. Iwamoto, 1974. Effects of Dietary Mercury on Mink.
Arch.Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2: 43-51.
Azar, A., H.J. Trochimowicz and M.E. Maxwell, 1973. Review of Lead Studies in Animals
Carried out at Haskell Laboratory: Two-Year Feeding Study and Response to
Hemorrhage Study. In: Barth et al. (eds.) Environmental Health Aspects of Lead:
Proceedings International Symposium. Commission of European Communities. pp. 199210. {Cited in Sample et al., 1996}
Biesinger, K.E. and G.M. Christensen, 1972. Effects Of Various Metals On Survival, Growth,
Reproduction And Metabolism Of Daphnia Magna. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29: 16901700. {cited in Suter and Tsao, 1996}
Biesinger, K.E., L.E. Anderson and J.G. Eaton, 1982. Chronic Effects of Inorganic and Organic
Mercury on Daphnia Magna: Toxicity, Accumulation, and Loss. Arch. Environm.
Contam. Toxicol. 11:769–774. {cited in Suter and Tsao, 1996}
Bird, G.A., P.A. Thompson, C.R. Macdonald and S.C. Sheppard, 2002. Ecological Risk
Assessment Approach for the Regulatory Assessment of the Effects of Radionuclides
Released from Nuclear Facilities. Third International Symposium on the Protection of the
Environment from Ionizing Radiation. Darwin, Australia, 22-26 July, 2002.
Birge, W.J., J.A. Black and A.G. Westerman, 1979. Evaluation of Aquatic Pollutants using Fish
and Amphibian Eggs as Bioassay Organisms. In: S.W. Nielsen, G. Migaki, and D.G.
Scarpelli (eds.), Symp. Animals Monitors Environ. Pollut., 1977, Storrs, CT 12: 108-118.
{Cited in U.S. EPA ECOTOX}
Birge, W.J., J.A. Black, A.G. Westerman and J.E. Hudson, 1980. Aquatic Toxicity Tests on
Inorganic Elements Occurring in Oil Shale. In: C.Gale (Ed.), EPA-600/9-80-022, Oil
Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, March 1979, U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati, OH:519-534 (U.S.NTIS PB80-221435).
390122-300 – April 2011
10-1
Exploration Project
Borgmann, U., L. Grapentine, W.P. Norwood, G. Bird, D.G. Dixon and D. Lindeman, 2005.
Sediment Toxicity Testing with the Freshwater Amphipod Hyalella Azteca: Relevance
and Application. Chemosphere 61, 1740–1743.
Bouchard, D., J. Deshaye and C. Fortin, 2004. Centrale de l’Eastmain-1- A et dérivation Rupert.
Étude de la végétation et des espèces floristiques et fauniques à statut particulier.
Rapport préparé pour la Société d’énergie de la Baie James. FORAMEC, Québec. 91 p.
and appendices.
Bringmann, G. and R. Kuhn, 1959. Comparative Water-Toxicological Investigations on
Bacteria, Algae, and Daphnia. Gesundheitsingenieur 80(4):115-120.
Cadwell, R.D., B. Parkhurst, W. Warren-Hicks and J. Volosin, 1993. Aquatic Ecological Risk
Assessment and Clean-Up Goals for Metals Arising from Mining Operations. In E.S.
Bender and F.A. Jones (eds.), Applications of Ecological Risk Assessment to Hazardous
Waste Site Remediation. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA. pp. 61-72.
Call, D.J., L.T. Brooke, N. Ahmed and J.E. Richter, 1983. Toxicity and Metabolism Studies with
EPA Priority Pollutants and Related Chemicals in Freshwater Organisms. EPA-600/383-095. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Duluth, Minn. {cited in Suter and Tsao,
1996}
Canada North Environmental Services Limited Partnership (CanNorth), 2000. Hatchet Lake
Dietary Survey – Field Report. March.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2008. Canadian Environmental
Quality Guidelines. Environment Canada, Hull Quebec. Published in 1999, updated in
2008.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 1996. A Framework for Ecological
Risk Assessment: General Guidance. March.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), 1999, chapter 33.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Regulations 2000. Nuclear Safety and Control
Act, Radiation Protection Regulations. Canada Gazette Part 2 134(13).
Carlson, A.R. et al., 1982. Cadmium and Endrin Toxicity to Fish in Water Containing Mineral
Fibers. EPA-600/3-82-053. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minn. {cited
in Suter and Tsao, 1996}
Chamberland, G., D. Belanger, A. Dallaire, J. S. Blais, L. Vermette, and N. Lariviere, 1996.
Urinary Protein Excretion of Semidomesticated Mink in a Chronic Methylmercury Study.
J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 47: 285-297. {cited in CCME, 2008}
390122-300 – April 2011
10-2
Exploration Project
Chapman, G.A., S. Ota and F. Recht, 1980. Effects of Water Hardness on the Toxicity of Metals
to Daphnia Magna. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. {cited in
Suter and Tsao, 1996}
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), 2007. Canadian
Species at Risk. September 2007. 84 pp.
Davies, P.H., 1980. Acute Toxicity to Brook Trout (Salevinus fontinalis) and Rainbow Trout
(Salmo gairdneri) in Soft Water. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado.
18 pp. Report F-33-R-15.
Desroches J.F. and D. Rodrigue, 2004. Amphibiens et reptiles du Québec et des Maritimes.
Editions Michel Quintin, Waterloo, Canada. 288 p.
Edens, F., W.E. Benton, S.J. Bursian and G.W. Morgan, 1976. Effect of Dietary Lead on
Reproductive Performance in Japanese Quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica. Toxicol.
Appl. Pharmacol. 38: 307-314. {cited in Sample et al., 1996}
Elnabarawy, M.T., A.N. Welter and R.R. Robideau, 1986. Relative Sensitivity of Three Daphnid
Species to Selected Organic and Inorganic Chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5: 393398. {cited in Suter and Tsao, 1996}
Environment Canada, 1997. Environmental Assessments of Priority Substances under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Guidance Manual Version 1.0, March.
Environnement Canada, 1996. La politique fédérale sur la conservation des terres humides.
Guide de mise en oeuvre à l’intention des gestionnaires des terres fédérales. Ottawa. 43p.
Environment Canada/Health Canada (EC/HC) 2003. Priority Substances List Assessment Report:
Releases of Radionuclides from Nuclear Facilities (Impact on Non-Human Biota).
Environment Canada and MDDEP, 2007. Criteria for the Assessment of Sediment Quality in
Quebec and Application Frameworks: Prevention, Dredging and Remediation. 41 pp.
Fargasova, A., 1994. Comparative Toxicity of Five Metals on Various Biological Subjects. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 53(2): 317-324. {cited in U.S. EPA ECOTOX}
FASSET, 2003. Framework for Assessment of Environmental Impact, Deliverable 3. Dosimetric
Models and Data for Assessing Radiation Exposures to Biota. Contract No FIGE-CT2000-00101.
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), 2009. Australia New Zealand Food
Standard Code.
390122-300 – April 2011
10-3
Exploration Project
Franklin, N.M., J.L. Stauber, S.J. Markich and R.P. Lim, 2000. pH-Dependent Toxicity of
Copper and Uranium to a Tropical Freshwater Algae (Chlorella sp.). Aquatic
Toxicology 48: 275-289. {cited in EC/HC, 2003}
Fraser M.-H., A. Cuerrier, P.S. Haddad, J.T. Arnason, P.L. Owen and T. Johns, 2007. Medicinal
Plants of Cree Communities (Québec, Canada): Antioxidant Activity of Plants used to
Treat Type 2 Diabetes Symptoms. Canadian Journal of Physiological Pharmacology (85):
1200-1214.
Golder Associates (Golder), 2009. Limited Environmental Impact Assessment for the Matoush
Underground Exploration Project. Final Report, October.
Gouvernement du Québec, 2006. Projet de parc Albanel–Témiscamie–Otish E’weewach. État
des connaissances. Gouvernement du Québec.
Hall, W.S., R.L. Paulson, L.W. Hall and D.T. Burton, 1986. Acute Toxicity of Cadmium and
Sodium Pentachlorophenate to Daphnids and Fish. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 37:
308-316. {cited in IPCS 135, 1992}
Haseltine, S.D. and L. Sileo, 1983. Response of American Black Ducks to Dietary Uranium: A
Proposed Substitute for Lead Shot. J. Wildl. Manage. 47: 1124-1129. {cited in Sample et
al., 1996}
Health Canada, 2009a. Canadian Standards for Various Chemical Contaminants in Foods.
Health Canada, 2009b. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Part I: Guidance
on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA), Version 2.0. Draft.
May.
Health Canada, 2009c. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Part I: Health
Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and Chemical-Specific Factors, Version
2.0 - Appendix. Draft. May.
Health Canada, 2008. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, Summary Table, May.
Heinz, G. H., 1976a. Methylmercury: Second-Generation Reproductive and Behavioral Effects
on Mallard Ducks. J. Wildl. Manage. 40: 710-715. {cited in CCME, 2008}
Heinz, G. H., 1976b. Methylmercury: Second-Year Feeding Effects on Mallard Reproduction
and Duckling Behavior. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:82-90. {cited in CCME, 2008}
Hill, E. F. and C. S. Schaffner, 1976. Sexual Maturation and Productivity of Japanese Quail Fed
Graded Concentrations of Mercuric Chloride. Poult. Sci. 55: 1449-1459.
390122-300 – April 2011
10-4
Exploration Project
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2010. Handbook of Parameter Values for the
Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments.
Technical Report Series No. 472.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and
Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. IAEA Technical
Report Series 332. Vienna, Austria.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), 1996. Publication 72: AgeDependent Doses to the Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides Part 5,
Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Coefficients Annals of the ICRP volume 26/1.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1993. Protection Against Radon222 at Home and at Work. ICRP Publication 65, Annals of the ICRP Vol. 23 (2).
International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), 1992. Cadmium. Geneva, World Health
Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health
Criteria 134.
Johnson, D., Jr., A.L. Mehring, Jr., and H.W. Titus, 1960. Tolerance Of Chickens For Barium.
Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 104: 436-438.
Leduc, C, J. Coonishish, P.S. Haddad and A. Cuerrier, 2006. Plants used by the Cree Nation of
Eeyou Istchee (Quebec, Canada) for the Treatment of Diabetes: A Novel Approach in
Quantitative Ethno-Botany. Journal of Ethno-pharmacology (105): 55-63.
Lowe, L.M., 1997. Impact of the 235U Series on Doses from Intakes of Natural Uranium and
Decay Progeny. Health Physics: 73(4): 694-695, October.
Liber, K. and S.L. White-Sobey, 2000. Toxicity of Uranium, Molybdenum, Nickel, and Arsenic to
Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans in Water-only and Spiked-sediment Toxicity
Tests. Toxicology Centre, University of Saskatchewan.
Mackie, G.L., 1989. Tolerances of Five Benthic Invertebrates to Hydrogen Ions and Metals (Cd,
Pb, Al). Archives of Environmental Toxicology 18: 215-223.
Medina, M.H., J.A. Correa and C. Barata, 2007. Micro-Evolution Due to Pollution: Possible
Consequences for Ecosystem Responses to Toxic Stress. Chemosphere 67 (2007) 2105–
2114.
Melis Engineering Ltd (Melis), 2011. Estimated Development Ramp Water Quality Discharging
Water Treatment, Rev. 1 Memorandum to C. Hardy, Strateco. January 26.
Melis Engineering Ltd. (Melis), 2009. Metallurgical Testwork – Matoush Uranium Project.
Melis Status Report No. 7 – For the Period to June 12, 2009, 501.
390122-300 – April 2011
10-5
Exploration Project
Melis Engineering Ltd. (Melis), 2008. 2009 Exploration Ramp – Mine Water Treatment Test
Work Results. 29 August 2008, Technical Memorandum, Melis Project no. 490.
Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF), 2009. Liste des espèces fauniques
menaces ou vulnerable au Québec - Salamandra à quatre orteils. Accessed online
http://www3.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/faune/especes/menacees/fiche.asp?noEsp=23.
Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP), 2008. On-line
database. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/criteres_eau/index.asp
Morgan, A.J., P. Kille and S.R. Stürzenbaum, 2007. Micro-Evolution and Ecotoxicology of
Metals in Invertebrates. Environ. Sci. Technol., 41 (4), pp 1085–1096.
Napier, B.A., R.A. Peloquin, D.L. Strenge and J.V. Ramsdell, 1988. GENII - The Hanford
Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System, Volume 2: Users’ Manual.
November. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest
Laboratory.
National Research Council of Canada (NRCC), 1983. Radioactivity in the Canadian Aquatic
Environment. Publication No. NRCC-19250, National Radiation Council of Canada,
Ottawa.
Paternain, J.L., J.L. Domingo, A. Ortega and J.M. Llobet, 1989. The Effects of Uranium on
Reproduction, Gestation, and Postnatal Survival in Mice. Ecotoxicol. Env. Saf. 17: 291296. {cited in Sample et al., 1996}
Peterson, R.T. and V.M. Peterson, 2004. Les oiseaux de Quebec et de l’est de L’Amerique du
Nord. Editions Broquet inc., Ottawa, Canada. 431 p.
Prescott J. And P. Richard, 1996. Mammiferes du Quebec et de l’est du Canada. Editions Michel
Quintin, Waterloo, Canada. 399 p.
Rehwoldt, R., L. Lasko, C. Shaw and E. Wirhowski, 1973. The Acute Toxicity of Some Heavy
Metal Ions Toward Benthic Organisms. Environ. Pollut. 62(1): 73-85. {cited in U.S. EPA
ECOTOX}
Richardson, G.M. 1997. Compendium of Canadian Human Exposure Factors for Risk
Assessment. O’Connor Associates Environmental Inc.
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
1996 Revision. U.S. Department of Energy. June.
Saucier J.-P., P. Grondin and A. Robitaille, 2003. Zones de végétation et Domaines
bioclimatiques. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune.
390122-300 – April 2011
10-6
Exploration Project
Sauter, S., K.S. Buxton, K.J. Macek and S.R. Petrocelli, 1976. Effects Exposure to Heavy Metals
on Selected Freshwater Fish. EPA-600/3-76-105. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Duluth, MN. {cited in Suter and Tsao, 1996}
SENES, 2009. Air Quality Assessment for the Matoush Underground Exploration Ramp Project.
SENES Consultants Limited, October.
Scott Wilson Mining, 2008. Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment of the Matoush
Project, Central Québec, Canada. Strateco Resources Inc. NI 43-101 Report.
Sibley D.A. and N. David, 2006. Guide Sibley des oiseaux et de l’Amerique du Nord (Le).
Editions Michel Quintin, Waterloo, Canada. 434 p.
Stanley, R.A., 1974. Toxicity of Heavy Metals and Salts to Eurasian Watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum L.). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2(4): 331-341. {cited in
U.S. EPA ECOTOX}
Suter, G.W. II., 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers: Chelsea, Michigan, USA,
pp 1-538.
Suter, G.W. II., 1991. Screening Level Risk Assessment of Off-site Ecological Effects in Surface
Waters Downstream of the U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation.
ORNL/ER-8. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Suter and Tsao, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of
Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. U.S. Department of Energy.
Tarzwell, C.M. and C. Henderson, 1960. Toxicity of Less Common Metals to Fish. Ind. Waste
5:12.
Thompson, P.A., J.A. Kurias and S.S. Mihok, 2005. Dervation and Use of Sediment Quality
Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessement of Metals and Radionuclides Released to the
Environment from Uranium Mining and Milling Activities in Canada. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 110 (1-3):71-85.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),1996.
Sources And Effects Of Ionizing Radiation. Report to the General Assembly.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2005a. Human Health Risk
Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. EPA Region 6, Office
of Solid Waste, September.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening
Levels for Barium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-63. Feburary.
http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/pdf/eco-ssl_cadmium.pdf.
390122-300 – April 2011
10-7
Exploration Project
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening
Levels for Cadmium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65. March.
http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/pdf/eco-ssl_cadmium.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1995. Revised Aquatic Life Metals
Criteria in EPA’s National Toxics Rule. EPA-822-F-95-001. April 1995.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1992. Framework for Ecological
Risk Analysis. EPA/630/R-92-001. Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1985. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Lead – 1984. EPA 440/5-84-027. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. {cited in Suter
and Tsao, 1996}
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Ecotoxicology (ECOTOX) On-line
database. http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/.
Vizon SciTec Inc. (Vizon), 2004. Final Report on the Toxicity Investigation of Uranium to
Aquatic Organisms. Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. CNSC
Project No.R205-1. Ottawa, ON. April.
Wallen, I.E., W.C. Greer and R. Lasater, 1957. Toxicity to Gambusia Affinis of Certain Pure
Chemicals in Turbid Waters. Sewage Ind.Wastes 29(6):695-711
Wang, W., 1986. Toxicity Tests of Aquatic Pollutants by Using Common Duckweed. Environ.
Pollut. Ser. B Chem. Phys. 11(1): 1-14. {cited in U.S. EPA ECOTOX}
Yuhas, E. M., R.C. Schnell and T.S. Miya, 1979. Dose-Related Alterations in Growth and
Mineral Disposition by Chronic Oral Cadmium Administration in the Male Rat.
Toxicology. 12(1): 19-29. Ref ID: 776. {cited in U.S. EPA, 2005c}
390122-300 – April 2011
10-8
Exploration Project
APPENDIX A
CHARACTERISTICS OF ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
AND TRANSFER FACTORS
390122-300 – April 2011
Exploration Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR APPENDIX A
Page No.
A.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW................................................................................................ A-1 A.2 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR CHARACTERISTICS .................................................... A-1 A.3 TRANSFER FACTORS ................................................................................................. A-6 A.4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. A-10 LIST OF TABLES
Table A.1 Table A.2 Table A.3 Table A.4 Table A.5 Table A.6 Table A.7 Table A.8 Table A.9 Table A.10 Table A.11 Table A.12 Table A.13 Table A.14 390122-300 – April 2011
Page No.
