PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL AND …...... document “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for ... issued in December 2009 by the MOE and are effective as of July 1, 2011 ... Analysis

Coffey Geotechnics Inc. 20 Meteor Drive Etobicoke Ontario M9W 1A4 Canada

PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SITE FOR ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER STATION - BREMNER BOULEVARD AND REES STREET (255 BREMNER BOULEVARD) TORONTO, ONTARIO IBI Group ENVSETOB10387AC June 24, 2011

Coffey Geotechnics Inc. ENVSETOB10545AB 20 Meteor Drive Etobicoke Ontario M9W 1A4 Canada T (+1) (416) 213 1255 F (+1) (416) 213 1260 coffey.com

June 24, 2011

IBI Group 30 International Boulevard Toronto, Ontario M9W 5P3

Attention: Mr. Alexandre Haddad, M.Eng., P.Eng.

RE: Phase 2 Environmental Soil and Groundwater Investigation Proposed Site for Electrical Transformer Station – Bremner Boulevard and Rees Street (255 Bremner Boulevard) Toronto, Ontario

Coffey Geotechnics Inc. (Coffey) was retained by Mr. Alexandre Haddad, M.Eng, P.Eng. of IBI Group (IBI) to conduct a Phase 2 Environmental Soil & Groundwater Investigation (ESGI) at the above noted property in the City of Toronto, Ontario. It is our understanding that the Phase 2 ESGI is being conducted to fulfil a requirement of IBI’s scope of work for design and construction of a proposed electrical transformer station for Toronto Hydro. Coffey also understands that a portion of the Roundhouse at 255 Bremner Boulevard (the Machine Shop) will be disassembled to allow space for the hydro electric transformer station. Upon completion of the transformer station the Machine Shop will be reconstructed.

The purpose of the Phase 2 ESGI was to address potential environmental issues identified in the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted by Coffey and prepared for IBI. The Phase 1 ESA recommended a Phase 2 ESGI to assess potential environmental soil & groundwater impacts associated with the historical activities on the subject site, the current and historical activities within 250 m of the subject site’s boundaries.

The subject site (also known as the Phase One Property) is currently owned by Toronto Hydro and is either occupied by the existing Machine Shop building footprint or a paved driveway. Some grassed areas are present at the front of the building, along the west property boundary and at the southwest corner of the property. The subject site building is currently used for storage by the Toronto Railway Historical Association and was formerly a Machine Shop as part of the John Street Roundhouse. A site representative indicated that the subject site has been associated with a Canadian Pacific (CP) rail yard since the late 1800’s. As the area of reclaimed land expanded along the Lake Ontario shoreline, the

Phase 2 Environmental Soil and Groundwater Investigation

Proposed Site for Electrical Transformer Station – Bremner Boulevard and Rees Street

(255 Bremner Boulevard) Toronto, Ontario

Coffey Geotechnics ENVSETOB10387AC June 24, 2011

2

subject site building was rebuilt in 1931, however the property use remained unchanged. Adjoining properties consists mostly of commercial properties.

It is Coffey’s understanding that the proposed use entails the occupation of the site by the transformer station as well as a railway museum in the Machine Shop that is to be reconstructed. In regards to section 168.3.1 of the Act, the proposed use is not changing the subject site to a more sensitive land use and as such a record of site condition (RSC) is not required. RSCs may still be requested by the city as part of the required building permits. At this time Coffey is not aware of any such requirement.

Four of the boreholes were advanced on grass covered areas of the subject site and one borehole was advanced through the concrete slab inside the subject site building. The site is generally underlain by large deposits of fill material extending to approximately 9.1 m or the termination of the borehole.

Some hydrocarbon odours observed in the field were encountered in borehole BH102, BH103 and BH105.

Soil samples were submitted for metals and inorganics, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), petroleum hydrocarbon (PHCs) in the F1 to F4 fractions, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Soil samples collected from borehole BH105 were also submitted for inorganic and VOCs and benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) under Schedule 4 waste class analysis of O.Reg 558/00 amending O.Reg 347/90.

Groundwater was collected from monitoring wells BH101, BH102 and BH104. Groundwater was not encountered in the monitoring well at borehole BH103. Due to the presence of saturated soils at boreholes BH103, groundwater is expected to be present within the depths investigated; however, due to the soil conditions encountered, groundwater levels may not have stabilized or the groundwater level may be subject to seasonal fluctuations. Samples were submitted for metals and inorganics, VOCs, PHCs in the F1 to F4 fractions, PCBs and PAHs.

All soil and groundwater samples were compared to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) document “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act” (Standards). These Standards, together with Ontario Regulation 511/09 amending O.reg 153/04 were issued in December 2009 by the MOE and are effective as of July 1, 2011. These Standards were used to evaluate soil and groundwater quality based on the samples collected and tested, to determine whether soil quality complied with MOE Standards and to determine whether additional investigations are required or warranted.

In the absence of a grain size analysis curve, the texture of the soils encountered on site is considered to be coarse textured for the purposes of this report. It is understood that the proposed use of the subject site will be community/industrial. As such the Standards for industrial/commercial/community (ICC) property use with coarse textured soils in a non-potable groundwater condition as contained in Table 3 of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) publication “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act”, March 9, 2004 (MOE Standards) were applicable.

For simplicity purposes MOE O.Reg 511/09 amending O.Reg 153/04 will be referred to as MOE 2009 Standards and O.Reg 153/04 will be referred to as MOE 2004 Standards.





3

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the findings of the Phase 2 ESGI:

1) The soil analysis indicate that when compared to MOE 2009 Standards acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, PHCs in the F2 and F3 fraction concentrations from sample BH102 S4A at a depth of approximately 3.7 to 4.3 m below grade exceeded MOE 2009 Table 3 ICC Standards. The remaining samples analysed in the current investigation for metal and inorganics, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs and PHCs in the F1 to F4 Fractions met MOE Table 3 ICC Standards. The previous geotechnical investigation had exceedances in BH1 SS-4 with lead, BH7 SS-3B with mercury and SS-6A with antimony, arsenic, copper, lead and mercury when compared to the 2009 standards.

2) During the Coffey’s investigation hydrocarbon odours was observed in borehole BH102 at a depth of approximately 3.7 to 6.7 m below grade, BH103 at a depth of approximately 5.1 to 6.1 m below grade and BH105 at a depth of approximately 4.0 to 7.3 m.

