PHASE II ESA Britannia Plaza

Distribution Colonnade Management – 2 copies AMEC Environment & Infrastructure – 1 copy

PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT BRITANNIA PLAZA

1463-1495 RICHMOND ROAD, 359-373 POULIN AVENUE AND 2648-2664 PRISCILLA STREET

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

Submitted to:

Colonnade Management 16 Concourse Gate, Suite 200

Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7S8

Submitted by:

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure a division of AMEC Americas Limited

300 – 210 Colonnade Road South Nepean, Ontario

K2E 7L5

May 2012

TZ12006

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure a division of AMEC Americas Limited 300 - 210 Colonnade Road South Ottawa (Nepean), Ontario CANADA K2E 7L5 Tel (613) 727-0658 Fax (613 727 9465 www.amec.com

May 24, 2012 TZ12006 Colonnade Management 16 Concourse Gate, Suite 200 Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7S8 Attention: Lois Longley Property Manager Dear Ms. Longley: RE: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

Britannia Plaza – 1463-1495 Richmond Road, 359-373 Poulin Avenue and 2648-2664 Priscilla Street Ottawa, Ontario

Please find enclosed two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of our final report entitled “Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Britannia Plaza, 1463-1495 Richmond Road, 359-373 Poulin Avenue and 2648-2664 Priscilla Street, Ottawa, Ontario.” We thank you for entrusting us with this assignment and look forward to future opportunities with your firm. In the meantime, should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, AMEC Environment & Infrastructure a division of AMEC Americas Limited Brock Ibbott, B.A., Env. Mgt. Project Manager Enclosures (2) P:\Projects in Progress\1 Environmental\2012\TZ12006 - Britannia Plaza Phase I & II ESAs\PHASE II ESA\PHASE II ESA Britannia Plaza.doc

Colonnade Management Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Britannia Plaza – 1463-1495 Richmond Road, 359-373 Poulin Avenue and 2648-2664 Priscilla Street May 2012

TZ12006 Page (i)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a division of AMEC Americas Limited (“AMEC”), was retained by Colonnade Management “Colonnade” to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property located 1463-1495 Richmond Road, 359-373 Poulin Avenue and 2648-2664 Priscilla Street, Ottawa, Ontario (the “Site”). The Site is currently occupied by a commercial property known as Britannia Plaza with a variety of tenants including, but not limited to, Farm Boy, Rainbow Foods and the Royal Britannia Pub. The Phase II ESA was undertaken to assess areas of potential environmental concern identified in a Phase I ESA previously carried out at the Site by AMEC, as documented in its report entitled ‘Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Britannia Plaza, 1463-1495 Richmond Road, 359-373 Poulin Avenue and 2648-2664 Priscilla Street, Ottawa, Ontario, dated May 10, 2012. The results of the Phase I ESA indicated the potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination at the Site associated with the following activities:

Britannia Cleaners and Coin Wash Limited operated an on-Site dry cleaner from approximately 1984 until September 2011; and,

Based on the historical review, a former retail fuel outlet was previously located on the south side of Richmond Road approximately 50 metres south of the Site at a location inferred to be hydraulically upgradient with respect to the Site.

This Phase II ESA was carried out to assess the environmental condition of the soil and groundwater at the Site with respect to the areas of potential environmental concern identified in the Phase I ESA noted above. The Phase II ESA was conducted in general accordance with the requirements of CSA Z769-00 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and Ontario Regulation 153/04 - Records of Site Condition, Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (O. Reg. 153/04). The scope of work completed during the investigation was carried out in accordance with AMEC’s proposal dated March 13, 2012 and written and verbal instructions from Colonnade. The Phase II ESA included advancing one monitoring well into the water table at the front of the former on-Site dry cleaner and associated soil and groundwater sampling. In addition, two existing monitoring wells located at the southwest corner of the Site were sampled to assess potential impacts related to the retail fuel outlet formerly located south of the Site. Samples were analysed for suspected contaminants of concern consisting of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the area of the former on-Site dry cleaner and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) in the area of the former off-Site retail fuel outlet. Based on the results of the soil and groundwater sampling and laboratory analytical programs, AMEC offers the following conclusions and recommendations regarding the environmental Site conditions:

Colonnade Management Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

Britannia Plaza – 1463-1495 Richmond Road, 359-373 Poulin Avenue and 2648-2664 Priscilla Street

May 2012

Page (ii) TZ12006

The subsurface conditions encountered at MW12-1 consist of sand, silt and gravel extending to a depth of 1.57 mbgs. Subsurface conditions encountered during a previous Phase II ESA at the southern portion of the Site consist of asphalt overlying sandy gravel fill and sand fill successively underlain by sand, clay and silt layers to the termination depth of each borehole. The surficial deposits are underlain by limestone;

The results of the groundwater monitoring indicate that the primary near surface water table resides within the overburden unit beneath the southern part of the Site but in the shallow bedrock on the northern portion of the Site. The depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 2 to 3 m below surface grade;

No visible LPH was observed in any of the soil samples collected at the Site. No significant odours or staining were detected in any of the soil samples collected from the borehole advanced at the Site;

The COV and TOV measurements recorded in the soil samples were generally low and ranged from non-detect to 12.9 ppm. These concentrations are not considered to be indicative of significant impact by VOC; however, these data are semi-quantitative at best and are generally only used for relative sample comparison purposes when selecting samples for laboratory analysis;

No measurable accumulations of floating liquid petroleum hydrocarbon (LPH) were detected in any of the monitoring wells installed at the Site. No evidence of hydrocarbon sheen or iridescence was noted during the monitoring well development and/or groundwater purging and sampling activities. In addition, no dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) were noted to be present at the bottom of MW12-1;

In accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04 - Records of Site Condition, Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (O. Reg. 153/04), the appropriate generic Site Condition Standards (SCS) are the Table 3 SCS for non-potable ground water, industrial/commercial/community property use and coarse textured soils, as provided in the supporting document “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act,” dated April 15, 2011 (EPA Table 3 SCS);

Results of the soil VOC analyses indicated concentrations for all VOC parameters tested are below laboratory method detection limits, or where detected, below the applicable Table 3 SCS; and,

Results of the groundwater sample chemical analyses indicated the concentration of PHC F3 at MW-1 and the concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) at MW12-1 exceed the applicable Table 3 SCS.

Based on the results of the soil and groundwater sampling and laboratory analytical programs, the Site is not in compliance with the applicable generic Table 3 SCS. As such, it is recommended that additional investigations be carried out at the Site.


TZ12006 Page (iii)

Monitoring well MW-1 should be re-sampled to confirm the PHC F3 groundwater exceedances. Consideration should be given to the use of a low flow sampling technique to avoid possible false positive biasing due to sediment entrainment in the sample commonly associated with conventional inertial lift sampling devices. Additional investigations are required in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner lease area and the downgradient area to delineate the extent of the PCE and TCE groundwater impacts. At least one monitoring well should be installed hydraulically upgradient (i.e., south) of the former dry cleaner to investigate if there are potential off-site sources that are contributing to the PCE and TCE groundwater impacts. More robust utility mapping should be carried out beneath former dry cleaner lease space to permit borehole drilling and soil sampling to facilitate an assessment of soil quality with respect to identified groundwater impacts.