Beaver Receptor Characteristics .................................................................... A-1 Black Bear Receptor Characteristics.............................................................. A-1 Mink Receptor Characteristics....................................................................... A-2 Moose Receptor Characteristics..................................................................... A-2 Muskrat Receptor Characteristics .................................................................. A-2 Osprey Receptor Characteristics .................................................................... A-3 Red Fox Receptor Characteristics.................................................................. A-3 Red-Tailed Hawk Receptor Characteristics ................................................... A-3 Snowshoe Hare Receptor Characteristics ...................................................... A-4 Spruce Grouse Receptor Characteristics........................................................ A-4 Waterfowl Receptor Characteristics .............................................................. A-5 Water-to-Aquatic Biota Transfer Factors....................................................... A-8 Feed-to-Mammal Transfer Factors ................................................................ A-8 Feed-to-Bird Transfer Factors........................................................................ A-9 A-i
Screening Level Ecological And Human Health Risk Assessment for the Matoush Underground
Uranium Exploration Ramp
A.1
GENERAL OVERVIEW
This appendix presents the summary table of ecological characteristics of the terrestrial
ecological receptors considered and pathways equations used in this assessment. The ecological
receptors considered in this assessment included the following: beaver, black bear, mink, moose,
muskrat, osprey, red fox, red-tailed hawk, snowshoe hare, spruce grouse, and waterfowl
(mallard, merganser, scaup).
A.2
ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR CHARACTERISTICS
The characteristics of the ecological receptors are summarized in the following tables.
Information on water and food ingestion rates were obtained from literature sources, which is the
typical approach for ecological risk assessments. The soil and sediment ingestion rates were
obtained from Beyer et al. (1994). The dietary characteristics and time spent in the study area are
entered into the pathways model so that estimates of exposure can be obtained.
Table A.1
Parameter Description
Water ingestion rate
Food ingestion rate
Fraction of food that is aquatic vegetation
Fraction of food that is browse
Sediment ingestion rate
Body weight
Fraction of time in study area
Table A.2
Water ingestion ratea
Food ingestion ratea
Fraction of food that is berries
Fraction of food that is forage
Fraction of food that is fish
Fraction of food that is large game
Soil ingestion rate
Body weight
Beaver Receptor Characteristics
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
g(dry wt.)/d
kg
-
Value
1730
1000
0.5
0.49
10
24
1
Reference
Beak 1995
Beak 1995
Mirka et al. 1996
Mirka et al. 1996
Calculated from Beyer et al. 1994
Anderson 2002
Assumed
Black Bear Receptor Characteristics
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
g(dry wt.)/d
kg
-
Value
9500
14850
0.4
0.35
0.15
0.10
223
160
0.1
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Holcroft and Herrero 1991
Holcroft and Herrero 1991
Canadian Wildlife Service 1993
Assumed; 50/50 moose/caribou
Kronk 2002
Assumed
Notes:
a
Based on the allometric equation provided by the U.S. EPA (1993) and a body weight of 160 kg
390122-300 – April 2011
A-1
Table A.3
Food ingestion rateb
Fraction of food that is benthic
Fraction of food that is ducks
Fraction of food that is hare
Fraction of food that is muskrat
Body weight
Mink Receptor Characteristics
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
g(dry wt.)/d
kg
-
Value
99
220
0.05
0.65
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.1
2.2
1.0
1
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Assumed
Notes:
a
Based on the water intake of a mink provided by the U.S. EPA (1993)
b
Based on the food intake information and a body weight of 1 kg provided by the U.S. EPA (1993)
Table A.4
Fraction of food that is aquatic
vegetation
Body weight
Moose Receptor Characteristics
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
-
Value
31300
23000
0.9
Reference
Calculated from U.S. EPA 1993
Belovsky et al. 1973
-
0.09
Belovsky et al. 1973
g(dry wt.)/d
kg
-
138
600
0.1
Assumed
Notes:
a
Based on the allometric equation provided by the U.S. EPA (1993) and a body weight of 600 kg
b
The Canadian Wildlife Service report that moose eat 15–20 kg/d twigs and shrubs in the winter and 20–30 kg/d forage
consisting of twigs, leaves, shrubs, upland and water plants in the summer
Table A.5
Fraction of food that is aquatic
vegetation
Fraction of food that is benthic
invertebrates
Body weight
Muskrat Receptor Characteristics
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
Value
120
360
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
-
0.98
U.S. EPA 1993
g(dry wt.)/d
kg
-
0.02
2.4
1.2
1
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Assumed
Notes:
a
Based on the allometric equations provided by the U.S. EPA (1993) and a body weight of 1.2 kg
390122-300 – April 2011
A-2
Table A.6
Body weight
Osprey Receptor Characteristics
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
g(dry wt.)/d
kg
-
Value
80
380
1.0
1.5
1.5
0.5
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Assumed
Notes:
a
Table A.7
Fraction of food that is waterfowl
Soil ingestion rate
Body weight
Red Fox Receptor Characteristics
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
g(dry wt.)/d
kg
-
Value
383
311
0.14
0.42
0.43
2.6
4.5
0.3
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Assumed
Notes:
a
Table A.8
Red-Tailed Hawk Receptor Characteristics
Fraction of food that is birds
Fraction of food that is small mammals
(i.e., hare)
Soil ingestion rate
Body weight
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
-
Value
60
190
0.15
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Dewey and Arnold 2002
-
0.85
g(dry wt.)/d
kg
-
3.0
1.075
0.5
assumed
Notes:
a
390122-300 – April 2011
A-3
Table A.9
Fraction of food that is foragec
Fraction of food that is browsec
Soil ingestion rate
Body weight
Snowshoe Hare Receptor Characteristics
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
g(dry wt.)/d
kg
-
Value
130
300
0.38
0.6
5.7
1.4
0.3
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993
Pease et al. 1979
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Assumed
Notes:
a
b
This value is consistent with the value obtained based on the allometric equation for herbivores provided by the U.S.
EPA (1993)
c
Based on the dietary composition of Eastern Cottontail Rabbit from U.S. EPA (1993)
Table A.10
Fraction of food that is browseb
Fraction of food that is berriesb
Soil ingestion rate
Body weight
Spruce Grouse Receptor Characteristics
Units
g/d
g(wet wt.)/d
g(dry wt.)/d
Value
kg
0.475
-
0.3
35.8
119
0.835
0.15
1.8
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador 2011 (average of male and
female)
Assumed
Notes:
a
b
Based on breakdown of food intake for a quail provided by the U.S. EPA (1993)
390122-300 – April 2011
A-4
Table A.11
Waterfowl Receptor Characteristics
Food ingestion rate
mallard
common merganser
greater scaup
Fraction of time spent in study areaa
mallard
common merganser
greater scaup
mallard
common merganser
greater scaup
Fraction of food that is benthic invertebrates
mallard
common merganser
greater scaup
mallard
common merganser
greater scaup
mallard
common merganser
greater scaup
Water ingestion rateb
mallard
common merganser
greater scaup
Body weight
mallard
common merganser
greater scaup
Units
g/d(wet wt.)
-
-
-
-
g/d(dry wt.)
g/d
kg
Value
250
370
255
Reference
CCME 1998
0.50
U.S. EPA 1993
0.0
0.996
0.0
U.S. EPA 1993
Andress and Parker 1995
U.S. EPA 1993
0.75
0.0
0.89
0.25
0.0
0.09
1.7
1.5
5.6
62
76
52
1.08
1.47
0.82
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Calculated from Beyer et al.
1994
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Notes:
a
Based on information that scaup and mallards migrate and spend 4 – 8 months away from this area
b
Based on the allometric equations provided by the U.S. EPA (1993) and the body weights for each waterfowl
390122-300 – April 2011
A-5
A.3
TRANSFER FACTORS
In general, the approach taken for estimating the exposure of radiological and non-radiological
COPC to non-human biota is to model the intake of a COPC by the biota (in mg/d or Bq/d) and
then use a transfer factor (TF, in d/kg) to obtain a body or flesh concentration where necessary.
Many toxicity values for non-radiological COPC are expressed as intake rates rather than tissue
residues. Therefore, the assessment of non-radiological and radiological COPC can be carried
out in parallel with the flesh concentrations being important for estimating internal radiological
dose while intakes are used for assessment of non-radiological COPC.
Measured baseline data were not available for benthic invertebrates and, as such, water-tobenthic invertebrate TFs were used to estimate the baseline concentrations as well as the total
(baseline plus project) concentrations. The TFs used in the assessment to estimate concentrations
of COPC in aquatic biota from water are summarized in Table A.12.
Food-to-animal flesh transfer factors are generally only available in literature for agricultural
animals such as beef and poultry. The values used in this assessment were obtained largely from
the Inernational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 2010) and the Canadian Standards Association
(CSA, 2008). Polonium-210 values for transfer from feed-to-mammal are not available from
either of these sources; however, values are available for smaller and larger animals from
Thomas (1997) and Thomas et al. (1994), respectively. These values have been used in previous
risk assessments. No value was available for transfer of lead-210 from feed-to-bird and, as such,
this value was estimated by multiplying the feed-to-mammal TF by 500. These values are
summarized in Table A.13 for mammals and Table A.14 for birds. However, as these TFs are
generally derived for cattle, beef, or poultry, this can lead to a significant underestimate of the
biota concentration, particularly for small animals. For example, if a cow and a mouse lived in
the same field and therefore consumed the same vegetation, the mouse would have an intake
over 4000 times less than the cow. However, this intake would be distributed through a much
smaller body mass and thus it is illogical to assume that the concentration in the mouse would be
proportionally smaller, which is what is assumed by applying the same TF.
To obtain a more appropriate TF, allometric scaling can be applied to the TF with a relationship
of -0.75. This approach is consistent with the allometric scaling for intake rates and inhalation by
wildlife, as used in the ecological profiles (U.S. EPA 1993), which has shown a similar
relationship. Allometric scaling of TFs has been discussed by others (e.g. Nalezinski et al., 1996;
Higley et al., 2003) as a useful method for deriving TFs for biota. It is acknowledged that not all
radionuclides would scale to the same factor, as shown by the U.S. DOE (2002). However, the
use of the -0.75 factor is a conservative approach. Other factors that can be found in the literature
(e.g. 0.25 may be appropriate for actinides) would result in smaller predicted transfer factors for
390122-300 – April 2011
A-6
smaller biota than the reference animal. As most of the ecological receptors are smaller than
cattle, the -0.75 is used as a conservative approach. The scaling can be applied as follows:
⎛ BWw ⎞
⎟⎟
TFw = TFa ⎜⎜
⎝ BWa ⎠
−0.75
Where:
TFw
TFa
BWw
BWa
=
=
=
=
390122-300 – April 2011
Transfer factor for wildlife (d/kg dw)
Transfer factor for animal available from literature (d/kg dw)
Body weight of wildlife (kg)
Body weight of animal from literature (kg)
A-7
Screening Level Ecological And Human Health Risk Assessment for the Matoush Underground Uranium Exploration Ramp
Table A.12
COPC
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Water to Sediment
L/kg
Reference
(dw)
2000
IAEA 2010
4300
U.S. EPA 1998
270
Bechtel Jacobs 1998
1000
U.S. EPA 1998
Water-to-Aquatic Biota Transfer Factors
Water to Fish
Water to Benthic Invertebrates
L/kg
(ww)
1.2
200
25
6100
IAEA 2010
NCRP 1996
IAEA 2010
IAEA 2010
200
100
22
750
NRCC 1983
IAEA 2010
IAEA 2010
IAEA 2010
Reference
L/kg (ww)
Reference
Uranium
50
Bechtel Jacobs 1998
0.86
IAEA 2010
170
IAEA 2010
Lead-210
270
Bechtel Jacobs 1998
25
IAEA 2010
22
IAEA 2010
Polonium-210
150
Bechtel Jacobs 1998
36
IAEA 2010
20000
Radium-226
7400
IAEA 2010
4
IAEA 2010
100
IAEA 2010
Thorium-230
190000
IAEA 2010
100
CSA 2008
2900
IAEA 2010
Uranium-238
50
Bechtel Jacobs 1998
0.86
IAEA 2010
170
IAEA 2010
Table A.13
COPC
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238
Notes:
Non-Scaled Value
Value
Reference
(d/kg ww)
1.40E-04
IAEA 2010
5.80E-03
IAEA 2010
7.00E-04
IAEA 2010
1.00E-02
CSA 2008
3.90E-04
IAEA 2010
9.30E-04
IAEA 2010
1.00E-02
small; Thomas 1997
large; Thomas et al.
1.30E-03
1994
1.70E-03
IAEA 2010
3.50E-04
IAEA 2010
3.90E-04
IAEA 2010
Napier et al. 1988
Water to Aquatic Vegetation
L/kg
Reference
(ww)
500
NRCC 1983
760
U.S. EPA 2001
1800
Value for Lead-210
530
Bird and Schwartz 1996
IAEA 2010 (generic
230
macrophytes)
IAEA 2010 (generic
1800
macrophytes)
2000
Napier et al. 1988
IAEA 2010 (generic
2000
macrophytes)
3000
Napier et al. 1988
IAEA 2010 (generic
230
macrophytes)
Feed-to-Mammal Transfer Factors
Scaled Value (d/kg ww)
Beaver
Black Bear
Mink
Moose
Muskrat
Red Fox
1.57E-03
6.48E-02
7.83E-03
1.12E-01
4.36E-03
1.04E-02
1.30E-03
2.92E-04
1.21E-02
1.46E-03
2.09E-02
8.14E-04
1.94E-03
1.00E-02
1.70E-02
7.03E-01
8.49E-02
1.21E+00
4.73E-02
1.13E-01
1.30E-03
1.40E-04
5.80E-03
7.00E-04
1.00E-02
3.90E-04
9.30E-04
1.00E-02
1.48E-02
6.13E-01
7.40E-02
1.06E+00
4.12E-02
9.83E-02
1.30E-03
5.49E-03
2.28E-01
2.75E-02
3.92E-01
1.53E-02
3.65E-02
1.30E-03
Snowshoe
Hare
1.32E-02
5.46E-01
6.59E-02
9.42E-01
3.67E-02
8.76E-02
1.30E-03
1.90E-02
3.55E-03
2.06E-01
1.70E-03
1.80E-01
6.67E-02
1.60E-01
3.91E-03
4.36E-03
1.57E-03
7.30E-04
8.14E-04
2.92E-04
4.24E-02
4.73E-02
1.70E-02
3.50E-04
3.90E-04
1.40E-04
3.70E-02
4.12E-02
1.48E-02
1.37E-02
1.53E-02
5.49E-03
3.30E-02
3.67E-02
1.32E-02
Non-scaled values based mainly on feed-to-beef transfer factors
390122-300 – April 2011
A-8
Table A.14
Feed-to-Bird Transfer Factors
Non-Scaled Value
COPC
Barium
Cadmium
Value
(d/kg ww)
1.90E-02
1.70E+00
Lead
2.00E-01
Mercury
2.70E-02
Uranium
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238
7.50E-01
4.65E-01
2.40E+00
3.00E-02
1.00E-02
7.50E-01
Notes:
Reference
IAEA 2010
IAEA 2010
IAEA 1994, Baes et al. 1984,
U.S. EPA 1998, CSA 1987
IAEA 1994, Baes et al. 1984,
U.S. EPA 1998, CSA 1987
IAEA 2010
Mammal TF x 500
IAEA 2010
CSA 2008
CSA 2008
IAEA 2010
Scaled Value (d/kg ww)
Spruce
Mallard
Grouse
4.57E-02
3.02E-02
4.09E+00
2.70E+00
2.36E-02
2.11E+00
Red-Tailed
Hawk
2.48E-02
2.22E+00
2.48E-01
2.61E-01
4.81E-01
3.17E-01
2.52E-01
3.90E-01
3.35E-02
3.53E-02
6.50E-02
4.29E-02
3.40E-02
5.27E-02
9.31E-01
5.77E-01
2.98E+00
3.72E-02
1.24E-02
9.31E-01
9.80E-01
6.08E-01
3.14E+00
3.92E-02
1.31E-02
9.80E-01
1.81E+00
1.12E+00
5.78E+00
7.22E-02
2.41E-02
1.81E+00
1.19E+00
7.38E-01
3.81E+00
4.76E-02
1.59E-02
1.19E+00
9.45E-01
5.86E-01
3.02E+00
3.78E-02
1.26E-02
9.45E-01
1.46E+00
9.08E-01
4.68E+00
5.86E-02
1.95E-02
1.46E+00
Osprey
Merganser
Scaup
2.39E-02
2.14E+00
3.71E-02
3.32E+00
Non-scaled values based mainly on feed-to-poultry transfer factors
390122-300 – April 2011
A-9
A.4
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. 2002. "Castor canadensis" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Last accessed April
2011
at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Castor_canadensis.htm
l.
Andress, S. and G.H. Parker. 1995. Radium-226 Levels in Eggs and Body Tissues of Herring
Gulls and Common Mergansers Nesting Near the Elliot Lake Uranium Mine Tailings.
Presentation at the Environmental Assessment Panel Reviewing Decommissioning
Proposals for Elliot Lake Uranium Mine Tailings Management Areas (TMAs). Transcript
of Proceedings. 16 November. Volume 3.
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen and R.W. Shar. 1984. A Review and Analysis of Parameters
for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through
Agriculture. ORNL-5786.
Beak Consultants Ltd. 1995. Site-Specific Environmental Assessment. Supporting Document
No. 2 for the Cigar Lake Project E.I.S. Prepared for the Cigar Lake Mining Corporation.
Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (Bechtel Jacobs). 1998. Radiological Benchmarks for Screening
Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Environmental Management. Publication BJC/OR-80, July.
Belovsky, G.E., P.A. Jordan and D.B. Botkin. 1973. Summer Browsing by Moose in Relation to
Preference, and Animal Density: A New Quantitative Approach. Proceedings of the 9th
North American Moose Conference and Workshop, Quebec, City, March.
Beyer, W. N., E. Connor and S. Gerould. 1994. Survey of Soil Ingestion by Wildlife. Journal of
Wildlife Management 58:375-382.
