National Classification System for Contaminated Sites

National Classification System

for Contaminated Sites

Guidance Document

PN 1403

ISBN 978-1-896997-80-3 PDF

NOTE TO READERS

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) is the major intergovernmental

forum in Canada for discussion and joint action on environmental issues of national, international

and global concern. The 14 member governments work as partners in developing nationally

consistent environmental standards, practices and legislation.

This document provides background information and guidance on the use of the 2008 National

Classification System for Contaminated Sites (NCSCS). The 2008 NCSCS is a revised and updated

version of the NCSCS that was published in 1992. Version 1.3 of the 2008 NCSCS was released

in 2016. This guidance document was updated to reflect version 1.3 of the NCSCS in 2017. For

additional technical information regarding this tool, please contact:

National Guidelines and Standards Office

Environment and Climate Change Canada

351 St. Joseph Blvd., 6

floor Annex

Gatineau, Quebec

K1A 0H3

Website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/

The 2008 National Classification System for Contaminated Sites was developed by the Soil

Quality Guidelines Task Group of CCME.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

123 Main St., Suite 360

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1A3

Phone: 204-948-2090

Email: info@ccme.ca Website:

www.ccme.ca

Reference listing:

CCME. 2008. National Classification System for Contaminated Sites: Guidance Document.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The initial draft of the revised National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (NCSCS)

method was developed by Audrey Wagenaar and Reidar Zapf-Gilje of Golder Associates Ltd.

(Golder 2005) for the CCME Soil Quality Guidelines Task Group. Kelly Potter of the National

Guidelines and Standards Office of Environment Canada and Charito Cañero of Golder Associates

Ltd. led the project required to finalize the revised version of the NCSCS. The performance testing

of the draft revised NCSCS and preparation of the spreadsheet tool was conducted by Charito

Cañero, Audrey Wagenaar, Nicky Jennings, and Eric Wilson of Golder Associates Ltd.

Thanks are extended to Jeremy Anglesey of Environment Canada and members of the federal

Contaminated Sites Management Working Group for providing contaminated site data for use in

the sensitivity analysis.

Review comments that contributed to the development of this project were provided by: Mike

Zemanek (Alberta Environment); Joan La Rue-van Es (Manitoba Conservation); Hugues

Ouellette (Développement durable, Environnement et Parc Québec); Ruth Hall (Yukon

Department of Environment); Franz Environmental Inc. (on behalf of the federal Contaminated

Sites Management Working Group); Renée Silke and J.A. Bond (Atomic Energy of Canada

Limited); Chris Allaway, Jennifer Froese, Ute Pott, and Kelly Potter (Environment Canada);

JoAnn Aldridge (Health Canada); Debbie Nicholls (Department of Fisheries and Oceans); Martin

Brown (Public Works and Government Services Canada); and Mark Kavanagh (Alberta Energy

and Utilities Board).

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTE TO READERS ..................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose of the National Classification System .....................................................1

1.3 Site Classification Categories ..............................................................................2

1.4 Uses of the National Classification System ..........................................................3

1.5 Comparison of the Revised NCSCS.....................................................................3

1.6 Complementary Tools to the National Classification System ................................4

1.7 Users of the National Classification System .........................................................4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ...................... 4

2.1 The Classification Method ....................................................................................4

2.2 Technical Basis for the Classification System ......................................................5

2.3 Evaluation Factors ...............................................................................................6

2.4 Numerical Weighting ............................................................................................7

3.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO THE USER ......................................................................... 8

3.1 The Classification System ....................................................................................8

3.2 The Classification Process ...................................................................................8

3.3 The User ................................................................................................

..............9

3.4 Pre-Screening ......................................................................................................9

3.5 The Site and Summary of Site Conditions ............................................................9

3.5.1 Site Letter Grade ....................................................................................... 10

3.6 The User's Guide ............................................................................................... 11

3.7 The Site Classification Worksheets .................................................................... 11

3.8 Known Versus Potential Contamination or Impacts ............................................ 11

3.9 Information Gaps and Certainty Percentage ...................................................... 12

3.10 Summary Score Sheet ..................................................................................... 12

3.11 Reference Material ........................................................................................... 13

4.0 ELECTRONIC CLASSIFICATION TOOL ........................................................... 13

5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 14

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 15

Appendix I: Pre-screening Checklist

Appendix II: Summary of Site Conditions

Appendix III: User’s Guide

Appendix IV: Site Classification Worksheets

Appendix V: Summary Score Sheet

Appendix VI: Reference Material

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's (CCME) National Classification System

for Contaminated Sites (NCSCS) is a method for evaluating contaminated sites according to their

current or potential adverse impact on human health and the environment. The NCSCS was

developed to establish a rational and scientifically defensible system for comparable assessment

of contaminated sites across Canada, and important management tool for prioritizing the

investigation and remediation of contaminated sites since 1992.

At a multi-stakeholder workshop held in April 1990 (CCME Contaminated Sites Consultation

Workshop), representatives from government, industry and the public agreed that a classification

system was required, and recommended that the system should be relatively simple and applicable

to all contaminated sites in Canada. Though simple, a defined amount of site characterization

information is required for the Site to be classified using the NCSCS. Using the NCSCS,

contaminated sites are evaluated using existing or generally available information on the Site's

characteristics, contaminants, and location.

The NCSCS was originally developed based on a review of existing provincial, territorial and

international methods for classifying contaminated sites. However, as new information became

available, such as increased knowledge about risk assessment techniques and experience in the

suitability of this system for classifying contaminated sites across Canada, the NCSCS has been

updated. In 2005, Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) prepared a draft revised NCSCS spreadsheet

and report, as part of the Soil Quality Guidelines Task Group (SQGTG) work on devising a scoring

system that is simpler to use, more objective, and that includes considerations of the magnitude

and quality of information available and specific factors for northern and First Nation sites.

Following posting of the draft revised NCSCS spreadsheet and report for public comment;

revisions were made to the spreadsheet by the SQGTG.

This document and associated Excel based classification system supersedes the 1992 NCSCS, but

incorporates much of the original system and also those changes made in the Federal Contaminated

Sites Action Plan Contaminated Site Classification System (Franz Environmental 2005; referred

to as the “FCSAP system”). The FCSAP system was also based on the original NCSCS.

The revised scoring system presented in this guidance was tested by Golder (2007) on a range of

real sites with various levels of available data, to assess the consistency of scoring results between

independent assessors, and to compare the scores obtained by the 1992 NCSCS, the FCSAP

version, and the revised NCSCS.

1.2 Purpose of the National Classification System

The NCSCS is a tool to aid in the evaluation of contaminated sites. Its purpose is to provide

scientific and technical assistance in the identification and prioritization of sites, which may be

considered to represent high, medium, or low risk. The system classifies contaminated sites into

these general categories of risk in a systematic and rational manner, according to their current or

potential adverse impact on human health and/or the environment.

The NCSCS is not designed to provide either a qualitative or quantitative risk assessment, but

rather is a tool specifically for the classification and prioritization of contaminated sites. The

system screens sites with respect to the need for further action (e.g., characterization, risk

assessment, remediation, etc.) to protect human health and the environment. Although many of the

factors involved in a risk assessment study are addressed in this system, the procedure should not

be used out of context to conduct risk analyses on individual sites.

It must be emphasized that this system constitutes a screening tool only. As such, it is beyond the

scope of this system to address specific factors such as those of a technological, socioeconomic,

political, or legal nature. Additional investigations will therefore usually be required before

regulatory requirements or remedial designs can be finalized.

1.3 Site Classification Categories

Sites should not be ranked relative to one another. Sites must be classified on their individual

characteristics in order to determine the appropriate classification (Class 1, 2, 3, or N) according

to their priority for action, or Class INS (for sites that require further information before they can

be classified). It should be noted that the term “action” here does not necessarily refer to

remediation, but could also include risk assessment, risk management or further site

characterization and data collection. The classification groupings are as follows:

Class 1: High Priority for Action (Total NCSCS Score greater than 70)

The available information indicates that action (e.g., further site characterization, risk

management, remediation, etc.) is required to address existing concerns. Typically, Class 1 sites

show a propensity to high concern for several factors, and measured or observed impacts have

been documented. (Note, this category was previously called “Action Required”.)

Class 2: Medium Priority for Action (Total NCSCS Score between 50 and 69.9)

The available information indicates that there is high potential for adverse impacts, although the

threat to human health and the environment is generally not imminent. Typically, for Class 2 there

is no direct indication of off-site contamination; however, the potential for off-site migration tends

to be rated high and therefore some action is likely required. (Note, this category was previously

called “Action Likely Required”.)

Class 3: Low Priority for Action (Total NCSCS Score between 37 and 49.9)

The available information indicates that the Site is currently not a high concern. However,

additional investigation may be carried out to confirm the site classification. (Note, this category

was previously called “Action May Be Required”.)

Class N: Not a Priority for Action (Total NCSCS Score less than 37)

The available information indicates there is likely no significant environmental impact or human

health threats. There is likely no need for action unless new information becomes available

indicating greater concerns, in which case, the Site should be re-examined. (Note, this category

was previously called “Action Not Likely Required”.)

Class INS: Insufficient Information (

≥

15% of Responses are “Do Not Know”)

Although a minimum of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted for the site,

there appears to be insufficient information to classify the Site. In this event, additional information

is required to address data gaps.

1.4 Uses of the National Classification System

The main goal of the NCSCS is to provide a scientifically defensible method that will aid in

identifying, on a technical basis, contaminated sites that present a high risk and therefore may

require further work. Use of this system will help ensure that funding is allocated to contaminated

sites that are considered highest priority for a jurisdiction (i.e., encourage identification and

remediation of highest priority sites first). Although other factors, such as socio-political

considerations, may alter these priorities, as indicated above, these are beyond the scope this

system.

1.5 Comparison of the Revised NCSCS

If additional information has been obtained since the Site has been classified using the 1992

NCSCS and FCSAP system, then it is recommended that the Site be reclassified. Regardless of

availability of new information, it is preferable that Sites be reclassified with the revised NCSCS

using the available information.

Should a new score and classification under the revised NCSCS not be required, the following

provides a suggestion to convert previous scores using the 1992 NCSCS and FCSAP system. This

option applies a correction factor which introduces an uncertainty in the converted score.

The results of the performance testing conducted by Golder (2007) indicate that scores obtained

using the two previous scoring systems (1992 NCSCS and FCSAP system) are biased high when

compared to the scores obtained with the revised. The average bias is almost identical for the 1992

NCSCS and the FCSAP systems at slightly less than 20%. It is recommended that the old scores

be adjusted by an appropriate average bias for comparison to the revised NCSCS scores. The main

reason for the bias is the inherent difference in how the different scoring systems calculate the total

score.

1.6 Complementary Tools to the National Classification System

The NCSCS is suitable for classifying the majority of contaminated sites in Canada. However, this

system does not specifically address contaminated sites with a significant marine or aquatic

component, and therefore should not be used as the sole method for classifying these types of sites.

Environmental conditions at marine and aquatic sites are best measured in the sediments as they

act as long-term reservoirs of chemicals to the aquatic environment and to organisms living in or

having direct contact with sediments. CCME has developed the Sediment Quality Index Calculator

(SeQI). The SeQI provides a convenient means of summarizing sediment quality data and can

complement the NCSCS. The SeQI provides a mathematical framework for assessing sediment

quality conditions by comparing contaminant concentrations with their respective sediment quality

guidelines.

Additionally, CCME has developed a Soil Quality Index (SoQI) Calculator. The CCME Soil

Quality Index (SoQI) is another complementary tool that focuses on evaluating the relative hazard,

by comparing contaminant concentrations with their respective soil quality guidelines.

1.7 Users of the National Classification System

The NCSCS scorings should be conducted by individuals with contaminated site experience. As

new site information becomes available or as steps toward site remediation are taken, the site score

should be revised to reflect the reduction in risk; and the Site reclassified as appropriate.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

2.1 The Classification Method

The NCSCS presented in this manual uses an additive numerical method that assigns scores to a

number of site characteristics or factors. In general, additive numerical methods such as this

attempt to reduce the process of assessment and evaluation using a single score intended to

represent a site’s present or potential hazard.

This document and associated Excel based classification system supersedes the 1992 NCSCS, but

incorporates much of the original system and also those changes made in the Federal Contaminated

Sites Action Plan Contaminated Site Classification System (Franz Environmental 2005; referred

to as the “FCSAP system”).

The NCSCS has been an important management tool for prioritizing the remediation of

contaminated sites since 1992 (CCME, 1992). Subsequently, the NCSCS underwent a review by

the CCME Soil Quality Guidelines Task Group (SQGTG) and it was determined that updates were

required to reduce subjectivity, reflect current soil quality guidelines, increase the breadth of

ecological information and include parameters specific to northern landscapes. Golder Associates

Ltd. was retained by CCME to conduct a review of the 1992 NCSCS, provide recommendations

on improvements and build a new electronic NCSCS classification system, which was completed

in 2005. Changes incorporated into the revised NCSCS are outlined in Golder’s report entitled

“The National Classification System for Contaminated Sites – Revised Version, 2005”.

The following objectives were addressed in the revised NCSCS based on Golder’s review of the

existing NCSCS and interviews with SQGTG members:

• Focus on science and leave the risk management issues to those utilizing the scores;

• Include some measure of uncertainty into the classification system;

• Increase objectivity;

• Make the classification system simpler to use;

• Include factors specific to northern sites (e.g., permafrost, snow and lack of groundwater);

• Acknowledge potential risks associated with First Nations reliance on local traditional

(unregulated) foods and other land resources;

• Include additional migration and exposure pathways (e.g., dust, vapour and sediments);

• Include factors specific to the intended land use;

• Include off-ramps where immediate attention is required or where scoring is inappropriate;

• Include modifying factors for specific issues with defined scores (to avoid subjectivity) to

permit the inclusion of factors outside the range of typical checklist questions;

• Retain as much continuity with the existing system as possible while making the required

improvements; and,

• Create a similar numerical score to that which would have been calculated under the existing

systems. The use of a similar scoring method will facilitate the transition to the new system

and will eliminate the need for re-evaluation of sites already prioritized under existing systems.

Golder Associates Ltd. was retained by the SQGTG in 2007 to “test” the revised scoring system

on a range of real sites; to assess the consistency of scoring results between independent assessors;

to compare the scores obtained by the original NCSCS (1992), the FCSAP version, and the revised

NCSCS (2005); and based on the findings provide this guidance document and NCSCS electronic

spreadsheet.

2.2 Technical Basis for the Classification System

In traditional hazard assessment, an adverse effect on the environment or human health is the result

of a chain of events from source to receptor. Accordingly, the NCSCS is designed to evaluate the

hazard, or hazard potential, of the Site by scoring site characteristics that can be grouped under

one of three categories:

1. Contaminant Characteristics – This category relates to the relative hazard of contaminants

present at the Site. The contaminant characteristics include contaminant specific factors such

as residence media, toxic potency, exceedance of guidelines, contaminant quantity and

modifying factors;

2. Migration Potential – This category allows for the determination of the potential for

contaminants to leave the original residency media and move to another media, another portion

of the Site, or off-site. Contaminants that are mobile and have the potential to move off-site

may require action on a higher priority basis than those which are stable; and,

3. Exposure – This category includes aspects of both the exposure pathway and receptors

analysis. The exposure pathway is the route a contaminant may follow (e.g., groundwater,

surface water, direct contact, and/or air) to a receptor. Receptors are living beings or resources

that may be exposed to and affected by contamination (e.g., humans, plants, animals, or

environmental resources). Human and ecological exposures have been segregated due to

differences in the types of potentially operable exposure pathways and receptor scenarios.

Ecological receptors are further divided into terrestrial receptors and aquatic receptors.

2.3 Evaluation Factors

A number of evaluation factors are used as assessment tools within each of the three categories of

site characteristics in the NCSCS. These evaluation factors were chosen to assess a Site in a

technically sound manner. They attempt to assess the hazard of a Site based on general information

regarding the nature of its contaminants and possible impact on human health and the environment

through major environmental media (i.e., water, soil, and air). However, based on a survey of

available contaminated site information in Canada, in many cases, information may not be known

about certain aspects of a site. Therefore, the factors chosen also reflect those for which

information is considered generally available. The worksheet titles and sub-headings are as

follows:

I Contaminant Characteristics

II Migration Potential

III Exposure

1. Residency Media

1. Groundwater Movement

1. Human Receptors

A. Known Impact

B. Potential

a. Land Use

b. Accessibility

c. Exposure Route

2. Chemical Hazard

2. Surface Water Movement

2. Human Modifying Factors

3. Contaminant Exceedance Factor

3. Soil

3. Ecological Receptors

A. Known Impact

B. Potential

a. Terrestrial

b. Aquatic

4. Contaminant Quantity

4. Vapour

4. Ecological Modifying Factors

A. Species at Risk

B. Aesthetics

5. Modifying Factors

5. Sediment Movement

5. Other Receptors

A. Permafrost

6. Modifying Factors

2.4 Numerical Weighting

The NCSCS uses a scoring system (maximum of 100 points) as a means of assessing the hazard

of a site. The three categories of site characteristics (see Subsection 2.2) were determined to be of

equal importance under the system, and are therefore weighted equally (33, 33, and 34 points,

respectively).

Each of the evaluation factors in this classification system (e.g., residency media of contaminants,

rainfall, topography, etc.) is assigned a score ranging from 0 to 22. The score range is designed to

weight the factors according to their potential or actual relevance in contributing to the hazard or

risk of a site. Those factors that have been assigned high maximum scores are considered to be of

greater relevance than those with low maximum scores.

For each factor, several possible scenarios are presented (e.g., residency media of contaminants

could be soil, groundwater, etc.; the topography of the Site could be steep or flat), and scoring

guidelines are suggested for each scenario presented. These suggested scores (scoring guidelines)

have been weighted according to their considered relative importance in determining risk.

