ontario ministry of the environment - record of site ... 214246.pdf · ontario ministry of the...

Ontario Ministry of the Environment - Record of Site Condition # 214246

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 214246Date Filed to Environmental Site Registry 2014/07/29Certification Date 2014/06/27Current Property Use CommercialIntended Property Use ResidentialCertificate of Property Use Number No CPUApplicable Site Condition Standards** Full Depth Generic Site Conditions Standard,

with Non-potable Ground Water, Medium andFine Textured Soil, for Residential property use

Property Municipal Address 850 RICHMOND STREET WEST, TORONTO,ON, M5A 2A5

1 of 18Filed Record of Site Condition # 214246 on 2014/07/29

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 850 RICHMOND STREET INC.

Authorized Person GARY EISEN

Mailing Address 50 BARTLETT AVENUE, TORONTOONTARIO, CANADA

Postal Code M6H 3E8

Phone (416) 716-3757

Fax (416) 368-8808

Email Address [email protected]


RSC Property Location Information

Municipal Address(es) 850 RICHMOND STREET WEST, TORONTO, ON M5A 2A5

Municipality Toronto

Legal Description See Attached Lawyer’s Letter

Assessment Roll Number(s)

190404156004400000005

Property Identifier Number(s)

21244-0314 (LT)

RSC Property Geographical References

Coordinate System UTM

Datum NAD 83

Zone 17

Easting 628,083.00

Northing 4,833,637.00

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 Commercial

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 BRUCE A. BROWN

Type of Licence Under Professional Engineers Act

Licence

Licence Number 5458013

QP Employer Name BRUCE A. BROWN ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Mailing Address 109 VANDERHOOF AVENUE, TORONTOONTARIO, M4G 2H7 CANADA

Phone (416) 424-3355

Fax (416) 424-3350

Email Address [email protected]

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)

2014/01/27

Type of Report

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

Author of Report

Name of ConsultingCompany

P1 ESA Phase I Environmental Evalutation, 850 Richmond Street West, Toronto, ON

2014/01/27 Bruce A. Brown Associates, Ph.D., RPP, P.Eng.

BRUCE A. BROWN ASSOCIATES LIMITED

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)

2014/06/27

Type of Report


Author of Report


P2 ESA Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, 850 Richmond Street West, Toronto, ON

2014/03/07 Bruce A. Brown, Ph.D., RPP, P.Eng.

BRUCE A. BROWN ASSOCIATES LTD.

P2 ESA Update

Supplementary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 850 Richmond Street West, Toronto, ON



P2 ESA Update

Supplementary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 850 Richmond Street West, Toronto, ON



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) 2014/06/27

Total area of RSC property (in hectares) 0.10400

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 Medium and Fine

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 2014/04/22


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 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.05 25 µg/g