Bird, G.A. and W. Schwartz. 1996. Nuclide Concentration Factors from Freshwater Biota.
AECL. Technical Record TR-703.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1998. Protocol for the Derivation
of Canadian Tissue Residue Guidelines for the Protection of Wildlife that Consume
Aquatic Biota. Provided in the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines.
390122-300 – April 2011
A-10
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2008. Guidelines for Calculating Eerived Release
Llimits for Radioactive Material in Airborne and Liquid Efluents for Normal Operation
of Nuclear Facilities. N288.1-08.
Canadian Standard Association (CSA). 1987. Guidelines for Calculating Derived Release Rate
Limits for Radioactive Material in Airborne and Liquid Effluents for Normal Operation
of Nuclear Facilities. CAN ICSA-N288. 1-M87.
Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). 1997. Hinterland Who’s Who. Mammal Fact Sheet: Moose.
Last accessed April 2011 at http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?id=93.
Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). 1993. Hinterland Who’s Who. Mammal Fact Sheet: Black
Bear. Last accessed April 2011 at http://www.ffdp.ca/hww2.asp?id=83.
Dewey, T. and D. Arnold. 2002. "Buteo jamaicensis" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Last
accessed April 2011 at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Buteo_jamaicensis.htm
l.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 2011. Spruce Grouse. Department of Environment
and Conservation - Animal Facts. Last accessed April 2011 at
http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/snp/programs/education/animal_facts/mammals/spruce_gr
ouse.html.
Higley, K.A., S.L. Domotor and E.J. Antonio. 2003. A Kinetic-Allometric Approach to
Predicting Tissue Radionuclide Concentrations for Biota. Journal of Environmental
Radioactivity. 66:61-74.
Holcroft, A.C. and S. Herrero. 1991. Black Bear, Ursus americanus, Food Habits in
Southwestern Alberta. Can. Field-Nat. 105:335-345.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2010. Handbook of Parameter Values for the
Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments.
Technical Report Series No. 472.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1994. Handbook of Parameter Values for the
Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate Environments. International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna.
390122-300 – April 2011
A-11
Kronk, C. 2002. “Ursus americanus” (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Last accessed April 2011
at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Ursus_americanus.html
Mirka, M.A., F.V. Clulow, N.K. Davé and T.P. Lim. 1996. Radium-226 in Cattails, Typha
latifolia, and Bone of Muskrat, Ondatra zibethica (L.) from a Watershed with Uranium
Tailings near the City of Elliot Lake, Canada. Environmental Pollution, 91(1): 41-51.
Napier, B.A., R.A. Peloquin, D.L. Strenge and J.V. Ramsdell. 1988. GENII - The Hanford
Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System. PNL-6584, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, Washington. [as cited in Staven et al. 2003]
Nalezinski, S., W. Ruhm and E. Wirth. 1996. Development of a General Equation to Determine
the Transfer Factor Feed-to-Meat for Radiocesium on the Basis of the Body Mass of
Domestic Animals. Health Physics 70(2)717:721.
National Research Council of Canada (NRCC). 1983. Radioactivity in the Canadian Aquatic
Environment. Public. No. NRCC-19250, National Radiation Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Pease, J. L., R. H. Vowles and L. B. Keith. 1979. Interaction of Snowshoe Hares and Woody
Vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:43-60.
Thomas, P.A., J.W. Sheard and S. Swanson. 1994. Transfer of Po-210 and Pb-210 Through the
Lichen-Caribou-Wolf Food Chain of Northern Canada. Health Physics, 66(6): 666-677.
June
Thomas, P.A. 1997. The Ecological Distribution and Bioavailability of Uranium-Series
Radionuclides in Terrestrial Food Chains: Key Lake Uranium Operations, Northern
Saskatchewan. Prepared for Environment Canada – Environmental Protection – Prairie
and Northern Region, December.
United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2002. Technical Standard, a Graded Approach
for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota (DOE-STD-1153-2002).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2001. Update of Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Cadmium. Office of Water. April.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Human Health Risk
Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Peer Review Draft.
EPA 530-D-98-001.
390122-300 – April 2011
A-12
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors
Handbook. EPA/600/R-93/187.
United States National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP). 1996.
Screening Models for Release of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface Water and
Ground. NCRP Report No. 123.
390122-300 – April 2011
A-13
APPENDIX B
DEPOSITION MODEL
390122-300 – April 2011
B.1
DEPOSITION MODEL
The soil concentration at time Tc (ScTc) is calculated as follows:
(
Ds × 1 − e ( − ks×Tc )
ScTc =
ks
)
(B-1)
Where:
Ds
ks
Tc
=
=
=
Deposition term (mg/(kg yr)) [calculated (B-2)]
Soil loss constant (1/yr) [calculated (B-3)]
Time period over which deposition occurs (yr) [assumed to be 2]
The deposition term (Ds) is calculated as follows:
Ds =
1000 Vsettle × Ca
×
z × BD
10000
(B-2)
Where:
1000
z
BD
10000
Vsettle
=
=
=
=
=
Ca
=
Safety factor
Soil mixing depth (cm) [tilled = 20, forage = 2]
Soil bulk density (g/cm3) [assumed to be 1.5]
Conversion factor (m2 to cm2)
Settling velocity (m/yr) [assumed to be 3153.6 m/yr, equivalent to 0.01
cm/s, using particle density of 4.0 g/cm3, particle diameter 1 μm, and stable
atmosphere with roughness height 0.1 cm]
Concentration of chemical in air (μg/m3) [from air dispersion model]
The soil mixing depth (z) changes depending on the type of exposure being calculated. For soil
ingestion and root uptake for forage vegetation, the soil concentration calculated with z for
forage was used. This was a cautious assumption, since soil concentrations for forage soils are
generally higher than soil concentrations for tilled soils because the constituent is dispersed
through a smaller region (2 cm vs. 20 cm) and therefore is found in greater concentrations. The
tilled soil concentration was used for root uptake by above-ground vegetables and silage because
these vegetation types are grown on tilled soil.
The soil loss constant (ks) accounts for the loss of chemical from soil by several mechanisms and
is calculated as follows:
ks = ksl + kse + ksr + ksg + ksv
390122-300 – April 2011
B-1
(B-3)
Where:
ksl
kse
=
=
ksr
ksg
ksv
=
=
=
Loss constant due to leaching (1/yr) [calculated (B-4)]
Loss constant due to soil erosion (1/yr) [use recommended value of 0
(U.S. EPA (2005)]
Loss constant due to surface runoff (1/yr) [calculated (B-5)]
Loss constant due to degradation (1/yr) [assumed to be 0]
Loss constant due to volatilization (1/yr) [calculated (B-6)]
The loss constant due to leaching (ksl) is calculated as follows:
ksl =
q
⎡ ⎛ BD × Kd s ⎞⎤
⎟⎟⎥
Θ s × z × ⎢1 + ⎜⎜
Θs
⎠⎦⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝
(B-4)
Where:
q
Θs
z
Kds
BD
=
=
=
=
=
Average annual recharge (cm/yr) [assumed to be 5]
Soil volumetric water content (mL/cm3) [assumed to be 0.2]
Soil-water partition coefficient (cm3/g) [chemical-specific (Table B-1)]
The chemical loss constant due to runoff from soil (ksr) is calculated as follows:
⎛
⎜
⎜
1
R
×⎜
ksr =
Θ s × z ⎜ ⎛ BD × Kd s
⎜
⎜1+ ⎜
Θs
⎝ ⎝
⎞
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎞⎟
⎟⎟
⎟
⎠⎠
(B-5)
Where:
R
Θs
z
BD
Kds
=
=
=
=
=
390122-300 – April 2011
Average annual runoff (cm/yr) [assumed to be 2.5]
B-2
The chemical loss constant due to volatilization from soil (ksv) is calculated as follows:
⎡ 3.1536 × 107 × H ⎤ ⎛ Da ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ BD
ksv = ⎢
⎟ × ⎢1 − ⎜⎜
⎥×⎜
z
Kd
R
T
BD
z
×
×
×
×
⎝
⎠ ⎣ ⎝ ρ soil
s
a
⎣
⎦
⎤
⎞
⎟⎟ − Θ s ⎥
⎠
⎦
(B-6)
Where:
3.15 x 107=
H
=
z
=
BD
=
Kds
=
R
=
Ta
=
ρsoil =
Da
=
Θs
=
Conversion constant (s/yr)
Henry’s Law constant (atm m3/mol) [chemical-specific (Table B-1)]
Universal gas constant ((atm m3)/(mol K)) [assumed to be 8.205 x 10-5]
Ambient air temperature (K) [assumed to be 285.15]
Solids particle density (g/cm3) [assumed to be 2.7]
Diffusivity of chemicals in air (cm2/s) [chemical-specific (Table B-1)]
The chemical concentration in vegetation (Cveg) is calculated following (B-7) and includes the
uptake of chemicals by roots, the direct deposition of chemicals from the air to vegetation
surfaces, and the direct uptake by plant leaves of vapour phase chemicals in the air.
Cveg = C r + C d + Cv
(B-7)
Where:
Cr
Cd
Cv
=
=
=
Concentration in plant from root uptake (mg/kg DW) [calculated (B-8)]
Concentration in plant from direct deposition (mg/kg DW) [calc (B-9)]
Concentration in plant from air-to-plant transfer (mg/kg DW) [calc(B-10)]
The chemical concentration in above ground vegetation due to direct uptake of chemical from
soil (Cr) is calculated as shown in (B-8). For vegetation, the tilled soil concentration was used
with the Br for leafy vegetation. For forage, the forage soil concentration was used with the Br
for forage. And for silage, the tilled soil concentration was used with the Br for forage.
Cr = Csoil × Br
(B-8)
Where:
Csoil
Br
=
=
390122-300 – April 2011
Chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg) [calculated (B-1)]
Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for vegetation ((μg/g DW)/(μg/g soil))
[chem.-specific] (Table B-1)
B-3
The chemical concentration in above-ground vegetation due to wet and dry deposition of
chemical to the plant surface (Cd) is calculated as follows:
Cd =
(1 − Fv ) × Fw × Vsettle × C a × Rp × [(1 − e (− kp×Tp ) )]
Yp × kp × 1000
(B-9)
Where:
1000 =
Fv
=
Vsettle =
Ca
Fw
Rp
kp
Tp
=
=
=
=
=
Yp
=
Units conversion factor (mg/g)
Fraction of chemical in vapour phase (-) [chemical-specific (Table B-1)]
Settling velocity (m/yr) [assumed to be 3153.6 m/yr, equivalent to 0.01
cm/s, using particle density of 4.0 g/cm3, particle diameter 1 μm, and stable
atmosphere with roughness height 0.1 cm]
Fraction of wet deposition that adheres to plant (-) [assumed 0.6]
Interception fraction edible portion [veg =0.39, forage = 0.5, silage = 0.46]
Plant surface loss coefficient (1/yr) [assumed to be 18]
Length of plant exposure to deposition of edible portion of plant (yrs)
[veg = 0.164, forage = 0.12, silage = 0.16]
Yield or standing crop biomass of the edible portion of plant (kg DW/m2)
[veg = 2.24, forage = 0.24, silage = 0.8]
The chemical concentration in aboveground vegetation due to the direct uptake of vapour phase
chemicals into the plant leaves (Cv) is calculated as follows:
Cv = Fv ×
Where:
Fv
Ca
Bv
=
=
=
VGag
=
ρs
=
390122-300 – April 2011
Ca × Bv × VGag
ρs
(B-10)
Fraction of chemical in vapour phase (-) [chemical-specific (Table B-1)]
Air-to-plant biotransfer factor ((mg/kg plant DW)/(μg/g air)) [chemicalspecific (Table B-1)]
Empirical correction (-) [assumed to be 0.01 for PAHs in veg, 1 for forage
and non-PAHs in veg, 0.5 for silage]
Density of air (g/m3) [1.2 x 103]
B-4
Table B.1
soil-water
partition
coefficient
(cm3/g)
Kds
Chemical-Specific Parameters used in the Calculations
Diffusivity
of COPC in
air
(cm2/s)
Da
Fraction of air
concentration
in vapor phase
Henry's Law
constant
(atmm3/mol)
H
Octanolwater
partition
coefficient
LogKow
Air-toplant bio
transfer
factor
Bv
Plant-soil
bioconcentration factor
COPC
Fv
Br-leafy
Br-forage
Metals
Barium
41
0.0772
0.009
0
0.23
0
0.0322
0.15
Cadmium
75
0.0772
0.009
0.031
-0.07
0
0.125
0.364
Lead
900
0.0772
0.007
0.025
0.73
0
0.0136
0.045
Mercury
1000
0.0109
1
0.0071
0.62
0
0.008
0.0854
Uranium
100
0.1
0
0
0
0
0.000608
0.00066
Notes: Data obtained from companion database from HHRAP (U.S. EPA 2005) and RAIS (University of Tennessee 2009)
B.2
REFERENCES
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2005. Human Health Risk
Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. EPA Region 6, Office
of Solid Waste, September.
University of Tennessee, 2009. Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS): On-line database.
http://rais.ornl.gov/.