Soil samples collected from borehole BH105 were also submitted for metals and inorganic, VOCs

and BAP under Schedule 4 waste class analysis of O.Reg 558/00 amending O.Reg 347/90. The

results indicate that all analysis met Schedule 4 standards.

3) Groundwater sampling was conducted on monitoring wells BH101, BH102 and BH104. All groundwater samples collected and analysed for the above parameters met the 2009 MOE Table 3 Standards.

Based on the findings of this investigation, Coffey concludes and recommends the following:

Concentrations of PAHs and PHCs from borehole BH102 exceed the 2009 MOE Standards. In addition the concentrations of metals and inorganics parameters from boreholes BH7 and BH1 exceed the 2009 MOE Standards. Due to the variability and quantity of fill materials on the subject site as well as the distance between each borehole location, the horizontal and vertical extent of these impacts could not be determined at this time. Further investigations will be required to determine the extent of these impacts.

In the future if the subject site changes to a more sensitive property use, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) will be required for development approvals and remediation will be required at the subject site to meet MOE Standards. An RSC may also be required to obtain development approvals. Coffey understands that neither of the above options are likely for the subject site. Therefore, mandatory site remediation is unlikely to be immediately required for the subject site

It is Coffey’s understanding that a large portion of the property will be excavated and the soils will require offsite disposal. Should excess soils be generated at the subject site that require off-site disposal additional environmental soil testing will be needed to verify that any soils to be sent off-site are not a hazardous solid waste. In addition, any soils that are odourous or aesthetically impacted will need to be disposed of as a waste, if excavated.





4

All monitoring wells should be decommissioned in accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 when no longer required.

Consideration should be given to conducting an Additional Environmental Soil Investigation (AESI) to further delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of environmental soil impacts present on-site.

CONTENTS


i

2 INTRODUCTION 1

i. Site Description 1

ii. Property Ownership 1

iii. Current and Proposed Future Uses 2

iv. Applicable Site Condition Standard 2

3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3

i. Physical Setting 3

ii. Past Investigations 3

4 SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION 5

i. Overview of Site Investigation 5

ii. Media Investigated 6

iii. Phase 1 Conceptual Site Model 6

iv. Deviations from Sampling and Analysis Plan 7

v. Impediments 7

5 INVESTIGATION METHOD 7

i. General 7

ii. Drilling 7

iii. Soil: Sampling 8

iv. Field Screen Measurements 8

v. Ground Water Monitoring Well Installation 9

vi. Ground Water: Field Measurement of Water Quality Parameters 9

vii. Ground Water Sampling 10

viii. Sediment Sampling 10

ix. Analytical Testing 10

CONTENTS


ii

x. Residue Management Procedures 10

xi. Elevation Surveying 10

xii. Quality Assurance and Control Measures 10

6 REVIEW AND EVALUATION 11

i. Geology 11

ii. Ground water Elevations and Flow Directions 11

iii. Ground Water Hydraulic Gradients 11

iv. Fine-Medium Soil Texture 11

v. Soil: Field Screening 11

vi. Soil Quality 12

vii. Ground Water Quality 12

viii. Sediment Quality 12

ix. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Results 12

x. Phase Two Conceptual Site Model 13

7 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13

8 LIMITATIONS 14

9 QUALIFICATIONS OF CONSULTANT 14

10 REFERENCES 16

Tables

Table 1: Sampling Program, Analysis and Rationale

Table 2: Summary of Groundwater Elevations

Table 3: Summary of Metals & Inorganics in Soil

Table 4: Summary of VOCs in Soil

Table 5: Summary of PHCs & BTEX in Soil

Table 6 Summary of PCBs in Soil

CONTENTS


iii

Table 7: Summary of PAHs in Soil

Table 8: Summary of VOCs in Groundwater

Table 9: Summary of Metals & Inorganics in Groundwater

Table 10: Summary of PAHs in Groundwater

Table 11: Summary of PCBs in Groundwater

Table 12: Summary of PHCs in Groundwater

Table 13: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of Metals & Inorganics in Soil

Table 14: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of VOCs in Soil

Table 15: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of PHCs & BTEX in Soil

Table 16: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of PCBs in Soil

Table 17: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of PAHs in Soil

Table 18: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of VOCs in Groundwater

Table 19: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of Metals & Inorganics in Groundwater

Table 20: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of PAHs in Groundwater

Table 21: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of PCBs in Groundwater

Table 22: Summary of Maximum Concentrations of PHCs & BTEX in Groundwater

Figures

Figure 1: Property Before Actions Taken to Reduce the Concentration of Contaminants

Figure 2: Interpreted Contours of Groundwater Elevations

Figure 3: Contaminants in Soil Before Actions Taken to Reduce the Concentration of Contaminants

Appendices

Appendix A: Sampling and Analysis Plan

Appendix B: Borehole Logs

Appendix C: Certificates of Analysis: Phase 2 ESGI

Appendix D: Certificates of Analysis: Geotechnical Investigation

Appendix E: Legal Survey

Appendix F: Notification of Intent to Use Non-Potable Groundwater Standards





1

2 INTRODUCTION

Coffey Geotechnics Inc. (Coffey) was retained by Mr. Alexandre Haddad, M.Eng, P.Eng. of IBI Group (IBI) to conduct a Phase 2 Environmental Soil & Groundwater Investigation (ESGI) at the above noted property in the City of Toronto, Ontario. It is our understanding that the Phase 2 ESGI is being conducted to fulfil a requirement of IBI’s scope of work for design and construction of a proposed electrical transformer station for Toronto Hydro. Coffey also understands that a portion of the Roundhouse at 255 Bremner Boulevard (the Machine Shop) will be disassembled to allow space for the hydro electric transformer station. Upon completion of the transformer station the Machine Shop will be reconstructed.