TZ12006 Page (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Description ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective and Scope of Work ............................................................................. 2

2.0 WORK PROGRAM AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 4 2.1 Field Preparation ................................................................................................. 4

2.1.1 Subsurface Utility Locates ......................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program .............................................. 4

2.2 Subsurface Investigations and Soil Sampling .................................................. 5 2.2.1 Borehole Drilling and Soil Sampling .......................................................... 5 2.2.2 Sample Logging and Handling ................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Sample Screening ..................................................................................... 6 2.2.4 Soil Sample Analyses ................................................................................ 6

2.3 Monitoring Well Installation................................................................................ 7 2.4 Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling ............................................................ 7 2.5 Laboratory Analyses ........................................................................................... 8

3.0 RESULTS OF THE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................. 9 3.1 Site Geology ........................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Site Hydrogeology ............................................................................................... 9 3.3 Field Measurements and Observations ............................................................. 9

3.3.1 Staining and Odours .................................................................................. 9 3.3.2 Soil Sample Headspace Concentrations ................................................... 9 3.3.3 Gross Observations ................................................................................. 10

4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 11

5.0 LABORATORY ANALYSES .......................................................................................... 13 5.1 Soil Sample Analyses ....................................................................................... 13 5.2 Groundwater Sample Analyses ........................................................................ 13

5.2.1 Petroleum Related Parameters ............................................................... 13 5.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds ................................................................... 14

5.3 Quality Assurance Program ............................................................................. 14 5.3.1 Accreditation ............................................................................................ 14 5.3.2 Criteria ..................................................................................................... 14 5.3.3 Data Validation ........................................................................................ 14 5.3.4 Field QA/QC Samples ............................................................................. 15

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 16

7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 18

8.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................... 19



May 2012

Page (ii) TZ12006

LIST OF TABLES (in order after text) Table 1 Summary of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Soil Analyses Table 2 Summary of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Groundwater Analyses Table 3 Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds Groundwater Analyses LIST OF FIGURES (in order after tables) Figure 1 Key Plan Figure 2 Borehole and Monitoring Well Location Plan LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log Appendix B Laboratory Reports of Analysis Appendix C Limitations


TZ12006 Page (1)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a division of AMEC Americas Limited (“AMEC”), was retained Colonnade Management “Colonnade” to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property commonly known as Britannia Plaza and located at 1463-1495 Richmond Road, 349-373 Poulin Avenue and 2648-2664 Priscilla Street, Ottawa, Ontario (the “Site”). The Site is currently occupied by various retail tenants including, but not limited to, Farm Boy, Rainbow Natural Foods, Quickie Convenience Store and Britannia Pub currently occupy the Site for use as a multi-tenant commercial property. A key plan showing the location of the Site is provided in Figure 1. The Phase II ESA was undertaken to assess areas of potential environmental concern identified in a Phase I ESA previously carried out at the Site by AMEC, as documented in the report entitled “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Britannia Plaza, 1463-1495 Richmond Road, 359-373 Poulin Avenue and 2648-2664 Priscilla Street, Ottawa, Ontario”, dated May 10, 2012. The following Phase II ESA was carried out to assess the environmental condition of the soil and groundwater at the Site with respect to the areas of potential environmental concern identified in the Phase I ESA noted above. The Phase II ESA was conducted in general accordance with the requirements of CSA Z769-00 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and Ontario Regulation 153/04 - Records of Site Condition, Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (O. Reg. 153/04). The scope of work completed during the investigation was carried out in accordance with AMEC’s proposal dated March 13, 2012 and written and verbal instruction from Colonnade Management.

1.1 Site Description

The Site is located on the north side of Richmond Road, approximately 150 metres northeast of the intersection of Richmond Road and Carling Avenue, in Ottawa, Ontario. The Site is an irregular-shaped property measuring approximately 1.09 hectares in area with a frontage of approximately 180 metres along Richmond Road and a depth of approximately 105 metres. The Site is developed with a two storey building which occupies approximately 40% of the Site with a footprint of approximately 4,684 square metres. The remainder of the Site is improved with asphalt parking areas located at the front and rear of Site. Access to the Site is via Richmond Road, Poulin Avenue and Priscilla Street. A generalized plan of the Site is shown in Figure 2. Various retail tenants including, but not limited to, Farm Boy, Rainbow Natural Foods, Quickie Convenience Store and Britannia Pub currently occupy the Site for use as multi-tenant commercial property. Major operations at the Site include retail of groceries and specialty goods and services including a hair salon, a convenience store, and a barber. According to the Site representative, various commercial retailers have occupied the Site since its development



May 2012

Page (2) TZ12006

in the 1960s. Two of the tenant spaces are currently vacant, one of which was previously operated as a full service dry cleaner. The Site lies in a typical urban setting in an area of primarily commercial land use; including residential apartments. The Site and surrounding properties are municipally serviced including water, storm and sanitary sewers, hydro, telephone and cable. There were two groundwater monitoring wells at the Site that had been installed in March 2004.

1.2 Objective and Scope of Work

A Phase I ESA was previously completed at the Site by AMEC in March 2012. The significant findings of the AMEC Phase I ESA report include:

Britannia Cleaners and Coin Wash Limited operated and on-Site dry cleaner from approximately 1984 until September 2011; and;

Based on the historical review, a former retail fuel outlet was previously located on the south side of Richmond Road approximately 50 metres south of the Site at a location inferred to be hydraulically upgradient with respect to the Site

Based on the findings the Phase I ESA Report, a Phase II ESA was completed at the Site to assess the potential presence of impacts to soil and groundwater quality at the Site. The scope of work for the Phase II ESA included of the following tasks:

Arranging for the location of underground and overhead utilities including natural gas pipelines, storm and sanitary sewers, and telephone and electrical conduits to be marked by the local utility companies and/or their representative agents and for a private locator to clear the planned test pit and borehole locations in advance of excavating and drilling operations;

A subsurface soil sampling program including the drilling of one (1) borehole to facilitate the collection of fill and/or soil samples; logging and field screening for evidence of negative impact using visual, olfactory and sample headspace screening methods.;

Installing a groundwater monitoring well in the borehole and sampling the new and two (2) existing wells to assess the quality of groundwater at Site and the direction of shallow, horizontal groundwater flow;

Submitting select soil and groundwater samples for laboratory analyses suspect parameters of concern including: volatile organic compounds (VOC); benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX); and, petroleum hydrocarbon compounds (PHC F1-F4);

Comparing the analytical results reported for the soil and groundwater samples to the appropriate generic Site Conditions Standards established in Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (MOE, April 15, 2011); and,


TZ12006 Page (3)

Preparing a report documenting the findings of the Phase II ESA, including an outline of the methodologies used, stratigraphic and instrumentation logs, analytical results for all samples, an interpretation of the findings and any possible requirements for further investigation, remedial activities or reporting obligations.



May 2012

Page (4) TZ12006

2.0 WORK PROGRAM AND METHODOLOGY

Details of the investigation activities are provided in the following sections.

2.1 Field Preparation

2.1.1 Subsurface Utility Locates

The locations of all buried and overhead services were obtained prior to the initiation of any of the subsurface investigations. MultiVIEW Locates Inc. (“Multi-view”), a specialist utility locating firm, was retained to contact and coordinate locates by the respective utility companies and agencies, mark the locations of any private on-Site underground utilities that were not marked by the public utility locating services, and to clear the monitoring well location prior to their advancement. In addition to clearing an area for drilling on the building exterior, MultiVIEW also attempted to perform subfloor utility locates with the former dry cleaner lease space to support drilling of boreholes beneath the floor slab. The utilities beneath the floor slab could not be effectively located thus precluding the ability to safely drill within the former dry clear lease area.

2.1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program

A strict Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program was implemented and maintained throughout the project to ensure the Site data to be representative of the actual Site conditions. The QA/QC program provides a method of documented checks to assess the precision and accuracy of collected data. The QA/QC program includes a set of standard procedures or protocols to be followed throughout the investigations. To this end, AMEC field and QA/QC protocols have been developed to meet or exceed those defined in the MOE documents entitled Guideline for Phase II Environmental Site Assessments in Ontario (Draft, March 2006) and Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (1996) and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Guidance Manual Sampling, Analysis, and Data Management for Contaminated Sites (1993). The field QA/QC program included the following components: 1) The use of personal protective equipment including hard hats, safety glasses, safety

work boots, and chemically resistant latex/nitrile gloves for sample handling;

2) Thorough documentation of all field activities and sample handling practices including field notes, chain of custody forms, memos to file, etc;

3) Thorough decontamination of all sampling equipment employed in all investigation phases;

4) The incorporation of blind duplicate samples into the sampling and analytical programs to asses the validity of the data received from the analytical laboratory; and,


TZ12006 Page (5)

5) The use of laboratory analytical protocols and method detection limits that have been established in accordance with regulatory requirements for the province of Ontario.

2.2 Subsurface Investigations and Soil Sampling

The subsurface conditions and representative samples of soil and groundwater media were obtained through the completion of an investigation and sampling program that included the drilling of one borehole, instrumented as a groundwater monitoring well, and the monitoring and sampling of two existing monitoring wells previously installed at the Site. The subsurface geological conditions were established from visual observations and soil samples collected during the borehole drilling program. Soil and groundwater quality data was obtained from visual and olfactory observations, field screening methods and laboratory analytical data.

