ontario ministry of the environment - record of site ... 213787.pdfcertificate of property use...

Ontario Ministry of the Environment - Record of Site Condition # 213787

Record of Site Condition

Under Part XV.1 of the Environment Protection Act

Summary

Notice to Readers Concerning Due Diligence

This record of site condition has been filed in the Environmental Site Registry to which the public has

access and which contains a notice advising users of the Environmental Site Registry who have dealings

with any property to consider conducting their own due diligence with respect to the environmental

condition of the property, in addition to reviewing information in the Environmental Site Registry.

Contents of this Record of Site Condition

This record of site condition consists (RSC) of this document which is available to be printed directly from

the Environmental Site Registry as well as all supporting documentation indicated in this RSC to have been

submitted in electronic format to the Ministry of the Environment.

Record of Site Condition Number 213787Date Filed to Environmental Site Registry 2014/07/17Certification Date 2012/02/12Current Property Use IndustrialIntended Property Use ResidentialCertificate of Property Use Number No CPUApplicable Site Condition Standards** Full Depth Generic Site Conditions Standard,

with Non-potable Ground Water, CoarseTextured Soil, for Residential property use

Property Municipal Address 652 EASTERN AVENUE, TORONTO, ON, M4M1E4

1 of 16Filed Record of Site Condition # 213787 on 2014/07/17

PART 1: PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, PROPERTY INFORMATION AND OWNER'S CERTIFICATIONS

Information about the owner who is submitting or authorizing the submission of the RSC

Owner Name TORONTO HYDRO-ELECTRIC SYSTEM LIMITED

Authorized Person FRANCOIS BERUBE

Mailing Address 14 CARLTON STREET, TORONTOONTARIO, CANADA

Postal Code M5B 1K5

Phone (416) 542-3125

Fax

Email Address [email protected]

Information about the agent

Agent Name MICHAEL GRAYHURST

Mailing Address 311 MATHESON BOULEVARD EAST, MISSISSAUGAONTARIO, CANADA

Postal Code L4Z 1X8

Phone (905) 890-9000

Fax



RSC Property Location Information

Municipal Address(es) 652 EASTERN AVENUE, TORONTO, ON M4M 1E4

Municipality Toronto

Legal Description See Attached Lawyer’s Letter

Assessment Roll Number(s)

19-04-08-1-360-09900

Property Identifier Number(s)

21056-0269 (LT)

RSC Property Geographical References

Coordinate System UTM

Datum NAD 83

Zone 17

Easting 634,300.00

Northing 4,835,412.00

RSC Property Use Information

The following types of property uses are defined by the Regulation: Agricultural or other use, Commercial use, Community use, Industrial use, Institutional use, Parkland use, and Residential use.

Current Property Use Industrial

Intended Property Use Residential

Certificate of Property Use has been issued under section 168.6 of the EPA

No


Please See the Signed Statements of Property Owner, or Agent, or Receiver at the End of this RSC

The rest of this page has been left intentionally blank


PART 2: LIST OF REPORTS, SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS AND QUALIFIED PERSON’S STATEMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONSQualified Person's Information

Name MIKE GRAYHURST

Type of Licence Under Professional Engineers Act

Licence

Licence Number 90324120

QP Employer Name OHE CONSULTANTS

Mailing Address 311 MATHESON BOULEVARD EAST, MISSISSAUGAONTARIO, L4Z 1X8 CANADA

Phone (905) 890-9000

Fax (905) 890-9005


Municipal Information

Local or Single-Tier Municipality

Toronto

Ministry of the Environment District Office

District Office Toronto District Office

District Office Address 5775 Yonge St., 8th floor, North York ON M2M 4J1


Phase One Environmental Site Assessment ReportDocument used as the phase one environmental site assessment report and updates in submitting the RSC for filing

The date the last work on all of the records review, interviews and site reconnaissance components of the phase one environmental site assessment was done (refer to clause 28(1)(a) of O. Reg. 153/04)

(YYYY/MM/DD)

2013/12/11

Type of Report

Report Title Date of Report (YYYY/MM/DD)

Author of Report

Name of ConsultingCompany

P1 ESA Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, revised, Former Caroline Yard, 652 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4M 1E4

2014/04/01 Tracey-Ann Bullock, Mike Grayhurst, Farid (Fred) Atrash

OHE CONSULTANTS

Reports and Other Documents Related to the Phase One Environmental Site AssessmentReports and other documents relied upon in certifying the information set out in section 10 of Schedule A or otherwise used in conducting the phase one environmental site assessment


Author of Report


N/A


Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment ReportDocument used as the phase two environmental site assessment report and updates in submitting the RSC for filing