As indicated above, the NCSCS evaluates sites by scoring them on a scale from 0 to 100. A total

site score close to 0 in the system is one for which all the evaluation factors are assigned the lowest

possible score. A score of 100 would represent a Site for which all the factors were assigned the

highest possible score. In general, sites that exhibit observable or measured impacts on the

surrounding environment or have a high potential for causing negative impacts will score high

under the system. Sites with minimal observed impacts or a low potential for causing impacts will

generally receive a low score. The system is not designed to provide a quantitative risk assessment,

but rather is a tool to screen sites with respect to need for further action (e.g., characterization, risk

assessment, remediation, etc.) to protect human and environmental health.

3.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO THE USER

3.1 The Classification System

The NCSCS consists of six components available in paper copies herein or as an Excel spreadsheet:

• Pre-Screening Checklist (Appendix I);

• Summary of Site Conditions (Appendix II);

• User’s Guide (Appendix III);

• Site Classification Worksheets (Appendix IV);

• Summary Score Sheet (Appendix V); and,

• Reference Material (Appendix VI).

These components were designed to produce a National Classification System that provides well

documented and consistent site classifications. Each of these components is described more fully

in the following subsections.

3.2 The Classification Process

To classify contaminated sites appropriately using the NCSCS, the user should carry out the

following steps, in the order shown:

1. Read and understand this Guidance Document and the User's Guide.

2. Obtain sufficient site information to complete the site classification. At least a Phase I

Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should be available in order to conduct the NCSCS

exercise. The Phase I ESA consists of a preliminary desk-top type study involving nonintrusive

data collection to determine whether there is a potential for the Site to be contaminated and to

provide information to direct any intrusive investigations. The data collected as part of the

Phase I ESA generally include a review of available information on current site conditions and

history of the property, a site inspection and interviews with personnel familiar with the site.

This stage is similar to "Phase I: Site Information Assessment" as described in Guidance

Document on the Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME 1997). If a Phase I

ESA is not available, further site information should be gathered before the Site is classified.

It may be necessary to complete a Phase I ESA for the Site in conjunction with the NCSCS

scoring exercise.

3. Refer to the Pre-Screening Checklist to determine if the Site is appropriate for classification or

has site specific indicators that would default the Site to Class 1 priority ranking.

4. Complete the Worksheets (review and document existing information and consult specialists,

as required). It is recommended to document the rationale for the scoring decisions.

5. Complete the Summary Score sheet.

6. Classify the Site.

3.3 The User

The user (the person applying the classification system) should be an experienced professional

with appropriate technical expertise. For some evaluation factors (e.g., permeability of geologic

materials), it is recommended that the user consult a hydrogeologist. It may also be necessary to

consult environmental chemists and biologists or other environmental scientists and professionals

to assist in the interpretation of site conditions and impacts.

3.4 Pre-Screening

A Pre-Screening Checklist (Appendix I) has been included in the NCSCS to determine if the Site

can either be considered a Class 1 site (to be remediated as soon as practical) or more information

must be collected before the Site can be classified, or other hazards exist at the Site that must be

addressed first before the Site can be classified using the revised NCSCS. If any of these factors

apply to the Site being assessed, do not continue.

The Pre-Screening Checklist may identify Sites for which serious adverse impacts are known and

have been well documented in appropriate site reports. The questions are designed to quickly

summarize whether the Site is known to contain hazardous materials that are affecting human

health and the environment. If it is known that the Site is adversely affecting humans or posing a

fire or explosion hazard, the Site is automatically classified as Class 1.

Alternatively, if a sufficiently comprehensive environmental site assessment has been completed

at the Site beginning with a Phase I ESA and including subsequent intrusive investigation phases

and there are no exceedances (known or suspected) of the relevant CCME, provincial, or territorial

guidelines/standards at the Site, and chemicals for which there are no guideline/standard do not

exceed defensible toxicity benchmarks, it would not be necessary to classify the Site.

3.5 The Site and Summary of Site Conditions

The Site’s boundaries should be clearly defined by the User. It is recommended that the Summary

of Site Conditions (Appendix II) provide as much information as possible in order to delineate the

bounds of the Site including a site plan drawn to scale indicating the boundaries in relation to well-

defined references points and/or legal descriptions. It is recommended that the NCSCS evaluation

only be conducted where information is available for the entire Site. Where only a portion of a Site

has been characterized, it may be useful to classify these individual Areas of Potential

Environmental Concern (APECs) as Sites with their own NCSCS score and classification.

3.5.1 Site Letter Grade

Available reports describing site activities, site conditions, environmental impacts, site

remediation, and measures or systems used to protect human health and the environment should

be consulted and referenced to determine the Site Letter Grade. The Site Letter Grade is related to

the level of information available for the Site (as defined by the User) and provides an indication

of information uncertainty based on the level of investigation and remediation work that has been

carried out at the Site. The descriptions of the various categories are provided below.

F: Pre Phase I ESA – No environmental investigations have been conducted or there are only

partial or incomplete Phase I ESA for the Site. It is not recommended to continue through the

NCSCS when insufficient data are available.In these cases, it will generally be necessary to

conduct a Phase I ESA or other site investigation tasks in order to complete the NCSCS scoring.

E: Phase I ESA – A preliminary desk-top type study has been conducted, involving non-intrusive

data collection to determine whether there is a potential for the Site to be contaminated and to

provide information to direct any intrusive investigations. Data collected may include a review of

available information on current site conditions and history of the property, a site inspection and

interviews with personnel familiar with the Site. [Note: This stage is similar to "Phase I: Site

Information Assessment" as described in Guidance Document on the Management of

Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME 1997).]

D: Limited Phase II ESA – An initial intrusive investigation and assessment of the property has

been conducted, generally focusing on potential sources of contamination, to determine whether

there is contamination present above the relevant screening guidelines or criteria, and to broadly

define soil and groundwater conditions; samples have been collected and analyzed to identify,

characterize and quantify contamination that may be present in air, soil, groundwater, surface water

or building materials. [Note: This stage is similar to "Phase II: Reconnaissance Testing Program"

as described in Guidance Document on the Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME

1997).]

C: Detailed Phase II ESA – Further intrusive investigations have been conducted to characterize

and delineate the contamination, to obtain detailed information on the soil and groundwater

conditions, to identify the contaminant pathways, and to provide other information required to

develop a remediation plan. [Note: This stage is similar to "Phase III: Detailed Testing Program"

as described in Guidance Document on the Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME

1997).]

B: Risk Assessment with or without Remedial Plan or Risk Management Strategy – A risk

assessment has been completed, and if the risk was found to be unacceptable, a site-specific

remedial action plan has been designed to mitigate environmental and health concerns associated

with the Site, or a risk management strategy has been developed.

A: Confirmation Sampling – Remedial work, monitoring, and/or compliance testing have been

conducted and confirmatory sampling demonstrates whether contamination has been removed or

stabilized effectively and whether cleanup or risk management objectives have been attained.

3.6 The User's Guide

The User's Guide (Appendix III) documents the rationale behind each evaluation factor included

in the NCSCS. It also presents guidelines for data interpretation and suggested sources of

information to be reviewed when assessing the factor. The User's Guide should be read thoroughly

before commencing a site classification under the system.

3.7 The Site Classification Worksheets

Site Classification Worksheets (Appendix IV) allow the User to organize and document the raw

information needed to identify and rate the Site. For each evaluation factor, the User should refer

to the User's Guide (for definitions or explanations relevant to the factor), document the available

site information pertaining to that factor in the worksheet, and assign an appropriate score to the

factor on the worksheet. The rationale for the selection of each score should be documented in the

worksheet in the space provided. Documentation on the worksheet of the raw site data, as well as

the rationale behind the score assigned to any particular factor, will facilitate peer review and

reexamination of the site classification, as required.

The Worksheets provide scores which are to be circled and “fill-in-the-blank” sections for tallying

the scores (known and potential). For each factor, the User may choose any score within a defined

range. The User is prompted to conduct calculations and/or transfer the values to the Summary

Score Sheet. The tally of scores is considered to be “raw” and have not been adjusted down to the

total maximum score for the given category. In most cases, the possible total raw score will be

greater than the maximum allowed.

3.8 Known Versus Potential Contamination or Impacts

For the purposes of this NCSCS, “known” is defined as scores that are assigned based on

documented scientific and/or technical observations and “potential” refers to scores that are

assigned when something is not known, although it may be suspected.

The NCSCS worksheets instruct the User to complete either the known contamination section or

the potential for contamination section (i.e., they are treated as mutually exclusive events and

scores will be counted from only one section).

Care should be taken to include consideration of fate and transport of contaminants, especially in

groundwater. For example, results from groundwater sampling may indicate acceptable

groundwater quality, but consideration must be given to the potential for a groundwater plume to

exist that has not yet reached the monitoring wells installed. If this is the case, then the User should

conclude there is a potential for the groundwater to be contaminated.

This case demonstrates the importance of professional judgment in interpreting the potential for

site contamination to exist, even when existing site investigation results may not demonstrate

exceedance of contaminants. It may be useful to document both measured contamination levels

and any circumstances that affect the potential for contamination or impacts to occur, and the

rationale of whether to consider the contaminant issue in question as known or potential.

3.9 Information Gaps and Certainty Percentage

Before classifying a Site, the User should ensure that sufficient site information is available.

However, there may be one or more factors in the NCSCS that cannot be addressed because of

lack of information. In these cases the “Do Not Know” option should be selected, which results in

a score that is one-half of its maximum; which is added in the “Potential” column.

The ratio of “Known” to “Potential” responses reflects the relative certainty, or confidence, of the

resulting final score and the classification. The NCSCS system defines this ratio as the “Certainty

Percentage”.

The Certainty Percentage is generated from the number of sections assigned scores based on

“known” information divided by the total number of sections. A high percentage indicates that

more is known about the Site, and therefore there is more confidence in the classification, whereas

a low percentage suggests that the classification should be treated with caution since the percentage

is based mainly on potential rather than actual impacts.

In evaluating the total score, both the site letter grade and certainty percentage provide a means

to assess the appropriateness of the total score obtained and associated site classification. As an

option, and at the discretion of the Users and applicable juridications, an adjustment of between

10% and 20% of the total score may be added to account for Certainty Percentages of less than

70%.

3.10 Summary Score Sheet

The Summary Score sheet (Appendix V) provides the total site score by adding up the scores

generated on each of the three worksheets and provides the corresponding Site Classification. It

also provides an estimate of certainty in the score provided (Certainty Percentage).

This Site Classification is calculated based on the Total Score, as follows:

• Class 1 if the Total Score is between 70 and 100;

• Class 2 if the Total Score is between 50 and 69.9;

• Class 3 if the Total Score is between 37 and 49.9;

• Class N if the Total Score is less than 37; and,

• Class INS if more than, or equal to, 15% of responses are “Do Not Know”, or a site letter grade

of F has been assigned.

The total score for the Site and the site classification provide information on the actual or potential

impacts and indicate whether a Site is a high priority for remediation. The site letter grade and

certainty percentage provide an indication of the quality and quantity of information available for

the Site and indicate whether a Site is appropriate for classification and to what degree the

classification can be relied upon. The site letter grade provides an initial qualitative indication

based on the type of reports or assessments which have been conducted at the Site. The certainty

percentage provides an indication of “known” and “potential” information as determined by the

scoring exercise. Although a site letter grade of A through E is assigned, indicating that at least a

Phase I ESA is available, the certainty percentage provides an evaluation of the quality of available

data.

3.11 Reference Material

The additional following information, which may be useful to refer to while conducting the

evaluation, is provided in Appendix VI:

• Contaminant Hazard Rankings;

• Examples of Persistent Substances;

• Examples of Substances in the Various Chemical Classes;

• Chemical-Specific Properties; and,

• Range of Values of Hydraulic Conductivity and Permeability.

4.0 ELECTRONIC CLASSIFICATION TOOL

The NCSCS classification system has also been assembled in Microsoft Excel and is available on

the CCME website. The electronic tool includes drop down lists to increase ease and efficiency

of use. It also limits the choices a User has, thus reducing subjectivity. All required information

is provided within the Excel file, including rationale, method of evaluation and notes (with

citations where available) that may be required to resolve questions that a user might have. Scores

are automatically summed at the bottom of the page and on the associated Summary Score sheet.

5.0 CONCLUSION

Within each priority category, further refinement of the relative classification of sites may be

necessary. The National Classification System is a screening tool only. Firm conclusions about the

need for remedial action will still depend on a number of factors (including planned longterm use

or redevelopment of the Site, application of contaminated site criteria and relevant/sitespecific

objectives of the jurisdiction in which the Site is located, local issues, availability of technology,

remediation costs, etc.). These factors are beyond the scope of this system, however, and are not

meant to be addressed.

6.0 REFERENCES

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1992. National Classification System

for Contaminated Sites.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1997. Guidance Document on the

Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2007. Sediment Quality Index

Calculator. (available online at www.ccme.ca/)

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2007. Soil Quality Index Calculator.

(available online at www.ccme.ca/)

Franz Environmental. 2005. FCSAP Contaminated Site Classification Guidance Document. Final

Report Version 1.6. Prepared for Environment Canada.

Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall,

Inc.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2005. The National Classification System for Contaminated Sites-Revised

Version, 2005. Prepared for the CCME Soil Quality Guidelines Task Group.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2007. Interim Report, Performance Testing of the Revised National

Classification System for Contaminated Sites. Prepared for the CCME Soil Quality Guidelines

Task Group.

Todd, K.K. 1959. Ground Water Hydrology. New York: Wiley.

APPENDIX I

PRE-SCREENING CHECKLIST

Appendix I Page 1 of 2

CCME National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (2008) version 1.3

Pre-Screening Checklist

Please place a checkmark in the appropriate answer box.

Yes

Response

Question Comment

Are there indicators of significant adverse effects in the

exposure zone (i.e., the zone in which receptors may

come into contact with contaminants)? Some examples

are as follows:

-Hydrocarbon sheen or NAPL in the exposure zone

-Severely stressed biota or devoid of biota;

-Presence of material at ground surface or

sediment with suspected high concentration of

contaminants such as ore tailings, sandblasting

grit, slag, and coal tar.

To answer “yes”, two scenarios should be satisfied; (1)

there has to be a high probability that receptors will be

exposed to the contaminant source in the near future,

and (2) the predicted impacts to ecological receptors

after exposure have to be significant (see question 5). A

low probability of exposure resulting in significant

impacts, or a high probability of exposure but with only

low to moderate effects expected should not result in a

Class 1 designation, neither would a low probability of

exposure resulting in low-to-moderate effects.

If yes, automatically rate the site as Class 1, a priority for

remediation or risk management, regardless of the total

score obtained should one be calculated.

Are there no contamination exceedances (known or

suspected)?

Determination of exceedances may be based on: 1)

CCME environmental quality guidelines; 2) equivalent

provincial guidelines/standards if no CCME guideline

exists for a specific chemical in a relevant medium; or 3)

toxicity benchmarks derived from the literature for

chemicals not covered by CCME or provincial

guidelines/standards; 4) background concentration.

If yes (i.e ., there are no exceedances), do not proceed

through the NCSCS.

Have partial/incompleted or no environmental site

investigations been conducted for the Site?

If yes, do not proceed through the NCSCS.

Are Radioactive material, Bacterial contamination or

Biological hazards likely to be present at the site?

If yes, do not proceed through the NCSCS. Contact

applicable regulatory agency immediately.

Is there direct and significant evidence of impacts to

humans at the site, or off-site due to migration of

contaminants from the site?

If yes, automatically rate the site as Class 1, a priority for

remediation or risk management, regardless of the total

score obtained should one be calculated.

Is there direct and significant evidence of impacts to

ecological receptors at the site, or off-site due to

migration of contaminants from the site?

Some low levels of impact to ecological receptors are

considered acceptable, particularly on commercial and

industrial land uses. However, if ecological effects are

considered to be severe, the site may be categorized as

Class 1, regardless of the numerical total NCSCS score.

For the purpose of application of the NCSCS, effects

that would be considered severe include observed

effects on survival, growth or reproduction which could

threaten the viability of a population of ecological

receptors at the site. Other evidence that qualifies as

severe adverse effects may be determined based on

professional judgement and in consultation with the

relevant jurisdiction.

Do measured concentrations of volatiles or unexploded

ordnances represent an explosion hazard?

If yes, do not proceed through the NCSCS. Do not

continue until the safety risks have been addressed.

Consult your jurisdiction's occupational health and

safety guidance or legislation on exposive hazards and

measurement of lower explosive limits.

Appendix I Page 2 of 2

CCME National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (2008) version 1.3

Pre-Screening Checklist

If none of the above applies, proceed with the NCSCS scoring.

Rationale for not proceeding with NCSCS

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information to support selection of "Yes" in Pre-Screening checklist)

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS

Appendix II Page 1 of 2

CCME National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (2008) version 1.3

Appendix II - Summary of Site Conditions

Site:

(select how site will be identified,

e.g., from Civic Address, Site

Common Name, Code Identifier,

Lat &Long, or UTM )

Civic Address:

(or other description of location)

Site Common Name

(if applicable)

Code identifier :

(e.g., FCSI 8-digit identifier)

Site Owner or Custodian:

(Organization and Contact

Person)

Legal description or

metes and bounds:

Approximate Site area:

Parcel Identifier(s) [PID]:

(or Parcel Identification Numbers

[PIN] if untitled Crown land)

Latitude: ______ degrees ______ min ______ secs

Longitude: ______ degrees ______ min ______ secs

UTM Coordinate: Northing ______________

Easting ______________

Current:

Proposed:

Site Plan

To delineate the bounds of the Site a site plan MUST be attached. The plan must be drawn to scale

indicating the boundaries in relation to well-defined reference points and/or legal descriptions.