390122-300 – April 2011
B-5
APPENDIX C
DETAILED SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
390122-300 – April 2011
C.1
EXAMPLE CALCULATION: RADIATION AQUATIC BIOTA - BASELINE; RBE 10
Water
Measured
Sediment
Measured Concentration
Water fraction of sed
Concentration
Fish
Water-to-fish biocon fac
Measured Conc - pelagic
Measured Conc - benthic
Aquatic Plants
Water-to-plants biocon fac
Plants in measured water
Water-to-benthos biocon fac
Benthos in measured water
U-238+
Th-230
Ra-226+
Pb-210+
Po-210
Ra-228
Th-228
0.29
5.00
3.17
13.33
18.33
0.00
0.00
Subtotals
Bq/m3
wcb
Bq/g(dry)
Bq/g(wet)
seddcb
wfsed
sedwcb
0.061735
0.9
6.17E-03
0.13
0.36
0.66
0.65
0
0
1.30E-02
3.60E-02
6.60E-02
6.50E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
m3/gwet
Bq/g wet
Bq/g wet
bcff
fcb
fcbb
1.48E-04
1.48E-04
2.00E-03
2.00E-03
9.90E-03
9.90E-03
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
6.30E-02
6.30E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
m3/gwet
Bq/g wet
bcfap
apcb
3.70E-05
1.20E-03
8.40E-02
7.50E-02
1.80E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
m3/gwet
Bq/g wet
bcfbi
bicb
4.95E-05
1.45E-02
3.17E-04
2.93E-04
3.67E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Idcff
Iadfb
ladfbb
1.42E-01
2.10E-05
2.10E-05
6.58E-02
1.32E-04
1.32E-04
1.59E-01
1.57E-03
1.57E-03
6.03E-03
2.41E-04
2.41E-04
7.40E-02
4.66E-03
4.66E-03
2.0E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.6E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
Edcff
Eadfb
Eadfbenb
Tadfpb
Tadfbenb
1.73E-05
5.04E-12
5.35E-08
2.10E-05
2.11E-05
1.96E-05
9.79E-11
1.27E-07
1.32E-04
1.32E-04
8.77E-05
2.78E-10
1.58E-06
1.57E-03
1.58E-03
6.05E-05
8.07E-10
2.00E-06
2.41E-04
2.43E-04
9.42E-08
1.73E-12
3.06E-09
4.66E-03
4.66E-03
1.30E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.11E-05
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.2E-09
3.8E-06
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
Absorbed Doses - Fish
Internal Dose Factor
Internal dose - pelagic
Internal dose - benthic
Ext. dose factor
Ext. dose pelagic
Ext. dose benthic
Total dose - pelagic
Total dose - benthic
390122-300 – April 2011
mGy/d per
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d per
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
C-1
U-238+
Th-230
Ra-226+
Pb-210+
Po-210
Ra-228
Th-228
Subtotals
Idcfap
Iadapb
1.42E-01
5.26E-06
6.58E-02
7.90E-05
1.59E-01
1.34E-02
6.03E-03
4.52E-04
7.40E-02
1.33E-03
2.0E-02
0.00E+00
7.6E-02
0.00E+00
1.5E-02
Edcfap
Eadpwb
Eadpsb
Tadaplb
Tadaprb
1.73E-05
5.04E-12
1.07E-07
5.26E-06
5.37E-06
1.96E-05
9.79E-11
2.55E-07
7.90E-05
7.92E-05
8.77E-05
2.78E-10
3.16E-06
1.34E-02
1.34E-02
6.05E-05
8.07E-10
4.00E-06
4.52E-04
4.56E-04
9.42E-08
1.73E-12
6.13E-09
1.33E-03
1.33E-03
1.30E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.11E-05
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.2E-09
7.5E-06
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
Absorbed Doses - Aquatic Plants
Internal dose
Ext. dose factor aq plant
Ext. dose to leaf
Ext. dose to root
Total dose - leaf
Total dose - root
mGy/d per
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d per
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Absorbed Doses - Benthic Invertebrates
mGy/d per
Bq/g
Internal dose
mGy/d
mGy/d per
Ext. dose factor ben invert
Bq/g
Ext. dose sediment
mGy/d
Total dose
mGy/d
Idcfbi
Iadbib
1.42E-01
7.03E-06
6.58E-02
9.54E-04
1.59E-01
5.04E-05
6.03E-03
1.77E-06
7.40E-02
2.71E-02
2.0E-02
0.00E+00
7.6E-02
0.00E+00
2.8E-02
Edcfbi
Eadbenb
Tadbenb
1.73E-05
1.07E-07
7.13E-06
1.96E-05
2.55E-07
9.54E-04
8.77E-05
3.16E-06
5.35E-05
6.05E-05
4.00E-06
5.77E-06
9.42E-08
6.13E-09
2.71E-02
1.30E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.11E-05
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.5E-06
2.8E-02
Equivalent Doses - Fish
RBE for alpha
Total dose - pelagic
Total dose - benthic
RBEf
Tedfpb
Tedfbenb
10
2.10E-04
2.10E-04
1.32E-03
1.32E-03
1.57E-02
1.57E-02
2.41E-03
2.41E-03
4.66E-02
4.66E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
6.6E-02
6.6E-02
Eqivalent Doses - Aquatic Plants
RBE for alpha
Sv/Gy
Total dose - leaf
mSv/d
Total dose - root
mSv/d
RBEap
Tedaplb
Tedaprb
10
5.26E-05
5.27E-05
7.90E-04
7.90E-04
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
4.52E-03
4.53E-03
1.33E-02
1.33E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.5E-01
1.5E-01
Equivalent Doses - Benthic Invertebrates
RBE for alpha
Sv/Gy
Total dose
mSv/d
RBEbi
Tedbenb
10
7.04E-05
9.54E-03
5.07E-04
2.17E-05
2.71E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.8E-01
390122-300 – April 2011
Sv/Gy
mSv/d
mSv/d
C-2
U-238+
Th-230
Ra-226+
Pb-210+
Po-210
Ra-228
Th-228
Subtotals
SUMMARY
Screening Criterion in mGy/d
Ref. Dose
RBE
10
mGy/d
Pelagic
Fish
Benthic Fish
Aquatic Plant Leaves
Aquatic Plant Roots
0.6
10
0.6
10
3
10
3
10
6
10
Total
Absorbed
Dose
mGy/d
Total
Equivalent
Dose
mSv/d
6.6E-03
6.6E-02
6.6E-03
6.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-01
1.5E-02
1.5E-01
6.4E-02
6.4E-01
Index
(Absorbed
Dose)
Index
(Equivalent
Dose)
1.1E-02
6.6E-04
1.1E-02
6.6E-04
5.1E-03
1.5E-03
5.1E-03
1.5E-03
1.1E-02
6.4E-03
1.1E-01
6.6E-03
1.1E-01
6.6E-03
5.1E-02
1.5E-02
5.1E-02
1.5E-02
1.1E-01
6.4E-02
U-238+
Internal
External
U-238 + Th-234 + Pa-234m+ U-234 + 0.045 U-235
Ra-226+
Internal
External
Ra-226 + 0.3* (Rn-222 + ........Po-214)
Ra-226 + 1.0* (Rn-222 + ........Po-214) (beta + gamma only)
390122-300 – April 2011
C-3
C.2
EXAMPLE CALCULATION: RADIATION TERRESTRIAL BIOTA - BASELINE; RBE 10
U-238+
Th-230
Ra-226+
Pb-210+
Po-210+
Idcf
1.4E-01
6.6E-02
1.6E-01
6.0E-03
7.5E-02
uGy/h
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Xgrat
Crad
Idrat
fts
Xdrat
tdrat
0.088
6.9E-05
9.8E-06
0.5
1.1E-03
3.9E-03
5.9E-06
3.9E-07
8.0E-05
1.3E-05
4.7E-03
2.8E-05
3.7E-02
2.8E-03
2.8E-03
Absorbed Doses - Red Tailed Hawk
Concentration
Internal dose rate
Fraction of time on site
External dose rate
Internal plus external
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad2
Idrat2
fts2
Xdrat2
tdrat2
9.6E-06
1.4E-06
0.5
1.1E-03
1.8E-03
4.0E-07
2.6E-08
2.7E-06
4.4E-07
8.1E-04
4.9E-06
9.3E-03
7.0E-04
7.0E-04
Absorbed Doses - Scaup
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad3
Idrat3
fts3
Xdrat3
tdrat3
2.6E-04
3.7E-05
0.5
1.1E-03
1.6E-02
3.9E-05
2.6E-06
1.2E-04
1.9E-05
2.5E-03
1.5E-05
2.0E-01
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
Absorbed Doses - Mallard
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad4
Idrat4
fts4
Xdrat4
tdrat4
6.9E-05
9.9E-06
0.5
1.1E-03
1.1E-02
2.4E-05
1.6E-06
1.4E-04
2.2E-05
2.2E-03
1.3E-05
1.4E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-02
Internal dose factor
External gamma rate
mGy/d per Bq/g
Absorbed Doses - Osprey
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
390122-300 – April 2011
C-4
Subtotals
U-238+
Th-230
Ra-226+
Pb-210+
Po-210+
Subtotals
Absorbed Doses - Spruce Grouse
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad5
Idrat5
fts5
Xdrat5
tdrat5
7.1E-06
1.0E-06
0.3
6.3E-04
3.5E-03
9.6E-07
6.3E-08
1.2E-05
1.8E-06
2.5E-03
1.5E-05
3.8E-02
2.8E-03
2.8E-03
Absorbed Doses - Common Merganser
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad6
Idrat6
fts6
Xdrat6
tdrat6
7.0E-05
9.9E-06
0.5
1.1E-03
3.8E-03
5.9E-06
3.9E-07
7.9E-05
1.3E-05
4.6E-03
2.8E-05
3.7E-02
2.7E-03
2.8E-03
Absorbed Doses - Beaver
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad7
Idrat7
fts7
Xdrat7
tdrat7
2.9E-06
4.1E-07
1
2.1E-03
2.3E-03
9.2E-06
6.0E-07
9.1E-04
1.4E-04
7.6E-04
4.6E-06
1.5E-04
1.1E-05
1.6E-04
Absorbed Doses - Black Bear
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad8
Idrat8
fts8
Xdrat8
tdrat8
1.4E-07
2.0E-08
0.1
2.1E-04
2.4E-04
1.1E-06
6.9E-08
3.1E-05
4.9E-06
6.4E-05
3.8E-07
3.5E-04
2.6E-05
3.1E-05
Absorbed Doses - American Mink
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad9
Idrat9
fts9
Xdrat9
7.6E-06
1.1E-06
1
2.1E-03
3.7E-05
2.4E-06
6.7E-04
1.1E-04
9.2E-04
5.5E-06
2.6E-05
2.0E-06
1.2E-04
390122-300 – April 2011
C-5
Ra-226+
Pb-210+
Po-210+
Subtotals
tdrat9
U-238+
2.2E-03
Th-230
mGy/d
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad10
Idrat10
fts10
Xdrat10
tdrat10
6.7E-06
9.5E-07
1
2.1E-03
3.0E-03
3.1E-05
2.0E-06
5.5E-03
8.7E-04
2.8E-03
1.7E-05
1.4E-05
1.0E-06
8.9E-04
Absorbed Doses - Snowshoe Hare
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad11
Idrat11
fts11
Xdrat11
tdrat11
4.2E-07
5.9E-08
0.3
6.3E-04
6.5E-04
3.4E-06
2.2E-07
1.0E-04
1.6E-05
4.2E-04
2.5E-06
1.6E-05
1.2E-06
2.0E-05
Absorbed Doses - Red Fox
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad12
Idrat12
fts12
Xdrat12
tdrat12
2.2E-07
3.1E-08
0.3
6.3E-04
6.3E-04
3.2E-07
2.1E-08
3.4E-06
5.5E-07
3.4E-05
2.0E-07
1.1E-05
8.4E-07
1.6E-06
Absorbed Doses - Moose
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
Bq/g
mGy/d
mGy/d
mGy/d
Crad13
Idrat13
fts13
Xdrat13
tdrat13
3.7E-07
5.2E-08
0.1
2.1E-04
5.5E-04
1.4E-06
9.0E-08
5.4E-05
8.6E-06
1.4E-04
8.3E-07
4.4E-03
3.3E-04
3.3E-04
Sv/Gy
RBE
10
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr
Lletdr
9.8E-05
1.1E-03
3.9E-06
1.3E-04
2.8E-04
2.8E-02
2.8E-02
Absorbed Doses - Muskrat
Concentration
Internal dose rate
External dose rate
RBE for alpha
Equivalent Doses - Osprey
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
390122-300 – April 2011
C-6
Ra-226+
Pb-210+
Po-210+
Subtotals
tdr
U-238+
2.9E-02
Th-230
mSv/d
Equivalent Doses - Red Tailed Hawk
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr2
Lletdr2
tdr2
1.4E-05
1.1E-03
8.1E-03
2.6E-07
4.4E-06
4.9E-05
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
Equivalent Doses - Scaup
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr3
Lletdr3
tdr3
3.7E-04
1.1E-03
1.5E-01
2.6E-05
1.9E-04
1.5E-04
1.5E-01
1.5E-01
Equivalent Doses - Mallard
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr4
Lletdr4
tdr4
9.9E-05
1.1E-03
1.0E-01
1.6E-05
2.2E-04
1.3E-04
1.0E-01
1.0E-01
Equivalent Doses - Spruce Grouse
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr5
Lletdr5
tdr5
1.0E-05
6.3E-04
2.9E-02
6.3E-07
1.8E-05
1.5E-04
2.8E-02
2.8E-02
Equivalent Doses - Common Merganser
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr6
Lletdr6
tdr6
9.9E-05
1.1E-03
2.9E-02
3.9E-06
1.3E-04
2.8E-04
2.7E-02
2.8E-02
Equivalent Doses - Beaver
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr7
Lletdr7
tdr7
4.1E-06
2.1E-03
3.7E-03
6.0E-06
1.4E-03
4.6E-05
1.1E-04
1.6E-03
Total dose rate
Equivalent Doses - Black Bear
390122-300 – April 2011
C-7
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr8
Lletdr8
tdr8
U-238+
2.0E-07
2.1E-04
5.2E-04
Equivalent Doses - American Mink
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr9
Lletdr9
tdr9
1.1E-05
2.1E-03
3.3E-03
2.4E-05
1.1E-03
5.5E-05
2.0E-05
1.2E-03
Equivalent Doses - Muskrat
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr10
Lletdr10
tdr10
9.5E-06
2.1E-03
1.1E-02
2.0E-05
8.7E-03
1.7E-04
1.0E-05
8.9E-03
Equivalent Doses - Snowshoe Hare
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr11
Lletdr11
tdr11
5.9E-07
6.3E-04
8.4E-04
2.2E-06
1.6E-04
2.5E-05
1.2E-05
2.0E-04
Equivalent Doses - Red Fox
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr12
Lletdr12
tdr12
3.1E-07
6.3E-04
6.5E-04
2.1E-07
5.5E-06
2.0E-06
8.4E-06
1.6E-05
Equivalent Doses - Moose
High LET dose rate
Low LET dose rate
Total dose rate
mSv/d
mSv/d
mSv/d
Hletdr13
Lletdr13
tdr13
5.2E-07
2.1E-04
3.6E-03
9.0E-07
8.6E-05
8.3E-06
3.3E-03
3.3E-03
390122-300 – April 2011
C-8
Th-230
6.9E-07
Ra-226+
4.9E-05
Pb-210+
3.8E-06
Po-210+
2.6E-04
Subtotals
3.1E-04
SUMMARY
Screening Criterion in mGy/d
RBE for alpha = 10
Osprey
Red Tailed Hawk
Scaup
Mallard
Spruce Grouse
Common Merganser
Beaver
Black Bear
American Mink
Muskrat
Snowshoe Hare
Red Fox
Moose
390122-300 – April 2011
Reference Dose =
1 mGy/d
Reference Dose =
3 mGy/d
Total
Absorbed
Dose
mGy/d
Total
Equivalent
Dose
mSv/d
Index
(Absorbed
Dose)
Index
(Equivalent
Dose)
Index
(Absorbed
Dose)
Index
(Equivalent
Dose)
3.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.6E-02
1.1E-02
3.5E-03
3.8E-03
2.3E-03
2.4E-04
2.2E-03
3.0E-03
6.5E-04
6.3E-04
5.5E-04
2.9E-02
8.1E-03
1.5E-01
1.0E-01
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
3.7E-03
5.2E-04
3.3E-03
1.1E-02
8.4E-04
6.5E-04
3.6E-03
3.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.6E-02
1.1E-02
3.5E-03
3.8E-03
2.3E-03
2.4E-04
2.2E-03
3.0E-03
6.5E-04
6.3E-04
5.5E-04
2.9E-02
8.1E-03
1.5E-01
1.0E-01
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
3.7E-03
5.2E-04
3.3E-03
1.1E-02
8.4E-04
6.5E-04
3.6E-03
1.3E-03
5.8E-04
5.5E-03
3.7E-03
1.2E-03
1.3E-03
7.5E-04
8.1E-05
7.4E-04
1.0E-03
2.2E-04
2.1E-04
1.8E-04
9.8E-03
2.7E-03
5.2E-02
3.4E-02
9.6E-03
9.6E-03
1.2E-03
1.7E-04
1.1E-03
3.7E-03
2.8E-04
2.2E-04
1.2E-03
C-9
C.3
EXAMPLE CALCULATION: NON-RAD COPC TERRESTRIAL BIOTA - BASELINE; BARIUM
Notes:
fw indicates fresh weight
dw indicates dry weight
Parameter
Units
Symbol
Value
Reference or Equation
Water-to-aquatic plant transfer factor
Water-to-benthic invertebrate transfer factor
Non-scaled feed-to-flesh transfer factor for mammals
Non-scaled feed-to-flesh transfer factor for birds
L/kg (FW)
L/kg (FW)
d/kg (FW)
d/kg (FW)
TFaqv
TFbi
TFmam
Tfbird
500
200
0.00014
0.019
NRCC 1983
NRCC 1983
IAEA 2010 (Table 30)
IAEA 2010 (Table 34)
Water concentration
Soil concentration
Sediment concentration
Berries concentration
mg/L
mg/kg (DW)
mg/kg (DW)
mg/kg (FW)
Watc
Soilc
Sedc
Berryc
0.0054
150
45
1.24
Maximum measured concentration
Maximum measured concentration in Crowberries
Browse concentration
mg/kg (FW)
Browsec
17.7
Maximum measured concentration in Black Spruce, Birch and
Blueberry foliage
Forage concentration
Aquatic Vegetation
Benthic Invertebrates concentration
Fish concentration
mg/kg (FW)
mg/kg (FW)
mg/kg (FW)
mg/kg (FW)
Foragec
Avegc
Benc
Fishc
16.8
73.5
1.07
80
Maximum measured concentration in Lab Tea foliage
=Watc * Tfbi
Maximum measured whole fish concentration
Hare concentration
mg/kg (FW)
0.02
Estimated Snowshoe Hare concentrations using feed-to-flesh
transfer factor; see below
Duck concentration
mg/kg (FW)
0.35
Max of Scaup, Mallard and Common Merganser concentrations
using feed-to-flesh transfer factor; see below
Scaup
Body weight
Food ingestion rate
Toxicity Reference Value (NOAEL)
390122-300 – April 2011
kg
L/d
g DW/d
g FW/d
mg/kg-d
BWsc
QwatLsc
Qseddwsc
Qffwsc
favsc
fbisc
toxsc
C-10
0.82
0.052
5.6
255
0.09
0.89
20.8
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Beyer et al. 1994
CCME 1998
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Parameter
Units
Symbol
Value
Fraction of time at site
Scaled feed-to-flesh transfer factor for scaup
d/kg (FW)
flocsc
Tfscaup
0.5
0.037
assumed to be at the site 6 months a year
Intake of COC from water by body weight
Intake of COC from sediment by body weight
Intake of COC from aquatic vegetation by body weight
Intake of COC from benthic invertebrates by body
weight
Total intake
Screening Index (NOAEL)
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
Iwsc
Isedsc
Iavsc
1.70E-04
1.54E-01
1.03E+00
=QwatLsc*Watc*flocsc/BWsc
=(Qseddwsc/1000)*Sedc*flocsc/BWsc
=(Qffwsc*favsc/1000)*Avegc*flocsc/BWsc
mg/kg-d
Ibisc
1.48E-01
=(Qffwsc*fbisc/1000)*Benc*flocsc/BWsc
mg/kg-d
-
Itotsc
SIsc
1.33E+00
0.06
=Iwsc+Isedsc+Iavsc+Ibisc
=Itotsc/toxsc
Scaup concentration
mg/kg (FW)
Scaupc
4.05E-02
=Itotsc*BWsc*Tfscaup
kg
L/d
g DW/d
g FW/d
mg/kg-d
d/kg (FW)
BWma
QwatLma
Qseddwma
Qffwma
favma
fbima
toxma
flocma
TFma
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
Iwma
Isedma
Iavma
1.54E-04
3.54E-02
2.13E+00
=QwatLma*Watc*flocma/BWma
=(Qseddwma/1000)*Sedc*flocma/BWma
=(Qffwma*favma/1000)*Avegc*flocma/BWma
Mallard
Body weight
Food ingestion rate
Scaled feed-to-flesh transfer factor for mallard
1.08
0.062
1.7
250
0.25
0.75
20.8
0.5
0.030
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Beyer et al. 1994
CCME 1998
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