2.2.1 Borehole Drilling and Soil Sampling

A single borehole (MW12-1) was advanced on the north side of the Site building, in front of the former dry cleaner, to intersect a potential subsurface soil and groundwater plume and to establish the site-specific geological and hydrogeological characteristics beneath the Site. The borehole/monitoring well location is shown in Figure 2. The borehole investigation was completed on April 25, 2012 by Strata Drilling Group of Carleton Place, Ontario. The borehole was advanced to bedrock refusal at a depth of 1.4 m then continued into bedrock to a final depth of approximately 5.2 m below surface grade using a Geomachine™ GM100GT direct push soil sampling rig equipped with the dual tube sampling system and rotary air hammer. Soil samples were collected continuously throughout the overburden to facilitate the characterization of subsurface soil conditions and an assessment of soil quality. Details of the borehole drilling and soil sampling are provided in the stratigraphic and instrumentation log in Appendix A. All drilling activities were completed under the supervision of AMEC field staff.

2.2.2 Sample Logging and Handling

The soil samples retrieved during the borehole investigation were examined, classified, and logged according to soil type, moisture content, colour, consistency, and presence of visual and/or olfactory indicators of negative impact. Soil samples were split into duplicate fractions upon recovery at the surface. The primary sample fractions were placed in 200 ml sample jars with Teflon-lined lids and subsequently stored in coolers at 4°C for future potential laboratory analysis. The duplicate sample fractions were placed in “Ziploc” sample bags and stored at ambient temperature for subsequent field vapour screening purposes. All soil samples were collected in accordance with strict environmental sampling protocols to minimize loss of volatile organics and to ensure reliable and representative results. Disposable nitrile gloves were used and replaced between the handling of successive samples. All soil



May 2012

Page (6) TZ12006

sampling equipment (stainless steel trowels, spatulas, etc.) was thoroughly decontaminated between soil sample locations to prevent potential cross-contamination. Decontamination activities included:

Physical removal of any adhered debris;

Wash/scrub in “Alconox” soap solution;

Distilled water rinse;

Methanol rinse; and

Air dry.

2.2.3 Sample Screening

Soil samples were screened in the field for gross evidence of negative environmental impact including staining and odours. Soil sample headspace screening was also performed to facilitate sample selections for laboratory analysis and to provide an assessment of the vertical contaminant distributions at each borehole location. The duplicate soil sample fractions were screened for total organic vapour (TOV) and combustible organic vapour (COV) concentrations using the sample headspace method. TOV concentrations were measured using a MiniRAE 3000 photoionization detector (PID) fitted with a 10.2 eV lamp and calibrated to a known isobutylene standard. COV concentrations were measured using a RKI Eagle four gas monitor calibrated to a known hexane standard and operated in methane elimination mode.

2.2.4 Soil Sample Analyses

Soil samples deemed to be representative of the Site conditions were collected and placed in laboratory-supplied glass jars or vials equipped with Teflon seals (samples reserved for analysis for volatile compounds). The samples were selected on the basis of visual/olfactory evidence of contamination, field screening results (details follow), from the vicinity of the apparent water table or features such as inferred confining layers or, in the absence of any “targeting rationale”, on the basis of at least one sample per borehole. All samples were stored in coolers, on ice, immediately after collection and during transport to the laboratory. Continuous Chain of Custody documentation was maintained. One (1) discrete (i.e., exclusive of field duplicates) soil sample was submitted to the laboratory for analysis of VOC to assess potential impacts resulting from the former on-Site dry cleaning activities. One Blind Duplicate sample was collected for inorganic parameters in accordance with the “Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act” (the “Analytical Protocol”), MOE, amended July 1, 2011. Sample Dup 1 is a blind duplicate of sample MW12-1 SS3.


TZ12006 Page (7)

2.3 Monitoring Well Installation

Borehole MW12-1 was instrumented with groundwater monitoring well upon completion to permit the collection of groundwater samples and, in conjunction with the existing monitoring wells previously installed at the Site, to determine the direction of shallow, horizontal groundwater flow. The monitoring well was constructed using 38 mm diameter, schedule 40, flush-joint threaded PVC monitoring well supplies. The monitoring well was completed with a 1.5 m length of #10 mil slotted intake screen. The tops of the intake screen was then extended to the ground surface using solid riser pipe. A silica sand filter pack was placed between the intake screen and the wall of the borehole. The filter pack was extended approximately 0.3 m above the top of the well screen to allow for settlement of the sand pack and to accommodate expansion of the overlying well seals. A bentonite seal was placed above the sand pack and extended to approximately 0.3 metres below grade. The monitoring well was finished at the surface with flushmount steel casing set in a concrete surface seal. The locations of the new and existing monitoring wells are shown on Figure 2. Details of the monitoring well construction are included in the stratigraphic and instrumentation log in Appendix A. The groundwater monitoring well installed at the Site was instrumented with a dedicated Waterra inertial lift pump and a sufficient length of low density polyethylene (LDPE) tubing to facilitate well development, purging, and sampling requirements. One week following installation, the monitoring well was developed by extracting approximately five to ten well volumes to remove any residual sediment and/or drill cuttings introduced during the borehole drilling and well installation process, stabilize and grade the filter pack, retrieve lost drilling fluids, improve connectivity between the well and the formation, and restore groundwater that may have been disturbed or altered during the drilling process.

2.4 Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling

Groundwater monitoring including measuring the depth to the static water level, assessing the presence of liquid petroleum hydrocarbon (LPH) was conducted on May 8, 2012 and included all on-Site monitoring wells. Measurements of groundwater depth were made using a Heron Instruments electronic interface probe. Typically the measured groundwater depths would be reduced to elevations based on survey data and used to determine the direction of groundwater flow. Given the configuration of the Site (i.e., the significant grade change from the south portion to the north portion) and the fact that groundwater at MW-1 and MW-2 resides in the overburden unit and groundwater at MW12-1 resides in the bedrock unit such survey data could not be used to determine the direction of groundwater flow and was therefore not completed. Groundwater sampling was also performed on May 8, 2012. Prior to sampling all monitoring wells were purged a minimum of three well volumes to remove standing water which was not expected to be representative of conditions in the formation due to exposure to the relatively oxidizing environment and to ensure the samples to be representative of true formation waters. The purging and sampling activities were carried out using the dedicated Waterra inertial lift sampling devices.



May 2012

Page (8) TZ12006

Groundwater samples were collected directly into laboratory supplied sample containers pre-inoculated with any necessary preservatives. Dedicated (one pair per sample), disposable nitrile gloves were used throughout the proceedings. Vials that contained samples to be analyzed for volatile compounds were inverted after filling and inspected to ensure that no head space was present in any vial. Samples were placed in a cooler and stored on ice until delivered to the analytical laboratory. The groundwater samples collected from MW-1 and MW-2 were analysed for BTEXS and PHC F1-F4 while the sample from MW12-1 was analysed for VOC. One Blind Duplicate sample was collected for QA/QC purposes and analysed for BTEXS. Sample DUP-1 is a blind duplicate of sample MW-2.

2.5 Laboratory Analyses

Representative soil and groundwater samples collected during the investigation were submitted for laboratory analysis of suspect parameters of concern. All laboratory chemical analyses were conducted by Caduceon Environmental Laboratories (“Caduceon”) of Ottawa, Ontario. Caduceon is accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025:1999 – “General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories” for the tested parameters set out in the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards.


TZ12006 Page (9)

3.0 RESULTS OF THE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The subsurface conditions encountered at the Site are described in the stratigraphic and instrumentation log provided in Appendix A. In general, the subsurface conditions at MW12-1 consisted of surficial fill (asphalt) overlying mixed fill of silty sand and clayey sandy silt and bedrock (limestone). The predominant subsurface soil conditions across the Site are considered coarse textured for the purposes of assessment.

3.2 Site Hydrogeology

The depths to groundwater relative to the top of each monitoring well recorded across the Site are summarized in the table below. The results of the groundwater monitoring indicate that the primary near surface water table resides within the overburden unit on the southern part of the Site but in the shallow bedrock on the northern portion of the Site. The depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 2 to 3 m below surface grade. As previously noted, no elevation survey was completed to relate the monitoring well elevations to one another.