Delineation of the contamination should also be indicated on the site plan.

Provide a brief description

of the Site:

Site Land Use:

Centre of site:

(provide latitude/longitude or

UTM coordinates)

Appendix II Page 2 of 2

CCME National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (2008) version 1.3

Appendix II - Summary of Site Conditions

Site Letter Grade

Please circle the "letter" that best describes the level of information available for the site being assessed:

(Enter Letter Grade into Summary Score Sheet)

F– Pre Phase I

E– Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

D– Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

C– Detailed Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

B– Risk Assessment with or without Remedial Plan or Risk Management Plan

A– Confirmation Sampling

If letter grade is F, do not continue, you must have a minimum of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or equivalent.

Scoring Completed By:

Date Scoring Completed:

Affected media and

Contaminants of Potential

Concern (COPC):

APPENDIX III

USER’S GUIDE

Appendix III Page 1 of 3

CCME National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - User's Guide

Instructions

I. Contaminant Characteristics II. Migration Potential III. Exposure

1. Residency Media 1. Groundwater Movement 1. Human Receptors

2. Chemical Hazard 2. Surface water Movement A. Known Impact

3. Contaminant Exceedance Factor 3. Soil B Potential

4. Contaminant Quantity 4. Vapour a. Land Use

5. Modifying Factors 5. Sediment Movement

b. Accessibility

6. Modifying Factors c. Exposure Route

2. Human Modifying Factors

3. Ecological Receptors

A. Known Impact

B. Potential

a. Terrestrial

b. Aquatic

4. Ecological Modifying Factors

a. Species at Risk

b. Aesthetics

5. Other Receptors

a. Permafrost

1) Please review the following overview of contents. The revised CCME National Classification System for Contaminated

Sites (NCSCS) consists of a pre-screening checklist, summary of site conditions, summary score sheet, and three

instruction/worksheet pages for the user to fill out: Contaminant Characteristics, Migration Potential and Exposure. For

ease of printing, the method of evaluation for scoring each section of the worksheet is provided in a separate Instructions

tab. Reference material is also provided to assist with the evaluation. A brief description of each sheet is as follows:

Contaminant Characteristics Instructions & Worksheet - Prompts the user for information related to the contaminants

of potential concern (COPC) found at the site.

Migration Potential Instructions & Worksheet - Prompts the user for information related to physical transport processes

which may move contamination to neighboring sites or re-distribute contamination within a site. Migration potential

includes many of the exposure pathways, but is not limited to exposure pathways. Migration potential does not require

clearly defined receptors.

Site Description Sheet - Summarizes Site information. It also indicates the level of information available (Site Letter

Grade) for the site to conduct the NCSCS scoring evaluation. The known/potential contaminants of concern and

affected media will also be summarized here.

Pre-Screening Checklist - Used to determine if the Site can either be considered a Class 1 site (to be remediated

immediately) or if more information must be collected before the Site can be classified, or other hazards exist at the

Site that must be addressed first before the Site can be classified using the revised NCSCS.

Exposure Instructions & Worksheet - Prompts the user for information related to exposure pathways and receptors

which may be located on the site.

Reference Material - Additional information which may be useful to refer to when conducting the evaluation.

Contaminant Hazard Ranking

Examples of Persistent Substances

Examples of Substances in the Various Chemical Classes

Chemical-specific Properties

Range of Values of Hydraulic Conductivity and Permeability

The worksheet titles and sub headings are as follows.

Summary Score Sheet - Generates a total site score by adding up the scores generated on each of the three

worksheets and provides the corresponding Site Classification. It also provides an estimate of certainty in the score

provided (Certainty Percentage).

Appendix III Page 2 of 3

CCME National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - User's Guide

Detailed Descriptions:

5) A few terms are used throughout which require definition, they are as follows:

Phase I ESA – A preliminary desk-top type study has been conducted, involving non-intrusive data

collection to determine whether there is a potential for the Site to be contaminated and to provide

information to direct any intrusive investigations. Data collected may include a review of available

information on current site conditions and history of the property, a site inspection and interviews with

personnel familiar with the Site. [Note: This stage is similar to "Phase I: Site Information Assessment"

as described in Guidance Document on the Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME

1997).]

4) The Site Letter Grade is related to the level of information available for the Site (as defined by the User) and provides

an indication of completeness of information based on the level of investigation and remediation work that has been

carried out at the site. More detailed descriptions of the various categories are provided below.

Limited Phase II ESA – An initial intrusive investigation and assessment of the property has been

conducted, generally focusing on potential sources of contamination, to determine whether there is

contamination present above the relevant screening guidelines or criteria, and to broadly define soil

and groundwater conditions; samples have been collected and analyzed to identify, characterize and

quantify contamination that may be present in air, soil, groundwater, surface water or building

materials. [Note: This stage is similar to "Phase II: Reconnaissance Testing Program" as described in

Guidance Document on the Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME 1997).]

Detailed Phase II ESA – Further intrusive investigations have been conducted to characterize and

delineate the contamination, to obtain detailed information on the soil and groundwater conditions, to

identify the contaminant pathways, and to provide other information required to develop a remediation

plan. [Note: This stage is similar to "Phase III: Detailed Testing Program" as described in Guidance

Document on the Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME 1997).]

2) This is an electronic form which can be printed out and filled out on paper by the user by hand. Within each

Worksheet, the score is circled, either in the known or potential column. Subtotals will be prompted for at the end of

each Section and the value transferred onto the Summary Sheet. Required calculations are also prompted in order to

obtain the Total NCSCS Score. A separate Excel spreadsheet has been developed which will prompt the user for

information and is meant to be used as an electronic tool for NCSCS evaluation.

Site Letter

Grade:

3) When assigning scores for each factor, it is highly recommended to give a rationale (a column has been provided for

this purpose in Worksheets I, II and III). Information that would be useful in justifying the scores assigned may include: a

statement of any assumptions, a description of site-specific information, and references for any data sources (e.g., site

visit, personal interview, site assessment reports, or other documents consulted).

Confirmation Sampling – Remedial work, monitoring, and/or compliance testing have been

conducted and confirmatory sampling demonstrates whether contamination has been removed or

stabilized effectively and whether cleanup or risk management objectives have been attained.

Pre Phase I ESA – No environmental investigations have been conducted or there are only partial or

incomplete Phase I ESA for the Site. It is not recommended to continue through the NCSCS when

insufficient data are available. In these cases, it will generally be necessary to conduct a Phase I ESA

or other site investigation tasks in order to complete the NCSCS scoring.

Known - refers to scores that are assigned based on documented scientific and/or technical observations

Raw - refers to score totals which have not been adjusted down to the total maximum score for the given category. In most

cases the possible total raw score is greater than the maximum allowed

Risk Assessment with or without Remedial Plan or Risk Management Strategy –

A risk

assessment has been completed, and if the risk was found to be unacceptable, a site-specific

remedial action plan has been designed to mitigate environmental and health concerns associated

with the Site, or a risk management strategy has been developed.

Potential - refers to scores that are assigned when something is not known, though it may be suspected

Appendix III Page 3 of 3

CCME National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - User's Guide

Class 1 - High Priority for Action (Total NCSCS Score greater than 70)

Class 2 - Medium Priority for Action (Total NCSCS Score between 50 and 69.9)

Class 3 - Low Priority for Action (Total NCSCS Score between 37 and 49.9)

Class N - Not a Priority for Action (Total NCSCS Score less than 37)

Class INS - Insufficient Information (≥15% of Responses are "Do Not Know", or a site letter grade of F has been assigned)

There is insufficient information to classify the site. In this event, additional information is required to address data gaps.

8) Additional Complementary Tools to the NCSCS

The NCSCS was not developed for and is not readily applicable for the assessment of sites with a significant marine or aquatic

component. Environmental conditions at marine and aquatic sites are best measured in the bed sediments as they act as long-

term reservoirs of chemicals to the aquatic environment and to organisms living in or having direct contact with sediments. The

CCME Sediment Quality Index (SeQI) provides a convenient means of summarizing sediment quality data and can

complement the NCSCS. The SeQI provides a mathematical framework for assessing sediment quality conditions by

comparing contaminant concentrations with their respective sediment quality guidelines.

The available information indicates there is probably no significant environmental impact or human health threats. There is

likely no need for action unless new information becomes available indicating greater concerns, in which case the site should be

re-examined.

The CCME Soil Quality Index (SoQI) is a complementary tool that focuses more on evaluating the relative hazard, by

comparing contaminant concentrations with their respective soil quality guidelines. The SoQI uses three factors for its

calculations, namely: 1) scope (% of contaminants that do not meet their respective guidelines), 2) frequency (% of individual

tests of contaminants that do not meet their respective guidelines), and 3) amplitude (the amount by which the contaminants do

not meet their respective guidelines). The soil quality index can be used to compare different contaminated sites with similar

types of contamination as well as to see if the jurisdictional requirements have been met after remediation of a particular site.

7) Site Classification Categories: Sites should not be ranked relative to one another. Sites must be classifed on their individual

characteristics in order to determine the appropriate classification (Class 1, 2, 3, or N) according to their priority for action, or Class

INS (Insufficient Information) for sites that require further information before they can be classifed. The classification groupings are

as follows:

The available information indicates that action (e.g., futher site characterization, risk management, remediation, etc.) is

required to address existing concerns. Typically, Class 1 sites indicate high concern for several factors, and measured or

observed impacts have been documented.

The available information indicates that there is high potential for adverse impacts, although the threat to human health and the

environment is generally not imminent. There will tend not to be indication of off-site contamination, however, the potential for

this was rated high and therefore some action is likely required.

The available information indicates that this site is currently not a high concern. However, additional investigation may be

carried out to confirm the site classification, and some degree of action may be required.

Note: For some questions in the worksheets, the option selected will determine whether a "known" or "potential" score is assigned.

In these cases, if "Do Not Know" is selected, a score will automatically be listed as "potential", whereas all of the other options in the

list will provide a "known" score.

6) Certainty Percentage: The ratio of “Known” to “Potential” responses reflects the relative certainty, or confidence, of the resulting

final score and the classification. The NCSCS system defines this ratio as the “Certainty Percentage”. The Certainty Percentage is

generated from the number of sections assigned scores based on “known” information divided by the total number of sections. A

high percentage indicates that more is known about the Site, and therefore there is more confidence in the classification, whereas a

low percentage suggests that the classification should be treated with caution.

Appendix III - (I) Contaminant Characteristics Page 1 of 3

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (I) Contaminant Characteristics

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method of Evaluation

1. Residency Media (replaces physical state)

Which of the following residency media are known (or

strongly suspected) to have one or more exceedances of

the applicable CCME guidelines?

yes = has an exceedance or strongly suspected to have an

exceedance

no = does not have an exceedance or strongly suspected

not to have an exceedance

A. Soil

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

B. Groundwater

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

C. Surface water

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

D. Sediment

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

2. Chemical Hazard

What is the relative degree of chemical hazard of the

contaminant in the list of hazard rankings proposed by the

Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP)?

High 8

Medium 4

Low 2

Do Not Know 4

The relative degree of chemical hazard should be selected based on the most hazardous

contaminant known or suspected to be present at the site.

The degree of hazard has been defined by the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan

(FCSAP) and a list of substances with their associated hazard (Low, Medium and High) has

been provided as a separate sheet in this file.

See Attached Reference Material for Contaminant Hazard Rankings.

The overall score is calculated by adding the individual scores from each residency media

(having one or more exceedance of the most conservative media specific and land-use

appropriate CCME guideline).

Summary tables of the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for soil, water (aquatic

life, non-potable groundwater environments, and agricultural water uses) and sediment are

available on the CCME website at http://st-ts.ccme.ca/

For potable groundwater environments, guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (for

comparison with groundwater monitoring data) are available on the Health Canada website

at http://hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/guide/index-eng.php

Notes

Hazard as defined in the revised NCSCS pertains to the physical

properties of a chemical which can cause harm. Properties can

include toxic potency, propensity to biomagnify, persistence in the

environment, etc. Although there is some overlap between hazard

and contaminant exceedance factor below, it will not be possible to

derive contaminant exceedance factors for many substances which

have a designated chemical hazard designation, but don't have a

CCME guideline. The purpose of this category is to avoid missing a

measure of toxic potential.

An increasing number of residency media containing chemical

exceedances often equates to a greater potential risk due to an

increase in the number of potential exposure pathways.

Appendix III - (I) Contaminant Characteristics Page 2 of 3

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (I) Contaminant Characteristics

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method of Evaluation

Notes

3. Contaminant Exceedance Factor

What is the ratio between the measured contaminant

concentration and the applicable CCME guidelines (or

other "standards")?

NAPL (mobile or immobile) 8

High (>100x) 6

Medium (10x to 100x) 4

Low (1x to 10x) 2

Do Not Know 4

4. Contaminant Quantity (known or strongly suspected)

What is the known or strongly suspected quantity of all

contaminants?

>10 hectare (ha) or 5000 m

2 to 10 ha or 1000 to 5000 m

<2 ha or 1000 m

Do Not Know 4

Measure or estimate the area or quantity of total contamination (i.e, all contaminants known

or strongly suspected to be present on the site). The "Area of Contamination" is defined as

the area or volume of contaminated media (soil, sediment, groundwater, surface water)

exceeding applicable environmental criteria.

A larger quantity of a potentially toxic substance can result in a

larger frequency of exposure as well as a greater probability of

migration, therefore, larger quantities of these substances are given

a higher score.

Ranking of contaminant "exceedance" is determined by comparing contaminant

concentrations with the most conservative media-specific and land-use appropriate CCME

environmental quality guidelines. Ranking should be based on contaminant with

greatest exceedance of CCME guidelines.

Ranking of contaminant hazard as high, medium and low is as follows:

High = One or more measured contaminant concentration is greater than 100 X appropriate

CCME guidelines

Medium = One or more measured contaminant concentration is 10 - 99.99 X appropriate

CCME guidelines

Low = One or more measured contaminant concentration is 1 - 9.99 X appropriate CCME

guidelines

NAPL (LNAPL or DNAPL) = Contaminant is a non-aqueous phase liquid (i.e.,

due to its low

solubility, it does not dissolve in water, but remains as a separate liquid) and is present at a

sufficiently high saturation (i.e., greater than residual NAPL saturation) such that there is

significant potential for mobility either downwards or laterally. Any amount of NAPL should

be scored, i.e. small amounts and sheens cannot be ignored.

The presence of a NAPL (mobile or immoblie or regardless of amount) may be considered

unnaceptable by some jurisidcations. If NAPL is present, consult jurisdiction on how to

proceed with NCSCS.

Other standards may include local background concentration or published toxicity

benchmarks.

Results of toxicity testing with site samples can be used as an alternative.

This approach is only relevant for contaminants that do not biomagnify in the food web,

since toxicity tests would not indicate potential effects at higher trophic levels.

High = lethality observed.

Medium = no lethality, but sub lethal effects observed.

Low = neither lethal nor sub lethal effects observed.

In the event that elevated levels of a material with no associated

CCME guidelines are present, check provincial and USEPA

environmental criteria.

Hazard Quotients (sometimes referred to as a screening quotient in

risk assessments) refer to the ratio of measured concentration to the

concentration believed to be the threshold for toxicity. A similar

calculation is used here to determine the contaminant exceedance

factor (CEF). Concentrations greater than one times the applicable

CCME guideline (i.e., CEF=>1) indicate that risks are possible.

Mobile NAPL has the highest associated score (8) because of its

highly concentrated nature and potential for increase in the size of

the impacted zone.

Appendix III - (I) Contaminant Characteristics Page 3 of 3

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (I) Contaminant Characteristics

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method of Evaluation

Notes

5. Modifying Factors

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Are there contaminants present that could cause damage to

utilities and infrastructure, either now or in the future, given

their location?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

How many different contaminant classes have

representative CCME guideline exceedances?

One 0

Two to Four 2

Five or More 3

Do Not Know 2

For the purposes of the revised NCSCS, the following chemicals represent distinct

chemical "classes": inorganic substances (including metals), volatile petroleum

hydrocarbons, light extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy extractable petroleum

hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phenolic substances, chlorinated

hydrocarbons, halogenated methanes, phthalate esters, pesticides.

Some contaminants may react or absorb into underground utilities

and infrastructure. For example, organic solvents may degrade some

plastics, and salts could cause corrosion of metal.

Does the chemical fall in the class of persistent chemicals

based on its behavior in the environment?

If answered Yes, in Rationale for Score column document the location and extent of the

infrastructure that is/may be damaged, verify the mode of contact between contaminants of

potential concern (COPCs) and infrastructure, list the specific COPCs that could cause

damage, and note the expected effect on specific infrastructure.

Persistent chemicals, e.g., PCBs, chlorinated pesticides etc. either do not degrade or take

longer to degrade, and therefore may be available to cause effects for a longer period of

time. Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) classifies a chemical as persistent

when it has at least one of the following characteristics:

(a) in air,

(i) its half-life is equal to or greater than 2 days, or

(ii) it is subject to atmospheric transport from its source to a

remote area;

(b) in water, its half-life is equal to or greater than 182 days;

365 days; or

(d) in soil, its half-life is equal to or greater than 182 days.

Elements do not degrade, therefore treat any metal, metalloid, or halogen COPC as

persistent.

Refer to the Reference Material sheet for a list of example

substances that fall under the various chemical classes.

Examples of Persistent Substances are provided in attached

Reference Materials

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential Page 1 of 9

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method Of Evaluation Notes

1. Groundwater Movement

A. Known COPC exceedances and an operable groundwater

pathway within and/or beyond the property boundary.

i) For potable groundwater environments, 1) groundwater

concentrations exceed background concentrations and 1X the

Guideline for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ) or

2) there is known contact of contaminants with groundwater,

based on physical evidence of groundwater contamination.