The date the last work on all of the planning of the site investigation and conducting the site investigation components of the phase two environmental site assessment was done (refer to clause 33.5(1)(a) of O. Reg. 153/04)

(YYYY/MM/DD)

2013/12/13

Type of Report


Author of Report


P2 ESA Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Caroline Yard, 652 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario

2014/04/25 Ambreen Sultana, Tracey-Ann Bullock, Mike Grayhurst, Farid (Fred) Atrash

OHE CONSULTANTS

Reports and Other Documents Related to the Phase Two Environmental Site AssessmentReports and other documents relied upon in making any certifications in the RSC for the purposes of Part IV of Schedule A or otherwise used in conducting the phase two environmental site assessment

Report Title Date of Report (YYYY/MM/DD).

Author of Report


N/A


Environmental ConditionSection 41 applies? No

Section 43.1 applies? No

Site Condition InformationCertification date (YYYY/MM/DD) 2012/02/12

Total area of RSC property (in hectares) 0.04000

Number of any previously filed RSC that applies to any part of the RSC property

Number of any previously filed Transition Notice that applies to any part of the RSC property

Soil Texture Coarse

Assessment/Restoration Approach Full Depth Generic

Site investigation includes the investigation, sampling and analysis of ground water? Yes

Is there soil present that is sufficient to investigate, sample and analyze soil on, in or under the property in accordance with s. 6, Schedule E of O.Reg. 153/04?

Yes

Site investigation includes the investigation, sampling and analysis of soil on, in or under the property which is used in the RSC?

Yes

Name of the laboratory used to analyze any samples collected of soil, ground water or sediment

AGAT LABORATORIES

Ground water condition (potable, non-potable) Non-potable

Applicable Site Condition Standard TABLE 3

Local or single-tier municipality non-potable written notification date 2014/01/03


Table 1 – Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Compared to Applicable Site Condition Standards

Measured Concentration for Contaminants in Soil

ContaminantName

Maximum Concentration

Applicable Site Condition Standard

Unit of Measure

1 Benzene < 0.02 0.21 µg/g

2 Toluene < 0.08 2.3 µg/g

3 Ethylbenzene < 0.05 2 µg/g

4 Xylene Mixture < 0.05 3.1 µg/g

5 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F1**** < 5 55 µg/g

6 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 < 10 98 µg/g



9 Polychlorinated Biphenyls < 0.1 0.35 µg/g

10 Antimony 5.5 7.5 µg/g

11 Arsenic 4 18 µg/g

12 Boron (total) 6 120 µg/g

13 Barium 130 390 µg/g

14 Beryllium 0.7 4 µg/g

15 Cadmium < 0.5 1.2 µg/g

16 Chromium Total 30 160 µg/g

17 Cobalt 10.1 22 µg/g

18 Copper 22 140 µg/g

19 Lead 37 120 µg/g

20 Molybdenum < 0.5 6.9 µg/g

21 Nickel 22 100 µg/g

22 Selenium 0.4 2.4 µg/g

23 Silver < 0.2 20 µg/g

24 Thallium < 0.4 1 µg/g

25 Uranium 0.6 23 µg/g

26 Vanadium 48 86 µg/g

27 Zinc 137 340 µg/g


Table 1 – Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Compared to Applicable Site Condition Standards (Continued)

Ground Water

ContaminantName

Maximum Concentration

Applicable Site Condition Standard

Unit of Measure

1 Benzene < 0.2 44 µg/L

2 Toluene < 0.2 18000 µg/L

3 Ethylbenzene < 0.1 2300 µg/L

4 Xylene Mixture < 0.2 4200 µg/L

5 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F1**** < 25 750 µg/L

6 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 < 100 150 µg/L



9 Polychlorinated Biphenyls < 0.1 7.8 µg/L


Remedial Action and Mitigation

Remediated Soils

Estimated quantities of the soil, if any, originating at and remaining on the RSC property that have been remediated, at a location either on or off the property, to reduce the concentration of contaminants in the soil. Indicate the remediation process or processes used and the estimated amount of soil remediated by each identified process.

Soil Remediation Process Estimated Quantity of Soil (in-ground volume in m³)

none 0.0

Description of Remediation

Description of any action taken to reduce the concentration of contaminants (including soil removals) on, in or under the RSC property.

excavation and removal

Soil or Sediment Removed and Not Returned

Estimated quantities of soil or sediment, if any, removed from and not returned to the RSC property.

Estimated Quantity of Soil (in-ground volume in m³) 631.8

Estimated Quantity of Sediment (in-ground volume in m³)

Soil Brought to the Property

Estimated quantity of the soil, if any, being brought from another property to and deposited at the RSC property, not including any soil that may have originated at but been remediated off the RSC property and that is identified in section 28 of Schedule A.