Monitor ID Date

Monitored

Depth to Water Table

(mbtoc)

Observations - Phase Separated Liquid Thickness (mm)

MW-1 May 7, 2012 2.282 none detected

MW-2 May 7, 2012 2.338 none detected

MW12-1 May 7, 2012 2.983 none detected

Mbtoc = metres below top of casing

3.3 Field Measurements and Observations

3.3.1 Staining and Odours

No odours or staining suggestive of petroleum hydrocarbon impacts were detected in any of the soil samples collected at the Site.

3.3.2 Soil Sample Headspace Concentrations

COV and TOV concentration headspace measurements recorded in the soil samples collected at the Site were generally low and ranged from non-detect to 12.9 ppm. These concentrations are not considered to be indicative of significant impact by VOC; however, these results are semi-quantitative at best and are generally only used for relative sample comparison purposes when selecting samples for laboratory analysis. The COV and TOV concentrations headspace measurements are summarized in the stratigraphic and instrumentation log in Appendix A.



May 2012

Page (10) TZ12006

3.3.3 Gross Observations

Liquid petroleum hydrocarbons (LPH) visual observations were noted during the collection of soil and groundwater samples at the Site. No visible LPH was observed in either the soil or groundwater samples obtained from the Site. No measurable accumulations of floating LPH were detected in any of the monitoring wells installed at the Site. No evidence of hydrocarbon sheen or iridescence was noted during the monitoring well development and/or groundwater purging and sampling activities In addition, no dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) were noted to be present at the bottom of MW12-1


TZ12006 Page (11)

4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The legislative and regulatory requirements for contaminated sites in Ontario are established by Ontario Regulation 153/04 - Records of Site Condition, Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, as amended (“O. Reg. 153/04, as amended”). O. Reg. 153/04, as amended, provides two approaches for cleaning up contaminated sites including: 1) restoration to generic Site Condition Standards (SCS) comprised of background standards and effects-based standards; and 2) preparation of a risk assessment. The generic and background SCS are set out in the document entitled “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act” dated 15 April 2011 (the “EPA Standards”). The generic effects-based SCS have been developed using a risk-based approach and are provided in Tables 2 though 9 of the EPA Standards. The application of the appropriate generic effects-based SCS is dependent upon several site-specific conditions including: 1) the existing/proposed property use; 2) the existing/potential ground water use; 3) depth of clean-up; 4) soil texture; 5) depth to bedrock; and 6) proximity to a water body. In some cases, it may be difficult for a property to meet the site condition standards set out in Tables 1 to 5 of the EPA Standards. In these situations, the property owner could then consider developing property specific standards through preparation and acceptance of a risk assessment. The risk assessment approach allows for the incorporation of site-specific conditions in the development of soil, groundwater, and, where appropriate, sediment standards. The use of risk assessment includes: an assessment of potential risks; the setting of site specific, risk-based site condition standards; and, the identification of any risk management measures that may be required. The application of the generic effects-based SCS requires that the Site be classified to determine which remediation standards are appropriate. The classification of the Site was based on the following Site characteristics:

There are no known areas of natural significance or conditions in the vicinity of the Site, which would cause the Site to be classified as potentially sensitive according to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Information Centre web site;

Based on the results of the current and previous borehole drilling, the depth of the soil across the majority of the Site is greater than 2.0 metres;

No permanent water bodies were located on or within 30 metres of the Site;

Ground water is not used as a source of potable water within 250 metres of the Phase Two Property and municipal services are in place; and,

Given that a soil grain size distribution plot was not completed for the soil samples, and the soil was observed to consist of sand with varying levels of gravel, AMEC compared the results of laboratory analyses with the more stringent O. Reg. 153/04 standards for soils classified as coarse textured.



May 2012

Page (12) TZ12006

Based on the above Site characteristics, the Site would not be classified as being Environmentally Sensitive per O. Reg. 153/04. The appropriate property use classification would be commercial/industrial/community as per O. Reg. 153/04. Therefore, the appropriate Site Condition Standards for the Site are the Table 3 SCS for non-potable groundwater, commercial/industrial/community property use and coarse textured soils (“EPA Table 3 SCS”).


TZ12006 Page (13)

5.0 LABORATORY ANALYSES

The results of the soil and groundwater sample analyses carried out as part of this investigation are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. A discussion of the results of the laboratory analyses in the context of the applicable generic SCS is provided in the following sections. Copies of the laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix B.

5.1 Soil Sample Analyses

A total of two soil samples, including one QA/QC duplicate sample, collected during the borehole sampling program were submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs. The results of the VOC soil analyses and their respective EPA Table 3 SCS are summarized in Table 1 and described as follows:

Tetrachloroethylene was detected in sample MW12-1-SS3 at an average concentration of 0.05 μg/g, which is below the EPA Table 3 SCS of 4.5 μg/g; and,

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) was detected in sample MW12-1-SS3 at an average concentration of 1 μg/g which is below the EPA Table 3 SCS of 70 μg/g. The MEK was confirmed by the analytical laboratory to be the result of an impurity contained in the methanol preserved VOC sample vials.

5.2 Groundwater Sample Analyses

The results of the groundwater sample analyses, and their respective EPA Table 3 SCS, are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

5.2.1 Petroleum Related Parameters

Two groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of petroleum related parameters including BTEXS and PHC F1-F4. The results of the BTEXS and PHC analyses are summarized in Table 2 and are discussed below. The sample from MW-1 reported detectable concentrations of benzene, PHC F2 and PHC F3 with all other parameters reporting below analytical method detection limits (MDL). Benzene and PHC F2 were reported at concentrations below applicable EPA Table 3 SCS; however, the reported PHC F3 concentration was 700 μg/L thereby exceeding the EPA Table 3 SCS of 500 μg/L. All BTEXS and PHC parameters were reported at concentrations below MDL at MW-2. Based on the reported MDL all BTEXS and PHC F1-F4 concentrations at MW-2 are all below their respective EPA Table 3 SCS.



May 2012

Page (14) TZ12006

5.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds

The groundwater sample collected from MW12-1 was submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs. The results of the VOC analyses and their respective EPA Table 3 SCS are summarized in Table 3 and are discussed below. Significant concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) were reported in the groundwater sample collected at MW12-1. PCE was reported at a concentration of 30,100 μg/L while TCE was reported at a concentration of 97 μg/L thereby exceeding the EPA Table 3 SCS of 1.6 μg/L for both parameters. All other VOC parameters were reported at concentrations below MDL; however it is noted that the MDL were elevated to levels exceeding the EPA Table 3 SCS for several VOC parameters due to sample dilutions requirements resulting from the high PCE and TCE concentrations.

5.3 Quality Assurance Program

5.3.1 Accreditation

The analytical laboratory employed to perform the laboratory analyses is accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025:1999 – “General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories” for the tested parameters set out in the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards.

5.3.2 Criteria

The “Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act” (the “Analytical Protocol”), March 2004, establishes performance criteria for use when assessing the reliability of data reported by analytical laboratories. These include maximum hold times for the storage of samples/sample extracts between collection and analysis, specified/approved analytical methods, required field and/or laboratory quality assurance samples such as blanks and field and laboratory duplicates, specified recovery ranges for spiked samples and surrogates (compounds added to samples in known concentrations for calibration purposes), Reporting Detection Limits (RLs) and specified precision required when analyzing laboratory duplicate and spike/controlled reference material samples.

5.3.3 Data Validation

All samples/sample extracts were analyzed within their applicable hold times using approved analytical methods. The RLs were exceeded for several VOC parameters in the sample collected from MW12-1 due to sample dilution requirements. The RLs for all parameters in all other samples were met. Surrogate recoveries were within acceptable ranges in all cases for all samples. Laboratory control samples, matrix spike samples and laboratory duplicate samples reported recoveries or relative percent differences within acceptable ranges. In summary, the


TZ12006 Page (15)

analytical results reported for samples collected during this investigation are considered to have met the performance criteria of the Analytical Protocol.

5.3.4 Field QA/QC Samples

The results of the field groundwater duplicate sample analyses indicate that the sampling results are generally reproducible and unbiased by sampling activities and thus may be considered to be representative of the Site conditions. All parameters analysed reported concentrations less than five times the corresponding method detection limit (MDL). Given that RPDs are only calculated for parameters reporting concentrations at least five times the MDL, RPDs could not be calculated.