The purpose of the Phase 2 ESGI was to address potential environmental issues identified in the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted by Coffey and prepared for IBI. The Phase 1 ESA recommended a Phase 2 ESGI to assess potential environmental soil & groundwater impacts associated with the historical activities on the subject site, the current and historical activities within 250 m of the subject site’s boundaries.

i. Site Description

The subject site (also known as the Phase One Property) is currently owned by Toronto Hydro and is either occupied by the existing Machine Shop building footprint or a paved driveway. Some grassed areas are present at the front of the building, along the west property boundary and at the southwest corner of the property. The subject site building is currently used for storage by the Toronto Railway Historical Association and was formerly a Machine Shop as part of the John Street Roundhouse. A site representative indicated that the subject site has been associated with a Canadian Pacific (CP) rail yard since the late 1800’s. As the area of reclaimed land expanded along the Lake Ontario shoreline, the subject site building was rebuilt in 1931, however the property use remained unchanged. Adjoining properties consists mostly of commercial properties.

ii. Property Ownership

The title search completed for the subject site indicates that the subject site was initially owned by The Toronto Harbour Commissioners on January 26, 1912. The documents reviewed by the title searcher were unclear prior to the year of 1912;however, a review of the County Atlas Maps dated 1880 indicate that the area of the subject site was not yet developed/reclaimed and was part of Lake Ontario at that time. The Canadian Pacific Railway owned the property from July 16, 1927, followed by the Canadian National Railway Company from November 30, 1939. On May 31, 1989 the property was transferred to Marathon Realty Co. Ltd, and then to the City of Toronto on June 1, 1989. The subject site was then purchased by Hydro One Networks Inc. on April 12, 2007 followed by the current owners Toronto Hydro-Electric System on December 23, 2010. Legal description of the subject site as provided by the client on a legal survey by D. Ostapiak, O.L.S. – City Surveyor completed on September 14, 1992 is as follows:

PART OF BLOCKS C AND D, REGISTERED PLAN 536-E PART OF JOHN STREET PATENTED (Q.C.) TO THE CITY OF TORONTO BY THE DOMINION O FCANADA ON NOVEMBER 28, 1894 AND MARCH 16, 1905. PART OF LAKE STREET LYING BETWEEN THE WESTERLY LIMIT OF YORK STREET PATENTED (Q.C.) TO THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY AS SHOWN ON REGISTERED PLAN 536-e (AND CLOSED BY CITY BY-LAW 10950) CITY OF TORONTO, MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO.





2

Cynthia Robins, P.Eng, C.Chem with Coffey Geotechnics Inc. (Coffey) was retained by Mr. Alexandre Haddad, M.Eng, P.Eng. of IBI Group (IBI) to conduct a Phase 2 Environmental Soil & Groundwater Investigation (ESGI).

iii. Current and Proposed Future Uses

The subject site is part of a much larger structure and property area known as Bremner Park with a municipal address of 255 Bremner Boulevard. Originally this property was used as a railway roundhouse by Canadian Pacific (CP) and was known as the John Street Roundhouse. The portion of the former roundhouse that is considered as the subject site building is currently vacant and being utilized for storage of the John Street Roundhouse artifacts by the TRHA. It is Coffey’s understanding that a portion of the Roundhouse at 255 Bremner Boulevard (the Machine Shop) will be disassembled to allow space for the hydro electric transformer station. Upon completion of the transformer station the Machine Shop will be reconstructed.

As the property is currently an industrial use and will be used for industrial/community purposes the proposed future use does not undertake section 168.3.1 of the Act and as such the new use does not require a record of site condition (RSC) to be filed. It should be understood that the building permit process may require the submission of an RSC; however, Coffey is not aware of any such requirements at this time.

iv. Applicable Site Condition Standard

The results of the soil and groundwater chemical analyses were evaluated using the Standards prescribed in the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) document “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act” (Standards). These Standards, together with Ontario Regulation 511/09 amending O.Reg 153/04 were issued in December 2009 by the MOE and are effective as of July 1, 2011. These Standards were used to evaluate soil and groundwater quality based on the samples collected and tested, to determine whether soil quality complied with MOE Standards and to determine whether additional investigations are required or warranted.

The site was assessed using the Standards contained in Table 3 of the above referenced Standards. The use of the Table 3 Standards is considered appropriate by Coffey based on the following:

The site is not within 30 m of a water body;

The site is not located adjacent to a provincial or municipal park, adjacent to an area of natural significance or a wetland area and based on this, it is not anticipated to provide a habitat of endangered or threatened species identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources;

The site is in a fully serviced (municipal water and sewer) urban area;

The adjoining properties are supplied by municipal drinking water not derived from groundwater and all properties within 100 m of the subject site are supplied by a similar source of municipal drinking water;

The site is not located within areas where the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act or the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 apply;

The site is not located within or adjacent to an area designated by the municipality in its official plan as environmentally significant; and





3

Bedrock was not encountered within 2 m of the ground surface at any of the borehole locations.

In the absence of a grain size analysis curve, the texture of the soils encountered on site is considered to be coarse textured for the purposes of this report. It is understood that the proposed use of the subject site will be industrial/community. As such the Standards for industrial/commercial/community (ICC) property use with coarse textured soils in a non-potable groundwater condition as contained in Table 3 of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) publication “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act”, March 9, 2004 (MOE Standards) were applicable.

Notification of intent to use the MOE Table 3 Standards for a non-potable groundwater condition was sent out to the City of Toronto. A response from the City was received on May 5, 2011. The City of Toronto has no objection to the use of non-potable groundwater site condition standard for the subject site. Refer to Appendix C.

3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

i. Physical Setting

According to the Quaternary Geology of Toronto and Surrounding Area 1980, Ontario Geological Survey Preliminary Map P.2204, published by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the subject site is underlain with older tills of the Sunnybrook formation consisting of silt clay to silt till.

According to Ontario Geological Survey Map 2544, Bedrock Geology of Ontario, published by Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the bedrock in the vicinity of the subject site is Upper Ordovician Georgian Bay Formation, consisting of shale, limestone, dolostone and siltstone.

The topographic map provided by National Resources Canada available online (http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map) indicated the topography of the area of the subject site appears to be sloped down gently to the south in the direction of Lake Ontario. The direction of groundwater flow is likely south towards Lake Ontario located approximately 300 m south of the site. The groundwater flow direction may also be influenced by utility trenches and other subsurface structures and may migrate in the bedding stone of nearby subsurface utility trenches. Groundwater flow direction can only be confirmed with the long-term measurement of groundwater elevations at the site.

According to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority website (www.trca.on.ca), the subject site is not located within a specific watershed. The subject site is located between the Don River and the Humber River watersheds. As such, the overland runoff is expected to drain directly into Lake Ontario.

According to the Oak Ridges Moraine Atlas available online (http://ormatlas.lrc.gov.on.ca/) and the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) Maps available online (http://www.escarpment.org/landplanning/planmaps /index.php) the subject site is not located within the Oak Ridges Moraine or the Niagara Escarpment.