2 Vinyl Chloride < 0.02 0.022 µg/g

3 Bromomethane < 0.05 0.05 µg/g

4 Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.05 5.8 µg/g

5 Acetone < 0.5 28 µg/g

6 Dichloroethylene, 1,1- < 0.05 0.05 µg/g

7 Methylene Chloride < 0.05 0.96 µg/g

8 Dichloroethylene, 1,2-trans- < 0.05 0.75 µg/g

9 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) < 0.05 1.4 µg/g

10 Dichloroethane, 1,1- < 0.02 11 µg/g

11 Methyl Ethyl Ketone < 0.5 44 µg/g

12 Dichloroethylene, 1,2-cis- < 0.02 30 µg/g

13 Chloroform < 0.04 0.18 µg/g

14 Dichloroethane, 1,2- < 0.03 0.05 µg/g

15 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- < 0.05 3.4 µg/g

16 Carbon Tetrachloride < 0.05 0.12 µg/g

17 Benzene 0.04 0.17 µg/g

18 Dichloropropane, 1,2- < 0.03 0.085 µg/g

19 Trichloroethylene < 0.03 0.52 µg/g

20 Bromodichloromethane < 0.05 13 µg/g

21 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 0.5 4.3 µg/g

22 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- < 0.04 0.05 µg/g

23 Toluene 0.37 6 µg/g

24 Dibromochloromethane < 0.05 9.4 µg/g

25 Ethylene dibromide < 0.04 0.05 µg/g

26 Tetrachloroethylene < 0.05 2.3 µg/g

27 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- < 0.04 0.05 µg/g

28 Chlorobenzene < 0.05 2.7 µg/g

29 Ethylbenzene 0.17 15 µg/g

30 Bromoform < 0.05 0.26 µg/g

31 Styrene < 0.05 2.2 µg/g

32 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- < 0.05 0.05 µg/g

33 Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- < 0.05 6 µg/g

34 Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- < 0.05 0.097 µg/g

35 Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- < 0.05 4.3 µg/g

36 Xylene Mixture 1 25 µg/g

37 Dichloropropene,1,3- < 0.04 0.083 µg/g

38 Hexane (n) < 0.05 34 µg/g

39 Antimony < 0.08 7.5 µg/g


38 Hexane (n) < 0.05 34 µg/g

39 Antimony < 0.08 7.5 µg/g

40 Arsenic 4 18 µg/g

41 Barium 100 390 µg/g

42 Beryllium 0.8 5 µg/g

43 Boron (Hot Water Soluble)* 0.51 1.5 µg/g

44 Cadmium < 0.5 1.2 µg/g

45 Chromium Total 39 160 µg/g

46 Cobalt 13.5 22 µg/g

47 Copper 33 180 µg/g

48 Lead 10 120 µg/g

49 Boron (total) 8 120 µg/g

50 Molybdenum 0.6 6.9 µg/g

51 Nickel 35 130 µg/g

52 Selenium < 0.4 2.4 µg/g

53 Silver < 0.2 25 µg/g

54 Thallium < 0.4 1 µg/g

55 Uranium 0.5 23 µg/g

56 Vanadium 48 86 µg/g

57 Zinc 75 340 µg/g

58 Chromium VI < 0.2 10 µg/g

59 Cyanide (CN-) < 0.04 0.051 µg/g

60 Mercury < 0.1 1.8 µg/g

61 Electrical Conductivity 0.342 0.7 mS/cm

62 Sodium Adsorption Ratio 4.57 5

63 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F1**** 12 65 µg/g

64 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 < 10 150 µg/g

65 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F3 100 1300 µg/g

66 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F4 58 5600 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 Dichlorodifluoromethane < 0.4 4400 µg/L

2 Vinyl Chloride < 0.34 1.7 µg/L

3 Bromomethane < 0.4 56 µg/L

4 Trichlorofluoromethane < 0.8 2500 µg/L

5 Acetone < 2 130000 µg/L

6 Dichloroethylene, 1,1- < 0.6 17 µg/L

7 Methylene Chloride < 0.6 5500 µg/L

8 Dichloroethylene, 1,2-trans- < 0.4 17 µg/L

9 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) < 0.4 1400 µg/L

10 Dichloroethane, 1,1- < 0.6 3100 µg/L

11 Methyl Ethyl Ketone < 2 1500000 µg/L

12 Dichloroethylene, 1,2-cis- < 0.4 17 µg/L

13 Chloroform < 0.4 22 µg/L

14 Dichloroethane, 1,2- 12 12 µg/L

15 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- < 0.6 6700 µg/L

16 Carbon Tetrachloride < 0.4 8.4 µg/L

17 Benzene < 0.68 430 µg/L

18 Dichloropropane, 1,2- < 0.4 140 µg/L

19 Trichloroethylene < 0.4 17 µg/L

20 Bromodichloromethane < 0.4 85000 µg/L

21 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone < 2 580000 µg/L

22 Toluene 0.81 18000 µg/L

23 Dibromochloromethane < 0.2 82000 µg/L

24 Ethylene dibromide < 0.2 0.83 µg/L

25 Tetrachloroethylene < 0.4 17 µg/L

26 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- < 0.2 28 µg/L

27 Chlorobenzene < 0.2 630 µg/L

28 Ethylbenzene 0.3 2300 µg/L

29 Bromoform < 0.2 770 µg/L

30 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- < 0.4 30 µg/L

31 Styrene < 0.2 9100 µg/L

32 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- < 0.2 15 µg/L

33 Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- < 0.2 9600 µg/L



36 Dichloropropene,1,3- < 0.6 45 µg/L

37 Xylene Mixture 1.8 4200 µg/L

38 Hexane (n) < 0.4 520 µg/L

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


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

40 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 < 100 150 µg/L



43 Sodium 210,000 2300000 µg/L

44 Chloride 490 2300000 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.

None

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) 0.0

Estimated Quantity of Sediment (in-ground volume in m³) 0.0

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)

0.0


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?