May 2012

Page (16) TZ12006

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the soil and groundwater sampling and laboratory analytical programs, AMEC offers the following conclusions and recommendations regarding the environmental Site conditions:

The subsurface conditions encountered at MW12-1 consist of sand, silt and gravel extending to a depth of 1.57 mbgs. Subsurface conditions encountered during a previous Phase II ESA at the southern portion of the Site consist of asphalt overlying sandy gravel fill and sand fill successively underlain by sand, clay and silt layers to the termination depth of each borehole. The surficial deposits are underlain by limestone;

The results of the groundwater monitoring indicate that the primary near surface water table resides within the overburden unit beneath the southern part of the Site but in the shallow bedrock on the northern portion of the Site. The depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 2 to 3 m below surface grade;

No visible LPH was observed in any of the soil samples collected at the Site. No significant odours or staining were detected in any of the soil samples collected from the borehole advanced at the Site;

The COV and TOV measurements recorded in the soil samples were generally low and ranged from non-detect to 12.9 ppm. These concentrations are not considered to be indicative of significant impact by VOC; however, these data are semi-quantitative at best and are generally only used for relative sample comparison purposes when selecting samples for laboratory analysis;

No measurable accumulations of floating liquid petroleum hydrocarbon (LPH) were detected in any of the monitoring wells installed at the Site. No evidence of hydrocarbon sheen or iridescence was noted during the monitoring well development and/or groundwater purging and sampling activities. In addition, no dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) were noted to be present at the bottom of MW12-1;

In accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04 - Records of Site Condition, Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (O. Reg. 153/04), the appropriate generic Site Condition Standards (SCS) are the Table 3 SCS for non-potable ground water, industrial/commercial/community property use and coarse textured soils, as provided in the supporting document “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act,” dated April 15, 2011 (EPA Table 3 SCS);

Results of the soil VOC analyses indicated concentrations for all VOC parameters tested are below laboratory method detection limits, or where detected, below the applicable Table 3 SCS; and,

Results of the groundwater sample chemical analyses indicated the concentration of PHC F3 at MW-1 and the concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) at MW12-1 exceed the applicable Table 3 SCS.


TZ12006 Page (17)

Based on the results of the soil and groundwater sampling and laboratory analytical programs, the Site is not in compliance with the applicable generic Table 3 SCS. As such, it is recommended that additional investigations be carried out at the Site. Monitoring well MW-1 should be re-sampled to confirm the PHC F3 groundwater exceedances. Consideration should be given to the use of a low flow sampling technique to avoid possible false positive biasing due to sediment entrainment in the sample commonly associated with conventional inertial lift sampling devices. Additional investigations are required in the vicinity of the former dry cleaner lease area and the downgradient area to delineate the extent of the PCE and TCE groundwater impacts. At least one monitoring well should be installed hydraulically upgradient (i.e., south) of the former dry cleaner to confirm that the identified impacts have in fact originated from the former on-site dry cleaner. More robust utility mapping should be carried out beneath former dry cleaner lease space to permit borehole drilling and soil sampling to facilitate an assessment of soil quality with respect to identified groundwater impacts.



May 2012

Page (18) TZ12006

7.0 LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Colonnade Management and is intended to provide a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on the property located at 1463-1495 Richmond Road, 359-373 Poulin Avenue and 2648-2664 Priscilla Street, Ottawa, Ontario at the time of the Site visit. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of the third party. Should additional parties require reliance on this report, written authorization from AMEC will be required. With respect to third parties, AMEC has no liability or responsibility for losses of any kind whatsoever, including direct or consequential financial effects on transactions or property values, or requirements for follow-up actions and costs. The investigation undertaken by AMEC with respect to this report and any conclusions or recommendations made in this report reflect AMEC’s judgment based on the Site conditions observed at the time of the Site inspection on the dates set out in this report and on information available at the time of preparation of this report. This report has been prepared for specific application to this Site and it is based, in part, upon visual observation of the Site, subsurface investigation at discrete locations and depths, and specific analysis of specific chemical parameters and materials during a specific time interval, all as described in this report. Unless otherwise stated, the findings cannot be extended to previous or future Site conditions, portions of the Site, which were unavailable for direct investigation, subsurface locations, which were not investigated directly, or chemical parameters, materials or analysis which were not addressed. AMEC has used its professional judgment in analysing this information and formulating these conclusions. AMEC makes no other representations whatsoever, including those concerning the legal significance of its findings, or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including, but not limited to, ownership of any property, or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. With respect to regulatory compliance issues, regulatory statutes are subject to interpretation and change. Such interpretations and regulatory changes should be reviewed with legal counsel. This Report is also subject to the further Standard Limitations contained in Appendix C.


TZ12006 Page (19)

8.0 CLOSURE

We trust that the information presented in this report meets your current requirements. Should you have any questions, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, AMEC Environment & Infrastructure a division of AMEC Americas Limited Lorretta D. Pinder, M.Sc., P.Geo. Kevin D. Hicks, M.Sc., P.Geo. Hydrogeologist Senior Associate Hydrogeologist

Table 1. Summary of Volatile Organic Compound Soil Analyses

MDL RL

Sample Location MW12-1 Dup-1 MW12-1- MW12-1-Sample No. SS3 SS3 SS3

Sample Depth (m) Residential/ Industrial/Laboratory ID B12-09436-1 B12-09436-2 Average RPD Parkland/ Commercial/

Sample Date (mm/dd/yy) 25-Apr-12 25-Apr-12 (%) Institutional Community0.3 0.5 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 - (28) 16 (28) 16

0.02 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (0.17) 0.21 (0.4) 0.320.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - 13 180.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (0.26) 0.27 (1.7) 0.610.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - 0.05 0.050.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (0.12) 0.05 (1.5) 0.210.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (0.18) 0.05 (0.18) 0.470.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - 9.4 130.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - 0.05 0.050.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (4.3) 3.4 (8.5) 6.80.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (6) 4.8 (12) 9.60.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (0.097) 0.083 (0.84) 0.20.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (25) 16 (25) 160.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (11) 3.5 (21) 170.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - 0.05 0.050.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - 0.05 (0.48) 0.0640.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (30) 3.4 (37) 550.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (0.75) 0.084 (9.3) 1.30.04 0.05 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 - (0.96) 0.1 (2) 1.60.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (0.085) 0.05 (0.68) 0.160.02 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - - -0.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - - -0.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (15) 2 (19) 9.50.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (34) 2.8 (88) 460.1 0.50 0.9 1.1 1 - (44) 16 (88) 70

0.02 0.50 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (4.3) 1.7 (210) 310.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (1.4) 0.75 (3.2) 110.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (2.7) 2.4 (2.7) 2.40.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (0.75) 0.6 (28) 9.60.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (2.2) 0.7 (43) 340.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (0.05) 0.058 (0.11) 0.0870.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - 0.05 (0.094) 0.050.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05 - (2.3) 0.28 (21) 4.50.03 0.2 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (6) 2.3 (78) 680.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (1.4) 0.36 (16) 3.20.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (3.4) 0.38 (12) 6.10.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - 0.05 (0.11) 0.050.03 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - (0.52) 0.061 (0.61) 0.910.02 0.05 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (5.8) 4 (5.8) 40.02 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 - (0.022) 0.02 (0.25) 0.032

Xylenes, m,p- 0.04 - < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 - - - Xylenes, o- 0.03 - < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 - - -

0.05 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 (25) 3.1 (30) 26

Notes: All Units in Micrograms per Gram (µg/g).MDL = Laboratory Analytical Method Detection Limit.( ) Standard in Brackets Applies to Medium and Fine Textured Soils.DUP = Quality Assurance/Quality Control Duplicate Sample.RPD = Relative Percent Difference (Between Primary and Duplicate Samples).RL = MOE 2011 Analytical Protocol Reporting Limit.< = Less Than Laboratory Analytical Method Detection Limit.

183 Parameter Concentration Exceeds EPA Standard for Residential/Parkland/Institutional Property Use.2630 Parameter Concentration Exceeds EPA Standard for Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use.