According to the Canadian County Atlas Digital Project (available online), the subject site area was formerly a part of Lake Ontario (CCADP, 1880).

ii. Past Investigations

A report entitled “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Electric Substation Development 255 Bremner Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario” was completed by Coffey for the IBI Group and dated February 9, 2011.

http://www.trca.on.ca/�





4

During the investigation a total of seven boreholes (BH1 to BH7) were completed. The report indicates that boreholes BH3 to BH7 encountered topsoil at surface while boreholes BH1 encountered fill materials and borehole BH2 encountered pavement followed by a granular base. Fill materials encountered generally consisted of clayey silt to sandy silt with inclusions of gravel, wood pieces, rootlets, cinder and trace organics varying in depths from 9.1 m to 11.0 m below ground surface. Fill materials were underlain by native soils generally consisting of sand which extended from depths of 10.7 m to 12.2 m below existing surface. Shale bedrock was encountered in all boreholes at depths varying from 10.7 m to 12.2 m.

Limited testing of the fill materials for metals and inorganics parameters was completed during the geotechnical investigation for evaluation of soil disposal options. The results indicated that the concentrations of some of the parameters tested exceeded the 2004 and 2011 Ministry of Environment (MOE) Table 3 ICC Standards.

According to an article titled “The John Street Roundhouse” in the journal Wood Design & Building, Winter 2009-10, available online (http://www.trha.ca/resources/100704.wood.design.building.pdf), environmental remediation was conducted on the roundhouse property in the 1990s. This article also indicated that the roundhouse was built in 1929 and remained in use until 1988.

A previous Phase 1 ESA was conducted on the subject by Coffey entitled Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Site for Electrical Transformer Station – Bremner Boulevard and Rees Street (255 Bremner Boulevard) Toronto, Ontario. The findings of the Phase 1 ESA were as follows:

a) The areas of potential environmental concern on the subject site (Phase One property) are surface and subsurface soil and groundwater over the entire property;

b) Current activities on the Phase One Property include the storage of railway artefacts within the subject site building and vehicle traffic through the subject site to other tenants of the Roundhouse;

c) Past uses of the Phase One Property include a Machine Shop formerly associated with the John Street Roundhouse where repairs of rail car wheels and other associated small repairs were completed;

d) Historically, the Phase One Property was surrounded by CP railway lines as well as industrial properties. The remainder of the building adjoining the subject site area was a railway roundhouse used to repair engines and train cars and contained below ground pits in its 32 bays. Activities at the adjoining properties consisted of various coal storage sheds/piles, carpet cleaning, dye storage, a transformer station and paint shops;

e) One retail fuel tank was located within the Phase One Study Area;

f) Generating, using and/or storing hazardous wastes at the adjoining properties and within the Phase One Study Area;

g) It is likely that one or more contaminants have affected soil and/or groundwater on or under the subject site;

h) A Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment is required before a RSC may be submitted for the Phase One Property as the subject site has partially been used as a machine shop for on-site repairs, and thus for the purpose of submitting a RSC for filing under subsection 168.4 (1) of the Act in respect of a property, a phase two environmental site assessment is required under the clause 32(1)(b) of O.Reg 153/04 amended by O.Reg 511/09.





5

The logic and reasoning for the above-noted conclusions are as follows:

Fill material is known to be present due to the infilling activities that have occurred along the Lake Ontario shoreline and the borehole logs reviewed from Coffey’s geotechnical investigation. Coffey’s investigation included limited testing of the fill materials for metals and inorganic parameters for soil disposal purposes, and the results indicate that the concentrations of select the parameters tested exceed the 2004 and 2009 Ministry of Environment (MOE) Table 3 industrial/commercial/community (ICC) Standards;

Railway spur lines were located along the west property boundary and through the north and south portions of the subject site. Historically the rail bed for rail lines had often been constructed using material containing slag and cinders.

A long driveway occupies a large portion of the Phase One Property and de-icing and motor vehicle operation impacts were observed;

The Phase One Property has a transformer located below ground within the north portion of the site;

The Phase One Property was formerly used as a Machine Shop of the Roundhouse where repairs were done;

The adjoining properties to the north, west and east consisted of a number of industrial properties including gasoline service stations, automobile servicing facilities and dying, pressing and cleaning facilities;

The adjoining and neighbouring properties historically consist of various Railway operations as well as some industrial facilities;

A Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment is required before a Record of Site Condition may be submitted for the subject site.

4 SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

i. Overview of Site Investigation

The objective of the Phase 2 ESGI was to evaluate the environmental condition of the soil and groundwater at the subject site and address the issues identified in Coffey’s Phase 1 ESA. The tasks carried out are summarized below:

drilled four (4) boreholes (boreholes BH101 to BH104) on the grass covered areas of the subject site and one (1) borehole through the concrete slab inside the subject site building from a minimum depth of approximately 7.3 m (in borehole BH101, BH103 and BH104) to a maximum depth of 11 m (in borehole BH102) below grade.

obtained soil samples at frequent depth intervals from each of the boreholes;

conducted chemical analyses on representative soil and groundwater samples;

collected groundwater samples from monitoring wells BH101, BH102 and BH104, installed by Coffey for IBI;





6

compared the results of the chemical analyses of soil and groundwater to Table 3 industrial/commercial/community (ICC) property uses;

compared results obtained from Coffey’s geotechnical investigation and

prepared a report summarizing the results of the investigation.

ii. Media Investigated

The Media investigated as part of the Phase 2 Soil and Groundwater Investigation are the soil and groundwater. No sediment sampling was a part of this investigation as there are no water bodies on the subject site. The overview of the field investigation for each medium including the rationale for sample analysis is presented under Table 1.

iii. Phase 1 Conceptual Site Model

The Phase 1 Site Conceptual Site Model consists of the following drawings:

Drawing 2 Site Plan of the Phase One Study Area, including current features

Drawing 3 Site Plan of the Subject Site (Phase One Property)

Drawing 4 Site Plan of the Phase One Study Area, including reconnaissance and items identified in the EcoLog Eris search

The potential contaminating activities/potential environmental concerns in regards to the Phase One Study area are also depicted in the Conceptual Site model.