For non-potable environments

(typically urban environments

with municipal services), 1) groundwater concentrations

exceed 1X the applicable non potable guidelines or modified

generic guidelines (which exclude ingestion of drinking water

pathway) or 2) there is known contact of contaminants with

groundwater, based on physical evidence of groundwater

impacts.

ii) Same as (i) except the information is not known but strongly

suspected based on indirect observations.

iii) Meets GCDWQ for potable environments; meets non-

potable criteria or modified generic criteria (excludes ingestion

of drinking water pathway) for non-potable environments

Absence of groundwater exposure pathway (i.e., there is no

aquifer (see definition at right) at the site or there is an

adequate isolating layer between the aquifer and the

contamination, and within 5 km of the site there are no aquatic

receiving environments and the groundwater does not

daylight).

The 1992 NCS rationale evaluated the off-site migration as a regulatory

issue. The exposure assessment and classification of hazards should be

evaluated regardless of the property boundaries.

Someone experienced must provide a thorough description of the

sources researched to determine the presence/absence of a

groundwater supply source in the vicinity of the contaminated site. This

information must be documented in the NCSCS Site Classification

Worksheet including contact names, phone numbers, e-mail

correspondence and/or reference maps/reports and other resources such

as internet links.

Note that for potable groundwater that also daylights into a nearby

surface water body, the more stringent guidelines for both drinking water

and protection of aquatic life should be considered.

Selected References

Potable Environments

Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality:

http://hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/guide/index-eng.php

Non-Potable Environments

Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for Protection of Aquatic Life.

CCME. 1999. http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca

Compilation and Review of Canadian Remediation Guidelines,

Standards and Regulations. Science Applications International

Corporation (SAIC Canada), report to Environment Canada,

January 4, 2002.

Review chemical data and evaluate groundwater quality.

The evaluation method concentrates on 1) a potable or non-potable groundwater

environment; 2) the groundwater flow system and its potential to be an exposure pathway

to known or potential receptors

An aquifer is defined as a geologic unit that yields groundwater in usable quantities and

drinking water quality. The aquifer can currently be used as a potable water supply or could

have the potential for use in the future. Non-potable groundwater environments are defined

as areas that are serviced with a reliable alternative water supply (most commonly

provided in urban areas). The evaluation of a non-potable environment will be based on a

site specific basis.

Physical evidence includes significant sheens, liquid phase contamination, or contaminant

saturated soils.

Seeps and springs are considered part of the groundwater pathway.

In Arctic environments, the potability and evaluation of the seasonal active layer (above the

permafrost) as a groundwater exposure pathway will be considered on a site-specific basis.

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential Page 2 of 9

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method Of Evaluation Notes

B. Potential for groundwater pathway.

a. Relative mobility of contaminant

Organics Metals with higher mobility Metals with higher mobility

Koc (L/kg)

at acidic conditions at alkaline conditions

High

Koc < 500 pH < 5 pH > 8.5

(i.e., log Koc < 2.7)

Moderate

Koc = 500 to 5000 pH = 5 to 6 pH = 7.5 to 8.5

(i.e., log Koc = 2.7 to 3.7)

Low

Koc = 5,000 to 100,000 pH > 6 pH < 7.5

(i.e., log Koc = 3.7 to 5)

Insignificant

Koc > 100,000

(i.e., log Koc > 5)

Do Not Know

For PHC fractions; score F1 as Moderate, F2 as Low, and F3 and F4 as Insignificant.

b. Presence of engineered sub-surface containment?

No containment 3

Partial containment 1.5

Full containment 0

Do Not Know 1.5

c. Thickness of confining layer over aquifer of concern or

groundwater exposure pathway

3 m or less including no confining layer or discontinuous

confining layer

3 to 10 m 0.5

> 10 m 0

Do Not Know 0.5

The term "confining layer" refers to geologic material with little or no permeability or

hydraulic conductivity (such as unfractured clay); water does not pass through this layer or

the rate of movement is extremely slow.

Measure the thickness and extent of materials that will impede the migration of

contaminants to the groundwater exposure pathway.

The evaluation of this category is based on:

1) The presence and thickness of saturated subsurface materials that impede the vertical

migration of contaminants to lower aquifer units which can or are used as drinking water

sources or

2) The presence and thickness of unsaturated subsurface materials that impede the vertical

migration of contaminants from the source location to the saturated zone (e.g., water table

aquifer, first hydrostratigraphic unit or other groundwater pathway).

Reference: US EPA Soil Screening Guidance (Part 5 - Table 39). See

attached reference material.

If a score of zero is assigned for relative mobility, it is still recommended

that the following sections on potential for groundwater pathway be

evaluated and scored. Although the Koc of an individual contaminant

may suggest that it will be relatively immobile, it is possible that, with

complex mixtures, there could be enhanced mobility due to co-solvent

effects. Therefore, the Koc cannot be relied on solely as a measure of

mobility. An evaluation of other factors such as containment, thickness

of confining layer, hydraulic conductivities and infiltration rate are still

useful in predicting potential for groundwater migration, even if a

contaminant is expected to have insignificant mobility based on its

chemistry alone.

Review the existing engineered systems or natural attenuation processes for the site and

determine if full or partial containment is achieved.

Full containment is defined as an engineered system or natural attenuation processes,

monitored as being effective, which provide for full capture and/or treatment of

contaminants. All chemicals of concern must be contained for “Full Containment” scoring.

Natural attenuation must have sufficient data, and reports cited with monitoring data to

support steady state conditions and the attenuation processes. If there is no containment or

insufficient natural attenuation process, this category is evaluated as high. If there is less

than full containment or if uncertain, then evaluate as medium. In Arctic environments,

permafrost will be evaluated, as appropriate, based on detailed evaluations, effectiveness

and reliability to contain/control contaminant migration.

Someone experienced must provide a thorough description of the

sources researched to determine the containment of the source at the

contaminated site. This information must be documented in the NCS Site

Classification Worksheet including contact names, phone numbers, e-

mail correspondence and/or reference maps, geotechnical reports or

natural attenuation studies and other resources such as internet links.

Selected Resources:

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1998.

Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated

Solvents in Groundwater. EPA/600/R-98/128.

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential Page 3 of 9

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method Of Evaluation Notes

B. Potential for groundwater pathway.

d. Hydraulic conductivity of confining layer

>10

-4

cm/s or no confining layer

-4

to 10

-6

cm/s

0.5

<10

-6

cm/s

Do Not Know 0.5

e. Precipitation infiltration rate

Selected Sources:

(Annual precipitation factor x surface soil relative

permeability factor)

Environment Canada web page link:

High (infiltration score > 0.6) 1

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

Moderate (0.4 < infiltration score ≤ 0.6) 0.6 Snow to rainfall conversion apply ratio of 10(snow):1(water)

Low (0.2 < infiltration score ≤ 0.4) 0.4

https://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=108C6C74-1

Very Low (0 < infiltration score ≤ 0.2) 0.2

None (infiltration score = 0) 0

Do Not Know 0.4

f. Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer

>10

-2

cm/s

-2

to 10

-4

cm/s

<10

-4

cm/s

Do Not Know

Determine the nature of geologic materials and estimate hydraulic conductivity from

published material (or use "Range of Values of Hydraulic Conductivity and Permeability"

figure in the Reference Material sheet). Unfractured clays should be scored low. Silts

should be scored medium. Sand, gravel should be scored high. The evaluation of this

category is based on: 1) The presence and hydraulic conductivity (“K”) of saturated

subsurface materials that impede the vertical migration of contaminants to lower aquifer

units which can or are used as a drinking water source, groundwater exposure pathway or

2) The presence and permeability (“k”) of unsaturated subsurface materials that impede the

vertical migration of contaminants from the source location to the saturated water table

aquifer, first hydrostratigraphic unit or other groundwater pathway.

Precipitation

Refer to Environment Canada precipitation records for relevant areas (30 year average

preferred). Divide annual precipitation (rainfall + snowfall) by 1000 and round to nearest

tenth (e.g., 667 mm = 0.7 score).

Permeability

For surface soil relative permeability (i.e., infiltration) assume: gravel (1), sand (0.6), loam

(0.3) and pavement or clay (0).

Multiply the surface soil relative permeability factor with precipitation factor to obtain the

score for precipitation infiltration rate (e.g., precipitation factor of 0.7 from above x 0.6

(sand) = 0.42 or "Moderate").

Determine the nature of geologic materials and estimate hydraulic conductivity of all

aquifers of concern from published material (refer to "Range of Values of Hydraulic

Conductivity and Permeability" in the Reference Material sheet).

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential Page 4 of 9

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method Of Evaluation Notes

2. Surface Water Movement

A. Demonstrated migration of COPC in surface water above

background conditions

Known concentrations of surface water:

i) Concentrations exceed background concentrations and exceed

CCME CWQG for protection of aquatic life, irrigation, livestock

water, and/or recreation (whichever uses are applicable at the

site) by >1 X;

There is known contact of contaminants with surface water based

on site observations.

In the absence of CWQG, chemicals have been proven to be

toxic based on site specific testing (e.g., toxicity testing; or other

indicator testing of exposure).

Collect all available information on quality of surface water near to site. Evaluate available

data against Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (select appropriate guidelines based on

local water use, e.g., recreation, irrigation, aquatic life, livestock watering etc.). The

evaluation method concentrates on the surface water flow system and its potential to be an

exposure pathway. Contamination is present on the surface (above ground) and has the

potential to impact surface water bodies.

Surface water is defined as a water body that supports one of the following uses:

recreation, irrigation, livestock watering, aquatic life.

ii) Same as (i) except the information is not known but strongly

suspected based on indirect observations.

Examples of indirect evidence may include observed staining of sediment and/or river

banks, but surface water has not been tested.

iii) Meets CWQG or absence of surface water exposure pathway

(e.g., Distance to nearest surface water is > 5 km.)

General Notes:

Someone experienced must provide a thorough description of the

sources researched to classify the surface water body in the vicinity of

the contaminated site. This information must be documented in the NCS

Site Classification Worksheet including contact names, phone numbers,

e-mail correspondence and/or reference maps/reports and other

resource such as internet links.

Selected References:

CCME. 1999. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of

Aquatic Life. http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/

CCME. 1999. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of

Agricultural Water Uses (Irrigation and Livestock Water).

http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/

Health and Welfare Canada. 1992. Guidelines for Canadian Recreational

Water Quality.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/recreat/index-eng.php

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential Page 5 of 9

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method Of Evaluation Notes

B. Potential for migration of COPCs in surface water

a. Presence of containment

No containment

Partial containment

Full containment

0.5

Do Not Know

b. Distance to Surface Water

0 to <100 m

100 - 300 m

>300 m

0.5

Do Not Know

c. Topography

Contaminants above ground level and slope is steep

Contaminants at or below ground level and slope is steep

1.5

Contaminants above ground level and slope is intermediate

1.5

Contaminants at or below ground level and slope is

intermediate

Contaminants above ground level and slope is flat

0.5

Contaminants at or below ground level and slope is flat

Do Not Know

d. Run-off potential

Selected Sources:

High (run-off score > 0.6) 1

Environment Canada web page link:

Moderate (0.4 < run-off score ≤ 0.6) 0.6

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

Low (0.2 < run-off score ≤ 0.4) 0.4 Snow to rainfall conversion apply ratio of 10(snow):1(water)

Very Low (0 < run-off score ≤ 0.2) 0.2

https://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=108C6C74-1

None (run-off score = 0) 0

Do Not Know

0.4

e. Flood potential

1 in 2 years

1 in 10 years

0.5

1 in 50 years

0.2

not in floodplain

Do Not Know

0.5

Review available mapping and survey data to determine distance to nearest surface water

bodies.

Precipitation

Refer to Environment Canada precipitation records for relevant areas (30 year average

preferred). Divide precipitation (rainfall + snowfall) by 1000 and round to nearest tenth

(e.g., 667 mm = 0.7 score).

Permeability

For infiltration assume: gravel (0), sand (0.3), loam (0.6) and pavement or clay (1).

Multiply the permeability (infiltration) factor with precipitation factor to obtain Run-off

potential score (e.g., precipitation factor of 0.7 from above x 0.6 (loam) = 0.42 or

"Moderate").

Review the existing engineered systems and relate these structures to site conditions and

proximity to surface water and determine if full containment is achieved: score low if there

is full containment such as capping, berms, dikes; score medium if there is partial

containment such as natural barriers, trees, ditches, sedimentation ponds; score high if

there are no intervening barriers between the site and nearby surface water. Full

containment must include containment of all chemicals.

Review engineering documents on the topography of the site and the slope of surrounding

terrain.

Steep slope = >50%

Intermediate slope = between 5 and 50%

Flat slope = < 5%

Note: Type of fill placement (e.g., trench, above ground, etc.).

Review published data such as flood plain mapping or flood potential (e.g., spring or

mountain run-off) and Conservation Authority records to evaluate flood potential of nearby

water courses both up and down gradient. Rate zero if site not in flood plain.

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential Page 6 of 9

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method Of Evaluation Notes

3. Surface Soils (potential for dust, dermal and ingestion exposure)

A. Demonstrated concentrations of COPC in surface soils (top 1.5 m)

COPCs measured in surface soils exceed the CCME soil quality

guideline.

Strongly suspected that soils exceed guideline(s).

COPCs in surface soils does not exceed the CCME soil quality

guideline or is not present (i.e., bedrock).

B. Potential for a surface soils (top 1.5 m) migration pathway

a. Are the soils in question covered?

Exposed

Vegetated

Landscaped

Paved

Do Not Know

b. For what proportion of the year does the site remain

covered by snow?

0 to 10% of the year

10 to 30% of the year

More than 30% of the year

Do Not Know

Selected References:

CCME. 1999. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of

Environmental and Human Health

http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/

Consult engineering or risk assessment reports for the site. Alternatively, review

photographs or perform a site visit.

Landscaped surface soils must include a minimum of 0.5 m of topsoil.

The possibility of contaminants in blowing snow have not been included

in the revised NCSCS as it is difficult to assess what constitutes an

unacceptable concentration and secondly, spills to snow or ice are most

efficiently mitigated while freezing conditions remain.

Collect all available information on quality of surface soils (i.e., top 1.5 metres) at the site.

Evaluate available data against Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines. Select appropriate

guidelines based on current (or proposed future) land use (i.e, agricultural,

residential/parkland, commercial, or industrial), and soil texture if applicable (i.e.,

coarse or

fine).

Examples of strongly suspected exceedences of soil guidelines may include evidence of

staining, odours, or significant debris infill materials.

Consult climatic information for the site. The increments represent the full span from soils

which are always wet or covered with snow (and therefore less likely to generate dust) to

those soils which are predominantly dry and not covered by snow (and therefore are more

likely to generate dust).

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential Page 7 of 9

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method Of Evaluation Notes

4. Vapour

A. Demonstrated COPCs in vapour.

Vapour has been measured (indoor or outdoor) in concentrations

exceeding risk based concentrations.

Consult previous investigations, including human health risk assessments, for reports of

vapours detected.

Strongly suspected (based on observations and/or modelling) 9

Vapour has not been measured (i.e. not detected) and volatile

hydrocarbons have not been found in site soils or groundwater, or

vapour has been measured (indoor or outdoor) in concentrations not

exceeding risk based concentrations.

Due to the potential for significant spatial and temporal variation in soil vapour

concentrations, limited vapour monitoring studies (

e.g., single point in time "snap-shot")

that do not detect vapour at sites where volatiles are suspected, does not necessarly mean

that vapours are not an issue at the site. In this case, section B " Potential for COPCs in

vapour" should be completed.

B. Potential for COPCs in vapour

a. Relative Volatility based on Henry's Law Constant, H'

(dimensionless)

Reference: US EPA Soil Screening Guidance (Part 5 - Table 36)

Provided in Attached Reference Materials

High (H' > 1.0E-1) 4

For PHC fractions; score F1 as High, F2 as Moderate, and F3 and F4 as Not Volatile.

Moderate (H' = 1.0E-1 to 1.0E-3) 2.5

Low (H' < 1.0E-3) 1

Not Volatile 0

Do Not Know 2.5

b. What is the soil grain size?

Fine 2

Coarse 4

Do Not Know 3

c. Is the depth to the source less than 10m?

Review groundwater depths below grade for the site.

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

d. Are there any preferential pathways?

Visit the site during dry summer conditions and/or review available photographs.

Yes 2

Where bedrock is present, fractures would likely act as preferential pathyways.

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Substance is considered Not Volatile (i.e., pathway not a concern) if the product of the

water solubility and unitless Henry’s law constant does not exceed published or derived

tolerable concentration or risk-specific concentration. If NAPL is present, see Appendix D of

the CCME soil vapour quality guidelines protocol (CCME 2014) for further guidance

Selected References:

CCME. 2014. A Protocol for the Derivation of Soil Vapour Quality

Guidelines for Protection of Human Exposures via Inhalation of Vapours.

Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca

If the Henry's Law Constant for a substance indicates that it is not

volatile, and a score of zero is assigned here for relative volatility, then

the other three questions in this section on Potential for COPCs will be

automatically assigned scores of zero and you can skip to section 5.

Preferential pathways refer to areas where vapour migration is more

likely to occur because there is lower resistance to flow than in the

surrounding materials. For example, underground conduits such as

sewer and utility lines, drains, or septic systems may serve as

preferential pathways. Features of the building itself that may also be

preferential pathways include earthen floors, expansion joints, wall

cracks, or foundation perforations for subsurface features such as utility

pipes, sumps, and drains.

Review soil permeability data in engineering reports. The greater the permeability of soils,

the greater the possible movement of vapours.

Fine-grained soils are defined as those which contain greater than 50% by mass particles

less than 75 µm mean diameter (D50 < 75 µm). Coarse-grained soils are defined as those

which contain greater than 50% by mass particles greater than 75 µm mean diameter (D50

> 75 µm).