2011 EPA StandardsFull Depth Site

Non-PotableGroundwater (Table 3)

Condition StandardsAnalytical Results - µg/g

(MW12-1 SS3)

Parameters

Dichloroethane, 1,2- (1,2-DCA) Dichloroethylene, 1,1- (1,1-DCE) Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2- (c-1,2-DCE) Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2- (t-1,2-DCE)

Dichlorodifluoromethane

Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane

Acetone

Carbon Tetrachloride

Hexane

Dichloroethane, 1,1- (1,1-DCA)

Monochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene)

Chloroform Dibromochloromethane Dibromoethane, 1,2- Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- (o-DCB) Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- (m-DCB) Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (p-DCB)

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK)

Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-

Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)

Dichloropropene, cis-1,3- Dichloropropene, trans-1,3- Ethylbenzene

Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE)

Dichloropropane, 1,2-

Naphthalene Styrene

Xylenes (total)

Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- (1,1,2-TCA) Trichloroethylene (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane

2011 EPA Standards = Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, April 15, 2011.

Vinyl Chloride (VC)

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Toluene Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- (1,1,1-TCA)

TZ12006 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure Page 1 of 1

Table 2. Summary of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Groundwater AnalysesMDL RL

Sample Location MW-1 MW-2 MW-2 MW-2 MW-2Sample No. MW-1 MW-2 DUP-1 Potable Non-Potable

Laboratory ID B12-10578-1 B12-10578-2 B12-10578-4 Average RPD Groundwater GroundwaterSample Date (mm/dd/yy) 08-May-12 08-May-12 08-May-12 (%) (Table 2) (Table 3)

0.5 0.5 1.4 < 0.5 < 0.5 - - 5 (430) 440.5 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - - 24 180000.5 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - - 2.4 23001 - < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 - - - -

0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - - - -1.5 0.5 < 1.5 < 1.5 < 0.5 - - 300 42000.5 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - - 5.4 (9100) 1300

50 25 < 50 < 50 - - - 750c 750d

50 100 90 < 50 - - - 150c 150d

500 500 700 < 500 - - - 500c 500d

500 500 < 500 < 500 - - - 500c 500d

- GRO NDP - - - - -

Notes: All Units in Micrograms per Litre (µg/L).MDL = Laboratory Analytical Method Detection Limit.RL = MOE 2011 Analytical Protocol Reporting Limit.( ) Standard in Brackets Applies to Medium and Fine Textured Soils.DUP = Quality Assurance/Quality Control Duplicate Sample.RPD = Relative Percent Difference (Between Primary and Duplicate Samples).< = Less Than Laboratory Analytical Method Detection Limit.

2630 Parameter Concentration Exceeds EPA Standard for Non-Potable Groundwater Use (Table 3).* F1 Fraction Does Not Include BTEX; However, the Proponent has the Choice as to Whether or not to Subtract BTEX from the Analytical Result.

GRO = Gasoline Range Organics.NDP = No Distinct Pattern.PHC = Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

Parameters Analytical Results - µg/L

Toluene

Total Xylenes Styrene

Resemblance

PHC F1 (C6 - C10)

PHC F2 (>C10 - C16)

PHC F3 (>C16 - C34)

PHC F4 (>C34)


2011 EPA StandardsFull Depth Generic

Site Condition Standards

c = For a Site to Meet This Standard There Must be no Evidence of Free Product, Including but not Limited to, Visible Petroleum Hydrocarbon Film or Sheen Present on Groundwater, Surface Water or in any Groundwater or Surface Water Samples. Groundwater Must be Free of Objectionable Hydrocarbon Odour and Taste.

d = For a Site to Meet This Standard There Must be no Evidence of Free Product, Including but not Limited to, Visible Petroleum Hydrocarbon Film or Sheen Present on Groundwater, Surface Water or in any Groundwater or Surface Water Samples.

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes, o-

Benzene

Xylenes, m,p-

TZ12006 Phase II AMEC Environment Infrastructure Page 1 of 1

Table 3. Summary of Volatile Organic Compound Groundwater AnalysesMDL RL

Sample Location MW12-1Sample No. MW12-1 Potable Non-Potable

Laboratory ID B12-10578-3 Groundwater GroundwaterSample Date (mm/dd/yy) 08-May-12 (Table 2) (Table 3)

- 30 - 2700 13000050 0.5 < 50 5 (430) 4410 2 < 10 16 8500010 5 < 10 25 (770) 38030 0.5 < 30 0.89 (56) 5.620 0.2 < 20 (5) 0.79 (8.4) 0.7930 1 < 30 (22) 2.4 (22) 2.410 2 < 10 25 8200010 0.2 < 10 0.2 (0.83) 0.2510 0.5 < 10 3 (9600) 460010 0.5 < 10 59 960020 0.5 < 20 1 (67) 8- 2 - 590 4400

10 0.5 < 10 5 (3100) 32010 0.5 < 10 (5) 1.6 (12) 1.610 0.5 < 10 (14) 1.6 (17) 1.610 0.5 < 10 (17) 1.6 (17) 1.610 0.5 < 10 (17) 1.6 (17) 1.610 5 < 10 50 (5500) 61030 0.5 < 30 5 (140) 1620 0.5 < 20 0.5 (45) 5.210 0.5 < 10 - -10 0.5 < 10 - -- 20 - 50 (7300000)1900000

50 0.5 < 50 2.4 2300100 5 < 100 (520) 51 (520) 51

- 0.01 - (0.6) 0.44 (4.5) 0.441000 20 < 1000 1800 (1500000) 470000

- 20 - 640 (580000) 140000- 2 - 15 (1400) 190

20 0.5 < 20 30 630- 2 - 11 (6400) 1400

50 0.5 < 50 5.4 (9100) 130010 0.5 < 10 1.1 (28) 3.440 0.5 < 40 1 (15) 3.220 0.5 30100 (17) 1.6 (17) 1.650 0.5 < 50 24 1800020 0.5 < 20 70 (850) 18010 0.5 < 10 200 (6700) 64010 0.5 < 10 (5) 4.7 (30) 4.710 0.5 97 (5) 1.6 (17) 1.6- 5 - 150 2500

20 0.5 < 20 (1.7) 0.5 (1.7) 0.5 Xylenes, m,p- 100 - < 100 - - Xylenes, o- 50 - < 50 - -

150 0.5 < 150 300 4200 Notes: All Units in Micrograms per Litre (µg/L).

MDL = Laboratory Analytical Method Detection Limit.RL = MOE 2011 Analytical Protocol Reporting Limit.( ) Standard in Brackets Applies to Medium and Fine Textured Soils.< = Less Than Laboratory Analytical Method Detection Limit.

2630 Parameter Concentration Exceeds EPA Standard for Non-Potable Groundwater Use (Table 3).

Analytical Results - µg/L2011 EPA StandardsFull Depth Generic

Hexachlorobutadiene

Dioxane, 1,4-

Bromoform

Dibromoethane, 1,2- (Ethylene Dibromide)

Acetone

Chloroform

Benzene

Site Condition Standards


Dichlorodifluoromethane

Dichloropropene, 1,3-

Hexane

Dibromochloromethane

Dichloropropene, cis-1,3-

Dichloropropane, 1,2-

Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-

Ethylbenzene

Parameters

Bromomethane Carbon Tetrachloride

Bromodichloromethane

Dichloroethylene, 1,1- (1,1-DCE) Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2- (c-1,2-DCE)

Xylenes (total)

Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- (1,1,1-TCA) Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- (1,1,2-TCA) Trichloroethylene (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane


Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)

Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2- (t-1,2-DCE) Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Toluene

Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- (o-DCB)

Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (p-DCB)


Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- (m-DCB)

Laboratory Analytical Method Detection Limit Exceeds EPA Standard (Table 3) for Non-Potable Groundwater Use.

Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK)

Monochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene) Methyl Tert Butyl Ether (MTBE)

Vinyl Chloride

Naphthalene Styrene Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-

TZ12006 Phase II AMEC Environment & Infrastructure Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX A

STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOGS

Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log:

Drilled By:Drill Date: Drill Method:Hole Size:

Project No: Project Name:Client:Location:

Logged By: Entered By:

Well Casing Size / Slot Size:Casing Elevation:

Vapour Unit:

Datum:Checked by:Sheet: 1 of 1

Elevation:Easting:Northing:

300-210 Colonnade RoadOttawa, OntarioK2E 7L5

SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE DATA

Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Sym

bol Description

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

Typ

e

Num

ber

Sam

ple

N o

r R

QD

Rec

over

y (%

)

Mon

itorin

g W

ell

Det

ails

Remarks

MW12-1

Strata Drilling Group April 25, 2012 Geomachine Direct Push/Air Hammer114.3 mm

TZ12006 Phase II Britannia Plaza Phase IIColonnade Management2650 Priscilla Street

JFT LDP

Ground SurfaceASPHALT AND FILL

SANDFine to coarse graind sand, some gravel, moist, no distinct odour or staining

SILTY SANDFine grained, dry/damp, no distinct odour or staining

CLAYEY SANDY SILT Very fine/fine grained, grey, trace gravel, no distinct odour or staining

BEDROCK

END OF BOREHOLE

0.000.00

-0.460.46

-1.401.40

-5.185.18

SS

SS

SS

SS

0

1

2

3

42

42

42

20 60 100 140 180(ppm)

Total Organic Vapour

250 750 1250(ppm)

Combustible Vapour

SS-3 Submitted to lab for VOCs

38.1/0.01 slotN/A

RKI Eagle Gastech/MiniRae 3000 PID

N/AKDH

1

N/AN/AN/A

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY REPORTS OF ANALYSIS

Colonnade Management

27-Apr-12DATE REPORTED:

Caduceon Environmental Laboratories

613-526-1244

2378 Holly Lane

Ottawa Ontario K1V 7P1

613-526-0123Tel:

Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final Report

REPORT No. B12-09436

AMEC

300 - 210 Colonnade Road South,

Nepean Ontario K2E 7L5 Canada

Report To:

Attention: Kevin Hicks

25-Apr-12DATE RECEIVED:

TZ12006P.O. NUMBER:

WATERWORKS NO.SoilSAMPLE MATRIX:

C.O.C.: G28994

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Parameter Units M.D.L.Reference

Method

Date/Site

Analyzed

MW12-1-SS3 Dup-1Client I.D.

B12-09436-1 B12-09436-2Sample I.D.

25-Apr-12 25-Apr-12Date Collected

Acetone < 0.3 < 0.3µg/g 0.3 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Benzene < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Bromoform < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Bromodichloromethane < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Bromomethane < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Carbon Tetrachloride < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Monochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene)

< 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Chloroform < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dibromochloromethane < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dibromoethane,1,2- (Ethylene Dibromide)

< 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichlorobenzene,1,2- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O



Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloroethane,1,1- < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloroethane,1,2- < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloroethene, cis-1,2- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloroethene, 1,1- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloroethene, trans-1,2- < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloropropane,1,2- < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloropropene, trans-1,3- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloropropene, cis-1,3- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloropropene 1,3- cis+trans

< 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Ethylbenzene < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)

< 0.04 < 0.04µg/g 0.04 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Page 1 of 2.

Greg Clarkin , BSc., C. Chem

Lab Manager - Ottawa District

The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories.

M.D.L. = Method Detection LimitLab Manager - Ottawa District


Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill

Colonnade Management

27-Apr-12DATE REPORTED:


613-526-1244

2378 Holly Lane

Ottawa Ontario K1V 7P1

613-526-0123Tel:

Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final Report

REPORT No. B12-09436

AMEC

300 - 210 Colonnade Road South,

Nepean Ontario K2E 7L5 Canada

Report To:

Attention: Kevin Hicks

25-Apr-12DATE RECEIVED:

TZ12006P.O. NUMBER:

WATERWORKS NO.SoilSAMPLE MATRIX:

C.O.C.: G28994



Method

Date/Site

Analyzed

MW12-1-SS3 Dup-1Client I.D.

B12-09436-1 B12-09436-2Sample I.D.

25-Apr-12 25-Apr-12Date Collected

Hexane < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.9 1.1µg/g 0.1 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Methyl-t-butyl Ether < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Naphthalene < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Styrene < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Tetrachloroethane,1,1,1,2- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Tetrachloroethane,1,1,2,2- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Tetrachloroethylene 0.04 0.06µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Toluene < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Trichlorobenzene,1,2,4- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Trichloroethane,1,1,1- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Trichloroethane,1,1,2- < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Trichloroethylene < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Vinyl Chloride < 0.02 < 0.02µg/g 0.02 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Xylene, m,p- < 0.04 < 0.04µg/g 0.04 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Xylene, o- < 0.03 < 0.03µg/g 0.03 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Xylene, m,p,o- < 0.05 < 0.05µg/g 0.05 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Dichloroethane-d4,1,2-(SS) 102 103% 10 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Toluene-d8 (SS) 101 102% 10 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Bromofluorobenzene,4(SS) 101 102% 10 EPA 8260 26-Apr-12/O

Page 2 of 2.


Lab Manager - Ottawa District

The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories.

M.D.L. = Method Detection LimitLab Manager - Ottawa District



Quality Assurance Report

Report No: B12-09436

Report To: Caduceon Environmental Laboratories AMEC 2378 Holly Lane 300 - 210 Colonnade Ottawa, Ontario K1V 7P1 Road South

Nepean, Ontario K2E 7L5 Tel: (613) 526-0123 Attention: Kevin Hicks Fax: (613) 526-1244

Date Submitted: 2012/04/25 Job/Project No.: Colonnade Management

Samples Submitted By: Jason Taylor COC No.: G28994 Samples Received By: Sabina Islam P.O. Number: TZ12006 Date Reported: 2012/04/27 Waterworks No.: -

Sample Matrix: Soil Quote No.: -

Temperature Upon Receipt (°C): 22°C Invoice To: Kevin Hicks

Site Analyst Date Date Time Date Laboratory Method

Analyses Qty. Analyzed Initials Extracted Analyzed Analyzed Approved Method Reference

VOC's 2 Ottawa KV 2012/04/26 2012/04/26 16:33 2012/04/27 C-VOC-01 (o) EPA 8260

NA = Not Applicable

GENERAL COMMENTS NOTE: Samples received in methanol preserved VOC vials from Paracel Labs.

Greg Clarkin, BSc., C. Chem Lab Manager - Ottawa District

The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written

consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Page 1 of 3



QC Data

Parameters MDL LCS Sample (% Rec.) Duplicate Lab Matrix Spike (% Rec.)

Found Limits Result 1 Result 2 R.P.D. Limits (%) Blank Found Limits Acetone 0.3 NA 50-140

Benzene 0.02 99 50-140

Bromodichloromethane 0.02 67 50-140

Bromoform 0.02 53 50-140

Bromomethane 0.03 97 50-140

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.02 69 50-140

Chloroform 0.03 107 50-140

Dibromochloromethane 0.02 56 50-140

Dibromoethane,1,2- (Ethylene Dibromide) 0.02 83 50-140

Dichlorobenzene,1,2- 0.02 116 50-140



Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.02 53 50-140

Dichloroethane,1,1- 0.03 94 50-140

Dichloroethane,1,2- 0.03 95 50-140

Dichloroethene, 1,1- 0.02 83 50-140

Dichloroethene, cis-1,2- 0.02 86 50-140

Dichloroethene, trans-1,2- 0.03 83 50-140

Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride) 0.04 116 50-140

Dichloropropane,1,2- 0.03 104 50-140

Dichloropropene, cis-1,3- 0.02 81 50-140

Dichloropropene, trans-1,3- 0.02 77 50-140

Ethylbenzene 0.03 104 50-140

Hexane 0.03 99 50-140

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.1 NA 50-140

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.02 112 50-140

Methyl-t-butyl Ether 0.02 94 50-140

Monochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene) 0.03 105 50-140

Naphthalene 0.02 89 50-140

Styrene 0.03 97 50-140

Tetrachloroethane,1,1,1,2- 0.02 73 50-140

Tetrachloroethane,1,1,2,2- 0.02 106 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 92 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 92 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 65 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 55 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 65 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 66 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 83 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 58 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 84 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 99 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 95 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 104 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 54 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 91 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 90 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 80 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 82 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 77 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 100 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 98 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 82 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 79 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 99 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 90 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 117 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 107 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 89 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 101 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 103 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 99 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 76 50-140

< MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 102 50-140





QC Data

Parameters MDL LCS Sample (% Rec.) Duplicate Lab Matrix Spike (% Rec.)