These drawings depict the following:

i. Existing building on the Phase One Property and existing buildings on the adjoining properties are shown.

ii. No areas of natural significance are or were located within the Phase One Study Area.

iii. No drinking water wells are or were located on the Phase One Property; however, three previously-installed observation wells are located within the Phase One Study Area.

iv. All roads within the Phase One Study Area are shown and labelled on the site plans

v. All adjoining property uses are shown on the site plans

vi. The site plans show the potentially contaminating activities on the Phase One Property and Phase One Study Area.

vii. Groundwater quality in areas of the site is of potential concern due to the potential for contaminant migration onto the Phase One Property from off-site potentially contaminating activities and spills.

Potentially contaminating activities that may affect the Phase One Property are summarized in Table 9, above, along with the direction and distance from the Phase One Property, the likelihood of impact and rationale for that assessment and a preliminary summary of the contaminants of potential concern.

As this area of the City of Toronto developed and the land was reclaimed, importing of fill, installation of services and construction of roads altered the natural subsurface conditions. The Phase One Study Area





7

has many underground services which have been installed, creating many potential transport pathways for groundwater.

The main sources of uncertainty in the conceptual model are the altering of natural soil elevations and soil quality by means of infilling and the potential altering of groundwater pathways by infilling of surface water bodies, construction of roads, and installation/re-installation of underground services in the area. As such, these issues would require further assessment through an intrusive investigation.

iv. Deviations from Sampling and Analysis Plan

The sampling and analysis plan described in Section 3.2 of the proposal was followed closely; however some deviations were made as per need basis. An additional groundwater sample was obtained from monitoring well BH102 where soils collected and analyzed for PHCs were found to exceed the 2009 MOE Table 3 Standards. An additional trip blank was utilized during this second round of groundwater sampling.

v. Impediments

- Refusal was encountered while drilling boreholes BH103 due to a concrete obstruction. The borehole was relocated approximately 0.6m north from the original borehole location and re-drilled.

- The majority of the subject site area is occupied by the driveway that leads through the entire site towards the Steam Whistle Brewery. Due to access issues for the other tenants (Steam Whistle Brewery) the driveway area could not be blocked and thereby borehole locations were restricted to areas that would not interfere with the driveway.

- Interior drilling was restricted to small portable drilling equipment due to the available entrances into the building and overhead clearance.

5 INVESTIGATION METHOD

i. General

ii. Drilling

The scope of work, involved drilling five (5) boreholes, and converting four (4) of the boreholes into monitoring wells for the purpose of groundwater sampling. Monitoring wells were installed in locations to represent site coverage.

All environmental boreholes were drilled by Strata Soil Sampling Inc. (equipment - Geoprobe 7822 DT and 420M Mast Unit), based out of Richmond Hill on May 6, 2011. Borehole locations were chosen based on the Phase 1 ESA conducted by Coffey in June, 2011 (refer to Section 3.ii), and to provide representative site coverage. The borehole locations are presented in Figure 1. Boreholes were advanced on the subject site under direct supervision of an experienced Coffey environmental field supervisor. Borehole logs are presented in Appendix A.

Soil samples were collected and handled in accordance with generally accepted sampling and handling procedures used by the environmental consulting industry. For guidance, these practices rely on the 1996 Ministry of the Environment (MOE) publication “Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at





8

Contaminated Sites in Ontario” and O.Reg 511/09 amending O.Reg 153/04.

In accordance with MOE sampling protocols, soil samples for potential chemical analysis of organic parameters were placed directly into laboratory supplied glass jars at the time of sampling and packed with minimal headspace to reduce the volatilization of organic compounds. The glass sample jars were kept in a cooler with ice packs during field storage and transportation to the laboratory.

The soil samples were examined in the field for lithology as well as for aesthetic evidence of impacts (i.e. debris, staining and odours). Headspace combustible vapour measurements (excluding methane) photoionization detector (PID) calibrated to isobutylene (Ion Science PhoCheck 1000). The PID is a portable gas-detector that measures the concentrations of volatile organic compound gases. The maximum headspace measurement had a headspace combustible vapour reading of 2.7 ppm (from samples from borehole BH105). In accordance with MOE sampling protocols, the samples were kept out of direct sunlight during field storage. The headspace monitoring was performed as a preliminary screening for hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds. The headspace readings are shown on the borehole logs in Appendix A.

iii. Soil: Sampling

As discussed in Section 5.ii above, all boreholes were drilled with a Geoprobe 7822 DT or 420 M Mast Unit using PVC tubes to collect samples.

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions at the investigated locations are presented in the respective borehole logs in Appendix A. The following is a general description of the findings.

Fill: Fill was encountered in each of the boreholes at the ground surface. The fill at this site generally

extended a maximum depth of 9.1 m or the termination of the borehole. The explored fill predominantly

consisted of silty clay, silt and sand with inclusions of gravel, wood pieces, rootlets, brick, ash, cinder and

trace organics.

Native Soils (assumed): Possible native soils were encountered in boreholes BH102, BH103 and BH104.

It is possible that the sandy deposits encountered on site are hydraulically placed fill which have a similar

appearance to native soil.

Soil samples were submitted for metals and inorganics, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), petroleum hydrocarbon (PHCs) in the F1 to F4 fractions, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Soil samples collected from borehole BH105 were also submitted for inorganic and VOCs and benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) under Schedule 4 waste class analysis of O.Reg 347/90 as amended.

iv. Field Screen Measurements

The following instrument was used to perform field screening during our investigation:

i. PhoCheck 1000 by Ion Science





9

ii. PhoCheck 1000 is a portable PID gas-detector operating by photoionisation and ion current measurement of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) gases such as hydrocarbon fuels, solvents and semiconductor gases. The detection rage is 0.1 to 4,000 ppm

iii. The precision of the measurements is 0.1

iv. The accuracy of the measurements is +/- 5% and +/- one digit

v. The PhoCheck 1000 is calibrated to 100 ppm isobutylene. During Coffey’s investigation calibration of the PhotoCheck 1000 to isobutylene was +/- 0.5 ppm

vi. The PhoCheck 1000 was calibrated daily prior to collecting field measurements and according to Coffey’s Standard Operating Procedures.

Field measurements of the soil have indicated concentrations below 3.0 ppm.