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential Page 8 of 9

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method Of Evaluation Notes

5. Sediment Movement

A. Demonstrated migration of sediments containing COPCs

There is evidence to suggest that sediments originally deposited to

the site (exceeding the CCME sediment quality guidelines) have

migrated.

Review sediment assessment reports. Evidence of migration of contaminants in sediments

must be reported by someone experienced in the area.

Strongly suspected (based on observations and/or modelling)

Sediments have been contained and there is no indication that

sediments will migrate in future.

Sediment meets CCME sediment quality guidelines or absence of

sediment exposure pathway (i.e.,

within 5 km of the site there are no

aquatic receiving environments, and therefore no sediments).

B. Potential for sediment migration

a. Are the sediments having COPC exceedances capped with

sediments having no exceedances ("clean sediments")?

Yes

Do Not Know

b. For lakes and marine habitats, are the contaminated

sediments in

shallow water and therefore likely to be affected

by tidal action, wave action or propeller wash?

Review existing sediment assessments. If the sediments present at the site are in a river,

select "no" for this question.

Yes

Do Not Know

c. For rivers, are the contaminated sediments in an area prone

to sediment scouring?

Yes

Do Not Know

Review existing sediment assessments. It is important that the assessment is made under

worst case flows (high yearly flows). Under high yearly flows, areas which are commonly

depositional may become scoured. If the sediments present at the site are in a lake or

marine habitat, select "no" for this question.

Review existing sediment assessments. If sediment coring has been completed, it may

indicate that historically contaminated sediments have been covered over by newer "clean"

sediments. This assessment will require that cores collected demonstrate a low

concentration near the top and higher concentration with sediment depth.

Usually not considered a significant concern in lakes/marine

environments, but could be very important in rivers where transport

downstream could be significant.

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential Page 9 of 9

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Definition

Scoring

Guideline

Method Of Evaluation Notes

6. Modifying Factors

Are there subsurface utility conduits in the area affected by

contamination?

Consult existing engineering reports. Subsurface utilities can act as conduits for

contaminant migration.

Yes

Do Not Know

Appendix III - (III) Exposure Page 1 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Definition

Score

Method Of Evaluation

Notes

1. Human

A. Known exposure

Documented adverse impact or high quantified exposure which has or

will result in an adverse effect, injury or harm or impairment of the

safety to humans as a result of the contaminated site. (Class 1 Site*)

*Where adverse effects on humans are documented, the site should

be automatically designated as a Class 1 site (i.e., action required).

Known impacts could include blood test results (e.g. blood lead > 10

μg/dL) or results of other health based studies and tests. There is no

need to proceed through the NCS in this case. However, a scoring

guideline (22) is provided in case a numerical score for the site is still

desired. A score of 22 can also be assigned when Hazard Quotients

(or Hazard Index) >> 1.0 or incremental lifetime cancer risks

considerably exceed acceptable levels defined by the jurisdiction for

carcinogenic chemicals.

Same as above, but "Strongly Suspected" based on observations or

indirect evidence.

This category can be based on the outcomes of risk assessments and

applies to studies which have reported Hazard Quotients (or Hazard

Index) > 0.2 (excluding the Estimated Daily Intake) or >1.0 with

Estimated Daily Intake and/or for noncarcinogenic chemicals and

incremental cancer risks that exceed acceptable levels defined by the

jurisdiction for carcinogenic chemicals (for most jurisdictions this is

typically either >10

-5

or >10

-6

No quantified or suspected exposures/impacts in humans. 0

The category, no exposure/impacts, can be based on the outcomes of

risk assessments and applies to studies which have reported Hazard

Quotients (or Hazard Index) of ≤ 0.2 (excluding the Estimated Daily

Intake) or ≤ 1.0 with Estimated Daily Intake AND incremental lifetime

cancer risks for carcinogenic chemicals that are within acceptable

levels as defined by the jurisdiction (for most jurisdictions this is less

than either 10

-6

or 10

-5

B. Potential for human exposure

a) Land use (provides an indication of potential human exposure

scenarios)

This is the main "receptor" factor used in site scoring. A higher score implies a greater

exposure and/or exposure of more sensitive human receptors (e.g., children).

Agricultural 3

Residential / Parkland 2

Commercial 1

Industrial 0.5

Do Not Know 1.5

b) Indicate the level of accessibility to the contaminated portion of the

site (e.g., the potential for coming in contact with contamination)

Limited barriers to prevent site access; contamination not covered 2

Moderate access or no intervening barriers, contaminants are

covered. Remote locations in which contaminants not covered.

Controlled access or remote location and contaminants are

covered

Do Not Know 1

Review location and structures and contaminants at the site and

determine if there are intervening barriers between the site and

humans. A low rating should be assigned to a (covered) site

surrounded by a fence or in a remote location, whereas a high score

should be assigned to a site that has no cover, fence, natural barriers

or buffer.

Known adverse impact includes domestic and traditional food sources. Adverse effects based

on food chain transfer to humans and/or animals can be scored in this category. However,

the weight of evidence must show a direct link of a contaminated food source/supply and

subsequent ingestion/transfer to humans. Any associated adverse effects to the environment

are scored separately later in this worksheet.

Someone experienced must provide a thorough description of the sources researched to

evaluate and determine the quantified exposure/impact (adverse effect) in the vicinity of the

contaminated site.

Selected References:

Health Canada – Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Parts 1 and 2

Guidance on Human Heath Screening Level Risk Assessments

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/contamsite/index-eng.php

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) –

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov

Review zoning and land use maps over the distances indicated. If the

proposed future land use is more “sensitive” than the current land

use, evaluate this factor assuming the proposed future use is in

place.

Agricultural land use is defined as uses of land where the activities

are related to the productive capability of the land or facility (e.g.,

greenhouse) and are agricultural in nature, or activities related to the

feeding and housing of animals as livestock. Residential/Parkland

land uses are defined as uses of land on which dwelling on a

permanent, temporary, or seasonal basis is the activity (residential),

as well as uses on which the activities are recreational in nature and

require the natural or human designed capability of the land to

sustain that activity (parkland). Parkland includes campgrounds, but

excludes wildlands such as national or provincial parks.

Commercial/Industrial land uses are defined as land on which the

activities are related to the buying, selling, or trading of merchandise

or services (commercial), as well as land uses which are related to

the production, manufacture, or storage of materials (industrial).

Appendix III - (III) Exposure Page 2 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Definition

Score

Method Of Evaluation

Notes

B. Potential for human exposure

c) Potential for intake of contaminated soil, water, sediment or foods

for operable or potentially operable pathways, as identified in

Worksheet II (Migration Potential).

i) direct contact

Is dermal contact with contaminated surface water,

groundwater, sediments or soils anticipated?

Yes 3

No 0

Do Not Know 1.5

ii) inhalation (i.e., inhalation of dust, vapour)

Vapour - Are there inhabitable buildings on the site within 30 m

of soils or groundwater with volatile contamination as

determined in Worksheet II (Migration Potential)?

Yes 3

No 0

Do Not Know 1.5

Dust - If there is contaminated surface soil (e.g., top 1.5 m) ,

indicate whether the soil is fine or coarse textured. If it is

known that surface soil is not contaminated, enter a score of

zero.

Fine 3

Coarse 1

Surface soil is not contaminated or absent (bedrock) 0

Do Not Know Texture 2

Exposure via the lungs (inhalation) can be a very important exposure pathway. Inhalation can

be via both particulates (dust) and gas (vapours). Vapours can be a problem where buildings

have been built on former industrial sites or where volatile contaminants have migrated below

buildings resulting in the potential for vapour intrusion.

Assesses the potential for humans to be exposed to vapours originating from site soils. The

closer the receptor is to a source of volatile chemicals in soil, the greater the potential of

exposure. Also, coarser-grained soil will convey vapour much more efficiently in the soil than

finer grained material such as clays and silts.

General Notes;

Someone experienced must provide a thorough description of the sources researched to

determine the presence/absence of a vapour migration and/or dust generation in the vicinity

of the contaminated site. This information must be documented in the NCS Site Classification

Worksheet including contact names, phone numbers, e-mail correspondence and/or

reference maps/reports and other resource such as internet links.

Selected References;

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2006. Protocol for the

Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines. PN 1332.

http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/

Golder, 2004. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Health Canada Screening Level Risk

Assessment (SLRA) Submitted to Health Canada, Burnaby, BC

If inhabitable buildings are on the site within 30 m of soils or

groundwater exceeding their respective guidelines for volatile

chemicals, there is a potential of risk to human health (Health

Canada, 2004). Review site investigations for location of soil samples

(having exceedances of volatile substances) relative to buildings.

Refer to (II) Migration Potential worksheet, 4B.a), Potential for

COPCs in Vapour for a definition of volatility.

Consult grain size data for the site. If soils (containing exceedances

of the CCME soil quality guidelines) predominantly consist of fine

material (having a median grain size of 75 microns; as defined by

CCME (2006)) then these soils are more likely to generate dusts.

If soils or potable groundwater are present exceeding their respective

CCME guidelines, dermal contact is assumed. Exposure to surface

water, non-potable groundwater or sediments exceeding their

respective CCME guidelines will depend on the site. Select "Yes" if

dermal exposure to surface water, non-potable groundwater or

sediments is expected. For instance, dermal contact with sediments

would not be expected in an active port. Only soils in the top 1.5 m

are defined by CCME (2003) as surface soils. If contaminated soils

are only located deeper than 1.5 m, direct contact with soils is not

anticipated to be an operable contaminant exposure pathway.

Exposure via the skin is generally believed to be a minor exposure route. However for some

organic contaminants, skin exposure can play a very important component of overall

exposure. Dermal exposure can occur while swimming in contaminated waters, bathing with

contaminated surface water/groundwater and digging in contaminated dirt, etc.

Appendix III - (III) Exposure Page 3 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Definition

Score

Method Of Evaluation

Notes

B. Potential for human exposure

iii) Ingestion (i.e., ingestion of food items, water and soils [for

children]), including traditional foods.

Drinking Water: Choose a score based on the proximity to a

drinking water supply, to indicate the potential for

contamination (present or future).

0 to 100 m 3

100 to 300 m 2.5

300 m to 1 km 2

1 to 5 km 1.5

No drinking water present

No potential for aquifer contamination

Do Not Know 2

Is an alternative water supply readily available?

Yes 0

Not Applicable

Answer Not Applicable if "No drinking water present" or "No potential

for aquifer contamination" was selected in previous question.

Do Not Know 0.5

Is human ingestion of contaminated soils possible?

Yes 3

No 0

Do Not Know 1.5

Are food items consumed by people, such as plants, domestic

animals or wildlife harvested from the contaminated land and its

surroundings?

Yes 1

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

2. Human Exposure Modifying Factors

a) Strong reliance of local people on natural resources for survival

(i.e., food, water, shelter, etc.) in contaminated area.

Yes 6

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Selected References:

Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality:

http://hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/guide/index-eng.php

Drinking water can be an extremely important exposure pathway to humans. If site

groundwater or surface water is not used for drinking, then this pathway is considered to be

inoperable.

Consider both wild foods such as salmon, venison, caribou, as well as agricultural sources of

food items if the contaminated site is on or adjacent to agricultural land uses.

Review available site data to determine if drinking water

(groundwater, surface water, private, commercial or municipal supply)

is known or suspected to be contaminated above Guidelines for

Canadian Drinking Water Quality. If drinking water supply is known to

be contaminated, some immediate action (e.g., provision of alternate

drinking water supply) should be initiated to reduce or eliminate

exposure.

The evaluation of significant potential for exceedances of the water

supply in the future may be based on the capture zones of the

drinking water wells; contaminant travel times; computer modelling of

flow and contaminant transport.

For aquifers, examples of "No drinking water present" includes

municipal bylaws prohibiting water wells for potable water use and

naturally non-potable (e.g. saline) shallow groundwater.

Groundwater drinking water may not be at risk from contamination

due to a lack of hydrological connection between contaminated soil or

groundwater, or the drinking water is sufficiently up-gradient of the

contamination source. Selection of "No potential for aquifer

contamination" must be supported with sufficient documentation, e.g.

lithological and contaminant properties, well capture zones (map

drawn to scale), and capture zone delineation methodology.

If contaminated soils are located within the top 1.5 m, it is assumed

that ingestion of soils is an operable exposure pathway. Exposure to

soils deeper than 1.5 m is possible, but less likely, and the duration is

shorter. Refer to human health risk assessment reports for the site in

question.

Use human health risk assessment reports (or others) to determine if

there is significant reliance on traditional food sources associated

with the site. Is the food item in question going to spend a large

proportion of its time at the site (e.g., large mammals may spend a

very small amount of time at a small contaminated site)? Human

health risk assessment reports for the site in question will also

provide information on potential bioaccumulation of the COPC in

question.

Appendix III - (III) Exposure Page 4 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Definition

Score

Method Of Evaluation

Notes

3. Ecological

A. Known exposure

Documented adverse impact or high quantified exposure which has or

will result in an adverse effect, injury or harm or impairment of the

safety to terrestrial or aquatic organisms as a result of the

contaminated site.

Some low levels of impact to ecological receptors are considered

acceptable, particularly on commercial and industrial land uses.

However, if ecological effects are deemed to be severe, the site may

be categorized as class one (i.e., a priority for remediation or risk

management), regardless of the numerical total NCS score. For the

purpose of application of the NCS, effects that would be considered

severe include observed effects on survival, growth or reproduction

which could threaten the viability of a population of ecological

receptors at the site. Other evidence that qualifies as severe adverse

effects may be determined based on professional judgement and in

consultation with the relevant jurisdiction. If ecological effects are

determined to be severe and an automatic Class 1 is assigned, there

is no need to proceed through the NCS. However, a scoring

guideline (18) is provided in case a numerical score for the site is still

desired.

Same as above, but "Strongly Suspected" based on observations or

indirect evidence.

This category can be based on the outcomes of risk assessments and

applies to studies which have reported Hazard Quotients >1.

Alternatively, known impacts can also be evaluated based on a

weight of evidence assessment involving a combination of site

observations, tissue testing, toxicity testing and quantitative

community assessments. Scoring of adverse effects on individual rare

or endangered species will be completed on a case-by-case basis

with full scientific justification.

No quantified or suspected exposures/impacts in terrestrial or aquatic

organisms

This category can be based on the outcomes of risk assessments and

applies to studies which have reported Hazard Quotients of less than

1 and no other observable or measurable sign of impacts.

Alternatively, it can be based on a combination of other lines of

evidence showing no adverse effects, such as site observations,

tissue testing, toxicity testing and quantitative community

assessments.

a) Terrestrial

i) Land use

Agricultural (or Wild lands) 3

Residential/Parkland 2

Commercial 1

Industrial 0.5

Do Not Know 1.5

ii) Uptake potential

Direct Contact - Are plants and/or soil invertebrates likely

exposed to contaminated soils at the site?

Yes 1

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

CCME, 1999: Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life.

CCME, 1999: Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Agricultural Water

Uses. http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/

Sensitive receptors- review: Canadian Council on Ecological Areas; www.ccea.org

Ecological effects should be evaluated at a population or community level, as opposed to at

the level of individuals. For example, population-level effects could include reduced

reproduction, growth or survival in a species. Community-level effects could include reduced

species diversity or relative abundances. Further discussion of ecological assessment

endpoints is provided in A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance

(CCME 1996).

Notes:

Someone experienced must provide a thorough description of the sources researched to

classify the environmental receptors in the vicinity of the contaminated site. This information

must be documented in the NCS Site Classification Worksheet including contact names,

phone numbers, e-mail correspondence and/or reference maps/reports and other resource

such as internet links.

If contaminated soils are located within the top 1.5 m, it is assumed

that direct contact of soils with plants and soil invertebrates is an

operable exposure pathway. Exposure to soils deeper than 1.5 m is

possible, but less likely.

B. Potential for ecological exposure (for the contaminated portion of the site)

Review zoning and land use maps. If the proposed future land use is

more “sensitive” than the current land use, evaluate this factor

assuming the proposed future use is in place (indicate in the

Agricultural land use is defined as uses of land where the activities

are related to the productive capability of the land or facility (e.g.,

greenhouse) and are agricultural in nature, or activities related to the

feeding and housing of animals as livestock. Wild lands are grouped

with agricultural land due to the similarities in receptors that would be

expected to occur there (e.g., herbivorous mammals and birds) and

the similar need for a high level of protection to ensure ecological

functioning. Residential/Parkland land uses are defined as uses of

land on which dwelling on a permanent, temporary, or seasonal basis

is the activity (residential), as well as uses on which the activities are

recreational in nature and require the natural or human designed

capability of the land to sustain that activity (parkland).

Commercial/Industrial land uses are defined as land on which the

activities are related to the buying, selling, or trading of merchandise

or services (commercial), as well as land uses which are related to

the production, manufacture, or storage of materials (industrial).

Appendix III - (III) Exposure Page 5 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Definition

Score

Method Of Evaluation

Notes

iii) Ingestion (i.e., wildlife or domestic animals ingesting

contaminated food items, soils or water)

Are terrestrial animals likely to be ingesting contaminated

water at the site?

Yes 1

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

Are terrestrial animals likely to be ingesting contaminated

soils at the site?

Yes 1

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

Can the contamination identified bioaccumulate?

Yes 1 See attached Reference Material including log(Kow)

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

Consult CEPA (1999) Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations for additional guidance;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2000-107/page-1.html

Distance to sensitive terrestrial ecological area

0 to 300 m 3

300 m to 1 km 2

1 to 5 km 1

> 5 km 0.5

Do Not Know

1.5

b) Aquatic

i) Classification of aquatic environment

Sensitive 3

Typical 1

Not applicable (no aquatic environment present) 0

Do Not Know 2

"Sensitive aquatic environments" include those in or adjacent to

shellfish or fish harvesting areas, marine parks, ecological reserves

and fish migration paths. Also includes those areas deemed to have

ecological significance such as for fish food resources, spawning

areas or having rare or endangered species.