Estimated Quantity of Soil Brought to the Property(in-ground volume in m³)

820.6


Ground Water Control or Treatment Measures

Ground water control or treatment measures that were required for the RSC property prior to the certification date for the purpose of submitting the RSC for filing.

none

Ground water control or treatment measures that are required for the RSC property after the certification date.

none

Estimated volume of ground water, if any, removed from and not returned to the RSC property.

Estimated Volume of Ground Water (in litres) 0.0


Other Activities Including Risk Management Measures

Constructed works that prior to the certification date for the purpose of submitting the RSC for filing, were required to control or otherwise mitigate the release or movement of known existing contaminants at the RSC property.

none

Constructed works that after the certification date, are required to control or otherwise mitigate the release or movement of known existing contaminants at the RSC property.

none

Monitoring or Maintenance

Soil Management Measures

Soil monitoring requirements or any requirements for care, maintenance or replacement or any monitoring or control works for known existing contaminants, if any, on the RSC property, after the certification date.

none

Ground Water Management Measures

Ground water monitoring requirements or requirements for care, maintenance or replacement of any monitoring or control works or known existing contaminants, if any, on the RSC property, after the certification date.

none

Remediated or Removed Soil, Sediment or Ground Water From Near Property Boundary

Has any soil, sediment or ground water at the RSC property that is or was located within 3 metres of the RSC property boundary been remediated or removed for the purpose of remediation?

Yes


Qualified Person’s Statements and CertificationsAs the qualified person, I certify that:

A phase one environmental site assessment of the RSC property, which includes the evaluation of the information gathered from a records review, site reconnaissance, interviews, a report and any updates required, has been conducted in accordance with the regulation by or under the supervision of a qualified person as required by the regulation.

A phase two environmental site assessment of the RSC property, which includes the evaluation of the information gathered from planning and conducting a site investigation, a report, and any updates required, has been conducted in accordance with the regulation by or under the supervision of a qualified person as required by the regulation.

The information represents the site conditions at the sampling points at the time of sampling only and the conditions between and beyond the sampling points may vary.

As of 2012/02/12, in my opinion, based on the phase one environmental site assessment and the phase two environmental site assessment, and any confirmatory sampling, there is no evidence of any contaminants in the soil, ground water or sediment on, in or under the RSC property that would interfere with the type of property use to which the RSC property will be put, as specified in the RSC.

Ground water sampling has been conducted in accordance with the regulation by or under the supervision of a qualified person as required by the regulation.

I have, within the six months immediately before the submission of this record of site condition, given written notice of intention to apply non-potable ground water site condition standards to the clerk of the local municipality in which the property is located and the clerk of any upper-tier municipality in which the property is located.

As of 2012/02/12, in my opinion, based on the phase one and phase two environmental site assessments and any confirmatory sampling, the RSC property meets the applicable full depth generic site condition standards prescribed by section 37 of the regulation for all contaminants prescribed by the regulation in relation to the type of property use for which this RSC is filed, except for those contaminants (if any) specified in this RSC at Table 2, Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Compared to Standards Specified in a Risk Assessment.

As of 2012/02/12, the maximum known concentration of each contaminant in soil, sediment and ground water at the RSC property for which sampling and analysis has been performed is specified in this RSC at Table 1, Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Compared to Applicable Site Condition Standards.

I am a qualified person and have the qualifications required by section 5 of the regulation.

I have in place an insurance policy that satisfies the requirements of section 7 of the regulation.

I acknowledge that the RSC will be submitted for filing in the Environmental Site Registry, that records of site condition that are filed in the Registry are available for examination by the public and that the Registry contains a notice advising users of the Registry who have dealings with any property to consider conducting their own due diligence with respect to the environmental condition of the property, in addition to reviewing information in the Registry.

The opinions expressed in this RSC are engineering or scientific opinions made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices as recognized by members of the environmental engineering or science profession or discipline practising at the same time and in the same or similar location.

I do not hold and have not held and my employer OHE CONSULTANTSdoes not hold and has not held a direct or indirect interest in the RSC property or any property which includes the RSC property and was the subject of a phase one or two environmental site assessmentor risk assessment upon which this record of site condition is based

To the best of my knowledge, the certifications and statements in this part of the RSCare true as of 2012/02/12.

By signing this RSC, I make no express or implied warranties or guarantees.

By checking the boxes above, and entering my membership/licence number in this submission, I, MIKE GRAYHURST, a qualified person as defined in section 5 of O. Reg. 153/04 am, on 2014/06/11:

a) signing this record of site condition submission as a qualified person; and b) making all certifications required as a qualified person for this record of site condition.