For detail descriptions of the rationale for sample selection refer to Table 1.

v. Ground Water Monitoring Well Installation

Monitoring wells BH101 to BH104 were installed by Strata Soil Sampling Inc. (Strata) using a Geoprobe 7822DT based out of Richmond Hill, Ontario. The monitoring wells were constructed in accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 (amended to O.Reg. 128/03). A 50 mm diameter Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe including a screen section with a factory machined slot width of 0.25 mm completed with a PVC riser pipe was used. All the pipe and screen sections were wrapped in plastic that was removed just prior to installation to minimize the potential for contamination. The bases of the monitoring wells were covered with a PVC cap to prevent the influx of sediment. Clean silica sand provided in bags from a supplier, was placed in the annular space between the pipe and the sides of the borehole to obtain relatively sediment free water. A 2m bentonite seal was added to the annular space above the sand pack to reduce the infiltration of surface water into the borehole annulus. The monitoring wells were completed with a protective flush mount well cover. New disposable gloves were worn by the drillers during each monitoring well installation. New clean sand and bentonite was used for each monitoring well.

No groundwater sampling was conducted during the monitoring well installation process.

The monitoring wells were developed and purged prior to sampling using a low density polyethylene tubing and a foot valve sampling device (Waterra®) to remove standing water, filter pack water and to allow for the influx of fresh formation water. The monitoring wells were purged three (3) well volumes or dry prior to sampling. Groundwater samples were collected on May 11 and May 20, 2011 and were transferred directly from the polyethylene tubing into laboratory supplied containers. The containers were kept in a cooler with ice packs during field storage and transportation to the lab.

vi. Ground Water: Field Measurement of Water Quality Parameters

Water quality parameters including pH, specific conductance and temperature were taken using a Hanna pH/conductivity probe pen. These parameters were measured after purging three well volumes from each monitoring well and prior to sampling.





10

vii. Ground Water Sampling

Prior to taking water measurements the interface probe is decontaminated with phosphate-free soap and rinsed with distilled water prior to taking water levels from each monitoring well. New disposable gloves were used for each monitoring well while taking water levels, purging and collecting groundwater samples. Groundwater was collected from each monitoring well and submitted for VOC, metals and inorganics, and PAHs. In addition a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well BH102 for PHCs in the F1 to F4 Fractions and PCBs. Groundwater samples were collected on May 11 and May 24, 2011.

A second round of groundwater levels was taken and recorded on May 20, 2011.

viii. Sediment Sampling

No sediment sampling was completed as part of this investigation.

ix. Analytical Testing

Chemical analyses were conducted by AGAT Laboratories Ltd. (AGAT) of Mississauga, Ontario. AGAT is a member of the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and meets the requirements of Section 47 of O.Reg. 153/04 certifying that the analytical laboratory be accredited in accordance with the International Standard ISO/IEC 17025 and with standards developed by the Standards Council of Canada. The Certificates of Analysis are included in Appendix B and discussed in the following sections.

x. Residue Management Procedures

Investigation derived waste from soil cuttings were placed into one (1) 170 L drum and stored on the subject site. Purged groundwater was placed also placed in one (1) 170 L plastic drum.

xi. Elevation Surveying

Elevations of the monitoring wells and boreholes were taken by Coffey field staff on May 11, 2011. The elevations of the boreholes advanced during this investigation were surveyed by Coffey and referenced to a local benchmark which was assigned an arbitrary elevation of 100.00m. The top of the top nut of a fire hydrant located approximately 20 m north of the northwest corner of the subject site building was selected as the local benchmark.

xii. Quality Assurance and Control Measures

Soil

All soil samples submitted for PCBs, PAHs, and PHCs in the F2 to F4 fractions were stored in glass jars with a Teflon lined lid provided by AGAT. To increase holding time from 48 hours to 14 days, soil samples submitted for VOCs and PHCs in the F1 fraction were collected with a TerraCore Sampler provided by AGAT and placed in vials containing methanol also provided by AGAT. New disposable gloves were used to handle each soil sample. For quality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) purposes duplicate sample were collected for parameters analysed. One field duplicate sample was collected for every ten (10) samples submitted for laboratory analysis. The containers were kept in a cooler with ice packs during field storage and transportation to the lab.





11

Groundwater

Groundwater samples were submitted for analysis of metals and inorganics, PAHs and VOCs from all of the monitoring wells. In addition, groundwater samples collected from monitoring well BH102 were also submitted for analysis of PCBs and PHCs. Bailers and Waterra tubes were wrapped in plastic prior to use. Individual Waterra tubing, footvalves and/or bailers were assigned to each monitoring well and used for only that monitoring well. In accordance with O.Reg 511/09 amending O.Reg 153/04 only metals were field filtered. One field duplicate sample was collected for every ten samples submitted for laboratory analysis. Where groundwater samples were analysed for VOCs a trip blank sample was also submitted for laboratory analysis. The containers were kept in a cooler with ice packs during field storage and transportation to the lab.

Groundwater samples were initially collected on May 11, 2011 and a second round of groundwater levels was recorded on May 20, 2011. Due to soil PHC impacts in borehole BH102 that exceeded the MOE Table 3 Standards, a groundwater sample for PHCs was collected from monitoring well BH102 on May 24, 2011.

For a full description of the samples submitted as a duplicate for QA/QC purposes refer to Table 1.

6 REVIEW AND EVALUATION

i. Geology

During the investigation the shallow aquifer (above the bedrock) was investigated. The confined aquifer within the bedrock was not a part of this investigation. From the geotechnical borehole logs, the maximum depth of fill material encountered was 11.8 m. The fill material was underlain by native soils followed by shale bedrock at depths between 10.2 m to 12.4 m.

ii. Ground water Elevations and Flow Directions

When using readings from May 11, May 20 and May 24, 2011 the groundwater flow direction appears to be in a east to west direction. Refer to Table 2 for Summary of Groundwater Elevations.

iii. Ground Water Hydraulic Gradients

When using readings from May 11, May 20 and May 24, 2011 the groundwater flow direction appears to be in an west direction. The horizontal hydraulic gradient is 0.014 and the vertical hydraulic gradient is 0.187. Refer to Table 2 for Summary of Groundwater Elevations.

iv. Fine-Medium Soil Texture

In the absence of a grain size analysis curve, the texture of the soils encountered on site is considered to be coarse textured for the purposes of this report.

v. Soil: Field Screening

Headspace readings are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix A.