"Typical aquatic environments" include those in areas other than

those listed above.

Environmental receptors include: local, regional or provincial species of interest or

significance; arctic environments (on a site specific basis); nature preserves, habitats for

species at risk, sensitive forests, natural parks or forests.

It is considered that within 300 m of a site, there is a concern for

contamination. Therefore an environmental receptor located within

this area of the site will be subject to further evaluations. It is also

considered that any environmental receptor located greater than 5 km

will not be a concern for evaluation. Review Conservation Authority

mapping and literature including Canadian Council on Ecological

Areas link: www.ccea.org

Refer to an Ecological Risk Assessment report. Most animals will co-

ingest some soil while eating plant matter or soil invertebrates.

Refer to an Ecological Risk Assessment for the site. If there is

contaminated surface water at the site, assume that terrestrial

organisms will ingest it.

B. Potential for ecological exposure (for the contaminated portion of the site)

Substances can be considered bioaccumulative if;

• There is a Tissue Residue Guideline (TRG) or Soil Quality

Guideline for Soil and Food Ingestion for the protection of secondary

(SQG

) and/or tertiary consumers (SQG

• Bioaccumulation factor (BAF) or bioconcentration factor (BCF)

greater than 5000.

• If BAF or BCF is not available, or reliable, the log Kow is equal to or

greater than 5.

If a literature review indicates that a substance biomagnifies, it should

be treated as biomagnifying regardless of whether or not it meets the

criteria above. It should also be noted that some substances with a

log Kow greater than 5 do not biomagnify. If studies on a substance

with a high Kow demonstrate a lack of biomagnification in upper

trophic levels, then the substance can be considered not

bioaccumulative.

Petroleum hydrocarbons F1 to F4 are not considered

bioaccumulative.

Appendix III - (III) Exposure Page 6 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Definition

Score

Method Of Evaluation

Notes

ii) Uptake potential

Does groundwater daylighting to an aquatic environment

exceed the CCME water quality guidelines for the protection of

aquatic life at the point of contact?

Yes 1

No (or Not Applicable) 0

Do Not Know 0.5

Distance from the contaminated site to an important surface water

resource

Environmental receptors include: local, regional or provincial species of interest or

significance, sensitive wetlands and fens and other aquatic environments.

0 to 300 m 3

300 m to 1 km 2

1 to 5 km 1

> 5 km 0.5

Do Not Know

1.5

Are aquatic species (i.e., forage fish, invertebrates or plants)

that are consumed by predatory fish or wildlife consumers, such

as mammals and birds, likely to accumulate contaminants in

their tissues?

See attached Reference Material including log(Kow)

Consult CEPA (1999) Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations for additional guidance;

Yes 1 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2000-107/page-1.html

No (or Not Applicable) 0

Do Not Know 0.5

Groundwater concentrations of contaminants at the point of contact

with an aquatic receiving environment can be estimated in three

ways:

1) by comparing collected nearshore groundwater concentrations to

the CCME water quality guidelines (this will be a conservative

comparison, as contaminant concentrations in groundwater often

decrease between nearshore wells and the point of discharge) .

2) by conducting groundwater modeling to estimate the concentration

of groundwater immediately before discharge.

3) by installing water samplers, "peepers", in the sediments in the

area of daylighting groundwater.

Substances can be considered bioaccumulative if;

• There is a Tissue Residue Guideline (TRG)

• Bioaccumulation factor (BAF) or bioconcentration factor (BCF)

greater than 5000.

• If BAF or BCF is not available, or reliable, the log Kow is equal to or

greater than 5.

If a literature review indicates that a substance biomagnifies, it should

be treated as biomagnifying regardless of whether or not it meets the

criteria above. It should also be noted that some substances with a

log Kow greater than 5 do not biomagnify. If studies on a substance

with a high Kow demonstrate a lack of biomagnification in upper

trophic levels, then the substance can be considered not

bioaccumulative.

B. Potential for ecological exposure (for the contaminated portion of the site)

It is considered that within 300 m of a site, there is a concern for

contamination. Therefore an environmental receptor or important

water resource located within this area of the site will be subject to

further evaluation. It is also considered that any environmental

receptor located greater than 5 km away will not be a concern for

evaluation.

Review Conservation Authority mapping and literature including

Canadian Council on Ecological Areas link: www.ccea.org

Appendix III - (III) Exposure Page 7 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Definition

Score

Method Of Evaluation

Notes

4. Ecological Exposure Modifying Factors

a) Known, or potential, occurrence of a species at risk.

Is there a potential for a species at risk to be present at the site, or

a known presence?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

b) Potential impact of aesthetics (e.g., enrichment of a lake or tainting of

food flavour).

Is there evidence of aesthetic impact to receiving water bodies?

Documentation may consist of environmental investigation reports,

press articles, petitions or other records.

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Is there evidence of olfactory impact (i.e., unpleasant smell)?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Is there evidence of increase in plant growth in the lake or water

body?

A distinct increase of plant growth in an aquatic environment may

suggest enrichment. Nutrients e.g.,

nitrogen or phosphorous releases

to an aquatic body can act as a fertilizer.

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Is there evidence that fish or meat taken from or adjacent to the

site smells or tastes different?

Some contaminants can result in a distinctive change in the way food

gathered from the site tastes or smells.

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Examples of olfactory change can include the smell of a COPC or an

increase in the rate of decay in an aquatic habitat.

Consult any ecological risk assessment reports. If information is not

present, utilize on-line databases such as NatureServe Explorer

(http://explorer.natureserve.org/). Regional, Provincial (Environment

Ministries), or Federal staff (Fisheries and Oceans or Environment

Canada) should be able to provide some guidance.

To assess the potential for a species at risk to be present, the site (or

surroundings) should be located within range of a species at risk

(using on-line resources and consultation with knowledgeable

government departments or biologists, see above), and there should

be an assessment of habitat suitability for any identified potential

species at risk.

This Item will require some level of documentation by user, including contact names,

addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses. Evidence of changes must be documented,

please attach copy of report containing relevant information.

Species at risk include those that are extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special

concern. For a list of species at risk, consult Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act

(http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/schedules_e.cfm?id=1).

Many provincial governments

may also provide regionally applicable lists of species at risk. For example, in British

Columbia, consult:

BCMWLAP. 2005. Endangered Species and Ecosystems in British Columbia. Provincial red

and blue lists. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and Water, Land and Air

Protection.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-at-risk

Appendix III - (III) Exposure Page 8 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix III - (III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Definition

Score

Method Of Evaluation

Notes

5. Other Potential Contaminant Receptors

a) Exposure of permafrost (leading to erosion and structural concerns)

Are there improvements (roads, buildings) at the site dependant

upon the permafrost for structural integrity?

Yes 4

No 0

Do Not Know 2

Is there a physical pathway which can transport soils released by

damaged permafrost to a nearby aquatic environment?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Melting permafrost leads to a decreased stability of underlying soils.

Wind or surface run-off erosion can carry soils into nearby aquatic

habitats. The increased soil loadings into a river can cause an

increase in total dissolved solids and a resulting decrease in aquatic

habitat quality. In addition, the erosion can bring contaminants from

soils to aquatic environments.

Plants and lichens provide a natural insulating layer which will help prevent thawing of the

permafrost during the summer. Plants and lichens may also absorb less solar radiation. Solar

radiation is turned into heat which can also cause underlying permafrost to melt.

Consult engineering reports, site plans or air photos of the site. When

permafrost melts, the stability of the soil decreases, leading to

erosion. Human structures, such as roads and/or buildings are often

dependent on the stability that the permafrost provides.

APPENDIX IV

TE CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEETS

Appendix IV - (I) Contaminant Characteristics Page 1 of 2

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(I) Contaminant Characteristics

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

1. Residency Media (replaces physical state)

Which of the following residency media are known (or

strongly suspected) to have one or more exceedances of

the applicable CCME guidelines?

yes = has an exceedance or strongly suspected to have an

exceedance

no = does not have an exceedance or strongly suspected

not to have an exceedance

A. Soil

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

B. Groundwater

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

C. Surface water

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

D. Sediment

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

1. Residency Media Subtotal

enter into Summary Score Sheet and add to Raw Total Score below

2. Chemical Hazard

What is the relative degree of chemical hazard of the

contaminant in the list of hazard rankings proposed by the

Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP)?

High 8

Medium 4

Low 2

Do Not Know 4

2. Chemical Hazard Subtotal

enter into Summary Score Sheet and add to Raw Total Score below

3. Contaminant Exceedance Factor

What is the ratio between the measured contaminant

concentration and the applicable CCME guidelines (or other

"standards")?

NAPL (mobile or immobile) 8

High (>100x) 6

Medium (10x to 100x) 4

Low (1x to 10x) 2

Do Not Know 4

3. Contaminant Exceedance Factor Subtotal enter into Summary Score Sheet and add to Raw Total Score below

Appendix IV - (I) Contaminant Characteristics Page 2 of 2

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(I) Contaminant Characteristics

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

4. Contaminant Quantity (known or strongly suspected)

What is the known or strongly suspected quantity of all

contaminants?

>10 hectare (ha) or 5000 m

2 to 10 ha or 1000 to 5000 m

<2 ha or 1000 m

Do Not Know 4

4. Contaminant Quality Subtotal

enter into Summary Score Sheet and add to Raw Total Score below

5. Modifying Factors

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Are there contaminants present that could cause damage to

utilities and infrastructure, either now or in the future, given

their location?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

How many different contaminant classes have

representative CCME guideline exceedances?

One 0

Two to Four 2

Five or More 3

Do Not Know 2

5. Modifying Factor Subtotal

enter into Summary Score Sheet and add to Raw Total Score below

Contaminant Characteristic Total

Raw Total Score

add up each Subtotal Column

Raw Combined Total Score (Known + Potential)

add two values above

Adjusted Total Score (Raw Combined / 40 * 33)

maximum 33

Total Number of Times that "Do Not Know" was Selected

Does the chemical fall in the class of persistent chemicals

based on its behavior in the environment?

Appendix IV - (II) Migration Potential Page 1 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

1. Groundwater Movement

A. Known COPC exceedances and an operable groundwater

pathway within and/or beyond the property boundary.

i) For potable groundwater environments, 1)

groundwater concentrations exceed background

concentrations and 1X the Guideline for Canadian Drinking

Water Quality (GCDWQ) or 2) there is known contact of

contaminants with groundwater, based on physical

evidence of groundwater contamination.

For non-potable environments (typically urban

environments with municipal services), 1) groundwater

concentrations exceed 1X the appropriate non potable

guidelines or modified generic guidelines (which exclude

ingestion of drinking water pathway) or 2) there is known

contact of contaminants with groundwater, based on

physical evidence of groundwater impacts.

ii) Same as (i) except the information is not known but

strongly suspected

based on indirect observations.

iii) Meets GCDWQ for potable environments; meets non-

potable criteria or modified generic criteria (excludes

ingestion of drinking water pathway) for non-potable

environments

Absence of groundwater exposure pathway (i.e.,

there is no

aquifer at the site or there is an adequate isolating layer

between the aquifer and the contamination, and within 5 km

of the site there are no aquatic receiving environments and

the groundwater does not daylight).

Go to

Potential

(1B)

Score (go to 2A)

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 1 - Known) and add to Raw Total Score below

NOTE: If a score is assigned here for Known COPC Exceedances, then you should

skip Part B (Potential for groundwater pathway) and go to Section 2 (Surface Water Pathway)

Appendix IV - (II) Migration Potential Page 2 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

B. Potential for groundwater pathway.

a. Relative mobility of contaminant

High 4

Moderate 2

Low 1

Insignificant 0

Do Not Know 2

b. Presence of engineered sub-surface containment?

No containment 3

Partial containment 1.5

Full containment 0

Do Not Know 1.5

c. Thickness of confining layer over aquifer of concern or

groundwater exposure pathway

3 m or less including no confining layer or discontinuous

confining layer

3 to 10 m 0.5

> 10 m 0

Do Not Know 0.5

d. Hydraulic conductivity of confining layer

>10

-4

cm/s or no confining layer

-4

to 10

-6

cm/s

0.5

<10

-6

cm/s

Do Not Know 0.5

e. Precipitation infiltration rate

(Annual precipitation factor x surface soil relative

permeability factor)

High (infiltration score > 0.6) 1

Moderate (0.4 < infiltration score ≤ 0.6) 0.6

Low (0.2 < infiltration score ≤ 0.4) 0.4

Very Low (0 < infiltration score ≤ 0.2) 0.2

None (infiltration score = 0) 0

Do Not Know 0.4

f. Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer

>10

-2

cm/s

-2

to 10

-4

cm/s

<10

-4

cm/s

Do Not Know 1

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 1 - Potential) and add to Raw Total Score below

Note: if a "Known" score is provided, the "Potential" score is disallowed

1B Potential for groundwater pathway Subtotal

Appendix IV - (II) Migration Potential Page 3 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

2. Surface Water Movement

A. Demonstrated migration of COPC in surface water above

background conditions

Known concentrations of surface water:

i) Concentrations exceed background concentrations and

exceed CCME CWQG for protection of aquatic life, irrigation,

livestock water, and/or recreation (whichever uses are

applicable at the site) by >1 X;

There is known contact of contaminants with surface water

based on site observations.

In the absence of CWQG, chemicals have been proven to be

toxic based on site specific testing (e.g., toxicity testing; or

other indicator testing of exposure).

ii) Same as (i) except the information is not known but strongly

suspected based on indirect observations.

iii) Meets CWQG or absence of surface water exposure

pathway (e.g., Distance to nearest surface water is > 5 km.)

Go to

Potential

(2B)

Score (go to 3A)

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 2 - Known) and add to Raw Total Score below

NOTE: If a score is assigned here for Demonstrated Migration in Surface Water, then you should

skip Part B (Potential for migration of COPCs in surface water) and go to Section 3 (Surface Soils)

Appendix IV - (II) Migration Potential Page 4 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

B. Potential for migration of COPCs in surface water

a. Presence of containment

No containment 5

Partial containment 3

Full containment 0.5

Do Not Know 3

b. Distance to Surface Water

0 to <100 m 3

100 - 300 m 2

>300 m 0.5

Do Not Know 2

c. Topography

Contaminants above ground level and slope is steep 2

Contaminants at or below ground level and slope is

1.5

Contaminants above ground level and slope is

intermediate

1.5

Contaminants at or below ground level and slope is

intermediate

Contaminants above ground level and slope is flat 0.5

Contaminants at or below ground level and slope is flat 0

Do Not Know 1

d. Run-off potential

High (run-off score > 0.6) 1

Moderate (0.4 < run-off score ≤ 0.6) 0.6

Low (0.2 < run-off score ≤ 0.4) 0.4

Very Low (0 < run-off score ≤ 0.2) 0.2

None (run-off score = 0) 0

Do Not Know 0.4

e. Flood potential

1 in 2 years 1

1 in 10 years 0.5

1 in 50 years 0.2

not in floodplain 0

Do Not Know 0.5

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 2 - Potential) and add to Raw Total Score below

Note: if a "Known" score is provided, the "Potential" score is disallowed

2B. Potential for Surface water pathway subtotal

Appendix IV - (II) Migration Potential Page 5 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

A. Demonstrated concentrations of COPC in surface soils (top 1.5 m)

COPCs measured in surface soils exceed the CCME soil quality

guideline.

Strongly suspected that soil exceeds guideline(s). 9

COPCs in surface soils does not exceed the CCME soil quality

guideline or is not present (i.e., bedrock).

Go to

Potential

(3B)

Score (go to 4A)

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 3 - Known) and add to Raw Total Score below

a. Are the soils in question covered?

Exposed 6

Vegetated 4

Landscaped 2

Paved 0

Do Not Know 4

b. For what proportion of the year does the site remain

covered by snow?

0 to 10% of the year 6

10 to 30% of the year 3

More than 30% of the year 0

Do Not Know 3

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 3 - Potential) and add to Raw Total Score below

Note: if a "Known" score is provided, the "Potential" score is disallowed

3. Surface Soils (potential for dust, dermal and ingestion exposure)

3B. Potential for Soil pathway Subtotal

B. Potential for a surface soils (top 1.5 m) migration pathway

NOTE: If a score is assigned here for Demonstrated Concentrations in Surface Soils, then you should

skip Part B (Potential for a surface soils migration pathway) and go to Section 4 (Vapour)

Appendix IV - (II) Migration Potential Page 6 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

4. Vapour

A. Demonstrated COPCs in vapour.

Vapour has been measured (indoor or outdoor) in concentrations

exceeding risk based concentrations.

Strongly suspected (based on observations and/or modelling) 9

Vapour has not been measured (i.e. not detected) and volatile

hydrocarbons have not been found in site soils or groundwater,

or vapour has been measured (indoor or outdoor) in

concentrations not exceeding risk based concentrations.

Go to

Potential

(4B)

Score (go to 5A)

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 4 - Known) and add to Raw Total Score below

B. Potential for COPCs in vapour

a. Relative Volatility based on Henry's Law Constant, H'

(dimensionless)

High (H' > 1.0E-1) 4

Moderate (H' = 1.0E-1 to 1.0E-3) 2.5

Low (H' < 1.0E-3) 1

Not Volatile 0

Do Not Know 2.5

b. What is the soil grain size?

Fine 2

Coarse 4

Do Not Know 3

c. Is the depth to the source less than 10m?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

d. Are there any preferential pathways?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 4 - Potential) and add to Raw Total Score below

Note: if a "Known" score is provided, the "Potential" score is disallowed

4B. Potential for Vapour pathway Subtotal

NOTE: If a score is assigned here for Demonstrated COPCs in Vapour, then you should

skip Part B (Potential for COPCs in vapour) and go to Section 5 (Sediment)

Appendix IV - (II) Migration Potential Page 7 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

5. Sediment Movement

There is evidence to suggest that sediments originally deposited

to the site (exceeding the CCME sediment quality guidelines)

have migrated.