No


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 2014/06/27, 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 2014/06/27, 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 2014/06/27, 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 BRUCE A. BROWN ASSOCIATES LIMITEDdoes 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 2014/06/27.

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, BRUCE A. BROWN, a qualified person as defined in section 5 of O. Reg. 153/04 am, on 2014/07/23:

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

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: 016597116 Province of Ontario Date Report Produced: 2014/06/27Demande n° : Province de l'Ontario Document produit le :Transaction ID: 54667557 Ministry of Government Services Time Report Produced: 09:47:42Transaction n° : Ministère des Services gouvernementaux Imprimé à :Category ID: CTCatégorie :

CERTIFICATE OF STATUSATTESTATION DU STATUT JURIDIQUE

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

8 5 0 R I C H M O N D S T R E E T I N C .

Ontario Corporation Number Numéro matricule de la société (Ontario)

0 0 2 2 5 4 4 8 0

is a corporation incorporated, est une société constituée, prorogée ou néeamalgamated or continued under d'une fusion aux termes des lois de lathe laws of the Province of Ontario. Province de l'Ontario.

The corporation came into existence on La société a été fondée le

A U G U S T 2 3 A O Û T , 2 0 1 0

and has not been dissolved. et n'est pas dissoute.

Dated Fait le

J U N E 2 7 J U I N , 2 0 1 4

DirectorDirecteur

The issuance of this certifcate 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.

“Table of Areas of Potential Environmental Concern”

850 Richmond Street West, Toronto Project 13*4065

Areas of Potential

Environmental Concern

Location of Areas of Potential


Potentially Contaminating Activity

Location of PCA (On-

Site or Off-Site)

Contaminants of Potential

Concern

Media Potentially Impacted

Entire Phase I Property

Former UST(s) believed to have

formerly been located in

south-centre of site.

28. Gasoline and Associated Products in Fixed Tanks

On-Site PHC F1-F4 BTEX

Soil and Groundwater

North-West corner of

property within the former

service building

AST within the former service

building

52. Storage, maintenance, fuelling and repair of

equipment, vehicles and material used to maintain transportation equipment.

On-Site VOC(s) PHC F1-F4

BTEX


Entire Phase I Property

Machining tools, inside and outside.

33. Metal Treatment, Coating and Finishing

34. Metal Fabrication

On-Site Metals Shallow Soils

Areas of Potential


Location of Areas of Potential


Potentially Contaminating Activity

Location of PCA (On-

Site or Off-Site)

Contaminants of Potential

Concern

Media Potentially Impacted

West Side of the Phase I

Property, adjacent to Public Lane.

Pavement area No PCA – Road Salt used for the maintenance of the public

right-of-way

Off-Site SAR, Electrical

Conductivity, Sodium, Chloride


July 7th, 2014

Phase II Conceptual Site Model 850 Richmond Street West, Toronto

Bruce A. Brown Associates Limited Consultants in the Environmental and Earth Sciences

1.0 DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT ___________________________________________________ 1

1.1 Potentially Contaminating Activities ________________________________________________ 2 1.2 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern _____________________________________________ 2 1.3 Subsurface Structures and Utilities ___________________________________________________ 3

2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ______________________________________________________________ - 4 -

2.1 Site Specific Stratigraphy _________________________________________________________ - 5 - 2.2 Hydrogeological Characteristics____________________________________________________ - 5 - 2.3 Depth to Bedrock _______________________________________________________________ - 6 - 2.4 Depth to Water Table ____________________________________________________________ - 6 - 2.5 Application of S. 41 or C. 43.1 ____________________________________________________ - 6 - 2.6 Imported Soil __________________________________________________________________ - 6 - 2.7 New Buildings and Structures _____________________________________________________ - 6 -

3.0 CONTAMINANTS________________________________________________________________ - 7 -

3.1 Location of Contaminants _______________________________________________________ - 8 - 3.2 Contaminant Class ______________________________________________________________ - 8 - 3.3 Contaminated Medium __________________________________________________________ - 8 - 3.4 Description and Assessment ______________________________________________________ - 9 - 3.5 Distribution of Contaminants ____________________________________________________ - 10 - 3.6 Reason for Discharge ___________________________________________________________ - 10 - 3.7 Migration Pathways ____________________________________________________________ - 10 - 3.8 Climatic Conditions ____________________________________________________________ - 10 - 3.9 Vapour Intrusion ______________________________________________________________ - 10 -

