Comparison of Contaminated Site Human Health Risk Assessment Approaches in Canada: Application of Provincial Methods to a Hypothetical Site

ABSTRACT

Human health risk assessment, whether at the screening level or more complex phase, is not an exact science. A wide variety of advice and direction is offered by international, national, and provincial/state environmental agencies regarding the conduct of risk assessment, and different risk assessors access and rely on the available regulatory advice and direction differently. This may result in wide variability in the estimates of chemical exposure and risk. A comparison of human health risk assessment approaches practiced at the provincial level in Canada was undertaken, wherein each jurisdiction's approach was applied to a hypothetical contaminated site. Approaches were found to vary both in terms of methodological considerations, and in matters of policy. The exercise yielded results in terms of estimated exposures and predicted hazard quotients/indexes and incremental lifetime cancer risks that were in some cases quite consistent (varying by a factor of less than 1.5 times), and in other cases remarkably different (varying by orders of magnitude). This article reviews the various approaches/frameworks applied and discusses the results of the hypothetical risk assessments, in terms of both the observed variation and the source of this variability.

Key Words:

• human health risk assessment
• guidance
• variability

Notes

¹Assumes statistically valid data set available, maximum values typically used otherwise.

²Values for hands/other than hands (no specific value assigned by regulatory agency such that CCME [2000] values were assumed).

³Values derived from TPHCWG.

⁴Varies depending on carbon range.

⁵Target HQ from all sources: estimated daily intake (EDI) from other sources must be explicitly quantified or estimated and added to chronic daily intake (CDI) from contaminated site.

*Data not shown for other depths and locations (i.e., BH3 and BH4) as detectable concentrations were not measured (i.e., were all nd).

¹—values not comparable for BC due to methodological differences (not shown for this reason).