Strongly suspected (based on observations and/or modelling) 9

Sediments have been contained and there is no indication that

sediments will migrate in future.

Sediment meets CCME sediment quality guidelines or absence

of sediment exposure pathway (i.e., within 5 km of the site there

are no aquatic receiving environments, and therefore no

sediments).

Go to

Potential

(5B)

Score (go to 6)

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 5 - Known) and add to Raw Total Score below

B. Potential for sediment migration

a. Are the sediments having COPC exceedances capped

with sediments having no exceedances ("clean

sediments")?

Yes 0

No 4

Do Not Know 2

b. For lakes and marine habitats, are the contaminated

sediments in

shallow water and therefore likely to be

affected by tidal action, wave action or propeller wash?

Yes 4

No 0

Do Not Know 2

c. For rivers, are the contaminated sediments in an area

prone to sediment scouring?

Yes 4

No 0

Do Not Know 2

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 5 - Potential) and add to Raw Total Score below

Note: if a "Known" score is provided, the "Potential" score is disallowed

5B. Potential for Sediment pathway Subtotal

A. Demonstrated migration of sediments containing COPCs

NOTE: If a score is assigned here for Demonstrated Migration of Sediments, then you should

skip Part B (Potential for Sediment Migration) and go to Section 6 (Modifying Factors)

Appendix IV - (II) Migration Potential Page 8 of 8

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(II) Migration Potential (Evaluation of contaminant migration pathways)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

6. Modifying Factors

Are there subsurface utility conduits in the area affected by

contamination?

Yes 4

No 0

Do Not Know 2

6. Migration Potential Modifying Factors Subtotal

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 6 - Known or Potential) and add to Raw Total Score below

Migration Potential Total

Raw Total Score

add up each Subtotal Column

Raw Combined Total Score (Known + Potential)

add two values above

Adjusted Total Score (Raw Combined / 64 *33)

maximum 33

Total Number of Times that "Do Not Know" was Selected

Do not count "Do Not Know" in Potential sections when a score was assigned in corresponding Known section (applies to

sections 1 through 5).

Appendix IV - (III) Exposure Page 1 of 7

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

1. Human

A. Known exposure

Documented adverse impact or high quantified exposure which has or

will result in an adverse effect, injury or harm or impairment of the

safety to humans as a result of the contaminated site. (Class 1 site)

Same as above, but "Strongly Suspected" based on observations or

indirect evidence.

No quantified or suspected exposures/impacts in humans. 0

Go to

Potential

(1B)

Score (go to 2)

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 1 - Known) and add to Raw Combined Total Human Score below

B. Potential for human exposure (if no exposure enter a score of zero)

a) Land use (provides an indication of potential human exposure

scenarios)

Agricultural 3

Residential / Parkland 2

Commercial 1

Industrial 0.5

Do Not Know 1.5

b) Indicate the level of accessibility to the contaminated portion of the

site (e.g., the potential for coming in contact with contamination)

Limited barriers to prevent site access; contamination not

Moderate access or no intervening barriers, contaminants are

covered. Remote locations in which contaminants not covered.

Controlled access or remote location and contaminants are

covered

Do Not Know 1

c) Potential for intake of contaminated soil, water, sediment or foods

for operable or potentially operable pathways, as identified in

Worksheet II (Migration Potential).

i) direct contact

Is dermal contact with contaminated surface water, groundwater,

sediments or soils anticipated?

Yes 3

No 0

Do Not Know 1.5

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

NOTE: If a score is assigned here for Known Exposure, then you should

skip Part B (Potential for Human Exposure) and go to Section 2 (Human Exposure Modifying Factors)

Appendix IV - (III) Exposure Page 2 of 7

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

B. Potential for human exposure (if no exposure enter a score of zero)

ii) inhalation (i.e.,inhalation of dust, vapour)

Vapour - Are there inhabitable buildings on the site within 30 m

of soils or groundwater with volatile contamination as determined

in Worksheet II (Migration Potential)?

Yes 3

No 0

Do Not Know 1.5

Dust - If there is contaminated surface soil (e.g., top 1.5 m) ,

indicate whether the soil is fine or coarse textured. If it is known

that surface soil is not contaminated, enter a score of zero.

Fine 3

Coarse 1

Surface soil is not contaminated or absent (bedrock) 0

Do Not Know Texture 2

iii) Ingestion (i.e., ingestion of food items, water and soils [for

children]), including traditional foods.

Drinking Water: Choose a score based on the proximity to a

drinking water supply, to indicate the potential for contamination

(present or future).

0 to 100 m 3

100 to 300 m 2.5

300 m to 1 km 2

1 to 5 km 1.5

No drinking water present

No potential for aquifer contamination

Do Not Know 2

Is an alternative water supply readily available?

Yes 0

Not Applicable

Do Not Know 0.5

Is human ingestion of contaminated soils possible?

Yes 3

No 0

Do Not Know 1.5

Are food items consumed by people, such as plants, domestic

animals or wildlife harvested from the contaminated land and its

surroundings?

Yes 1

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

1B Potential for Human Exposure Subtotal

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 1 - Potential) and add to Raw Combined Total Human Score below.

Note: if a "Known" score is provided, the "Potential" score is disallowed.

Appendix IV - (III) Exposure Page 3 of 7

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

2. Human Exposure Modifying Factors

a) Strong reliance of local people on natural resources for survival

(i.e., food, water, shelter, etc.) in contaminated area.

Yes 6

No 0

Do Not Know 1

2. Human Exposure Modifying Factors Subtotal

3. Ecological

A. Known exposure

Documented adverse impact or high quantified exposure which has or

will result in an adverse effect, injury or harm or impairment of the

safety to terrestrial or aquatic organisms as a result of the

contaminated site.

Same as above, but "Strongly Suspected" based on observations or

indirect evidence.

No quantified or suspected exposures/impacts in terrestrial or aquatic

organisms

Go to

Potential

(3B)

Score (go to 4)

enter into Summary Sheet (Section 3 - Known) and add to Raw Combined Total Ecological Score below

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 2 - Known or Potential) and add to Raw Combined Total Human Score

below

Note : If a score is assigned here for Known Exposure, then you should

skip Part B (Potential for Ecological Exposure) and go to Section 4 (Ecological Exposure Modifying Factors)

Appendix IV - (III) Exposure Page 4 of 7

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

B. Potential for ecological exposure (for the contaminated portion of the

site)

a) Terrestrial

i) Land use

Agricultural (or Wild lands) 3

Residential/Parkland 2

Commercial 1

Industrial 0.5

Do Not Know 1.5

ii) Uptake potential

Direct Contact - Are plants and/or soil invertebrates likely

exposed to contaminated soils at the site?

Yes 1

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

iii) Ingestion (i.e., wildlife or domestic animals ingesting

contaminated food items, soils or water)

Are terrestrial animals likely to be ingesting

contaminated water at the site?

Yes 1

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

Are terrestrial animals likely to be ingesting contaminated

soils at the site?

Yes 1

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

Can the contamination identified bioaccumulate?

Yes 1

No 0

Do Not Know 0.5

Distance to sensitive terrestrial ecological area

0 to 300 m 3

300 m to 1 km 2

1 to 5 km 1

> 5 km 0.5

Do Not Know 1.5

Appendix IV - (III) Exposure Page 5 of 7

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

B. Potential for ecological exposure (for the contaminated portion of the

site)

b) Aquatic

i) Classification of aquatic environment

Sensitive 3

Typical 1

Not Applicable (no aquatic environment present) 0

Do Not Know 2

ii) Uptake potential

Does groundwater daylighting to an aquatic environment exceed

the CCME water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic

life at the point of contact?

Yes 1

No (or Not Applicable) 0

Do Not Know 0.5

Distance from the contaminated site to an important surface

water resource

0 to 300 m 3

300 m to 1 km 2

1 to 5 km 1

> 5 km 0.5

Do Not Know 1.5

Are aquatic species (i.e., forage fish, invertebrates or plants) that

are consumed by predatory fish or wildlife consumers, such as

mammals and birds, likely to accumulate contaminants in their

tissues?

Yes 1

No (or Not Applicable) 0

Do Not Know 0.5

3B Potential for Ecological Exposure Subtotal

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 3 - Potential) and add to Raw Combined Total Ecological Score below.

Note: if a "Known" score is provided, the "Potential" score is disallowed.

Appendix IV - (III) Exposure Page 6 of 7

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

4. Ecological Exposure Modifying Factors

a) Known, or potential, occurrence of a species at risk.

Is there a potential for a species at risk to be present at the site,

or a known presence?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

b) Potential impact of aesthetics (e.g., enrichment of a lake or tainting of

food flavor).

Is there evidence of aesthetic impact to receiving water bodies?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Is there evidence of olfactory impact (i.e., unpleasant smell)?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Is there evidence of increase in plant growth in the lake or water

body?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

Is there evidence that fish or meat taken from or adjacent to the

site smells or tastes different?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

4. Ecological Exposure Modifying Factors Subtotal

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 4 - Known and/or Potential) and add to Raw Combined Total Ecological

Score below

Appendix IV - (III) Exposure Page 7 of 7

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

(III) Exposure (Demonstrates the presence of an exposure pathway and receptors)

Site (from Appendix II):

Definition Known Potential

Rationale for Score

(document any assumptions, reports, or site-specific information; provide references)

5. Other Potential Contaminant Receptors

a) Exposure of permafrost (leading to erosion and structural concerns)

Are there improvements (roads, buildings) at the site dependant

upon the permafrost for structural integrity?

Yes 4

No 0

Do Not Know 2

Is there a physical pathway which can transport soils released by

damaged permafrost to a nearby aquatic environment?

Yes 2

No 0

Do Not Know 1

5. Other Potential Contaminant Receptors Subtotal

Exposure Total

Raw Combined Total Human Score (Known + Potential)

add up all Subtotals for Human Exposure and Human Modifying Factors (Known + Potential)

Raw Combined Total Ecological Score (Known + Potential) add up all Subtotals for Ecological Exposure and Ecological Modifying Factors (Known + Potential)

Total Other Receptors Score (Known + Potential) add up Subtotals for Other Potential Contaminant Receptors (Known + Potential)

Adjusted Total Human Score Enter the Raw Combined Total Human Score from above, or 22, whichever is lower

Adjusted Total Ecological Score

Enter the Raw Combined Total Ecological Score from above, or 18, whichever is lower

Total Exposure Score

add three values above (i.e., Total Other, Adjusted Human, Adjusted Ecological)

Adjusted Total Score

(Total Exposure / 46 * 34)

maximum 34

Total Number of Times that "Do Not Know" was Selected

Do not count "Do Not Know" in Potential sections when a score was assigned in corresponding Known sections

(applies to section 1 and 3).

enter into Summary Score Sheet (Section 5 - Known and/or Potential) and add to Total Other Receptors Score below

APPENDIX V

SUMMARY SCORE SHEET

Appendix V Page 1 of 1

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix V - Score Summary

Scores from individual worksheets are tallied in this worksheet.

Refer to this sheet after filling out the NCSCS completely.

I. Contaminant Characteristics Known Potential II. Migration Potential Known Potential III. Exposure Known Potential

1. Residency Media 1. Groundwater Movement 1. Human Receptors

2. Chemical Hazard 2. Surface Water Movement 2. Human Receptors Modifying Factors

3. Contaminant Exceedance Factor 3. Soil Raw Total Human Score

4. Contaminant Quantity 4. Vapour (Add values in Sections 1 and 2 above)

5. Modifying Factors 5. Sediment Movement

6. Modifying Factors Raw Combined Total Human Score (Known + Potential) add two values above

Raw Total Score Adjusted Total Human Score (maximum 22)

Raw Combined Total Score (Known + Potential) Raw Total Score (Enter the Raw Total above, or 22, whichever is lower)

Raw Combined Total Score (Known + Potential)

3. Ecological Receptors

Adjusted Total Score (Raw Combined Total /40*33) (maximum 33) 4. Ecological Receptors Modifying Factors

(use for Total NCSCS Score)

Adjusted Total Score (Raw Combined Total /64*33) (maximum 33) Raw Total Ecological Score

(use for Total NCSCS Score) (Add values in Sections 3 and 4 above)

Raw Combined Total Ecological Score (Known + Potential) add two values above

Adjusted Total Ecological Score (maximum 18)

(Enter the Raw Total above, or 18, whichever is lower)

5. Other Receptors

Total Other Receptors Score (Known + Potential) add two values above

Total Exposure Score (Human + Ecological + Other)

Adjusted Total Score (Total Exposure /46*34)

(maximum 34)

(use for Total NCSCS Score)

Site Classification Categories*:

Site Score Class 1** - High Priority for Action (Total NCS Score >70)

Site (from Appendix II):

Class 2 - Medium Priority for Action (Total NCS Score 50 - 69.9)

Site Letter Grade

Class 3 - Low Priority for Action (Total NCS Score 37 - 49.9)

Certainty Percentage

Class N - Not a Priority for Action (Total NCS Score <37)

% Responses that are "Do Not Know" Class INS - Insufficient Information (≥15% of Responses are "Do Not Know", or

a site letter grade of F has been assigned)

Total NCSCS Score for site

Site Classification Category

**assign Class 1 if "Known" human exposure = 22

add Adjusted Totals for

Human, Ecological, and

Other Receptors

(Number of gray-shaded boxes with values) / 16 x 100%

(Total number of "Do Not Know" responses from 3 worksheets) / 58 x 100%

* NOTE: The term "action" in the above categories does not necessarily refer to remediation, but

could also include risk assessment, risk management or further site characterization and data

collection.

APPENDIX VI

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Appendix VI - Hazard Rankings Page 1 of 7

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix VI - Reference Material

Table VI. 1 - Contaminant Hazard Ranking

(Based on the Proposed Hazard Ranking developed for the FCSAP Contaminated Sites Classification System)

This information is used in Sheet I (Contaminant Characteristics), section 2 (Chemical Hazard).

Chemical/Parameter Hazard CEPA Carcinogenicity Notes

Acetaldehyde H * PHC

Acetone L

Acrolein H *

Acrylonitrile H * PHC

Alachlor M

Aldicarb H

Aldrin H

Allyl Alcohol H

Aluminum L

Ammonia L *

Antimony H

Arsenic H *

Atrazine M

Azinphos-Methyl H

Barium L

Bendiocarb H

Benzene H * CHC BTEX

Benzidine H * CHC

Beryllium H CHC

Biphenyl, 1,1- M

2,3,4,5-Bis(2-Butylene)tetrahydro-2-furfural H

Bis(Chloromethyl)Ether H * CHC

Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether H CHC

Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether H

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate H * PH

Boron L

Bromacil M

Bromate M

Bromochlorodifluoromethane M * HM

Bromochloromethane H * HM

Bromodichloromethane H HM

Bromoform (Tribromomethane) H PHC HM

Bromomethane M HM

Bromotrifluoromethane M * HM

Bromoxynil H

Butadiene, 1,3- H * CHC

Cadmium H * CHC

Carbofuran M

Carbon Tetrachloride (Tetrachloromethane) H PHC HM

Captafol M

Chloramines M *

Chloride L

Chloroaniline, P- H

Chlorobenzene (mono) M

Appendix VI - Hazard Rankings Page 2 of 7

Chemical/Parameter Hazard CEPA Carcinogenicity Notes

Chlorobenzilate M

Chlorodimeform M

Chloroform H PHC HM

Chloromethane M

Chloromethyl Methyl Ether M *

(4-Chlorophenyl)Cyclopropylmethanone, O-((4-

Nitrophenyl)Methyl)Oxime

Chlorinated Benzenes

Monochlorobenzene M

Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- (O-DCB) M

Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- (M-DCB) M

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (P-DCB) H

Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,3- M

Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- M

Trichlorobenzene, 1,3,5- M

Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,3,4- M

Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,3,5- M

Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5- M

Pentachlorobenzene M

Hexachlorobenzene H

Chlorinated Ethanes

Dichloroethane, 1,1- M

Dichloroethane, 1,2- (Ethylene Dichloride (EDC))

H PHC

Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- H *

Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- M

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- M

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- M

Chlorinated Ethenes

Monochloroethene (Vinyl Chloride) H * CHC

Dichloroeth(yl)ene, 1,1- H

Dichloroeth(yl)ene, 1,2- (cis or trans) M

Trichloroeth(yl)ene (TCE) H *

Tetrachloroeth(yl)ene (PCE) H *

Chlorinated Phenols

Monochlorophenols M

Chlorophenol, 2- M

Dichlorophenols

Dichlorophenol, 2,4- M

Trichlorophenols

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5- H

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6- H PHC

Tetrachlorophenols

Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6- H

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) H

Chloromethane M HM

Chlorophenol, 2- M CP

Chlorothalonil H

Chlorpyrifos H

Chromium (Total) M *

Chromium (III) L *

Chromium (VI) H * CHC

Appendix VI - Hazard Rankings Page 3 of 7

Chemical/Parameter Hazard CEPA Carcinogenicity Notes

Coal Tar H CHC Refer to PAHs

Cobalt L

Copper L

Creosote M * Refer to PAHs

Crocidolite L

Cyanide (Free) H

Cyanazine M

Dibenzofuran H * DF

Dibromoethane, 1,2- (Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)) H PHC