4.0 DRAWINGS ___________________________________________________________________ - 11 -

4.1 Figure A - Plan Overview ________________________________________________________ - 12 - 4.2 Figures B and C - North-South Cross-sections ________________________________________ - 12 - 4.3 Figure D East-West Cross-section _________________________________________________ - 12 -

5.0 FATES AND PATHWAYS _________________________________________________________ - 13 -

5.1 Release Mechanisms ___________________________________________________________ - 14 - 5.2 Contaminant Transport Pathway _________________________________________________ - 14 - 5.3 Human Ecological Receptors _____________________________________________________ - 14 - 5.4 Receptor Exposure Points _______________________________________________________ - 14 - 5.5 Routes of Exposure_____________________________________________________________ - 14 -

6.0 ATTACHED FIGURES ____________________________________________________________ - 15 -

Figure A: Plan Overview

Figure B: North – South Cross-section 1

Figure C: North – South Cross-section 2

Figure D: East – West Cross-section

Figure E: APEC Locations

Phase Two Conceptual Site Model

850 Richmond Street West, Toronto

This document follows the requirements prescribed in Part 6, subheading (x) of Table 1 under O.Reg. 153/04,

EPA.

The legal description of the Phase II property is PART OF LOT 4, and ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11,

REGISTERED PLAN 733, City of Toronto. The subject site has a current PIN 21244-0299 and Assessment

Role Number 1904 041 560 04400 0000 05.

Dr. Bruce A. Brown, PhD, P.Eng

QP and Principal

Jamie Sugden

Enviromental Technologist

Project Coordinator Senior Reviewer

Jamie Sugden Bruce Brown

1.0 Description and Assessment

2 Phase II Conceptual Site Model 850 Richmond Street West, Toronto

Bruce A. Brown Associates reviewed previous environmental investigative efforts and RSC submittals associated with the subject lands. These investigative efforts were deemed by both Ministry of the Environment, and City of Toronto consultants (DCS) to not be in accordance with O.Reg153/04. Consequently, the RSC submissions which these investigative efforts were intended to support failed.

At the time that current investigative and sampling efforts to support an RSC application began, the majority of construction activities for the proposed multi-storey building had been completed and a substantial residential structure occupying all lands lot line to lot line was in place.

Based on the two factors outlined above the QP determined that it was inadvisable to rely on previous investigative and sampling efforts. The previous sampling efforts had not been in accordance with O.Reg 153/04 and an insufficient number of samples for various parameter classes, such as PHC F1-F4, had been submitted for laboratory analysis to satisfy the requirements of O.Reg153/04. Onsite hydrogeological investigations had been insufficient to establish groundwater gradients and the well(s) utilized for such activities had been destroyed.

As a consequence of these factors the QP determined that Phase 1 and 2 activities would proceed with reference to the previous investigation/reporting, but without reliance on such previous investigative efforts and subsequent reporting. Again it was felt that Brown Associates would be forced to “finish what they started” without the ability to do so, as severe constraints were placed on investigative activities given the substantially completed residential structure occupying all lands, lot line to lot line.

1.1 Potentially Contaminating Activities

Potentially contaminating activities on site include one historical onsite UST for a documented gasoline tank and two ASTs which may have contained waste oil and other fluids, and possible former number 6 fuel oil tanks for comfort heating of the industrial buildings or for two remaining dwellings (which may have been removed with conversion to gas when it came available). No evidence of any former AST or UST was found in the course of bulk excavation according to the site superintendent and project manager.

Another potentially contaminating activity relates to the use of machining tools and auto-body repairs and metal treatment/fabrication that would have taken place at the former automotive service centre.

Potentially contaminated activities located off site, such as industrial lands and an operating gasoline station, are located either down-gradient or east of Garrison Creek, which would serve to intercept any migration pathways for contaminants located to the east of the watercourse alignment. Accordingly, no offsite potentially contaminating activities result in concerns for environmental quality of the Phase 2 lands.