I Agree


Additional Documentation Provided by Property Owner or AgentThe following documents have been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment as part of the record of site condition

Certificate of Status or equivalent for the owner

Authorization for Agent to submit RSC for filing

Lawyer’s letter consisting of a legal description of the property

Copy of any deed(s), transfer(s) or other document(s) by which the RSC property was acquired

A Current plan of Survey

Area(s) of Potential Environmental Concern

Table of Current and Past Uses of the Phase One Property

Phase 2 Conceptual Site Model

Owner or agent certification statements

v 4.1.1


Request ID: 016641888 Province of Ontario Date Report Produced: 2014/07/14 Demande n° : Province de l'Ontario Document produit le : Transaction ID: 54787516 Ministry of Government Services Time Report Produced: 09:57:03 Transaction n° : Ministère des Services gouvernementaux Imprimé à : Category ID: CT Catégorie :

CERTIFICATE OF STATUS ATTESTATION DU STATUT JURIDIQUE

This is to certify that according to the D'après les dossiers du Ministère des records of the Ministry of Government Services gouvernementaux, nous attestons Services que la société

T O R O N T O H Y D R O - E L E C T R I C S Y S T E M L I M I T E D

Ontario Corporation Number Numéro matricule de la société (Ontario) 0 0 1 8 6 4 6 6 5 is a corporation incorporated, est une société constituée, prorogée ou née amalgamated or continued under d'une fusion aux termes des lois de la the laws of the Province of Ontario. Province de l'Ontario.

The corporation came into existence on La société a été fondée le J A N U A R Y 0 1 J A N V I E R , 2 0 1 2 and has not been dissolved. et n'est pas dissoute.

Dated Fait le J U L Y 1 4 J U I L L E T , 2 0 1 4

Director Directeur

The issuance of this certificate in electronic form is authorized by the Ministry of Government Services.La délivrance du présent certificat sous forme électronique est autorisée par le Ministère des Services gouvernementaux.

To view Order Summary for this transaction,

check the check box for this request and click the 'Order Summary' button.

Please note that this is a summary usage for this particular request and is not an Invoice.

Invoices will be provided as a combined total of all transactions on a monthly basis.

The Monthly Invoice can be viewed from the Statement of Account in the Accounting area.

TABLE OF AREAS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (Refer to clause 16(2)(a), Schedule D, O.Reg. 153/04)

Area of Potential Environmental

Concern1

Location of Area of Potential

Environmental Concern on

Phase One ESA Property

Potentially Contaminating

Activity2

Location of PCA (on-site or off-site)

Contaminants of Potential Concern3

Media Potentially Impacted (Ground

water, soil or

sediment) former use of the Property as a storage yard for electrical equipment, which may include the storage of PCBs

location of PCB storage with respect to the Property is unknown, potential for affect on entire Property

Item 55 – Transformer Manufacturing, Processing and Use

on-site PHCs, PCBs, metals

soil and ground water

Notes:

1 – Area of Potential Environmental concern means the area on, in or under a phase one property where one or more contaminants are potentially present, as determined through the phase one environmental site assessment, including through,

(a) identification of past or present uses on, in or under the phase one property, and (b) identification of potentially contaminating activity.

2 – Potentially Contaminating Activity means a use or activity set out in Column A of Table 2 of Schedule D that is occurring or has occurred in a phase one study area. 3 – All contaminants of potential concern are identified using the Method Groups as identified in the Protocol for the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, March 9, 2004, amended as of July 1, 2011, as specified below ABNs PCBs metals electrical conductivity CPs PAHs As, Sb, Se Cr (VI) 1,4-Dioxane THMs Na Hg Dioxins/Furans, PCDDs/PCDFs VOCs B-HWS methyl mercury OCs BTEX Cl- high pH PHCs Ca, Mg CN- low pH SAR

TABLE OF CURRENT AND PAST USES OF THE PHASE ONE ESA PROPERTY (Refer to clause 16(2)(b), Schedule D, Ontario Regulation 153/04)

Year Name of Owner Description of Property

Use

Property Use1

Other Observations from Aerial

Photographs, Fire Insurance Plans, etc.