Found Limits Result 1 Result 2 R.P.D. Limits (%) Blank Found Limits Tetrachloroethylene 0.03 90 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 84 50-140 Toluene 0.03 99 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 93 50-140 Trichlorobenzene,1,2,4- 0.02 81 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 98 50-140 Trichloroethane,1,1,1- 0.02 72 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 72 50-140 Trichloroethane,1,1,2- 0.02 90 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 89 50-140 Trichloroethylene 0.03 77 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 73 50-140 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.02 64 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 62 50-140 Vinyl Chloride 0.02 94 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 89 50-140 Xylene, m,p- 0.04 99 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 90 50-140 Xylene, o- 0.03 105 50-140 < MDL < MDL NC 50 < MDL 100 50-140

Soil results are expressed in µg/g unless otherwise stated

Water results are expressed in mg/L, except SVOC and VOC are in µg/L, unless otherwise stated NC = Not Calculated

LCS = Laboratory Control Standard - = Not Requested/Analyzed

R.P.D. = Relative Percent Difference of Duplicate Pairs at > 10x M.D.L. NA = Not Applicable

SS = Surrogate Standard

MDL = Method Detection Limit



Britannia Plaza Colonnade Manag

16-May-12DATE REPORTED:


613-526-1244

2378 Holly Lane Ottawa Ontario K1V 7P1

613-526-0123Tel:Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final ReportREPORT No. B12-10578

AMEC300 - 210 Colonnade Road South, Nepean Ontario K2E 7L5 Canada

Report To:

Attention: Brock Ibbott

08-May-12DATE RECEIVED:

TZ12006 Phase IIP.O. NUMBER:

WATERWORKS NO.GroundwaterSAMPLE MATRIX:

C.O.C.: G23520



MethodDate/Site Analyzed

MW-1 MW-2 MW12-1 Dup-1Client I.D.B12-10578-1 B12-10578-2 B12-10578-3 B12-10578-4Sample I.D.08-May-12 08-May-12 08-May-12 08-May-12Date Collected

Benzene 1.4 < 0.5 < 50 < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 8260 09-May-12/O 1

Bromodichloromethane < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OBromoform < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OBromomethane < 30µg/L 0.3 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OCarbon Tetrachloride < 20µg/L 0.2 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OChloroform < 30µg/L 0.3 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODibromochloromethane < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODibromoethane,1,2- (Ethylene Dibromide)

< 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/O

Dichlorobenzene,1,2- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichlorobenzene,1,3- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichlorobenzene,1,4- < 20µg/L 0.2 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichloroethane,1,1- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichloroethane,1,2- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichloroethene, 1,1- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichloroethene, cis-1,2- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichloroethene, trans-1,2- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)

< 30µg/L 0.3 EPA 8260 09-May-12/O

Dichloropropane,1,2- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichloropropene, cis-1,3- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichloropropene, trans-1,3- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OEthylbenzene < 0.5 < 0.5 < 50 < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OHexane < 100µg/L 1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OMethyl Ethyl Ketone < 1000µg/L 10 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OMonochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene)

< 20µg/L 0.2 EPA 8260 09-May-12/O

Styrene < 0.5 < 0.5 < 50 < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 8260 09-May-12/O

Page 1 of 2.

Gord Murphy Lab Supervisor

��

M.D.L. = Method Detection LimitLab Supervisor

Gord Murphy

Note: GRO = Gasoline Range Organics, NDP = No Distinct Pattern.


Britannia Plaza Colonnade Manag

16-May-12DATE REPORTED:


613-526-1244

2378 Holly Lane Ottawa Ontario K1V 7P1

613-526-0123Tel:Fax:

JOB/PROJECT NO.:

Final ReportREPORT No. B12-10578

AMEC300 - 210 Colonnade Road South, Nepean Ontario K2E 7L5 Canada

Report To:

Attention: Brock Ibbott

08-May-12DATE RECEIVED:

TZ12006 Phase IIP.O. NUMBER:

WATERWORKS NO.GroundwaterSAMPLE MATRIX:

C.O.C.: G23520



MethodDate/Site Analyzed

MW-1 MW-2 MW12-1 Dup-1Client I.D.B12-10578-1 B12-10578-2 B12-10578-3 B12-10578-4Sample I.D.08-May-12 08-May-12 08-May-12 08-May-12Date Collected

Tetrachloroethane,1,1,1,2- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OTetrachloroethane,1,1,2,2- < 40µg/L 0.4 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OTetrachloroethylene 30100µg/L 0.2 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OToluene < 0.5 < 0.5 < 50 < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OTrichlorobenzene,1,2,4- < 20µg/L 0.2 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OTrichloroethane,1,1,1- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OTrichloroethane,1,1,2- < 10µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OTrichloroethylene 97.0µg/L 0.1 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OVinyl Chloride < 20µg/L 0.2 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OXylene, m,p- < 1.0 < 1.0 < 100 < 1.0µg/L 1.0 EPA 8260 09-May-12/OXylene, o- < 0.5 < 0.5 < 50 < 0.5µg/L 0.5 EPA 8260 09-May-12/ODichloroethane-d4,1,2-(SS) 99.0 100 106 96.0% EPA 8260 09-May-12/OToluene-d8 (SS) 98.0 99.0 99.0 98.0% EPA 8260 09-May-12/OBromofluorobenzene,4(SS) 96.0 95.0 92.0 93.0% EPA 8260 09-May-12/OPHC F1 (C6-C10) < 50 < 50µg/L 50 MOE E3421 14-May-12/OPHC F2 (>C10-C16) 90 < 50µg/L 50 MOE PHC

E342111-May-12/K

PHC F3 (>C16-C34) 700 < 500µg/L 500 MOE PHC E3421

11-May-12/K

PHC F4 (>C34-C50) < 500 < 500µg/L 500 MOE PHC E3421

11-May-12/K

Comment-purgeable GRO NDP- - 14-May-12/OComment-extractable NDP -- - 11-May-12

1 . Note: Elevate MDL due to dilution.

Page 2 of 2.

Gord Murphy Lab Supervisor

��

M.D.L. = Method Detection LimitLab Supervisor

Gord Murphy

Note: GRO = Gasoline Range Organics, NDP = No Distinct Pattern.


APPENDIX C

LIMITATIONS

Limitations 1. The work performed in the preparation of this report and the conclusions presented are subject to

the following:

(a) The Standard Terms and Conditions which form a part of our Contract; (b) The Scope of Services; (c) Time and Budgetary limitations as described in our Contract; and, (d) The Limitations stated herein.

2. No other warranties or representations, either expressed or implied, are made as to the

professional services provided under the terms of our Contract, or the conclusions presented. 3. The conclusions presented in this report were based, in part, on visual observations of the site

and attendant structures. Our conclusions cannot and are not extended to include those portions of the site or structures, which were not reasonably available, in AMEC’s opinion, for direct observation.

4. The environmental conditions at the site were assessed, within the limitations set out above,

having due regard for applicable environmental regulations as of the date of the inspection. A review of compliance by past owners or occupants of the site with any applicable local, provincial or federal by-laws, orders-in-council, legislative enactments and regulations was not performed.

5. The site history research included obtaining information from third parties and employees or

agents of the owner. No attempt has been made to verify the accuracy of any information provided, unless specifically noted in our report.

6. Where testing was performed it was carried out in accordance with the terms of our contract

providing for testing. Other substances, or different quantities of substances testing for, may be present on site and may be revealed by different or other testing not provided for in our contract.

7. Because of the limitations referred to above, different environmental conditions from those stated

in our report may exist. Should such different conditions be encountered, AMEC must be notified in order that it may determine if modifications to the conclusions in the report are necessary.

8. The utilization of AMEC’s services during the implementation of any remedial measures will allow

AMEC to observe compliance with the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. AMEC’s involvement will also allow for changes to be made as necessary to suit field conditions as they are encountered.

9. This report is for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed unless expressly stated

otherwise in the report or contract. Any use which any third party makes of the report, in whole or in part, or any reliance thereon or decisions made based on any information or conclusions in the report, is the sole responsibility of such third party. AMEC accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages or loss of any nature or kind suffered by any such third party as a result of actions taken or not taken or decisions made in reliance on the report or anything set out therein.

10. This report is not to be given over to any third party for any purpose whatsoever without the

written permission of AMEC.

Documents

PHASE II ESA Britannia Plaza