1.2 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern

Areas of potential environmental concern for the subject site include gasoline retail activities which could potential impact the entire site, and have the potential of impacting both onsite soils and groundwater with BTEX and PHC F1-F4. The location of the former UST(s) is not conclusively known, but is inferred to

3 Phase II Conceptual Site Model 850 Richmond Street West, Toronto

be in the south-central portion of the site based on available information. Please refer to attached figure, “Location of APECs” No UST(s) were encountered during bulk excavation.

A further APEC relating to BTEX/PHC F1-F4 impacts to soil and groundwater relates to a former AST inside the building. This APEC also includes VOC impacts associated with automotive wastes and servicing and was believed to be located in the north-west portion of the automotive facility. No AST was found during building demolition. For the inferred location please see the attached figure, “Location of APECS”

An APEC relating to metals impacts in soils applies to the entire site due to the PCA relating to metal fabrication and treatment, as well as the potential for cinder and ash wastes from coal combustion for comfort heating in former Victorian residences. Please refer to the attached figure, “Location of APECS”

The final APEC relates to SAR and EC impacts in shallow soils and groundwater from public maintenance of the adjacent lanes, specifically the north-south lane to the west of the property. Please refer to the attached figure “Location of APECS”.

1.3 Subsurface Structures and Utilities No subsurface structures or utilities, which present a conduit for potential contaminants, were found in the course of site investigations following demolition and bulk excavations at depth of redevelopment.

2.0 Physical Setting

- 5 - Phase II Conceptual Site Model 850 Richmond Street West, Toronto

The subject property is located on the north side of Richmond Street West between Walnut Street and Strachan Avenue. The site has frontage on the north side of Richmond Street West of 32.1m, including 2m lane widenings on west and north sides. The entire property is under redevelopment at this time, with the lower level and upper levels completed structurally but still requiring installation of windows, exterior cladding and interior demising and finishing. The structure is backfilled to grade with H piles and lagging remaining in place on all sides. The existing public lanes on the west and north sides remain fully accessible and are well used by surrounding neighbours.

2.1 Site Specific Stratigraphy The site has a minimal depth of fill related to former Victorian basement within the footprint of the most recent main buildings. None of the replacement buildings had basements. A vintage circa 1880 150mm sanitary sewer traversed the site from the northwest corner to about the mid-point on the east side, and the wide u-shaped zone above was backfilled with heterogeneous soils according to the site superintendent, and from the writer’s visual review of still photographs and videos taken by the site superintendent Mr. Mike Veri. All of this material was removed in the course of bulk excavation.

Underlying native soils comprise silt and clay-silt tills which extend to full depth of investigation. From other investigations in the local area, competent Georgian Bay Formation shale bedrock is known to be present at a depth of 10 to 11m below original grade.

Water table measurements taken in wells advanced through the basement floor of the new structure were generally controlled by the clear stone bedding on the floor slab. Original water table elevations are not known, and may have been at a higher elevation.

2.2 Hydrogeological Characteristics The existing structure is situated 0.3m to 0.6m above the groundwater table as equilibrated in the monitoring wells. The local upper groundwater table is most likely influenced by surrounding structures on the west, north and south of the property, and specifically by rising to the controlling depth of clear stone bedding in the basement floor structure. Hydraulic conductivity of the representative clay-silt tills at founding depth of new structure was not established by drawdown or Hvorslav testing, but is considered very low, estimated at about 2.5 x 10-7.cm.sec-1, in keeping with published hydraulic conductivities for clay-silt and silt tills in the Toronto area.

There were no apparent perched water conditions on site, and conditions for evaluation were not accessible for peripheral areas. Horizontal gradients for original soils are not considered representative of pre-development conditions, however where wells equilibrate an inferred direction of flow is to the northeast, as shown on the attached Site Plan and Profile Key.

The horizontal gradient imposed by the new structure is 2.5% to the northeast, based on well equilibrations. Vertical gradients cannot be determined because local groundwater appears to be rising to the granular bedding in the floor slab.


2.3 Depth to Bedrock Georgian Bay Formation is found at 10-11m depth below grade, based on investigations of other properties in the area, and is very consistent over lateral distances.

2.4 Depth to Water Table Groundwater onsite was determined to range from 85.7m to 86.2m geodetic in clayey silty till, for a mean groundwater elevation about 85.9m geodetic. This would be controlled by the drains in the bedding for the basement floor slab, with free-draining conditions which would prevent upward hydrostatic pressures on the underside of basement slab.