1797 – 1852

Entire Phase One ESA and RSC Property: • Chris Robinson (1797 – 1857) • Mary Howard (1857 – 1852)

vacant Agricultural or other use

none available

1852 – 1889

Entire Phase One ESA and RSC Property: • Caroline Leslie (1852 – 1889)

vacant (part of Leslie & Son Nursery)

Agricultural or other use

1868 area map, and 1884 FIP

1889 – 1913

Entire Phase One ESA and RSC Property: • William C. Kennedy (1889 –

1890) • Bristol and West of England

Can., Land Mortgage and Investments Comp. Ltd. (1890 – 1904)

• Dora Block et al. (1904 – 1909)

vacant Agricultural or other use

1890, 1894, 1899 and 1903 FIPs

1913 – 1934

Entire Phase One ESA and RSC Property: • Margaret Boys (1909 – 1940)

unknown Residential Use

Property Use assumed; The Property was developed with a small building. 1913 and 1924 FIPs

1934 – 1947

Entire Phase One ESA and RSC Property: • Thomas Boys (1940 – 1940) • Isabella Boys (1940 – 1946) • Herbert and Beatrice

Wansborough (1946 – 1947)

single-family dwelling

Residential Use

1934 and 1939 FIPs

1947 - present

Entire Phase One ESA and RSC Property: • Toronto Electric Commissioners

(1947 – present)

former electrical equipment storage yard

Industrial Use

Property inspections, March 15, 2011, January 4, 2013 and December 11, 2013 The Property consisted of grassed land in a residentially and commercially developed area.

Notes: 1 – As per O.Reg. 153/04, the following land use categories are used: Agricultural or other use Commercial use Community use Industrial use Institutional use Residential use Parkland use 2 – The Property was transferred in 1838, however registered in 1857. 3 – The date of registry was October 21st, 1857; however, the Property was transferred in 1838. Hence, this owner had possessed the Property for about 19 years.

Phase Two ESA Conceptual Site Model

Property Assessment History:

May 2012 OHE Consultants Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, revised:

OHE carried out an initial Phase One ESA site visit on February 10, 2012, as reported to Toronto Hydro in May 2012. The Property was identified as a former electrical transformer station since approximately 1947. At the time of the initial Phase One ESA Property visit, the Property consisted of gravel fill within a fenced area. No transformers were observed at the Property. Any transformers which may have existed at the Property were removed by the time of OHE’s Property reconnaissance. It was also identified that herbicides had likely been applied to the Property as a means of controlling vegetation in the area of electrical equipment. The Property location is shown in Drawing 1 and the Property site plan is shown in Drawing 2.

No evidence of staining or stressed vegetation was identified during a Property reconnaissance.

Other Properties in the Phase One ESA Study Area were primarily residentially and commercially developed. Historical information identified adjoining properties to the east (across Caroline Avenue) and to the south (across Eastern Avenue) was reported as industrially utilized. These facilities were all situated at likely hydraulically cross-gradient locations relative to the Property. Industrial land use was identified south of Eastern Avenue, at an assumed hydraulically downgradient location relative to the Property.

This Phase One ESA, discussed subsequently in this Conceptual Site Model, includes a Phase One ESA Conceptual Site Model, summarizing the entire known history of the Property. The Phase One ESA Conceptual Site Model, included as Drawing 3, included two (2) Potentially Contaminating Activities, specifically:

1) Potential Contaminating Activity: Pesticides (Including Herbicides, Fungicides and Anti-Fouling Agents) Manufacturing, Processing, Processing, Bulk Storage and Large Scale Applications

Areas of Potential Environmental Concern: Entire Property

Release Mechanism (if present): Possible spray application of herbicides

2) Potential Contaminating Activity: Transformer Manufacturing, Processing and Use

Areas of Potential Environmental Concern: Entire property, as location of PCB storage with respect to the Property is unknown

Release Mechanism (if present): Leakage from transformer equipment.

Therefore, OHE Consultants recommended a Phase Two ESA, with respect to the following contaminants of potential environmental concern: PCBs, selected metals and inorganic parameters, and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs F1-F4), including BTEX.

Issues related to contaminant migration, preferential pathways, the influence of climatic and/or meteorological conditions on contaminant distribution and migration, are discussed with respect to follow-up intrusive investigation work, discussed later within this Conceptual Site Model.

OHE Consultants Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment:

OHE Consultants was retained by Toronto Hydro to carry out a Phase Two ESA of the Property. This Phase Two ESA was carried out further to the previous Phase One ESA to address the potential environmental concerns outlined in the Phase One Conceptual Site Model, discussed above. The Phase One ESA, prepared by OHE Consultants, was prepared in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04 as amended, and was submitted to Toronto Hydro under separate cover.

OHE Consultants retained the services of a licensed driller to provide borehole drilling services and assist with soil sample collection. After receiving clearance of all public and private utilities, six (6) boreholes (BH101 to BH106) were advanced on February 23, 2012 to a maximum depth of approximately 4.88 m below grade. Three (3) boreholes were completed as monitoring wells (BH101, BH102, and BH103).