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane H PHC

Dibromochloromethane M * HM

Dibromotetrafluoroethane M

Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- (O-DCB) M CB

Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- (M-DCB) M CB

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (P-DCB) H CB

Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'- H PHC

DDD H

DDE H

DDT H PHC

Deltamethrin M

Diazinon M

Dicamba H

Dichloroethane, 1,1- H CEA

Dichloroethane, 1,2- (EDC) H PHC CEA

Dichloroeth(yl)ene, 1,1- H CEE

Dichloroeth(yl)ene, Cis-1,2- M CEE

Dichloroeth(yl)ene, Trans-1,2- M CEE

Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) H PHC HM

Dichlorophenol, 2,4- M CP

Dichloropropane, 1,2- H

Dichloropropene, 1,3- H PHC

Diclofop-Methyl H

Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride H

Dieldrin H

Dimethoate H

Diethyl Phthalate M PH

Diethylene Glycol L GL

Dimethyl Phthalate M PH

Dimethylphenol, 2,4- L

Dinitrophenol, 2,4- M

Dinitrotoluene, 2,4- H

Dinoseb H

Di-n-octyl Phthalate H

Dioxane, 1,4- H PHC

Dioxins/Furans H

Diquat M

Diuron M

Endosulfan H

Endrin H

Ethylbenzene M BTEX

Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) H PHC

Ethylene Glycol L GL

Appendix VI - Hazard Rankings Page 4 of 7

Chemical/Parameter Hazard CEPA Carcinogenicity Notes

Ethylene Oxide H CHC

Fluoroacetamide M

Fluorides L *

Glycols

Ethylene Glycol L

Diethylene Glycol L

Propylene Glycol L

Glyphosate M

Halogenated Methanes

Bromochlorodifluoromethane M *

Bromochloromethane M *

Bromodichloromethane H PHC

Bromomethane M

Bromotrifluoromethane M *

Chloroform M PHC HM

Chloromethane M

Dibromochloromethane M

Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) H PHC

Methyl Bromide M *

Tetrachloromethane (Carbon Tetrachloride) H

Tribromomethane (Bromoform) H

Trihalomethanes (THM) M

Heptachlor H

Heptachlor Epoxide H

Hexachlorobenzene H PHC

Hexachlorobutadiene H

Hexachlorocyclohexane, Gamma H PHC

Hexachloroethane H PHC

Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCS) M *

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCS) M *

3-Iodo-2-propynyl Butyl Carbamate H

Iron L

Lead H *

neurotoxins /

teratogens

Lead Arsenate H

Leptophos H

Lindane H

Linuron H

Lithium L

Malathion M

Manganese L

Mercury H *

Methamidophos H

Methoxylchlor H

Methyl Bromide (Bromomethane) M *

2-Methyl-4-chloro-phenoxy Acetic Acid M

Methyl Ethyl Ketone L

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone L

Methyl Mercury H

Appendix VI - Hazard Rankings Page 5 of 7

Chemical/Parameter Hazard CEPA Carcinogenicity Notes

Methyl-Parathion H

Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE) M

Metolachlor M

Metribuzin H

Molybdenum L

Monochloramine M

Monocrotophos H

Nickel H * CEPA - inhalation

Nitrilotriacetic Acid H PHC

Nitrate L

Nitrite M

Nonylphenol + Ethoxylates H *

Organotins

Tributyltin H

Tricyclohexyltin H

Triphenyltin H

Parathion H

Paraquat (as Dichloride) H

Pentachlorobenzene M CB

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) H CP

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Gasoline) H

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Kerosene incl. Jet Fuels) H

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Diesel incl Heating Oil) M

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Heavy Oils) L

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (CCME F1) H

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (CCME F2) M

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (CCME F3) L

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (CCME F4) L

Phenol L

Phenoxy Herbicides M

Phorate H

Phosphamidon H

Phthalate Esters

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate H *

Diethyl Phthalate H

Dimethyl Phthalate H

Di-n-octyl Phthalate H

Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBB) H *

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) H

Polychlorinated Terphenyls H *

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons H * PHC

Acenaphthene M

Acenaphthylene M

Acridine H

Anthracene M

Benzo(a)anthracene H PHC

Benzo(a)pyrene H PHC

Benzo(b)fluoranthene H PHC

Ranking based

upon fraction of

toxic and mobile

components in

product. Lighter

compounds such

as benzene are

more toxic and

mobile.

Appendix VI - Hazard Rankings Page 6 of 7

Chemical/Parameter Hazard CEPA Carcinogenicity Notes

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene H

Benzo(k)fluoranthene H PHC

Chrysene M

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene H PHC

Fluoranthene M

Fluorene M

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene H PHC

Methylnaphthalenes M

Naphthalene M

Phenanthrene M

Pyrene M

Quinoline H

Propylene Glycol L GL

Radium H

Radon H

Selenium M

Silver L

Simazine M

Sodium L

Strontium-90 H

Strychnine H

Styrene H

Sulphate L

Sulphide L

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD) H * DF

Tebuthiuron H

Tetrachloroeth(yl)ene (PCE) H * CEE

Tetraethyl Lead H

Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,3,4- H CB

Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,3,5- H CB

Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5- H CB

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- M CEA

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- M CEA

Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6- H CP

Tetramethyl Lead H *

Thallium M

Thiophene M

Tin L

Toluene M BTEX

Toxaphene H

Triallate M

Tribromomethane (Bromoform) H HM

Tributyltetradecylphosphonium Chloride H *

Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,3- H CB

Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- H CB

Trichlorobenzene, 1,3,5- H CB

Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- H * CEA

Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- M CEA

Trichloroeth(yl)ene (TCE) H * CEE

Tricyclohexyltin Hydroxide H

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5- H CP

Appendix VI - Hazard Rankings Page 7 of 7

Chemical/Parameter Hazard CEPA Carcinogenicity Notes

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6- H PHC CP

Trifluralin H

Trihalomethanes (THM) M

Tris(2,3-Dibromopropyl)phosphate H

Tritium L

Uranium (Non-radioactive) / (Radioactive) M/H

Vanadium M

Vinyl Chloride H * CHC CEE

Xylenes M BTEX

Zinc L

H = High Hazard

M = Medium Hazard

L = Low Hazard

Hazard ratings based on a number of factors including potential human and ecological health effects.

PHC = Potential Human Carcinogen

CHC = Confirmed Human Carcinogen

BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes

CB = chlorobenzenes

CEA = chlorinated ethanes

CEE = chlorinated ethenes

CP = chlorophenols

DF = dioxins and furans

GL = glycols

HM = halomethanes

PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PH = phthalate esters

Appendix VI - Reference Material Page 1 of 3

CCME National Classification System (2008) version 1.3

Appendix VI - Reference Material

Table VI.2 - Examples of Persistent Substances

This information is used in Sheet I (Chemical Characteristics), section 5 (Modifying Factors).

aldrin dieldrin PCBs

benzo(a)pyrene hexachlorobenzene PCDDs/PCDFs (dioxins and furans)

chlordane methylmercury toxaphene

DDT mirex alkylated lead

DDE octachlorostyrene

This information is used in Sheet I (Chemical Characteristics), section 5 (Modifying Factors).

PHC F2

PHC F3

Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,

benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, naphthalene,

phenanthrene, pyrene

chlorinated hydrocarbons

halogenated methanes

heavy extractable PHCs

PAHs

phenolic substances

phenol, pentachlorophenol, chlorophenols, nonchlorinated phenols (e.g., 2,4-

dinitrophenol, cresol, etc.)

PCBs, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, dioxins and furans,

trichlorobenzene, tetrachlorobenzene, pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene

carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, dichloromethane

di-isononyl phthalate (DINP), di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP), di-2-ethylhexyl

phthalate (DEHP)

Table VI. 3 - Examples of Substances in the Various Chemical Classes

Chemical Class

inorganic substances (including

metals)

volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC)

phthalate esters

pesticides

light extractable PHCs

DDT, hexachlorocyclohexane

Examples *

* Note: Specific chemicals that belong to the various classes are not limited to those listed in this table. These lists are

not exhaustive and are meant just to provide examples of substances that are typically encountered.

arsenic, barium, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, copper, cyanide, fluoride, lead,

mercury, nickel, selenium, sulphur, zinc; brines or salts

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, PHC F1

Appendix VI - Reference Material Page 2 of 3

CAS No. Compound

Solubility in Water

@ 20-25°C (mg/L)

Henry's Law

Constant (atm-

m3/mol)

Dimensionless

Henry's law constant

(HLC [atm-m3/mol] *

41) (25 °C).

log Kow

Log Koc

(L/kg)

83-32-9 Acenaphthene

4.24E+00 1.55E-04 6.36E-03 3.92 3.85

67-64-1 Acetone

1.00E+06 3.88E-05 1.59E-03 -0.24 -0.24

309-00-2 Aldrin

1.80E-01 1.70E-04 6.97E-03 6.5 6.39

120-12-7 Anthracene

4.34E-02 6.50E-05 2.67E-03 4.55 4.47

56-55-3 Benz(a)anthracene

9.40E-03 3.35E-06 1.37E-04 5.7 5.6

71-43-2 Benzene

1.75E+03 5.55E-03 2.28E-01 2.13 1.77

205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene

1.50E-03 1.11E-04 4.55E-03 6.2 6.09

207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene

8.00E-04 8.29E-07 3.40E-05 6.2 6.09

65-85-0 Benzoic acid

3.50E+03 1.54E-06 6.31E-05 1.86 —

50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene

1.62E-03 1.13E-06 4.63E-05 6.11 6.01

111-44-4 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether

1.72E+04 1.80E-05 7.38E-04 1.21 1.19

117-81-7

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

3.40E-01 1.02E-07 4.18E-06 7.3 7.18

75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane

6.74E+03 1.60E-03 6.56E-02 2.1 1.74

75-25-2 Bromoform

3.10E+03 5.35E-04 2.19E-02 2.35 1.94

71-36-3 Butanol

7.40E+04 8.81E-06 3.61E-04 0.85 0.84

85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate

2.69E+00 1.26E-06 5.17E-05 4.84 4.76

86-74-8 Carbazole

7.48E+00 1.53E-08 6.26E-07 3.59 3.53

75-15-0 Carbon disulfide

1.19E+03 3.03E-02 1.24E+00 2 1.66

56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride

7.93E+02 3.04E-02 1.25E+00 2.73 2.24

57-74-9 Chlordane

5.60E-02 4.86E-05 1.99E-03 6.32 5.08

106-47-8

p-Chloroaniline

5.30E+03 3.31E-07 1.36E-05 1.85 1.82

108-90-7 Chlorobenzene

4.72E+02 3.70E-03 1.52E-01 2.86 2.34

124-48-1 Chlorodibromomethane

2.60E+03 7.83E-04 3.21E-02 2.17 1.8

67-66-3 Chloroform

7.92E+03 3.67E-03 1.50E-01 1.92 1.6

95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol

2.20E+04 3.91E-04 1.60E-02 2.15 —

218-01-9 Chrysene

1.60E-03 9.46E-05 3.88E-03 5.7 5.6

72-54-8 DDD

9.00E-02 4.00E-06 1.64E-04 6.1 6

72-55-9 DDE

1.20E-01 2.10E-05 8.61E-04 6.76 6.65

50-29-3 DDT

2.50E-02 8.10E-06 3.32E-04 6.53 6.42

53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

2.49E-03 1.47E-08 6.03E-07 6.69 6.58

84-74-2 Di-n-butyl phthalate

1.12E+01 9.38E-10 3.85E-08 4.61 4.53

95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1.56E+02 1.90E-03 7.79E-02 3.43 2.79

106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene

7.38E+01 2.43E-03 9.96E-02 3.42 2.79

91-94-1 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine

3.11E+00 4.00E-09 1.64E-07 3.51 2.86

75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane

5.06E+03 5.62E-03 2.30E-01 1.79 1.5

107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 8.52E+03 9.79E-04 4.01E-02 1.47 1.24

75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2.25E+03 2.61E-02 1.07E+00 2.13 1.77

156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 3.50E+03 4.08E-03 1.67E-01 1.86 1.55

156-60-5

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 6.30E+03 9.38E-03 3.85E-01 2.07 1.72

120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol 4.50E+03 3.16E-06 1.30E-04 3.08 —

78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 2.80E+03 2.80E-03 1.15E-01 1.97 1.64

542-75-6 1,3-Dichloropropene 2.80E+03 1.77E-02 7.26E-01 2 1.66

60-57-1 Dieldrin 1.95E-01 1.51E-05 6.19E-04 5.37 4.33

84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 1.08E+03 4.50E-07 1.85E-05 2.5 2.46

105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 7.87E+03 2.00E-06 8.20E-05 2.36 2.32

51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2.79E+03 4.43E-07 1.82E-05 1.55 —

121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2.70E+02 9.26E-08 3.80E-06 2.01 1.98

Table VI.4 - Chemical-specific Properties

(Adapted from USEPA Soil Screening Criteria)

The information on Koc is used in Sheet II (Migration Potential), section 1,B,a (Relative Mobility).

The information on the dimensionless Henry's law constant is used in Sheet II (Migration Potential), section 4,B,a (Relative

Volatility).

The information on log Kow is used in Sheet III (Exposure), section 3,B,a,iii (Potential for Ecological Exposure - terrestrial ingestion),

and section 3,B,b,ii (Potential for Ecological Exposure - aquatic uptake potential).

Appendix VI - Reference Material Page 3 of 3

CAS No. Compound

Solubility in Water

@ 20-25°C (mg/L)

Henry's Law

Constant (atm-

m3/mol)

Dimensionless

Henry's law constant

(HLC [atm-m3/mol] *

41) (25 °C).

log Kow

Log Koc

(L/kg)

606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 1.82E+02 7.47E-07 3.06E-05 1.87 1.84

117-84-0 Di-n-octyl phthalate 2.00E-02 6.68E-05 2.74E-03 8.06 7.92

115-29-7 Endosulfan 5.10E-01 1.12E-05 4.59E-04 4.1 3.33

72-20-8 Endrin 2.50E-01 7.52E-06 3.08E-04 5.06 4.09

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 1.69E+02 7.88E-03 3.23E-01 3.14 2.56

206-44-0 Fluoranthene 2.06E-01 1.61E-05 6.60E-04 5.12 5.03

86-73-7 Fluorene 1.98E+00 6.36E-05 2.61E-03 4.21 4.14

76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.80E-01 1.09E-03 4.47E-02 6.26 6.15

1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 2.00E-01 9.50E-06 3.90E-04 5 4.92

118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 6.20E+00 1.32E-03 5.41E-02 5.89 4.74

87-68-3 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 3.23E+00 8.15E-03 3.34E-01 4.81 4.73

319-84-6 a-HCH (a-BHC) 2.00E+00 1.06E-05 4.35E-04 3.8 3.09

319-85-7 b-HCH (b-BHC) 2.40E-01 7.43E-07 3.05E-05 3.81 3.1

58-89-9 g -HCH (Lindane) 6.80E+00 1.40E-05 5.74E-04 3.73 3.03

77-47-4

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1.80E+00 2.70E-02 1.11E+00 5.39 5.3

67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 5.00E+01 3.89E-03 1.59E-01 4 3.25

193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.20E-05 1.60E-06 6.56E-05 6.65 6.54

78-59-1 Isophorone 1.20E+04 6.64E-06 2.72E-04 1.7 1.67

7439-97-6 Mercury — 1.14E-02 4.67E-01 — —

72-43-5 Methoxychlor 4.50E-02 1.58E-05 6.48E-04 5.08 4.99

74-83-9

Methyl bromide 1.52E+04 6.24E-03 2.56E-01 1.19 1.02

75-09-2 Methylene chloride 1.30E+04 2.19E-03 8.98E-02 1.25 1.07

95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 2.60E+04 1.20E-06 4.92E-05 1.99 1.96

91-20-3 Naphthalene 3.10E+01 4.83E-04 1.98E-02 3.36 3.3

98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 2.09E+03 2.40E-05 9.84E-04 1.84 1.81

86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 3.51E+01 5.00E-06 2.05E-04 3.16 3.11

621-64-7

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 9.89E+03 2.25E-06 9.23E-05 1.4 1.38

1336-36-3 PCBs — — — 5.58 5.49

87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 1.95E+03 2.44E-08 1.00E-06 5.09 —

108-95-2 Phenol 8.28E+04 3.97E-07 1.63E-05 1.48 1.46

129-00-0 Pyrene 1.35E-01 1.10E-05 4.51E-04 5.11 5.02

100-42-5 Styrene 3.10E+02 2.75E-03 1.13E-01 2.94 2.89

79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2.97E+03 3.45E-04 1.41E-02 2.39 1.97

127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 2.00E+02 1.84E-02 7.54E-01 2.67 2.19

108-88-3 Toluene 5.26E+02 6.64E-03 2.72E-01 2.75 2.26

8001-35-2 Toxaphene 7.40E-01 6.00E-06 2.46E-04 5.5 5.41

120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 3.00E+02 1.42E-03 5.82E-02 4.01 3.25

71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.33E+03 1.72E-02 7.05E-01 2.48 2.04

79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 4.42E+03 9.13E-04 3.74E-02 2.05 1.7

79-01-6 Trichloroethylene

1.10E+03 1.03E-02 4.22E-01 2.71 2.22

95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 1.20E+03 4.33E-06 1.78E-04 3.9 —

88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 8.00E+02 7.79E-06 3.19E-04 3.7 —

108-05-4 Vinyl acetate 2.00E+04 5.11E-04 2.10E-02 0.73 0.72

75-01-4 Vinyl chloride 2.76E+03 2.70E-02 1.11E+00 1.5 1.27

108-38-3 m-Xylene 1.61E+02 7.34E-03 3.01E-01 3.2 2.61

95-47-6 o-Xylene 1.78E+02 5.19E-03 2.13E-01 3.13 2.56

106-42-3 p-Xylene 1.85E+02 7.66E-03 3.14E-01 3.17 2.59

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service

Kow = Octanol/water partition coefficient

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document.

(Part 5: Chemical-Specific Parameters)

Appendix VI - Conductivity Page 1 of 1

Appendix VI - Reference Material (2008) version 1.3

The information on Koc is used in Sheet II (Migration Potential), section 1,B,f (Hydraulic Conductivity)