2.5 Application of S. 41 or C. 43.1 Water conditions and soil depths are greater than 2m, and there is no wetland or area of scientific or natural interest proximate to the phase two lands. Accordingly, Sections 41 or 43.1 of O.Reg. 153/04 as amended do not apply. Table 3 generic standards may be applied for full depth conditions. The Clerk of the City of Toronto was advised that Table 3 standards would be applied to the Phase 2 property within the past six months,

2.6 Imported Soil Granular bedding and non-shrink concrete have been used on portions of the underside of the slab for P2 for bedding and backfill of services and conduits, according to the construction site superintendent. Clear limestone from a virgin quarry source was also used for bedding of the concrete slab. These materials are both considered inert, but may be considered as building materials rather than soils. No soil backfill was introduced to the site.

2.7 New Buildings and Structures The new structure occupies the entire Phase 2 site area, lotline to lotline, and to depths of 4m below grade into competent clayey silt, except within the two lane widening dedication blocks. These two strips both have remnant H pile and lagging structures within, which are required to be cut down to frost depth by the City prior to conveyance.

3.0 Contaminants


3.1 Location of Contaminants Soils were analyzed for metals and inorganics, BTEX and PHC F1-F4. Previous reporting that was reviewed prior to conducting intrusive investigations on the site had analyzed for PAHs in soil with no exceedance of the relevant standards noted. Furthermore, the QP thought such exceedances unlikely given their lack of mobility from source areas and the fact the site had been subject to bulk excavation.

Trace amounts of PHC in the F1-F4 range were detected in native soils at a uniform depth of 3.1mbgs, but no results were detected above table 3 residential standards. These samples themselves were selected from the worst case field screening results.

A single exceedance for SAR was detected at MW/BH -102, which was located in the footprint of the former automotive service building, and immediately adjacent to the north-south public access lane which lies west of the subject lands. The QP determined that these impacts were attributable to winter maintenance of the adjacent public right-of-way with road salt. This was because the sample location in question lies within the footprint of a former building where there is no expectation that salting would occur indoors. The sample location is directly adjacent to the public lane, which led the QP to decide that Sub-section 48(3) of O.Reg 153/04 was applicable.

Groundwater was analyzed for VOC, BTEX, PHC F1-F4 and Sodium and Chloride. All analysis returned results below the relevant Table 3 generic standards under O.Reg 153/04.

Metals in groundwater were not sampled, as the likeliest source was from metal grinding and other operations which would have affected shallow soils only. There was also the potential for former Victorian shallow fills containing cinders and ash to possibly impact shallow soils. However, either of these activities would be unlikely to affect groundwater because in order to be released into soluble form, cinders or metal detrius in bedding must have pH values reduced to around 1.5 under moist conditions. Because bedding is free draining, saturation did not occur. The native soils and the bedding itself have buffer controls on pH levels. Since soils are more than 95% carbonates, pH is controlled by the carbonate-bicarbonate equilibrium, which buffers to retain pH values in contiguous soils around 7, or neutral. Ash being slightly alkaline, also contributes to stability against migration in solution. Migration in soluble form either laterally or downward into native soil therefore is limited by these release constraints.

No contaminates were detected in excess of table 3 standards in the course of the investigation.

3.2 Contaminant Class As noted above, no exceedances of Table 3 standards under O.Reg 153/04 were noted for any parameter class or medium.

3.3 Contaminated Medium As noted above, no exceedances of Table 3 standards under O.Reg 153/04 were noted for any parameter class or medium.


3.4 Description and Assessment 1) As noted in paragraph A, potential concerns for groundwater impacts in excess of table 3 standards were identified as BTEX, PHC F1-F4, VOCs and Sodium/Chloride. These relate to most recent uses as an automotive facility and retail fuel sales, Specifically :

1. Retail fuel sales at 846 Richmond Street - PHC F1-F4

2. ASTs within the former building footprint, related to comfort heating and waste collection. - PHC F1-F4

3. Hydraulic Fluids related to former ASTs for waste collection – VOCs

4. Winter maintenance of the adjacent public right-of-way with road salt – Sodium/Chloride

Four groundwater monitoring wells were installed across the site and sampled for these parameters, no results for BTEX, PHC F1-F4, VOCs, Sodium or Chloride were returned above table 3 standards.