Based on field observations (i.e. location, depth, soil type, grain size, colour, odour and recorded organic vapour concentrations), a total of seven (7) soil samples were selected from the boreholes, and submitted for laboratory analysis of PHCs, BTEX, selected metals and inorganic parameters, and PCBs.

Ground water monitoring and sampling was conducted on March 2, 2012 from newly installed monitoring wells (BH101, BH102, and BH103). Ground water samples were recovered from each of the three (3) monitoring wells, along with one field duplicate (DUP2), and submitted for laboratory analysis of PHC fractions F1-F4 (including BTEX), and PCBs.

Soil and ground water quality were assessed based on the applicable MOE Table 3 Site Condition Standards for Residential / Parkland / Institutional Property Use with coarse textured soils in a Non-Potable Ground Water situation.

The stratigraphic profile generally consisted of topsoil and gravel followed by silt and clay. Clay was identified in five (5) boreholes at depth ranging from approximately 1.2 m to approximately 3.7 m below grade.

Wet soil conditions were observed in four (4) of six (6) borehole locations, from immediately below grade to approximately 2.5 m below grade. Ground water level measured during the ground water monitoring program varied between 1.19 m below grade and 1.32 m below grade. Inferred ground water flow was expected to be towards the southeast based on the topographic condition and the results

of ground water elevation survey. The estimated direction of ground water flow is shown in Drawing 4.

The water table was identified in the monitoring well riser in all three (3) monitoring wells. With respect to this issue, two (2) items of discussion are covered here:

1) No PHC impact was identified in either soil or in ground water. All reported BTEX and PHC soil and ground water concentrations were below the laboratory detection limit. Therefore, it is unlikely that LNAPL is present in the water table.

2) Providing the monitoring wells sufficient seal at the surface, as per Ontario Regulation 903/90 as amended, will cause the water table to fall within the monitoring well riser. Sufficient monitoring well seal must be maintained to prevent the inflow of surface water into the monitoring well sand pack.

Bedrock was not encountered during this work. According to Sediment Thickness of the Greater Toronto & Oak Ridges Moraine Areas, southern Ontario, Natural Resources Canada, Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and MOE, and previously stated in this Conceptual Site Model, bedrock in the area of the Property was between 50 m and 587 m below grade.

Soil Laboratory Analytical Results

All reported selected PHCs (F1-F4), BTEX, and PCBs in soil were below the Table 3 Standards.

However, soil analysis for selected metals and inorganic parameters indicated concentrations of antimony greater than the applicable Table 3 Standards at borehole locations BH101, BH103, BH104, BH105, and BH106, ranging from grade to approximately 1.2 m below grade. Concentrations of lead greater than the applicable Table 3 Standards were found at all six (6) borehole locations (BH101 through BH106), at depths ranging from grade to approximately 1.2 m below grade. Additionally, laboratory analysis of soil found concentrations of zinc greater than the applicable Table 3 Standards at borehole locations BH101 and BH 103, at depths ranging from grade to approximately 1.2 m below grade.

The selected metal impact was identified in almost all borehole location at a depth ranging from grade to 1.2 m below grade. The source of this impact did not appear to be directly related to historic or current Property activities. The presence of metals impact to fill historically imported to the Property at an unknown time can be considered as a possible source. It was decided that this impacted soil would be removed from the Property by way of excavation.

Therefore, as discussed above, the Release Mechanism for the selected metal impact was not confirmed. It was potentially related to the potential importation of fill to the Property at an unknown date.

The horizontal distribution of this impact was confined to the area surrounding all boreholes. The horizontal extent of this area was subject to verification during the excavation removal of these materials. The vertical distribution of this impact was from grade to 1.2 m below grade. The vertical extent of this area was subject to verification during the excavation removal of these materials.

No utilities were identified in the impacted soil depth range. No potential preferential pathways for contaminant migration were identified. As the impact was well above the water table, climatic and/or meteorological conditions would not be expected to be of a concern with respect to this impact.

The Property was unoccupied and unvegetated. Therefore, potential human and ecological receptors were not identified. Therefore, receptor exposure points and routes of exposure were not identified. As soil remediation was planned, no future vapour intrusion issues were expected.

Ground Water Laboratory Analytical Results

All reported PHC F1-F4 fractions, BTEX, and PCBs, in ground water were below the Table 3 Standards.

The Phase Two ESA Conceptual Site Model, including a statement regarding the possible release mechanism related to metals impact to soil, is shown in Drawing 5. Drawings 7 and 8 show cross-sections of the Property prior to the remedial excavation, based upon the cross-section locations shown in Drawing 6.