12

vi. Soil Quality

Compared to MOE 2009 Standards acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, PHCs in the F2 and F3 fraction concentrations from sample BH102 S4A at a depth of approximately 3.7 to 4.3 m below grade exceeded MOE 2009 Table 3 ICC Standards. The remaining samples analysed in the current investigation for metal and inorganics, VOCs, PAHs, PCBs and PHCs in the F1 to F4 Fractions met MOE Table 3 ICC Standards. The previous geotechnical investigation had exceedances in BH1 SS-4 with lead, BH7 SS-3B with mercury and SS-6A with antimony, arsenic, copper, lead and mercury when compared to the 2009 standards.

For a complete list of soil analytical results refer to Tables 3 to 7.

It should be noted that during the Coffey’s investigation odours were observed only in the field from the following samples:

BH102 at a depth of approximately 3.7 to 6.7 m below grade

BH103at a depth of approximately 5.1 to 6.1 m below grade

BH105 at a depth of approximately 4.0 to 7.3 m below grade

vii. Ground Water Quality

Groundwater sampling was conducted on monitoring wells BH101, BH102 and BH104. All groundwater samples were collected and analysed for metals and inorganics, VOCs and PAHs. Groundwater samples collected from BH102 were also analysed for PHCs in the F1 to F4 fractions and PCBs. A field duplicate denoted as BH102Q for BH102 was collected and analysed for metals and inorganics, VOCs, PAHs and PCBs for QA/QC purposes.

Samples collected for metals were field filtered and procedures followed 2009 MOE Standards.

All groundwater samples collected and analysed for the above parameters met the 2009 MOE Table 3 Standards. For a complete list of groundwater analytical results refer to Tables 8 to 12.

viii. Sediment Quality

No sediment sampling was conducted as part of this investigation.

ix. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Results

Many field duplicates and trip blanks were used during this investigation for QA/QC purposes. The trip blanks prepared by AGAT Laboratories and brought to the subject site during groundwater sampling dates for the first round and second round indicated no contamination attributed to shipping and field handling procedures. Duplicate samples collected for soil and groundwater analysis indicates acceptable concentrations correlations and samples were in close agreement with the original analyses.





13

x. Phase Two Conceptual Site Model

Due to the infilling of Lake Ontario, fill materials of an unknown quality were placed throughout the subject site prior to development. The subject site and a large portion of the adjoining properties have historically been occupied by railway activities. Further information is provided in Section 3.ii.

A description of stratigraphy and hydrogeological activities is provided in Sections 5.iii and 6.i – ii.

Drawings 4 and 5 indicate the contaminants present at concentrations greater than the applicable site condition standards. Furthermore as the site is underlain by fill materials with varying quality there is high degree of variability of soil quality within the site area. A further evaluation is required to determine the lateral and vertical distribution of contaminants.

7 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Concentrations of PAHs and PHCs from borehole BH102 exceed the 2009 MOE Standards. In addition the concentrations of metals and inorganics parameters from boreholes BH7 and BH1 exceed the 2009 MOE Standards. Due to the variability and quantity of fill materials on the subject site as well as the distance between each borehole location, the horizontal and vertical extent of these impacts could not be determined at this time. Further investigations will be required to determine the extent of these impacts.

In the future if the subject site changes to a more sensitive property use, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) will be required for development approvals and remediation will be required at the subject site to meet MOE Standards. An RSC may also be required to obtain development approvals. Coffey understands that neither of the above options are likely for the subject site. Therefore, mandatory site remediation is unlikely to be immediately required for the subject site

It is Coffey’s understanding that a large portion of the property will be excavated and the soils will require offsite disposal. Should excess soils be generated at the subject site that require off-site disposal additional environmental soil testing will be needed to verify that any soils to be sent off-site are not a hazardous solid waste. In addition, any soils that are odorous or aesthetically impacted will need to be disposed of as a waste, if excavated.

All monitoring wells should be decommissioned in accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 when no longer required.

Consideration should be given to conducting an Additional Environmental Soil Investigation (AESI) to further delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of environmental soil impacts present on-site.





14

8 LIMITATIONS

The findings of the boreholes are believed to be representative of the area of investigation and are based on facts and information determined by Coffey Geotechnics during the execution of this project. Soil and/or groundwater conditions at locations other than the boreholes may vary from conditions encountered at the drilling locations. The findings in this report are limited to the environmental conditions on the site at the time of the investigation. This report was prepared for the account of IBI Group. The City of Toronto and Toronto Hydro may also rely upon this report. The Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) may also rely on this report for the purpose of acknowledging a Record of Site Condition, including accepting any of its supporting reports. The material in it reflects Coffey’s judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a Third Party makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such Third Parties. Coffey accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any Third Party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

9 QUALIFICATIONS OF CONSULTANT

Coffey Geotechnics Inc. is a multi-national engineering and science consulting firm with a complement of over 900 engineers, hydrogeologists, geologists, environmentalists, technologists and support staff. The firm was established 50 years ago and specializes in all aspects of geotechnical, environmental, construction materials, pavements, noise and vibrations, acoustics and mining. The company has its Canadian head office in Toronto with branch offices in Cambridge, Markham, Burlington, Barrie, and Calgary. The facility at Toronto has a fully equipped laboratory to test soil, concrete and concrete products and asphalt. The laboratory is certified with the CTA and CSA. Since its conception, the firm has carried out over 8000 projects across Canada.

Tijana Medencevic (B.A) is an Environmental Officer with Coffey Geotechnics Inc. Tijana has a Bachelors of Arts Degree in Environmental Studies from Wilfrid Laurier University, a post-graduate diploma in Environmental Engineering Applications from Conestoga College and has conducted many Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments for Coffey.

Cynthia Robins, P.Eng., C.Chem. is a Principal Engineer with Coffey Geotechnics. Cynthia is a licensed Professional Engineer in the Provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick, with over 35 years of experience in environmental and chemical engineering. Cynthia is also a Chartered Chemist in the Province of Ontario. She has managed hundreds of environmental investigations, including Phase 1 ESAs, Phase 2 ESAs, remediations, site-specific risk assessments and environmental management plans. Cynthia is a Qualified Person as defined in Regulation 153/04 of the Environmental Protection Act.





16

10 REFERENCES

Websites

“511 Rees St & Bremner Blvd, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.” Map. Google Maps. 2010. <http://maps.google.ca/maps>.