assumed to be at the site 6 months a year
Intake of COC from aquatic vegetation by body weight
Intake of COC from benthic invertebrates by body
weight
Total intake
Screening Index (NOAEL)
mg/kg-d
Ibima
9.30E-02
=(Qffwma*fbima/1000)*Benc*flocma/BWma
mg/kg-d
-
Itotma
SIma
2.26E+00
0.11
=Iwma+Isedma+Iavma+Ibima
=Itotma/toxma
Mallard concentration
mg/kg (FW)
Mallardc
7.35E-02
=Itotma*BWma*TFma
390122-300 – April 2011
C-11
Parameter
Units
Symbol
Value
kg
L/d
g DW/d
g FW/d
mg/kg-d
d/kg (FW)
Bwme
QwatLme
Qseddwme
Qffwme
ffime
toxme
flocme
TFme
1.47
0.076
1.5
370
0.996
20.8
0.5
0.024
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Beyer et al. 1994
CCME 1998
Andress and Parker 1995
Intake of COC from fish by body weight
Total intake
Screening Index
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
-
Iwme
Isedme
Ifime
Itotme
SIme
1.39E-04
2.30E-02
1.00E+01
1.01E+01
0.48
=QwatLme*Watc*flocme/BWme
=(Qseddwme/1000)*Sedc*flocme/BWme
=(Qffwme*ffime/1000)*fishc*flocme/BWme
=Iwme+Isedme+Ifime
=Itotme/toxme
Common Merganser concentration
mg/kg (FW)
Merganserc
3.54E-01
=Itotme*BWme*TFme
kg
L/d
g DW/d
g FW/d
mg/kg-d
d/kg (FW)
BWh
QwatLh
Qsdwh
Qffwh
fbwh
ffh
toxh
floch
TFh
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
Iwh
Ish
Ibwh
Ifh
Itoth
Common Merganser
Body weight
Food ingestion rate
Scaled feed-to-flesh transfer factor for merganser
Snowshoe Hare
Body weight
Soil ingestion rate
Food ingestion rate
Fraction of food that is forage
Scaled feed-to-flesh transfer factor for snowshoe hare
Intake of COC from soil by body weight
Intake of COC from browse by body weight
Intake of COC from forage by body weight
Total intake
390122-300 – April 2011
1.4
0.13
5.7
300
0.6
0.38
51.8
0.3
0.013
1.49E-04
1.83E-01
6.83E-01
4.10E-01
1.28E+00
C-12
assumed to be at the site year round
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Beyer et al. 1994
Pease et al. 1979
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
assumed
=QwatLh*Watc*floch/BWh
=(Qsdwh/1000)*Soilc*floch/BWh
=(Qffwh*fbwh/1000)*Browsec*floch/BWh
=(Qffwh*ffh/1000)*Foragec*floch/BWh
=Iwh+Ish+Ibwh+Ifh
Parameter
Units
Symbol
Screening Index
-
SIh
Snowshoe Hare concentration
mg/kg (FW)
Harec
kg
L/d
g DW/d
g FW/d
mg/kg-d
d/kg (FW)
BWf
QwatLf
Qsdwf
Qffwf
fbrf
fhf
fdf
toxf
flocf
TFf
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
-
Iwf
Isf
Ibrf
Ihf
Idf
Itotf
SIf
Red Fox
Body weight
Soil ingestion rate
Food ingestion rate
Fraction of food that is duck
Toxicity Reference Value
Scaled feed-to-flesh transfer factor for red fox
Intake of COC from soil by body weight
Intake of COC from berries by body weight
Intake of COC from hare by body weight
Intake of COC from duck by body weight
Total intake
Screening Index
390122-300 – April 2011
Value
0.02
=Itoth/toxh
2.36E-02
=Itoth*BWh*TFh
4.5
0.383
2.6
311
0.14
0.43
0.42
51.8
0.3
0.005
U.S. EPA 1993
U.S. EPA 1993
Beyer et al. 1994
U.S. EPA (1993)
U.S. EPA (1993)
U.S. EPA (1993)
U.S. EPA (1993)
1.37E-04
2.60E-02
3.60E-03
2.10E-04
3.08E-03
3.30E-02
0.001
C-13
assumed to be at the site year round
=QwatLf*Watc*flocf/BWf
=(Qsdwf/1000)*Soilc*flocf/BWf
=(Qffwf*fbrf/1000)*Berryc*flocf/BWf
=(Qffwf*fhf/1000)*Harec*flocf/BWf
=(Qffwf*fdf/1000)*max(Scaupc,Mallardc,Merganserc)*flocf/BWf
=Iwf+Isf+Ibrf+Ihf+Idf
=Itotf/toxf
C.4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION: HUMAN RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE DOSE FOR CAMP COOK BASELINE PLUS PROJECT
Camp Cook
Inhalation
Air conc
DCF for inhalation
Dose from inhalation
Ingestion - Duck
Duck conc
Dose from ingestion
Ingestion - Fish
Fish conc
Dose from ingestion
Ingestion - Soil
Soil conc
Dose from ingestion
Ingestion - Water
Water conc
Dose from ingestion
Radon
Incremental radon conc in
air
Radon/progeny equil
fraction
Fraction of time
Incremental radon dose
Incremental total radon
dose
External Gamma
External Gamma rate
Dose conversion
External dose
U-238+
Th-230
Ra-226+
Pb-210+
Po-210+
Bq/m3
µSv/Bq
µSv/yr
7.16E-03
8.7
1.80E+02
7.16E-03
14
2.89E+02
7.16E-03
9.5
1.96E+02
7.16E-03
5.6
1.16E+02
7.16E-03
4.3
8.88E+01
Bq/g
µSv/yr
2.80E-03
0.00E+00
4.07E-05
0.00E+00
2.15E-04
0.00E+00
2.51E-03
0.00E+00
1.50E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Bq/g
µSv/yr
2.58E-04
0.00E+00
2.20E-03
0.00E+00
3.08E-03
0.00E+00
4.20E-03
0.00E+00
1.21E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Bq/g
µSv/yr
4.94E-03
1.70E-03
2.00E-02
1.53E-02
4.00E-02
4.09E-02
8.40E-01
2.12E+00
7.40E-01
3.24E+00
5.41E+00
Bq/L
µSv/yr
9.91E-02
2.55E+00
inside
7.00E-03
4.02E-01
outside
2.32E-02
1.78E+00
2.13E-02
4.03E+00
2.03E-02
6.68E+00
1.54E+01
0.9
0.9
Bq/m3 per
WL
3.70E+03
3.00E-01
5.00E-01
7.54E-01
5.00E-01
5.00E-01
1.26E+00
2.01E+00
on-site
6
0.006
157.7
off-site
7.9
0.006
207.6
Bq/m3
ICRP 65
1993
µSv/yr
µSv/yr
µR/h
µSv/µR
µSv/yr
M per h
µSv/WLM
h per yr
F_Loc
C-14
µSv/yr
2.0
µSv/yr
0.0
µSv/yr
892.2
µSv/yr
5.90E-03
4.00E+03
8.76E+03
0.1
TOTAL
390122-300 – April 2011
869.4
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
390122-300 – April 2011
D.1
TOTAL INTAKE FOR TERRESTRIAL RECEPTORS FROM COPC - BASELINE
COPC
Osprey
Red Tailed
Hawk
Scaup
Mallard
Spruce
Grouse
Common
Merganser
Beaver
Black
Bear
American
Mink
Muskrat
Snowshoe
Hare
Red Fox
Moose
mg/(kg d)
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
MatoushBaseline
Barium
1.02E+01
2.12E-01
1.33E+00
2.26E+00
1.30E+00
1.01E+01
1.91E+00
1.91E-01
1.24E+01
2.17E+01
1.28E+00
3.30E-02
8.75E-02
Cadmium
9.14E-03
4.34E-03
6.29E-03
4.45E-03
2.67E-02
9.06E-03
1.08E-02
4.06E-04
1.48E-02
3.57E-02
1.74E-02
7.26E-04
1.41E-03
Lead
1.14E-01
9.73E-02
1.31E-01
6.23E-02
9.56E-02
1.13E-01
4.49E-02
1.08E-02
1.98E-01
4.28E-01
9.49E-02
1.25E-02
2.12E-03
Mercury
3.94E-02
2.73E-04
1.05E-03
4.22E-04
2.05E-04
3.90E-02
1.20E-04
4.57E-04
4.49E-02
9.27E-04
2.20E-04
5.08E-05
5.22E-06
Uranium
4.02E-03
7.40E-04
1.77E-02
4.37E-03
6.66E-04
4.06E-03
2.21E-03
8.65E-05
1.31E-02
1.09E-02
6.54E-04
2.61E-04
1.27E-04
Lead-210
5.40E+00
1.24E+00
3.34E+00
2.72E+00
4.78E+00
5.35E+00
3.06E+00
2.05E-01
8.12E+00
2.34E+01
3.44E+00
2.05E-01
2.48E-01
Polonium-210
8.31E+00
2.76E+00
5.32E+01
3.29E+01
1.37E+01
8.23E+00
4.81E+00
2.17E-01
2.01E+01
8.79E+00
8.86E+00
1.92E+00
7.25E-01
Radium-226
1.43E+00
6.52E-02
2.45E+00
2.74E+00
3.37E-01
1.42E+00
1.99E+00
5.42E-02
3.26E+00
2.54E+01
4.62E-01
1.15E-02
5.28E-02
Thorium-230
3.18E-01
2.86E-02
2.47E+00
1.40E+00
8.38E-02
3.17E-01
9.79E-02
9.04E-03
8.74E-01
7.00E-01
7.39E-02
5.13E-03
6.54E-03
Note:
Intake of U-238 calculated from uranium within spreadsheet calculations
390122-300 – April 2011
D-1
D.2
TOTAL INTAKE TO TERRESTRIAL RECEPTORS FROM COPC – BASELINE + PROJECT
Scaup
Mallard
MatoushBaseline+
Project
Red Tailed
Hawk
MatoushBaseline+
Project
MatoushBaseline+
Project
Spruce
Grouse
MatoushBaseline+
Project
Common
Merganser
MatoushBaseline+
Project
MatoushBaseline+
Project
MatoushBaseline+
Project
Barium
1.03E+01
2.14E-01
Cadmium
1.02E-02
3.34E-03
5.32E+00
5.46E+00
1.30E+00
1.02E+01
7.85E-03
5.81E-03
2.67E-02
1.02E-02
Lead
1.17E-01
9.67E-02
1.54E-01
1.06E-01
9.56E-02
Mercury
Uranium
5.48E-02
2.58E-04
3.34E-03
2.05E-03
5.31E-03
3.25E-03
2.33E-01
1.76E-01
Lead-210
5.42E+00
1.21E+00
3.58E+00
Polonium-210
8.31E+00
2.94E+00
Radium-226
1.52E+00
5.88E-02
COPC
Osprey
mg/(kg d)
Black
Bear
MatoushBaseline+
Project
American
Mink
MatoushBaseline+
Project
MatoushBaseline+
Project
Snowshoe
Hare
MatoushBaseline+
Project
3.00E+00
1.92E-01
1.37E+01
3.63E+01
1.28E+00
3.55E-02
1.09E-01
1.16E-02
4.18E-04
1.69E-02
4.50E-02
1.74E-02
7.57E-04
1.43E-03
1.16E-01
7.51E-02
1.08E-02
2.18E-01
8.52E-01
9.50E-02
1.25E-02
2.62E-03
1.48E-02
5.43E-02
3.84E-03
2.12E-03
6.30E-02
4.18E-03
8.53E-03
1.14E-03
5.99E-04
8.47E-04
5.33E-03
4.13E-02
1.44E-04
6.63E-02
5.62E-01
8.77E-04
2.72E-03
8.12E-04
3.15E+00
4.78E+00
5.38E+00
3.36E+00
2.06E-01
8.33E+00
2.76E+01
3.44E+00
2.05E-01
2.53E-01
5.88E+01
3.64E+01
1.37E+01
8.24E+00
4.90E+00
2.17E-01
2.12E+01
1.02E+01
8.86E+00
2.10E+00
7.26E-01
3.79E+00
4.19E+00
3.37E-01
1.51E+00
2.89E+00
5.45E-02
4.14E+00
3.75E+01
4.62E-01
1.26E-02
7.01E-02
Beaver
Muskrat
Red Fox
Moose
MatoushBaseline+
Project
MatoushBaseline+
Project
Note:
Intake of U-238 calculated from uranium within spreadsheet calculations
390122-300 – April 2011
D-2
D.3
SUMMARY OF CONCENTRATIONS USED IN ASSESSMENT
BASELINE
COPC
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238
Water
(mg/L or
Bq/L)
Soil
(mg/kg dw
or Bq/kg
dw)
Sediment
(mg/kg dw
or Bq/kg
dw)
Fish Flesh
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Whole Fish
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Berries
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Lichen
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Browse
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Forage
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Aq. Veg
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Benthos
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
5.4E-03
2.0E-05
4.0E-04
3.3E-06
2.4E-05
1.3E-02
1.8E-02
3.2E-03
5.0E-03
2.9E-04
150
1.9
69
0.18
0.4
840
740
40
20
4.9
45
1.3
33
0.2
5
660
650
360
130
62
0.9
0.019
0.022
1.4
0.014
4
12
3
2
0.17
80
0.067
0.77
0.31
0.012
40
63
9.9
2
0.15
1.24
0.01
0.014
0.34
0.002
5.2
3
0.8
0.4
0.025
3
0.03
0.528
0.432
0.006
264
210
2.4
1.8
0.074
17.7
0.39
0.27
0.171
0.003
60
204
4.5
0.9
0.037
16.8
0.002
0.01
0.07
0.002
4
3.4
9.8
0.6
0.025
73.5
0.1125
1.23
0.225
0.003
75
18
84
1.2
0.037
1.07E+00
1.97E-03
8.82E-03
2.46E-03
4.01E-03
2.93E-01
3.67E+02
3.17E-01
1.45E+01
4.95E-02
BASELINE + PROJECT
COPC
Water
(mg/L or
Bq/L)
Soil
(mg/kg dw
or Bq/kg
dw)
Sediment
(mg/kg dw
or Bq/kg
dw)
Fish Flesh
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Whole Fish
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238
1.01E-01
5.97E-05
1.20E-03
2.33E-05
8.02E-03
2.13E-02
2.03E-02
2.32E-02
7.00E-03
9.91E-02
1.50E+02
1.90E+00
6.90E+01
1.80E-01
4.00E-01
8.40E+02
7.40E+02
4.00E+01
2.00E+01
4.94E+00
2.37E+02
1.47E+00
3.32E+01
2.20E-01
5.40E+00
6.62E+02
6.50E+02
5.08E+02
5.10E+02
6.67E+01
1.02E+00
2.70E-02
4.20E-02
1.52E+00
2.09E-02
4.20E+00
1.21E+01
3.08E+00
2.20E+00
2.58E-01
8.01E+01
7.50E-02
7.90E-01
4.32E-01
1.89E-02
4.02E+01
6.31E+01
9.98E+00
2.20E+00
2.33E-01
390122-300 – April 2011
D-3
Berries
(mg/kg
ww or
Bq/kg
ww)
1.24E+00
1.00E-02
1.40E-02
3.40E-01
2.00E-03
5.20E+00
3.00E+00
8.00E-01
4.00E-01
2.47E-02
Lichen
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
Browse
(mg/kg ww
or Bq/kg
ww)
3.00E+00
3.00E-02
5.28E-01
4.32E-01
6.00E-03
2.64E+02
2.10E+02
2.40E+00
1.80E+00
7.41E-02
1.77E+01
3.90E-01
2.70E-01
1.71E-01
3.00E-03
6.00E+01
2.04E+02
4.50E+00
9.00E-01
3.71E-02
Forage
(mg/kg
ww or
Bq/kg
ww)
1.68E+01
2.00E-03
1.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E+00
3.40E+00
9.80E+00
6.00E-01
2.47E-02
Aq. Veg
(mg/kg
ww or
Bq/kg
ww)
1.22E+02
1.43E-01
2.67E+00
1.23E-02
1.84E+00
8.94E+01
2.20E+01
1.24E+02
7.20E+00
2.28E+01
Benthos
(mg/kg
ww or
Bq/kg
ww)
2.03E+01
5.97E-03
2.64E-02
1.75E-02
1.36E+00
4.69E-01
4.07E+02
2.32E+00
2.03E+01
1.68E+01
BASELINE CONCENTRATIONS (mg/kg ww or Bq/kg ww)
COPC
Osprey
Red
Tailed
Hawk
Scaup
Mallard
Spruce
Grouse
Common
Merganser
Beaver
Black
Bear
American
Mink
Muskrat
Snowshoe
Hare
Red Fox
Moose
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238
3.59E-01
2.89E-02
4.25E-02
1.98E-03
5.61E-03
4.67E+00
3.71E+01
8.01E-02
5.93E-03
6.93E-02
5.66E-03
1.04E-02
2.73E-02
1.04E-05
7.80E-04
8.09E-01
9.29E+00
2.75E-03
4.02E-04
9.63E-03
4.05E-02
1.71E-02
4.20E-02
4.53E-05
2.12E-02
2.49E+00
2.04E+02
1.18E-01
3.95E-02
2.62E-01
7.35E-02
1.30E-02
2.14E-02
1.95E-05
5.62E-03
2.16E+00
1.35E+02
1.41E-01
2.39E-02
6.94E-02
2.81E-02
5.20E-02
2.18E-02
6.32E-06
5.71E-04
2.54E+00
3.75E+01
1.16E-02
9.59E-04
7.05E-03
3.54E-01
2.85E-02
4.20E-02
1.95E-03
5.63E-03
4.61E+00
3.66E+01
7.91E-02
5.87E-03
6.96E-02
7.18E-02
1.69E-02
8.44E-03
3.22E-04
2.31E-04
7.64E-01
1.50E-01
9.09E-01
9.19E-03
2.85E-03
8.95E-03
7.87E-04
2.52E-03
1.52E-03
1.13E-05
6.37E-02
3.47E-01
3.08E-02
1.06E-03
1.39E-04
2.10E-01
1.04E-02
1.68E-02
5.44E-02
6.18E-04
9.16E-01
2.62E-02
6.72E-01
3.71E-02
7.63E-03
3.86E-01
2.63E-02
3.80E-02
1.18E-03
5.40E-04
2.76E+00
1.37E-02
5.48E+00
3.11E-02
6.66E-03
2.36E-02
1.33E-02
8.76E-03
2.90E-04
3.36E-05
4.22E-01
1.61E-02
1.04E-01
3.41E-03
4.15E-04
8.16E-04
7.44E-04
1.54E-03
8.98E-05
1.80E-05
3.36E-02
1.12E-02
3.45E-03
3.17E-04
2.22E-04
7.35E-03
4.92E-03
8.89E-04
3.13E-05
2.96E-05
1.38E-01
4.35E+00
5.39E-02
1.37E-03
3.66E-04
BASELINE + PROJECT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/kg ww or Bq/kg ww)
COPC
Osprey
Red
Tailed
Hawk
Scaup
Mallard
Spruce
Grouse
Common
Merganser
Beaver
Black
Bear
American
Mink
Muskrat
Snowshoe
Hare
Red Fox
Moose
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Uranium
Lead-210
Polonium-210
Radium-226
Thorium-230
Uranium-238
3.63E-01
3.24E-02
4.34E-02
2.76E-03
7.41E-03
4.69E+00
3.71E+01
8.48E-02
9.94E-03
9.14E-02
5.72E-03
7.98E-03
2.72E-02
9.78E-06
3.43E-03
7.88E-01
9.90E+00
2.48E-03
4.04E-04
4.23E-02
1.62E-01
2.14E-02
4.94E-02
1.44E-04
2.80E-01
2.66E+00
2.26E+02
1.82E-01
7.44E-02
3.46E+00
1.78E-01
1.69E-02
3.63E-02
9.47E-05
2.27E-01
2.51E+00
1.50E+02
2.15E-01
4.07E-02
2.80E+00
2.82E-02
5.20E-02
2.19E-02
4.56E-04
7.26E-04
2.54E+00
3.75E+01
1.16E-02
9.59E-04
8.97E-03
3.58E-01
3.20E-02
4.30E-02
2.71E-03
7.40E-03
4.63E+00
3.66E+01
8.39E-02
9.93E-03
9.14E-02
1.13E-01
1.80E-02
1.41E-02
1.03E-02
4.32E-03
8.40E-01
1.53E-01
1.32E+00
3.58E-02
5.33E-02
8.99E-03
8.09E-04
2.53E-03
7.08E-03
1.87E-05
6.38E-02
3.48E-01
3.09E-02
1.09E-03
2.31E-04
2.33E-01
1.19E-02
1.85E-02
7.64E-02
3.14E-03
9.39E-01
2.76E-02
8.53E-01
8.16E-02
3.87E-02
6.45E-01
3.31E-02
7.56E-02
5.30E-03
2.78E-02
3.26E+00
1.59E-02
8.09E+00
1.45E-01
3.43E-01
2.36E-02
1.33E-02
8.77E-03
1.12E-02
4.51E-05
4.22E-01
1.61E-02
1.04E-01
3.42E-03
5.57E-04
8.78E-04
7.75E-04
1.55E-03
2.02E-03
1.87E-04
3.37E-02
1.23E-02
3.80E-03
3.39E-04
2.31E-03
9.16E-03
4.97E-03
1.10E-03
3.60E-03
1.90E-04
1.41E-01
4.36E+00
7.15E-02
3.64E-03
2.35E-03
390122-300 – April 2011
D-4
D.4
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED DOSES TO ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Fish
Pelagic
Baseline
10 6.63E-02
40 2.65E-01
Baseline + Project
10 6.67E-02
40 2.67E-01
Spruce
Grouse
Baseline
10 2.89E-02
40 1.14E-01
Baseline + Project
10 2.89E-02
40 1.14E-01
390122-300 – April 2011
Aquatic Vegetation
Osprey
Red
Tailed
Hawk
Scaup
Mallard
Benthic
Leaf
Root
Benthic
Invertebrates
6.63E-02
2.65E-01
1.52E-01
6.09E-01
1.52E-01
6.09E-01
2.81E-01
1.13E+00
2.93E-02
1.14E-01
8.07E-03
2.91E-02
1.55E-01
6.15E-01
1.03E-01
4.07E-01
6.67E-02
2.67E-01
2.56E-01
1.02E+00
2.56E-01
1.02E+00
3.42E-01
1.37E+00
2.94E-02
1.14E-01
8.57E-03
3.11E-02
1.75E-01
6.98E-01
1.18E-01
4.68E-01
Common
Merganser
Beaver
Black
Bear
American
Mink
Muskrat
Snowshoe
Hare
Red Fox
Moose
2.89E-02
1.12E-01
3.72E-03
8.56E-03
5.24E-04
1.46E-03
3.28E-03
6.82E-03
1.10E-02
3.78E-02
8.36E-04
1.45E-03
6.47E-04
6.96E-04
3.56E-03
1.36E-02
2.90E-02
1.13E-01
4.46E-03
1.15E-02
5.24E-04
1.47E-03
3.64E-03
8.27E-03
1.58E-02
5.67E-02
8.36E-04
1.45E-03
6.52E-04
7.14E-04
3.60E-03
1.38E-02
D-5
APPENDIX E
ESTIMATED DOWNSTREAM WATER CONCENTRATIONS
390122-300 – April 2011
Screening Level Ecological And Human Health Risk Assessment for the Matoush
Underground Uranium Exploration Ramp
Golder (2010), in an addendum to the environmental impact assessment which was included
in appendix F of volume 2 of 2 of Strateco’s responses to COFEX comments, had conducted
a preliminary water quality assessment to evaluate the potential influence of the effluent
discharge from the Project on water quality downstream of Lake 5 under average
hydrological conditions at two locations: upstream of the confluence with the Camie River;
and downstream of the confluence of the Camie River. The distance between the discharge
point and the confluence with the Camie River is approximately 18 km.