2) As noted in paragraph A, potential concerns for soil impacts in excess of table 3 standards were identified as PHC F1-F4 and VOCs. These relate to most recent uses as an automotive facility and retail fuel sales. Specifically to :

1. Retail fuel sales at 846 Richmond Street - PHC F1-F4

2. ASTs within the former building footprint, related to comfort heating and waste collection. - PHC F1-F4

A total of 4 boreholes were advanced across the site and sampled for PHC F1-F4. Soils were field screened with a PID at regular intervals and the worst case results determined sample submission. These dictated that at all 4 locations soil samples at a depth of 3.1mbgs were selected for submission.

Low level concentrations of PHC F1-F4 were detected in these soils, but no samples exceeded table 3 standards.

3) As noted in 6.10.1 (a), potential concerns for soil impacts in excess of table 3 standards were identified as Metals and Inorganic parameters. These relate to two specific uses:

1. Metal grinding and other work - Transition Metals

2. Winter maintenance with road salt - SAR exceedance

A total of 5 boreholes were advanced across the site and sampled for metals and inorganic parameters. No exceedance for metals was noted in excess of table 3 standards. A minor exceedance for SAR in shallow soils was detected at MW/BH-102 and was not a concern as it was well understood this resulted from winter maintenance of the adjacent public right-of-way with road salt. Consequently, an exemption under s. 48 (3) of the regulation was invoked.

All APECs were investigated and no results were returned in excess of table 3 residential standards.


3.5 Distribution of Contaminants As noted above, no exceedances of Table 3 standards under O. Reg 153/04 were noted for any parameter class or medium.

3.6 Reason for Discharge As noted above, no exceedances of Table 3 standards under O. Reg 153/04 were noted for any parameter class or medium.

3.7 Migration Pathways As noted above, no exceedances of Table 3 standards under O. Reg 153/04 were noted for any parameter class or medium.

3.8 Climatic Conditions No contaminates were noted, so any climatic effects are non-applicable.

3.9 Vapour Intrusion Not applicable. No potential sources of potential hydrocarbon or VOC vapour intrusion were identified. The design of the new structure has vapour controls in soil in the form of the concrete foundation wall with water and damp proofing materials on perimeters. Cast-in-place concrete bases and granular bedding also provide effective vapour protection. In addition, use of underground areas for vehicle parking requires frequent air exchanges of four volumes per hour, which is achieved by mechanical means in the finished garage.

4.0 Drawings


Two plan view drawings and 3 cross-sections are attached, showing the current and former conditions of the property.

4.1 Figure A - Plan Overview The plan view entitled “Site Survey with Former Structures and Constructed Existing Site Structure Superimposed” shows the existing site building, the former onsite automotive facility, a 2m widening intended for the City of Toronto, all Brown Associates borehole and monitoring well locations and groundwater contours.

4.2 Figures B and C - North-South Cross-sections There are two accompanying north-south cross-sections on axes denoted as A-A’(Figure B) and B-B’ (Figure C). These cross-sections set on either side of the subject property show groundwater elevations, gradients and field screening and analytical results for onsite boreholes/monitoring wells, as well as site specific stratigraphy.

4.3 Figure D East-West Cross-section There is a single east-west cross-section on an axis denoted as C-C’. This cross-section shows groundwater elevations, gradients and field screening and analytical results for onsite boreholes/monitoring wells, as well as site specific stratigraphy.

4.4 Figure E – APEC Locations

The final drawing is a plan view that delineates the inferred location of the APEC(s) for the subject lands. No UST(s) or AST(s) were encountered in the course of demolition or bulk excavation and no definitive tank locations can be assigned based on the information available.

5.0 Fates and Pathways


5.1 Release Mechanisms As noted above no exceedances of Table 3 standards under O. Reg 153/04 were noted for any parameter class or medium.

5.2 Contaminant Transport Pathway As noted above no exceedances of Table 3 standards under O. Reg 153/04 were noted for any parameter class or medium.

5.3 Human Ecological Receptors No contamination was noted, therefore this section is non-applicable.

5.4 Receptor Exposure Points No contamination was noted, therefore this section is non-applicable.

5.5 Routes of Exposure No contamination was noted, therefore this section is non-applicable.

6.0 Attached Figures