“The John Street Roundhouse” Wood Design & Building, Winter 2009-10 <http://www.trha.ca/resources/100704.wood.design.building.pdf>

www.trca.on.ca

http://ormatlas.lrc.gov.on.ca/

http://www.escarpment.org/landplanning/planmaps /index.php

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/Toronto-Potential-ESA-Report-2008.pdf

Maps

Sharpe, D.R. Quaternary Geology of Toronto and Surrounding Area; Ontario Geology Survey Preliminary Map P.2204, Geological Series. Scale 1:100,000. 1980.

Ontario Geological Survey. Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet; Map 2544. Scale 1:1,000,000. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. 1991.

http://www.trca.on.ca/�

http://ormatlas.lrc.gov.on.ca/�

http://www.escarpment.org/landplanning/planmaps%20/index.php�

Tables

255 Bremner Boulevard (Bremner Park)

BREMNER BOULEVARD

REES STR

EET

Part of 255 Bremner

(Vacant, Former M

achine Shop)

Transformer

ConcretePath

Paved Asphalt Driveway

CB

Grassed Area

BH7

BH5

BH4

BH1

BH3BH2

Pathway

Well & Pump House

BH6

299 Bremner Boulevard(Underground Parking Garage)

28 Rees Street(John Street

Pumping Station)

FH

BH101

BH102

BH103 BH104

0 2010

METRES(approximate)

30 40

BH105

1

F:\GEOT\Enviro\0 Projects\ENVSETOB 10000AA to ENVSETOB ---\10387AC - Phase 2 ESGI proposed Hydro substation Bremner and Rees\CAD\10387AC_Ph2 ESGI_D1_June_2011.dwg

LEGEND CB

Tabloid

AS SHOWN

drawn

approved

date

scale

originalsize

drawing no:project no:

project:

title:

client:

JUNE 2011

CLR

PROPERTY BEFORE ACTIONS TAKEN TOREDUCE THE CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANTS

Notes:1. Drawing should be read in conjunction with associated report.2. Subject Site Property Boundary adapted from survey prepared by P. SUPPA, OLS, Registered Plan 64R-13541, deposited September 14, 1992; neighbouring boundaries adapted from City of Toronto map.3. Bar scale applies only to property boundary of Subject Site. All other features are not necessarily to scale.4. For detailed description of areas of potential concern refer to text of report.

TM/MSS/MV

ENVSETOB10387AC

Notes:1. Site Sketch was developed from Coffey's observations during the site inspection a, drawings provided by IBI and Toronto map downloaded from www.toronto.ca .2. Bar scale applies only to buildings and property boundary of Subject Site. All other features are not necessarily to scale.

IBI GROUP

BH1

BH101

BH105

FHGeotechnical Borehole by Coffey, 2011Borehole by Coffey, May 2011Monitoring Well by Coffey, May 2011

Catch BasinBenchmark - Fire HydrantFill to a maximum Depth of 11.8 mAdjoining and Neighbouring Property BoundarySubject Site Property BoundaryContaminant Present at Concentration Greater

Than Applicable Site Condition Standard

PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL & GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONPROPOSED SITE FOR ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER STATION -

BREMNER BOULEVARD AND REES STREET (255 BREMNER BOULEVARD)TORONTO, ONTARIO


BREMNER BOULEVARD

REES STR

EET

Part of 255 Bremner

(Vacant, Former M

achine Shop)

Transformer

ConcretePath


CB

Grassed Area

BH7

BH5

BH4

BH1

BH3BH2

Pathway

Well & Pump House

BH6



Pumping Station)

FH

BH101

BH102

BH103 BH104

0 2010

METRES(approximate)

30 40

BH105

94.081

93.539

94.594

93.5 m93.5 m 93.75 m

94.0 m

94.25 m

94.5 m

93.75 m

94.0 m

94.25 m

2


LEGEND

CB

Tabloid

AS SHOWN

drawn

approved

date

scale

originalsize


project:

title:

client:

JUNE 2011

CLR

INTERPRETED CONTOURS OF GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS


TM/MSS/MV

ENVSETOB10387AC




IBI GROUPBH1

BH101

BH105 FH

Geotechnical Borehole by Coffey, 2011Borehole by Coffey, May 2011Monitoring Well by Coffey, May 2011

Catch BasinBenchmark - Fire HydrantFill to a maximum Depth of 11.8 mAdjoining and Neighbouring Property BoundarySubject Site Property Boundary

Contaminant Present at Concentration GreaterThan Applicable Site Condition Standard

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction (.25 m Interval)

Groundwater Contour Elevation94.0 m


BREMNER BOULEVARD

REES STR

EET

Part of 255 Bremner

(Vacant, Former M

achine Shop)

Transformer

ConcretePath


CB

Grassed Area

BH7

BH5

BH4

BH1

BH3BH2

Pathway

Well & Pump House

BH6



Pumping Station)

FH

BH101

BH102

BH103 BH104

0 2010

METRES(approximate)

30 40

BH105

BH7(SS-3B)Mercury

Table 3 Standard(g/g)

Concentration(g/g)

BH7(SS-6A)AntimonyArsenicCopperLeadMercury


40182301203.9

Concentration(g/g)

43.529

3878724.59

5.113.9

BH1(SS-4)Lead


Concentration(g/g)

183120

BH102(S4-A)AcenaphthyleneAnthraceneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneChryseneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneFluoroantheneIdeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrenePhenanthrerePHCs F2 FractionPHCs F3 Fraction

0.150.670.960.300.960.969.60.109.60.7612230

1700

0.17121211115.69.91.2244.626

3906500


Concentration(g/g)

3


LEGEND

CB

Tabloid

AS SHOWN

drawn

approved

date

scale

originalsize


project:

title:

client:

JUNE 2011

CLR

CONTAMINANTS IN SOIL BEFORE ACTIONS TAKEN TOREDUCE THE CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANTS


TM/MSS/MV

ENVSETOB10387AC


IBI GROUPBH1

BH101

BH105 FH

Geotechnical Borehole by Coffey, 2011Borehole by Coffey, May 2011Monitoring Well by Coffey, May 2011

Catch BasinBenchmark - Fire HydrantFill to a maximum Depth of 11.8 mAdjoining and Neighbouring Property BoundarySubject Site Property Boundary

Contaminant Present at Concentration GreaterThan Applicable Site Condition Standard

Concentration Exceeds 2009 Table 3 MOE ICCStandards in Soil (Analytical Result in g/g for Soil)

387



Documents

PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL AND …...... document “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for ... issued in December 2009 by the MOE and are effective as of July 1, 2011 ... Analysis