This analysis was updated for the source term assessed in this SLRA and is shown in Table
E.1. This table shows that downstream of the Carnie River only molybdenum and uranium
are expected to be elevated from baseline however it is noted that these concentrations are
well below water quality objectives.
Table E.1
Constituent
Aluminum (μg/L)
Arsenic (μg/L)
Barium (μg/L)
Cadmium (μg/L)
Chromium (μg/L)
Copper (μg/L)
Iron (μg/L)
Lead (μg/L)
Mercury (μg/L)
Molybdenum (μg/L)
Nickel (μg/L)
Selenium (μg/L)
Uranium (μg/L)
Zinc (μg/L)
Lead-210 (Bq/L)
Polonium-210 (Bq/L)
Radium-226 (Bq/L)
Thorium-230 (Bq/L)
Notes:
*
**
Predicted Concentrations Downstream
Baseline
Source
153
0.148
5.4
0.02
0.14
0.23
128
0.4
0.003
0.012
0.126
0.13
0.024
2.4
0.013
0.018
0.003
0.005
10
10
240
0.1
10
2
100
2
0.05
10
6
2
20
1
0.02
0.005
0.05
0.005
Estimated Concentration
Based on Dilution*
Upstream Downstream
of Carnie
of Carnie
River
River
150
152
0.34
0.184
9.94
6.14
0.0214
0.02
0.33
0.17
0.27
0.24
127
128
0.43
0.41
0.004
0.003
0.21
0.045
0.24
0.15
0.19
0.16
0.41
0.09
2.44
2.4
0.013
0.013
0.018
0.018
0.0039
0.0032
0.005
0.005
Ratio of Concentration to
Baseline**
Upstream Downstream
of Carnie
of Carnie
River
River
0.98
1.00
2.30
1.22
1.85
1.15
1.08
1.01
2.39
1.24
1.15
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.08
1.01
1.28
1.05
17.6
3.83
1.91
1.15
1.24
1.04
17.5
3.81
0.99
1.00
1.01
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.30
1.05
1.00
1.00
Concentrations immediately upstream and downstream of the confluence of Carnie River are based on mean annual discharges
of 1.12 and 6.68 m3/s, respectively (Golder 2010)
If the estimated concentration is 1.5 times baseline it has been shaded.
REFERENCES
Golder 2010. Addenda A to the Limited Environmental Impact Assessment for the Matoush
Underground Exploration Project. March 2.
390122-300 – April 2011
E-1
APPENDIX 3.
b) Dilution Scenario Update Effluent Release into Stream 4‐6 (July 5, 2011) SENES Consultants Limited
MEMORANDUM
Canada L4B 3N4
Tel: (905) 764-9380
Fax: (905) 764-9386
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site: http://www.senes.ca
TO:
Caroline Hardy, Strateco Resources
390122-400
FROM:
Stacey Fernandes and Leah Windisch
5 July 2011
SUBJ:
Dilution Scenario Update – Effluent Release into Stream 4-6
A screening level human health and ecological risk assessment (SLRA) was prepared for the
Matoush Underground Uranium Exploration Project, evaluating the potential impacts on human
and ecological receptors in the area as a result of potential releases to air and water from Project
operations (SENES 2011). For the assessment, treated mine water effluent was assumed to be
discharged to Lake 5, and dilution into this lake was accounted for before evaluating exposure
and potential effects.
The following memorandum discusses the changes in predicted environmental effects as a result
of updating the effluent discharge location from Lake 5 to Stream 4-6, which flows into Lake 6.
Resulting surface water concentrations are predicted for both Stream 4-6 and Lake 6.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The effluent quality used in this assessment is consistent with that previously provided by Melis
Engineering Ltd (Melis 2011) with respect to the treated water quality estimates for the Project.
The quality of the water that needs to be treated was based on an assumed 50/50 split for clean
groundwater and mineralized groundwater. Treatment efficiencies were then applied to these
values to obtain an estimate of the treated water quality. The source term for the surface water
modelling was determined as the higher of the estimated treated water quality (for those which
were reported as less than detection it was assumed to be present at half of the detection limit)
and the appropriate environmental detection limit.
Surface water quality in the receiving environment is estimated for a high effluent release rate of
100 m3/h, representing 80 m3/h treated water and 20 m3/h site run-off. In the SLRA, dilution
predictions prepared by Golder Associés Ltée (Golder 2009) were used to assess the
environmental condition. By assuming that the inflow into Lake 5 in one month is equal to the
outflow in that same month (i.e., no attenuation, constant lake level) and that the lake is perfectly
390122-400
5 July 2011
Memo to Caroline Hardy (Continued)
Page 2
mixed at all times, Golder (2009) found that the effluent is expected to make up approximately
40% of the total water discharged from Lake 5 (i.e., dilution factor of 2.5). The annual mean
monthly discharge rate of Lake 5 was 71 L/s (Golder 2009)
DESCRIPTION OF WATERBODIES
Stream 4-6 is shallow (depth of 0.5m) with mainly riffles and runs. The watercourse substrate
was mainly composed of boulders and cobbles. Submerged vegetation was present in the stream
channel. Fish surveys were undertaken in Fall 2007, Spring 2008 and Fall 2008; 2 lake chub was
the only fish obtained during one of the campaigns (Golder 2009). The drainage area of Stream
4-6 is 12.6 km2 (CEHQ 2011).
Lake 6 has approximately 67.7 ha of surface area and a volume of 667,600 m3 (Golder 2009).
Under natural, normal flow conditions, the volume of the lake is expected to turnover once a
month. The shoreline slopes are generally shallow. The substrate is mainly composed of
boulders and cobbles with a few areas mixed with sand or organic sediments. Water lilies were
observed at the tip of the northwest portion of the lake. Northern pike, brook trout, burbot, lake
chub and white sucker were captured during the fish inventory surveys. The concentrations of
(fall) chlorophyll a in Lake 6 would indicate that is a mesotrophic lake. (Golder 2009). The
drainage area at flow monitoring station SD2, which is located near the outlet of Lake 6, is
20.53 km2 (Table P-3, Golder 2009). As a comparison, the drainage area for the outlet of Lake 5
is 1.81 km2 (Golder 2009).
DILUTION CALCULATION APPROACH
For the revised dilution scenario with effluent discharging to Stream 4-6 and then Lake 6, steady
state was assumed to estimate the resulting concentrations in the surface waters of the receiving
environment according to Equation 1:
F
1
(1)
C2 = C1 × 1 = C1 ×
F2
DF
Where:
C1
C2
F1
F2
DF
=
=
=
=
=
Concentration in effluent [µg/L or Bq/L]
Concentration in receiving water [µg/L or Bq/L]
Effluent flowrate [m3/h] {constant at a value of 80 m3/h}
Total flowrate through receiving water (F1 + Frun-off + Fnatural) [m3/h]
Dilution factor (F2/F1) [-]
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 3
For estimating surface water quality in Stream 4-6, several scenarios were investigated, based on
monitoring stations SD1, SD2 and SD3 on nearby watercourses (see Figure 1). A low flow
assessment was undertaken by the Centre d’expertise hydrique du Québec (CEHQ 2011). Lowflow measurements reflecting winter conditions when flow is limited as a result of ice cover
were obtained by Strateco, taken in March 2009 and February 2011, and were provided to the
CEHQ; however, concerns were raised regarding the validity of these measurements due to the
large variability in the values. As such, the CEHQ considered the value of 0.7 L/s/km2 from SD1
to be representative of flow per unit area in stream 4-6. When multiplied by the drainage area of
Stream 4-6 of 12.6 km2, this equates to an annual low flow rate (i.e., Fnatural) of 8.8 L/s (32 m3/h).
This scenario is termed ‘CEHQ low flow’. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
has suggested that a more conservative estimate of the low flow rate could be obtained using the
lowest measured flow rate per unit area of 0.2 L/s/km2 for SD3 in March 2009. As such, a
second scenario was considered, termed ‘CNSC low flow’, using an annual low flow rate of 2.5
L/s (9 m3/h). It should be noted that both these numbers, may provide very conservative dilution
estimates since these flow rates are based on surrogate watercourses and recorded low flow
measurements of Stream 4-6, although uncertain, are much higher (i.e., 121.9 L/s to 160.7 L/s).
Although not carried forward in the evaluation it is noted that the typical low flow in Stream 4-6
(Q2,7) is 125 L/s which corresponds to a dilution factor of 7.0.
For estimating surface water quality at steady state in Lake 6, the assumptions used by CEHQ
(2011) were used. For the purposes of this assessment, based on the proximity of SD2 to Lake 6
it was assumed that flow rates measured at SD2 would be representative of natural outflow from
Lake 6. Due to the assessment of chronic conditions and the retention and mixing within the lake
the typical 7-day low natural flow rate (Q2,7) was used to derive the dilution ratio. The flow was
taken to be 316.4 L/s which was based on the 7 day minimum flow rate over the period of 23
May 2008 to 25 October 2008. As 2008 was a high precipitation year this value was divided by
a factor of 1.7 (CEHQ 2011, CNSC 2011) to obtain the flow rate, Fnatural, of 186 L/s (670 m3/h)
for Lake 6.
It should be noted that F2 includes the additional 20 m3/h site run-off. The values of the
parameters and resulting dilution factors are summarized in Table 1.
390122-400
5 July 2011
Figure 1 - Location of Auxiliary Stream Flow Monitoring Stations
Notes:
Modified from Golder (2009)
Table 1 - Summary of Parameters to Estimate Dilution
Parameter
Waterbody
Scenario
F1
Fnatural
Frun-off
F2
DF
Annual Low Flow Rate (m3/h)
Stream 4-6
Lake 6
CEHQ Low
CNSC Low
Flow
Flow
80
80
80
32
9
670
20
20
20
132
109
770
1.65
1.36
9.6
Page 4
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 5
UPDATE TO SCREENING FOR COPC
The procedure used to identify constituents of potential concern (COPC) in the SLRA was
repeated for the updated dilution scenario. The details of the approach are provided in the
SLRA. In short, a constituent was selected as a COPC if the diluted concentration was above the
most conservative of the available guideline values from various regulatory agencies. If the
diluted concentration was below the guideline, or if no guideline was available, then the
constituent was selected as a COPC if the incremental concentration resulted in a greater than
1% increase in the mean baseline concentration. The baseline concentrations were derived from
measured data collected from lakes in the area in August 2009 (Golder 2009). A final check was
done for the availability of toxicity data - if no data were available, then a constituent was not
considered a COPC. Since the guideline values are based on protection of aquatic life, the
approach provides COPC for consideration in an ecological risk assessment.
For surface water, the screening criteria used for the ecological risk assessment were the Quebec
Surface Water Criteria (QSWC) from the Aquatic Environment Quality Database ((BQMA Banque de données sur la qualité du milieu aquatique) provided by the Department of
Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks (Ministère du développement durable, de
l'environnement et des parcs [MDDEP]), and the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CWQG)
for the protection of aquatic life in fresh water from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (CCME 2008). The results of the COPC screening for Stream 4-6 and Lake 6 using
the updated dilution factors are summarized in Table 2. Only those constituents selected as
COPC in Stream 4-6 and/or Lake 6 are shown in the table. The results for all constituents and all
steps of the selection procedure are provided in tables appended to this memo. The uranium-238
decay series of radionuclides (uranium-238, radium-226, thorium-230, polonium-210 and lead210) were automatically selected as COPC and are therefore not shown in the table. Uranium
was also automatically selected as a COPC. Barium, cadmium, lead and mercury were selected
as the COPC in the SLRA (SENES 2011). From Table 2 it can be seen that aluminum, arsenic,
and selenium are now also COPC in Stream4-6, while only cadmium and mercury are identified
as COPC in Lake 6.
To identify which of the COPC may be an issue with respect to human health, the concentrations
were compared to the Health Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Health
Canada 2010). Table 3 provides the total concentrations (maximum baseline plus diluted
effluent) compared to the drinking water guideline values. From this table, it can be seen that
none of the COPC exceed the human health value. Although the total concentration of aluminum
does exceed the guideline value, the values provided by Health Canada are for water treatment
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 6
plants using aluminum-based coagulants and are therefore not relevant to this assessment. As
such, aluminum was not selected as a COPC.