2013 Remedial Excavations:

The source of the antimony, lead and zinc impacts at the entire Property was not verified. Potential impact due to onsite transformers at this location was not verified. Therefore, the excavation remediation of this material was carried out.

From December 11, 2013 to December 20, 2013, Tri-Phase Environmental Inc., under contract with Toronto Hydro, excavated and removed approximately 929 m3 of soil from the Property. Interim soil samples were retrieved in order to verify the presence of metals impact to soil. At the conclusion of excavation work, floor samples F218, FF239, F258, and F262 confirmed that no soil impacts to the floor were present. Also, at the conclusion of the excavation work, wall samples W108, W208, W215, W226, W240 and W240 were retrieved. Soil sample W108 was retrieved

from the north excavation wall, within the Property. The laboratory results from this sample confirmed that there was no residual metals impact at this location.

Soil samples W208, W215, W226, W240 and W249 were retrieved from excavation walls situated at the Property boundaries. Of these, soil samples W215, W226, and W249 were impacted with respect to antimony and lead. As the sample was retrieved at the Property boundary, no further excavation was possible. Therefore, it can be stated that all soil impacts within the Property were remediated by way of excavation, and that any residual impacts to soil were at Property boundaries.

Drawing 9 shows the horizontal extent of the excavation. Drawings 10 and 11 show the locations of floor and wall excavation soil samples respectively. Drawings 13 and 14 show cross-sections of the Property prior to the remedial excavation, based upon the cross-section locations shown in Drawing 12.

The Property was backfilled with granular fill. OHE confirmed that this imported material was not metals impacted based upon laboratory analysis of samples retrieved from the backfill source.

Conclusions:

The OHE Phase One ESA identified Potentially Contaminating Activities related to the Property, which were investigated in a follow-up Phase Two ESA.

The OHE Phase Two ESA identified the presence of metals impact to soil from grade to approximately 1.2 m below grade across the entire Property. These impacts were not directly connected to Potentially Contaminating Activities identified in the OHE Phase One ESA but were possibly related to the importation of fill to the Property at an unknown time.

All metals impacted soil was removed from the Property during December 2013. Metals impacted soil was identified at the east, south and west Property boundaries, which could not be excavated and removed from the Property for the reason that the samples were retrieved from the Property boundary.

Influence of Subsurface Structures or Utilities under Phase Two ESA Property on Contaminant Distribution and Transport:

It was likely that buried utilities were present during the period of use of the Property as a transformer station. All transformer equipment and related utilities had been removed prior to OHE’s involvement with the Property in February 2012. No onsite utilities were identified by OHE during the Phase Two ESA or during the excavation remediation. In addition, all contamination was identified as pertaining to metals in the top approximate 1.2 m of the Property. Therefore, no evidence was found as to the influence of subsubsurface structures or utilities with respect to contaminant distribution and transport.

Property Stratigraphy:

Property soils were identified as primarily consisted of topsoil and gravel fill followed by silt and clay. Clay was identified in five (5) of six (6) boreholes at depth ranging from approximately 1.2 m to approximately 3.7 m below grade.

Ground water was measured at depths ranging between 1.19 m below grade and 1.32 m below grade. Inferred ground water flow was expected to be towards the southeast based on the topographic condition and the results of ground water elevation survey.

Selected metals and inorganic parameters Property impacts were identified at a depth from grade, to 1.2 m below grade, within the sand, sand and silt, and gravel profiles.

The horizontal hydraulic gradient was estimated between 0.02 m/m and 0.03 m/m based upon ground water monitoring and an elevation survey. This gradient estimation is subject to verification based upon further site work and should be treated as a “first estimate”. The measurement of ground water depth and flow direction was only taken once so it does not account for seasonal variations in the depth to ground water, or the direction of ground water flow. This result represents a “snap shot” in time of Property ground water conditions.

Ground water was observed at all sample locations to be within the sand, sand and silt, and gravel.

In all three (3) installed monitoring wells, ground water was within the screened interval of the monitoring wells, and the water table intersected the monitoring well riser section in all three (3) monitoring wells. As discussed above, no evidence as to the potential presence of LNAPLs was identified. Also, it would not be possible to construct monitoring wells with sufficient surface seal if the water table was placed in the well screen.

Bedrock was not encountered during drilling. The mapping Sediment Thickness of the Greater Toronto & Oak Ridges Moraine Areas, southern Ontario, Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources, Canada, Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and Ontario Ministry of Environment, indicated a thickness of sediment of less than 50 m, indicating that this is the likely depth to bedrock. The Property appeared to lie within an area of thick sediment deposition.

Property stratigraphy is shown in the attached borehole logs, and in Drawings 7 and 8. No grain-size analysis was carried out; therefore coarse-textured soils were assumed for the Phase Two ESA.