Table 2 - Summary of Constituents of Potential Concern for Ecological Risk Assessment
Surface Water MDDEP Guidelines (µg/L)
COPC
Protection of
Aquatic Life
(Chronic
Effect)
Protection of
Terrestrial
Ichtyophage
Fauna
87
150
79.1 (1)
0.082 (1)
0.41 (1)
0.91
5
14
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
0.0013
NV
NV
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Uranium
Prevention of
Contamination
(Water and
Aquatic
Organisms)
200
10
1000
5
10
0.0018
10
20
CCME
Guideline (µg/L)
Protection of
Aquatic Life
(Fresh Water)
5
5
NV
0.0083
1
0.026
1
15
Baseline + Diluted Effluent
Concentration (µg/L)
Stream
Stream
4-6
4-6
(CNSC
(CEHQ Lake 6
Low
Low
Flow)
Flow)
207
206
7.5
6.3
182
152
0.13
0.12
0.07
2.2
1.9
0.04
0.03
0.01
1.6
1.4
14.7
12.2(2)
2.1(2)
Notes:
The uranium-238 decay series of radionuclides are not shown as they were automatically selected as COPC
Minimum guideline value indicated by shading
COPC shown in bold italics were identified as COPC in the previous risk assessment
NV No guideline value available
'-'
Not selected as a COPC
1
Guideline value expressed as a function of water hardness; calculated based on assumed water hardness of 20 mg/L
2
Not selected as a COPC through the selection process but retained for evaluation
Table 3 - Summary of Constituents of Potential Concern for Human Health Risk Assessment
Health Canada (µg/L)
COPC
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Uranium
Baseline
(µg/L)
Guideline for Canadian
Drinking Water Quality
Maximum
100/200 (1)
10
1000
5
10 (2)
1
10
20
200
0.19
6.3
0.06
0.68
0.004
0.15 (3)
0.05
Total (Diluted Effluent + Baseline)
Concentration (µg/L)
Stream 4-6
Stream 4-6
(CNSC Low
(CEHQ
Lake 6
Flow)
Low Flow)
207
206
201
7.5
6.3
1.2
182
152
31
0.13
0.12
0.1
2.2
1.9
0.9
0.04
0.03
0.01
1.6
1.4
0.4
14.7(4)
12.2(4)
2.1(4)
Notes:
COPC shown in bold italics were identified as COPC in the previous risk assessment
1
Operational guidance value for application to drinking water treatment plants using aluminum-based coagulants
2
Faucets should be thoroughly flushed before water is taken for consumption or analysis
3
All measurements below the method detection limit (MDL); set equal to ½ the MDL
4
Although the concentration is below the drinking water guideline uranium was still included as a human health COPC
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 7
ESTIMATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS
For the exposure assessment, the estimated diluted concentrations were added to the mean
baseline concentrations to estimate total concentrations. The baseline concentrations were
developed from data collected from several lakes in the area in August 2009. Data from previous
sampling programs were not used due to issues with high detection limits. The incremental,
baseline and total concentrations are provided in Table 4 for the selected COPC. The
concentration of uranium-238 was estimated from the measured chemical level of uranium using
the specific activity of uranium-238 of 1.23x104 Bq per g of natural uranium.
Table 4 - Predicted Incremental, Baseline and Total Surface Water Concentrations at Matoush
COPC
Baseline
Mean
Metals (µg/L)
Aluminum
153
Arsenic
0.15
Barium
5.4
Cadmium
0.02
Lead
0.40
Mercury
0.003
Selenium
0.15 (1)
Uranium
0.024
Radionuclides (Bq/L)
Lead-210
0.01
Polonium-210
0.02
Radium-226
0.003
Thorium-230
0.005
Uranium-238 (2)
0.0003
Notes:
1
2
Source
Term
Project Only
Stream
Stream
4-6
4-6
(CNSC
(CEHQ
Low
Low
Flow)
Flow)
Total (Project + Mean Baseline)
Lake 6
Stream 4-6
(CNSC
Low Flow)
Stream 4-6
(CEHQ
Low Flow)
Lake 6
10
10
240
0.1
2
0.05
2
20
7.3
7.3
176
0.07
1.5
0.04
1.5
14.7
6.1
6.1
146
0.06
1.2
0.03
1.2
12.2
1.0
1.0
24.9
0.010
0.2
0.01
0.2
2.1
161
7.5
182
0.09
1.9
0.04
1.6
14.7
159
6.2
151
0.08
1.6
0.03
1.4
12.2
154
1.2
30
0.03
0.6
0.01
0.36
2.1
0.02
0.005 (1)
0.05
0.005 (1)
0.247
0.015
0.004
0.037
0.004
0.18
0.012
0.003
0.030
0.003
0.15
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.001
0.03
0.028
0.022
0.040
0.009
0.18
0.025
0.021
0.034
0.008
0.15
0.015
0.019
0.008
0.006
0.03
Baseline concentrations were derived from measurements in lakes in the area in August 2009
Based on ½ the MDL.
DISCUSSION
An assessment of the potential impact if the discharge for the Matoush Exploration Project was
moved from Lake 5 to Stream 4-6 which flows into Lake 6 was conducted. The dilution
evaluation was updated along with the selection of COPC and estimated environmental
concentrations.
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 8
A SLRA was completed of the discharge of effluent from the project to Lake 5. The assessment
was based on a release rate of 100 m3/h and a dilution factor of 2.5 in Lake 5. The COPC
identified included barium, cadmium, lead and mercury. Uranium along with the U-238 decay
series were also carried through the assessment. For the ecological risk assessment, a range of
ecological receptors were examined from different trophic levels in the aquatic and terrestrial
environments. The results of the assessment for aquatic receptors and terrestrial wildlife revealed
that releases from the underground exploration ramp would not pose any risk of adverse effects.
Two human receptors were considered, including a camp cook and a Cree First Nations adult.
The radiological dose estimates for the hypothetical people on the site were below the regulatory
incremental dose limit of 1000 µSv/y. Incremental exposures to the non-radionuclides on site are
not predicted to result in adverse health effects to individuals who might spend time on-site.
Overall, it appears that the natural background levels of some parameters in the water, soil and
sediments may exceed the MDDEP and CWQG criteria; however, any incremental effects due to
exploration would be insignificant.
It was suggested by the Quebec government (MDDEP) that the project should discharge into a
stream. Therefore, an evaluation was completed for the scenario of the effluent being discharged
into Stream 4-6 which leads into Lake 6. The impact in Lake 6 is expected to be less than that
predicted for Lake 5 in the SLRA as there is significantly more dilution (the drainage area at the
outlet of Lake 6 is 20.5 km2 compared to 1.81 km2 for Lake 5). Under typical conditions it is
also expected that the impact in Stream 4-6 would be less than that evaluated in the SLRA.
However, due to the stream environment there is the potential for effluent to be discharged
during a low flow scenario. Under the low flow scenario, the COPC to be considered increases
to include aluminum, arsenic and selenium. Aquatic SI values were calculated for the estimated
concentrations using aquatic toxicity data (presented in Table A.4 attached to this memo). This
evaluation showed that there may be an issue with uranium exposure to phytoplankton and
zooplankton. Considering the minor exceedance of the toxicity benchmark, the limited period of
time that this may occur and the limited spatial extent this is not expected to be a significant
effect.
Overall, the discharge of effluent to Stream 4-6 and Lake 6 is not expected to result in any
significant issues for ecological receptors or human health.
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 9
REFERENCES
2008.
Centre d’expertise hydrique du Québec (CEHQ). 2011. Analyse hydrologique - Débits d’étiage:
Ruisseau 4-6 (sans nom), Municipalité de la Baie-James. March.
Golder Associés Ltée (Golder). 2009. Limited Environmental Impact Assessment for the
Matoush Underground Exploration Project. Project Number 08-1222-3004.
SENES Consultants Limited (SENES). 2011. Screening Level Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment for the Matoush Uranium Exploration Project. Prepared for Strateco
Resources. Project Number 390122-300. Draft report, April.
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 10
Table A.1 - Selection of Surface Water Constituents of Potential Concern - Stream4-6, CNSC Low Flow
Project
Parameter
Diluted
(1.4:1)
Source
Term
Baseline
Concentrations
Mean
Max
Ratio of
Project/
Baseline
(Mean)
Baseline
(Max)+
Project
Protection
Protection
Prevention of
of Aquatic
of
Contamination
Life
Terrestrial
(Water and
(Chronic
Ichtyophage
Aquatic
Effect)
Fauna
Organisms)
CCME
Guideline
Protection of
Aquatic Life
(Fresh Water)
Project>
Guideline?
Baseline+
Project>
Guideline?
Project
>1%
Baseline?
Metals (µg/L)
Aluminum
7.3
153
200
4.8%
207
87
200
5
Y
Y
N
Antimony
0.04
0.02
0.03
206%
0.08
240
6
N
N
Y
Arsenic
7.3
0.15
0.19
4976%
7.5
150
10
5
Y
Y
Y
Barium
176
5.4
6.3
3287%
182
79.1
1000
Y
Y
Y
Beryllium
0.01
0.01
0.01
99%
0.02
0.041
4
N
N
N
Boron
14.7
0.76
0.90
1936%
15.6
1900
5000
N
N
Y
Bromide
2.6
3.4
N
Cadmium
0.07
0.02
0.06
373%
0.13
0.082
5
0.0083
Y
Y
Y
Chromium
7.3
0.14
0.17
5306%
7.5
50
8.9
N
N
Y
Cobalt
2.2
0.06
0.07
3824%
2.3
100
N
N
Y
Copper
1.5
0.23
0.50
631%
2.0
2.4
1000
2
N
N
Y
Iodide
0.28
0.60
N
Iron
73.4
128
170
57%
243
1300
300
300
N
N
N
Lead
1.5
0.40
0.68
366%
2.2
0.41
10
1
Y
Y
Y
Lithium
0.11
0.18
96
N
Manganese
4.8
3.3
6.2
145%
11.0
469
50
N
N
Y
Mercury
0.04
0.003
0.004
1118%
0.04
0.91
0.0013
0.0018
0.026
Y
Y
Y
Molybdenum
7.3
0.01
0.02
62910%
7.4
3200
70
73
N
N
Y
Nickel
4.4
0.13
0.20
3500%
4.6
13.4
20
25
N
N
Y
Palladium
0.004
0.009
N
Platinium
0.003
0.003
N
Selenium
1.5
0.15
0.15
979%
1.6
5
10
1
Y
Y
Y
Silicon
0.52
0.81
N
Silver
0.03
9E-04
0.003
3202.7%
0.03
0.1
100
0.1
N
N
Y
Strontium
12.2
4.1
4.9
297%
17.1
8300
N
N
Y
Thallium
0.004
0.003
0.003
147%
0.01
7.2
1.7
0.8
N
N
Y
Tin
0.02
0.06
N
Titanium
18.3
2.4
3.7
777%
22.0
Y
Uranium
14.7
0.02
0.05
62265%
14.7
14
20
15
Y
Y
Y
Vanadium
0.1
0.18
0.23
29%
0.28
12
100
N
N
N
Zinc
0.73
2.4
4.0
30.3%
4.7
30.6
5000
30
N
N
N
Notes:
1
"-"
with
Tox
Data?
COPC?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 11
Table A.2 - Selection of Surface Water Constituents of Potential Concern for the Ecological Risk Assessment - Stream4-6, CEHQ Low Flow
Project
Parameter
Metals (µg/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromide
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iodide
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Palladium
Platinium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Notes:
1
"-"
Baseline
Concentrations
Diluted
(1.6:1)
Source
Term
Mean
6.1
0.04
6.1
146
0.01
12.2
0.06
6.1
1.8
1.2
60.8
1.2
4.0
0.03
6.1
3.6
1.2
0.02
10.09
0.003
15.2
12.2
0.0
0.61
153
0.02
0.15
5.4
0.01
0.76
2.6
0.02
0.14
0.06
0.23
0.28
128
0.40
0.11
3.3
0.003
0.01
0.13
0.004
0.003
0.15
0.52
9E-04
4.1
0.003
0.02
2.4
0.02
0.18
2.4
Max
Ratio of
Project/
Baseline
(Mean)
Baseline
(Max)+
Project
200
0.03
0.19
6.3
0.01
0.90
3.4
0.06
0.17
0.07
0.50
0.60
170
0.68
0.18
6.2
0.004
0.02
0.20
0.009
0.003
0.15
0.81
0.003
4.9
0.003
0.06
3.7
0.05
0.23
4.0
4.0%
170%
4119%
2721%
82%
1602%
309%
4392%
3165%
523%
47%
303%
120%
925%
52074%
2897%
810%
2651.1%
246.0%
122%
643%
51540%
24%
25.1%
206
0.07
6.3
152
0.02
13.1
0.12
6.2
1.9
1.7
231
1.9
10.2
0.03
6.1
3.8
1.4
0.03
15.0
0.01
18.8
12.2
0.27
4.6
Protection
Protection
Prevention of
of
of
Contamination
Aquatic
Terrestrial
(Water and
Life
Ichtyophage
Aquatic
(Chronic
Fauna
Organisms)
Effect)
87
240
150
79.1
0.041
1900
0.082
100
2.4
1300
0.41
96
469
0.91
3200
13.4
5
0.1
8300
7.2
14
12
30.6
0.0013
-
200
6
10
1000
4
5000
5
50
1000
300
10
50
0.0018
70
20
10
100
1.7
20
100
5000
CCME
Guideline
Protection of
Aquatic Life
(Fresh Water)
5
5
0.0083
8.9
2
300
1
0.026
73
25
1
0.1
0.8
15
30
Project>
Guideline?
Baseline+
Project>
Guideline?
Project
>1%
Baseline?
with
Tox
Data?
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
COPC?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 12
Table A.3 - Selection of Surface Water Constituents of Potential Concern for the Ecological Risk Assessment - Lake 6
Project
Parameter
Diluted
(9.6:1)
Source
Term
Baseline
Concentrations
Mean
Max
Ratio of
Project/
Baseline
(Mean)
Baseline
(Max)+
Project
Protection
Protection
Prevention of
of
of
Contamination
Aquatic
Terrestrial
(Water and
Life
Ichtyophage
Aquatic
(Chronic
Fauna
Organisms)
Effect)
CCME
Guideline
Protection of
Aquatic Life
(Fresh Water)
Project>
Guideline?
Baseline+
Project>
Guideline?
Project
>1%
Baseline?
Metals (µg/L)
Aluminum
1.0
153
200
0.7%
201
87
200
5
N
Y
N
Antimony
0.01
0.02
0.03
29%
0.04
240
6
N
N
N
Arsenic
1.0
0.15
0.19
704%
1.2
150
10
5
N
N
Y
Barium
25
5.4
6.3
465%
31
79.1
1000
N
N
Y
Beryllium
0.00
0.01
0.01
14%
0.01
0.041
4
N
N
N
Boron
2.1
0.76
0.90
274%
3.0
1900
5000
N
N
Y
Bromide
2.6
3.4
N
Cadmium
0.0104
0.02
0.06
53%
0.07
0.082
5
0.0083
Y
Y
N
Chromium
1.0
0.14
0.17
751%
1.2
50
8.9
N
N
Y
Cobalt
0.3
0.06
0.07
541%
0.4
100
N
N
Y
Copper
0.2
0.23
0.50
89%
0.7
2.4
1000
2
N
N
N
Iodide
0.28
0.60
N
Iron
10.4
128
170
8%
180
1300
300
300
N
N
N
Lead
0.2
0.40
0.68
52%
0.9
0.41
10
1
N
Y
N
Lithium
0.11
0.18
96
Y
N
Manganese
0.7
3.3
6.2
21%
6.9
469
50
N
N
N
Mercury
0.0052
0.003
0.004
158%
0.01
0.91
0.0013
0.0018
0.026
Y
Y
Y
Molybdenum
1.0
0.01
0.02
8905%
1.1
3200
70
73
N
N
Y
Nickel
0.6
0.13
0.20
495%
0.8
13.4
20
25
N
N
Y
Palladium
0.004
0.009
N
Platinium
0.003
0.003
N
Selenium
0.2
0.15
0.15
139%
0.4
5
10
1
N
N
Y
Silicon
0.52
0.81
N
Silver
0.00
9E-04
0.003
453.4%
0.01
0.1
100
0.1
N
N
Y
Strontium
1.72
4.1
4.9
42.1%
6.6
8300
N
N
N
Thallium
0.001
0.003
0.003
21%
0.00
7.2
1.7
0.8
N
N
N
Tin
0.02
0.06
N
Titanium
2.6
2.4
3.7
110%
6.2
Y
Uranium
2.1
0.02
0.05
8814%
2.1
14
20
15
N
N
Y
Vanadium
0.0
0.18
0.23
4%
0.24
12
100
N
N
N
Zinc
0.10
2.4
4.0
4.3%
4.1
30.6
5000
30
N
N
N
Notes:
1
"-"
Denotes no value available
.
with
Tox
Data?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
COPC?
Y
Y
390122-400
5 July 2011
Page 13
Table A.4 – Aquatic Biota SI Values - Stream4-6, CNSC Low Flow
COPC and Aquatic
Receptor
Aluminum
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Barium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Cadmium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Lead
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Mercury
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Uranium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Aquatic Toxicity
Benchmark
(mg/L)
Baseline
Baseline + Project
22.8
0.23
0.32
0.26
3.29
4.7
0.007
0.667
0.479
0.59
0.047
0.033
0.007
0.699
0.502
0.618
0.049
0.034
10
34
0.25
3.56
10.675
37.75
<0.001
<0.001
0.021
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.018
0.005
0.726
0.051
0.017
0.005
3
0.003
0.12
0.00075
0.002
0.009
<0.001
0.007
<0.001
0.0
0.01
0.002
<0.001
0.031
<0.001
0.1
0.047
0.01
182
0.63
0.002
0.02
0.028
0.415
<0.001
<0.001
0.2
0.02
0.014
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.934
0.093
0.067
0.005
0.005
0.00087
0.00087
<0.001
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.046
0.046
3.7
0.011
0.82
0.011
0.62
0.16
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
1.34
0.018
1.34
0.024
0.092
APPENDIX 3. c) Aquatic SIs For Updated Dilution Effluent Release into Stream 4‐6 (July 11, 2011) SENES Consultants Limited
MEMORANDUM
Canada L4B 3N4
Tel: (905) 764-9380
Fax: (905) 764-9386
TO:
Caroline Hardy, Strateco Resources
FROM:
Stacey Fernandes
SUBJ:
Aquatic SIs for Updated Dilution – Effluent Release into Stream 4-6
390122-400
11 July 2011
A memo was provided on 5 July 2011 which discussed the change in predicted environmental
effects as a result of updating the effluent discharge location from Lake 5 to Stream 4-6, which
flows into Lake 6. Along with the water quality estimates the SI values for aquatic biota were
provided for several COPC under low flow conditions in stream 4-6. This memo provides the SI
values for the complete list of COPC, including radioactivity, for aquatic biota.
In addition to the SI calculations for aquatic biota a request was made for an assessment of the
potential affect on aquatic-based mammals and birds. This memo also addresses this request
through a qualitative approach.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A screening level human health and ecological risk assessment (SLRA) was prepared for the
Matoush Underground Uranium Exploration Project, evaluating the potential impacts on human
and ecological receptors in the area as a result of potential releases to air and water from Project
operations (SENES 2011). For the assessment, treated mine water effluent was assumed to be
discharged to Lake 5, and dilution into this lake was accounted for before evaluating exposure
and potential effects. The assessment was based on a release rate of 100 m3/h and a dilution
factor of 2.5 in Lake 5.
It was suggested by the Quebec government (MDDEP) that the project should discharge into a
stream. Therefore, an evaluation was completed for the scenario of the effluent being discharged
into Stream 4-6 which leads into Lake 6. The drainage area of Stream 4-6 is 12.6 km2 (CEHQ
2011). The drainage area at flow monitoring station SD2, which is located near the outlet of
Lake 6, is 20.53 km2 (Table P-3, Golder 2009). For comparison, the drainage area for the outlet
of Lake 5 is 1.81 km2 (Golder 2009). A summary of the dilution factors derived in the
assessments is provided in Table 1.
390122-400
11 July 2011
Page 2
Table 1 – Dilution Factors Used in the Assessment of the Matoush Exploration Project
Assessment
SLRA (SENES April
2011)
Dilution Update Memo
(SENES July 2011)
Dilution
Factor
Effluent Release
Location
2.5
Lake 5
1.65
1.36
9.6
Stream 4-6
Stream 4-6
Stream 4-6
7
Stream 4-6
Comment
Based on Golder (2009) dilution
assessment
CEHQ Low Flow
CNSC Low Flow
Lake 6
Discussed dilution factor under typical
(Q2,7) low flow conditions
In addition, using the annual unit area discharge from Rupert River (as discussed in the EIS)
along with the drainage area for stream 4-6, the typical flow in this stream is expected to be
almost 1100 m3/h. This results in a dilution factor of almost 15. Therefore, under typical
conditions it is expected that the impact in Stream 4-6 would be less than that evaluated in the
SLRA. However, due to the stream environment there is the potential for effluent to be
discharged during a low flow scenario.
DISCUSSION
With the release of effluent to the stream environment there is the potential for effluent to be
discharged during a low flow scenario. Aquatic biota may be sensitive to these changes and thus
Screening Index (SI) values were calculated for all of the non-radiological COPC based on the
estimated concentrations using aquatic toxicity data. The results are presented in Table A.4
(attached to this memo) for the selected COPC including aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium,
lead, mercury, selenium and uranium. The TRVs selected for aquatic biota in the SLRA were
adopted for this assessment; it should be noted that these were derived for chronic exposure and
the timeframes may not match (e.g. the TRV for cadmium exposure to aquatic plants is based on
a 32 day exposure period) but represent a cautious approach to assessing exposure during the low
flow conditions. The evaluation showed that there may be an issue with uranium exposure to
phytoplankton and zooplankton. Considering the minor exceedance of the toxicity benchmark,
the limited period of time that this may occur and the limited spatial extent this is not expected to
be a significant effect.
The estimated doses for the uranium-series decay chain (includes the contribution from U-238,
Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210 and Po-210) to aquatic biota were also estimated, following the same
procedure as outlined in the SLRA. The results, presented in Table A.5, show that there are no
concerns with respect to the dose to aquatic biota. The dose estimates are very conservative as it
390122-400
11 July 2011
Page 3
was assumed that the aquatic biota (aquatic plants, benthic invertebrates and fish) have come into
equilibrium with the water; this would not be expected under low flow conditions that has a
limited duration. As the dose is primarily from internal exposure this is a very conservative
assumption.
Consideration was also given to evaluating the exposure to aquatic mammals and birds that may
be present in stream 4-6. The following animals were included in the SLRA: osprey, red tailed
hawk, scaup, mallard, spruce grouse, common merganser, beaver, black bear, American mink,
muskrat, snowshoe hare, red fox and moose. Spruce grouse and hare have little connection to
water so are not considered further; osprey, red-tailed hawk, black bear, red fox and moose have
too large of a home range to receive significant exposure from stream 4-6. Therefore, additional
consideration was given to ducks (scaup, mallard, common merganser) and smaller aquatic
mammals (beaver, mink, muskrat). As discussed above, it is important to note that it will take
time for the environment to react to changing concentrations in the water (i.e. biota such as
aquatic macrophytes and fish do not immediately come into equilibrium with water). For the
evaluation of exposure over short timeframes of exposure, only the drinking water pathway is
relevant for ecological species. This is only a minor exposure route. For the assessment of all
exposure pathways, the typical conditions in stream 4-6 are a better reflection of the conditions
experienced by the receptor. Under this condition, the dilution factor in stream 4-6 is expected to
be close to 15, and well above the dilution factor of 2.5 used in the SLRA. As the SLRA
determined that there would be no significant impact to aquatic-based mammals and birds, no
effect is expected with discharge to Stream 4-6.
Overall, the discharge of effluent to Stream 4-6 and Lake 6 is not expected to result in any
significant issues for ecological receptors.
390122-400
11 July 2011
Page 4
REFERENCES
2008.
Centre d’expertise hydrique du Québec (CEHQ). 2011. Analyse hydrologique - Débits d’étiage:
Ruisseau 4-6 (sans nom), Municipalité de la Baie-James. March.
Golder Associés Ltée (Golder). 2009. Limited Environmental Impact Assessment for the
Matoush Underground Exploration Project. Project Number 08-1222-3004.
SENES Consultants Limited (SENES). 2011. Screening Level Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment for the Matoush Uranium Exploration Project. Prepared for Strateco
Resources. Project Number 390122-300. Draft report, April.
390122-400
11 July 2011
Page 5
Table A.4 – Aquatic Biota SI Values – Stream 4-6, CNSC Low Flow
COPC and Aquatic
Receptor
Aluminum
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Arsenic
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Barium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Cadmium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Lead
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Mercury
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Aquatic Toxicity
Benchmark
(mg/L)
Baseline
Baseline + Project
22.8
0.23
0.32
0.26
3.29
4.7
0.007
0.667
0.479
0.59
0.047
0.033
0.007
0.699
0.502
0.618
0.049
0.034
0.32
0.025
0.34
0.91
0.14
0.12
<0.001
0.006
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
0.001
0.023
0.299
0.022
0.008
0.053
0.062
10
34
0.25
3.56
10.675
37.75
<0.001
<0.001
0.021
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.018
0.005
0.726
0.051
0.017
0.005
3
0.003
0.12
0.00075
0.002
0.009
<0.001
0.007
<0.001
0.026
0.01
0.002
<0.001
0.031
<0.001
0.124
0.047
0.01
182
0.63
0.002
0.02
0.028
0.415
<0.001
<0.001
0.2
0.02
0.014
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.934
0.093
0.067
0.005
0.005
0.00087
0.00087
<0.001
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.046
0.046
390122-400
11 July 2011
COPC and Aquatic
Receptor
Selenium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Uranium
Aquatic Plants
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Page 6
Aquatic Toxicity
Benchmark
(mg/L)
Baseline
Baseline + Project
0.85
0.13
0.18
0.04
0.05
0.15
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.012
0.009
0.040
0.032
0.011
3.7
0.011
0.82
0.011
0.62
0.16
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
1.34
0.018
1.34
0.024
0.092
390122-400
11 July 2011
Page 7
Table A.5 – Aquatic Biota SI Values – Stream 4-6, CNSC Low Flow
Aquatic
Receptors
Aquatic Plants
Benthic
Invertebrates
Predator Fish
Forage Fish
Notes:
Reference
Dose
(mGy/d)
Baseline
3
10
6
10
0.6
10
0.6
10
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.110
0.007
0.111
0.007
RBE=10
Baseline + Project
Increment
0.11
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.112
0.007
0.112
0.007
RBE=40
Baseline
0.20
0.06
0.19
0.11
0.44
0.027
0.44
0.027
Baseline + Project
Increment
0.46
0.14
0.26
0.16
0.45
0.027
0.45
0.027
Values shown are for RBE 10 and 40; values shaded and in bold indicate the water concentration exceeds the aquatic TRV.
APPENDIX 3
d) Responses to CNSC Comments on SLRA (July 15, 2011) SENES Consultants Limited
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Caroline Hardy, Strateco
FROM:
Stacey Fernandes
SUBJ:
Responses to CNSC Comments on SLRA
Canada L4B 3N4
Tel: (905) 764-9380
Fax: (905) 764-9386
390122-300
15 July 2011
This memo provides the responses to comments on the “Screening Level Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment for the Matoush Uranium Exploration Project” prepared for Strateco
Resources dated April 2011. For completeness, the comments received from the CNCS have been
reproduced in this memo and provided in italics.
In an email from Cherry Gunning, CNSC to Pierre Terreault, Strateco on 16 May 2011 a request for
additional information was provided. Specifically, CNSC requested
1. The baseline or project radionuclide concentrations in air. Without this information the
incremental inhalation dose from the project could not be verified.
Baseline air samples were collected from the site and the results reported in Table 4-3 of the Air
Quality Assessment of the EIS. As discussed in the SLRA, due to the low levels of particulate low
detection limits were not able to be achieved. Uranium in air was reported as <0.58 µg/m3 and this
concentration was used in the assessment. Uranium-238 was calculated to be 7.16x10-3 Bq/m3 based
on the detection limit for uranium and Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210 and Po-210 were assumed to be in
equilibrium with U-238.
Additional baseline sampling of particulate, once power is available and samplers such as Hi-Vols
can be used, should reduce the detection limits of uranium in particulate and provide a better
indication of the exposure through this pathway.
The estimated air concentration from the project alone was also taken from the Air Quality
Assessment. Table 7.2 of this document provides an incremental annual uranium concentration of
5.82x10-7 µg/m3. Uranium-238 was calculated to be 7.19x10-9 Bq/m3 based on this estimate and
Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210 and Po-210 were assumed to be in equilibrium with U-238.
The dose to the camp cook was calculated using the Dose Coefficients reported in Table 5.2-2 of the
SLRA and the receptor characteristics reported in Table 3.3-4 of the SLRA as follows:
390122-300
15 July 2011
Memo to C. Hardy (Continued)
Page 2
Dose = (7.19x10-9 Bq/m3 × 8.7 µSv/Bq + 7.19x10-9 Bq/m3 ×14 µSv/Bq + 7.19x10-9 Bq/m3 ×
9.5 µSv/Bq + 7.19x10-9 Bq/m3 ×5.6 µSv/Bq + 7.19x10-9 Bq/m3 × 4.4 µSv/Bq) × 15.8 m3/d
×365 d/y × 0.5
= 8.7 x10-4 µSv/y
2. The baseline or project radionuclide concentrations in duck. Without this information the
incremental dose from ingestion of duck could not be verified.
The concentrations for mallard were used for the dose estimates for people from ingestion of duck.
These concentrations are provided in Appendix D.3.
3. A description of the factor (F_Loc) which was used for the radon dose calculation. A factor
(F_Loc) of 0.1 was applied.
The F factor is the fraction of time the receptor spends in the local area. As discussed in the SLRA,
the First Nations individual is expected to be in the area for 10% of the year (equal to a F_loc of 0,1.
This value was inadvertently applied to both the camp cook and the First Nations receptor. For the
camp cook, the value of 0.1 should read 0.5 as discussed in the text. This correction does affect the
dose for the camp cook presented in the SLRA. The dose due to radon increases from 10 µSv/y
(from 2 µSv/y). The dose to the First Nations individual is unchanged.
Additional comments were received from the CNSC on the revised SLRA and the monitoring
program (document title: Review of Matoush Revised Screening Level Risk Assessment,
Environmental Monitoring Program and Additional Baseline Data Collection). Those comments
that relate to the SLRA and require a response are provided in the following discussion.
Comment 2 – Section 4.2.5, pages 4-11
Screening index exceedances were calculated for baseline and baseline + project scenarios from
exposure to mercury by Osprey, Common Merganser, and American Mink. Exposure to mercury
from the consumption of fish was the primary pathway resulting in these exceedances. Fish tissue
concentrations were estimated by applying a transfer factor to the incremental increase in surface
water concentrations resulting from the project, and adding the resulting fish tissue concentration to
the measured baseline fish concentration. Using this method the fish concentration increases by
approximately 0.1mg/kg ww Hg, resulting in a final tissue concentration of 1.5mg/kg ww Hg. This
method is different than that used in the previous version of the ERA. In the previous version, the
fish tissue concentration for the baseline + project scenario was calculated by multiplying the ratio
of the expected baseline + project surface water concentration and the baseline only surface water
390122-300
15 July 2011
Page 3
concentration to the measured baseline fish tissue concentrations. Using these methods, the fish
tissue concentration for the baseline + project scenario would increase to 10.8mg/kg ww (baseline
fish tissue concentration * baseline+project SW / baseline SW = 1.4mg/kg ww * 0.023/0.003 =
1.4mg/kg * 7.7 = 10.8mg/kg ww). This change in estimation methods was also applied to other
biota in the ERA.
Expectations to Address Comment –
a) A rationale should be provided which justifies the decision to change the methods for estimating
contaminant levels in fish (and other media and biota) from the original Risk Assessment in favour
of using literature-based transfer factors.
b) The baseline screening index value for mink from exposure to mercury should be corrected to
2.04. Table D.1 indicates the total baseline mercury intake for the Mink was 0.0449mg/kg-day.
Using the TRV of 0.022mg/kg-day, the resulting screening index equals 2.04.
a)
The approach was changed to advantage of the available data while also reflecting the
expected behaviour in the environment. In the original SLRA the approach was taken to adjust the
concentration in biota by the increase in the base environmental media (air or water). This is a
simplified approach that works well when the expected change in concentrations is small.
Therefore, this approach was retained for estimating the change in environmental compartments that
are primarily influenced by air emissions (e.g. berries). As the transfer factors for many COPC are
less than 1, it is a conservative approach that results in an overestimate of the concentration. For the
revised SLRA the approach was taken to estimate the increase in concentration using literature
derived transfer factors for the aquatic environmental components (e.g. sediment, fish, aquatic
vegetation). The SLRA then applied the estimated increase in concentration in the environmental
compartment to the maximum measured baseline value.
The TF used to estimate the concentration of mercury in fish was 6100 L/kg (IAEA 2009). This
expected to be a conservative value as N288.1 (CSA 2008) provides a TF of 1000 L/kg.
b)
Agree, an editorial error was made when entering the SI value in Table 6.3-2 of the SLRA;
the correct value is 2.04 as stated by the reviewer. It is also noted that the error also affected the SI
for muskrat which should read 0.04 in Table 6.3-2.
Comment 5 - Section 2.2.6, page 2-12
Concentrations of lead-210 in fish tissue were reported to be not detectable, yet later in the same
paragraph it is indicated that lead-210 concentrations were between 4 and 10 times higher than
(bones) or just above (tissue) the detection limits
In the same section, it is indicated that concentrations of mercury were above the consumption
guideline for northern pike. The fact that fish in the region already exceed consumption guidelines
under existing natural conditions (provincial recommended consumption restrictions are in place
for a number of waterbodies in the area), and the uncertainty associated with the MDL used for
390122-300
15 July 2011
Page 4
characterising the effluent quality (see Comment #3) means further attention must be paid to the
potential release of mercury from the Project.
Expectations to Address Comment – The discrepancy concerning concentrations of lead-210 in fish
tissue should be corrected.
The existing uncertainty regarding predicted mercury in fish tissue should be adequately accounted
for by improving effluent characterization (more sensitive MDL) and including this COPC in the
environmental monitoring program (see Expectations for Comment #3). The proponent should
review the proposed mercury fish tissue sampling program with the specific provincial authorities
responsible for managing fish consumption guidelines in the region to ensure consistent assessment
and management of mercury tissue levels within the region.
It is agreed that the statement is confusing as the discussion attempts to cover a number of topics
including tissue concentration, bone concentrations and detection limits. For clarity, the data
available with respect to Pb-210 in fish is provided below:
N
Flesh
Bone
Whole
Body
1
<0.002
0.018
--
1
<0.002
0.031
--
--
--
0.036
--
--
0.034
--
--
0.04
--
--
0.008
--
--
0.02
--
--
0.017
3
<0.004
0.05
--
1
<0.002
<0.01
--
1
<0.002
0.06
--
5
<0.001
0.025
--
2
<0.001
0.014
--
Composite
sample of a
number of fish
(approximately
60)
Fish
Brook
Trout
Brook
Trout
Lake
Chub
Lake
Chub
Lake
Chub
Lake
Chub
Lake
Chub
Lake
Chub
Brook
Trout
Brook
Trout
Brook
Trout
Northern
Pike
Northern
Pike
Lake
Year
Comment
Lake 7
2007
Lake 7
2007
Lake 1
2008
Male and Female
Lake 3
2008
Male and Female
Lake 4
2008
Male and Female
Lake 6
2008
Juvenile
Lake 6
2008
Male and Female
Lake 7
2008
Male and Female
Lake 3
2008
Mean (all flesh data was
<DL)
Lake 4
2008
Lake 7
2008
Lake 1
2008
Lake 3
2008
<DL)
<DL)
390122-300
15 July 2011
Page 5
N
Flesh
Bone
Whole
Body
4
<0.002
0.012
--
5
<0.001
0.016
--
Fish
Northern
Pike
Northern
Pike
Lake
Year
Lake 4
2008
Lake 6
2008
Comment
<DL)
<DL)
All concentrations in Bq/g (wet weight)
The SLRA used a baseline Pb-210 fish tissue concentration of 0.004 Bq/g (based on the brook trout
data collected from Lake 3) and a whole fish concentration of 0.04 Bq/g (based on the lake chub data
collected from Lake 4).
The issue with respect to mercury in fish tissue has been addressed in the monitoring program.

Strateco Resources Inc. 1225 Gay-Lussac Street, Boucherville

Transcription

Similar documents

Fitger`s Lake View Office

Captain Geech

to the article. - The FUND for Lake George

Loyalist Township - County of Lennox and Addington

WE ARE THE PLACE TO CHILL AT THE LAKE

Get Your Kicks this Fall with LWYSA!

chantecler 16-a, las fuentes — $118,00 usd steffen features

Camp Manitoqua Aquatic Center - Iprm Construction Management

Check Up From The Neck Up

Sherando Flyer - Virginia Hemophilia