Any respect to which Sections 41 or 43.1 (from the Regulation) apply to the Property:

These sections were reviewed in detail. Section 41 was found not to apply to the Property. As per Section 43.1, the Q.P.ESA reviewed, interpreted and evaluated the information used for planning and conducting this site investigation.

Areas Where Soil has been brought from another Property and Placed on, in or under the Phase Two ESA Property:

As will be discussed in Appendix C of this report, waybills were provided for approximately 94 m3 of imported backfill, brought to the Property. The backfill originated from the Stouffville Yard of LaFarge Canada Inc. The excavation was backfilled on December 20, 2013 and December 23, 2013.

Laboratory analysis was conducted on ten (10) backfill samples, for selected metals. Backfill samples were retrieved by OHE at the source site for the backfill. No related impacts were identified.

Relevant Information Regarding Existing Property Buildings:

There were no Property buildings at the time of the Phase One ESA or Phase Two ESA.

Approximate Locations, if known, of any Proposed Buildings or other Structures:

This information is not known at the time of Conceptual Site Model preparation.

Where a contaminant is present on, in or under the Phase Two ESA property at a concentration greater than the applicable site condition Standard

Drawings 7 and 8 indicate the horizontal distribution of selected metals impacts to soil. Selected metals impacted soils have been removed from the Property by way of excavation. Selected metals impacts to soil were possibly associated with the importation of fill at an unknown date.

All impacts identified, and remediated, at the Property were within soil. No ground water impacts were identified. No sediment was identified onsite. Impacted soils were identified as shallow (all within 2.0 m of grade). No evidence as to the migration of these contaminants was identified. They were not identified in soils within the ground water table, or in proximity of any utility trenches or other potential conduits of impact.

Climatic or meteorological conditions that may have influenced distribution and migration of the contaminants, such as temporal fluctuations in ground water levels.

As all soil impacts were with respect to metals and identified in shallow soil, climatic or meteorological conditions are not expected to have impacted distribution or migration of contaminants.

Information concerning soil vapour intrusion of the contaminants into buildings

The Property building was demolished prior to March 2013. Therefore, this section is not applicable.

For each areas where a contaminant is present on, in or under the Property at a concentration greater than the applicable site condition Standard for the contaminant:

Release Mechanisms:

Selected Metals and Inorganic Parameters: The release of antimony, lead and zinc onsite was likely related to the importation of fill to the Property at an unknown date.

Contaminant Transport Pathways:

All impacts were identified in shallow soil, to a maximum depth of 5 m below grade. No buried utilities or other potential routes of migration were identified. Therefore, no contaminant transport pathways were identified.

Human and ecological receptors located on, in or under the Phase Two ESA Property:

Human, Pre-Remediation: Potential human receptors would be represented by workers at the Property. Their exposure would be limited to their specific site activities and the amount of time spent on the site. There were no full-time employees onsite

Human, Post-Remediation: As there is no onsite contamination, there would be no potential human receptors.

Ecological, Pre-Remediation: Potential ecological receptors include site vegetation and burrowing animals. Site vegetation was sparse onsite and, although OHE did not identify the potential presence of burrowing animals, their potential presence should be considered.

Ecological, Post-Remediation: As there is no onsite contamination, there would be no potential ecological receptors.

Receptor Exposure Points:

Human, Pre-Remediation: Soil based and airborne metals contamination (airborne due to the uplifting of particulate matter due to such conditions as wind)

Human, Post-Remediation: As there is no onsite contamination, there would be no receptor exposure points.

Ecological, Pre-Remediation: Soil based and airborne metals contamination (airborne due to the uplifting of particulate matter due to such conditions as wind)

Ecological, Post-Remediation: As there is no onsite contamination, there would be no receptor exposure points.

Routes of Exposure:

Human, Pre-Remediation:

a) Dermal – potential physical contact with contaminated soil;

b) Inhalation – potential inhalation of airborne contaminated particulate matter;

c) Ingestion – possible ingestion of airborne contaminated particulate matter;

Human, Post Remediation: As there is no onsite contamination, there would be no routes of exposure.

Ecological, Pre-Remediation:

a) Dermal – potential physical contact with contaminated soil;

b) Inhalation – potential inhalation of airborne contaminated particulate matter;

c) Ingestion – possible ingestion of airborne contaminated particulate matter or of soil during burrowing;

d) Vegetation root uptake;

Ecological, Post Remediation: As there is no onsite contamination, there would be no routes of exposure.

Information with respect to Release Mechanisms, Contaminant Transport Pathways, Human and Ecological Receptors, Receptor Exposure Points and Routes of Exposures is summarized in Drawing 15.